\

> )

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 19989 field, · secretary; and Charles B. Thompson, treasurer. Ml.". Thompson 1s the only one who has not been an officer for the past year.

In the business session, Albert M. Johnson, Massachusetts director of the National Edu­cation Association, reminded the teachers

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1963

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

D.D., offered the following prayer:

I Corinthians 10: 12. Wherefore let him, who thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he I all.

0 Thou God of might and of mercy, may we daily take heed unto ourselves and be more fully aware that our indi­vidual and national life has a vulnerable side and that we cannot breast the storms and headwinds of subtle temp­tations and meet and master them with our own puny strength.

We penitently confess that irreligion and indifference to the spiritual ideals seem to have become the habit of life for many. Grant that our own loyalty and devotion to fundamental religious principles may never be weakened and dissipated by feelings of complacency.

Help us to see clearly that our faith must always be kept vivid and vital for experience teaches us that ete.r:p.al vigi~ lance is the price of a faith that is strong and steadfast as truly as it is the price of a freedom that is coordinated with rigid discipline.

Hear us in the name of the Author of our faith and the Captain of our sal­vation. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of yes­

terday was read and approved.

MESSAGEFROMTHESENATE A message from the Senate by Mr.

McGown, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the House . of the following titles:

H.R. 75. An act to provide for exceptions to the rules of navigation in certain cases;

H.R. 641. An act to approve an order of the Secretary of the Interior canceling and deferring certain irrigation charges, elim­inating certain tracts of nori.-Indiari-owned land under the Wapato Indian irrigation project, Washington, and for other purposes; and

H.R. 4588. An act to provide for the with­drawal and reservation for the Department of the Navy of certain public lands of the United States at Mojave B Aerial Gunnery . Range, San Bernardino County, Calif., for defense purposes.

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

S. 1243. An act to change the name of the Andrew Johnson National Monument, to add certain historic · property thereto, and for other purposes;

S. 1299. An act to defer certain operation and maintenance charges of the Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage District;

that the goal for next ·year was to have NEA'a membership total 1 million. Current niem­the tide of dropouts.

PAST TEAK GROWTH Dr. Theodore Taporowski, second vice

president of the Massachusetts Teachers As-

S. 1584. An act to approve a contract nego­tiated with the Newton Water Users• Associa~ tion, Utah, to authorize its execution, and for other purposes;

S. 1687. An act to approve the January 1963 reclassification of land of the Big Flat unit of the Missoula Valley project, Montana, and to authorize the modification of the repayment contract with the Big Flat Ir­rigation Disti:ict;

S. 1914. An act to incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the .United States of Amer­ica; and

S. 1942. An act to incorporate the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America.

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

the Point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

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

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

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

Ashley Bass Berry Blatnik Brock Bromwell Broyhill, Va. Bruce Buckley Cahill Celler C'helf Cooley Derwinski Diggs Dom Dulski Fallon Feighan Findley Ford Frelinghuysen Fulton,Pa. Fulton, Tenn. Gray Gurney

[Roll No.177] Halleck Harris Hebert Hoeven Hoffman Jensen Jones, Mo. Kee Kelly Keogh Kilburn King, Calif. Kunkel Lipscomb Long, La. McDade McIntire McLoskey Macdonald Mailliard Martin, Calif. Martin, Mass. Michel Miller, Calif, Miller, N.Y. Moss

O'Brien, DI. O'Konski Patman Pepper _ Pilcher Poage Rivers, S.C. .Ryan,N.Y. St. Onge Shelley Sibal Sickles Smith, Iowa Springer Steed Stubblefield Taylor Thompson, N.J. Thornberry Vinson Westland Whitten · Wilson.Bob Wilson,

CharlesH.

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 357 Members have answered to -their names, a quorum.

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

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A REVOLV­ING FUND FROM WHICH · THE SECRETARY OF THE ' INTERIOR MAY MAKE LOANS TO FINANCE THE PROCUREMENT OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE BY INDIAN TRIBF.8 IN CASES · BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk ·the bill <H.R. 3306) to es­tablish a revolving fund from which the Secretary of the Interior may make loans to finance the procurement of ex-

sociation, said.that MTA grew by 3,000 mem-bership is 859,000. · · · · ·

Alton S. Cavicchi, president of the Mas­sachusetts Association of School Committees, said the help of teachers was needed to stem bers in the past year to 31,000.

pert assistance by Indian tribes in cases before the Indian Claims Commission, with Senate amendments thereto and concur in the Senate amendments.'

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

ments, as follows: . Page 2, strike out lines 1 to 6, inclusive,

and insert: "SEC. 2. No loan shall be made under this

Act to a tribe, band, or group if it has funds available on deposit in the Federal Treasury or elsewhere in an amount adequate to ob­tain the expert assistance it needs or if, in the opinion of the Secretary, the fees to be paid the experts are unreasonable in light of the services to be performed by them."

Page 3, after line 2, insert: "SEc. 7. After the date of the approval of

this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall approve no contract which makes the com­pensation payable to a witness before the Indian Claims Commission contingent upon the recovery of a judgment against the United States."

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

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I see no one on the minority side on the floor in connection with this bill. I assume that calling this up has the approval of the minority?

Mr. ASPINALL. It has the approval of Representatives from the minority side. The gentleman from Pennsyl­vania [Mr. SAYLOR], has given his con­sent. and he has spoken to the leadership on the gentleman's side. ·

Mr. GROSS. Are all of the amend­ments to this bill germane to the bill?

Mr. ASPINALL. The amendments are not only germane but they serve as a limitation on the funds so that they are not additional funds that are pro­vided for this purpose.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con­

curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid oh the

table.

PREVENTION OF Am AND WATER POLLUTION

Mr. LESINSKI. . Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House :ior 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. ·

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

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

introduced a bill to encourage the pre-vention of air and water pollution by allowing the cost of treatment works for the abatement of air and water pollution to be amortized at an accelerated rate for income tax purposes. The principle

19990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October ·22

of the bill is similar to the rapid amor­tization law which was in effect for in­dustry during the Korean war. It would provide a 5-year period during which every person at his election would be entitled to a deduction with respect to the amortization of any waste treatment works.

I have long been concerned about the ever increasing problem we face in the United States is controlling and abating aid and water pollution, and I have sup­ported programs to provide Federal as­sistance where necessary in these areas, for I feel that we must now take positive action to preserve our natural resources for the future of America. With indus­trial and other wastes being poured into our rivers and streams and the poisoning of the air we breathe, the problem grows graver every day.

Many industries have, of course, in­stalled equipment to help control the pollution and I believe they should be further encouraged to do so, but too fre­quently the costs of installing such equipment are prohibitive, so I feel that if they we;re able, for income tax pur­poses, to amortize at a rapid rate such costs, they would be encouraged to take immediate steps to install such equip­ment.

Numerous benefits will occur. The American taxpayer will benefit because the Federal Government expends huge sums annually to combat the effects of pollution; when industry installs the equipment pollution will be prevented, making it cheaper in the long run. Ulti­mately the Nation as a whole will be the true beneficiary. I urge immediate and favorable action on this legislation.

THE CUBAN CRISIS Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker,

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speak­

er, 1 year ago today the President in­formed the Americ8tll people of the Cu­ban crisis and his dramatic and effective steps to force Russia to back down from converting Cuba into an offensive missile base. Yet, today, Cuba is still an armed Russian camp, used as a base to subvert Latin America. Russian troops remain 1n Cuba, and Russian economic assist­ance keeps Castro in power.

Last year the Congress wrote strong language into the Foreign Assistance Act to prevent aid-recipient nations from aiding Castro. Yet this aid continues, . and in fact has been on the increase since January. Yesterday our colleague the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LAIRD]

addressed the House on this subject, and presented an opinion from the Comptrol­er General of the United States which said that this act of the Congress was being violated by .interpretation.

It was the clear intent of the Congress that aid be cut off from any country giving aid or permitting its ships to carry aid to Cuba. Apparently "charters of convenience" are being used by the in-

ternational shipping · companies who want to profit .from the Cuban trade. This ~s the dodge being -used by Greece and others.

tee on Housing · of the Committee -on , Banking and Currency may be per­mitted to sit during general debate on October 2.2, 23, and 24. -

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

There was no objection.

ALGERIDSS

Since the Agency for International Development has decided. to use an in­terpretation to avoid complying with the act of Congress, it is of utmost Impor­tance that the Congress, this year, in­sure that no loopholes exist. It is of sufficient importance to prevent the en­actment of any foreign aid blll this year, Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask if AID refuses to implement provisions unanimous consent to extend my remarks of law. at this point in the RECORD.

When the foreign aid authorization The SPEAKER. Is there objection blll was before the House earlier this to the request of the gentleman from year, our colleague the gentleman from _ Kentucky? Florida [Mr. FASCELL] and I offered There was no objection. amendments, which were adopted, to put Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, on Octo-teeth in the shipping ban. It ls my un- ber 8 I inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL derstanding that the Senate Foreign Re- RECORD two editorials from the Chicago lations Committee has adopted similar American which indicated that the State language but that the Senate version Department was considering bringing needs strengthening, It is my hope that Alger Hiss back into the Department. this wlll be done on the floor of the Under date of October 17, 1963, the Senate. If it is not, then certainly the Honorable Frederick G. Dutton, Assist­House should insist on our stronger pro- ant Secretary of State, wrqte to me in visions in conference. Without the pro- response to my inquiry to them-and the hibition to aid countries aiding or ship- pertinent part of his letter states: ping to Cuba, there should be no foreign aid authorization this year.

GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT OF BUSINESS

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

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

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

never known a time in our history when the business community, to which we look to provide jobs for our people and taxes to support the Government, has been so harassed as it is today by the forms businessmen are receiving from departments of Government, particular­ly the Bureau of the Census. I hold in my hand one form that was received, from which the :firm has removed its name. With this form is a letter from the Director of the Census that the offi­cer of this firm must read. With this form is another booklet of 56 pages he must read, so he can know what to do. Together with that is another article of 31 pages of instructions on how to fill out this form.

This might be a good way to put more people on the payroll of the Federal Government--to provide this harass­ment of business, with the . taxpayers paying· for it. If we are going to in­crease our gross national product and provide more jobs, I think the Commit­tee on Government Operations ought to investigate all of this business and get our Government bureaus off the backs of businessmen and let them get to work and provide jobs.

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommit-

There has never been any discussion or intention by the Department of State about bringing Mr. Alger Hiss back into the De­partment. Any such report is false, and the · idea is inconceivable.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the Department of State for their position · on this par

1ticular matter. This position .

makes us all feel a little bit better.

RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY UN-EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT AMOUNTS Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H.R. 8821), to revise the provisions of law relating to the methods by which amounts made available to the States pursuant to the Temporary Unemployment Compensa­tion Act of 1958 and title XII of the So­cial Securtty Act are to be restored to the Treasury, which was unanimously re- · ported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

the request of the gentleman from . Ar- · kansas?

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so only for the purpose of asking the chairman if he would give a brief ex­planation of the provisions of this bill for the benefit of the Members.

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

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman. ·

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, · knows, the bill, H.R. 8821, is jointly spon­sored by the gentleman from Wisconsin and myself. The bill was reported unan­imously by the Committee on Ways and Means and it is designed to facilitate the restoration to the Federal Treasury of moneys made available to the States under the Temporary Unemployment

I

,

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 19991 Compensation Act of 1958 and under title XII-the loan fund provisi_ons-of the Social Security Act. In brief, the legislation would accomplish this by, first, modifying the rate of employer repayment and, second, by permitting at the option of the State each year install­ment repayment by the States in lieu of additional employer taxes.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not provide for any forgiveness of any amount which is involved in this matter, but it does facilitate the repayment by providing for a somewhat longer period of time within which repayment can be accomplished.

It should be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that there is some degree of overlap with respect to repayment of funds made available to the States under the Temporary Unemployment Compen­sation Act of 1958 and the Temporary Unemployment Compensation Act of 1961. What we are doing here is to facilitate the repayment of these moneys by providing an easier method to the States and a less onerous burden upon the employers in the States in­volved. There will be no effect upon the total repayment. The law would still require that every dollar of it be repaid.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. It has been sought by employer groups. It is endorsed wholeheartedly by the De­partment of Labor as well.

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

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. Do I understand that someone is in arrears-the employers or the States?

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. No; no one is in arrears.

Mr. MILLS. Under the provisions of existing law, there will be a reduction in the 90-percent credit against the Fed­eral unemployment tax in the States concerned until the amount outstanding is restored. So there will be an addi­tional tax placed upon the employers until this amount is repaid or unless the State will, in 1 year, make restitu­tion from its own funds to the Federal Treasury of the whole amount of the obligation. So here we are saying that the States may make this restitution not in the total amount at one time but in installments not to exceed 5 years. In the process of making these installment payments out of existing unemployment funds, the State may prevent the in­crease in the tax upon the employer for this purpose. The TUC tax without this legislation would start at 0.15 percent and would go up each year in 0.15-per­cent steps until the amount made avail­able to the State is restored. The tax could go as high as 0.6 percent. Under the bill, however, the TUC tax would go no higher than 0.3 percent.

Mr. GROSS. Are the States that are particularly affected to be found on page 5 of the report?

Mr. MILLS. On page 3 in summary and on page 5 in detail; yes. There are 17 jurisdictions that borrowed money in 1958, initially. One of those jurisdic­tions, the District of Columbia, proceed-

CIX--1259

ing under the provisions of existing law, made restitution in 1 year of the total amount it borrowed. The other States have not done so, so actually there are 16 States involved in this proposition.

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

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) sec­tion 3302(c) (2) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 1s amended to read as follows:

" (A) in the case of a taxable year begin­ning on January 1, 1963 (and in the case of any succeeding taxable year beginning before January l, 1968), as of the beginning of which there ls a balance of such advances, by 5 percent of the tax imposed by section 3301 with respect to the wages paid by such tax­payer during such taxable year which are attributable to such State; and".

(b) Section 8302(c) (2) (B) of such Code ls amended by striking out "beginning with a consecutive January 1" and inserting in lieu thereof "beginning on or after January 1, 1968,",

(c) Section 3302(c) (2) of such Code is amended by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:

"At the request (made before November 1 of the taxable year) of the Governor of any State, the Secretary of Labor shall, as soon as practicable after June 30 or (if later) the date of the receipt of such request, certify to Governor a.nd to the Secretary of the Treas­ury the amount he estimates equals .15 per­cent (plus an additional .15 percent for each additional 5-percent reduction, provided by subparagraph (B)) of the total of the remu­neration which would have been subject to contributions under the State unemployment compensation law with respect to the calen­dar year preceding such certifl.cation if the dollar limit on remuneration subject to con­tributions under such law were equal to the dollar limit under section 3306(b) (1) for such calendar year. If, after receiving such certlfl.catlon and before November 10 of the taxable year, the State pays into the Federal unemployment account the amount so cer­tifl.ed ( a.nd designates such payment as being made for purposes of this sentence), the re­duction provided by the fl.rst sentence of this paragraph shall not apply for such taxable year."

(d) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1968.

SEC. 2. Section 104 of the Temporary Un­employment Compensation Act of 1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1400c), is amended to read as follows:

"SEc. 104. The total credits allowed under section 8302 ( c) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (26 U.S.C. S802(c)) to taxpayers with respect to wages attributable to a State shall be reduced-

.. ( l) for the ta.xa.'ble year beginning on Jan­uary 1, 1963, by 5 percent of the tax imposed by section 3301 of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and

"(2) for any succeeding taxable year, by 10 percent of the tax imposed by said section 8301, unless and until the Secretary of the Treas­ury fl.nds that before November 10 of the taxable year there have been restored to the Treasury the a.mounts of temporary unem­ployment compensation paid in the State under this Act ( except amounts pa.id to indi­viduals who exhausted their unemployment compensation under title XV of the Social Security Act and title IV of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 prior to their making their fl.rst cla.lms under this

Act), the amount of costs incurred in the administration of this Act with respect to the State, and the amount estimated by the Secretary of Labor as the State's propor­tionate share of other costs incurred in the administration of this Act. In applying clauses ( 1) and ( 2) of the preceding sen­tence, the tax imposed by section 3301 of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act shall be computed at the rate of 8 percent in lieu of the rate provided by such section. At the request (made before November 1 of the taxable year) of the Governor of any State, the Secretary of Labor shall, as soon as prac­ticable after June 30 or (if later) the date of the receipt of such request, certify to such Governor and to the Secretary of the Treasury the amount he estimates for the taxable year beginning on January 1, 1963, equals .15 percent ( and for any succeeding taxable year equals .3 percent) of the total of the remuneration which would have been subject to contributions under the State unemployment compensation law with re­spect to the calendar year preceding such certifl.cation if the dollar limit on remunera­tion subject to contributions under such law were equal to the dollar limit under sec­tion 3306(b) (1) of the Federal Unemploy­ment Tax Act for such calendar year. If, after receiving such certifl.cation and before November 10 of the taxable year, the State restores to the general fund of the Treasury the amount so certifl.ed (and designates such restoration as being made for purposes of this sentence), the reduction provided by the fl.rst sentence of this section shall not apply for such taxable year."

l\iir. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan­imous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, the purpose

of H.R. 8821, which was reported unan­imously by the Committee on Ways and Means, is to facilitate the restoration to the Federal Treasury of moneys made available to the States under the Tem­porary Unemployment Compensation Act of 1958 and under title XII of the Social Security Act. In brief, it would accom­plish by, first, modifying the rate of em­ployer repayment, and second, by per­mitting, at the option of the State each year, installment repayment by States in lieu of additional employer taxes. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not pro­vide for any forgiveness of repayment of any amount which is involved, but it does facilitate the repayment by provid­ing for a somewhat longer period of time within which it can be accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to explain something of. the background of this leg­islation. As Members will recall, the Temporary Unemployment Compensa­tion Act of 1958 provided for temporary additional unemployment compensation benefits for covered employees who had exhausted their benefits under State and specified Federal laws. Participation was voluntary on the part of the States. That legislation was financed by Federal money made available to the States out of the general funds of the Treasury. Provision was made in that legislation for the ultimate restoration to the Treas­ury of the amounts so made available to the States not by requiring repay­ment by the States, but through the ex­ercise of the Federal taxing power.

19992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- . HOUSE October 22

This was to be accomplish~ by a re­duction in the 90-percent credit against the Federal unemployment tax, so that the. credit was required to be reduced by 5 percent of the basic 3-percent tax-0.15 percent-for the taxable year be­ginning on January i, 1963, and by an­other 5 percent-0.15 percent-of the tax for each succeeding year until the amount outstanding is restored. Such reduction in the allowable credit would have had the effect of increasing the net Federal unemployment tax in the first year of its operation from 0.3 to 0.45 percent, and in the second year the tax would have been increased to 0.6 per­cent by the second consecutive reduc­tion of the allowable credit, and so on. Provision was further made in that leg­islation that the increased Federal tax for any year was not to apply if the · amount expended from the general funds of the Treasury has been otherwise re­stored before November 10 of the taxable year.

The repayment of advances made be­fore September 13, 1960, to State unem­ployment funds under title XII of the Social Security Act is provided for under present law substantially in the same manner as provided in the case of the TUC.

When the temporary increases in the Federal unemployment tax for taxable year 1962 and 1963 were imposed by the Congress in the Temporary Extended Unemployment Act of 1961, a further problem was created for those employers who would have to pay also additional Federal taxes to repay advances under title XII of the Social Security Act, and to restore the cost of the 1958 Temporary Unemployment Compensation Act, or both.

As I have indicated, H.R. 8821 simply facilitates the repayment of these moneys to the Federal Treasury. More specifically, this would be accomplished by:

First. Establishing the tax rate for repayment of advances under title XII of the Social Security Act at 0.15 percent for 5 taxable years, 1963-67. After tax­able year 1967, the rate increases by a 0.15-percent step each year until the advance is repaid. The bill provides that a State can avoid the automatic tax in­crease on its employers for any year by an installment repayment-or, as under present law, by total repayment-made before November 10 of the taxable year;

Second. Freezing the rate of restora­tion of the costs of the TUC program of 1958 at 0.30 percent, the 1964 level under the present law until the funds are re­stored. For taxable year 1963, the rate remains at 0.15 percent. The bill pro­vides that a State can avoid the tax in­crease for any year by an installment restoration-or, as under present law, by total restoration-made before Novem­ber 10 of the year; and

Third. Providing for installment re­payment by the State for either TUC moneys or title XII advances. The amount of the State installment for a year is to be determined by the Secretary of Labor at the request of the Governor and is to be certified by the Secretary to the Govern~r and to the Secretary of the

Treasury. The installment is to be com­puted by applying the tax rate for the year involved to State taxable wages for the prior year adjusted for the excess, if any, of the State taxable wage base over the Federal taxable wage base.

Mr. BYRNES of . Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ex­tend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.

Speaker, as cosponsor of this legislation, I urge its favorable passage by this body,

As the gentleman from Arkansas, Chairman MILI,.S, has already indicated, this bill would provide a "stretchout" for repayment of amounts advanced to several States under the 1958 temporary unemployment compensation program and under title XII of the Social Secu­rity Act. The bill does not forgive any amount so advanced to the States. In­stead, it spaces out the repayment of the advances in a · manner more acceptable from a fiscal standpoint.

While there are several States in­volved, this legislation particularly af­fects the States of Alaska, Michfgan, and Pennsylvania. I am sure my colleagues are aware of the above-average unem­ployment rate in the latter two States. It is prudent at this time to allow the States a more reasonable time in which to repay these advances. Not only will it be beneficial to the employers who would pay the additional tax necessary for the States to make the repayment, but it would also be beneficial to the States themselves.

I would call your attention to the com­mittee report containing several tables setting forth the repayment schedule un­der existing law as compared with the repayment schedule under the chair­man's bill, H.R. 8821, and my identical bill, H.R. 8·822. Without going into great detail at this time, I wish simply to point out that these tables indicate the ad­vantage to be gained by the stretching· out of the installment repayment of the advances under the two programs.

I also wish to compliment the new ad­ministrations of the States of Michigan and Pennsylvania for the constructive action which has been taken to place their respective unemployment compen­sation programs on a sound fiscal basis.

While this legislation will not solve the unemployment problem or increase bene­fits to the unemployed, it will have a very salutary effect as to those States pres­ently in debt to the Treasury because of advances under the two programs. I strongly rec,ommend immediate passage of this legislation. ·

Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. Speaker

and Members of the House, having worked upon this employment security problem during the 87th Congress, a~<:1,

having joined in the introduction of one of the bills on the subject this year, you will understand -why I am keenly inter­ested in this legislation. Although my State of Alaska participated under both the Temporary Unemployment Act of 1958-TUC-and under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Act of 1961-TEUC-simultaneously with other States and must meet its share of the repay­ment obligations on that score, it is one of only three States that have borrowed money from the Federal Unemployment Trust Account, commonly ref erred to as the Reed fund-title XII of the Social Security Act. These last mentioned three States, therefore, are confronted with overlapping repayment require­ments in the field of employment security which are at the point of being burdensome. This occurs because under the automatic repayment provisions of the 1958 TUC and the Reed fund loans, the rate of repayment escalates each year by an additional 0.15 percent of the ag­gregate of the first $3,000 of all em­ployee's earnings,

The three States I mention whose em­ployment security systems :find them­selves under this squeeze are Alaska, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Alaska's debt to the Reed fund is $8,765,000-less two installments which have already been paid-Michigan $113 million-less one such installment-Pennsylvania $111,200,000 with regard to which the first installment is just falling due.

Alaska's ~mployers, taxed under the reduced credit provisions, are faced with their third installment on the Reed fund debt this coming January, with another escalation which constitutes a very bur­densome situation unless this bill passes during this year. As shown on page 7 of the committee report, Alaska's employers would pay the base rate and TEUC of 0.65 percent, plus 0.45 percent on Reed fund reduced credits, plus 0.15 percent on TUC for a total of 1.25 percent, all of these percentages being upon the basis of a $3,000 taxable wage base. In fact, however, the taxable base in Alaska for carrying out the unemployment com­pensation program each year is $7,200.

From these :figures it is understand­able why the people of Alaska will ap­preciate the stretchout of the repayment installments as provided for in this bill. Inasmuch as Michigan and Pennsylvania are following close behind in terms of facing the relentless annual escalation of the rate of repayment of their loans, I have no doubt that the people of those two great States will be comparably ap­preciative of the passage of this legis­lation.

In closing, I wish to express my ad­miration of the fine work which has been done by our distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gen­tleman from Arkansas [Mr. MILLS], and the ranking minority member on that committee, the gentleman from Wiscon­sin [Mr. BYRNES], and the other mem­bers of the committee in processing the technical and difficult subject matter involved in this matter and bringing to the floor this excellent solution of what most of us regard as a serious situation.

I urge the passage of this legislation.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 19993 Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. - Mr. ­

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. KNOX] may extend his remarks at this Point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection­to the request of the gentleman froin Wisconsin?

There was no objection. Mr: KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

strong support of the bill, H.R. 8821. My colleagues from Michigan and many other Members of the body, I am sure, are familiar with the unemployment problems we have been facing in our State. I am proud to have been able to participate on the Ways and Means Com­mittee in the reporting of this bill. Its passage will be most helpful to my State as well as those other State.s which are obligated to make repayments under the 1958 temporary unemployment compen­sation program and title XII of the So­cial Security Act.

This legislation will be particularly beneficial to employers who otherwise would be paying a considerably larger annual tax to facilitate the repayment of these advances. Briefly, the bill pro­vides for a "stretching out" for the re­payment of amounts advanced under the 1958 TUC program and under title XII of the Social Security Act. I am sure my colleagues can realize the importance of this to employers already burdened by the regular unemployment compensa­tion tax, social security tax, and other Federal, State, and local levies.

When this legislation was introduced I immediately contacted Gov. George Romney of Michigan advising him of the provisions of the bill and suggested that he request the Michigan Legislature to enact the proper legislation in order to place the Michigan State unemployment compensation fund on a sound fiscal basis and provide for the repayment of funds borrowed under the act of 1958.

On May 21, 1963, the Michigan State Legislature enacted legislation providing that the cost of the temparary unem­ployment compensation benefits paid and repayable under the act of 1958 and remaining unpaid on October 31, 1966, shall be paid from the unemployment fund to the U.S. Treasury on that date. The Michigan Employment Security Commission is to se·ek an agreement at the Federal level to pay these funds out of increased Federal taxes on wages paid during 1963, 1964, and 1965 which will be payable by Michigan employers under the reduced credit provisions of the 1958 act. The balance of the advance to Michigan in 1958 and remaining due on October 31, 1966, will be repaid from the unemployment fund to the Federal un­employment account in the Federal un­employment trust fund on that date.

The Michigan law further provides that in the event the trust fund balance is less than $150 million at that time the Michigan Security Commission shall assess against all employers in Michigan an additional contribution with respect to wages paid in 1967 at a percentage rate determined by dividing the amount of such repayment by the total of the taxable wages of all employers for the 12 months ending on June 30, 1966, and ad­justing the resulting percentage to the

nearest· multiple of one one-hundredth of 1 percent.

I wish to thank- Governor Romney of Michigan for his cooperation, and that of his staff, in working out an acceptable solution with respect to the repayment of these advances. This legislation is much needed by my state as well as many other States who accepted ad­vances under the two programs. I urge your support of this bill.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ScHNEEBELr] may extend his remarks at this Point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Mr. Speaker, I

was pleased to be able to work with the Ways and Means Committee in arriving at a satisfactory solution with respect to the repayment of advances to certain States, including my ·home State of Pennsylvania, under the temporary un­employment compensation program of 1958 and title XII of the Social Security Act. I would emphasize that this bill does not forgive any amount owed by the States under these two programs. It does provide, however, for the spacing out of the installment repayment of these advances.

We are all aware of the heavY burden accruing to employers with respect to the unemployment tax and, furthermore, the difficulties encountered especially by those States which have had above­average unemployment. The spacing out of the installment repayment of these advances made by the Treasury should help to shore up the unemploy­ment compensation programs in those States which otherwise would be making heavY repayments over the next few years.

With respect to my own State, I wish to express my appreciation to Governor Scranton and his administration for their cooperation in working out the solution we are considering here today. The passage of this b111 will be most helpful to Pennsylvania employers as well as employers in the other States faced with repayments. I earnestly re­quest that this body give its whole­hearted support to this bill.

GENERAL LEA VE TO EXTEND

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan­imous consent that other Members de­siring to do so may extend their remarks in the RECORD at this point on the bill.

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

There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The Clerk wm re­

port the committee amendments. The Clerk read as follows: Page 2, line 11, strike out "October" and

insert "November". Page 4, line 18, strike out "Oct.ober" and

insert "November".

The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the engrossment and third reading of. the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was read the · third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the ·passage of the bill. ·

The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap­peared to have it.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of or­der that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper wUl close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

The question was taken; and there were--yeas 350, nays 1, not voting 81, as follows:

[Roll No. 178] YEAS-350

Abbitt Davis, Ga. Abele Davis, Tenn. Abernethy Dawson Adair Delaney Addabbo Denton Albert Derounian Alger Devine Anderson Dingell Andrews Dole Arends Donohue Ashbrook Dowdy Ashmore Downing Aspinall Duncan Auchincloss Dwyer Avery Edmondson Ayres Edwards Baker Elliott Baldwin Ellsworth Baring Everett Barrett Evins Bass Farbstein Bates Finnegan Battin Fino Becker Fisher Beckworth Flood Beermann Flynt Belcher Fogarty Bell Foreman Bennett, Fla. Forrester Bennett, Mich. Fountain Betts Fraser Boland Friedel Bolton, Fuqua

Frances P. Gallagher Bolton, Garmatz

Oliver P. Gary Bonner Giaimo Bow Gibbons Brademas Gilbert Bray am Brooks Glenn Broomfield Gonzalez Brotzman Goodell Brown, Calif, Goodling Brown, Ohio Grabowski Broyhill, N.C. Grant Burke Green, Oreg, Burkhalter Green, Pa. Burleson Griffin Burton Griffiths Byrne, Pa. Gross Byrnes, Wis. Grover Cannon Gubser Carey Hagan, Ga. Casey Hagen, Calif, Cederberg Haley Celler Hall Chamberlain Halpern Clancy Hanna Clark Hansen Clausen, Harding

DonH. Hardy Clawson, Del Harrison Cleveland Harsha Cohelan Harvey, Ind. Collier Harvey, Mich, Colmer Hawkins Conte Hays Cooley Healey Corbett Hebert Corman Hechler era.mer Hemph111 Cunningham Henderson Curtin Herlong CUrtls · Hol111.eld Dague Holland Daniels Horan

Horton Hosmer Huddleston Hull Hutchinson Ichord Jarman Jennings Joelson Johansen Johnson, Calif. Johnson, Wis. Jonas Jones, Ala. Jones.Mo. Karsten Karth Kastenmeier Keith Kilgore King, Calif. King,N.Y. Kirwan Kluczynskl Knox Kornegay Kyl Laird Landrum . Langen Lankford Latta Leggett Lennon Lesinski Libonati Lindsay Lloyd Long,Md. McClory McCulloch McDowell McFall McLoskey McMman MacGregor Madden Mahon Marsh Martin, Nebr.

· Mathias Matsunaga Matthews May Meader Milliken Mills Minish Minshall Monagan Montoya Moore Moorhead Morgan MorriS Morrison Morse Morton Mosher Murphy.DI. Murphy, N.Y. Murray Natcher Nedzi Nelsen Nix Norblad

19994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara., Ill. O'Hara., Mich. O'Konski Olsen, Mont. Olson, Minn. O'Nem Osmers Ostertag Passman Patte11-Pelly Perkins Philbin Pike Plllion Pirnie Poff Pool Price Pucinski Purcell Qule Qulllen Rains Randall Reid,N.Y, Reifel Reuss Rhodes, Ariz. Rhodes,Pa.. Rich Riehlm~n Rivers, Alaska. Roberts, Ala.. Roberts, Tex. Robison Rodino Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla.. Rooney.Pa.

Roosevelt Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roudebush Roush Roybal Rumsfeld Ryan,Mich. St. George St Germain Saylor Schade berg Schenck Schneebeli Schweiker Schwengel Scott Selden Senner Sheppard Shipley Short Shriver Sickles Bikes Biler Sisk Skubitz Slack Smith, Calif. Smith, Va.. Snyder Staebler Stafford Staggers Stephens Stinson Stratton . Sullivan Taft Talcott

NAYS-1

Secrest

Taylor Teague, Calif. Teague, Tex. Thomas Thompson, Tex. Thomson, Wis. Toll Tollefson Trimble Tuck Tupper Tuten Udall Ullman Utt Va.nDeerlin Vanik Van Pelt Waggonner Wallhauser Watson Watts Weaver Welpner Whalley Wharton White Whitener Wickersham Widnall Wllliams Wlllis Wilson, Ind. Winstead Wright Wydler Wyman Young Younger Zablocki

NOT VOTING-Bl Ashley Fulton, Tenn. Barry Gathings Berry Gray Blatnik Gurney Boggs Halleck Bolling Harris Brock Hoeven Bromwell Hoffman Broyhlll, Va. Jensen Bruce Kee Buckley Kelly Cahlll Keogh Cameron Kilburn Chelf Kunkel Chenoweth Lipscomb Daddario Long, La. Dent McDade Derwinski McIntire Diggs Macdonald Dorn Mallliard Dulski Martin, Calif. Fallon Martin, Mass. Fa.seen Michel Feighan Miller, Calif. Findley Miller, N.Y. Ford Moss Frelinghuysen Multer Fulton, Pa. O'Brien, Ill.

So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced

pairs: On this vote:

Patman Pepper Pilcher Poage Powell Reid,Dl. Rivers, S.C. Rogers, Tex. Rponey, N.Y. Ryan,N.Y. St. Onge Shelley Sibal Smith,Iowa Springer Steed Stub blefteld Thompson, La. Thompson, N.J. Thornberry Vinson Westland Whitten Wilson,Bob Wilson,

CharlesH.

the following

Mr. Keogh with Mr. Berry. Mr. Multer with Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Macdonald with Mr. Martin of

California. Mr. Shelley with Mr. Broyhill of Virginia. Mrs. Kelly with Mr. Halleck. Mr. St. Onge with Mr. Mailliard. Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Kunkel. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Barry. Mr. Patman with Mr. Frelinghuys!;)n. Mr. Ryan of New York with -Mr. Bob

Wilson. Mr. Smith of Iowa with Mrs. Reid of

Dllnois. Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr.

Bromwell. Mr. Stubblefield with Mr. McIntire, Mr. Vinson with Mr. Gurney. Mr. Charles H. Wilson. with . Mr. Fulton of

Pennsylvania,

Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr. Cah111.

Mr. Moss with Mr. Springer. Mr. Fallon with Mr. Derwinskl. Mr. Buckley with Mr. Michel. Mr. Powell with l\4r. Kilburn. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Ford. Mr. Whitten with Mr. Bruce. Mr. Gathings with Mr. Mlller of New York. Mr. Chelf with Mr. Lipscomb. Mr. Feighan with Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Fascell with Mr. Brock. Mr. Harris with Mr. Martin of Massa-

chusetts. Mr. Long of Louisiana with Mr. Westland. Mr. Boggs with Mr. Findley. Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Chenoweth. Mr. Cameron with Mr. Jensen. Mr. Rogers of Texas with Mr. McDade. Mr. Steed with Mr. Sibal. Mr. Dorn with Mr. Pilcher. Mr. Dent with Mr. Fulton of Tennessee. Mr. Daddario with Mr. Rivers of South

Carolina. Mr. Dulski with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Gray with Mrs. Kee . Mr. Mlller of California with Mr. Ashley.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The doorn were opened. A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan­

imous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until mid­night Friday, October 25, 1963, to file a report on the bill, H.R. 8864, to carry out the obligations of the United States un­der the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes, along with any separate views.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT) . Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

FEDERAL SUPPORT OF SCIENCE Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. FOUNTAIN] may extend his remarks at this Point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. Speaker, in view

of the concern of the Congress about the rapidly increasing Federal budget for scientific research and development, I ask unanimous consent that a very penetrating and thought-provoking ar­ticle by Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg, the Di­rector of our Oak Ridge National Lab­oratory and a former member of the President's Science Advisory 'Committee, be printed · in the · RECORD following my remarks. This article, entitled "Cri­teria for Sci~ntiflc Choice," appeared · in the winter, 1963, issue of Minerva, a British publication. · Two points made in the article are of

special interest to me because they rein­force my own thinl,til)g with respect to the grant review m~chinery use4 by the National Institutes of Health. Reference was made· to this matter in my remarks

last month which appear on pages 17941-1794-2 of the RECORD for Septem­ber 24.

Dr. Weinberg's observations on the weaknesses of the a<ivisory panels which serve the President's Science Advisory Committee are equally applicable to the advisory councils and study sections which, for all practical purposes, .deter­mine the grantees of the. National In­stitutes of Health and also strongly in­fluence the level of funding for the agen­cy. Dr. Weinberg says:

The panel system, however, suffers from a serious weakness. Panels usually consist of specialized experts who inevitably share the same enthusiasms and passions. To the expert in· oceanography or in high-energy physics, nothing seems quite as important as oceanography or high-energy physics. The panel, when recommending a pro­gram in a field -in which all its members are interested, invariably argues for better treatment of the field-more money, more people, more training.

The panel system is weak insofar as judge, jury, plaintiff, and defendant are usually one and the same. ·

The panel is able to judge_ how competently a proposeµ piece of research is likely to be c;:i,rried out; its members are all experts and are likely to know who are the good research · workers in the field. But just because the panel is composed of experts, who hold paro­chial viewpoints, the panel is much less able to place the proposal in a broader perspec­tive and to say whether the research pro­posal is of much interest to the rest of science.

In a broader context, Dr. Weinberg wisely distinguishes between the "inter­nal" criteria directed to the question of how well a particular research project is done, and the "external" criteria con­cerned with the question of whether the work should be pursued at a given level or even pursued at all. Substantial doubt exists that the important external criteria relating to the scientific and social merit of · research undertakings are adequately taken into consideration at present when the Government sup­Ports "big science." Dr. Weinberg writes:

I believe, however, that it is not tenable to base our judgments entirely on internal criteria. As I have said, we scientists like to believe that the pursuit of science as such is society's highest good, but this view can­not be taken for granted. For example, we now suffer a serious shortage of medical practitioners, probably to some extent be­cause many bright young men who would formerly have gone into medical practice now go into biological research; Government support is generally available for postgrad­uate study leading to the Ph. D. but not for study leading to the medical degree. It is by no means self-evident that society gains from more biological research and less medi­cal practice. Society does not a priori owe the scientist, even the good scientist, sup­port any more than it owes the artist or the writer· or the musician support. Science must seek its support from society on grounds otller tl:).a.n that the science is car­ried .out. competently and that it is ready for exploitation; scientists cannot expect so­ciety to support science because scientists fl.nd it an enchanting diversion.

I commend this · excellent article to the administrators of our Federal science agencies as well as to the Members of Congress.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 19995 CRITERIA FOR ScIENTIFIC CHOICE

(By Alvin M. Weinberg) I

As science grows, its demands, on our so­ciety's resources grow. It seems inevitable that science's demands will eventually be limited by what society can allocate to it. We shall then have to make choices. These choices are of two kinds. We shall have to choose among different, often incommensur­able, fields of science-between, for example, high-energy physics and oceanography or between molecular biology and science of metals. We shall also have to choose among the different institutions that receive sup­port for science from the Government-­among universities, governmental labora­tories and industry. The first choice I call scientific choice; the second, institutional choice. My purpose is to suggest criter~a for making scientific choices-to formulate a scale of values which might help establish · priorities among scientific fields whose only common characteristic is that they all derive support from the Government.

Choices of this sort are made at every level both in science and in Government. The individual scientist must decide what science to do, what not to do: the totality of such judgments makes up his scientific taste. The research director must choose which projects to push, which to k111. The Govern­ment administrator must decide not only which efforts to support; he must also decide whether to do a piece of work in a univer­sity, a national laboratory, or an industrial laboratory. The sum of such separate deci­sions determines our policy as a whole. I shall be concerned mainly with the broadest scientific choices: how should Government decide between very large fields of science, particularly between different branches of basic science? The equally important ques­tion of how Government should allocate its support for basic research among industry, governmental laboratories, and universities. will not be discussed here.

II

Most of us like to be loved; we hate to make choices, since a real choice alienates the party that loses. If one is rich-more accurately, if one is growing richer--choices can be avoided. Every administrator knows that his job is obviously unpleasant only when his budget has been cut. Thus the urgency for making scientific or institu­tional choices has in the main been ignored both in the United States and elsewhere be­cause the science budget has been expanding so rapidly: the U.S. Government spent $1,600 mllllon on research and development in 1950~ $9 billion in 1960, $14 billion (including space) in 1962.

Though almost all agree that choices will eventually have to be made, some well­informed observers insist that the time for making the choices is far in the future: Their arguments against making explicit choices have several main threads. Perhaps most central is the argument that since we do not make explicit choices about anything else, there ls no reason why we should make them in science. Since we do not explicitly choose between support for farm prices and support for schools, or between ,highways and foreign aid, why should we single out science as th:e guinea pig for trying to make choices? The total public activity of our society has always resulted from countervailing pres­sures, exerted by various groups representing professional specialties, or local interests, or concern for the public interest. The combi­nation that emerges as our Federal budget is not arrived at by 'the systematic application of a set of criteria: even the highest level of authority, in the United States, the Presi­dent, who must weigh contuctlng interests in the scale of the public interest, ls limited in the degree to which he can impose an

overall Judgment by the sheer size of the budget if by nothing else. But because we have always arrived at an allocation by · the free play of countervailing pressures this does not mean that such free interplay is the best or the only way to make choices. In any case, even if our choices remain largely im­plicit rather than explicit, they wUl be more reasonable if persons at every level, repre­senting every pressure group, try to under­stand the larger issues and try to mitigate

.. sectional self-interest with concern for broader issues. The idea of conflicting and biased claims being adjudicated at one fell swoop by an all-knowing supreme tribunal is a myth. It is much better that the choices be decentralized and that they reflect the concern for the larger interest. For this rea­son alone philosophic debate on the problems of scientific choice should lead to a more rational allocation of our resources.

A second thread in the argument of those who refuse to face the problem of scientific choice is that we waste so much on ·trivial­itles--on smoking, on advertising, on gam­bling-that it is silly to worry about expendi­tures of the same scale on what is obviously a more useful sociai objective-the increase of scientific knowledge. A variant of this argument is that with so much unused steel capacity or so many unemployed, we cannot rightly argue that we cannot afford a big cyclotron or a large manned-space venture.

Against these arguments we would present the following considerations on behalf of a rational scientific policy. At any given in­stant, only a certain fraction of our society's resources goes to science. To insist or im­ply that the summum bonum of our society is the pursuit of science and that therefore all other activities of the society are second­ary to science-that unused capacity 1n the steel mills should go to "big science" rather than a large-scale housing program-ls a view that might appeal strongly to the scien­tific community. It ls hardly likely to appeal so stro~gly to the much larger part of society that elects the members of the legis­lature, and to whom, in all probability, good houses are more important than good science. Thus as a practical matter we cannot really evade the problem of scien­tific choice. If those actively engaged 1n science do not make choices, they will be made anyhow by the congressional Appro­priations Committees and by the Bureau of the Budget, or corresponding bodies in other governments. Moreover, and perhaps more immediately, even if we are not limited by money, we shall be limited by the avail­ability of truly competent men. There is already evidence that our ratio of money to men in science is too high, and that in some parts of :science we have gone further more quickly than the number of really competent men can justify.

m Our scientific and governmental communi­

ties have evolved institutional and other de­vices for coping with br.oad issues of scientif­ic choice. The most important institutional device in the United States ls the President's Science Advisory Committee, with its panels and its staff in the Office of Science and Tech­nology. This body and its panels help the Bureau of the Budget to decide what is to be supported and what ls not to be supported. The panel system, however, suffers from a serious weakness. Panels usually consist of specialized experts who inevitably share the same enthusiasms and passions. To the ex­pert in oceanography or in high-energy physics, nothing seems quite as important as oceanography or high-energy physics. The panel, when recommending a program in a field in which all its members are interested, invariably argues for better treatment of the field-more money, more people, more train­ing. The panel system ls weak insofar as judge, jury, plaintiff, and defendant are usually one and the same.

The panel is able to judge how competently a proposed piece of research ls likely to be carried out: Its members are all experts and ar-e likely to know who are the good research workers in the field. But Just because the panel is composed of experts, who hold parochial viewpoints, the panel is much less able to place the proposal in a broader per­spective and to say whether the research proposal is of much interest to the rest of science. We can answer the question "how" within a given frame of reference; it is im­possible to answer "why" within the same frame of reference. It would therefore seem that the panel system could be improved if representatives, not only of the field being judged but also representatives of neigh­boring fields, sat on every panel judging the m.erits of a research proposal. A panel Judging high-energy physics should have some people from low-energy physics; a panel judging low-energy physics should have some people from nuclear energy; a panel judging nuclear energy should have some people from conventional energy; and so on. I should think that advice from panels so constituted would be tempered by concern for larger issues; in particular, the support of a proposed research project would be viewed from the larger perspective of the relevance of that research to the rest of science.

In addition to panels or the bodies like the President's Science Advisory Committee as organizational instruments for making choices, the scientific community has evolved an empirical method for establishing sci­entific priorities, that is, for deciding what is important in science and what is not important. This ls the scientific literature. The process of self-criticism, which is inte­gral to the literature of science, is one of the most characteristic features of science. Nonsense is weeded out and held up to ridi­cule in the literature, whereas what is worth­while receives much sympathetic attention. This process of self-criticism embodied in the literature, though implicit, ls nonethe­less real and highly significant. The exist­ence of a healthy, viable scientific literature in itself helps assure society that the science it supports is valid and deserving of support. This is a most important, though little rec­ognized, social function of the scientific literature.

As an arbiter of scientific taste and valid­ity, scientific literature ls beset with two difficulties. First, because of the informa­tion explosion, the literature is not read nearly as carefully as it used to be. Non­sense is not so generally recognized as such, and the standards . of self-criticism, which are so necessary if the scientific lltera.tl,lre is to serve as the arbiter of scientific taste, are inevitably looser than they once were.

Second, the scientific literature in a given field tends to form a closed universe; work­ers in a field, when they criticize each other, tend to adopt the same unstated assump­tions. A referee of a scientific paper asks whether the paper conforms to the rules of the scientific community to which both referee and author belong, not whether the rules themselves are valid. So to speak, the editors and authors of a journal in a narrowly specialized field are all tainted with the same poison. As Einstein said, "Elgener Dreck stlnkt nicht." 1

Can a true art of scientific criticism be developed, Le., can one properly criticize a field of science beyond the kind of crl tlclsm that is inherent in the literature of the field? Mortimer Taube in "Computers and Com­mon Sense" 2 insists that such scientific crit­icism ls a useful undertaking, and that, by

1 As quoted by Dyson, Freeman J., in a re­view of Sweber, 8. S., Mesons and Fields, in "Physics Today," IX (May 1966), pp. 32-34.

: (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961).

19996~ CONGRESSIONAL".'RRCC>RD" -. ~--HOUSE- October 22 viewing a field from a somewhat detached point of view, it is possible to criticize a field meaningfully, even to the point of calling the whole activity fraudulent, as he does in the case of nonnumerical uses of computers. I happen to believe that Taube does not make a convincing case in respect to certain non­numerical uses of computers, such as lan­guage translation. Yet I have sympathy for Dr. Traube's aims--that, with science taking so much of the public's money, we must countenance, even en~onrage, discussion of the relative validity and worthwhileness of the science which society supports.

IV

I believe that criteria for scientific choice can be identified. In fact, several such criteria already exist; the · main task ts to make them more explicit. 'l'he criteria can be divided into two kinds: internal criteria and external criteria. Internal criteria are generated within the scientific field itself and answer the question: How well is the science done? External criteria are gener­ated outside the scientific field and answer the question: Why pursue this particular science? ·Though both are important, I think the external criteria are the more im­portant.

Two internal criteria can be easily iden­tified: (1) Is the field ready for exploitation?; (2) Are the scientists in the field really com­petent? Both these questions are answer­able only by experts who know the field in question intimately, and who know the pea-

. pie personally. These criteria are therefore the ones most often· applied when a panel decides on a research grant; in fact, the primary question in deciding whether to provide governmental support for a scientist is usually: How good is he?

I believe, however, that it is not tenable to base our Judgments entirely on internal criteria. AJ3 I have said, we scientists like to believe that the pursuit of science as such is society's highest good, but th.is view can­not be taken for granted. For example, we now suffer a serious shortage of medical practitioners, probably to some extent be­cause many bright young men who would formerly have gone into medical practice now go into biological research; Government support is generally available· for postgradu­ate study leading to the Ph. D. but not for study leading to the medical degree. It is by no means self-evident that society gains from more biological research and less medical practice. Society does not a priori owe the scientist, even the·good scientist, support any more than it owes the artist or the writer or the musician support. Science must seek its support from society on grounds other than that the science is carried out com­petently and that it is ready for exploitation; scientists cannot· expect society to support science because scientists find it an enchant­ing diversion. Thus, in seeking justification for the support of science, we are led in­evitably to consider external criteria for the validity of science-criteria external to sci­ence, or to a given field of science.

V

Three external criteria can be recognized: technological merit, scientific merit. and social merit. The first is · fairly obvious, once we have decided, one way or another, that a certain technological end is worth­while, we must support the scientific re­search necessary to achieve that end. Thus, if we have set · out to learn how to make breeder reactors, we must first measure painstakingly the neutron yields of the fis­sile isotopes as a function of energy of the bombarding neutron. As in all such ques­tions of choice, it is not always so easy to decide the technological relevance of a piece of basic research. The technological useful­ness of the laser came after, not before, the principle of optical amplification was discov­ered. But it is my belief that such techno-

logical bolts from the scientific blue are the exception, not the .rule. Most programmatic basic research can be related fairly .directly to a technological end at least crudely if riot in detail. The broader question as to whether the technological aim itself is wortlL­while must be answered again partly from within technology through answering such questions as: Is the technology ripe for ex­ploitation? Are the people any good? Part­ly from outside technology by answering the question: Are the social goals attained, if the technology succeeds, themselves worth­while? Many times these questions are dif­ficult to answer, and sometimes they a.ie answered incorrectly. For example, the United States launched an effort to control thermonuclear energy in 1952 on a rather large scale because it was thought at the time that controlled fusion was much closer at hand than it turned out to be. Neverthe­less, despite the fact that we make mlstakes, technological aims are customarily scruti­nized much more closely than a-re scientific aims; at least we have more practice discuss­ihg technological merit than we do scientific Ifierit.

VI -

The criteria of scientific merit and social merit are much more difficult: scientific merit because we have given little thought to de­fining scientific merit in the broadest sense, social merit because it is difficult to define the values of our society. As I have already suggested, the answer to the question: Does this broad field of research have scientific merit? cannot be answered within the field. The idea that the scientific merit of a field can be judged better from the vantage point of the scientific fields in which it is embedded than from the point of view of the field itself is implicit in the following quotation from the .late John von Neumann: "As a mathe­matical discipline travels far from its em­pirical source, or still more, if it is a second and third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from reality, it is beset with very great dangers. It becomes more and more pure a~stheticizing, more and more purely l'art pour l'art. This need not be bad if the field is surrounded by correlated sub­jects which still have closer empirical con­nections or if the discipline is under the in- . fluence of men with an excepti_onally well­developed taste. But there is a grave dan­ger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a mul­titude· of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganized mass of details and complexities. In other worq.s, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much abstract inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of de­generation. At the inception the style is -usually classical; when it shows signs of be­coming baroque, then the danger signal is up"a

I ·believe the're are -any number of exam­ples to show that van Neuman's observa­tion about mathematics can be extended to the empirical sciences. Empirical basic sci­ences which move too far from the neigh­boring sciences in which they are embedded tend to become "baroque". Relevance to neighboring fields of science is, therefore, a valid measure of the scientific merit of a field of basic science. Insofar as our aim is to increase our grasp and understanding of the universe, we must recognize that some areas of basic science do more to round out the whole picture than do others. A field in which lack of knowledge is a bottleneck to the understanding of c;>ther fields deserves lllore support than a field which is isolated from other fields. This is only another way

s Heywood, R. B. (ed.), "The Works of the Mind" (University of Chicago Press, 1147), p. 196.

of saying that, ideally, science is a unified structure and that scientists, in adding to the structure, ought always to strengthen its unity. Thus, the original motivation for much of high-energy physics is to be sought in its elucidation of low-energy physics, or the strongest and most exciting motivation for measuring the neutron capture cross sections .of the elements lies in the elucida­tion of the cosmic origin of the elements. Moreover, the discoveries which are acknowl­edged to be the most important scientifi­cally, have the quality of bearing strongly on the scientific disciplines around them. For example, the discovery of X-rays was im­portant partly because it extended the elec­tromagnetic spectrum but, much more, be­cause it enabled us to see so much that we had been unable to see. The word "funda­mental" in basic science, which ,is often used as a synonym for "important," can be partly paraphrased into "relevance to neighboring

· areas· of science." I would therefore sharpen the criterion of scientific merit by proposing that, other things being equal, that field has the most scientific merit which contributes most heavily to and illuminates most brightly its neighboring scientific disci­plines. This is the justification for my previous suggestion about making it socially acceptable for people in related fielQ.S to offer opinions on the scientific merit of work in a given field. In a sense, what I am trying to do is to extend to basic research a prac­tice that is customary in applied science; a project director trying to get a reactor built on time is expected to judge the usefulness of component development and fundamental research which bears on his problems. He is not always right; but his opinions are usually useful both to the researcher and to the management disbursing the money.

VII

I turn now to the most controversial criterion of all-social merit or relevance to huinan welfare .and the values of man. Two "difficulties face us when we try to clarify the criterion of social merit: first, who is to define the values of man, or even the values of our own society; and second, just as we shall have difficulty deciding whether a proposed research helps other branches of science or technology, so we wm· have even greater trouble deciding whether a given scientific or technical enterprise indeed furthers our pursuit of social values, even when those values have been identified. With some values we have little trouble: adequate defense, or more food, or less sick­ness, for example, are rather uncontroversial. Moreover, since such values themselves are relatively easy to describe, we can often guess whether a scientific activity is likely to be relevant, if not actually helpful, in achieving the goal. On the other hand, some social values are much harder to de­j),ne; perhaps the most d111lcult is national

·prestige. How do we measure national pres­tige? What is meant when we say tt.at a man on the moon enhances our national prestige? Does it enhance our prestige more than, say, discovering a polio vaccine or win­ning more Nobel Prizes than any other coun­try? Whether or not ·a give..J. achievement confers prestige probably depends as much on the publicity that accompanies the achievement as it does on :· ts intrinsic value.

Among the most attractive social values that science can help to achieve is inter­national understanding and cooperation. It is a commonplace that the standards and loyalties of science are transnational. A new element has recently been injected by the advent of scientific research of such cost­liness that now it is prudent as well as efficient to participate in some form of inter­national cooperation. The very big acceler­ators are so expensive that international laboratories such as CERN at Geneva are set up to enable several countries to share costs

1963 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE 19997 that are too heavy for them to bear sepa­rately. Even if we were not committed to improving international relations we would be impelled to cooperate. merely to save money.

Bigness is an advantage rather than a dis­advantage if science is to be used as an in­strument of international cooperation: a $500 million cooperative scientific venture­such as the proposed 1,000 Bev intercon­tinental accelerator-is likely to have more impact than a $500,000 Van de Graaff ma­chine. The most expensive of all scientific or quasi-scientific enterprises-the explora­tion of space-is, from this viewpoint, the best suited instrument for international co­operation. The exchange between President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev concern­ing possible increased cooperation in space exploration seems to have been well received and, one hopes, will bear ultimate fruit.

vm Having set forth these criteria and recog­

nizing that judgments are fraught with diffi­culty, I propose to assess five different scien­tific and technical fields, in the light of these. The five fields I choose are molecular biology, high-energy physics, nuclear energy, manned­space exploration, and the behavioral sci­ences. Two of these fields, molecular biology and high-energy physics, are, by any defini­tion, basic sciences; nuclear energy is applied science, the behavioral sciences a.re a mix­ture of both applied and basic science. Manned exploration of space, though it re­quires the tools of science and is regarded in the popular mind as being part of science, has not yet been proved to be more than quasi-scientific, at best. The fields which I choose are incommensurable: how can one measure the merit of behavioral sciences and nuclear energy on the same scale of values? Yet the choices between scientific fields will eventually have to be made whether we like it or not. Criteria for scientific choice will be most useful only if they can be applied to seemingly incommensurable situations. The validity of my proposed criteria depends on how well they can serve in comparing fields that are hard to compare.

Of the scientific fields now receiving public support, perhaps the most successful is molecular biology. Hardly a month goes by without a stunning success in molecular biology being reported in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." The most recent has been the cracking by Nierenberg and Ochoa of the code according

. to which triples of bases determine specific amino acids in the living proteins. Here is a field which rates the highest grades as to its ripeness for exploitation and competence of its workers. It is profoundly important for large stretches of other biological sciences­genetics, cytology, microbiology-and, there­fore, according to my criterion, must be graded A+ for its scientific merit. It also must be given a very high grade in social merit, and probably in technological (that is, medical) merit--more than, say, taxonomy or topology. Molecular biology is the most fundamental of all the biological sciences. With understanding of the manner of trans­mission of genetic information ought to come the insights necessary for the solution of such problems as cancer, birth defects, and viral diseases. Altogether, molecular biology ought, in my opinion, to receive as ·much public support as can possibly be pumped into it; since money is not limiting its growth, many more postgraduate stu­dents and research fellows in molecular bi­_ology ought to be subsidized so that the at­tack on this frontier can be expanded as rapidly as possible.

.The second field is high-energy physics. The field of endeavor originally -sought as its major · task to understand the nuclear force. In this it has been only modestly successful; instead, it has opened an un­dreamed-of subnuclear world of strange par­ticles and hyperons, a world in which mir-

ror images are often reversed. The field has no end of interesting things to do, it knows how to do them, and its people are the best. Yet I would be bold enough to argue that, at least by the criteria which I have set forth-relevance to the sciences in which it is embedded, relevance to human affairs, and relevance to technology-high-energy phys­ics rates poorly. The nuclear forces are not being worked on very directly-the world of subnuclear particles seems to be remote from the rest of the physical sciences. Aside from the brilliant resolution of the r-parti­cle paradox, which led to the overthrow of the conservation of parity, and the studies of mesic atoms (the latter of which is not done at ultra-high energy), I know of few discoveries in ultra-high-energy physics which bear strongly on the rest of science. (This view would have to be altered if ma­chines such as the Argonne Zero Gradient Synchrotron were exploited as very strong, pulsed sources of neutrons for study of neu­tron cross sections.) As for its bearing on human welfare and on technology, I believe it is essentially nil. These two low grades would not bother me if high-energy physics were cheap. But it is terribly expensive­not so much in money as in highly qualified people, especially those brilliant talents who could contribute so ably to other fields which contribute much more to the rest of science and to humanity than does high­energy physics. On the other hand, if high­energy physics could be made a vehicle for international cooperation-if the much-dis­cussed intercontinental 1,000 Bev accelera­tor could indeed be built as a joint enterprise between East and West--the expense of high­energy physics would become a virtue, and the enterprise would receive a higher grade in social merit than I would now be willing to assign to it.

Third is nuclear energy. This being largely an applied effort, it is very relevant to human welfare. We now realize that in the residual uranium and thorium of the earth's crust, mankind has an unlimited store of energy--enough to last for millions of years; and with an effort of only one-tenth of our manned-space effort we could, within 10 or 15 years, develop the reactors which would tap this resource. Only rarely do we see ways of permanently satisfying one of man's major needs-in this case energy. In high­conversion-ratio nuclear reactors we have such means, and we are close to their achievement. Moreover, we begin to see ways of applying very large reactors of this type to realize another great end, the eco­nomic desalination of the ocean. Thus, the time is very ,ripe for exploitation. Nuclear energy rates so highly in the categories ot technical and social merit and timeliness that I believe it deserves strong support, even if it gets very low marks in the ·other two categories-its personnel and its relationship to the rest of science. Suffice it to say that

. in my opinion the scientific workers in the field of nuclear energy are good and that nuclear energy in its b~sic aspects has vast ramifications in other scientific fields.

Next on the list are the behavioral sci­.ences-psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics. The workers are of high quality; the sciences are significantly related to each other, they are deeply germane to every aspect of human existence. In these re­spects the sciences deserve strong public sup­port. On the other hand, it is not clear to me that the behavioral scientists, on the .whole, see clearly how to attack the im­portant problems of their sciencei;;. Fortu­nately, the total sum involved in behavioral science research is now relatively tiny-as it well must be when what are lacking are deeply fruitful, and generally accepted, points of departure.

Finally, I come to manned-space explora­tion. The personnel in the program . are competent and dedicated. With respect to ripeness for exploitation, the situation seems

to me somewhat unclear. Our "hardware" is in good shape, and we can expect it to get better-bigger and more reliable boosters, better communication systems, etc. What is not clear is the human being's tolerance of the space environment. I do not believe that either the hazards of radiation or of weightlessness are sufficiently explored yet positively to guarantee success in our future manned-space ventures.

The main objection to spending so much manpower, not to say money, on manned­space exploration is its remoteness from human affairs, not to say the rest of science. In this respect space (the exploration of very large distances) and high-energy physics ( the exploration of very small distances) are similar, though high-energy physics has the advantage of greater scientific validity. There are some who argue that the great adventure of man into space is not to be judged as science, but rather as a quasi­scientific enterprise, justified on the same grounds as those on which we Justfiy other nonscientific national efforts. The weakness of this argument is that space requires many, many scientists and engineers, and these are badly needed for such matters as clarify­ing our civilian defense posture or, for that matter, working out the technical details of arms control and foreign aid. If space is ruled to be nonscientific, then it must be balanced against other nonscientific expendi­tures like highways, schools, or civil de­fense. If we do space research because of prestige, then we should ask whether we get more prestige from a man on the moon than from successful control of the waterlogging problem in Pakistan's Indus Valley Basin. If we do space research because of its military implications, we ought to say so-and per­haps the mllitary Justification, at least for developing big boosters, is plausible, as the Soviet experience with rockets makes clear.

IX

The main weight of my argument is that the mos:t valid criteria for assessing scientific fields come from without rather than from within the scientific discipline that is being rated. This does not mean that only those scientific fields deserve priority that have high technical merit or high social merit. Scientific merit is as important as the other two criteria, but, as I have argued, scientific merit must be judged from the vantage point of the scientific fields in which each field is embedded rather than from that of the field itself. If we support science in order to maximize our knowledge of the world around us, then we must give the highest priority to those scientific endeavors that have the most bearing on the rest of science.

The rath~r extreme view which I have taken presents difficulties in practice. The main trouble is that the bearing that one science has on another science so ' often is not appreciated until long after the original discoveries have been made. Who ·was wise enough, at the time Purcell and Bloch first discovered nuclear magnetic resonance, to guess that the method would become an im­portant ~nalytical tool in biochemistry? Or how could one have guessed that Hahn and Strassmann's radiochemical studies would have led to nuclear energy? And indeed, my colleagues in high-energy physics predict that what we learn about the world of strange particles will in an as yet undiscerni­ble way teach us much about the rest of physics, not merely much about strange particles. They beg only for time to prove tl;>.eir point.

To this argument I say first that choices are always hard. It would be far simpler if the problem of scientific choice could be ignored, and possibly in some future m1llen­ni'1,1m _ it can be. But , there is also a more constructive response. The necessity for scientific choice arises in "big science,'; not in "little scien-ce." . Just ·as our society sup­ports artists and musicians 6n a small scale,

19998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22 so I have no objection to-in fact, I strongly favor-our society supporting science that rates zero on all the external criteria, pro­vided it rates well on the internal criteria (ripeness and competence) and provided it is carried on a relatively small scale. It is only when science really does make serious de­mands on the resources of our society-when it becomes "big science"-that the question of choice really arises.

At the present time, with our society faced with so much unfinished and very pressing business, science can hardly be considered its major business. For scientists as a class to imply that science can, at this stage in human development, be made the main busi­ness of humanity is irresponsible-and, from the scientist's point of view, highly danger­ous. It is quite conceivable that our society will tire of devoting so much of its wealth to science, especially if the implied promises held out when big projects are launched do not materialize in anything very useful. I shudder to think what would happen to science in general if our manned space ven­ture turned out to be a major failure, if it turned out, for example, that man could not withstand • the reentry deceleration forces after a long sojourn in space. It is as much out of a prudent concern for their own sur­vival, as for any loftier motive, that scientists must acquire the habit of scrutinizing what they do from a broader point of view than has been their custom. To do less could cause a popular reaction which would greatly. damage mankind's most remarkable intellec­tual attainment-modern science--and the scientists who created it and must carry it forward.

MERITED RAISES Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan­

imous consent to addres the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my re­marks, and to include two editorials.

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

There was no objection. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, part of the

folklore of American politics is that edi­tors and constituents will uniformly rise up in indignation at any suggestion of salary increases for public officials, espe­cially Members of Congress. I do not be­lieve it.

Salary legislation is like any legisla­tion which costs money. It must be clearly necessary and fair. If it is not, it cannot be defended. If it is proper and necessary, reasonable people will support it.

Too often we in the Congress sell the American people short. We imply by our hesitancy to support good causes that our constituents will be unreasonable, that they will punish us for doing what is right. This is sheer nonsense. I have enough faith in the commonsense and judgment of the American people to be­lieve they will support any legislation that is necessary and fair.

Recently my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL]' and I in­troduced legislation to provide salary increases for all levels of the Federal civilian service, including Members of Congress, the Cabinet, top level civil servants, the judiciary, the classified service, and the postal field service. i am happy to say that, contrary to the pessimism and fears of some advocates, suppart for this legislation is coming in from far and near. For example, the

American Ba~ Association has given the proposal a ringing endorsement, and its national magazine will have a major article in support 9f Federal pay raises next month. The National Civil Service League has given the legislation its sup­port. And a great many other groups and organizations are making themselves heard on the need for these long-overdue pay adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues have brought to my attention two newspaper editorials published in their own districts in recent days which strongly support this legisla­tion. Under unanimous consent, I in­clude them with my remarks at this point in the RECORD: [From the Trenton (N.J.) Evening Times,

Oct. 16, 1963] MERITED RAISES

Searching inquiry by disinterested, non­partisan groups into the sagging levels of Federal salaries has resulted in an inescapa­ble determination.

This is it: judicial and congressional pay scales have for a long time been grossly in­adequate.

As compared with what men in private enterprise receive, men with comparable talent and responsibilities, they are far out of line. They have even lagged behind ad­justments granted most officials and em­ployees of the Federal service.

Those in the classified positions have re­ceived boosts, and now the members of the Armed Forces have had their pay reasonably increased.

There are inequity in the other depart­ments. The low salary rates tend to limit these positions to persons of independent wealth or outside earnings. Federal judges cannot practice privately, and their accept­ance of positions in the U.S. judiciary rep­resents a sacrifice.

A district judge, for instance, earns $22,-600, the same as Congressmen. An example of disproportion exists in Pennsylvania, where State court judges in many cases re­·ceive $6,000 a year more than the chief judge and the other judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Naturally, all of us are aware of the urgency of decreasing the expenditures of the Federal Government. However, the cost of any increase in Judicial and congressional pay which any responsible source would recommend would be nominal when com­pared with the advancement of the public interest which would be served.

Some of the most important cases in re­cent legal history have been decided in U.S. District Court here. Giant corporations rep­resented by the most expensive lawyers in the land have pleaded their causes. Sitting in Judgment, ironically, is a man whose salary is a fraction· of the fees paid the bat- · tery of counsels that face him and must abide by his rulings.

The American Bar Association has over­whelmingly supported Federal judicial raises. ·The President's own pay panel has recom­mended them.

Members of Congress are naturally reluc­tant to raise their own pay, being fearful of the reaction at home. They should not be so coy. They spend more _money for more purposes than any body of men on this planet. Commonsense demands that they devote a tiny fraction of their appropria­tions to making the top Jobs of statecraft in­viting to the persons best fitted to hold them.

(From the Michigan City News-Dispatch, Oct. 2, 1963)

PAY RAISES NEEDED

Businessmen know that few things cost them more than bad managers. Ineptitude

or stupidity at the top inevitably multiplies as it filters down through management levels, creating great waste. · At least one businessman believes the same thing holds true in government-and he's trying to do something about it.

Clarence Randall, retired steel executive, headed a presidential advisory panel which made a penetrating study of federal salaries. . In August the panel submitted its report and recommendations. Randall has cap­suled its essence in one succinct paragraph:

"Never has our Federal Government had greater need for able men in posts of execu­tive, legislative and judicial responsibility. Yet we are asking our Federal officials to accept these responsibilities at salaries much less than they can obtain elsewhere and much less than the level that would make it pos­sible for them to serve the Government."

Energetic and outspoken, Randall did not conclude his mission with submission of the panel's report. He has since crusaded vig­orously for congressional approval of its recommendations.

Specifically, the panel would boost Cab­inet salaries from $25,000 to $60,000, Supreme Court Justices from $35,000 to $60,000 and Members of Congress from $22,600 to $36,000.

Comparable salary increases are recom­mended for other top Federal executives, such as assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs. Says Randall:

"Without adjustment at the top, executives in key Federal positions • • • cannot re­ceive realistic compensation for their impor­tant work. Their part in the successful conduct of Government cannot be overem­phasized. Their responsibiUties generally equal those of a top corporation executive."

Randall dramatizes existing inequities with two revealing examples:

1. In one western city, 28 top executives are paid more than Federal Cabinet members • • • and the comptroller of one southern State gets more pay than the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

2. Mayors and managers of at least 24 cities get as much salary as Cabinet members.

Randall, who wen knows the cost of in­ferior management in business, says bluntly:

"It is poor economy to make it impossible to obtain the best available top management for programs that cost the taxpayer hun­dreds of millions of dollars. Seen as a ques­tion of good busine.ss Judgment, the present salary practices of Government cannot be Justified.

"Now is the time to overhaul our [Fed­eral] • • • pay structures. The cost · is· small-less than the going price of one de­stroyer escort vessel. We should make the investment required to provide • • • the ablest executives, judges and legislators our ·society can produce.

Randall is right-but without widespread public understanding and support his sensi­ble proposals may languish. Congress prob­ably won't get to them until 1964, a big election year when salary raises might alienate uninformed voters.

VOLUNTARY ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

Mr. BENNE'IT of Florida. Mr. Speak­er, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and ex­tend my remarks, and to include extrane­ous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Speak­

er, I have today introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to provide a voluntary solution to the problem of Ne­gro travelers in finding adequate motel,

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 19999 restaurant, and other facilities on the Nation's highways.

The voluntary accommodations leg­islation would make possible low interest rate loans for the construction of such facilities for members of the Negro race.

This legislation would complement and support the freedom of association constitutional amendment which I in­troduced several weeks ago. This con­stitutional amendment would preserve the right of freedom of association in private business, housing, and educa­tional institutions.

A Negro traveling some of the high­ways in America has difficulty in finding adequate accommodations for himself and his family. I believe it is uncon­stitutional to force private business to accept persons whom the property own­ers do not wish to accept or serve. These points were strongly presented in the recent hearings on the proposed pub­lic accommodations section of the civil rights legislation now before the Con­gress. .

This Voluntary Accommodations Act, which would assure adequate housing, motel, hotel, and eating accommodations for all people in the United States, would do away with the atmosphere of appre­hension or ill will now prevalent in many parts of the country. A Negro could have the assurance of a safe and sound night's sleep, arid there would be no need for the compulsive, and probably uncon­stitutional legislation introduced by ad­ministration leaders.

There is nothing new to my approach to help solve this pressing social prob-lem in America. . .

The first speech I made on the floor of the House of Representatives 15 years ago was in support of legislation to pro­vide funds for construction of schools on the basis of population in the schools attributable to Negroes and Indians. This bill, along with the one I have in­troduced today, has nothing to do with segregation or integration. It is long overdue.

There is great fear throughout the country that the administration's pro­posal for public accommodations would force many private businesses out of business. I believe the answer to the problem is this Voluntary AccomJ:!loda­tions Act. The bill follows:

H.R. 8881 A bill for voluntary accommodations, to as­

sure the provision of decent, safe, and sani­tary housing and adequate motel, hotel, and eating accommodations for all Ameri­cans Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of · the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Voluntary Accom­modations Act".

SEC. 2. The Congress hereby finds that in many areas of the United States additional decent, safe, and sanitary housing and more motel, hotel, and eating accommodations are needed that will be made available to Negroes, and, that they . are not being pro­vided either with or without the assistance of existing Federal housing or other pro­grams.

SEC. 3. In order to assure the provision of adequate housing and motel, hotel, and eating accommodations for all the people in the United States, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator ls authorized to make

and to enter into commitments to make loans for-

(1) the purchase or construction of dwell­ings to be owned and occupied by the bor­rowers as their homes;

(2) the repair, alteration, or improvement of dwellings owned or to be owned and oc­cupied by the borrowers;

(3) the construction or repair and reha­bilitation of multifamily housing projects and related facilities; and

( 4) the construction. or repair and re­habilitation of motel or hotel accommoda­tions and related facilities, and eating ac­commodations.

SEC. 4. Assistance provided under this Act shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) The Administrator shall find, before ma.king a loan, or a commitment to make a loan, that in the area in which the housing or accommodations are or are to be located more decent, safe, and sanitary housing, or more motel, hotel, and eating accommoda­tions, as the case may be, are needed to assure their availability to Negroes, and that the housing or accommodations cannot be provided with the assistance of any other Federal housing or other program,. or by any other reasonable method.

(b) The Administrator shall determine that the applicant for a loan is a satisfactory credit risk.

( c) In the case of an applicant for a loan pursuant to paragraph (3) or ( 4) of section 3 the applicant shall agree that it wm provide the type of housing or accommodation that is needed, and that during the time any part of the lCian remains unpaid the bor­rower will be regulated or restricted by the Administrator as to rents or sales, charges, capital structure, rate of return, and meth­ods of operation to such extent and in such manner as the Administrator determines will provide reasonable rentals and charges and amortization of the project or accommoda­tions.

(d) The amount of a loan made pursuant to-

( 1) Paragraph ( 1) of section 3 may not ex­ceed $10,000 or the value of the property in­cluding the land;

(2) Paragraph (2) of section 3 may not ex­ceed $5,000 or the sum of the estimated cost of repair and rehabilitation and the Admin­istrator's estimate of the value of the prop­erty (including the land) before repair and rehabilitation;

(3) Paragraph (3) or (4> of section 3, may not exceed $100,000 or the estimated value of the property (including the land and necesary site improvement) when con­struction is completed in the case of new construction, or, in the case of repair and rehab111tation, the estimated cost of repair and rehabilitation and the Administrator's estimate of the value of the property (in­cluding the land and necessary site improve­ment) before repair and rehab111tation.

( e) A loan shall be secured by a mortgage which shall provide for complete amortiza­tion by periodic payments within such term up to 40 years as may be prescribed by the Administrator, except that the term of a loan made under paragraph ( 4) of section 3 may not exceed 25 years.

( f) A loan shall bear interest at 3 per centum per annum on the amount of the principal obligation outstanding at any one time, except that the interest rate may be increased to not more than 6 per centum if, with the approval of the Administrator, an obligor other than the original borrower as­sumes the obligation of repayment of the loan or any outstanding balance of the loan.

(g) A loan shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Administrator to carry out the purposes of this Act, including agreement by the borrow­er that without the approval of the Adminis­trator (1) the property purchased, con­structed, or rehabilitated with assistance o;!

the loan will not be sold, and (2) no person other than the original mortgagor will assume payment of the mortgage given to secure the loan.

(h) The housing and accommodations as­sisted under paragraphs ( 3) and ( 4) of sec­tion will be made available to Negroes.

SEC. 5. There are authorized to be appro­priated such sums as may be necessary to constitute a revolving fund for use by the Administrator in carrying out this Act.

SEC. 6. The Administrator shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by con­tractors and subcontractors in the construc­tion, repair, or rehabilitation of housing and accommodations assisted under this Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing in the locality involved for the corresponding classes of laborers and me­chanics employed on construction of a simi­lar character, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (the Davis-Bacon Act); but the Administrator may waive the appli­cation of this section in cases or classes of cases where laborers or mechanics, not other­wise employed at any time in the construc­tion of such housing or accommodations, voluntarily donate their services without full compensation for the purpose of lowering the costs of construction and the Administrator determines that any amounts saved thereby are fully credited to the borrower undertak­ing the construction, repair, and rehabilita­tion.

SEC. 7. In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties vested in him by this Act the Administrator shall (in addition to any authority otherwise vested in him) have the administrative and fiscal functions, powers, and duties which are necessary or appropriate to en.able him to carry out this Act, as set forth in section 402 (except subsection (c) (2)) of the Housing Act of 1950. The Administrator may utilize the facilities and services of any other Fed­eral department or agency and may delegate the performance of any of his functions, ex­cept the making of regulations, to any officer or employee of any other Federal department or agency. Any such utilization or delega­tion shall be pursuant to proper agreement with the Federal department or agency con­cerned, and payment to cover the cost thereof shall be made either in advance or by way of reimbursement, as may be provided in the agreement.

SEC. 8. As used in this Act, the term "United States" includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States.

NAVY S~CRETARY FRED KORTH Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan­

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to

call the attention of the House to the following articles that are of some sig­nificance in the conflict-of-interest role of Navy Secretary Fred Korth. The articles are:

The story by Cecil Holland, of the Washington Star, appearing October 20, 1963, dealing with the.Korth correspond­ence on Navy Department stationery to promote the business of his bank. It also includes Korth's claim that he was not asked to resign.

The story by Max Frankel, of the New York Times, appearing October 20, 1963,

20000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22

dealing with the reports that Korth was forced to resign, It also dealt with Korth's use of the Navy yacht the Se­quoia, for the· entertainment of officials. of his bank and the extra good cus­tomers of Korth's Continental National Bank in Fort Worth. ·

The story by Clark Mollenhoff, of the Des Moines Register and Tribune and Minneapolis Star and Tribune, appear­ing October 20, 1963, dealing with the part a high General Dynamics official­Mr. Frank Pace-played in steering an insurance deal to Korth that netted Korth stock worth a quarter of a mil­lion dollars. The report states that Korth admitted he did not have to risk a penny of his own money to make this huge profit.

The article in the October 25, 1963, issue of Time magazine which states that Defense Secretary Robert McNamara advised President Kennedy to demand the resignation of Kort:h; that 'on Oc­tober 11, 1963, Korth had breakfast with McNamara and that same afternoon the Navy Secretary personally handed in his resignation at the White House. The White House made the resignation pub­lic on October 14, 1963, "but did not,'' said Time, "reveal that Korth had, in fact been fired."

Put the facts in those stories together with the McClellan Investigating Sub­committee record, and see what you have.

Korth approved a $400,000 loan for General Dynamics in the months just prior to becoming Navy Secretary. Al­though he resigned as president of the bank, he retained 160,000 shares of stock.

Now we see that Korth continued to steer clients to his bank, wrote letters on Navy stationery to promote the bank's business, and entertained the bank's ex­tra good customers on the Navy yacht Sequoia.

Now, we see that Korth had good reason to be grateful to many high of­ficials of General Dynamics, because of the deposits of from $100,000 to $500,000 that General Dynamics carried with the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth. We see that officials of the Con­tinental National Bank looked forward to a much improved business position if the General Dynamics firm won the TFX contract, and these officials were elated to have General Dynamics win the award.

In the face of all those facts, Fred Korth did not disqualify himself on the TFX contract. He took part and over­ruled the judgment of the top military officers and civilian technical experts who felt the contract should be to Boeing.

Korth should have been fired for not disqualifying himself in the TFX award. The more facts we learn, the more it becomes clear that there was a conflict of interest.

His TFX role was grounds for firing him. His activity in this insurance deal, in which he voted approval of the trans­actions with Ben Jack Cage should have been grounds for firing him.

Korth's corresponqence on Navy sta­tionery to promote his bank's business was grounds for firing him .

•

If the Justice Department did not clear Korth, then the Attorney General should state that this is so in a loud and clear voice, and let it be known that Korth was wrong and his pattern of ·activity will not be tolerated.

The pattern of coverup we have been treated to in the Korth affair does not stimulate the belief that there is a proper atmosphere to promote honest govern­ment.

First. The atomic carrier story was a phoney "cover story" to mislead the pub­lic on the reason for Korth's resignation.

Second. We were told that Korth's resignation had nothing to do with TFX. This was someone's cute and clever way of misleading the public into believing that the McClellan Investigating Sub­committee's work had nothing to do with Korth's resignation. Now it is becoming clear tbat the letters uncovered by the McClellan staff were at the bottom of the forced resignation. Even this is an effort to avoid admission that Korth's conflict of interest is involved, for that might contaminate the whole TFX con­tract and force reconsideration.

Third. Korth now says that no one asked him to resign. This is another bit of wording that is intended to mislead the press and the public into believing that top officials of the Kennedy admin­istration have absolved Korth of wrong­doing. I do not think he would be re­signing if the top officials were so con­vinced he was not at least indiscreet.

It is time for the administration to end this doubletalk and this coverup. It is time to quit shielding Korth and others involved in the mismanagement and the misdoings in the TFX warplane contract. It is time for the President to take a forthright stand for strong steps to clean up this TFX mess.

THE BUCKET ARGUMENT Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan­

from Iowa? imous consent to address the !-louse for 1 minute, to revise and extend my re­marks, and to include an editorial.

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

There was no objection. . Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House will recall that I did my ut­most during the recent debate on the foreign aid authorization bill to attach an amendment which . would limit our contributions to United Nations Assist­ant Agencies to not more than 33 % of the total budgets of those agencies. This is the same limitation now applicable by law to the Federal United Nations Budget and our contributions thereto.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the United Nations Special Fund now seeks a $28 million boost in its budget for 1964. This would be more than a third greater than the 1963 budget and we already contribute .j,Q percent of the United Nations Special Funds budget. It appears that while we are finally tightening up our foreign aid budget, we are losing our savings through the back door to the United Nations aid program. I urge the Members of the

House to read the following editorial from the Wall Street Journal.

THE BUCKET ARGUMENT

The United Nations Special Fund, an out­fit that provides technical assistance to un­derdeveloped nations, is seeking a $28 million boost in its budget for 1964.

In case anyone thinks this a bit steep­it would be up more th&.n a third from 1963-the Fund's managing director, Paul G. Hoff­man, implies that it's a drop in the bucket compared with the $120 billion U.N. members will spend on defense this year.

A number of questions can be raised about this whole Special Fund undertaking, or at least the heavy U.S. support of it. The United States, after all, runs an extremely expensive foreign aid program of its own. ·And some of the U .N. Special Fund money has gone to peculiar places like Communist Cuba.

Apart from all that, what interests us is this drop-in-the-bucket argument, which is getting so familiar in so many areas. We are constantly told, for example, that the outlay for books or concerts or whatever is only a drop in the bucket compared with national spending on liquor and cigarets, just as though there were some relevant connection.

Or that the Government foreign aid pro­gram is only a drop in the total budget. Or, for an intriguing variation, that the public debt, which is rapidly rising, is actu­ally getting smaller as a percentage of gross national product or something. Or, for a further variation, that a particular pork­barrel project costs hardiy anything-the first year, that is.

Somehow the bucket-arguers never seem to reflect on the obvious: That all those drops quickly became raging oceans of spend­ing and, in the cases of the United St~tes and the U.N., red ink.

CUBA The SPEAKER pro tempo re (Mr.

LIBONATI) . Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. BATTIN] is recognized fort hour.

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Speaker, today is an anniversary-the anniversary of the President's address to the Nation an­nouncing that there were indeed missile sites in Cuba. In this speech the Presi­dent announced his intention to impose a partial blockade-which he called a quarantine-to prevent the arrival of further offensive military equipment in Cuba.

Last Saturday, recalling the events of the crisis of October 1962, the President declared that the outcome of that crisis could not be considered either "a vic­tory in the usual military sense" or a de­f eat. He left the Nation in considerable doubt as to just what the outcome should be considered.

The results are indeed difficult to as­sess. If one does not limit himself to the events of the week of October 22, 1962, but looks at these events in the broader context of the events that pre­ceded and the events that followed the week of the missile crisis, one is in a better position to judge whether the So­viet Union or the United States obtained a net advantage. In this larger context, the Soviet Union has scored a victory by establishing in this hemisphere a sub­stantial military base, whether that base is at present equipped with missiles or not. Khrushchev has successfully defied the historic policy of the United States,

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20001 the Monroe Doctrine, by political and military intervention in this hemisphere. Khrushchev ·has done what Adolph Hit­ler was forbidden to do by Franklin D. Roosevelt-Khrushchev has done what no foreign power was permltted to do in the past 100 years.

The massive Soviet military buildup began in the summer of 1962. This fact has been admitted by the administration itself. In a statement of the Special Committee on Communist Subversion of the OAS-a committee which included the former American Ambassador to the Organization, Mr. deLesseps ·S. Morri­son, we read:

The military intervention of the Soviet Union in this hemisphere began to assume important proportions with the arrival in Cuba, in the middle of July 1962, of large shipments of Soviet war materials and mill­tary personnel. This fact introduced a new and dangerous element into the extra.conti­nental intervention, which until then had primarily consisted of political and economic penetration.

A formidable · military force exists in Cuba today, and as long as that force is there it is idle to deny that Khrushchev has scored a victory.

Let us look at the other aspects of the missile crisis. The President declared in his speech of October 22, 1962:

Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right--not peace at the ex­pense of freedom, but both peace and free­dom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.

It is quite obvious that we have not achieved the goal which the President laid down-freedom has not been brought to Cuba. Using the standard that the President himself laid down in his speech 1 year ago, again we are forced to con­clude that the outcome of the missile crisis was not victory for the United States.

Again in hts speech 1 year ago, the President called for "the prompt dis­mantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted." In his correspondence with Khrushchev the President insisted on some form of onslte inspection, but the quarantine was lifted without secur­ing the inspection which the President had told the world he was demanding. Thl.s retreat cannot be considered a vic­tory for the United States.

No one can be sure whether Soviet missiles remain in CUba. The Senate Preparedness Subcommittee has said:

Strategic weapons may or may not be now in Cuba. We can reach no conclusion on this because of the lack of conclusive evi­dence.

Ironclad. assurance of the complete ab­sence of Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba can come only as a result of thorough, pene­trating onsite inspection by reliable observ­ers. The current intelligence estimate that they are not present is based largely on the negative evidence that there is no affirmative proof to the contrary. This, of course, was pFecisely the status of the matter prior to last October 14.

There is no doubt that there are literally thousands of caves and caverns in Cuba and that it 1a feasible to use many of these .for the storage and concealment of strategic _missiles and other otrensive weapons. It

ls also true that military activity has been observed 1n connection with these caves.

The basis that is usually given f_or the claim that the United . States scored a victory is the withdrawal of Soviet mis­siles but we are not sure that they are all withdrawn or that others have not been introduced since last -October. Aerial surveillance of the island is clearly not enough to tell us that there are no missiles in CUba.

The Soviet Union insists that it re­ceived from the administration a prom­ise that this country would not invade Cuba nor would it permit an invasion from other Latin American countries. Administration officials have indicated that they do not concur in this conclu­sion but in the published correspond­ence between the President and Khru­shchev there is no statement by President Kennedy that Khrushchev's interPreta­tion of their understanding is wrong, A large part of public opinion of the world believes that the · United States made the commitment that Khrushchev main­tains was made. President Kennedy has not effectively dispelled the doubt that exists on this point. This is at least a propaganda victory for the Soviet Union.

Early in 1963 the United States with­drew its missiles from Turkey and Italy, giving credence to the belief that Khru­shchev had forced this concession from President Kennedy. A responsible semi­official French military publication has flatly charged that the withdrawal of these missiles was part of a bargain struck by the President of the United States and the leader of the U.S.S.R. Here again was a victory for the Soviet Union.

The Federal Government cracked down on raids against Cuba and against shipping destined for Cuba by exiles. This was an action which Fidel Castro had listed as one of his five demands on the United States on October 28, 1962.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. ~ro Cardona, leader of the Cuban Revolutionary Council, broke with the Kennedy admin­istration alleging that the administra­tion had been guilty of bad faith-that it had promised United States support of another invasion of CUba and had gone back on its word.

Castro continues a campaign of ter­rorism and subversion from · one end of Latin America to the other. He invades British islands 30 miles from Florida with impunity to kidnap CUban exiles, in spite of the repeated promises of Presi­dent Kennedy that Cuba would not be permitted to export its revolution.

In January of this year the Commit­tee on Security of the OAS declared "it is no exaggeration to say that Cuba has now been converted into a Soviet mili­tary camp." The Committee further said that "the Cuban regime has begun a new phase of promoting and encourag­ing violent subversion in other countries of the hemisphere." This statement ·was signed by the American Ambassador to the OAS, the representative of Presi­dent Kennedy.

As I survey the panorama of events at the time of the missile crisis and after, I cannot see victory of any kind for the _United States. The administration

backed down from its. announced objec­tive. Castro is still on the loose throughout Latin America. Soviet power remains strongly entrenched in Cuba. This is not victory as Americans have understood the word. · Yes, as we stood eyeball to eyeball the Soviets did blink but at that moment they saw a great weakness. We forced Russia to take one step backward and then allowed her to take three forward. In fact we still have not blinked but rather seem to be in a fixed position as if in a trance. We won the battle of the day but we are losing the war that has followed. Our friends in all of Latin America are being subverted by commu­nism and as a result they are forced to suspect the good intentions of the United States. We stand unblinking to be sure, fixed and sinking in the sea of executive confusion on what our hopes are for the achievements of the people of Central and South America.

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

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

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman on his statement marking the anniversary of the President's Cuban statement.

THE WORLD TODAY

Mr. Speaker, just 1 year ago this coun­try was in the midst of the Cuban mis­sile crisis. The mood of the country was one of determination, anxiety, re­solve, and outrage. We were determined and resolved to get those Russian mis­siles and troops out of Cuba. We were anxious about the consequences of our actions but we went ahead because we had to. We were outraged at the deceit and duplicity of the Russians who had time and again assured us that only de­fensive weapons had gone into Cuba.

Today, just 1 year later, we have al­ready signed and ratified a test ban treaty; we are ready to sell wheat to Russia and some of her satellites; and our President has invited the Soviets to join us in a cooperative moon venture. In selling wheat to the Russians at a subsidized price-U.S. taxpayers con­tribute 60 cents a bushel-momentarily we help our farm surplus problem. This sale undeniably strengthens the Com­munists where they are weak. We evi­dently have waited 17 years for a weak spot in order to dash in to fill it by cash sales. We seem to overlook the addi­tional bargaining position our agricul­tural abundance could secure for free­dom and peace in our world today.

It is particularly necessary to take stock of the world situation because our attitudes of 1 year ago have changed so drastically. What, for example, ha.s happened in the intervening 12 months that has convinced us of a new sincerity on the part of the Communists?

In CUba, Russian military weapons and troops still remain. Castro con­tinues to carry on a highly stepped-up infiltration campaign into the Latin American countries. In British Guiana, Cheddi Jagan is an avowed Marxist­Leninist. In Venezuela and · Brazil, Communist activity is assuming alarm­ing proportions. In all of Latin America,

20002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE October 22

Castro-trained arid Russian-financed agitators are stirring up trouble.

In southeast Asia, the Communists continue their relentless drive to take over that entire area. Every day in Laos, they violate the Geneva agree­ments. Over half of the most strategic part of that country is under the firm control of the Communist Pathet Lao.

In South Vietnam, the prospects of a free world victory are still very remote because the Communist Vietcong can re­treat to the privileged sanctuary of Com­munist North Vietnam with impunity. Russian weapons are being used every day against O\lr American troops.

In Europe, the Berlin wall still stands, a monument to the true character of international communism. In the Mid­dle East, in Asia, in Africa, the Commu­nist grand design continues to be carried out relentlessly. These are some of the problems that were with us last October and still remain.

Mr. Speaker, there are other, very far­reaching problems that we must also consider regarding fr~· world policies and the effect some of our recent pro­posals will have on them. The NATO alliance, for example, must be strength­ened, not weakened. Yet, the more we convince ourselves that true cooperation is possible with the Communists, the less we will believe in the need for greater deterrent strength. If we are right in believing in the Communists' new found sincerity, then nothing is lost. If we are wrong, however, everything could be lost. This in itself is ample reason to go slow in pursuing · a policy of all-out cooperation with the Communists. We should at least demand some concrete demonstrations on the part of the Com­munists such as the dismantling of the Berlin wall or the removal of troops and weapons from Cuba before we continue to collaborate with them in other areas.

More than at any other time in the cold war, this particular period of apparent eased tensions is the time to proceed cau­tiously and slowly lest we do in haste what we will one day regret more bit­terly than anything else we have done thus far.

I "thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. BATTIN. · I thank the gentleman

from Wisconsin for his contribution. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, will the

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

man from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, the Ken­

nedy administration has been pursuing a policy of coexistence with Cuba through accommodations since the missiles were supposedly removed last year. I think on the occasion of this anniversary, which is not one of which the American people can be proud as it relates to what has happened since then, it would be well to review for a few moments just exactly how many accommodations have been made to Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba, and the extent to which accommodations have been sought and have been ac-quiesced in by this country. ·

Mr. Speake!'.', this year of in4ecision, vacillation and accommodation leads me to the conclusion that the New Frontier lacks both the will and the determination

necessary to win the cold war struggle against communism in this hemisphere. Events following the crisis started with the scrapping of the Monroe Doctrine. As the "gentleman from Montana [Mr. BATTIN] mentioned, failure to insist upon, at a time when we had the position of strength from which we cou\d have been successful, onsite inspection followed by other events, have substantiated my worst fears. The Soviet missiles were withdrawn, if they were withdrawn, at the expense, apparently from the devel­opment subsequently, of de facto recog­nition of Castro's island as a permanent Communist foothold in the Western Hemisphere.

That hands off Cuba was the quid pro quo Khrushchev demanded for with­drawing his missiles is evidenced by the New Frontier actions since the crisis.

Ever since the missile crisis, this ad­ministration has used every force at its command to restrain CUban exiles from winning back their freed om. They have halted exile raids, seized their weapons, disbanded effective anti-Communist exile groups, and arrested men who were bent on destroying Cuba's economy by :flood­ing it with bogus Cuban money, and just the day before yesterday, according to press reports, some 22 exiles were stopped in three boats from going to Cuba in attempting to win back their freedom.

I would like to call attention to the fact that on October 28 at the very time this missile crisis was at its height, Fidel Castro made five demands on the United States. One of those was that all exile raids from the United States and Puerto Rico be stopped. That demand is being met.

The New Frontier has stood idly by while fleeing Cubans have been captured by Castro's warships, and it has with­drawn support of anti-Communist Cuban espionage agents in Latin America and in Cuba. The New Frontier has refused to take effective steps to halt the flow of free world ships carrying goods, includ­ing strategic materials, to Cuba, has re­fused to close the Panama Canal to ships carrying such goods to Cuba, and has violated the laws and clear intent of Con­gress in failing to ,;i.dvise Congress why it continues to send U.S. foreign aid money to nations trading with Cuba.

Of course, the House of Representa­tives does not have ~ much better record in that they did not vote favorably on the amendment offered first by the gen­tleman from Montana and secondly the amendment by myself that would have mandatorily cut off such aid which could have been brought about by my amend­ment to the foreign aid bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speak­er, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BATTIN. I yield to the gentle­man from Florida.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I would like to point out to the gentleman, if he will recall, that the Battin amendment actu­ally had in it a waiver clause. I under­stand that is what the gentleman is re­f erring to. As I recall, the gentleman spoke in favor of that amendment which had the waiver provision in it, and then voted for the provision. Later on the gentieman presented · an amendment

which the House did not accept. I want to keep the record straight.

Mr. CRAMER. I will be delighted to straighten the record out.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think the record is straight if the gentleman will refer to it.

Mr. CRAMER. I proposed on the House floor and was in support of an even stronger amendment with no dis­cretion left in the President, as the gentleman knows, requiring the with­holding of funds, foreign aid funds, to any natim;i. that did business with Fidel Castro. The gentleman knows that has been my position from the outset. · The gentleman from Florida along with the other gentleman from Florida [Mr. FAs­CELL], having been the ones who pro­posed the Democratic version, which was a watered down, Milquetoast version, which left in the President the same dis­cretion he has had, in effect, and which has resulted in the very thing the gentle­man has day after day taken the floor of the House and complained about, and rightly so. That is that over 50 percent of the ship bottoms carrying goods to Cuba still are free nation bottoms and there is no intention, will or desire on the part of the New Frontier to stop it so long as it retains discretion under the law to permit such shipping, The only way it could have been stopped was to adopt the Cramer amendment which would have made it mandatory that all such funds be withheld. I think it is un­fortunate, and particularly that the gentleman from Florida, who has day after day taken the floor and complained about free world shipping continuing to go to Cuba, did not see flt to support my amendment which would have done the job.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The gentle­man from Florida [Mr. CRAMER] states he offered amendment to a watered­-down version of the Fascell-Rogers amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. That is precisely cor­rect.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Which ac­tually had no waiver provision in it, and if the gentleman from Florida w111 re­call he did not offer his amendment to the Battin amendment which he sup­ported and which had a specific provi­sion for waiver in it.

Mr. CRAMER. The record is very clear, I will say to the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Exactly. Mr. BATTIN. I would say to the gen­

tleman that I offered a substitute for the Fascell amendment, which dealt only with shipping. My amendment provided for both shipping and aircraft, and it provided that a waiver was not available to the President except for humanitarian reasons and emergencies at sea. It was voted down.

Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman knows full well that the amendment he and Mr. FASCELL offered did not cure the pres­ently existing discretion to waive which was left in the law by the Fascell-Rogers amendment . any time the President wanted to permit friendly nations to continue to ship to Cuba and still get our aid. It was the purpose · of my amendment to remove· the waiver provi-

1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20003 sions _making it mandatory to withhold aid to nations trading with CUba. The gentleman knows full well that is what the amendment would have done. If the gentleman had voted for it it would have passed, because it ended up a tie, 162 to 162, with the chairman having to vote against it. ·

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. There is a general waiver provision in the foreign aid bill. The President could waive the provisions of the law only when it was in the interest of the national security of the United States. The House in its wisdom felt it was wise for the President to have this opportunity to waive it whenever the security of the United States was involved. For instance, if Nicaragua or some country were allow­ing its ships or its planes to carry goods to the exiles in Cuba who were trying to fight the Castro regime, the :President could waive this provision and say that those countries could still be allowed aid if it was in the interest of the national security of the United States.

Mr. CRAMER. Those are the very ac­tions the President is cutting off today by not even permitting the exiles from this country ·to try to win back the freedom of their country while at the same time he is permitting friendly nations to re­ceive aid and still trade with Cuba.

I say to the gentleman that the Presi­dent is permitting these goods to con­tinue to go to Cuba in free-world bot­toms. The only way to stop it, and the gentleman knows the only way to stop it, would be to adopt the Cramer amend­ment, with no discretion to permit those goods to continue to go to Cuba. Any country desiring to aid the exiles outside the United States would not be affected by my amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Since the last statement of the gentleman is not so, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BATTIN. I will say to the gentle­man from Florida that I would like the other gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER] to finish. I have other requests for time.

Mr. CRAMER. Further, with regard to the New Frontier attitude toward Cuba in the last year, it allows CUban planes-and I think it is well to review this record at this ·time-it allows CUban planes to overfly the United States on a Canada-Havana route, so long as they stop for inspection. It allows Castro to select the exiles that came to America on the returning ransom ships-50 per­cent of them having been selected by Fidel Castro himself. And, it turned around and ran instead of pursuing those Cuban airplanes that took pot.: shots at American fishing vessels. This is the record.

It has entered into a wheat deal with Russia, the final results of which will most probably see American wheat in some form ending up in CUba.

It has failed miserably to come up with any plan to rid communism from Cuba and from this hemisphere and, thus~ put vitality into the Monroe Doc-trine.

One year after the so:-called missile crisis, Castro is in a stronger position

than before the crisis. This adminis­tration has acceded to Castro's demand_ that we hold back Cuban exiles working for his overthrow and this gives the Communists a permanent military es­tablishment 90 miles from our shores in a hemisphere formerly free from com­munism. To add insult to injury, we have acceded to some of Castro's de­mands without even getting on-site inspection. ·

Subsequent to the missile crisis, the United States withdrew its missiles from Italy and Turkey and has reduced the number of long-range nuclear bombers in Europe. In the· light of these and· other circumstances, I must look upon the anniversary of the missile crisis as a day of mourning over our continuing failure to oust Castro, and sincerely be­lieve the President should, instead of issuing gold engraved calendars to com­memorate this armed foothold for com­munism in this hemisphere, issue black arm bands to remind us of our failures and of the demise of the Monroe Doctrine.

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER] may extend his remarks at this point.

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

There was no objection. Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Speaker, Commu­

nist domination and occupation of Cuba today remain as serious a problem to the security and freedom of the United States and other Western Hemisphere govern­ments as 1 year ago.

The presence of Soviet military forces and/or technicians in Cuba, growing op­erations of Russian fishing trawlers and other vessels between North Atlantic flshfog banks and Cuba, and the instabil­ity of many Latin American governments point up the problem which just has not gone away with last year's confrontation with the Soviet Government over Rus-sian offensive missiles. ·

On this anniversary date it is impor­tant that the administration, the Con­gress, and the American people be re­minded that the problem which we faced so determinedly a year ago remains the same-only the tension is lessened.

The Soviets are in Cuba primarily for the purpose of increasing and spreading communism's influence and power in Latin America and they are exploiting their foothold to the greatest extent pos­sible.

Earlier this year, we were reminded in an interim report issued by the Pre­paredness Investigating Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services in the U.S. Senate:

The paramount danger • • • is that the nations of this hemisphere may be subvert­ed one by one and be exploited, in turn, for subversive and revolutionary activities. By this process of eros.ion our neighbors to the South may fall nation by nation until the entire hemisphere ls lost and the Commu­nist goal of isolating the United States has been attained.

Mr. Speaker, since the ill-fated Bay .of Pigs invasion in 1961,. six ,Latin Ameri­can governments have fallen·. Others are in danger of falling. This instabi~ity

within these Latin American govern­ments provides great opportunities for infiltration by Castroites and the even­tual achievement. of Communist objec­tives.

The people of the Western Hemisphere look to the United States to provide the leadership in the development of a policy and program which will soon lead to the removal of Soviet military forces and the elimination of the Communist regime in Cuba.

It is essential that neither the admin­istration nor the Congress forget the Cu­ban people who have been promised time and again that the flag of freedom will again fly on that oppressed island. The entire Cuban problem should be given the highest possible priority by the U.S. Government to the end that the evil threat which hangs over this hemisphere will be eliminated at an early date.

Mr. BATI'IN. Mr. ·Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MAcGR~OR]:

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, let me quote the following:

The cost of freedom is always high-but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose is the path of surrender or submission.

These are fine words expressing a noble concept. They come not from any one of the so-called .extremist groups of the country, but rather from President Kennedy in his remarks of a year ago to­day on the CUba crisis. . Mr. Kennedy also in that notable ad­

dress of October 22, 1962, called our at­tention to what he called the clear les­son of the 1930's. He said aggressive conduct, if allowed to grow unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. I want to suggest that this is the same lesson taught us not only in the 1930's, but throughout the 1940's, 1950's, and right down to the present moment in history. It is a lesson which we as Amer­icans have been all too slow to learn, and there is considerable doubt as to wheth­er we have yet learned it.

One of the questions, for example, that all Americans might ask now is whether our current situation with relation to Cuba amounts to the kind of submission President Kennedy spoke of a year ago today. We should recall that in 1961 Mr. Kennedy assured us that we would not tolerate communism in Cuba for long,

Now, in 1963, are· we being asked to tolerate communism in Cuba after all? And are we being asked to believe that we have won a notable victory in the re­ported dep.artnre of Russian missiles and military personnel from Cuba?

I believe it is incumbent on all of us to recall that we have never received full assurance that the Russian military presence in Cuba does not continue. In fact, when Mr. Sterling Cottrell, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America testified on August 13 to a House Appropriations Subcommit­tee, he said the Russians in CUba were only "thinning out" and that they are giving extensive training' to Cubans in the use of military equipment such as surface-to-air missiles and Mig-2l's. And we also need to reqiind ourselves of

20004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22 .

the export of subversives and subversi'ye equipment from CUba to other Lati~ American countrfes where the c~ula­tive effects of Communist' subversion are becoming more serious·every day.

And even if we were to assume that we have reverted to the conditions existing in the summer of 1962, is this a victory? Has the Kennedy administration man­aged already to make Americans believe that a Communist Cuba is a satisfactory situation after the assurances given us only 2 years ago? .

In Latin America today the essential ingredient for long-term progress is eco­nomic and social stability. It is U.S. policy, or nonpolicy, which is one of t~e major contributors to the lack of stabil­ity It is the paralysis of will which so~ehow has deprived us of the ability to take action where needed in defense of freedom. It is the administration's obvious lack of intent to support its articulate words which gives us the bi~­gest problem in the world today. It. 1s not military takeovers which we need to fear the most. We need to avoid con­tinued instability of the kind which fos­ters other Cubas. We need to support stability not only in eloquent praise of idealisti~ goals, but in solid action which will give notice to Latin America that we intend to support what we used to call the "legitimate aspirations" of free peo­ple everywhere for peace, progress, and freedom. .

The lesson of the 1930's and also the lesson of October 22, 1962, is that when we take the proper kind of action, and not just talk about action, our allies will support us. The Organization of Ameri­can states was only lukewarm in sup­port of U.S. speeches about Castro and communism. After the action of a year ago today the OAS backed us strongly and unanimously, and indicated sup-port for us. We also had the support of our NATO allies. When we choose again to lead we will again be leaders.

Our failure in the past 2 ½ years has been that we have chosen not to lead. We have chosen not to learn the lesson of the 1930's. When we begin to show leadership, when we begin to match words with deeds, then and only then will we give meaning to that noble Ken­nedy thought of a year ago today-"The cost of freedom is high."

Mr. BATTIN. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his contribution. It. is interesting to note, that on this, the anniversary date of the :firm action of the President, other nations in the world are celebrating it too. I have in my hand a UPI release of this date where it is stated:

An American-owned freighter was strafed for over an hour off the Cuban coast but there were no casualties, it was reported today. · .

A spokesman for Universe Tank Ships,. Inc., of New York, said it received a radio­gram from Captain Krause of the freighter J. Louis saying planes had made 16 passes over the vessel in the course of 61 minutes. Krause reported damage to the superstruc­ture and the hull above the waterline and a fire that took 2 hours to bring under control.

The J. Louis is chartered to the Caribbean Steamship Co. and files the Liberian flag~ It was en route from Oclro Rios, Jamaica, to

Corpus Christi, Tex., ·witli 31,500 tons of 'bauxite for the Reynolds Metal Co~

According to Krause, the attac}t took place 12 miles off Cape Corriente, Cuba, at 12:40 a.m. e.d.t. and lasted until 1 :41 a.m.

Here is another UPI story adding to this:

In Washington, offlci:3-ls later said U.S. :milltary aircraft were sent out from Key West, Fla., to investigate but when they reached the scene the offending aircraft. had disappeared.

The Coast Guard also repo;rted getting a radio message from the freighter.

The ship, built in 1961, is listed by Lloyd's Registry as a 20,253-ton vessel.

Maybe that is the anniversary present we,are receiving from Castro.

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

Mr. BATTIN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DEVINE. I think it is also mean­ingful that the Washington Daily News carried a headline today to the effect that Castro asked the United States to lift its embargo on Cuba.

I would like to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. BA~­TINJ, ·in pointinc- out again to the Ameri­can people that 1 year ago today, October 22 the President took to the airways and pointed out that the administration had "suddenly" discovered the presence of what they then described as off ensi'~e missiles on the island of Cuba. Now it appears that the administration, because of the policy they have followed duri~ the past year, is embarrassed about this situation and would like very much to sweep it under the rug.

·The gentleman from Montana is ren­dering a great service to this country in pointing out the history of the past year. He is also chairman of the Republican task force for investigating subversive matters in the Western Hemisphere. I would like to ask the gentleman from Montana if in his capacity as chairman he has been . able to determine either an investigation was made or information is available from the administration as to whether or not any inspection of any nature has been conducted to determine if in fact all of the missiles have been removed from the island of Cuba.

Mr. BATI'IN. I would have to say to the gentleman that we have no such in­formation from the administration or any of the executive agencies, but we have had reports from clandestine sources in CUba and from people who have recently found their way out of Cuba into this country, that there still are, in fact, missiles in the country and in caves. Whether they are ready for use at this moment or not is doubtful. The fact that they are there, just as they were 1 year ago today, and could be used, is the thing that is most frightening to me.

Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman would agree with me that when the President, a year ago this eve­ning, went before nationwide television and made this revelation to the Amer­ican people, the American people stood by the position he took at that time 100 percent. However, would not the gentle­man agree that there has appeared to be a backing off, that our situation today

does not appear to be any better in the island of Cuba; that Castro is still there, that the Russian troops are still there and in all probability many of the mis­siles are still there?

Mr. BATTIN. I would say to the gen­tleman that we have witnessed perhaps the greatest job of public relations that has ever been unleashed on the Ameri­can people. We have gone from the Bay of Pigs :fiasco to the Russian offensive · missiles buildup in Cuba to successful subversion in Latin America. What is a very blighted part of our history is now being made by the public relations ex­perts into a. victory for the Kennedy ~d­ministration. Personnally I am not will­ing to buy what they are trying to sell and that is why I am on the :floor of the House of Representatives today.

Mr. DEVINE. Of course, some news­papers have suggested that the timing of this, which was just 2 weeks before the congressional elections in 1962 may have had something to do with this revelation. So maybe there is hope that preceding the next congressional election next year, some other affirmative action may be taken by the administration that will give the American _people some. hope ~f removing commumsm from this hemi­sphere.

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr: Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ·BATTIN. I yield to the gentle­man from Florida. · Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the gentleman's com­ment with regard to an anniversary present. This is reminiscent to me of the fact that Mr. Gromyko was the very man who was telling the President of the United States a year ago just a day or so before this anniversary date that there were no missiles in Cuba. This same man who should be persona non grata in the United States, after lying in his teeth to the President of the United States and to the American peo­ple is the same man who comes back to thi; country a year later and sits in the White House and is welcomed with open arms, making all sorts of so-called com­mitments on behalf of the Russian peo­ple. I think it is interesting to note that we also had a little present there, too; at the very time the wheat deal was set­tled and he was there talking to the Pre~ident about it at the White House. at that very time they were holding up our troops and our goods in the corridor going to Berlin, contrary to their spe­cific agreements previously entered into.

It raises a question in my mind, when can you believe . the Russians? When do they mean what they say? And why do we welcome Mr. Gromyko, who lied in his teeth just a year ago. and then permitted this corridor incident to occur right after the wheat deal was entered into? I ask the gentleman: Does he not agree with me on that matter?

Mr. BATTIN. I certainly do. And if the gentleman is ·asking me at what point lam willing to trust them I would have to say that point is not in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, I see on the front page of the afternoon papers that Castro

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20005 is asking the United States to lift the embargo. It seems that every time somebody asks us to · do something, whether it is in our best interests or not, we respond. ·

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

Mr. BATTIN. I yield. Mr. CRAMER. Is not that demand

being made today a repeat of the de­mand made on October 28 of last year, one of the five demands made by Castro, including keeping exiles from attacking Cuba from the United States and Puerto Rico?

Second, our withdrawal from Guan-tanamo. ·

Third, the very demand he is mak­ing here today, that we stop the eco­nomic quarantine or embargo to the extent to which it is effective at the present time.

Mr. BATTIN. The gentleman is cor­rect.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to ask the gentleman further with respect to this strafing incident, what happened to the policy, or I thought was the supposed policy, of the United States if it happe~ed again-in that it took over an hour for our planes to arrive after the shooting started-that we were going to use the hot-pursuit approach as suggested by the gentleman from the other body? If we had made it known that we were going to use hot pursuit, that we were not going to ·1et this happen again, then it is possible that this additional incident would not have occurred and it is pos­sible that additional American lives and additional ships would not be jeopard­ized by Castro's armed raids at the pres­ent time.

Does not the gentleman think we should let Castro know we are not go­ing to put .UP with the firing by the Com­munist armed forces upon U.S. ships, personnel, and our allies?

Mr. BATTIN . . I would say to the gen­tleman that his position is certainly that of mine. We misunderstood the mean­ing of the doctrine of hot pursuit. The way it has been applied, it means the harassment and pursuit of the Cuban exiles currently based in this country who are trying to win their island back. That is the hot pursuit they ref er to, to get the Cubans back on · the shores of the United States and keep them away from Cuba. ·

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will yield further, that is the only hot pursuit we have had thus far, is it not?

Mr. BATTIN. Yes; I would say so. We do find evidence, and I have • the photographs as to what happened in the Bahamas, where Castro's forces using patrol boats and helicopters prevented Cubans from leaving the control of Castro.

That is the type of incident we allow to happen, and I have no doubt that· our neighbors in South and Central America wonder what the United States would do if we were confronted with· more aggression within the hemisphere in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. · Mr. · CRAMER. Yes; letting Castro,

in effect, invade British ... owned property. Great Brj.ta,in is one of our allies. Letting

•

him invade those islands in order to get refugees and return them to the :fl.ring squad in Cuba, and we do not even enter a protest. We let Great Britain do it.

Mr. BATTIN. Not even the doctrine of humanitarianism that we have fol­lowed on the high seas for years was followed in this instance.

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

Mr. BATTIN. I yield to the gentle­man from Nebraska.

Mr. BEERMANN. I thank the gentle­man for yielding.

Pursuing this afternoon's story about Castro asking the United States to lift the embargo, he makes his pitch on the basis that hurricane Flora created so much devastation that the United States ought to lift its economic embargo against Cuba.

It seems to me like this might be a lesson in timing. I understand that President Kennedy is having some prob­lems in delivering the wheat to Russia in U.S. bottoms, because the freight rate might be $22 to $23 a ton and foreign ships will transport it for $12 or $13 a ton. The President is having trouble in delivering the wheat based upon the sales which have been made thus far because there are not enough ships to go around.

Perhaps, the time is just right so that if the United States lifts the embargo on Cuba and we insist ·' upon shipping wheat in U.S. bottoms, the freight rate will be much less to Cuba or possibly about the same from the U.S. ports to Cuba as it is from Canada to Cuba or from New Zealand, Australia, or else­where to Russia and back to Cuba.

So, maybe, the timing is just right to ship U.S. wheat at the world price, sub­sidized by the American taxpayers, in American bottom ships so that Khru­shchev can meet his commitments to Dic­tator Castro.

This is just an observation that I make based upon looking at the news today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Montana [Mr. BATTIN] for helping the United States celebrate this anniversary.

Mr. BATTIN. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska.

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

Mr. BATTIN. I yield to the gentle­man from Maryland.

Mr. MORTON. I thank the gentle­man from Montana very much for yield­ing.

I would like to ask a question concern­ing the American property that was con­fiscated at the time of the establishment of the Castro regime in Cuba. Has there been any. discussion or negotiations with either the Cuban Government or the Russian Government in an effort to get this property back?

Mr. BATTIN. I will have to say to the gentleman from Maryland there has not been any and up until recently our own Government would not even admit they were negotiating with the Russian Gov­ernment on the sale of wheat. No nego­tiations have taken place and there has been no public information that I know of that would indicate such a subject has ever been discussed. . .

Mr. MORTON. I have heard it said . in very high places that more American property was confiscated by the Castro regime than in all other wars or any other acts by other foreign governments. Is that correct?

Mr. BATTIN. I do not have the fig­ures, but I may say to the gentleman I have been .informed of the same circum­stances and realizing the investment we had in the private sector in. Cuba, as well as the friendship of the Cuban people, we not only lost materially from the tEtke over by Castro, but we have lost considerably the friendship of the people of that ·country.

Mr. MORTON. I thank the gentleman very much. I want to go on record as saying that the fact that Americans have lost literally millions of dollars worth of property as the result of revolutionary action and that our Government has not done anything as far as I can see to re­cover that property in value or in kind leaves me with some loss of faith as to our policy and our willingness to defend American property throughout the world.

Mr. BATTIN. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentelman from Montana [Mr. BAT­TIN] in calling attention to the first an­niversary of an infamous episode in American history.

One year ago President Kennedy chal­lenged aggression by Soviet Russia in Cuba. The entire Nation supported the brave words of the President little know­ing that the bravery was all in the words and that within a few short days our position would be reversed.

There has · never been satisfactory proof that Russian missiles were removed from Cuba. Thousands of Soviet troops are still there in defiance of our demands that they be removed. Adding to our shame, yesterday, on the eve of the first anniversary of the Cuban crisis, newspa­pers around the world carried the story of how American custom agents seized the boat and the equipment of freedom :fighters seeking to return to Cuba to :fight communism.

Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Ken­nedy administration have proven inef­fective against communism everywhere in the world and especially in' Cuba and Latin America. Is it not time we adopt ·a policy of victory over communism in­stead of accommodation or more rightly, appeasement?

A SALUTE TO THE AREA REDEVEL­OPMENT ADMINISTRATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle­man from South Carolina [Mr. HEMP­HILL] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. HEMPIDLL. Mr. Speaker, . at a time when so many seem to have so much pleasure in criticizing, I rise to do the rather unusual; that is, to pay tribute to a Department of the Government of the United States which in its effort to carry out the legislative mandates of the Congress of the United States has done so much for the economy of the congres­sional district which I am privileged to represent. So I come here today to·salute

20006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22 . the Area Redevelopment Admirustra­tion-because of a recent and gratifying· recapitulation of the number of jobs, the resulting :flourishing of the economy, the production and the other incidental benefits which we have received from the various programs, the various proj­ects which my district has had the privi­lege of having instituted under the area redevelopment program.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, it has been only 2 years since this particular agency of the Government was created. I recall that my particular vote at the. time iil favor of it was highly criticized . . I_ re­call also that I knew at the time, and my feelings have been justified, that we could use this particular program to con­tinue the promotion, the profit and the protection of the private enterprise sys­tem of which the American people can justly be proud, and my district has bene­fited greatly, and continues to do so.

This agency has performed every task given to it by the Congress of the United · States with efficiency, courage, and cour­tesy. I salute it.

We who are in the Congress have daily contact with many of the agen­cies and departments of the U.S. Gov­ernment. These contacts are necessary in order to present to the agencies pros­pectives on the problems arising in the various congressional districts. Most of the agencies my office has contacted in the 7 years I have been in · Congress have been most helpful, courteous, and I, for one, have seen very little of the bureaucracy and redtape that many want to be critical of.

The Area Redevelopment Administra­tion, which was created by the Area Re­development Act of 1961, has, in my dis­trict, and I am sure in hundreds of other congressional districts, performed mag­ni:flciently in producing the employment and the jobs visualized by the President in asking that the Congress pass such an act. It is by far the most productive piece of legislation the Congress has passed under this administration, and has meant more to the economy of our State than any legislation passed during my tenure here of 7 years.

Not only has this administration per­formed nobly on its own; it has co­ordinated with the _Community Facilitie& Administration, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Small Business Ad­ministration, and others, to strengthen the economy of this Nation.

Let me begin by paying tribute to the Administrator here in Washington and his able staff. On many occasions I have telephoned or asked for a personal audi­ence to discuss problems in my district. In every instance I was received with courtesy, efficiency, and in a climate of helpfulness. Certainly this is the kind of public service we all desire in the various agencies of our Government­Federal, State, or otherwise. The staff here in Washington is not only courteous and efficient but will use extra effort to help solve the local problem.

Most of my dealings has been with the regional office in Atlanta. The pub­lic servants I have dealt with in that office are as efficient as· any business­man I have ever contacted in my 25

years of practicing law·or serving in·var- · ious positions with county, state, and Federal governments. I know of not one instance in .which I could have any­thing but the highest praise for their response to our inquiry and our prob­lems. I will not name any of them by name-suffice it to say that they have done the job they are supposed to do, and in the manner _ they are supposed to, and the results have .been beneficial to thousands of people in the Fifth Con­gressional District of South Carolina. But let me give you the real facts and figures that show their help.

When the Area Redevelopment Act was first passed, I asked for conferences with the officials here in Washington be­cause I recognized quickly the potenti­ality of the new organization. We had a conference in my office in which various representatives quickly assured me of their ambition to be of help and fol­lowed up with their magnificent effort. At that time I only represented seven counties in the Fifth South Carolina Congressional District, and four of those counties were classified as depressed area counties because of statistical un­employment rate, as compiled by the Employment Security Commission of South Carolina and certified by the De­partment of Labor of the United States. Today, I represent eight counties and five of the eight have been classified as depressed area c'ounties. We needed jobs badly and as soon as we applied to the Area. Redevelopment Administration for help we received help.

We initiated the program in my dis­trict by a meeting in Chesterfield, s.c., on August 12, 1961. Gathered at that meeting were representatives of various counties involved, four in my district and four in the district of my distinguished colleague, Congressman JOHN L. McMIL­LAN. Mr. Wayne Shields was kind enough to come and give us his advices on how to proceed with applications. His discussions were good and we have all since benefited from that meeting and from what followed.

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

Chesterfield · County, S.C., had the highest unemployment rate in 1961 of any of the counties in the Fifth Congres­sional District. I would like to quote here the facts which caused me to know that the Area Redevelopment Act offered us great opportunity to increase employ­ment. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission, South Carolina State Employment Service affiliated with the U.S. Employment Service:

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

POPULATION AND LABOR FORCE

The number of inhabitants of Chesterfield County increased less than 1 percent from 1940 to 1950 but declined 7 percent from 1950 to 1960. The white population increased 3 percent. From 1950 to 1960 the white popu­lation declined 4 percent and the nonwhite 12 percent.

The total labor force increased 4 percent from 1940 to 1950. Estimates for 1960 indi­cate that a slight decline has occurred in the past decade. PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AS MEASURED

BY EMPLOYMENT

Despite heavy declines in farm employ­ment in the past two. decades, agricl1lture

continues to be the m_ajor industry. Manu­facturing 1s the, largest of the nonfarm in­dustries, accounting for more than 4b percent ot the nonfarm wage and salary · workers. · Manufacturing employment has not in­c!eased significantly in the past decade.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND UNDEREMPLOYMENT

The county has been experiencing a high level of unemployment. The major manu­facturing industries, textiles, lumber ,and wood products, and apparel, have contrib­i..ted to unemployment from both seasonal and recessionary influence. A rough esti­mate placed total unemployment close to B percent of the total labor force in August 1961. In the midweek, approximately 11.8 percent of the workers covered by the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Law were claiming benefits.

· We now know that we have created 998 jobs, many of them permanent through ARA help in Chesterfield County, and I would like to list here a breakdown of those jobs:

Number Jefferson: employed

Building reservoir and filter plant____ 26 Building addition to bleachery 30,000

square feet--------------------~--- 35 Stimulated building new homes-pro­

viding employment for additional carpenters ________________________ 12

Providing sufficient water kept Jef­ferson bleachery from moving-pro-viding employment ________________ 300

When reservoir and filter plant is com­plete the bleachery should provide employment for ___________________ 50

Pageland: Construction of Pageland Manufactur-ing Co ____________________________ 15

Pageland Manufacturing Co., now employing _________________________ 80

Construction of A. W. Schefrar plant__ 30 A. W. Schefrar Co. employment (now) ____________________________ 20

Employment of A. W. Schefrar plant when in full operation____________ 65

Building and installing water tanks and sewer_________________________ 40

Stimulated building new homes pro­vided employment for additional carpenters ________________________ 15

Remodeling Chesterfield Garment Corp______________________________ ~

Chesterfield Garment Corp. wm em­ploy when complete (Negroes)_____ 50

Cheraw: Installation of water and sewer lines__ 27 Pee Dee, Inc. (new plant) ___________ 110

Chesterfield: Installation of water and sewer lines__ 50 Stimulated building of new homes___ 15 Remodeling of U.S. post office________ 12

Wildlife area, improving wildlife area for recreation_______________________ 39

Total ___________________________ 998

Tl].ese statistics alone do not reflect the genuine improvement in the whole economic picture in Chesterfield County. I was in Pageland, S.C., on Saturday, October 12, 1963, and the streets were humming with people-a wonderful pic­ture for a community with a stimulating economy, stimulated with the help, as­sistance, and guidance of the Area Re­development Administration. For the people of Chesterfield County, I say "Thanks from the bottom of our hearts."

KERSHAW COUNTY

Recently I wrote a friend of mine in Kershaw County, the able and brilliant State senator, asking him for the impact

•

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE.· 20007 of the ARA assistance in Kershaw Coun­ty. I quote from his letter:

I hope that you will make one of your usually strong speeches about the ARA and certainly the Elgin, S.C., project is a dramat­ic example of what this program has done for our area. Regardless of the many crit­icisms which well-meaning people direct at what they term "socialistic tendencies," the ARA assistance given in our case has, in my opinion, been an outstanding example of a relatively small Government investment pro­ducing major benefits to many citizens.

It was just a year ago this month that the President announced that $74,500 had been allocated to the town of Blaney, S.C., for assistance in constructing a waterworks system under the ARA program. You will, of course, recall that announcement and the pride we both felt in it, especially when we were informed · that it was the first, or one of the first in the United States.

At the time of the announcement, we had completed negotiations with the Elgin Na­tional Watch Co. to build a new plant at Blaney, S.C., provided the town of Blaney would erect a waterworks system. Blaney, up to that time, was a small, sleepy, some~ wnat typical southern community, midway between Camden and Columbia. It had been in existence for some 50 years and was named for an official of the Seaboard Railroad, whose main line runs through the town. The total population was approximately 300. Citizens of the town and surrounding area were engaged mostly in farming. The town itself included several stores and one cotton gin. The only other industrial establish­ment, a sawmill, had closed several years before. The decline in agriculture which has been general throughout the South had shown its effects on Blaney and its im­mediate area. Employment opportunities were nonexistent, except in Camden and Columbia, a distance of 15 miles to each. Even there, the employment opportunities were limited because of the competition of persons living in that area, as well as a general lack of demand for basically un­skilled workers.

When the Elgin Watch ·co. was surveying sites, the location and avatlability of labor in the Blaney area were persuasive factors. However, the cost of installing a water sys­tem was estimated to be approximately $150,000, and the existence of such a system was a condition precedent to the building of a plant.. The total taxable wealth in the corporate limits of Blaney was, according to one estimate, only . about $1,300,000. To finance a $150,000 waterworks system would have been both a legal and a practical impos­sibility.

The passage of the ARA legislation seemed almost like a godsend to us wrestling. with the problem - of providing the waterworks system. With a grant of approximately 50 percent of the cost, the revenue bond issue of the rema!hlng half seemed barely pos­sible. The encouragement given by the Gov­ernment grant caused the town officials and interested citizens to swing their weight be­hind an election to authorize the bond issue, as well as to change the name of the town to Elgin in honor of the new industry.

By February 1, the new water system had been completed ·to the extent that the new plant could formally open. Job oppor­tunities were provided initially to over 100 persons of the area, mostly women.

Today, in a conversation with the plant manager, he tells me that approximately 300 persons are employed, more than 80 percent from Kershaw County, and the remaining almost entirely from adjacent counties. The annual payroll is approximately a mlllion and one-half dollars . . The response of the people tn· the area has been magnificent. School authorities have cooperated in the estab­lishment of a training program in conJunc-

CIX-1260

tion with the State Technical Education Committee.- The workers have shown an attitude ·and a desire to learn that has· been an inspiration to the whole ·new enterprise. At present, a training program is under.way to provide additional employees, so that the expected, employment before the end of an­other year will probably be in excess of 600 persons.

In addition to the 300 permanent jobs,. the town's economy got a real boost during the construction period. 'i'he waterworks system cost approximately $150,000 and the building constructed for the plant involved a cost of approximately $700,000. This boost in the economy, of course, was not limited to the Bl;tney-Elgin area alone but spread over into Columbia, Camden, and other adjacent cities and communities.

Perhaps the most satisfying thing about the whole project ls to see the achievements of individual workers. Heretofore, the job opportunities for femal~s in the area were limited to sewing rooms in Camden or Co­lumbia or employment in local mercantile establishments. The result was that few women were employed.

Today, weekly paychecks ·to women who are working on production oftentimes exceed $100 per week. One lady of the area who, I know, had had an especially hard time with her farm family, is already talking of a sav­ings program to send her children to college. A year ago, she was worried about buying groceries and paying house rent.

Another equally satisfying phase of the program is the satisfaction of the · Elgin Watch Co. itself with the new operation. Al­though I cannot speak for the company, it was my understanding that ·the watch indus­try generally had been squeezed by foreign imports to the point that only two companies in the United States still produced watches entirely with American labor. Most of the other companies import the movements and market them under their established trade names. Elgin was one of the companies striving to keep the watchmaking industry alive in the United States. However, in order to meet the press of foreign competition, new efficiencies and new economies had to be found. This, I believe, has been accom­plished in the Elgin, S.C., plant; which ls one of the most modern in the world, and where American labor with its skill and ingenuity is showihg that it can produce profitably even in competition with the low­wage areas of Europe and Asia. · To me, this example of the ARA program

1s in the best tradition of Government and private industry working together to pro­mote and help the great majority of our peoples.

LANCASTER COUNTY

I do not have all the statistics for Lancaster County, s.c .• but our most recent help came from the ARA in a loan, through the Small Business Administra­tion, under the guidance of the Area Re­development Administration. in the amount of $300,460, to the Heath Springs Manufacturing Co., Inc., which will mean 250 direct new jobs in the Health Springs community, not to mention hundreds of other benefits from the fact that the employment is increased and consumer money is being paid out.

The Department of Agriculture, with the assistance of ARA, loaned or granted to the rural community water district of Lancaster, $375,000 for the development of a rural water system which will benefit more than 400 farm and rural homes, and, while we have no direct estimate of the number of new jobs which will be created, we can assure the Con­g:ress and the people of thµ; country. that this is a great shot in the arm for the

rural ~evelopment of Lancaster County • . increasing not only the -0omforts and sanitation potential of all involved, but making land and location more valu­able-truly a worthwhile, praiseworthy project.

We are working on a program for the town of Kershaw for the improvement ot water. and sewer facilities, this being partially in Lancaster County: This would insure direct jobs o·f 100 or more.

CHESTER COUNTY

In Chester County, S.C., we have plans for a water system which would be sec­ond to none. We are assured that if the plans mature for this water system that we can create, within 5 years, a minimum of 1,000 new jobs.

OTHER AREAS

In the town of Blacksburg, Cherokee County, S.C., the Community Facilities Administration participated with the Area Redevelopment Administration in cooperation for a $241,000 filter system in that community enabling them to seek new industry. We have no record of the number of jobs involved but it follows that new jobs will be created and the economy will be improved.

While at home last weekend, I tele­phoned my ·good friend; the Honorable John Gaddy, progressive mayor of Hick­ory Grove, S.C. The Hickory Grove community had been recipient of a Housing and Home Finance Adminis­tration participation in the installation of a modern water system for the amount of $65,000. Mayor Graves told me that indirectly 20 or 25 new jobs were created and as soon as they could furnish water, an industry, employing 300 people, was on the scene. The president of the com­pany, the 0:xf ord· Manufacturing Co., pointed to the water tank and made the remarks to the mayor that without the water, his company never could have afforded to establish in Hickory Grove. Thanks again to the Hou&ing and Home Finance Agency, the Community Facili­ties Administration, and the Area Re­development Administration.

We have other projects in mind. I will not take the time to point them out. lt is time someone told the good things about Government e:ff ort. It is time the people in this agency know that we are grateful for their public service in as­sisting and helping the economy of the Fifth South Carolina Congressional Dis­tr.ict and the various communities. To be sure, this is not ·the only Government agency that has helped us-I hope to speak of others at a later date-but their record of assistance and their record of production of jobs speaks so well of the efficiency and personnel involved, and I hope that each one of them that reads of this salute knows that we are giad to saiute every single individual who par­ticipates.

Now I know there are those who want to keep Government out of everything. If they criticize these programs, they are criticizing the finest governmental pro­gram for the development of private enterprise I have ever known about. Except to make sure that the money is spent wisely and carefully, and except to make sure that the financing and debt service is carried on in a businesslike

2000s - CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE-- October 22 _ manner, there is no Federal control. To be sure, they demand that jobs be . created, but what better economic posi­tion could any public service, or depart­mental agency have?

Suppose we have just created 2,000 jobs in about 2 years. Suppose those people only make $50 -per week per per-. son, and I am sure that is a low average, The private enterprise payroll increase in the Fifth Congressional District of South Carolina has been at a minimum of $100,000 a week in consumer dollar. We cannot count the happiness, the joy, the security that these new jobholders have found. I can tell you, however, that I have visited many of the plants and many people are conscious of the wonderful help the Area Redevelopment Administration has given our economy and join me in saluting the ARA.

CANAL ZONE CRISIS: PLAN FOR ACTION

Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FLOOD] may ex­tend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection.

tion of the Monroe Doctrine in its en­tirety. This doctrine, designed for the protection of all the Americas and in the .past so promptly and e:t!ectively up­held by the actions of Presidents Cleve­land and Theodore Roosevelt, has greater need of enforcement today than ever. Unless it is fully enforced, the failure to do so will lead to the complete com- . munistic revolutionary takeover of all Latin American and West Indian coun­tries. HISTORIC CARmBEAN POLICY OF UNITED STATES

What is the historic policy· of the United States as regards the defense of our interoceanic canal against aggres­sion? Evolved after more than a cen­tury's experience in meeting the prob­lems of the Caribbean danger zone, it is extensively recorded in our diplomatic history and epitomized in treaty.

In brief, it is not to yield to any power, or combination of powers, the control of the Panama Canal or of the approaches to it, or to permit the securing of any position, either on the mainland or on the islands of the Caribbean, that would interfere with the protection of the canal by the United States, menace our coun­try's communications, or destroy our in­tegrity or prestige. This policy, involv­ing as it does the inherent right of defense, is basic; and any threat to it is a challenge to the United States as well as to all Latin American and West Indian countries, and cannot be safely ignored.

This policy, Mr. Speaker, proclaimed to the world in thoughtful diplomatic papers by some of our greatest states­men, is recorded in the libraries and chanceries of all important powers.

What were some of the implementing policies of which I speak?

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, over ape­riod of years in addresses before this body and elsewhere, I have dealt at length with the danger zone in the Caribbean, in which the Panama Canal is the key target in the long-range pro­gram for Soviet revolutionary conquest of that strategic area. As those who have followed this subject closely know, the sovereign rights, power, and author­ity of the United States over the canal enterprise are being subverted through - ELIHU ROOT AND CUBAN SECURITY

the salami process of piecemeal erosion. One of the important tasks facing the Aided, if not instigated, by international United States following the Spanish Socialist elements in the Department of American War was that of aiding the State, this program of liquidation is far people of Cuba to set up a constitutional more advanced than the people of our government to replace the military gov­country and the Congress have been per- ernment. For this, it was fortunate that mitted to know. The inevitable result of one of our country's greatest lawyers was such denial of news has been that grow- the Secretary of War-Elihu Root. Ing numbers of our patriotic citizens in- - Understanding the strategic signifl­stinctively suspect that something is cance of the Caribbean to hemi­seriously wrong with the conduct of our spheric security, Secretary Root realized Isthmian policy. Moreover, they are that Cuba, located on the northern flank writing letters asking searching questions of the Atlantic approaches to the future as to how the succession of surrenders at Isthmian Canal, was vital for its defense. Panama, made or contemplated, are Though he saw how the Monroe Doc­going to a:t!ect the ability of the United trine would serve as a means to warn States in meeting its treaty obligations European powers against intervention in for the maintenance, operation, sanita- the domestic a:t!airs of Cuba or seizure tion, and protection of the Panama of the island, he felt that the authority Canal. Also they are demanding that- of this doctrine should be fortified by in­the Congress take the necessary steps to ternational law. clarify and make definite our Nation's In 1901, when the time approached for interoceanic canal policy. So far as my the withdrawal of U.S. forces, Secretary information goes, the American people Root drafted what is known as the Platt are practically a unit in their emphatic amendment to the military appfopri­demand that our Government retain in ations bill, requiring Cuba to embody full vigor the indispensable authority and provisions in its Constitution that would control over the Canal Zone with respect · remove pretexts for intervention in that· to its sacred treaty obligations. ~ country by other powers by giving the

In -contrast to what I have observed right of such intervention to the United as a rising tide of patriotism, there. is a States. These provisions, which served­spirit abroad -in the world today, includ- to guarantee the freedom of Cuba, were ing the United Nations, which strongly also embodied in treaty. favors not only internationalization of The Platt amendment remained in ef­the Panama Canal, but also the abroga- f ect until it was hurriedly abrogated in

1934 to appease the insistent demands of Cuban radicals.

CONQUEST THROUGH NEGOTIATION AT PANAMA

After dealing with the problem of Cu­ban security the next focal point of at­tention by the United States was the projected canal across the American Isthmus. As part of the inducement to construct this canal at the Panama site rather than at Nicaragua, the fledgling Republic of Panama granted to the United States in perpetuity exclusive sov­ereignty over the Canal Zone for the con­struction of the Panama Canal and fts perpetual maiptenance, operation, sani­tation, and protection. Article I of this . treaty provided that the United States would guarantee and maintain the in­dependence of Panama-a provision that became known as the Panamanian Platt amendment. This article remained in effect _until abrogated, at the request of Panama, in the 193&-39 treaty.

Other sections of the 1903 treaty pro­vided for the use of the waters from the Chagres River Valley, the exercise of the right of eminent domain within the Re­public of Panama f ot canal PUrPoses and, in event of the inability or failure of Panama to enforce sanitation ordi­nances or to maintain public order in the terminal cities of Panama and Colon, . the right and authority of the United states to enforce them.

When serious discussion of revising the 1903 canal treaty started in 1932, far-visioned U.S. officials on duty in the Canal Zone foresaw the dangers. In fact, some of them even then warned that should the United States yield to those demands for the first treaty revision that such surrender would mean the ultimate loss of the Panama Canal.

Notwithstanding such warnings, our Government did yie1d. In 1936, it signed a ne~ treaty which was not ratified by the U.S. Senate until 1939 and then only because the eruption of World War II was clearly in sight. This treaty, in addition to rescinding the guarantee by the United States of Panamanian inde­pendence, abrogated the right of emi­nent domain of the United States in Panama, and revoked the authority of the United States to maintain public order in the terminal cities of Panama and Colon.

The Panama Canal Treaty structure was further weakened in 1955 with fur­ther surrenders by the United Stat.es, and without reciprocal or compensatory accommodations by Panama. The story of these two treaties form a case history of conquest through negotiation.

The elimination of the protective fea­ture of the 1903 treaty as to Panama was induced, as was the elimination of the Platt amendment for -Cuba, by. the insistent demands of radicals; and those thus motivated thought it was best for political purposes to - bring about such elimination on the proclaimed theory that the respective nations have come to such stature as not to require such pro­tection. Those actions, in their practi­cal aspects, were not justified and were not best for either of these countries or for the United States .because the na­tions at large came to believe that the­Monroe Doctrine was being undermined-

1963 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20009 and destroyed and the ·Communist coun­tries so believing have infiltrated· all Latin couptries, including Panama and Cuba, with disastrous results.

CHAGRES RIVER WATER THREAT

Despite the generous treatment that Panama received in two revisions of the basic 1903 treaty. that country is now strenuously pressing for another and more radical revision. Because of Pan­amanian threats in March of this year at the San Jose conference to take "radi­cal action" in event of failure to meet its demands, many have pondered what such threat portends.

Recently, I received information to the effect that radical elements in Pan­ama will urge the Panamanian Govern­ment to bill the United States for $850 millions for the water that it has used in operating the canal. The arguments presented are that this water comes from the Chagres River Basin; that, as rec­ognized by all nations, this water is a natural resource of Panama; and that securing compensation for it is a suitable case for adjudication before the World Court.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our friends in Panama, officials of our Gov­ernment who may be faced with this de­mand, and the . Congress, which; under the Constitution, is the ultimate author­ity in matters of national policy, I would invite attention to article IV of the 1903 treaty.

In this article, the Republic of Pan­ama, in addition to the grants · set forth in articles II and III, granted "in per­petuity" to the United States "the right to use the rivers, streams, lakes and · other · bodies of water within its limits for navigation, the supply of water or waterpower or ·other purposes, so far as the use of said rivers, streams, lakes, and bodies of water and the waters thereof may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance~ oper­ation, sanitation, and protection" of the Panama Canal.

This grant in the 1903 treaty, Mr. Speaker, specifically covers the rights of our country to the runoff of the Cha­gres River Valley, which was a part of the incentive to construct the canal at Panama. If there is to be any modifica­tion of the 1903 treaty in this regard. experience has shown· that such change should be aimed at extending the bound­aries of the Canal Zone to include the entire watershed of the Chagres · River Valley. This area including the part already in· the zone is approximately 1,320 square miles. Moreover, the need for such extension of the canal Zone was officially recognized as early as 1916 by Gen. Clarence E. Edwards, then in com­mand of the U.S. Army in the zone, but nothing was done.

This proposal to bill the United States for water used to operate the canal as clearly granted in the 1903 treaty is of the same category as the additional claim . of the Panamanian Government for a $50 million interim compensation for the use of the canal pending the negotiation of a new treaty. If such fantastic demands were granted, the overburdened Ameri­can taxpayers would be called to pay for these demands. Yet our Department of State seriously considers such unrealistic

and unjust claims instead of forthrightly ·· in the Canal Zone other than the flag of rejecting them. the United States.

THREATS ABOUT A SECOND CANAL Third. Adopt House Concurrent Reso-In addition to threats about the sum- lution 105, introduced by Chairman CAN­

mit-level water supply billing, I have also NON of the House Committee on Appro­received reports that certain interests in priations,. to clarify -and make definite Panama may push a proposal for the gov- the exclusive sovereignty of the United ernment of the country to ask for bids, States over the Canal Zone and Panama on a worldwide basis, for the construe- Canal as was fully and indispensably tion of a second canal as a national un- provided by the 1903 treaty unde-r which dertaking of Panama, the contract to be the canal was constructed and has been awarded to the lowest bidder. subsequently operated.

Under the conditions now prevailing in Fourth. Adopt · measures, such as Panama, with pro-Castro elements in its House Resolution 451, reaffirming the national assembly, such award would Monroe Doctrine. undoubtedly go to the Soviet or to a So- Mr. Speaker, what is taking place in viet agency. Is this, Mr. Speaker, the Panama is absolutely astounding to pa­real radical action in the minds of Pan- triotic citizens of our Nation at home amai:uan politicians who are attempting and abroad. It does seem that those to blackmail the United States? If it is, who represent our Government in trans­the sooner the truth is known the bet- actions affecting the Panama Canal are ter, for such award could well be the either childish in their capacity as nego­start of the gravest threat to the security tiators or downright incompetents. In of'the United States and the entire West- this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would ern Hemisphere since the 1861 interven- emphasize that no matter what type of tion by European powers in Me;xico and military assistance is given to any or all the setting up of the unfortunate Maxi- Latin American nations, they know and milian as Emperor. In any event, it the world knows that the United States could lead to the creation of a Soviet of America bears the ultimate responsi­satellite in Panama, and the Monroe bility for protecting the Western Hemi-Doctrine would, indeed, be dead. sphere. ·

Mr. Speaker, the program enumerated PLAN FOR CON<.RESSIONAL ACTION above will protect our interests at Pan-

Mr. Speaker, where does our country ama and those of all Western nations. stand today as regards its sovereignty Moreover, I wish to warn the Congress. over the·· Canal Zone and Panama Canal and the Nation at large that unless our and what should be done about the situ- position at Panama is clarified as previ­ation? I know of no way to judge the ously outlined, bad matters·will become future except by the past. worse and chaos will follow, with the

· In 1934, our country withdrew its probable withdrawal of the United guarantee of CUbari independence and in States from control of the Canal Zone 1959 Soviet power filled the vacuum ere- and the utter abandonment of the Mon­ated. In 1939, the United States revoked roe Doctrine, with the Soviet flag re­its guarantee of Panamanian independ- placing the Panama flag in the zone. ence and the power vacuum has yet to As partial documentation for my re-be filled. marks, I quote a significant news story

Today, the 1lag of Panama is officially from an isthmian newspaper: displayed at various places in the Canal [From the Panama star and Herald, Zone equal with the flag of the United July 24, 1963 J States. This display, supported by inter- PROSPECTS OF TREATY REVISION MOUNT-DIS-national Socialist elements in the De- BAND COMMISSION BUT TALKS CONTINUE partment of State in violation of law, Prospecta of a Panama Canal Treaty revi-treaty, and international usage, is being sion increased yesterday with the announce­hailed in many countries as symbolizing ment that points of dissatisfaction stm re­U.S. recognition of Panamanian sov- . main to be worked out between Panama and ereignty over the Canal Zone and the United States.

1 d to b · t'll f' A joint communique announced action P ans a~e un erway o tam 8 1 urther taken by the Panama-United States Com.-concessions from our country. mission on six questions.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to stop But, Foreign Minister Galileo Solis said the policy of liquidation at Panama and a number of points of dissatisfaction remaii{ to reaffirm our long established policy. pending. Some of these points. official Instead of merely reacting to contrived sources here and in Washington said, would situations, our country must return to imply the revision of the canal treaty. the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and de- Since such revisions have been carried out

. . . . twice, once in 1936 and again in 1955, officials fend 1~.Just rights on the isthmus~ and would not rule out the possibtlity of another for this reversal the Congress, as a sepa- review of the treaty. rate and independent agency of our Gov- The joint communique made one expected ernment having ultimate authority, can development official-the disbanding of the and must take the lead by appropriate Commission created by Presidents Chiari and actions. What are they? Kennedy in June 1962 to discuss points of

The steps which would protect our dissatisfaction between the two countries. , . The members of the Commisston were For-

co~try s vital interests at Panama are~ eign Minister Solis and Dr. Octavio Fabrega, First. Enact H.R. 3999 to prevent fu- for Panama, and Ambassador J. s. Farland

ture giveaways of U.S. land and property and Canal zone Gov. R. F. Fleming tor the in the Canal Zone as now proposed by United. States. the Department of State, which unani- Now, pending issues are to be resolved mously passed the House and was serit · through normal diplomatic channels. or, as to the Senate Foreign Minister Solis said yesterday, be-

. . tween Presiden, ts or betwee'.!l the Foreign Se<;ond. Prohibit by. statute the ex- Ministry" and the state Department.

pend1ture of any pubhc funds for the At least two of the pending issues. would formal display of any :flag at any place require revision of the present tr~aty or

20010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22 negotiation of a new one. These are (1) Panama's request for an increase in the an­nuity paid by the United States for the use and control of the Canal Zone and (2) the Panamanian commercial companies .:gr!'later. opportunities in the Cana.I Zone.

The Joint communique issued yesterday listed the second set of agreements between the two countries in · accordance with an agreement on principle reached between the two Presidents in June 1962. The first set of agreements, which included the display of the Panamanian flag in the Canal Zone, was announced last January.

The communique listed the agreements reached since last January as follows:

1. Agreement on the creation of a Joint labor advisory committee to consider labor disputes in the Canal Zone.

2. The U.S. Government has prepared a draft bill to be presented to Congress which would make available to Panamanian em­ployees in the Canal Zone the same heal th and life insurance benefits which are avail­able to North Americans.

3. There was a full discussion on equal employment opportunities although no agreement has been reached. While the minimum wage in the Canal Zone has been increased twice, in 1962 and 1963, and a fur­ther increase next year is envisaged, the Panamanian representatives have requested greater increases.

4. The United States has agreed to with­hold Panamanian income tax from wages and salaries of those employees in the Canal Zone required to pay income tax to Panama.

5. Panama has requested Jurisdiction in a corridor connecting the capital city with the rest of the territory, including Jurisdiction over the Balboa bridge. The United States ls preparing counterproposals.

6. Panama also has requested that piers No. 6 and No. 7 in Cristobal be licensed to the Colon free zone. The United States is now preparing the terms of an agreement for consideration by Panama.

The communique did not talk about points where no agreement could be reached. At his press conference yesterday, Foreign Minis­ter Solis mentioned them as follows:

1. Greater utilization by Panamanian in­dustry and commerce of the Canal Zone market, including transiting ships.

2. The use of Panamanian stamp.s in the Oanal Zone. (This appears to have run into difficulties because of international postal regulations.)

3. Display of the Panamanian flag on transition ships and at military posts in the Canal Zone.

4. Transfer to Panama of areas for the expansion of Colon.

5. Reduction of "security" positions in the Canal Zone and greater opportunities for Panamanians to fill higher positions.

6. Return to Panama of lands and waters not required for the maintenance and opera­tion of the canal.

7. An increase in the annuity paid by the United States to Panama for the use and control of the Canal Zone.

8. Curtailment of commercial and indus­trial activities on the part of U.S. agencies in the Canal Zone.

MORE MANAGED NEWS? Mr. BEERMANN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

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

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

The.re was no objection. Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, after 20

years of Communist duplicity it is amaz­ing that any American can believe that

Russian peace talk is more than a tacti­cal smokescreen.

While it is undoubtedly true that the Russians do not want a shooting war with us, it is equally true that they have not given up their stated aims of global dc;>mination.

Following the administration's attempt to conclude a wheat deal with the Rus­sians, Khrusb.chev decided to put pres­sure on us in Berlin. The administra­tion claims this was merely an error by the local Soviet commander. However, the Russians proved the administration wrong by stopping a British convoy. The following item from the Yonkers (N.Y.) Herald Statesman of October 17 proves the point and says: MORE RED HARASSMENT ON AUTOBAHN PROVES

IT ISN'T MERELY CONFUSION

The British are the latest victims of Soviet harassment of allied troops using the Berlin autobahn.

When American convoys were held up last week, because their commanders refused to have the men dismount from their vehicles to be counted, the U.S. State Department maintained, after the crisis had passed, that it had been due to local confusion among low-ranking Red officers.

If that had been the case, the Russians, in the light of the furor raised by the Amer­icans, had had plenty of time by yesterday to have cleared up any such confusion among their officers, among them at least one not­so-low-ranking colonel. Hence, the British yesterday took the position that interference with their convoy was part of a deliberate Soviet program of b,arassment. They refused to knuckle under to it.

Whether or not the purpose of these she­nanigans has been and ls to enable the con­trolled Russian press to persuade the Russian people that Mr. Khrushchev still is running the world, it somehow must be gotten over to Moscow's Red moguls that they are inviting serious trouble.

Mr. Speaker, in our postwar relations with Moscow, there has been an alterna­tion between peace talk and Communist harassment. You might say that the Russians attempt to produce a Pavlovian reaction in the West. The following chronology of Mr. Gromyko's "smiles" proves this point. The dates are very significant because those of 1962 relate .to the Cuban missile crisis, while those of 1963 relate to a new Berlin crisis. The chronology is as follows:

Murrey Marder, Washington Post, <>ctober 11, 1963: "Gromyko • • • emerged from the White House meeting in what was, for him, a relatively Jovial and loquacious mood. In diplomatically good spirits,· Gromyko said he will return to the United Nations and leave there in mid-October. 'For Moscow?' asked one newsman. 'For Moscow,• Gromyko re­plied Jokingly, 'You thought to the moon, maybe?'"

Murrey Marder, Washington Post, October 12, 1963: "• • • Gromyko, in his 2-hour meeting with President Kennedy on Thurs­day, and later at a Soviet Embassy dinner for Rusk and other officials, said he was 'un­aware' of any unusual activity on the Berlin autobahn and said he would inquire about it. Gromyko · and Soviet Ambassador to Washington Anatoly F. Dobrynln affably as­sured U.S. officials that the Soviet Union sought only to reduce further East-West tension."

New York Herald Tribune, October 11, 1963: "• • • Gromyko had a COl'dial ex­change of views on .lessening cold war ten­sions with. President Kennedy yester­day. • • • President Kennedy, it was re-

ported, knew of the Red roadblock when Mr. Gromyko arrived to see him. • • • Mr. Gromyko seemed genuinely surprised, a · Gov­ernment official said, when the President told him of the blockade."

Marguerite Higgins, New York Herald Tribune, October 12, 1963: "President Ken­nedy began the effort to convey to Moscow the seriousness of the situation by making a protest to Mr. Gromyko during a White House visit Thursday. During and after the White House meeting, Mr. Gromyko exuded sweet­ness and light, in the pattern of last Octo­ber."

Murrey Marder, Washington Post, October 19, 1962: "• • · • the Soviet posture was smiles and hopefulness. • • • Gromyko was in Jovial good humor as he chatted with newsmen • • • Gromyko told reporters in a genial vein: '.doth countries must work together in the direction of improved rela­tions between them.' • • • Gromyko Joked with newsmen: 'Why are you not sleeping?' Gromyko said he plans to return to New York today and he expects to head back to Moscow Sunday to report to the ' K.remlin."

Marguerite Higgins, New York Herald Tribune, October 19, 1962: "• • • Gromyko emerged. • • • [Gromyko's] moods are of­ten international weathervanes. • • • Mr. Gromkyo's smiling good humor [is] viewed here as Moscow's tactic of cooling down the Berlin crisis in litiht of signs that an inter­national explosion could result from con­tinued pressure. Washington feels that the administration's stern series of public warn­ings • • • may have influenced Moscow once again to postpone action in favor of talking. • • •Mr.Gromyko was exuding good humor as he arrived. • • • In President Kennedy's office there were jokes, small talk reminis­cences. • • • 'We consider Ambassador Thompson as a Muscovite,• said Mr. Gromyko with a big smile."

President Kennedy, October 22, 1962, speech to the Nation on Cuba: "This ac-· tion • • • contradicts the repeated assurance of Soviet spokesmen, both publicly and pri­vately delivered, that the arms buildup in Cuba would retain its original defense char­acter, and that the Soviet Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles on the territory of any other nation. • • •

"Only last month • • • the Soviet Gov­ernment publicly stated on September 11 that, and I quote, 'the armaments and mili­tary equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes,' unquote. • • • That statement also was false.

"Only last Thursday, as evidence of this rapid. · offensive buildup was already in my hand, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko told me in my office that he was instructed to make it clear once again, as he said his Gov­ernment had already done, tb'.at Soviet as­sistance to Cuba, and I quote, 'pursued solely the purpose of contributing to the defense capabWties of Cuba,• unquote. That, and I quote him, 'training by Soviet specialists of Cuban nationals in hanqling defensive armaments was by no means offensive,' and that .if it were otherwise, Mr. Gromyko went on, 'the Soviet Government would never become involved in rendering such assist­ance.' That statement also was false."

Mr. S,1>eaker, the Patent Trader, of Mount Kisco, N.Y., has not been fooled by Russian tactical changes. On Octo­ber 17, 1963, this great biweekly newspa­per ran the following editorial entitled "Let's Keep Our Guard Up":

LET'S KEEP OUR GUARD UP

The misunderstanding resulting in a 48-hour delay for a U.S. convoy en route to Ber­lin last week has been greeted skeptically in some quarters, and for what appears good reason. One o! the advantages o! a totali­ta.Tian regime is that it can move fast over a wide area. Since - Soviet Ambassador Gromyko was informed of the situation

1963 " CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20011 fairly early in the game, it 1s·to say the least­surprising that it took 2 days to get the convoy through. . ,

If the dove of peace were truly in the ascendant in the Soviet Union, it would seem reasonable to ·expect that the word would have gone out--no "incidents." The fact that such an ominous confrontation could take place points rather to the inference that the Russians have not abandoned their old strategy; yielding in one area, probing in an­other, and constantly testing the strength and determination of the other side.

This country has not gone in for probing and testing, but it has maintained a solid defensive stance. Last week's episode indi­cates that the stance should not be aban­doned, even 1f the Russians generously swap spies for American citizens. It's worth not­ing that their spies were of recent capture, while one American had been detained 23 years by the Soviets.

Mr. Speaker, the seal of the United States is a wonderful emblem. The eagle holds arrows in one talon and the olive branches in the other talon. America has always extended the talon with the olive branches first.

NATIONAL . CAPITAL AREA OPEN­SPACE LAND GRANTS

Mr. BEERMANN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] may ex­tend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

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

today introduced a resolution designed to clarify the intent of the House with respect to the restriction placed on use of funds for the National Capital Area from open-space land grants written into the House Appropriations Commit­tee report.

I feel that the directive included in the Appropriations Committee report is an unfortunate example of a too frequent practice used by committees when in­clusion of such a restriction in a bill would create legislative problems. We make legislative history by incorporating our views as dicta in the committee re­port.

In the case of the exclusion of the Na­tional Capital Area from any additional grants, the facts do not justify such either direct or indirect discrimination. I append for the information of the Members of the House an information sheet which points out that both Chi­cago and New York have received grants equal to or greater than the National Capital Area and yet they are not ex­cluded from additional allocations.

Every Member of the House, will do well to take cognizance of this unfortunate practice, which can only be corrected by passage <?f my resolution.

The Housing Act of 1961 (title VII-"Open Space Land") authorizes the Housing and Home Finance Agency to make grants total­ling $50 million to States and local public bodies to assist in the acquisition of land in urban areas "to be used as permanent open­space land." These grants may include from 20 to 30 percent of the total cost of the land. The objectives of the legislation are "to help curb urban sprawl and prevent the spread of urban blight and deterioration, to encour-

age ·more economic and desirable urban de­velopment, and to help provide necessary recreational, conservation, and scenic areas." Total allocations under the program have been $3,224,666 for fiscal year 1962, and $14,-730,900 for fiscal year 1963.

A report of the House Appropriations Com­mittee, Subcommittee on Independent Of­fices, states:

"It is noted that the National Capital Area has already received substantial grants un­der this program (open-space land pro­gram). The committee directs that no part of the funds provided be used for addition~ grants in this locality." (P. 14, report on appropriation blll, Housing and Home Fi­nanoe Agency.)

The subcommittee approved a $15 million appropriation for fiscal year 1964. The com­mittee's directive will affect not only a re­cent application already submitted by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Plan­ning Commission for $1,768,994, but will also affect plans of the Northern Virginia Re­gional Park Authority to acquire additional holdings in the Bull Run Watershed and in the Potomac Palisades, and plans of other northern Virginia and Maryland agencies for the acquisition of open space.

In the first 2 years of operation (fiscal year 1962 and fiscal year 1963), eight grants have been made to the National Capital region under this program to purchase 6,738 acres of open space. The Chicago and New York regions have received amounts equal to or greater than that received by agencies in the National Capital region. Chicago leads all areas in the United States, having received open-space grants of $3,518,647 (through fiscal year 1963). 'The New York City region has received $2,813,378, while the National Capital region has received $2,844,534.

Grants to the National Capital region have been made for the acquisition of land in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, and in Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince Willlam Counties, and the city o:f Alexandria, in Virginia. Lands have included those overlooking the Potomac and those located in the rural-urban fringes of the region, such as Bull Run Regional Park in Fairfax and Prince William Counties. There has been great interest in increasing the progress made so far under this program. Allocation of title VII funds to major metro-

politan areas, fiscal years 1962 and 1963

S.M.S.A. Number Grant Total of-grants total acres

Buffalo, N,Y _________ 5 $348,248 2,649 Chicago, m ___________ 6 3,518,547 5,700 Detroit, Mich ________ 6 539,897 2,027 Los Angeles, Calif ____ 3 628,000 2,264 New York-northern New Jersey _________ 11 2,485,244 15,100 San Francisco, Calif__ 6 290,367 1,026 Seattle, Wash ________ 3 577,400 834 Washington, D.c. ___ 8 2,844,534 5,738 ----------Total.. _______ __ 48 11,232,237 35,338

Approved Federal open space Zand grants~ Natt.onaZ Capital region

Agency

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commis­sion: •

(1) - - ------------ - -(2) ________ _______ _

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority:

m ================ Rockville ____________ _ Somerset. -----------­Alexandria .. --------­Fairfax County Park Authority __ _______ _

Acres Federal Total cost grant

3,940 $2,108,785 $7,029,285 87 99,535 331,782

1,338 261,840 872,801 43 96,789 322,631 82 109,500 364,850 2 75,000 250,000

18 26,430 132,150

163 66,700 333, 11()()

REPORT NO. 3-FAR EASTERN OUTPOSTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle­man from Illinois [Mr. LIBONATI] is rec­ognized for 60 minutes.

REPORT NO. 3. TAIWAN-PART 1

Mr. LIBONATI. . Mr. Speaker' the most important outpost of the free world holding China at bay is Taiwan with Matsu the key to its defense and stands sentinel against any assault. Matsu, de­spite its size-10.44 nautical miles­guards the entire western Pacific. As a matter of fact these outer islands, Mat­su-Iles, Kimen-Quemoy, Tungung, and Wuchiu are the threat to Red China and the military blockade to its aim for expansion, control, and domination of Near East and east Asia.

A geographical, historical, and eco­nomic study of Taiwan and its people will illuminate the understanding and ac.:. quaint the American people with the great contribution made to the cause of liberty through the sponsorship and aid of the United States.

The Armed Forces are a credit to the efforts of th~ir officers and military lead­ers: Gen. Peng Mina-Chi, Chief of Staff; Executive Vice Chief of General Staff Ma Chi-Chuang, Vice Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Lai Ming-Tang, Vice Chief of General Staff Tang Shu-Chih, all as­sistants of the Chief of the General Staff. For individual services as commanders, Gen. Liu An-Chih, Army; Adm. Ni Yue Si, Navy; Air Gen. Chen Chia Shung, Commander in Chief of the Combined Services, Gen. Sih Chueh, commander in chief, garrison forces-security of Taiwan-Gen. Hung Chein.

The total personnel strength of the services are fixed at slightly above 600,000-army, 400,000; navy and ma­rines, 50,000; air force, 80,000; services. and so forth, 70,000-composed of 21 in­fantry divisions, 2 armored divisions, and such special units as Nike-Hercules battalion.

The Signal Corps, Engineering Corps and so forth are functioning units.

The Chinese Navy is composed of 140 vessels of various types up to destroyers in size. It is organized in squadrons ac­cording to the nature of the mission.

The Chinese Marine Corps consists of one division and one brigade.

The Chinese Air Force is equipped with F-86's and F-lOO's as the main combat strength. However, they are being re­placed by F-104's.

The combined service force is in charge of the procurement and supply of military materials, the manage­ment for the welfare services of both military personnel and their dependents. Any male Chinese citizen is eligible for military service at the age of 19 years. Active service in the army is 2 years, including the first 4 months of initial training. After the 2 years-5 years in the reserves-attend camp service 1 month each year. Thereafter placed in a reserve pool to be called in a nation­al emergency until he attains 45 years of age.

Navy and air force required 3 years of active service and reserves for 4 -years.

20012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22 . TAIWAN, THE COUNTRY

PENERAL DATA

status: Seat of the Government of the Republic of China,· ·and a · province · of the Republic. •

Area: 13,885 square miles. Population: 11,375;085 in mid-1962. National capital: Taipei-963,640 in

mid-1962. · Agricultural products: Sugar, rice, po­

tatoes, bananas, tea, pineapples. Industries: Sugar refining, canning,

cement, chemicals, textiles, shipbuild­ing, electric power, petroleum refinery.

Minerals: Coal and small quantities of gold, silver, and sulfur.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Since the first Chinese official set foot on the island in AD. 607, Taiwan has undergone many vicissitudes. However, the island has doggedly held out against alien rulers--Dutch, Spanish, and Jap­anese-throughout the succeeding cen­turies. The island became a protector­ate of the Chinese Empire in 1206, was under Japanese rule during most of the present century, and was restored to China in 1945 after V-J Day.

The Chinese Empire, under successive imperial dynasties, had kept only re­mote control of the Taiwan area until Dut.ch adventurers tried to seize the Penghu-Pescadores--Islands in 1602. After several unsuccessful attempts, the Out.ch finally occupied the Penghus with a fleet of 17 warships in 1622. In 1624, the Dut.ch bore down on Taiwan itself from the Penghus. Two years later Spanish. marauders made a landing in force at Keelung and occupied this pert on Taiwan's northern shore. They were ousted by the nut.ch in 1641.

In 1661-62, Cheng Cheng-kung­Koxinga-now idolized by the native people as a deity, wrested control of the island from the Dutch and built up a strong military base. He intended to overthrow the Manchu rulers who held sway at that time over the entire Chinese mainland. However, this ambitious plan collapsed after Kox.inga's untimely death and the Manchus conquered the island in 1683. Taiwan was added to the im­perial domain as a new Province in 1686.

Taiwan was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War in 1895, under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. However, Chinese and aboriginal patriots fought the Japanese. In the same year they declared the island a republic, the first ever proclaimed in Asia. The Japa­nese had to employ an overwhelming military force to crush these independ­ence movements and revolts.

The island was returned to the Repub­lic of China at the end of World War II, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration of 1943. The Chinese administration took over Taiwan from the Japanese in October 1945. Taiwan was made the provisipnal capital of China in 1949.

The Government of the Republic of China, which moved to Taiwan from the mainland in 1949, is composed of five yuan-executive, legislative, judicial, control, and examination. These five cardinal branches of government are all responsible to the President; who is elected every 6 years by a peoples'. rep_..

resentative body-the national assembly. The executive yuan is analagous to a cabinet and the legislative yuan to a parliament.

Taiwan being a Province of the Re­public, its workaday administrative rou­tine is largely handled by the Taiwan Provincial Government. The Provincial Governor is appointed by the Central Government but he is answerable to the Taiwan Provincial Assembly, which is elected by the islanders through uni­versal suffrage. Mayors and magis­trates, all popularly elected, are govern­ing five cities and 16 counties which also have local peoples' councils to which local administrations are responsible.

In the Western World, Taiwan is often incorrectly called Formosa. This sobri­quet, meaning ''Beautiful Island," was first suggested by Portuguese sailors. The Chinese name for the island, how­ever, is the proper title, and is used ex­clusively in official documents and formal dossiers. In literal translation, Taiwan means "Terraced Bay." This is more or less in accordance with its topo­graphical features. From coastal plains to mountainous hideouts, rising layer after layer, are foothills with terraced rice paddy fields.

ECONOMY AND INDUSTRY

Predominantly agricultural, the island has significant economic potentials which are made doubly rich by a bland climate and fertile soil. The lot of the farmers, who constitute 60-percent-plus of the population, has been greatly im­proved with the successful completion of an epoch-making land reform pro­gram. In the past decade most of the erstwhile tenant farmers have become independent tillers.

Rice is the kingpin product. Its yearly crops, two in the north and three in the south, have increased in recent years. In view of the comparatively limited arable acreage-about one-third of the total area of the island-the unit pro­ductivity is high,

Sugar and tea are the two chief for­eign exchange earners. Sweet potatoes, peanuts, and vegetables are also pro­duced in sizable quantity. Animal hus­bandry, particularly in raising hogs and cattle, has been greatly improved since 1951. .

Towering mountains, thundering rap'." ids, and swirling rivers constitute nat­ural sources of hydroelectric pcwer. The first hydroelectric power station was opened near Taipei in 1904. Develop­ment of the hydroelectric Potential is being given considerable emphasis.

Sugar leads the industries, with food products and tea as close runners-up. Aluminum, cement, alkali, paper, metals, and textiles are the other major indus­trial items.

Considerable mining is also done on the island. Coal and sulfur take the lead. Gold, copper, and silver are also produced in some quantity. Fisheries are on the upswing-fish is a major food item for the islanders.

The special feature of the past decade, however, is the development of the tex­tile industry and other light industries. Beginning almost from scratch, textile manufacturing has. developed to a point

where it can adequately rival its counter-. parts in Japan and Hong Kong, Cotton and woolen textile piece goods have vir­tually glutted the domestic market and are now spilling over into other south­east Asian areas. The supply of major -consumer goods has increased so rapidly that imports of such items could be en­tirely shut off in the not too distant fu­ture.

GEOGRAPHY

Taiwan is an oblong-shaped island. It lies about 100 miles east of the ·south China coast, with the churning Taiwan Strait to the west and the expansive Pa­cific Ocean to the east. The island is approximately 250 miles from tip to tip, measures 90 ·miles at its widest point: and is embraced by 1,062 miles of coast­line.

There are two main mountain ranges on the island. The central range bi­sects the island into rocky and rugged regions in the east, and wide, fertile plains in the west. The eastern coastal­Taitung-range parallels the c-entral range and stret.ches from Hualien on the northeast coast to Taitung in the south­east.

CLIMATE

The climate is subtropical. The av­erage temperature is .'10° Fahrenheit in the north and 75° Fahrenheit in the south. Summer lasts from May to Sep­tember. December through February are the winter months but are quite mild. Humidity in the north crowds 100 per.,. cent year round.

Rainfall in the north is heavy, averag­ing 100 inches per year. More rain. falls in the north than in the south, and the northern port of Keelung has been dubbed "the rainiest city in the world." Typhoons are yearly occurrences in the seas south of Taiwan. Most of them rage during the summer, and especially in July, August, and September. Al­though many veer away without hitting the island, they still bring deluges of rain and high winds lasting several days.

PEOPLE

Most of the inhabitants are of Chinese stock, including approximately 180,000 aboriginal tribesmen in the mountainous interior. The number of females is slightly greater than males. Both sexes are given equal rights, including freedom of speech, assembly,· worship, and abode. This premise also extends to education, participation in politics, and other fields.

The majority of the people are farm­ers. Industrial workers form the second largest group. The living standard on the island is the highest in Asia with the exception of Japan, and the people are industrious and contented.

The Chinese people are deeply re­ligious. All shades of religious beliefs flourish in free China. Buddhism has the biggest following. Protestantism, Catholicism, Taoism, and Islamism have their own flocks. People of the various sects live together in harmony, because religious bigotry and intolerance have never been part of the Chinese people's cultural heritage,

THE OFl'SHOB.E , ISLANDS

General: The Government of the Re­public of China holds- four strategic

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE' ~ 20013 island groups off the Chinese Mainland coast. They are: Kinmen-Quemoy Islands, Matsu Islands, Tungyung Islands, and Wuchiu Islands. The Tung­yung group is located about midway between Kinmen and Matsu in the mid­dle of the Taiwan Straits. The Wuchiu group lies northeast of the Matsu Islands. Most interest is centered on the Kinmen and Matsu groups.

KINMEN (QUEMOY) COMPLEX

Location: Kinmen is 18 nautical miles from the Red-held port city of Amoy in. Fukien province. The shortest distance. to Red-held territory is 2.5 miles from Red-held Chaio-you to Ma-Shan on Kin­men. Kinmen is 202 nautical miles from Keelung and 156 nautical miles from Kaohsiung, Taiwan. These islands block the mouth·of Amoy Bay.

Size: The complex consists of Kinmen proper, Little Kinmen, Ta-Tan, Erh-tan and 10 other satellite islets. The total area is 68 square miles. Kinmen proper is shaped like a butterfly and measures 13.5 miles in length, 9.3 miles in width at one end, 6.8 miles in width at the other and 2.5 miles at the narrowest point. The Kinmen proper area is 62.4 square miles.

Population: 46,536-1960 census ex­clusive of military garrison.

Principal agricultural crops: Sweet potatoes, peanuts, soybeans, kao-liang, wheat barley and watermelons.

Principal minerals: Porcelain clay, aluminum ore, coal, quartz and salt.

MATSU

Location: Northwest of Taiwan 114 nautical miles from . Keelung, Taiwan and 114 nautical miles from Kinmen.

Size: There are 19 islets in the group none of which is named Matsu. The name Matsu comes from a harbor on Nankan, the main island of the group. Besides Nankan other islands in the group are: Peikan, Kaoteng, Tungkun, and Hsikun. Kaoteng is the closest point to the mainland-5.5 nautical miles. Total land area for the group is 11.3 square miles. Nankan Island is 10.44 square miles.

Industry: The chief industry is fishing. Some sweet potatoes,. barley, rice, wheat and vegetables are also grown. The islands are self-sufficient in vegetables and fresh water.

Population: 10,460 civilians. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ambassador,

Adm. Alan G. Kirk, U.S. Navy, retired, discussed the strong military and stable economy of Taiwan as exceptionally favorable to the reduction of the U.S. contribution to the national budget. The increase of cultivated manmade l&nds on the islands meant bumper crops in agricultural products and industrial expansion was indicative of a prosperous era.

Defense Commander Adm. C. L. Mel­son, Maj. Gen. Kenneth O. Sanborn, U.S. Air Force, Chief Military Assistance Ad­visory Group, and Army Attache Col. James F. Henderson, arranged the lengthy briefings and later conferences with several members of the Taiwan Cabinet.

Our flight to Matsu unfolded a mirac­ulous revelation of the workings of men's minds stimulated by a driving patriotic

spirit to build an impregnable strong­hold and powerful immovable force of men trained to the desperate purposes of war. Gen. Peng Meng Chi, Chief of Staff, and his staff escorted our party through the honeycombed rooms con­nected by corridors winding through miles of mountain ranges-cannon mounted toward the mainland-Red China-18 miles distant. These brave troops alerted to the enemy's constant bombardment at least every other day­these are the men who do not ask any­one else to die for their country-each one is proud to face the test and pay the highest price for the liberties of their people and the freedom of the free na­tions of the world. The def enders of Taiwan as well as the other islands­coordinating with the navy unit's PT boats and air corps planes-F-86's and F-104's-have repulsed the enemy so close and yet have kept him so far-the distance in fear of these fighters may as well be a thousand miles.

The growing military importance of Taiwan as a delaying or obstructionist force is becoming more and more ap­parent since the invasion of India by Red China. This push to extend her empire alarmed Russia and alerted Japan, Indonesia, Australia, and every other country in the area. Russian di­plomacy changed its hard-bitten course of bitterness and affrontry to one of friendliness, sympathy, and cooperation toward countries within the sphere of China's intended aggression. This overt act sealed the growing animosity be­tween the two most powerful partners in communism. The United States and England became equally apprehensive of the immediate dangers of all-out hot war. The United States increased its commitments to governments in south­east Asia seeking to counteract any ap­prehensions of fear or abandonment and inculcating a spirit of supreme confi­dence in our pledges to stand firm be­hind them.

China can only be strong if a J?trong government follows a policy promising expansion of its borders to spill its mil­lions of subjects over productive agri­cultural lands of their neighbors to re­lieve the internal pressures by its im­poverished, starving masses who seek to toil on fertile soils to thus produce abundant crops for their livelihood. The government in desperation was forced into this critical dilemma and determined that conquest for land would serve best in its desire to solidify the people solidly behind Communist con­trol, because other glowing promises of improving their way of life had failed to materialize. China, seeking her right­ful place among the powerful nations in world affairs and se.eking to alleviate her falling economy, assertive of her assumed sovereign right to claim formerly Chi­u.ese-held lands regardless whether they are held by Chiang Kai-shek or -the present governments of independent na­tions such as Korea, Vietnam, Thailan·d, Cambodia, Burma; Malaya, Indonesia, Taiwan, part of the Philippines, as well as northeast India-, Mongolia, and some of the Asian territory of the . Soviet Union. Her other reasons for this action

also include her interest in her own se­curity problems created by strange na­tions operating in interest so near, and second, because of her historic hegemony over these regional areas.

This is the answer in sending her armies in support of North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and the exerted pressure in Burma, Cambodia, and Indonesia.

China eyes Japan's industrial prosper­ity, and believes that she is entitled to participate in the fruits of her climbing economy. She is staging an economic of­fensive there. Pro-Chinese colonist set­tlers are filtering in large numbers and operating in Malaya, Singapore, and British Borneo, soon to be united with the new state of ¥alaya. Hong Kong as a free port under English control is of benefit to the Chinese economy as an out­let and therefore secure.

The loyalty of the Near East Commu­nists favors China primarily by reason of basic race affinity although in Viet­nam a split and a division in India and Burma. But those in Japan, North Ko­rea, Indonesia, Burma, Malaya, Singa­pore hold advantages in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Albania or wherever Chinese influence exists. Moscow holds Mongolia.

Peiping's advocacy of violent revolution as the best means of correction of social inequalities will be responsible for her doom. An overt act against India with serious incidents causing .a full-scale hot war means intervention by the Western Powers and then Russia must choose sides.

If unfortunately her choice means standing with her quarrelsome former partner China, then the two powerful nations who hold the trigger key to wage atomic warfare hold the future of man­kind in the balance. The terrific pres­sures for survival will decide the fate of all nations alined on either side.

The competition between China, Rus­sia, and the United States to control the small nations in this area of influence to dominate East Asia are fast approach­ing a final determination. Russia and the United ·states are pledged to an un­fortunate neutral Laos. China and Rus­sia to North Vietnam. Indonesia is un­der Russian influence. Cambodia and Burma are shaky neutrals. Malaya is al­lied with Britain. Thailand and the Philippines are pro-Western, having military alliances with United States.

United States with MAAG in defense of Japan as well as South Korea and South Vietnam. Okinawa and Guam are American protectorates. Recently India received jet fighters from Russia and military advisers and aid from the United States and Britain.

Taiwan is the corridor to the Chinese mainland and a base for military opera-tions. ·

PART 2: LAOS

The one good American influence in Laos is the American Ambassador, Leonard Unger, who served for a long time as assistant to the Ambassador of Thailand. He is popular and enjoys the friendship of the neutralists and pro­westerns. He has the respect of the Russians and their Ambassador and suc­ceeded in securing their approval in a

20014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22

mutual education program. The erec­tion of two primary grade schools, and a secondary school building. The Rus­sians did likewise. Both United States and Russia are building, together, a junior college. The United States built a 120-bed hospital and the Russians a 110-bed hospital. The only opposition to these projects for the benefit of the civilians was the Red Chinese Ambassa­dor, who accused Premier Prince Souv­anna Phouma that he was procapitalist and pro-American.

His Cabinet, representative of the dif­ferent factions, pro, con, and neutrals, have yet to agree on any major issue. The Prince is considered by the Western Powers, Russia, and most of the politi­cally alert Laotians as the only one who can keep the nation from civil war and hold together the extremists among the pros, cons, and neutralists in govern­ment.

Twice in the last 5 years, the United States, supporting the rightists, over­threw two governments under the Prince-accusing him of being too soft on communism. Today, the Communist factions are waging a civil war, claiming the Premier favors the West.

The present task of the United States is to keep the Premier in power.

The fighting is on a company basis but the continuing losses may result in the loss of General Kong Le's army. A defeat of the neutralist forces may re­sult in a general assault upon the Com­munist bastions or Western-supported states in other areas of southeast Asia, bringing about war on a full scale.

PART 3; OKINAWA

The Ryukyu Islands headquarters U.S. Army IX Corps and the varied facilities at Fort Buckner under the command of Paul W. Caraway, lieutenant general, U.S. Army, a famous officer and brilliant administrator whose many duties of dif­ferent import bestir the admiration of the natives, the officers of his command, and the personnel of all the services. As High Commissioner he governs and ad­ministers to the people of the islands, controlling and advising a locally im­provised government as to its laws, regu­lations, and controls, together with a su­pervisory enforcement thereof.

We were appreciative of the extended hospitality of General Caraway and his staff and his aide. 1st Lt. Donald L. McDaniel, on the island of le Shima which I visited. I viewed the sacred spot where Ernie Pyle was killed­mourned by all the services and his bud­dies-the GI's. As a brave, popular, and loved newspaperman he went with the boys in battle-ever celebrated and talented in his work-may God bless him.

The Ryukyuan Archipelago, a curvi­linear chain about 374 miles long, con­sists of three major island groups; Okinawa, Miyako, and Yaeyama. These 3 guntos of 64 islands comprise a land area of 542,281 acres. There are 49 inhabited islands of which 25 are con­sidered important.

Known as the Keystone of the Pa­cific, Okinawa, the most important is­land, is 840 miles southwest of Tokyo, 355 miles northwest of Taipei, 785 miles

northeast of Manila, and 887 miles northeast of Hong Kong.

The islands are within the North Tem­perate Zone but have a semitropical climate due to the influence of the Jap­anese Current which warms and humid­ifies the constant monsoonal winds.

The mean daily minimum for Febru­ary, the coolest month, is 50° F.; the mean daily maximum for July, the warmest month is 88.3° F. The highest recorded temperature was 96° F., re­corded in Naha on July 21, 1916.

Precipitation is heavy, ranging throughout the islands from 53 to 115 inches. The average annual rainfall in Naha is 84.3 inches. The heaviest pre­cipitation is during the so-called rainy season during May and June.

The humidity is excessive, averaging 80 percent throughout the year. An alleviating factor is the constant mon­soonal winds that blow from the north and west during the winter and from the south and east during the summer.

The Ryukyu Islands lie within the typhoon belt of the East China Sea. As many as 45 typhoons form within this area each year and from 3 to 6 of these can be expected to affect Okinawa di­rectly. The typhoon season is from April to October and it is exceptional, but not unheard of, for a typhoon to strike between November and April.

The Ryukyu Islands have been heavily populated for centuries. When Com­modore Perry visited the islands in 1853 he estimated that the Great Lew Chew­Okinawa-had from 100,000 to 200,000 inhabitants, or 310 to 412 persons per square mile.

The first official census made by the Japanese Government in 1920 indicated a total population throughout the Ryulcyus as 856.892. Emigration from the islands has been quite common; however, by 1940 the population had dropped to 839,-449. Of this number, 435,681 persons lived on Okinawa.

As of December 1, 1958, the entire pop­ulation of the Ryukyus was estimated to be 847,000 persons. Of this total, 720,-000 persons lived in Okinawa Gunto. The present population density is esti­mated to be about 1,450 persons per square mile.

Written records of the Ryukyus begin about A.D. 600 in Chinese and Japanese documents. In A.D. 605 and 606, the Chinese engaged in an episode of forelgn · expansion when they sent missions to Okinawa to demand tribute and submis­sion, demands which the Okinawans refused with vigor and impunity. The Japanese in A.D. 714 undertook a similar expansion which was not vigorously pursued in the Ryukyus. During the next few centuries contacts with China and Japan were infrequent and irregular. The period was of independent Okinawan development with the island divided into many tiny feudal states whose petty lords built themselves f ortifled castles and sup­ported small armies of retainers.

About the beginning of the 19th cen­tury, the Western Powers began to take an interest in Okinawa. In 1840 the British and French both tried to negoti­ate trade agreements and both smug­gled in semiofficial missionary repre­sentatives. In 1853 Commodore Perry

visited Okinawa and secured a trade agreement. Also, land was purchased at Naha for a U.S. naval coaling station. In the International Cemetery near Naha are the graves of several American sailors who died on Okinawa in 1853.

Racially, Okinawans are similar to the Japanese. Both seem to represent mix­tures of four types of people; first, the early Ainus, a stocky light-skinned, hairy people; second, a prehistoric wave of immigrants from the south, Malayan in blood and resembling the aborigines of Formosa and the Philippines; third, an early Mongoloid stock migrating by way of Korea, and later an infiltration of more advanced Mongolian people also by way of Korea. The Ainu characteristics are more predominant among the Ryukyuans than among the Japanese. Further, during early historical periods the Chinese intermingled with the Ryukyuans to some extent.

Standard Japanese has been taught in the Ryukyu schools for more than 50 years and is widely spoken throughout the islands. Formerly, Japanese was spoken in Okinawa's court circles. The Okinawans, however, do have colloquial­isms which are not readily intelligible to the Japanese. some of these are from their original language commonly called Luchuan. This language is no longer used commonly except among the older people and in the rural areas of the Ryukyus. Pronunciations vary some­what throughout the islands, just as they do from one area to another in many countries.

The religions of the Ryukyus are not nearly as standardized as the most popu­lar religions of Western civilization and it is a bit difficult to define exactly the common religious beliefs of these islands. Primarily the average Okinawa.n's reli­gion is based on animism, which is a form of nature worship in which the be­liever regards impersonal objects as hav­ing life or a soul. The native animism has been tempered considerably by the influence of Shintoism, Buddhism, Con­fucianism and Christianity.

The Okinawans generally do not have religious meeting places comparable to Western churches. Religious observ­ances commonly take place in the home, family tombs, outdoor shrines and tem­ples and other outdoor sites. Subse­quent to World War Il many churches have been built by religious groups in the Ryukyus.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the United States exercises any and all powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the Ryukyu Islands. The agency of U .s. civil authority is the U.S. Civil Admin­istration of the Ryukyu Islands CUS­CAR) which advises the indigenous Government of the Ryukyu Islands which was established in April 1952 as the central governmental authority. This agency has an appointed Chief Ex­ecutive, an independent judiciary and an elected unicameral legislature.

Before 1945 the Ryukyu Islands was basically an agricUltural economy. Prewar employment in agriculture and forestry produced 48 percent of the total national income. However, in fiscal year 1958 only about 18 percent was ob-

196!1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20015 tained from these activities. Presently about one-third of the national income is derived from commercial industries sup­ported mainly from earnings obtained. from activities concerned directly or in­directly with construction and mainte­nance of the U.S. forces on Okinawa.

Basic crops a-re sugar cane, pineapples. rice, sweet Potatoes, soy beans, and other fruits and vegetables. Cash crops are sugar cane which is exparted as black sugar, pineapples which are canned or sold as fruit, and vegetables which are sold to U.S. military forces on Okinawa and in Korea.

The major industries are concerned with consumption goods, mainly food, either for expart or to fulfill domestic needs. With the establishment of the U.S. dollar currency as the legal tender in the Ryukyus, there has been created much interest by foreign investors in the investment opportunities in the Ryukyu Islands.

During 1958 total imports were $99 million, while total exports were $16.5 million.

The recent years since 1951 have been characterized by the development of pri­vate enterprise, by the growth of local :financial institutions, by the expansion of private trade, and by social and cul­tural improvements in the diverse :fields of education, public health and welfare, and public safety.

The commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, briefed us on operations:

OPERATIONS BRIEFING .

My comments concerning the operational aspects of our functions in the Pacific Fleet, are based on the assumption that, in your profession, you have a pretty good feel for the military, and if the probabilities remain the same as they have in the past, that some of you, over a period of time, have had close relationship with the naval service. I pro­pose to cover our forces in being, their opera­tions in face of the threat, and I would like to touch u~on a few o! our major pr<;>blems. I don't plan to go into great detail on our administrative setup here in the Pacific, but I do feel that it ts in order that you have some feel for the functions of our major commands, in particular their relationships to other major commands and how we con­trol a force of this size.

But before I dor I feel we have two major considerations which bear on our area which you should know about. The first is the fact that this wm be strictly a Navy briefing but we don't want to infer that we can do this Job out here ourselves. As you probably recall, about 2 years ago there was a reor­ganlza tion in the Pentagon, when the control

· of the Armed Forces was given directly to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was at that time the Joint Chiefs of .Staff created the unified commanders or the specified com­manders depending on the circumstances. Here 1n. the Pacific we operate under the commander in chief, Pacific, who is Admiral Felt a.t Camp Smith. Admiral Sides, com­mander in chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, is a com­ponent of this unified command along with the Air Force and the Army. I would like to point out that all of the component com­manders are completely aware of the tre­mendous task here tn the Paclfic and no matter what you might read in the news­papers, cooperation and coordination amongst these three commanders are ex­emplary. The second consideration is the size of the area of which we are talking about. The commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet's area runs. from the North Pole down the western coast of North America and

South America to the South Pole--the border of Asia down to a point south of Calcutta and through the middle of the Indian Ocean. This ls 70 million square mlles or 40 percent of the earth's surface. To give you a little different perspective I would like to have you look at this picture of the globe.

The mission of the commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, ls simply to protect and advance the interest of the United States and its associated partners in the Pacific Ocean area. You wm find this mission ex­panded and interlaced in the discussions that follow.

Starting with the major commands, we have first the type commanders; five of which are located on the western coast of the Unired States, and three here at Pearl Har­bor. The :first ls commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet who ls physically located on North Island at San Diego. He control& the attack carriers, the antisubma­rine carriers, the seaplane tenders and all the naval aircraft in the Pacific. Along with commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet in San Diego ls commander, Cruiser­Destroyer Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet who ls lo­cated in his flagship in San Diego Harbor. He controls all cruisers, destroyer leaders, de­stroyers, destroyer escorts and destroyer tenders, which are the mobile repair ships. Also in San Diego there ls commander, Am­phibious Force. U.S. Pacific Fleet. Under hil!I control, ls the attack carrier which has been converted to an amphibious assault ship, used for vertical envelopment for the Ma­rines. In addition he has the cargo ships, transport ships and various other ships asso­ciated with amphibious landings. In Long Beach, Calif., is commander, Mine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet who naturally ls responsible for all the mine activities here in this area. This happens to be a wooden hull-type mine­sweeper. There ls one other type commander in San Diego, I will come back to. However, here in Pearl Harbor, we have commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, who nat­urally controls all of our submarines, subma~ rine rescue vessels and submarine tenders, which are also mobile repair ships. Across the street adjacent to this building, ts com­mander, Service Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, who is the commander in chief's Logistics Com­mand. He ls the "beans and bullets" man in the Pacific. He has all the ammunition ships, the fleet oilers which you see ·on your left, cargo ships and associated auxiliary ships throughout the Pacific. Also here 1n Pearl Harbor, we have Fleet Marine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, which is also located at Camp Smith. He has two Marine divisions, two Marine air wings !or a total of 68,000 men. Back to the type commander on the west coast.. To preclude any duplication of training effort here in this area, we have established commander, Training Command, Pacific. This command handles all of our training ashore and afloat. He ls completely responsive to the other type commanders and they lay their requirements on him. His training ls divided into two parts; the first is short courses on the beach that train in­dividuals in such things as fire fighting, damage contl"ol, and maintenance programs. He also helps to mold individuals into teams for use on a ship. Underway, he trains the ships for the type commanders, putting aboard highly experienced personnel who lit­erally look over the shoulders of the people on board and help the ships to train them­selves.

As I said, this was the first step in the command buildup. These type commanders that I have just mentioned are responsible for the manning of the ships, the mainte­n1'nce, training and the establishment ot standards.

T}ley are the people who . mold the ships into individual units. After this, and when directed by the commander in chief, these ships are turned over to qommander, 1st

Fleet who operates in the Eastern Pacific. He is responsible for the training and readi­ness of all ships. He takes the individual ships and niolds them together as a fleet. In addition he has on 74 hourft notice, an at­tack carrier group and on 96-hour notice, an amphibious and logistics group. When di­rected he deploys fleets or units of fleets to the 7th Fleet, who works in the western part of the Pacific. This gentleman is our Sun­day punch. This ls a powerful, mobile outfit capable of action or reaction across the broad spectrum of violence from the cold war ma­nipulations of the enemy through a nuclear conflict.

This ls the fleet structure, and in support of this structure, we have designated throughout the Pacific area various frontier or sea frontier commanders. These people are responsible for sea and air rescue opera­ations within their areas, control and surveil­lance of shipping and unidentified contact Investigation. They do not have forces as such, but as required, forces are deployed to them from either the type commanders or the fleet commanders as the situation merits. In addition to the commanders I have dis­cussed so far, we have two special com­manders here in the Pacific which we think are worthy of mention. The first ls com­mander, Barrier Force Pacific. He has under his control about 36 radar-configured air­craft with which he maintains a constant barrier from the Aleutian Chain to Midway Island. This ties into the continental de­fense as an extension of the DEW line, and he is in direct communication and is com­pletely responsible. to the Continental De­:rense Command in Colorado. The second commander ls commander, Antisubmarine ;Forces, Pacific. Over 99½ percent of all cargo and logistic support for our sister serv­ice and our ames in this area travel on the surface of the ocean, so the problem here ls to control these sea.lanes and lines of com­munication. We have created commander, Antisubmarine Forces, Pacific, who is Admiral Thach and ls located here in Hawall, to co­ordinate the antisubmarine effort here in the Pacific, to develop new tactics ln submarine warfare and to care for the research and de­velopment of new techniques in this field.

And finally, we have our own commander in chief, Admiral Sides, who is physically located in this building. It is interesting to note also that this building served as an­other Texan's headquarters, Admiral Nimitz, during World War II.

Now within this control structure we have 425 ships, at the present time. We have 200,000 naval personnel, 68,000 marines, with associated aircraft and 3,000 naval aircraft. I would like to have it understood that the 7th Fleet and the 1st Fleet are both de­ployed. The 1st Fleet, although not in the same area, spends as much time at sea, vir­tually, as the 7th Fleet. This point I want to make because of subsequent discussion. Further, because Of the expanse of this ocean, 17 percent of our forces are 1n transit at all time.

Now for the air units, we have eight air units festooned throughout the Western Pacific, starting down the west coast with two---Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Formosa, Japan and the Philippines. These are the patrol planes, as you well know. These are patrol squadrons who maintain varied patrols throughout the waters of the Pacific that we at this time feel ls necessary.

Now our marines. Our 1st Marine Di­vision ls located in Camp Pe:qdleton and con­sists of 18,000 men. This division is in the build.up state. However, I want to recall the !act that this particular division of marines was deployed to Korea on very short notice. In Hawaii we have 4,000 more marines. On Okinawa we have the 3d Marine Division with 15,000 marines. As you well know, these marines are there without their famme~. They are extremely mobile and are

20016. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22 not tied down to commissaries and diaper service. They can move almost instantane­ously. From these marines in the 3d Di­vision, we have 1,400 marines embarked in an amphibious landing group in southeast Asia.. This group is capable of either on­the-beach landings or over-the-beach land­ings. They a.re able to sustain themselves for a.bout 6 or 6 days without outside support.

Having looked at these forces and the con­trol they function under, let us now take a look at the role they play in general, limited, and cold war. As you know, we have nine attack carriers here in the Pacific. We maintain three of t:µese carriers in Westpac at all times, and where possible, we always keep two of these carriers at sea.. We also have five Regulus-carrying submarines, three missile cruisers, seven destroyers and de­stroyer leaders. All of these forces a.re ca­pable of handling nuclear weapons. They can strike from this particular area all the way down the littoral of this continent, and deep enough to cover any targets specified-any targets that would be a threat to these forces. I must point out that these targets are naturally tied in with the rest of the nuclear capability of this country, under the Joint Target Group in Omaha, Nebr.

I don't think it is necessary for me to go into too much detail on the Navy's capa­b111ty in limited war-you have seen the threat and you also well know our exhibition in World War II and Korea. I would like to point out though that it ls extremely impor­tant in a limited situation to keep these lines of supply open.

The cold war picture: Naturally we think our most important contribution is the 7th Fleet itself. It has and can be used as a show of force, and is quite influential in southeast Asia laying off the coast. In addi­tion to this show of force, we have four programs which we feel are worthy of men­tion. The first . is Operation Handclasp. This is the program where•by our ships upon return to continental limits of the United States will pick up, from various agencies, food, clothing, etc., and transport it to specified .places in the Orient. This has been a highly effective program thanks to the ingenuity of the sailor. He gets out there and delivers his gear and the first thing we know, he is back on the ship get­ting a hammer and nail or a paintbrush to go back and work with the local people in rehabilitating their buildings. It has been very effective-. The second ls the way we train our crews. We have stressed to these people the role they play out here. They are. completely trained in the mores of the community and the importance of their conduct ashore. We think that the record of our sailors in the Western Pacitlc speaks for itself. We also have MTT teams, which are mobile training teams, which we send to the various parts of Asia in company with U.S. equipment that has been given to these countries. This is a very selective program. These are highly motivated people and we try to get them with some language background. If not, we do give them as much training in a. language as ls possible. The last one that I think is worthy of men­tion, is our Joint exercises with our allies in Southeast Asia. There is no better way to develop comradery and respect than to · do it under war conditions, and these exer­cises are under war conditions. I can sum up the whole col.d war effort with a. quote from Vice Admiral Griffin, former 7th Fleet commander, "The days are over when the single concern of the American fighting man ls to win a war. Today's milltary man has to be a good will ambassador and a diplomat also. I feel a person-to-person good will pro­gram ls an extremely important part of every­thing we do. We have millions of soldiers, sailors and marines and airmen who can do . this work. An interchange of information between people in different countries of ·the

world ls necessary before we can think of peace." .

I am sure you can appreciate that we can­not run an organization of this size, espe­cially at the tempo that we are running it, without some problems. I would like to mention some of the more major problems we have because we feel that, first, they are interrelated and, second, that public aware­ness is in order if we ever expect to get a solution.

First we do not have enough ships or air­craft to meet all of our commitments at one time, nor do we have enough ships and air­craft to meet any single commitment with­out emergency procedures. Now this in it­self rings of the old hue and cry of the mili­tary for more bullets, however, as it relates to subsequent problems, it takes on more significance. I would like to mention here that the commitments of which I speak are, for the most part, commitments laid on us by higher echelons of the Government and not by the Navy Department.

The second is tempo of operations. For the past 10 years, or since Korea, the Pacific Fleet has been on a wartime footing. The average ships spends from 6 to 7 months in deployment to WESTPAC. Upon comple­tion of this deployment, she returns to the continental limits of the United States where she undergoes a brief period of leave and up­keep. Then she starts her rotation back to the 1st Fleet. Now I would like to relate this process to the average destroyer, from one yard overhaul period to the next, or a period of 2 years. We calculate that the average destroyer spends, in his home port, approximately 30 percent of that entire pe­riod. Now that's under normal conditions. If there is any manipulation of the enemy, say in Laos or Vietnam, or if there are any air-sea rescue operations that must be cared for or any unidentified submarine contacts, this degrades that 30 percent.

And third is maintenance. For all prac­ticable purposes we are still operating, for the greater part, with World War II ships with the same plumbing, electrical work and the same turbines. As time goes on they naturally get older and there is more maintenance involved. Now we do have a program which we call our FRAM program or fleet rehabilitation program, which is de­signed to put new equipment into the old hulls. Over the next 5 years we expect that this program will care for approximately 20 percent of our fleet. In addition we are re­ceiving newer type ships in · the fleet, vir­tually every year. But the total of these two efforts will possibly fend off for awhile but will not stop what is expected to be block obsolescence of the greater portion of our fleet in the next several years.

These problems, coupled with the fact that we cannot nor do we expect to compete with the booming economy, leads us to our most immediate problem: personnel. Of the 200,-000 men here in the Pacific Fleet, we lose about 20,000 yearly to civilian life, and nat­urally they are replaced with new recruits. This problem isn't new to the services, we have been living with it for some time, but thanks to a highly trained cadre of petty officers we've been able to keep ourselves in a comparatively high state of readiness. However, there are several factors which bear on this problem that can move it to a critical stage. First we have reached the 20-year anniversary of World War II wh~ch also marks the beginning of the elig!ble retire­ment period for these people. Now they, as I have said, are a highly motivated, hard working group, but they are also a married group and the pressures of the distaff side for a more stable homelife are starting to tell.

The second point is in World War II we were able to put together a. guncrew in about 3 to 4 months, .but today with our new and more sophisticated equipment we are lucky

to get a man trained to the point where he even knows the rudiments of the system be­fore he is eligible for release.

And la.st-is the new recruit in the 17- to 18-year-old group, is really not academically prepared to give us a hand with this new equipment without further training. This isn't to say that he can't _learn, but when we receive him he needs considerable help be­fore he is able to contribute much, and at this point he is normally ready for release.

All of these problems are being wrestled with at the appropriate levels of our Govern­ment, but we feel that the solutions will be much easier to come by with a public aware­ness of these problems, and with a public awareness of the fact that we cannot, with­out a lot of work, keep the military on a war footing with a nation at peace.

The battle for Okinawa ended the Jap­anese challenge for supremacy of the Pacific and Asia. It was the cruelest and bloodiest engagement of the war. The toll of human lives on both sides gave the answers to the full meaning of war.

One of the best kept secrets of the war was plans for Operation Iceberg, the seizure of Okinawa, an accomplishment. that brought imperial Japan to its knees.

Actually Operation Iceberg was first conceived as Operation Causeway, the invasion of Formosa which was bypassed in favor of Okinawa-began with plane raids on October 10, 1944, by Vice Adm. Marc C. Mitscher's Task Force 58 of the 3d Fleet. The Japanese plan of defense on Oki­

nawa was not to attempt destruction of the invading forces at the beaches, but to have the 32d Army offer a strong re­sistance around a central fortified posi­tion. A decisive land battle was to be av·oided until the Kamikaze planes and the Japanese fleet could destroy the American warships and transports.

The principal defenses were estab­lished in the rugged ground north of Naha, Shuri, and Yonabaru. Landings north of the line were only slightly op­posed. If landings had been made ·south of this line, they would have been met along the beaches. The forward Shuri defenses were along a natural barrier formed by Urasoe-maru escarpment, Kakazu Ridge, Nishihara Ridge, Tomb­stone Ridge, Tanabaru escarpment, and Skyline Ridge, a line running generally east and west from the Machinato Inlet to the northern end of the Yonabaru airfield. The defense zone extended south from this line to a depth of ap­proximately 5 miles.

The defense was planned as a series of concentric positions adapted to the contours of the ·area. Caves, emplace- . ments, blockhouses, and pillboxes were built into the hills and escarpments con­nected by elaborate underground tunnels and skillfully camouflaged; many of the burial tombs were fortified. The Jap­anese took full advantage of the terrain to organize defensive areas and strong points that were mutually supporting, and they fortified the reverse as well as the fc.,rward slopes of hills. Their re­verse slope defenses were most effective and formidable in slowing up of attacks on their positions.

As L-day drew near, -troops were staged on Oahu and in the Philippines. To prepare for . this combined operation,

1963 CONGRESSIONAL llECdRD - · HOUSE . 20017

Army. Navy, and Marine officers and men worked side by side .md across from one another at the same desks. Most of those working on the operation did not know what island or what spot was to be the target since "Iceberg,. was a code name identified with Okinawa only to the top commanders and the few en­listed personnel who were sworn to secrecy in the security rooms at 10th Army Headquarwrs.

On March 17, 1945, the initial prein­vasion tactics began with repeated air attacks on Okinawa by the famed Task Force 58, which only shortly before had been causing the Japanese homeland no end of trouble.

Then on March 25, 1945, . the initial surface bombardment of Okinawa was begun by Task Force 54. A_ day later the landings were made on Kerama Retto by units of the 77th Inf an try Division. That group of islands south­west of Okinawa was secured by March 29, providing a safe passage for the major invasion fleet which passed in the chan".' · nel between them and the larger island~

· Finally, on Easter morning, April l, 1945. the Japanese observed the :first landing attempts on Okinawa as the 2d Marine Division and XXIV Corps began a feint attack on the southeast coast to draw the enemy's attention from the main landing which began at 8:30 on the Hagushi beaches. The 7th and 96th Infantry Divisions and the 1st and 6th Marine Divisions found comparatively slight resistance to their landings . at Hagushi.

In 1 day the beachhead was established with the capture of both Kadena and Yon.tan Airfields. By ~he 2d of April, the 7th Infantry Division had completely severed the island in the drive to the west coast. By the 5th, phase I of the campaign was completed. The · XXIV Army Corps, under command of Maj. Gen. John R. Hodge, formed a battle line to the south, while the m Amphib­ious Marine Corps, under Lieutenant General Geiger, began its i,ush to the northern tip of the island.

On the southern Army front, scattered Japanese resistance gave way until Army units reached the first prepared. defense area on the approaches to the Machinato Line, running from the north end of Machinato Airstrip to the north end of Yonabaru Airstrip, and including Kakazu and Hacksaw Ridges.

On the northern front, moderate op­position was encountered by the . Ma­rines, and the northern point of the 60 mile island-some 40 miles from the in­vasion beaches-was reached and se­cured by May 5 without any sig:lificant battles.

Meanwhile on April 16, the 77th­Statue of Liberty-Division had begun working on phase n of the campaign, by striking the tiny Japanese airbase on Ie Shima. Ie Shima was dominated by Igegusukuyama, the only promontory on the otherwise level, airfield-covered island.

The battle revolved around the cap­ture of this peak, and within 5 days it was secured. le Shima is now world-fa­mous not for the battle but as the place where the soldiers• favorite correspond:.

ent, Ernie Pyle, was killed and buried. · A monument with a plaque "At this Spot the 77th Infantry Division Lost a Bud­dy-Ernie Pyle-April 18, 1945/' marks the spot. His body was later removed to HawaiL It is also noted as the historic airstrip on which · the Japanese peace envoy-laden planes landed enroute to · Manila. ·

On the south front the 96th and 27th Divisions' advance was still held up at the Machinata line. Tanks were brought into play but were alarmingly decom­missioned by the sting of Japanese 47-millimeter antitank guns whi~h seemed to be firing out of the solid coral hills. ·

On April 24, a 27th Division combat team finally broke through the cave fortifications at Kakazu Ridge and Item Pocket on the Japanese left flank, and Skyview Ridge. The enemy troops still in the Hacksaw Ridge fortifications were finally eradicated with burning gaso­line, flamethrowers, and final assault by the 77th Division from the crest of the hill with cargo nets and hand grenades in some of the fiercest hand-to-hand battles of the campaign.

Finally, the main element of the Japa­nese force retreated, only slightly fur­ther south to the most formidable de­fenses of the campaign the Naha-Shuri­Yonabaru line.

At the time, the line contained three divisions: The 96th replaced the 7th on the east; the 27th took the west flank; and the 77th was in the center. On May 5, the III Amphibious Corps was called in to replace the 27th which took up the security mission in the northern part of the island. On May 13, the 96th cap­tured a strategic hill to begin the en­circlement of Shuri from the south and east, along with the units of the 7th which were returning to the lines.

On the right flank, the marines fought their first major battles of the campaign with the capture of Sugar Loaf Hill and heavily mined city of Naha. The 1st Marine Division shot a spearhead into Shuri from Naha and the 77th Army Division, pushing on through such Jap­anese defenses as Chocolate Drop Hill, hit Shuri from the north. From the south, the 7th, now back in line, and the 96th increased the pressure of the en:.. circling movement and on May 21, Shuri fell to the victorious 10th Army.

Meanwhile the rainy season on Oki­nawa had set in and like· the mud, the Japanese Army oozed southward, never establishing a main line of defense. We pushed rapidly onward and the 7th Di­vi$on reached the southeast coast of the Chinen-Mara. Peninsula on June 3. On the west coast, the 6th Marine Division climaxed an amphibious landing from Naha Bay on the Oroku Peninsula on June 4 with the capture of Naha Airfield 2 days later. The peninsula was secured on the 13th when the 1st and 2d Marine Divisions wiped out last enemy resist­ance in the Naha. area with the annihi­lation of a strong pocket of crack Jap­anese naval troops, in the south outskirts of N3ha.

The 96th and 7th Army Divisions along with the 6th Marine Divisiorr con­tinued their push until finally the Jap­anese line held at their last stronghold, Yadjudake Escarpment, ·running east

from Itoman. Army and NavY guns shel!ed the last stronghold and Marine planes dropped makeshaft napalm bombs made with auxiliary airplane gas tanks filled with flame thrower :fluid and ignited with an impact fuse. Five hundred foot hoses were attached to flame-throwing tanks and the cliff de­fenses were saturated with gasoline which was touched off with dynamite charge to clean the Japanese from the last stronghold.

On June 18, the 10th Army was shocked by the death of its commander, Gen. S. B. Buckner. who was killed as he viewed the battle from an observation point on the · front lines. Had he lived but 3 days longer, he would have seen the Japanese surrendering at the rate of 2,000 daily and the securing of the island on June ·21. with the flag raising cere­mony at 10th Army Headquarters. Captured Japanese gave rumors of the purported large-scale Japanese rein­vasion of Okinawa by a Formosan task force but even General Ushijima, com­mander in .chief of. Okinawa troops, did not believe it. He and his chief of staff committed hara-kiri. . On June 2.4, Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell

took command of the 10th Army vacating his position . as Chief of Army Ground Forces. Several other phases of the campaign were canceled until other smaller islands~ such as Iheya Shima, Kume Shima, and Aguni Shima were taken without event by reconnaissance units. As a security measure. a final meticulous shore-to-shore sweep of the island was made with tens of thousands of troops fanned out and covering every square yard, this time moving from north to south. Caves were sealed with bull­dozers and blasting charges, and isolated snipers eliminated. Slight opposition was encountered in the area south of Kadema but many islolated groups of Japanese fanatics held out for months in northern Okinawa.

On September 10, 1945, surrender of the Ryukyus was completed on the same spot at 10th Army Headquarters on which the flag was first raised when the island was secured. Promptly at 1430, the general's flourishes were sounded, then General Stilwell, followed closely by his chief of staff General Merrill, strode out of his camouflaged headquar­ters quonset to take his place in front of the table. It was one of the few oc­casions on which the well-liked general wore the four stars of his rank, but he wore no other decorations. After a few curt orders through an interpreter, the Japanese signed, then General Stilwell signed. General Stilwell was heard to remark, as the soldiers, generals, and ad­mirals mingled, shook hands, slapped backs: ''There go the warlords of the Pacific," as the realization of the com­plete victory brought jubilation for the first time. All that remained was to send out a task force to the remaining Ryukyu Islands to see that surrender terms were carried out. This was done a fe-w weeks later.

The price paid for Okinawa was dear. The final toll of American casualties was the highest experienced in any campaign against the Japanese. Total American battle casualties were 49,151, of which

20018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE , October 22

12,520 were killed or missing and 36,631 wounded. Army losses were 4,582 killed, 93 missing, and 18,099 wounded; Marine losses, including those of the Tactical Air Force were 2,938 killed or missing and 13,708 wounded; Navy casualties totaled 4,907 killed or missing and 4,824 wound­ed. Nonbattle casualties during the campaign amounted to 15,613 for the Army and 10,598 for the Marines. The loss in ships was 36 sunk and 368 dam­aged, most of them as a result of air action. Losses in the air were 763 planes from April 1 to July 1.

The Ryukyu Islands are the most im­portant real estate we hold for the pro­tection of our interest in Asia. It is our storehouse of materiel: fuel, armament, and supply. It has natural harbors that serve the purposes of our naval require­ments for ships and submarines; airport facilities and the proximity of the island are vital to our military operations as a natural base. Its natives are loyal and appreciative for the rebuilding of their cities and our contribution to their econ­omy. They are anxious to b~ome Americans. Lieutenant General Cara­way, as commissioner, is in sympathy with their request to be giv.en U.S. rec­ognition either as a Commonwealth or a territory if not a State. Under their present status they hold an anonymous relationship to the world. Not being a nation or recognized as an integral part under a government they have no rights to a passport under which any nation could have a request for a visa.

It is about time to give some attention to their international blackout of their legal rights as inhabitants of a home­land that we have assumed complete control as occupied territory, a result of the fortunes of war. The loyalty and cooperation given to our forces of libera­tion during hostilities and the deep sense of appreciation displayed since to our command and troops merits serious consideration to remedy their present plight as being a people without a coun­try. It is about time we adopted them and returned their citizens the rights and dignities of other nationalities throughout the world. If their homeland is utilized for our purposes, to preserve the freedoms and liberties of the people of the neighboring nations, then we should extend the hand of Uncle Sam to return to them a status of identified citizenship. We congratulate General Caraway for his farsighted interest in a friendly and wonderful people--our strongest ally.

PART 4: HONG KONG

Mr. Speaker, at Hong Kong the Amer­ican consulate has been doing an admir­able job among the refugees-Red China-through the activities of the re­fuge and migration unit headed by its Chief Robert A. Aylward.

Our Consul General, Marshall Green, has a myriad of functioning areas of re­sponsibility--several of which are of great importance to the security of the United States-also the study of eco­nomic and other relationships with Red China. It is Interesting to analyze these functions and determine Interpretively the valued services of these dedicated, Americans.

THE ECONOMY OJ' HONG KONG Imports from Communist China have Hong Kong and Macau are the last fallen from US$180 million in 1959 to

important areas on the China coast re- US$178 million in 1961. These imports maining under European control and consist of foodstuffs, textiles, and a va­serving as the principal points of con- riety of light industrial ma~ufactures, tact between Communist China and the . most of which are consumed in the col­free world. Hong Kong is the more ony, but a portion of which is reexported prosperous of the two. Its prosperity has through the facilities of Hong Kong to been built around an excellent harbor other Asian countries. which is the best on the coast of Asia. As a result of this trading pattern, Its status as an essentially free port is Communist China's net earnings from its coupled with such facilities as large visible trade with Hong Kong rose from banking and insurance houses, deep- US$52.9 million in 1953 to US$186 mil­water wharves and numerous ware- lion in 1960. This export surplus houses, stable and efficient government, dropped by 13 percent in 1961 to. and the resourcefulness and enterprise of US$161.6 million and trade with Com­its merchants, manufacturers and Chi- munist China, as a proportion of Hong nese labor force. These assets are re- Kong's total trade, dropped to 11 percent fleeted in the success the Colony has en- in 1961 as compared to about 13 percent joyed thus far in coping with the very for 1960 and 20 percent for 1958. While serious problems it has faced as an after- China's trade remains essential to the math of both World War II and the Com- colony's needs, it has now taken second munist takeover of the China mainland. place to the United States followed by

THE DECLINE oF THE c~INA TRADE the United Kingdom. Nevertheless Hong Kong's economy, traditionally,

has been tied to the China mainland. Since the British occupation in 1841, the development of this small tract of land Into a prosperous city of over 3,000,000 persons has been the result of the need for efficient foreign trade facilities on the South China coast. Special services and facilities were set up to collect, grade, and market raw produce of China; most Hong Kong firms had branches in Canton and other cities of China's southern prov­inces; and the · major portion of the trade of these provinces was financed through Hong Kong. The degree of in­terdependence was such that when China abandoned the silver standard in 1935, the Hong Kong currency was devalued in concert. On the average in the prewar period, the China mainland provided a market for about half of Hong Kong's exports and supplied about one-fourth of its imports.

After World War II, trade with main­land China never regained its prewar volume except for a frantic spurt in 1950-51 when the Chinese Communists tried to import as much as possible for their war needs. The United Nation's controls, which became effective May 18, 1951, cut off much of Hong Kong's export trade to Communist China; but even be­fore that time, the Chinese Communists had begun to reorient their foreign trade toward the Soviet bloc and were sending more and more of their ex;ports overland to the U.S.S.R. In recent years, more­over, it has become apparent that the Chinese Communists are pursuing a care­fully calculated policy of bypassing Hong Kong as much as possible as a source of imports, procuring their requirements di­rectly from Europe while at the same time keeping up a steady flow of exports to Hong Kong thus maintaining the net foreign exchange receipts derived from trade with the colony.

This tactic is clearly reflected in the trade figures for 1961. During last year Hong Kong's exports to Communist China amounted to US$17 .24 million, which was below the 1960 figure of US$21 million and far below the 1953 figure of US$90.2 million and the 1951 peace year level of US$251 million.

Communist China secured another fa­vorable balance in trade with Hong Kong for the 10th consecutive year bringing · the visible earnings from sales to the colony since 1952 to US$1,324.6 million. As 1962 draws to a close, it is noted that Communist China's trade with the col­ony continues strongly in its favor. Through the third quarter, China's ex­ports to Hong Kong amounted to US$147 .68 million which was an in­crease by 14.9 percent over that for the comparable period in 1961. .

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Hong Kong's trade with the United States was reduced in 1951 as a result of the United States and United Nations controls on trade with Communist China. Since that time, however, there· has been a steady increase in this trade. In 1961 total trade with the United States ·was over US$248 million, com­pared with US$14.4 million in 1949, prior to the beginning of the Korean war, to make the United States the col­ony's most important trading partner. U.S. foreign assets controls forbid the export to the United States of Chinese Communist products, but the establish­ment of a comprehensive certificate of origin system has stimulated the export of traditional Chinese type goods made in Hong Kong to the United States. In 1961, exports to the United States were over US$121 million, a 3-percent de­crease from 1960 and still about a ten­fold increase over 1954. Although down from ·the spectacular levels set in 1960, the United States was still the best mar­ket for Hong Kong's products, absorbing · 23 percent of the local goods manufac­tured for sale abroad. A sharp expan­sion in exports of cotton garments to the United States has been a major factor in this rise. Imports have also increased sharply. From a low of US$34.4 mil­lion in 1952 they rose to US$126.86 million in 1961.

Thus far in 1962-for example, through the third quarter-Hong Kong's exports to the United States amounted to US$113.53 million which was an in"! crease of 45.1 percent over that for the comparable period of 1961; whereas, ex­ports from the United States to Hong · Kong during the same period totaled

1963 " CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-- HOUSE 20019-US$109.14 million. Although this repre­sented an increase of 7. 7 percent over the same period for 1961, the colony had a net· favorable balance of trade· amounting to US$4.39 million. · ·

RISE OF INDUSTRY .

Two developments have aided Hong Kong in its attempts to overcome the effects of reduction in the export trade to China: These are the expansion of its trade with other countries and the establishment of new local industries.

Hong Kong found new export outlets in southeast Asia early in the postwar period, partly because its free currency market enabled Asian purchasers to ob­tain goods from hard currency areas. Its entrepot facilities were enhanced by the establishment of new industries to render it more useful to the economy of the small Asian nations which have found it increasingly convenient to ob­tain supplies for their expansion pro­grams through-Hong Kong. In addition, Hong Kong has been an important en­trepot for Japanese goods being shipped into southeast Asia, largely because it represents a convenient channel for cir­cumventing currency and payments dif­ficulties arising in direct trade.

Of greater long-term significance to employment and income in the colony has been the d~velopment of industry­a development that was stimulated prin­cipally by the -influx of Chinese refugee capital and technical skills following the Communist seizure of the mainland. A wide range of new light industries was established and, to an increasing extent, their products have been successfully marketed abroad. These industries in­clude cotton textiles, which made up nearly two-thirds of Hong Kong's man­ufactures, enamelware, a variety of food manufacturing establishments, and nu­merous other light industries including rubber-soled, footwear, plastic products, and :flashlights.

Hong Kong's heavy industry is limited and consists chiefly of its shipbuilding and repair facilities, but there are -also a number of iron foundries and rolling mills operating on raw materials from local ship breaking. Several factories also make machines for light industries.

Probably the most encouraging f ea­ture of the colony's overall trade in re­cent years has been the buoyancy in de­mand for the products of its growing domestic industry. Currently, domestic manufactures are estimated to comprise about 70 percent of the total export trade.

A severe shortage of land and fresh water imposes a serious obstacle to fur­ther industrial expansion. The Hong Kong Government has been working on the reclamation of land suitable for new industrial sites, but the · development of such factory sites, which will be some­. what removed from the present centers of population, will take time. Addition­ally, the Hong Kong Government is building a large new reservoir on Lantao Island to alleviate the severe water shortage and is exploring othe rsources of supply. Some capital shortage for in­dustry exists because of the reluctance of. southeast Asian Chinese-whose capi­tal comes here in large quant~ties-.to

invest in. industry when profitable real estate and stock market ventures are available.

-TOURISM

Tourism has risen sharply in impor­tance during the past several years to become one of the colony's leading sources of foreign-exchange earnings, second only to the textile industry. The beauty of the colony's landscape and the shopping facilities of the free port have attracted an increasing number of visi­tors which amounted to over 220,000, in­cluding 78,000 Americans, in 1961. The overall total of civilian visitors in !961 was 35 percent higher than in 1960. In addition about 132,000 American service­men visit Hong Kong every year. The income from tourism contributes an esti­mated US$100 million to Hong Kong's foreign exchange rese_rves each year.

The completion of Hong Kong's new city hall and convention center early in 1962 and a boom in hotel construction which will soon bring the colony's hotel room capacity to over 7,000 has further spurted the growth in tourism. Figures through the third quarter of 1962 show that there has been a further 14-percent rise in American tourists visiting the colony.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Hong . Kong's finances are in excellent condition. The public debt is virtually negligible, and the Government has man­aged regularly to have a budgetary sur­plus. Last year the surplus was HK$14 million but a deficit was expected for the 1961 budget year, as the Govern­ment makes large expenditures on public works to cope with the problem of the colony's refugees who have become a permanent fixture. However, current estimates for the 1962-63 financial year show that revenues will be HK$1,058 million and that expenditures will be HK$1,225 million, resulting in a deficit of HK$167 million. Taxes are low and duties are levied only upon a restricted list of commodities. Revenues have ris­en to meet these rising public expendi­tures, largely additional rather than through a raise in the tax rates or an ex­tension of the list of taxable objects. The currency of th~ colony is linked to the sterling area, but it is allowed to fluc­tuate freely in Hong Kong in terms of all other currencies in the world.

The Government has embarked on a bold public works program which will last for the rest of this decade. The cost of the overall program may range to US$550 million of which US$185 million will be for the provision of waterworks and US$24 million for con- . struction of the new international air­port. Other major public works a.build­ing include land reclamation, road con­struction, erection of schools, hospitals flatted factories and apartment house~ for resettlement of tpe refugee squatters.

OUTLOOK

Hong Kong's appearance of prosperity should not obscure the very serious problems it continues to face. For many years, for example, the colony has had a remarkable record of peace in labor-management relations. On past occasions when there have been threats

to strike, the situation has been stabil­izeg by firm police action. Nevertheless,' the_ Co~munists have succeeded in penetratin·g many· of the plants employ-· ing skilled labor, and the Communist­controlled Federation of Trade Unions is the stronger of · the two local labor federations. Through this labor or­ganization as well as through other pressures they can employ, the Commu­nist authorities in China have the power to create serious labor unrest in Hong Kong, The outbreak of violence in Oc­tober 1956 in industrial areas showed how vulnerable Hong Kong is to politi­cal disturbances. ·

The census taken in March 1961 re­vealed that the colony's population was 3,128,044; whereas, in a recent address before the Jaycee World Congress held in Hong Kong, the Colonial Secretary stated that by November 1962 the popu­lation had already grown to approxi­mately 3.5 million. Eighty percent of these people are under 40 years of age and 42 percent or 1.3 million are 14 years of age or under. During the next 5 years many of these young people will be coming onto the labor market and it is doubtful whether the expansion of local industry can keep pace. In addi­tion, the colony's refugee problem is not resolved and recently there have been indications that the Communist China authorities may be making it easier for mainland city dwellers to go to Hong Kong. While 422,000 of the colony's workers including many who are refu­gee from China have been rehoused in the Government-sponsored resettlement projects at an estimated cost of HK$13.2 million, the majority of workers are still depe~dent on crowded tenement type housmg or are living in hillside squatter encampments. In his budget address for 1961, the Colonial Secretary esti­mated that US$15,617 million was sp~~t on resettlement and 08$24,486 m1lhon on low-cost housing projects, or 33.4 .percent of the total nonrecurrent public works. Impressive as these de­velopments are., the Hong Kong Govern­ment has stated that there are plans to resettle a further 500,000 people during the next 5 years.

Average wages are low, ranging from US$0.52 to US$3.67 a day, hours of work are generally long, and most important the labor supply is to a large degree un~ skilled. The colony's new labor law which imposed a 10-hour workday and a 6-day workweek and no night work for women has already significantly altered labor conditions and costs in the im­portant cotton textile and garment in­dustries; labor conditions elsewhere in the colony are beginning to be affected and there is a current shortage of skilled labor. To deal with these problems, Hong Kong for some time to come will be under constant pressure to expand trade, develop new industries, and make larger expenditures on public works.

CHINESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG

_ The British Crown Colony of Hong Kong has traditionally been a major out­post of British political and commercial interests in the Far :East, a warehouse for the great market of China, and a

20020 CONGRESSIONAL RH£0RD- HOUSE October 22,

center of Western orientation for Chi­nese people. Geographically, economi-·_ cally, and politically, Hong Kong is a vital crossroads of the Far East. It is also a chief point of exit and entry for the Communist-dominated Chlna main-land. ·

At the time of the-British reoccupa­tion in September 1945, Hong Kong had about 600,000 people. At the present time the PoPulation is reliably estim~ted at 3.4 million. This is likely to .increase to more than 3 ½ million persons by the end of 1962. Thus Hong Kong, with a land area of 392 square miles-of which only 62 are usable-is faced with sup­porting a population about .equal to that of the Republic of Ireland, without hav­ing any appreciable natural resources upon which to develop its economy. Some of this increase is 'accounted for by the return of residents previouslY ex­pelled by the Japanese, by increase of births over deaths, and by. nonrefugee immigration. However, by far the larg­est element consists of ,over 1 million refugees who have fled into Hong Kong slnce 1949 when the Communists com­pleted their seizure of mainland China. They constitute the largest single group of anti-Communist refugees in the world. By the end of 1962 it is estimated that approximately 145,000 refugees will have arrived in the colony. In addition, the net increase of births over deaths in 1962 may be 90,000. ·

The influx of this large number of refugees plus their subsequent offspring has posed an enormous problem for the Hong Kong Government. Due to the extremely limited possibilities for emi­gration abroad, the colony has become not only the oountry of first asylum but the country of .final re.settlement for the majority of these people. The Hong Kong Government has fuUy accepted re­sponsibility ior providing minimum standards of housing, education, health. and welfare services. In the budget estimate for 1962-63, totalling US$215,-060,000, approximately US$128 million or 60 percent wm be used for nonrecurr.ent public works and the social services, in­cluding .schools, hospitals, : housing, clinics, roads, bridges. and the various community activities required to cope With the dilemma caused by the influx of the largest group of .refugees irom communism in Asla. 'It does not dis­criminate between refugee and Hong Kong-born, and it is stat.ed Government policy to work toward the integration of the refugee into the local soclety and economy.

Housing~ During the past 10 years the Hong Kong Government has realistically accepted the semipermanent nature of the refugee problem. Following the dis­astrous ftre 1n the Shek Kip Mei squat­ter area on Christmas Eve 195'3 which destroyed the homes of 58,000 in a single night, the Government embarked on a maJor scale construction of resettlement estates. It has committed itself to a program of long-term public housing with 440,000 persons already 1n stone cot­tages and multistory blocks. In the cur­rent year it plans to add housing for .an additional 120,000, a level to be main- · tained for the next 5 years. The Gov­ernment estimates that there are still

500,000 living on the hillsides .in squat .. . ter shacks and at least another 75,000 in improvised huts on rooftops. Others sleep in stairways with . no fixed abode, and large numbers live on junks . and sampans in the harbor. At least 250,000 additional persons live in substandard tenements, where frequently a bed space 6 feet long, '3 feet wide, and 3 feet high is a family's only home~

Education: With 40 percent of the total population under the age of 15 accor-ding to March 1961 census, ade­quate schooling facilities are a critical pr-0blem. Despite strenuous efforts by the Government to provide places in pri­mary schools for all, as of the summer of 1961 there were 194,000 children for

whom there was no room. Except for a half-dozen institutions, an schools in the colony have separate morning and after­noon sessions with many having a third shift in the evening. At the secondary school level the situation is even more critical, with thousands of children in the 13 to 17 age bracket for whom no educational opportunity exists and yet who are too young for regular emp1oy­men:t.

Health: Fortunately Hong Kong has not experienced any serious epidemic since the war. A cholera scare in the summer of 1962 was effectively controlled by the prompt and competent actions of the Department of Medical and Health Services. Tuberculosis continues to be the most eritieal health problem with an estimated 2 percent of the adult popula­tion having active cases. In recent years a colonywide BCG vaccination program for children appears to now be having a marked effect on reducing incidence among that age group. The number of hospitals and clinics is still woefully in­adequate despite the combined efforts of both Government and the voluntary agencies to increase their facilities. The present level of hospital beds is 1.77 per thousand population. A new 1,300-bed public hospital in Kowloon is scheduled for completion in 1963.

U.S. Government pr()grams: As a part of the worldwide U.S. escapee program, the Far East refugee program-operat­ing through the Refugee and Migration Unit of the Consulate Gen-eral-was established in Hong Kong in 1954 to demonstrate U.S. concern for the we-I­f are of refugees from Communist China. It is actively engaged in supplementing the efforts of the Hong Kong Govern­ment and the voluntary agencies to cope with the problems of this swollen popu­lati-0n. By establishing contracts with accredited American and international voluntary agencies, programs have been created to assist the refugees. These in­clude resettlement a.broad, local integra­tion, disaster relief, medical care, hous­ing, construction of hospitals, clinics and day nurseries, vocational tl'aining, aid to college students, and development Cl)f

refugee handicrafts. In addition, to strengthen and make more effective the surplus food program, FERP .has sup­parted the establishment of school feed­ing programs, milk bars, bakeries, and noodle plants. Distrlbution of U.S. sur­plus food is handled entirely by the local offices of Church World Service, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World

Federation, and the Seventh Day ,Ad­ventist Welfare Service. Since the en­actment of Public Law 480, title III, in 1Q54: through the end of 1962, the value of the surplus agricultural ~commodities received in Hong Kong totaled $30 mil­lion. The Hong Kong Government pro­vides free unloading, warehousing, and an inland transportation. During 1962 these voluntary agencies distnlmted a total of 12.7 mm.ion pounds of wheat flour, over '3.4 million pounds of corn­meal, 3.8 million pormds of milk powder,-8.4 million paunds of rice, 5 million pounds .of Bulgur wheat, and 3.6 miUion pounds of vegetable oils produced by the American farmer.

As an added demonstration of con­cern of ,the :American people for these refugees, the U.S. Government contrib­uted an additional $1 million during World Refugee Year'. These funds were used to construct special technical schools, hospitals, community centers, clinics, day nurseries, and to strengthen further the surplus food program. The present level of the Far East refug,ee program is -$1 million annually, plus about $5 million of surplus food. De­spite improvements in the local economy and the vast increase of the Hong Kong Government and voluntary agency ef­forts in the refugee field, the original purpose of the program remains valid as long as Hong Kong re~ains the haven of hope to thousands who risk death or im­prisorunent to flee here annuaily.

Hong Kong authorities consider that the refugees have brought three signifi­cant contributions to the economy: an energetic labor force; new techniques from North China; and new venture capital and entrepreneurial ability. Despite these very real contributions the unemployment and low living standards of the mass of refugees makes them a heavy burden on the economic life of the colony, and necessitates the diversion of large sums from development projects to relief projects. Adequate improvement of their lot will depend on the future expansion of the economy and the de­velopment of the social institutions of Hong Kong, ORGANIZATION 0:1' THE AMERICAN CONSULATE

GENERAL AT BONO -XONG

The functions performed by the consu­late general and other U.S. Government agencies with representatives 1n Hong Kong are swnm.arized in the following pages.

PRINCIPAL PERSONNEL

Consul general, Marshall Green. Deputy principal officer, John A. Lacey. Chief, consular section. Frederick E.

Farnsworth. Chief, Politi-cal section, John H. Hold- :

ridge. Chief, economic section, Lynn H. Ol­

son. Administrative officer, Earl R. Mi­

chalka. Chief, refugee .and migration unit,

Robert A. Aylward. · Regional officer, foreign buildings op­

erations, William E. Babcock. Public affairs officer, USIS, Earl J. Wil-

son. . Army liaison officer-also serves as ex- ,

ecutive agent, joint liaison offices-Col.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20021 Samuel E. Shoemaker. Naval liaison officer, Comdr. C. L. Keedy, Jr.

Air liaison officer, Col. Daniel F. Ta­tum.

Agricultural officer, Brice K. Meeker. Special representative of the director

foreign assets control, Harvey Leve. Senior customs representative, Harold

Smith. Medical officer-in-charge, U.S. Public

Health Service, Dr. Horace Delien. Officer in charge, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, Francis J. Noble. POLITICAL SECTION

The main function of the political section consists of reporting to the State Department on political developments, primarily developments relating to Communist China-domestic and inter­national-and secondarily developments in Hong Kong and Macau.

ECONOMIC SECTION

The work of the economic section is broadly divided into four categories:

First. Promoting U.S. trade and facil­itating U.S. commercial activities in Hong Kong.

Second. Reporting and interpreting economic conditions and developments in Hong Kong and Macau.

Third. Carrying out trade controls re­quired by U.S. restrictions on trade and financial relations with Communist China.

Fourth. Following and analyzing eco­nomic developments in Communist China. ·

CONSULAR SECTION

The consular section consists of the following three units. The functions of those units and some of the problems in­herent in their work are set forth be­low:

Citizenship and passport unit: The work of this unit is complicated by the inability of many applicants of Chinese origin to present acceptable docu­mentary evidence of births, marriages, divorces, or deaths since such vital sta­tistics have not heretofore been subject to civil jurisdiction or made of record on the mainland of China. The unavail­ability of such records lends itself to a high incidence of frauds perpetrated by persons who misrepresent their identi­ties and family relationships in an effort to obtain passport facilities illegally. In addition to 'providing passport and citi­zenship services to the estimated 1,800 American citizens residing in the colony, the unit also extends services to the many transient visitors in Hong Kong having a claim to citizenship of the United States.

Visa unit: Accepts visa applications and issues or refuses visas based on a de­termination of an applicant's eligibility under the law. The principal problem in the visa unit has been the high incidence of fraud which stems from quota immi­gration restrictions for Chinese appli­cants and the lack of civil records which would permit the proper identification of applicants. These circumstances place a heavy burden of responsibility and good judgment upon the visa officer who· must determine an applicant's iden­tity and family relationship based on fragmentary evidence, testimony, and

official records. Another problem · re­lates to the implementation of the se­curity provisions of our immigration laws for recent arrivals from Communist China. Still another problem has been the determination of bona :fl.de nonimi­migrant status for the large number of applicants who apply for visas as visi­tors, students, or in transit.

Special consular services unit: Func­tions comprise a broad range of activities including welfare and protection services, services to vessels and seamen, civil avia­tion, and affairs relating to the deaths and estates of American citizens in Hong Kong. Certain of these functions are complicated by special circumstances as, for example, the welfare and protection function by the detention on mainland China of certain American citizens, and the notarial function by services per­formed in connection with the Foreign Assets Control regulations and the re­export of certain goods of American ori­gin to South Korea, Thailand and Tai­wan. In addition, this Unit is responsible for the processing of applications for entry permits to Okinawa and for ob­taining Taiwan entry permits for holders of U.S. diplomatic and special passports. A major portion of the work of this unit consists of the delivery of U.S. Treasury checks to Federal beneficiaries and re­cipients of military -services allotments or pensions. This function is compli­cated by the manifold problems involved in the establishment of identity as indi­cated above in the description of the functions of the visa and citizenship units.

ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION

The administrative section operates as a joint administrative services organiza­tion supporting all U.S. Government ac­tivities and agencies attached to the consulate general. It is responsible for the management functions as well as preparation of budget estimates, admin­istrative support agreements, and con­trols the expenditure of funds, the gen­eral overall physical operation of the consulate general and the supervision of the personnel unit, security unit, budget and fiscal unit, general services unit, and communications unit.

REFUGEE AND MIGRATION UNIT

This unit contracts with nonprofit in­ternational voluntary agencies for serv­ices in the implementation of approved projects designed; first, to resettle abroad bona :fl.de refugees from Communist­dominated areas; and second, to inte­grate refugees into the local economy on a self-supporting basis.

The projects include such services as documentation and visa processing as­sistance, temporary shelter, supplemen­tary food and clothing, economic aid, personal counseling, medical and dental. care, overseas transportation, vocational training and low-cost housing. Con­tracts are currently in operation in Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan and have been negotiated with the National Catholic Welfare Conference of Amer­ica-NCWC; Aid Refugee Chinese Intel­lectuals Inc.-ARC; Lutheran World Federation-LWF; Free China Relief As­sociation-FCRA; Catholic Foreign Mis.:.

sion Society · of America-Maryknoll Mission-CFMS; Church World Ser­vice-CWS; the World Council of Churches-wee; and International So­cial Service-ISS.

Since September 1953, these voluntary agencies have assisted with the resettle­ment abroad of over 19,000 refugees and have provided direct help in the local integration of over 156,000 refugees.

Office of Foreign Buildings Regional Office: Region includes Hong Kong, Tai­wan, Philippines, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Japan, Korea, Okinawa.

Responsible · for foreign buildings operations at all posts in the region, in­cluding acquisition, disposal, oonstruc­tion major repairs, alterations, improve­ments and furnishings, Advises on all technical aspects of the maintenance of Government-owned property; provides technical inspection of maintenance and operation practices; advises posts on leasing; and furnishes technical advice to other Government agencies when re­quested.

U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

The overall function of the Public Health Service officer assigned to Hong Kong is to act as the medical adviser to the consulate general. The principal function under this category consists in the examination, both physical and mental, of all types of visa applicants who are presented to the U.S. Public Health Officer here for tha.t purpose by the Visa Unit of the consulate general. In addition, advice is given regarding the conduct of blood grouping and results of blood grouping on visa and citizenship applicants. The medical director also advises members of the consulate staff in regard to their personal medical prob­lems and helps them with the selection of doctors. The officer is not permitted by Hong Kong law to actually conduct the treatment of an individual any fur­ther than to advise him reg:arding his condition.

The medical officer is also available for consultation regarding the public health of housing or any other sanitary or pub­lic health condition which might affect members of the staff. He keeps head­quarters, USPHS, Washington informed regarding the general health conditions, .outbreaks of epidemics, and so forth, which might be of interest to the depart­ment.

ARMED SERVICES ATTACHES

The Army, Air Force, and Navy main­tain liaison offices here to report to their respective departments the activities of the British armed forces stationed in this area. The officers are accredited as attaches or assistant attaches to the American Embassy in London, but are resident in Hong Kong.

U.S. TREASURY-BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

Represents the U.S. Bureau of Cus­toms, the Narcotics Bureau and the U.S. Secret Service in the Far East. Primary functions are to prevent the interna­tional movement of illicit merchandise and to advise manufacturers, exporters, and other interested parties regarding requirements relative to legal shipping to the United States. Inquiries are con­ducted relative -to value of merchandise

20022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE October 22

being offered for shipment to the··united States. ·

t1 .S. ftEASUJlY--P-OREIGN ASSETS CONTROL

Administers the foreign assets con­trol regulations, a primary purpose ot which is to deny foreign exchange to Communist China through the freezing of the U.S. assets of persons or firms in Communist China and denying the U.S. market to products of Communist China. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Receives and adjudicates various ap­plications for ~neflts under. t~e immi­gration laws filed by U.S. citizens a~d resident aliens who are temporarily within the jurisdiction of its office; ad­vises State Department personnel on matters pertaining to the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and acts as liaison between the Hong Kong immi­gration authorities and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the pnited states on matters pertaining to deporta­tion of aliens.

USIS-HONG KONG

USIS, Hong Kong, authorized 12 Amer­icans, 66 local employees, and a budget for fiscal year 1963 of $552,000. The program is unique and operates in three spheres:

The Hong Kong-Macau program: This is a limited program directed to­ward audiences living in Hong Kong and Macau using mass media and cultural activities t;o: first, explain American foreign policy and gain support for its activities; second. help maintain a favor­able image of the United States and for American activities here through public relations for the consulate general, American aid to refugees, cultural repre­sentation, visiting U.S. Navy ships, et­cetra; and third, demonstrate the tra­ditional interest and friendshi]) of the United States for the people of China. The main target audience is youth.

The Chinese language program: This program produces materials such as books, pamphlets, periodicals and taped radio programs in the Chinese language for use among the 15 million oversea Chinese, largely in southeast Asia. Some of these materials are also used by USIS, Taipei, and locallY in Hong Kong. Through them we seek to create a sym­pathetic understanding of American life and the international goal-s of the -United States, and to encourage over­sea· Chinese to resist the efforts of the Chinese Communists to use them as an instrument of subversion.

The wor1dwide China reporting pro­gram~ The task of this program is to collect, process, and distribute to USIA and the Voice of America in Washing­ton, and to USIS posts worldwide, cor­rective information on Communist China and the threat posed by it to other coun­tries. The program relies mainly on news, features, articles, books, commen­taries and graphics produced by this office.

Organization: USIS, Hong Kong, is an integrated part of the consulate general and has its main offices there.

COMMUNIST CHINA

CHINA 'U.NDER COKM11!lIST lmL1I:

Mter more than 13 years of Commu­rust rule, China remains a predominantly

agricultural country presenting massive problems of development compounded by the political ambition of its leaders. One simple statistic illustrates the variety .of natural difficulties which would plague any Chinese .regime. China has three and a half times the population of the United States living in an area roughly comparable in total .size but having only one-third as much arable land. This in­herent challenge has, however, been magnified by the impatience of Peiping's leaders who have strained every resource of the country in an effort to transform China into a modern industrial state with sufficient power to dominate Asia and play a major world role. The pre­dominant characteristics of the Chinese revolutionary leaders have been their internal cohesion, their assertiveness in pursuing Communist and nationalist goals, their pretense of infallibility, their confidence in being the only creative in­heritors of the Marxist-Leninist mantle, and their doctrinaire faith in the effi­cacy and need of controls in every phase of society.

The Chinese Communist regime began its formal rule in October 1, 1949, with a number of major assets. The Commu­nist Party and People's Liberation Army provided devoted and uniquely disci­plined instruments with which the re­gime rapidly extended its new organiza­tion throughout China. Civil peace and physical unification were brought about with a finality Jacking for a century; and the Communists came to power with at least latent acceptance on the part of a substantial portion of China's popu­lation. Moreover, certain elements, such as the youth, displayed genuine enthu­siasm-derived primarily from national­ism rather than from communism-over ·communist promises to break with Chi­na's past weakness and corruption and swiftly develop a powerful egalitarian "new China.'' with its rightful place in

.the sun.

. Up through 1957, Peiping achieved an impressive record of development which helped neutralize or mitigate widespread personal deprivations as the Communist regime rounded out its authoritarian controls. The regime forcibly reduced consumption 1n favor of a state invest­ment program which was impressive both in terms of dimension and speed of growth; old centers of heavy industry were restored and expanded and new centers established; rail and highway communications were extended; agricul­tural production was increased ade­quately to feed a steadily growing popu­lation; and the regime's vigorous ap­proach created a plausible image of a resurgent China rapidly on its way to occupy a position of major world sig­niftcance.

Communist China's campaign of agri­cultural collectivization and socialization of the economy in 1955-56 was a disillu­.sioning step for the majority of China's population, who hoped to retain some vestige of traditional patterns as well as the land distributed to the peasants un­der the Communists relatively popular land reform of a few years before. Nevertheless. Peiping deliberately pro­ceeded. with this drastic transformation

because it was discontented with the ex;. isting pace of development, convinced that. Its long-range revolutionary pro­gram would founder if the peasantry's "spontaneous tendency toward capi­talism" were left unchecked, but confi­dent that a doctrinally rigid approach would bring success. Two years later a not dissimilar combination of impa­tience and doctrinaire confidence led Peiping to introduce two radical pro­. grams. One of these, the "Great Leap Forward," was directed at industry and designed to mobilize China's greatest asset-labor-in a dizzy campaign of forced-pace production. The other, the "people's communes," was directed pri­marily at agriculture. It involved huge rura1 organizations, embracing all func­tions of the countryside, and included radical communal features .abhorent to China's peasantry. Both programs failed with catastrophic results and brought China's population close to starvation. The root of the difficulty was nonsensical economic theory and or­ganization combined with an almost total elimination of material incentives in favor of controls, and these weaknesses were aggravated by 3 years of bad weather. Moreover, in the midst of the ·chaos, the Chinese leaders recklessly closed off the only potentia1 source of ·substantial externa1 assistance and chose an "independent" economic course as a result of their sharp dispute with the Soviet Union.

During the first half of 1961 the Com­munist leaders recognized that the vaunted leap forward and ,commune programs were a costly fiasco. Under the guise of the same old slogans, the schemes were set aside whlle the leaders tried to sustain the population at mini­mal nutrition.al levels and salvage the economy through a massive organi-za·­tional retreat. The order of economic development was· painfully shifted from .achieving large-scale industrialization in a decade to a sober program of g.radual development with primary emphasis on agriculture. The watchwords for the -economy as a whole were readjustment and consolidation. Most imPortant, a degree of incentive was reintroduced along with major conoossions to the peasantry, notably by permitting private plots and breaking down communes into much smaller collective units.

Toward the end of 1962 Communist China's leaders displayed confidence that they had turned the corner of their crisis 'RS a result of slight improvements in the 1962 harvests and a slowing down of the general decline. Their response was to continue the policies of economic con­so1idation, agricultural priority, and gradual development, but to call a halt to further improvisation or retreats from the Socialist road. The danger of fur­ther retreat in terms of the party's revo­lutionary dynamism was specifically em­phasized by bitter denunciations of re­visionist enemies "inside the Chinese Communist Party. The leaders an­nounced that party discipline and con­trols would be tightened, collective style organization would be stren.gtbened, and that China would have to gird itself for the long task of ~odemizing Itself by

'

1963 - . ' . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20023 its own efforts: · While thus sobered by the effects of their earlier miscalcula­tion, Peiping's leaders manifested a kind of defiant confidence · that ·their basic program of forced growth through con:. trols was. the only correct path for a Communist state, along with concern that compromise would undermine the Socialist foundations of their revolution­ary program for China.

MORALE

Although the enthusiasm o! the party functionaires and some other groups re­mained high through 1959, public morale was progressively diminished by various Communist campaigns, such as the so­cialization-collectivization campaign of 1955-56, which hit the small businessmen and peasantry, and the "antirightist" campaign of 1957, which hit the intel­lectuals, and many others. In the bitter wake of the "leap forward", this lack of enthusiasm deteriorated into apathy, re­sentment, and spiritual disaffection. Critically low public moral~amati~ cally illustrated by the exodus of thou­sands of refugees into Hong Kong in May of 1962-was, moreover, accompanied by a precipitous decline in the Communist Party's prestige and ability to maintain discipline . . · With the improvement o, food supplies in late 1962, the populace demonstrated a sense of relief,. but apa­thy still remained widespread, and there were no signs of regenerating enthusiasm on which the regime had drawn so heavi.;. ly in the past.

PARTY AND SECURITY CONTROLS

The ability of the Communist regime to remain in power despite this popular disillusionment can be explained in terms of the complete organizational controls which the regime possesses over the people. The core of this system is the Chinese Communist Party which num­bers some 17 million. Party control is supported by an extensive security ap­paratus together with a vast, well indoc­trinated military establishment of more than two and a half million men. Party membership places an individual in the highest social stratum of this "classless'' society and is a virtual prerequisite to further advancement. The pinnacle of the structure is the senior leadership headed by Mao Tse-tung, a· leadership which has demonstrated the greatest degree of internal cohesion and stabiltty of any Communist Party over the past three decades.

ECfONOMIC PROSPECTS

Despite some impressions to the con­trary, China is a still economically back­ward and underdeveloped country of 700 million people of whom some 80 percent depend on agriculture. Heady ideas of forced-draft industrialization have been at least temporarily set aside in favor of an all-out campaign to modernize agri­culture and increase its production. However, the regime will remain seri­ously handicapped in its effort to feed a population which increases at about 2 percent per annum while simultaneously trying to accumulate capital for invest­ment. Among the major problems' it faces are: the constricting circumstances of Chinese agriculture, which will not at

CIX--1261

·present permit more than slight annual production increases; an attendant

'1;carcity of investment capital; shortages ·of technical skills; the lack of incentive in a Communist economic organization; and the difficulty of repairing the politi­cal and economic damage wrought by the "great leap forward" campaign. China needs but has no prospect of sub­stantial ·external aid beyond limited for-

. eign credits and its foreign trade, which reached $4.2 billion in 1959 but fell to $2.9 billion in 1961. Strained relations with the Soviet Union, deferral of heavy industrialization, and the neeq, to· import vast amounts of grain, have reduced trade conducted with Communist coun­tries to less than 50 percent of its total trade for the first time since 1951.

FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES

The international policies of the Chi­nese Communists are inspired by both Communist and nationalist objectives. The nationalist objectives, currently ex­emplified by Sino-Indian relations, are to establish direct control over all terri­tories that Peiping considers historically

· Chinese, and to build China's relative ·power position in keeping with the chauvinist assumption that China is the center of Asia. The Communist objec­tives are to promote communism in Asia through a "continuing revolution," and in the long run to transform non-Com­munist states into Communist states.

Peiping's leaders adhere firmly to the conviction that the "east wind prevails .over the west wind," and that the Com­munist revolution will eventually en­velop the world. They have assumed for themselves a major resPonsibility to press the cause for comm.unism in colo­nial areas and among newly independent countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Because of their own revolu­tionary history and agrarian back­ground, the Chinese Communists view themselves as best suited to provide guidance and protection to revolutionary movements in similar agrarian-based countries. They, therefore, offer and force their own experience as a pattern for all backward countries to follow in seeking a break from the past. Most of Peiping's leaders, however, have not had any extensive experience abroad or any real comprehensior: of the world outside of Communist China. As· a re­sult, their Policies frequently reflect ignorance of the countries to which these policies are directed, as well as of the nationalisms which they try to ex­ploit.

Despite the powerful bonds of a com­mon ideology and vital interests, Sino­Soviet relations have been progressively strained over the last few years to the point where there is a considerable dis­play of disunity and antagonism within the Communist bloc. The strain has de_; veloped with China's chafing under So.; :viet domination of the bloc, its competi­tion for the allegiance of other Commu­nist Parties, its bitter resentment over what it considers a sorry record of in­adequate Soviet military and economic support, and clashes of personality be­tween Mao and Khrushchev. One of the most decisive elements, however, has been Chinese Communist fear that the

Soviets will compromise the revolution­ary force of other Communist. revolu­~tions through policies associated with Khrushchev's slogans of "peaceful co­existence" and economic competition. Peiping's leaders seem convinced that their own radical program of "continu­ing revolution" will fail if it slackens and hence their stress on militance and un­flagging struggle against sharply de­fined "enemles" centering around the United States. They also appear con­cerned over the possibility that a Soviet detente with the United States and the West w111 leave them in the lurch with­out having acquired all the physical at­tributes they consider essential to great power status. An intensification rather than relaxation of the Sino-Soviet strain is most likely, but both countries still share a common hostility toward the non-Communist world and neither can be considered in isolation from the other in calculations of world security.

In the area of Sino-United States rela­·tions, there are two major factors to consider: U.S. strength and policies in ·Asia have been the major stumbling ·block for the Chinese Communists in the pursuit of their objectives; furthermore, for the ideological reasons, the United ·States as the major non-Communist power, has been seized as the arch enemy of the Chinese Communists. Peiping's leaders have sought to associate the United States with all developments adverse to their interests. The United .States is Portrayed as provoking India ~to resist China's incursions; the United States is alleged to be behind Japan's reluctance to normalize relations with Communist China; the United States is made synonymous with "imperialism," is accused of every sort of aggressive machination, and alleged to have sup­pressed independence movements in Asia and Africa. But above all, the United States is charged with the occupation of Taiwan, which the Chinese Communists claim to be their rightful territory. In making these charges, the Chinese Com­munists know that it is the United .States, acting in concert with other free nations, which stems Peiping's aggres­sive designs in the Far East.

LEA VE OF' ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab­

sence was granted to Mr. PEPPER <at the request of Mr. SIKES), for Tuesday, Oc­tober 22, 1963, on account of official business.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, following the legis­lative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. HEMPHILL (at the request of Mr. ROGERS o! Florida) , for 30 minutes, to­day, to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous matter.

Mr. GUBSER (at the request of Mr. BEERMANN), for 1 hour, on TI,lursday, October 24.

Mr. ~BONATI, for 60 minutes, today, and to revise and extend his remarks and include · extraneous matter.

20024 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

EXTENSION OF ·REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

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

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

Mr. HEBERT. Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. BURKE. Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama.

SENATE BILLS REFERRED Bills of the Senate of the following

titles were taken from the· Speaker's table and, under the rule, ref erred as follows:

S. 1248. An act to change the name of the Andrew Johnson National Monument, to add certain historic property thereto, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Inte­rior and Insular Affairs.

S.1299. An a.ct to defer certain operation and maintenance charges of the Eden Valley Irrigation a.nd Drainage District; to the Com­mittee on Interior a.nd Insular Affairs.

S. 1584. An act to approve a contract nego­tiated with the Newton Water Users' Asso­ciation, Utah, to authorize its execution, and for other purposes; to the Oommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

S.1687. An a.ct to · approve the January 1968 reclassifloation of land of the Big Flat unit of the Missoula Valley project, Mon­tana, and to authorize the modification of the repayment contract with the Big Flat Irrigation District; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

S. 1914. An a.ct to incorporate the Oatholic War Veterans of the United States of Amer­ica; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 1942. An ~ to incorporate the Jewish · War Veterans of the United States of Amer­ica; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee

on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker:

H.R. 75. An act to provide for exceptions to the rules of navigation in certain cases;

H.R. 641. An act to approve an order of the Secretary of the Interior canceling and deferring certain irrigation charges, elimi­nating certain tracts of non-Indian-owned land under the Wapato Indian irrigation project Washington, and for other purposes;

H.R. 2268. An act for the relief of Mrs. Geneva H. Trisler;

H.R. 4588. An act to provide for the with­drawal and reservation for the Department of the Navy of certain public lands of the United States at Mojave B Aerial Gunnery Range, San Bernardino County, Calif., for defense purposes; and

H.R. 6877. An act for the relief of Sp5c. Ourtis Melton, Jr.

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on October 21, 1963 present to the President·, for his ap­proval, a bill and a joint resolution of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 7195. An act to amend various sec­tions of title 28 of the United States Code

relating to the Federal-aid highway systems; and

. H.J. Res. 192. Joint resolution relating to the validity of certaJn rice acreage_ allot­ments for 1962 and prior crop yee.rs.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I move

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

ingly (at 2 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 23, 1963, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2.._of rule XXIV, executive

communications were taken from the Speaker's table and ref erred as follows:

1820. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting supplemental report on the Auburn-Folsom South Unit, Central Valley project, California, pursuant to sec­tion 9(a) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (58 Stat. 1187) (H. Doc. No. 171); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations.

1821. A letter from the Comptroller Gen­eral of the United States, transmitting a copy of the Department of Defense reply to B-113763, June 28, 1968, relative to the fail­ure of the Department of the Navy to fully recover excessive administrative cost allow­ances included in fixed prices negotiated with Brown-Raymond-Walsh (a joint venture) under Contract NOy 8-8838 for the Spanish base construction program; to the Commit­tee on Government Operations.

1822. A letter from the Comptroller Gen­eral of the United States, transmitting a re­port on weaknesses in administration of the hospital research grant program, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Edu­cation, and Welfare; to the Committee on Government Operations.

1828. A letter from the Under Secretary of the Interior, transmitting 25 copies of Tri­dent, the long-range. report of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and a wide variety of other statutes enacted over the years, which authorize a broad range of ac­tivities by the Bureau; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BENNET!' of Florida: H.R. 8881. A bill for voluntary accommoda­

tions, to assure the provision of decent, safe, and sanitary housing and adequate motel, hotel~ and eating accommodations for all Americans; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. CORMAN: H.R. 8882. A 'bill to amend the Civil

Rights Act of 1960 to authorize the Attorney General to reduce, in certain circumstances, the period of time for which certain elec~ tion records are otherwise required to be retained; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DONOHUE: H.R. 8883. A bill to amend the Immigra­

tion and Nationality Act, and for other pur­poses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LESINSKI: H.R. 8884. A bill to amend the Internal

;Revenue Code of 1964 to encourage the prevention of air and water pollution by :allowing the cost of treatment works · for the abatement of air and water pollution to be amortized at an accelerated rate for

income -tax purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. McFALL: H.R. 8885. A bill to amend title 88 of the

United States Code to provide special hous­ing and automobiles for certain disabled veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. ROGERS of Colorado: H.R. 8886. A blll to amend section 201 of

the Antidumping Act, 1921, with respect to the determination of injury or threatened injury to an industry in the United States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. HANNA: H.J. Res. 780. Joint resolution to request

the President to negotiate with the Mexican Government for the purpose of setting up a Joint United States-Mexican Commission to investigate the flow of marihuana, narcotic drugs, and dangerous drugs between the United States and Mexico; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By .Mr. HAYS: H. Res. 551. Resolution declaring the

House delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Confer­ences to be an appropriate committee of the House of Representatives · for the · purpose of implementing the act of July 11, 1956 (Public Law 689, 84th· Cong.); to the Com­mittee on Rules.

By Mr. SCHWENGEL: H. Res. 552. Resolution to provide for an

official picture of the House of Representa­tives; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. MATHIAS: H. Res. 558. Resolution expressing the

sense of the House with respect to expendi­ture of certain funds; to the Committee on Appropriations.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. UDALL: H.R. 8887. A bill for the relief ·or Penelope

Ann Roland; to the Committee on the Ju­diciary.

By Mr. AVERY: H.R. 8888. A bill to provide for the ad­

vancement on the emergency officers' retired list of the Army of John W. McManigal; to ·the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. BURKE: H.R. 8889. A b111 for the relief of Dina

Cohen nee Levin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

P;ETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, 399. The SPEAKER presented a petition

of Henry Stoner, Old Faithful Station, Wyo., with reference to special requirements for the admission to any legal 'bar or roster of attorneys, which was referred to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

II .. ... I I

SENATE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1963

The Senate met, in executive session, at 12 o'clock meridian, and was called to order by the Vice President.

The Chaplain,· Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Eternal God, our Father, in the still­ness of prayer, as~ the loud poundings of the Nation's builders cease, always we are conscious of a 'persistent knocking at

1'963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20025 our heart's door, and of a tender pleading Voice which steals into the emptiness of our self-content and our self-sufficiency, calling: "If any m_an wfij open the door, I will come in."

Solemnize us ·with the realization that only our hand on the inside can open the door that keeps Thee out of our lives, which, without Thee, are but vanity and vexation of spirit . .

If Thou should come to us dressed drably as duty, may we earn at the last Thy ''Well done." If Thou should come in the disappointment of hopes def erred, still keep our eyes upon the shining goals to which Thou art the way. If Thou comest in the white garments of truth, may we not fail to follow the road, though rough and steep.

As we fare forth in Thy fear, prosper us this day in all our toiling. So may we fulfill our daily tasks with honor bright, walking ever in the ways of Thy commandments.

In the Redeemer's name we ask it. Amen.

PROTOCOLTOAMENDCONVENTION ON !NTERNA TIONAL CIVIL A VIA­TION; CONVENTION ON EXTRADI­TION WITH SWEDEN; ADDITION­AL PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY OF EXTRADITION WITH BRAZIL; EXTRADITION CONVENTION WITH ISRAEL; CONSULAR CONVENTION WITH KOREA; CONSULAR CON­VENTION WITH JAPAN

The VICE PRESIDENT. The six protocols and conventions shown on the Executive Calendar, which were taken up yesterday, are now before the Senate, for consideration en bloc, as in Commit­tee of the Whole.

Without objection, the titles of the protocols and conventions will be printed in the RECORD, without being read.

The Senate, as in the Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the protocol~ Executive D (88th Cong., 1st sess. > , to amend the Convention on International - Civil Aviation; the con­vention, Executive E (87th Cong., 2d sess.>, on extradition with Sweden; the additional protocol, Executive F (87th Cong., 2d sess.>, to the Treaty of Extradi­tion with Brazil; the extradition conven­tion, Executive E (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Israel; the consular convention. Ex­ecutive B (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Korea; and tpe consular convention, Ex­ecutive I, (88th Cong., 1st sess.>, with Japan.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Amend­ments to the text of the protocols and conventions are now in order.

THE JOURNAL On request .of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday~ October 21, 1963, .was dispensed with.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, rask

unanimous consent that the Senate re~ slime the consideration · of legislative

business, for the purpose of having a morning hour.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob­jection, it is so ordered.

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE LEGIS­LATIVE BUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a morning hour, with statements in connection therewith limited to 3 min­utes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob­jection, it is so ordered.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in- writing from the Pres­

ident of the United States were com­municated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre­

sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 1523) to mak~ certain changes in the functions of the Bea.ch Erosion Board and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har­bors, and for other purposes, with an amendment. in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message also announced that the nouse had passed the following bills and joint resolution, iii which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 1959. An act to authorize the trans­portation of privately owned motor vehicles of Government employees assigned to duty in Alaska, and for other purposes;

H.R. 6001. An act to authorize the con­veyance to the Waukegan Port District, Illinois, of certain real property of the United States;

H.R. 8667. An act authorizing additional appropriations for the prosecution of com­prehensive plana for certain river basins;

H.R. 8677. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to set aside funds for research into spinal cord injuries and diseases; and

H.J. Res. 747. Joint resolution authorizing and requesting the President to procla.im No­vember 19, 1963, as Gettysburg Address Cen­tennial Day.

HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLU­TION REFERRED

The following bills and joint resolu­tion were severally read twice by their titles and referred as indicated:

H.R. 1959. An act to authorize- the trans­portation of privately owned motor vehicles of GoverD.lllent employees assigned to duty in ~a.ska, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmen'i Operations.

H.R. 6001. An act to authorize the con­veyance to the Waukegan Port Dist:l"ict, Illinois, of certain real property of the United States; and ·

H.R. 8667. An act authorizing additional · appropriations for the prosecution. of com­prehensive plans for certain river basins; to the Committee on Public Works. _

H.R. 8677. An act to amend title 38', United States Code, to set aside funds for research into spinal cord injuri~s and diseases; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. .. H.J. Res. 747. Joint ·resolution authorizing an_d requesting t~e President to proclaim November 19, 1968, as Gettysburg Address Centennial Day; to the Committee on the JUdictary. ·

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESS~ON

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on the District of Columbia and the Com­mittee on Finance were authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.

APPOINTMENTS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIBI­COFF in the chair) . Tbe Chair wishes to make the following announcement: · Under authority of Senate Resolution

168, agreed to by the Senate on July 11, 1963, the Vice President appoints the f ollowlng Members of the Senate as the delegation to attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary .Associa­tion, to be held in Kuala Lwr.pur, Ma­laya, on November 4-11 next; namely, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuL­BRIGHTl, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from Pennsyl­vania £Mr. ScoTTl, and the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.FONG].

Under further authority of the reso­lution, the Vice President designates the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHTl as the chairman of the delegation.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. FULBRIGHT, from the .Committee

on Foreign Relations, with an amendment: H.R. 7885. An act to amend further the

Foreign .Assistance Act of 1961, as a.mended, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 588).

By Mr. JACKSON (for Mr. CHURCH). from the Committee on Interior aand Insular Af­fairs, with amendments:

H.R. 2073. An act to place certain sub­merged lands within the jurisdiction of the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 589).

By Mr. PROUTY (!or Mr. MORSE), from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, with amendments: . s. 569. A bill to amend the National De­

fense Education Act of 1958 in order to ex­tend the provisions o! title II relating to cancellation of loans under such title to teachers in private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools and in institutions of higher education (Rept. No. 590).

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the :first

time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. TALMADGE: S. 2250. A bill for the relief of Elefterlos ·

Kostas Botsaris; to. the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. NEUBERGER: S. 2251. A b1ll to amend the Internal Rev­

enue Code of 1954 to allow to individuals a credit against Federal income tax for State income taxes paid by them; to the Com­mittee on Finance.

(See the remarks o!':Mrs. NB'uBERGER when she introduced the- above blll, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. PEARSON: S. 2252. A b111 for the relief of Phoebus

Tongas;· to the Committee on the Judiciary.

20026 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD_- SENA. TE October 22 AMENDMENT OF . FOREIGN ASSIST- .

ANCE ACT OF 1961-AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENTS 1".lOS. 23_1, 232, AND 233)

centuni per annum to the rate which tiie Secretary of the Treasury determines to be equ~l to the ave:i:age annual interest rate on all interest-bearing obligations of the United States then form!ng a part of the public debt

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I am as computed at the end of the fiscal year today resubmitting three amendments next preceding the date the application for to the foreign assistance bill, H.R. 7885. · "the loan is approved and by adjusting the These amendments had been previously ~~sf~!~ i:;:J. to the nearest one-eighth introduced as amendments to the Sen- Renumber the remaining sections appro­ate bill, S. 1276, but since the Senate priately. committee has now reported the House­passed bill, H.R. 7885, I have redrafted these amendments to make them ap­plicable to the House bill.

The first amendment, formerly num­bered 174, I introduce on behalf of my­self and Senators JAVITS and MORSE. This amendment is identical to a provi­sion contained in the House-passed bill. It would deny assistance to any country which the President determines is en­gaged in or preparing for aggressive military efforts directed against the United States or any nation receiving assistance from the United States.

The second amendment, formerly numbered 132, I introduce on behalf of myself and Senators SIMPSON, ERVIN, Moss, CANNON, DOMINICK, MORSE, YAR­BOROUGH, BIBLE, and SMATHERS. This amendment would require that loans under the program should bear interest at the same rate as the United States must pay to borrow money.

The third amendment, formerly num­bered 175 would require the country aided to agree not to levy imPort taxes on goods imPorted which have been pur­chased with AID funds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-· sent that these three amendments be printed, lie at the desk, and be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of these remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be received, printed and lie on the table; and, without objec~ tion, the amendments will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendments are as follows: .AMENDMENT No. 231

On page 61, between lines is and 14 insert the following new subsection:

"(f) No assistance shall be provided under this or any other Act, and no sales shall be made under the Agricultural Trade Develop­ment a.nd Assistance Act. of 1954, to any eountry which the President determines is engaging 1n or preparing for aggressive mili­tary efforts directed against-

" ( l) the United States, "(2) any country receiving assistance un-

der this or any other Act, or -"(3) any country to which sales are made

under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, until the President determines that such m111tary efforts or preparations have ceased and he reports to the Congress that he has receiv~d assurances satisfactory to him that such mmtary efforts or preparations w111 not be renewed. This restriction may not be waived pursuant to any authority contained in this Act."

AMENDMENT No. 232 On page 50, delete beginning at line a

through line 17, and between lines 3 and 4 insert the following new section:

"(6) In the case of loans under part I shall establish terms under which interest shall be at a rate n9t 1~1;18 thal'.). the_ ra._te .ar­rived at by adding one-quarter of 1 . per

AMENDMENT No. 233 On page 51, between lines 13 and 14, in­

·sert the following new subsection: "(f) No loan or grant shall be made under

any provision of this Act to any country. or to any recipient therein, unless such country shall have agreed to exempt from all customs duties or other import taxes levied by such country any articles procured in the United States or any of its territories with the pro­ceeds of such loan or grant, including any amounts thereof loaned by the original re­cipient to borrowers within such country."

RELIEVING THE STATES TAX SQUEEZE

Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President last Tuesday, the voters of Oregon, by ~ stunning 3½-to-1 referendum vote, repudiated a $24 million a year State in­come tax increase enacted by the State legislature. Governor Hatfield has now callee! the Oregon Legislature into a spe­cial session to be devoted solely to budget reduction. Unhappily, the budget-cut­ting ax is expected to fall most heavily upon critical welfare services and school fund appropriations.

Already the State public welfare ad- · ministrator has announced cuts in wel­fare affecting food standards, medical care, and nursing care for the aged and underprivileged, to take effect Novem­ber 1.

Doubtless the decision of the Oregon voters represented diverse, even conflict­ing, motives, but it is clear that the dominant sentiment reflected in the vote was that State income taxes were already as high as the citizens of Oregon were willing to pay or were capable of bearing.

As national legislators, we may be tempted to say that Oregon's fiscal woes merit our sympathy, but nothing more. This attitude would be a grave error. The plight of Oregon reflects a national crisis which threatens the very integrity of our Federal-State system, for if the State governments are unable to sustain the financial burden of their responsibili­ties, the Federal Government will in­evitably be forced to fill the vacuum in essell,tial services.

Oregon's crisis is dramatic, but it is by no means unique. For years our most distinguished officials and our most re­spected economists have been warning of the pending exhaustion of State fiscal resources.

Moreover, the efforts of State legisla­tors to retain a progressive tax structure have long been clouded by the fear that industry and risk capital would tend to flee to neighboring States which choose to rely heavily upon regressive sales and· other excise taxes.

Is _ther~. then, no method by which Congress can alleviate. the _ plight of States such as Oregon, without raising

the specter of Federai control? I believe there is one such m'ethod, and it is this: · that Congress allow a credit against Fed­eral individual income-tax liability for State individual income-tax .payments. .

This is by no means a novel proposal. The tax credit idea has won SUPPort from such diverse figures as Orville Freeman Walter W. Heller, George Meany, Robert R. Nathan, Harvey Brazer, Stanley H. Ruttenberg, Morton Grodzins, and John W. Gardner. Neither do we lack prece­dent for this precise technique of Fed­eral relief to the State taxing structure. When, in 1926, the Federal Government determined to yield to the States the greater part of death tax revenues, Con­gress enacted an 80 percent Federal death tax credit for State taxes paid. Again, in 1933, Congress adopted a tax credit for State unemployment insurance taxes against the Federal unemployment insurance tax.

The individual income tax credit is admirab~y suited to serve two primary goals: First, the tax credit would relieve. the acute pressure on the State tax-col­lection machinery, with no-attendant in­crease in Federal control of State opera­tions; second, a tax credit for State income taxes would stimulate State reli­ance UPon progressive income taxes thus encouraging uniform and progre~ive­rather than regressive-State taxation, and reducing the threat of interstate mi-gration of industry and wealth. ·

I am, therefore, today introducing a bill to provide a 7-percent Federal in­come tax credit for State individual in­come-tax payments. In operation, this bill would provide that a taxpayer whose

· Federal income-tax liability was $100 would be entitled to reduce his payment to the Federal Government by $7 as­suming that he paid at least $7 in State income tax.

What would this mean for such States, such as Oregon, which now have their backs to the wall? Immediately, since Oregon now has a relatively heavy in­come-tax structure, the Oregon taxpayer would benefit by the full 7-percent credit. Since Oregon's tax liability for 1960, the latest year for which figures are avail­able, was $383,156,000, the value of the credit to Oregon taxpayers would be a total of $26,820,920. This money would be freed, either to be taxed by the State or, if the State should choose not to in~ crease income rates, to serve as a tax re­duction to Oregon taxpayers.

Second, the tax-credit legislation would induce States with minimal or no income-tax structures to adopt at least a minimum credit-absorbing personal in­come tax. This, in tum, would · relieve the pressure on Oregon lawmakers to tum to a regressive sales or excise tax, in order to compete with neighboring States in attraeting wealth and industry.

The case for Federal income-tax credits was forcefully and succinctly put by Walter W. Heller, now Chairman of. the President's Council of Economic Ad­visors, in a report to the House Ways and Means Committee in 1959. At that time, Mr. Heller wrote, in support of a tax credit:

Its most fundamental purpose 1s 'to pro­tect the power of the purse underlying State

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20027 sovereignty and local independence. More­over, Federal credits, while certain tQ bring about greater uni!ormity not only in income tax burdens but also in the structure of in­come taxation at the State level, leave ample room for variations in State definitions of income, exemptions, and tax rates.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, to allow individuals a credit against Federal income tax equal to 7 percent of State income taxes paid by them, be printed in the RECORD at the close of m:y remarks, and that it be held at the desk for a period of 7 days, for cosponsors.

I also ask unanimous consent that a table showing the maximum authorized value of the tax credit to each State be printed at this point in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately re­ferred; and, without objection, the bill and chart will be printed in the RECORD, and the bill will lie on the desk, as re­quested by the Senator from Oregon.

The bill <S. 2251) to amend the In­ternal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow to individuals a credit against Federal in­come tax for State income taxes paid by them, introduced by Mrs. NEUBERGER, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Finance, and or­dered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chap­ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to credits against tax) is amended by renumbering section 39 as section 40, and by inserting after section 38 the following new section: "SEC, 39. STATE INCOME TAXES.

" (a>' GENERAL RULE.-In the case of an individual who has paid State income taxes during the taxable year, there shall be a1-· lowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to so much of the State income taxes paid as does not exceed 7 percent of the indi­vidual's Federal income tax liability for t.b,,e taxable year.

"(b) FEDERAL INCOME TAX LIABILrrY.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 'F'ed­eral income tax llab1lity• mea.J1s the tax im­posed by this chapter for the taxable year reduced by the credits allowable under-

" ( 1) section 33 (relating to foreign tax credit),

"(2). section 34 (relating to credit for divi­dends received by individuals),

"(3) section 37 (relating to retirement in­come credit), and

"(4) section 38 (relating to credit for in­vestment in certain depreciable property).

" ( C) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.-" ( 1) STATE.-For purposes of this section,

the term 'State• includes the District of Co­l~bia; but such term does not include any political subdivision of a State.

"(2) INCOME TAXES MUST BE DEDUCTmLE.­An amount of State income tax paid by an individual shall be taken into account in determining the credit under subsection (a) only 1f such amount is allowable as a deduc­tion to the individual under section 164."

(b) The table of sections for such subpart ls amended by striking out "Sec. 39. Overpayments of tax." -and . inserting in lieu thereof "Sec. 39. State income taxes. "Sec. 40. Overpayments of tax."

SEC, 2. The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1963.

The table presented by Mrs. Nzu­BERGER is as follows: Tax credit proposal-State-by-State break­

down of 7-percent credit [U.S. taxable income=$171,931,909,000; U.S. income tax

after credits=-$39,545,386,000]

State Federal tax

liability

(1)

7 percent of (1)

(2)

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

By Mr. McNAMARA: Text of statements by Senator MUNDT and

Senator MuSKm on the Northwestern Uni­versity radio program dealing with the ques­tion: "What Should Be the Role of the Fed-

- eral Government in Providing Medical Care to the Citizens of the United States?"

By Mr. CASE:

Alabama _____________ _ Alaska _________________ _ Arizona _______________ _ Arkansas _______________ _

$384, 260, 000 56,262,000

253, 511, 000 164,662,000

$26, 898, 200 . 3,938,340

17,745, 770 11,526,340

Sundry editorials and an article; also a letter dated October 17, 1963, from himself to the Attorney General, dealing with civil rights demonstrations in Georgia..

California ______________ _ Colorado ______________ _ Connecticut ____________ _ Delaware. _____________ _ District of Columbia ___ _ Florida _________________ _

ii!~!ft================ Idaho __________________ _ Illinois ________________ _ Indiana _______________ _ Iowa ___________________ _ Kansas ________________ _ Kentucky ______________ _ Louisiana ______________ _ Maine _________________ _ Maryland.. _____________ _ Ma.ssachusetts _________ _ Michigan ______________ _ Minnesota _____________ _

~t:!~~::::::::::::::: Montana _______________ _ Nebraska ______________ _ Nevada ________________ _ New Hampshire _______ _ New Jersey ____________ _ New Mexico ___________ _ New York _____________ _ North Carolina ________ _ North Dakota __________ _ Ohio ___________________ _ Oklahoma _____________ _ Oregon _________________ _ Penns~vania __________ _ Rhode Island __________ _ South Carolina _________ _ South Dakota _________ _ Tennessee _____________ _ Texas __________________ _ Utah ___________________ _ Vermont _______________ _ Virginia ________________ _ Washington ____________ _ W~st Vi!"ginia __________ _ W1Sconsm ____________ _ Wyoming ______________ _ Other areas ____________ _

4, 516, 589, 000 398, 589, 000 834,911,000 166, 581, 000 272, 534, 000 851,475,000 517,492,000 154,450,000 103, 661, 000

2, 950, 920, 000 997,294,000 477,063,000 396,367,000 375, 528, 000 448, 224, 000 147, 835, 000 802, 038, 000

1, 361, 979, 000 1, 907, 963, 000

640, 702, 000 163,794,000 884, 223, 000 110,088,000 262, 493, 000 88,831,000

124, 505, 000 1, 738, 877, 000

145, 092, 000 5, 076, 664, 000

519, 969, 000 75,016,000

2, 384. 896, 000 364, 287, 000 383, 156, 000

2, 586, 134, 000 186, 292, 000 227,103,000 77,376,000

474, 265, 000 1,693,213,000

152, 870, 000 55,892,000

676, 256, 000 661, 813, 000 268,931,000 842, 739, 000 70,643,000 69, 078, 000

316, 161, 230 27,901,230 58,443,770 11,660,670 19,077,380 59,603,250 36,224,440 10,811,500 7,256,270

206, 564, 400 69,810,580 33,394,410 27,745,690 26,286,960 31,375,680 10,348,450 56,142,660 95,338,530

133, 557, 410 44,849, 140 11,465,580 61,895,610 7,706,160

18,374,510 6, 218,170 8, 715,350

121,721,390 10, 156, 440

355, 366, 480 36,397,830

5,251, 12 166,942,720 25,500,090 26,820,920

181,029,380 13,040,440 15,897,210 5,416,320

33,198,550 118,524,910 10,700,900 3,912,440

47,337,920 46,326,910 18,825.170 58,991,730 4,945,010 4,835,460

Total_ ____________ 39,545,386,000 2,768,177,020

Source: "Individual Income Tax Returns for 1960," U.S. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, p. 78, table No. 12 ("Income Tax After Credits").

REPORT ENTITLED "A BUILDING FOR A MUSEUM OF IDSTORY AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE SMITH­SONIAN INS'l'll'0'110N" (S. DOC. NO. 40) Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, p1:1r­

suani to the requirements of section 4 of Public Law 106, 84th Congress, 69 Stat. 189, I submit to the Senate, from the Joint Congressional Committee on Construction of a Building for a Museum of History and Technology for the Smithsonian Institution, a report entitled "A Building for a Museum of History and Technology for the Smithsonian In­stitution," and ask unanimous consent to have it printed as a Senate document.

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

ADDRESSES, EDITORIAl.S,ARTICLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE RECORD

On request, and by unanimous consent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre­

sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, ~nounced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3306) to estab­lish a revolving fund from which the Sec­retary of the Interior may make loans to finance the procurement of expert assistance by Indian tribes in cases be­fore the Indian Claims Commission.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the President pro tempore:

H.R. 75. An act to provide for exceptions to the rules of navigation in certain cases;

H.R. 641. An act to approve an order ot the Secretary of the Interior canceling and deferring certain irrigation charges, elimi­nating certain tracts of non-Indian-owned land under the Wapato Indian j.rrigation project, Washintgon, and for other purposes;

H .R. 2268. An act for the relief of Mrs. Geneva H. Trisler;

H.R. 4588. An act to provide for the with- , drawal and reservation for the Department of the Navy of certain public lands of the United States at Mojave B Aerial Gunnery Range, San Bernardino County, Calif., for defense purposes; and

H.R. 6377. An act for the relief of Sp5c. Curtis 'Melton, Jr.

NEED FOR RETURN OF BOXCARS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, one

of the needs of Montana and the West is to have returned to our operating .rail­roads-the Great Northern, the ~orthern Pacific, and the Milwaukee-the boxcars which now are scattered all over the United States. We need them to move our wheat, lumber, and livestock to their destinations. We cannot get them for our own use, because the eastern lines have hogtied them, through payments on a per diem basis and a refusal to build their own boxcars:

One way to alleviate this shortage is for the Commerce Committee to report Senate bill 1063, which will increase the per diem that the railroads which use other railroads' boxcars have to pay. Another way is for the Intei;state Com­merce Commission to order the prompt

· return to the western roads of the box­cars which belong to them, and to forbid the eastern railroads to keep them per­petually in bondage on the basis of a low~· cost per diem scale.

This is a perennial problem in Mon­tana and the West,, and we are getting

20028 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

sick and tired of a ·practice ·wnich per­mits boxcars needed and built for our section of the country to be siphoned off and kept in bondage by railroads operat­ing in the ;other·sections of the Nation.

I call upon the Association of Ameri­can Railroads. the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Commerce Commit­tee to correct this unhealthy situation~ and soon.

UNITED NA'TIONS INTERNATIONAL . TRADE CONFERENCE

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I am apprehensive ·about the purpose and pos­sible results -0f the Soviet-proposed United Nations International Trade Con-· f erence, which is scheduled to meet in Geneva early next year.

For a number of years, Russia has been promoting talks, conferences, or discussions of the problems of interna- -ttonal trade. The United States }?.as resisted, because of the obvious attempt' of the Soviets to use such talks as forums for propaganda.

The lack of success of the Soviets has not diminished their fervor. The sud­den enthusiasm for the proposed con­ference on the part of the developing countries 1s undoubtedly the result of several years of propaganda work among them by the Soviets. The Unite_d States now faces a demand for such a confer­ence, and has agreed, although under conditions which our diplomats hope will prevent too much Communist control of the subject matter.

Somehow -the developing countries feel that they have been deliberately left out of GATT; and even though the United States has had a far-reaching program for aiding these countries, th~y have been led to feel that they are being exploited and not treated as equals. This is the Communist line, pure and simple.

Whether · the so-called safeguards under which the conference is being planned can be maintained is a serious question. There is little question but that the Soviets will do all possible to inject extraneous issues, publicize errors the United States may have made, and generally create the impression that the capitalistic nations are exploiting those

. less developed. The extent to which the Soviet line is

accepted will be evident when the votes on the various issues raised are cast. The United States is now on the def en­sive, and the conference will place us more and more in that posture. Can the West gain by the conference? Can we gain as much as we stand to lose?

The recent switch . from a policy of little or no trade with the Communists to one of open competition for the Rus­sian market has set the stage for a wide­open conference, with Russia in a posi­tion to "call most of the shots." Russia has flipped the coin..:.....heads, the · Rus­sians win; tails, the United States loses.

Many questions about such a confer­ence arise in m.Y mind; and I believe the Congress should explore them fully, in

order that the answers may be deter­mined:

First. How fertain and secure are . the limitations on the .subj~ts to . b~ dis-. cussed, a& outlined by the Preparatory Committee?

Second. Will the suggestions and rec­ommendations to be made by the mem­bers of the conference come by majority vote? Will there be "vetos," reports by the majority, or reports by a minority?

Third. What will be the lineup of the countries participating in any . voting · that may transpire? Will ea-0h country have one vote? Is there any hope that the United States .can hold the line be­fore the conference or during the con­ference?

Fourth. Is it true that one of the major points to be discussed is the meth­od by which developing countries may obtain increased financial assistance-­from the United States, as well as from other countries-on more liberal terms than in the past?

Fifth. Is it true that one of the prime purposes of the conference is to dis­cuss the creation of some new world trade organization? Will it be similar to the defunct ITO-the International Trade Organization-or the OTC-the Organization for Trade Cooperation­both of which could not "get off the ground'' in the United States?

Sixth. Is the planned new world trade organization to be under the control of the United Nations? Is it to be related in any manner to the United Nations? By what means will Russia be excluded from membership in the new interna­tional trade group; or is lt intended that the Communist countries will be full participants?

Seventh. When the suggestions or rec­ommendations of the members of the conference are up for Teview, accept­ance, or rejection, what will be the role of the United Nations?

Eighth. After all of the above ques­tions are answered, will those answers give us any assurance that the United States wi!l be able to maintain its posi­tion that the conference shall not develop into a forum for Soviet bloc propaganda?

Ninth. Does the United States sin­cerely desire to be a member of an in­ternational trade organization to which many Communist-dominated countries will belong? What is there to prevent Red China and Cuba -from becoming members?

Tenth. Do our diplomats feel that with this conference, they can .create a real "flrst"-a ·breakthrough-and can outmaneuver the . professionals? Has anyone weighed carefully the possible gains against the almost sure losses?

Mr. President. present at the confer­ence in Geneva, next year, will be rep­resentatives of many of the nations of Africa. the Far East, and the Middle East. It is claimed that safeguards adopted in regard to the agenda will pre­clude any effort to make those at the meeting overlook the existing policy with regard to international trade with .the Sino-Soviet bloc.

· My purpose in making this statement today is to point .out that I am grav:ely apprehensive about what will -happen ln 1964. Our voice ·at the conference -will be limited 1n . its effect. Undoubtedly, Red Russfa will use the meeting as a platform from which to propagandize against us. · It is my hope that the ultimate result

of the conference-which . will be held at the same time that the GA'IT con­ference will be held-will be to protect the interests of the citizens and the busi­nesses of the United States.

PROPOSED SALARY INCREASES Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President. I wish

to express my opposition to the pending 1>roposal to increase the salaries of high­echelon officials of the Government.

It is contemplated to raise the salaries of Members of Congress from $22,500 to $35,000; to raise the salaries of Cabinet officers from $25,000 to $40,000; to raise the salaries of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of · State, the Administrators of AID, HHFA, NASA, and VA and the chiefs of mission, who now receive $27,500, to the top level of a new salary of $38;500.

It is proposed ·that another class of Federal officials receive a pay raise from a present level of $25,000 to a new level of $36,500. If the bill is enacted into law, Supreme Court judges will receive a salary increase from a present level of $35,000 to a new level of $60,000. Legis­lative employees and others will also be affected by the bill.

In my judgment, a grave mistake will be made if the bill is passed. If any­thing, the Congress of the United States and the high echelon officials ought to set an example. proclaiming to the peo­ple of the Nation that this is a time when we should ask not what the Gov­ernment will do for us but what we can do for Government.

The example proposed in the bill will rlse to plague us. We will be rendered defenseless against the increasing rle­mands that will come from Federal em­ployees for increased salaries and wages.

The argument is made that we cannot get judges, that w_e cannot get people to run f-0r membership in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, and that we cannot get prosecutors and top level officials to work for the Federal Government.

To that argument I say, "Balderdash." Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield for a question? Mr. LAUSCHE. In a moment I shall

yield. For every Senator in Congress there are 100 persons who would like to displace him. For every Member of the House of Representatives there are 500 persons who would like to have the job.

I wish to repeat what I said some time ago: If one should come to the Congress with a loaded shotgun and threaten to use it, he cou1d not get out o!' the Capitol the Members of the House and the Mem­bers of the Senate. Yet it is argued that unless we increase salaries, our country will go to the dogs because no one will

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE'

run for the Senate or for the House. I cannot subscribe to that argument.

A proposal has been made to raise the salaries of Supreme Court judges from $35,000 to $60,000. I wonder if there is a Senator or a Representative who can point to one instance in which an ap­pointment to the Supreme Court has been declined by a lawyer because the salary is inadequate? For every judicial vacancy that exists on the Federal bench in Ohio, I have at least 30 applicants for the post. Let us not forget that the judges are not only remunerated liber­ally but also receive other benefits. The other day I read in the newspaper that certain judges of the District of Colum­bia who are performing work akin to the duties of a municipal judge of Cleve­land become entitled, at the end of 10 years' service, to a full salary for the re­mainder of life. If that is not robbing the taxpayer, I do not know w'hat theft means.

I have been in office for some time in my life. I have learned one principle: If you want to possess the ability to turn down improper demands, keep yourself clean. Keep yourself in a position in which you can say, "I have denied my­self of this benefit which you ask me to give."

But I suppose that before the present year has passed away the bill providing for increased salaries for top-level Fed­eral employees will be passed.

I now ask ·senators to listen particu­larly to some information which will be startling to them. On the basis of re­ports made in October 1962, the average weekly earnings of full-time State em­ployees, except those in education, is $91 a week. For the same period in 1962 the average Federal employee's wage was $113 a week. Throughout the country the average weekly compensation of State employees is $91, and the average for Federal employees is $113.

In Ohio the average State employee's salary is $86. Ohio must compete with the salaries and wages paid to Federal employees, who in Ohio are now earn­ing $117 a week. In Ohio the Federal employees are earning $35 a week more than the State employees.

The information which I am stating is the product of a tabulation made by a U.S. public official in Ohio. The tabula­tion states:

It ls interesting to note that there are nearly two Federal employees in Ohio for every State employee.

That is another bit of shocking in­formation: For every State employee there are two Federal employees. The way we are moving forward, the time will soon be at hand when there will probably be three to one.

The author of the tabulation further states:

It is also noteworthy that average earnings of Federal employees in Ohio are 35 percent higher than those of State employees. ·

Mr. ,President, that fact is true prac­tically everywhere.

I ask unanimous consent that the tables to which I have referred be printed at this point in the RECORD. .

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

as follows: Average weekly earnings of full-time State

employees, except in education, October 1962

Full-time Rank and State State

employees

All States______________ 1,088, 715

1. Alaska ___________________ _ 2. California ________________ _ 3. Hawaii_ __________________ _ 4. Nevada __________________ _ 5. Michigan_ ________________ _ 6. New York ________________ _ 7. Washlngton ______________ _ 8. Wisconsin ________________ _ 9. Oregon ____________________ -

10. Illinois ___________________ _ 11. Colorado _________________ _ 12. Utah _____________________ _ 13. Connecticut_ _____________ _ 14. Arizona __________________ _ 15. Vermont _________________ _ 16. Montana _________________ _ 17. Minnesota _______________ _ 18. Wyomlng __ ---------------19. Massachusetts ____________ _ 20. New Jersey _______________ _ 21. Idaho ____________________ _ 22. New Hampshire __________ _ 23. New Mexico ______________ _ 24. Iowa _____________________ _ 25. Pennsylvania ____________ _ 26. Rhode Island _____________ _ '%1. Ohio_---------------------28. Maryland ________________ _ 29. North Dakota ____________ _ 30. North Carolina ___________ _ 31. Kansas ___________________ _ 32. South Dakota ____________ _ 33. Malne ____________________ _ 34. Kentucky ________________ _ 35. Indiana __ -----------------36. Georgia __________________ _ 37. Missouri_ ________________ _ 38. Virginia __________________ _ 39. Nebraska _________________ _ 40. Texas ____________________ _ 41. Florida ___________________ _ 42. Alabama _________________ _ 43. Louisiana_----------------44. Delaware _________________ _ 45. South Carolina ___________ _ 46. Oklahoma ________________ _ 47. West Virginia ____________ _ 48. Mississippi__ _____________ _ 49. Arkansas ______________ :, __ _ 50. Tennessee ________________ _

3,129 93,619

5,924 2,705

34,315 109,104 20,468 16,972 15,863 44,654 11,741 5,803

20,352 8,313 3,917 5,925

19,075 3,355

37,710 28,670 5,392 5,191 6,799

16,532 77,405 7,399

46,838 20,100 4,511

28,555 14,223 4.986 8.987

19,385 23,126 20,435 23,757 30,470 9,717

46,862 30,989 17,229 31,197 4,886

15,003 16,520 15,598 12,638 11,767 20,605

Average weekly earnings

$91.42

147.38 124. 69 114. 38 111. 60 109. 71 104. 94 101. 68 101.48 99.54 98.85 98.36 97.16 96.07 96.03 95. 79 95. 72 94.67 94.15 93.13 92.99 91. 50 89.46 88.61 88.13 87.63 86.68 86.56 86.30 85.55 85.36 84.90 84.90 82.69 80.91 79. 74 79.44 79.06 77. 71 76.59 76'.52 75.10 75.19 74.56 73.89 73.04 72. 79 68.62 67.96 65.40 65.08

Source: Bureau of the Census1 '' State Distribution of Public Employment 1n 1962," April 1963; Washlngton, D.C. Computed from October 1962 full-time equiva­lent employment and total payroll, for functions other than education.

Average weekly earnings of Federal em­ployees covered by unemployment com­pensation, 1962

Rank and State Average Federal

employees

Average weekly

earnings

All States_______________ 2, 504, 131 $113. 29 1----1----

1. District of Columbia______ 212, 830 136. 32 2. Alaska____________________ 14,796 135. 22 3. Alabama__________________ 67,684 121.11 4. California_________________ 266, 249 118. 57 5. Maryland_________________ 77,436 117: 97 6. Ohio______________________ 95,740 117.12 7. Hawaii____________________ 27, 771 116. 36 8. Oregon____________________ 22, 724 116. 04 9. New Jersey________________ 59,783 115. 99

10. New Hampshire-----~----- 13, 934 115. 80 11. Pennsylvania______________ 136,036 114. 93 12. Utah______________________ 30, 237 113. 87 13. Tennessee_________________ 39,533 113. 35 14. New York_________________ 185,735 113. 07 15. Florida____________________ 55, 880 112. 83 16. Washington_______________ 52,416 112. 82 17. Massachusetts_____________ 68,196 112. 72 18. Colorado__________________ 39,097 112. 37 19. Virginia___________________ 87,809 112.05 20. New Mexico_______________ 26,044 111. 98 21. Michigan__________________ 48, 105 110. 72 22. Connecticut_______________ 16, 113 110. 58 23. Nevada____________________ 7,216 109. 82 24. Arizona____________________ 22,806 109. 47 25. Rhode Island______________ 13,695 109. 21

Average weekly earn1.ngs of Federal employees covered by unemployment compensation, 1962--Contlnued

Rank and State

26. Oklahoma ________________ _ '%1. Missouri_ ________________ _ 28. Wyoming ________________ _ 29. Delaware _________________ _ 30. Illinois ___________________ _ 31. Montana _________________ _ 32. Louisiana ________________ _ 33. T~xas ____________________ _ 34. Georgia ___________________ _ 35. Indiana __________________ _ 36. Vermont_ ________________ _ 37. Minnesota ________________ _ 38. Idaho ____________________ _ 39. Kentucky ________________ _ 40. Wisconsin ________________ _ 41. South Carolina ___________ _ 42. W~t. V_irgtp1a ____________ _ 43. M1ssISS1pp1 _______________ _ 44. Nebraska _________________ _ 45. Kansas ___________________ _ 46. Arkansas ________ • _________ _ 47. Maine ____________________ _

48. Iowa __ ---~----------------49. North Dakota ____________ _ 50. South Dakota ____________ _ 51. North Carolina ___________ _ 52. Virgin Islands ____________ _ 53. Puerto Rico ______________ _

Average Federal

employees

47,220 56,048 6,023 4,204

106,954 11,528 26,249

129. 770 65,545 35,776 3,522

28,015 9,053

32,884 23,092 28,141 11,699 19,465 19,402 25,091 16,630 ·9 243 20:325 8,504

11,364 37,007 14,210 9,302

Average weekly

earnings

$108.69 108.62 108.49 108.11 107.92 107. 31 107. 05 106.15 105. 79 105.02 104.84 104.33 103.80 103.65 102.65 102.37 . 102.18 101.82 99.41 98.66 97.58 97.34 97.15 96.38 95.83

.,,. 93.17 91.19 87.62

Source: U.S. Bureau of Employment Security, from tabulations of State agencies.

Mr. LAUSCHE. So the band begins to play, the hurdy-gurdy moves on, and the Congress contemplates making things worse than they are. The bill of which I speak ought not to be passed. If it is passed, it will rise to plague every Member of Congress. It will rise to plague us because we shall be rendered defenseless in saying to pressure groups, "I cannot give you what you ask. You are not entitled to it." The pressure groups will answer, "You gave yourself a pay raise of $12,500. You gave the Supreme Court judges a pay raise of $25,000, and a 50-percent raise in pay to district judges."

My inquiry is, How will we answer those statements? We shall not be able to doso. ·

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL] wanted to ask me a question.

Mr. KUCHEL. I noticed in the press the other day that a comparison was made between the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Robert McNamara, who receives $25,000 a year for administering a $50,-000 million a year defense budget, vis­a-vis the police chief of Chicago, as I recall, who receives, I believe, $30,000 a year.

Mr. LAUSCHE. What is it the Sena­tor wishes to ask me?

Mr. KUCHEL. I must say I believe that is not defensible.

Mr. LAUSCHE. If we are going to fix salaries on the basis of the magnitude of the moneys expended, we shall be in an indefensible and absurd position. If I were to tell the people of the State of Ohio that .I want to be in the Senate merely because of the $35,000, they would have a right to tell me to get out.

Mr. KUCHEL. The Senator from Ohio, I believe, is correct, but if he will let me comment further--- Mr. LAUSCHE. I will allow the Sen­

ator to ask his question.

20030 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October_ 22

Mr. KUCHEL. I believe that the peo- -ple of the United states need to attract to a position such as that of Secretary of Defense the finest, the most able, the most-competent person that we can find for that very important job. The com­parison I have just made demonstrat-es that, although the skills which are re­quired by a law enfor-eement officer in an Ameriean city are not to be under­estimated, they are hardly to be com­pared with the skills and techniques re­quired by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

It occurs to me that this indicates there is something wrong with laws which downgrade, in my judgment-and I am not going to make a long .speech on this subject-the qualiflc~tlons for anti the salary of one of the most important positions in the Federal Government. That is the only thing that I suggest.

Mr. LAUSCHE. If that were the only basis on which we would pay to attract people to enter Government service, we would be doomed to destruction. If a soldier who is called to duty should de­mand that he be paid in accordance with the sign.ificanee of the work that he is doing, there would be no end to the pay.

Mr~ President, I repeat that if we are to be able to withstand the inordinate demands, we should make certain that we follow a course of conduct that will place armor upon our bodies to enable us to say "No," rather than to weaken ourselves through the act of granting in­creased pay, and thus render ourselves incapable of saying "No" when the time comes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator from Ohio concluded?

Mr. LAUSCHE. I have concluded, and I thank the Chair for his courtesy to me.

VISIT TO THE SENATE BY GAETANO MARTINO. PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President., Mr.

Gaetano Martino, President of the _ European Parliament, has honored the

Senate by visiting us in this Chamber today.

The European Parliament is .a 142-member body which is the parliamentary braneh .of 3 ·European communities. Its membership includes the leading parliamentarians of the Six-France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland-and ital­ready is the most responsible interparlia­mentary group ln Europe. Dur.ing the next.several years it wi11 almost certainly acquire increased responsibility and, in time, become of greater ,gigni:ficance in the affairs of Europe.

As President of the European Parlia­ment and as a well-known statesman in his own rlght--he is a ·former NATO "wise man" and :Italian Foreign Min-ister-President Martino is a man of respect and authority among the Euro-pean parUamentarians. ·

We are indeed fortunate and honored to have him visit with us today. CAp- . plause, Senators rlsing.1

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On be­half of the Senate, the Chair extends a cordial welcome to our distinguished guest.

_ COMPUTATION OF PROPOSED INCOME TAX REDUCTIONS

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, on 0ctober 15, 1963, the able and distin­guished ~hairman of the Senate Fi­nance Committee had inserted in the RECORD a table prepared by the ·staff of the Joint Committee on Internal .Rev­enue Taxation indicating the average annual tax reduction per individual in­come taxpayer under the tax bill, H.R. 8363, as passed by the House of Repre­sentatives.

The table was prepared on the as­sumption that persons filing a joint re­turn should be counted as two taxpayers.

Inasmuch as persons filing a joint re­turn represent one economic unit, I asked the Treasury Department to fur­nish comparable figures for me to indi­cate the average annual tax reduction counting joint returns as a single tax­payer, which I believe gives a more real­istic picture.

Because of the great interest in this matter, I ask unanimous consent at this time to have the table prepared by the Treasury Department comparing these two methods of computing the tax re­duction inserted in the body of the RECORD.

There being no obj.ection, the table was ordered to be printed in the R"ECORD, as follows: Estimated average annual tax reduction per

taxpayer under H.R. 8363 when fully effec­tive, by adjusted gro&3 income class

Adjusted gross income class

o to $3,000 ___ ___ __ _ _____ _ $3,000 to $5,ooo ______ ____ _ $5,000 to $10,000----- ---- -$10,000 to $20,000 _________ _ $20,000 to $50,00() ___ ___ __ _ $50,000 and over _______ ___ _ All taxpayers ______ _

Taxreduo­tion (joint committee

ealeulation)l

~ '67 90

165 560

2,liK llO

T ax reduction 2

$57 100 159 312

1,020 2,625

174

1 As estimated by Joint Committee on Internal Reve­nue Taxation (Oct. U, 1963) and shown in table which treats joint returns -as 2 taxpayers. Table is labeled "Estimated average annual tax reduction-per Individual income taxpayer."

2 Excluding capital gams; Joint returns counted as 1 taxpayer.

Source: Office of the Secretary of tbe Treasury, Office of-Tax Analysis, Oct. 17, 1963.

WISE MEN ARE ABLE TO REVISE THEffi THIN:KING: EISENHOWER ON POPULATION CONTROL Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, when

I discussed at some length on October 10 the population problem confronting mankind I pointed to the paradoxical situation which exists when we provide technical and economic '8.SSistance to na­tions. thereby helping developing nations gr.ow more food with which they barely keep alive their burgeoning populations. Such assistance, I repeat, merely helps the world take a step backward. , Therefore. I am pleased today to call

to the attention of the Senate nearly slmllar words written by former Presi­dent Eisenhower in his article '!Let's Be Honest With Ourselves_," part 2, appear­ing in the October 26, 1963, issue of the Saturday Evening Post.

Says President Eisenhower: The time has come, also, when we must

take Into account the etrect of the popula­tion explosion on our mutual-a,ssi1rtance sys­tem. _• • • Unless we do, i~ may smother the economic progres~ of many nations which, with our technical and economic assistance are striving to build a decent standard of living. • • • There ts no real progress or se­curity to a nation which, with outside help, raises its productive capacity by 2 percent a year while the population rises 3 percent.

Such thinking is welcomed and real­istic and I commend the former Presi­dent for reversing his earlier thinking, and frankly admitting that he has, as he qoes in his article when he says:

Population .control is a highly sensitive problem, of course. When I was President I opposed the use of Federal fUnds to provide birth-control information to countries we were aiding because I felt this would violate the deepest religious convictions of large groups of taxpayers. As I now look back, it may be that I was carrying that conviction too far. I still believe that .as a national policy we should not make birth-control pro­grams a condition to our foreign aid, but we should tell receiving nations how population growth threatens them and what can be ~one about lt. Also, it seems quite possible 'that scientific -research, if mobilized for the pur­pose, could develop new biological knowledge which would enable nations to hold their human fertility to nonexplosive levels with­out violating .any mox:a1 or religious prece_pts.

I should also, at this time, like to quote from my speech on this particular -matter as follows:

There is an urgency involved ln the need to discuss population control

As the Senate debates the upcoming for­eign aid authorization and appropriation bills, attention must be given to the prob­lem, literally overwhelming, of the world's rapidly expanding population.

It does us little, if any, good to provide economic or technical assistan<:e to nations which show no concern for their population explosion.

Granted, we can ~elp a developing nation grow more food by teaching its citizens bet­ter use of their land. But when such new sk111s simply keep that natlorrs burgeoning population merely alive, a.nd no more, that part of the world will have taken a step back­ward-With our assistance.

MINING-ECONOMIC .BOON TO UTAH

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, my State of Utah this year is paying official recog­nition to an Industry which has played a continuing and important role in the economic development of the State. The year 1963 has been declared the centen­n1al year of the mining industry in utah.

Perhaps the most significant feature of the mineral industry in Utah has been its great stabllity, in contrast to that of many other areas. Although my State was a relatively late starter in mineral production, compared with other West­ern States, the value of output from Utah mines has held steady for more than half a century, being about 2 per­cent of the total U.S. mine production value.

The soundness of the mineral indus­tries of Utah reflects the earnest and industrious nature .of the earl,- settle­ment of the territory. The early Mor­mon settlers largely disregarded or op-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20031 · pos.ed gold and silver mining, devoting employment in metal and nonmetal min­their full energies to the development ing and processing in the State in 1960 of an agriculture-based society that was 18,800 persons, nearly c, percent of could provide self-sufficiency in food, the State's total employment. In ad­shelter and clothing. The mineral dition, there were 14,600 employees in wealth of the area could not be denied, the energy and fuels and metal fabrica­however, and ·about the turn of the 20th tion sectors, all directly related to miner­century-40 years after the first mining als. Thus, of 283,000 Utah workers clas­claim was staken in then Utah -Terri- sifled by major categories, 33,400 were in tory, the State fully emerged as one mineral industries or closely related oc­of the important mining areas of the cupations. Nation. In terms of value, the raw mineral

Today, despite the enormous pressure materials produced in Utah exceed $400 of a century of rapid national growth million each year. By comparison, an­and industrialization, including the nual farm cash receipts for Utah have drains of two major wars, Utah looks averaged $160 million in recent years. forward with confidence to retaining and And, in 1958, the most recent year for even expanding its capacity to serve the which data are available, the value of mineral needs of the future. · manufacturing in Utah was $411 million.

From its very beginnings a century For those who are not as familiar with ago, when California miners dressed in Utah's mineral wealth as we natives are, the blue uniforms of Union volunteers let me touch upon a few highlights of were stationed along the Overland route specific portions of the industry. through Utah, the area's mineral poten- Without doubt the most widely known tial has brought new people, new indus- feature of Utah mining is the great open try and new wealth into Utah. Com- pit of Kennecott Copper Corp. at Bing­mercial production of coal, gold, silver, ham Canyon. A large part of the 18 lead, zinc and copper started almost billion pounds of copper mined in Utah simultaneously in the early 1860's. has come from tl:is one mine which by Along with the influx of prospectors, now is a manmade bowl 2 miles across miners and speculators, there came cap- and four-tenths of a mile deep. It is a ital from outside the territory to find tourist attraction of great interest, and its way into mine development and mill the onlooker absorbs a sense of its great and smelter construction. The agricul- and continuous activity as he watches tural Mormon society found that the ore and waste being removed at a mineral industries off'ered new markets rate exceeding a quarter of a million for farm products, as well as job oppor- tons per day-100 million tons per year. tunities for people in mining, ore trans- The Bingham Canyon pit has particular port and the crafts. The precious and significance in the 1963 celebration of base metals shipped eastward provided the centennial of Utah mining because the exchange needed to bring in manu- the first claim was located at its site. factured goods and other supplies not Copper from Bingham Canyon has available locally. supplied an essential ingredient for to-

Mineral development grew steadily and day's better life. In 1882 when Thomas at the half-century mark-1913-Utah's A. Edison started the Pearl Street gen­coal output was 2.5 million tons per year erating station to light the streets of and the annual value of Utah's gold, New York City, it was apparent that the silver, lead, zinc, and copper production distributing of electrical energy for wide­was $44 million. spread daily use could be achieved only

As mining in the State increased, Utah if a low-cost electrical conductor mate­also developed into an imPortant west- rial wan available. Copper was known ern mining center in other respects. to be an ideal material, but the potential Smelters and refineries in Salt Lake and copper resource in high-grade deposits Tooele Counties made the area the top was too small to meet the possible need, world nonferrous metal smelting center, and commercial methods to mine large treating not only Utah ores but those low-grade deposits such as that at Bing­from other States also. The availability ham Canyon were not known. In 1899, of fine quality metallurgical coke made however, a report by D. C. Jackling and from Utah coal and the strategic situa- Robert C. Gemmell outlined a plan to tion of the Salt Lake Basin on north- mine this 2-percent Utah copper ore south and east-west transportation profitably. This marked the beginning routes were natural advantages that of an era still underway, during which stimulated the development of metallur- technology at Bingham and elsewhere gical industries. has enabled progressively poorer ore to

The inauguration of moderate-scale be mined and treated-and not only pig iron production in the midtwenties, holding the price, but producing copper and steel production and fabrication in relatively more cheaply. the early forties further strengthened Iron ore production records in Utah the role of minerals in producing jobs date back to 1885, perhaps because of and wealth in Utah. its local utility first as a pigment and

Since World War II the State has seen later in making pig iron and steel. In the uranium boom, an expansion of · 1924-26 pig iron and, subsequently, cast chemical and fertilizer industries, and iron pipe plants were built in the State. rapid growth in demand for construe- And since 1944 when steel production tion materials for roads, water projects, started at the Geneva plant of United and buildings. Utah mineral industries States Steel Corp., Utah has become the thus have increased in diversity and have largest western iron ore producing State become woven closely into the industrial and has one of the three major western fabric of the State. steel producing complexes. . Minerals are a significant factor in the The emergence of Utah .as a steel pro-

employment picture of Utah. Direct ducer hinges in large part on the avail-

ability of high quality coking coal. This valuable mineral resource continues to serve both the ferrous and nonferrous smelting and refining industries of Utah and other Western States.

For many years Utah has been the leading western coal producer and now ranks eighth among all the States. The enormous coal resource of Utah has been an important factor in the State's econ­omy, with · employment peaks of nearly 5,000 men being reached in 1922 and again in 1950. In recent years Utah's coal mine employment has declined along with that of other coal mining areas of the Nation while increasing pro­ductivity per man has been recorded. Direct employment in Utah's coal mines now is about 2,200 men. Coal research eff'orts of the Federal Government and other technological changes aff'ecting coal off'er hope of increasing the market for the fuel in the near future. With increasing efficiency of Utah's mines, and new concepts in transportation of coal and coal-produced electric energy, Utah · coal should continue to' hold its strong competitive place in the western energy field.

Other fuels also have a place in Utah's future. Petroleum and natural gas out­put is growing and exploration is continuing at an active pace. New at­tention is being directed toward the Nation's immense oil shale resource, of which a great portion is in Utah, and this fuel may add its production to the State's wealth within a few years.

A key to the development of this min­eral wealth of all types is in Salt Lake City and vicinity. Salt Lake City be­came a major Western mining center at an early date, and continues to hold this position. Mining consultants, fi­nancial organizations and machinery suppliers and distributors in Salt Lake City serve the whole of the Intermoun­tain West. Salt Lake City also has become a mining and metallurgical re­search center for industry, government and institutions of learning. A major contributor to the development of west­ern mineral resources and also to the general advance of metallurgical tech­nology has been the Salt Lake City Metallurgy Research Center of the Bureau of Mines, started one-half cen­tury ago.

All of these major developments in Utah's mineral industries have been ac­companied by a host of other events. The Salt Lake City valley long has been a major nonferrous metal smelting and refining center. Utah has its share of uranium ore, discovered and developed under the Atomic Energy Commission program, and is one of the top three producing States. Salt, phosphate rock, gypsum, molybdenum and many other mineral commodities are produced. Mine development is underway to ex­pand potash output. The rising de­mand for fertilizer materials should lead to greater exploitation of Western phos­phate rock deposits in northern Utah. A major new lead-zinc-silver deposit is being explored in the famous Tintle dis­trict. Promising beryllium deposits in the Spor mountain area may become commercial as the use of beryllium metal ·and compounds increases.

20032 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

Population ·growth in the Rocky Mountain States will be accompanied by. rising demand for cement, . concrete aggregates and other construction ma­terials. As improving technology leads to fuller use of unusual or rare mineral resources, there may be new plants to recover and refine a larger share of the vanadium, rhenf,um, tellurium, molyb­denum and other elements in nonf er­rous or uranium ores. Chemical indus­tries, too, may be attracted by the abundant and varied resources of the State. Truly, Utah faces a second great century of mineral progress which will benefit her people-a century of even greater promise than that which is being commemorated this year.

TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS UNDER TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 1962 Mr. JA VITS. Mr. President, Q.ccord­

ing to the New York Times of this morn­ing, President Kennedy formally notified American industry today that almost the entire U.S. tariff list would be subject to major reductions in the forthcoming GA TT negotiations.

I am gratified that despite the set­backs caused by the EEC rejection of British membership; the disagreements existing between the United States and the Common Market over how the forth­coming trade talks should be ap­proached; over the question of U.S. poul­try exports; and, over the disparities is­sue, the United States is proceeding, de­termined to conduct meaningful tariff reduction negotiations in 1964.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article, dated October 22, by Edwin L. Dale, Jr., entitled "Kennedy Says Most Tariffs on the List Are Nego­tiable," as well as two recent New York Times articles by Mr. Dale, regarding the grave problems surrounding the forthcoming talks, be inserted in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Oct. 22,

1963] KENNEDY SAYS MOST TARIFFS ON THE LIST

ARE NEGOTIABL]!}-EXCLUDES ONLY DUTIES FlxED BY STATUTE-LENGTHY HEARINGS ARE ExPECTED ON PLEAS FOR F'uRTHER EX­EMPTIONS

(By Edwin L. Dale, Jr.) WASHINGTON, October 21.-President Ken­

nedy formally notified American industry to­day that almost the . entire U.S. tariff llst--covering nearly 6,000 individual prod­duct&-would be subject to major reduction in the forthcoming global trade negotiations with the European Common Market and others.

It was the firs·t time in history that the United States had approached a tariff nego­tiation by throwing the whole tariff list "on the block." At the last round of negotia­tions, for example, the United States ex­cluded 75 percent of the items in the tariff list from the bargaining before the nego­tiations began.

Individual companies and industries will now have an opportunity, at hearings be­ginning December 2 and lasting at least 4 months, to try to persuade the Government to reserve specific products from the final negotiating list. All indications were that it would be an uphill fight for industry, though the final list undoubtedly would ex-

elude itt least a few items . especially vul-nerable to import competition. .

Only 10 i terns were kept off the list from the beginning, all required by law. Nine of them were products subject to past "escape clause" actions, under which the tariff was raised because of a finding of damage from import competition.

They were carpets, glass, lead, zinc, watch movements, stainless-steel table :flatwear, clinical thermometers, safety pins and cot­ton typewriter-ribbon cloth. The 10th item was petroleum and petroleum products. 011 imports are under quota restriction under a "national security" clause of earlier trade legislation.

Because petroleum still is permitted to en­ter in sizable quantities, this statutory re­serve list covers 13 percent of American im­ports.

Today's proclamation by the President said all the rest of the tariff list would be sub­ject to reductions of up to 50 percent. In addition, there were three suplemental lists of items for which the duty theoretically could be reduced to zero. · One list covered about 400 tariff head­ings where the U.S. duty is 5 percent or less.

The second was a short list of about 30 tropical products not produced in the United States and on which there are still duties. These can be cut to zero if the Common Market takes similar action.

The third list was largely academic. It covered almost all agricultural products. Duties on these can be reduced to zero under certain special conditions in an agreement with the Common Market, but today's an­nouncement said, "Strict statutory require­ments make it unlikely that very many of these items will in fact qualify for elimina­tion of duty."

The hearings, to begin December 2, will be held by the Tariff Commission and the newly established Trade Information Committee. The Tariff Commission is required to report, in secret, to the President on the economic impact of duty reductions, product by product. The Trade Information Commit­tee will largely be trying to learn about the foreign obstacles to U.S. exports, tariff and otherwise, that American industry would like to see reduced.

FINAL DECISION IN MAY About next May, the President will make

his final decision on what products to ex­clude from the bargaining, but he will not make the list public. The United States and all other parties to the negotiations are al­ready formally committed to keeping their reserve lists' "to a minimum." The Common Market countries have strongly intimated that if the United States has a long reserve list, the negotiation would be impossible.

The formal beginning of the negotiations is set for May 4 in Geneva. However, crucially important bargaining on the "ground rules" !or the negotiations is already underway. Progress has been slow, but these questions must be settled before the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations can begin.

Thus the outlook !or success or failure of the negotiations is still uncertain. But to­day's announcement said that, "as presently conceived the forthcoming negotiation will be the most comprehensive of its kind ever attempted." Authority for U.S. participa­tion stemmed from last year's Trade Ex­pansion Act.

[From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Oct. 15, 1963]

U.S. TARIFF TALKS To EXTEND TO 1965-NEGO­TIATIONS ON SPECIFIC LEVIES ARE NOT EX­PECTED UNTIL NEXT SEPTEMBER-FARM ISSUE UNSOLVED--QUESTIONS 01' DISPARITIES ALSO . SNAGS BARGAINING WITH WESTERN EuROJ>E

(By Edwin L. Dale, Jr.) WASHINGTON, October 13.-It Will be well

into 1965 before the Kennedy ·round of tariff

negotiations is completed-if it is completed at all. ·

This is the present Washington assess­ment at high official level.

General bargaining on actual tariffs is not expected to begin until next September and cannot possibly be concluded before the American election, though the purely for­mal scheduled opening date of May 4 may be adhered to.

The bargaining will not even begin next September unless agreement can be reached first on two exceptionally thorny questions-­how to deal with agriculture and how to deal with ta.riff "disparities."

BARGAINING DRAGS Bargaining on these issues is proceeding at

a. sluggish pace, with no sign of agreement yet between the United States and the Euro­pean Com1:llon Market--France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

The ultimate fate of the negotiations will be determined not only by success or failure to solve these two questions. It will also be profoundly affected by the outcome of the impending showdown within the Common Market in December, mainly over agriculture.

If the members fail to reach agreement on a number of highly difficult issues, the fate of the Common Market itself will be in doubt. A crisis or collapse in the com­munity would throw · the entire Kennedy round out of kilter.

DISPARITIES UNSOLVED Meanwhile, it is becoming clear here that

last May's showdown in Geneva at a minis­terial meeting of the member nations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in no way solved the disparities issue.

This is the problem of the existence in the U.S. ta.riff schedule of a number of unusually high ta.riffs and some very low ones, while the Common Market tariffs fall in a general range of 10 to 25 percent.

The United States continues to insist that there should be special rules for deeper cuts in very high tariffs only where the existence of disparities can be shown to have affected trade.

The Common Market--its line as hard as ever-insists that there can be no meaning­ful statistical demonstration of the effects on trade. It wants a general rule to apply to all cases. This is a position strongly held by France.

Computers in the Department of Com­merce here a.re cranking out- statistics . to support the U.S. case. But the Common Market has not budged.

[From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Oct. 18, 1963) .

TRADE POLICY DILEMMA! U.S. INDUSTRY SEEK­ING MORE PROTECTION AS .ADMINISTRATION WORKS To REDUCE IT

(By Edwin L. Dale, Jr.) WASHINGTON, October 17.-A meeting at

the White House with President Kennedy present, devoted to the seemingly banal question of the import of shoes, illustrated vividly today a serious dilemma that is rapidly approaching for the administration.

Expressed in its simplest form, the dilem­ma is that while several highly sensitive and important domestic industries are press­ing for more protection, the President may have to diminish protection to assure suc­cess of next year's Kennedy round of tariff negotiations with the European Common Market and others.

Today's meeting, backed up by the· sig­natures of no fewer than 250 members of the House of Representatives, was devoted to a plea to the President to do something to try to curb "excessive" imports of shoes. . Yet an Italian official, spea~ing in diplomatic language, said "the whole scope of the Ken­nedy round will be remarkably reduced for

1963 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD - SENATE ~0033 us" if shoes and one other maJor product, woolen textiles, are kept off the tariff-cut-ting list next year. ,

The woolen case 1s almost ide~tical with that of shoes. A part of the chemical in­dustry is another example, and there are several others.

TWO-SIDED P:t_i~SURE:

In each of the problem areas, the admin­istration is under extremely ,strong pressure from two exactly opposite directi9ns.

The pressure from the domestic industry is familiar enough. It believes itself dam­aged by imports with tariffs at their pres­ent levels. It not only wants to keep the products in question off the tariff negotia­tion list, but also wants additional protec­tive measures. The shoe industry, for ex­ample, would like to see an international agreement similar to that in effect for cot­ton textiles. And the industry has plants in many States.

Less fam111ar is the pressure from the op­posite direction. In brief, the President w111 run a severe risk of failure of the entire Kennedy round if the U.S. reserve list of prod­ucts excluded from bargaining ls too long or includes too many important products. The whole basis of the negotiation is that, for the first time, it w111 involve a cut in tariffs es­sentially "across the board."

For example, Italian support for a success­ful negotiation will be vitally important in the internal decisions to be made by the Common Marl:et as the, bargaining proceeds. But if woolens and shoes are on the "reserve list," Italy will largely lose interest because these· two products alone make up nearly a quarter of Italy's exports to the United States.

RESERVE LIST SLATED

Next week the long process begins of de­ciding what the U.S. "reserve list" will be.

The Government will publlsh a list of items subject to negotiation that will cover . the entire U.S. tariff except for a handful of statutory exceptions.

After that, domestic industry will have a chance to try to get individual products re­moved from the list, mainly through hear­ings before the Tariff Commission that will begin in December and run through March.

When the Commission reports, the Presi­dent must decide. The Common 'Market countries have intimated strongly that a iong reserve list might make the whole negotiation impossible, partly because it is very diffl.cult for them to agree on an excep­tion 11st of their own.

Today the President took t~e ~mediate heat off the shoe situation by setting in motion a plan to try to arrange industry­to-industry talks between the American in­dustry and those of Italy and Japan. It is not even sure that the foreign industries wm agree to talks and highly doubtful that they will do anything to restrict their exports.

But the problem will not die. It wlll be­come red hot again when the President makes his reserve-list decision about next :April or May. The industry welcomed to­day's move, and its congressional supporters were also pleased. But the ultimate out­come may be a lowering, not a raising, of protection against imports of shoes·.

WATER RESOURCES-DEVELOPMENT Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, the

Minot Dai)y News, Minot, ~. Dak., re­cently carried an editorial and-an article praising the officials of the Bureau of Reclamation for their devotion to water resources development not only in North . Dakota but throughout the United States.

The- article "RiVer Plumbers Meet Here" notes that the o:fflcfalS of the Bu­reau of Reclamation in their.Minot meet­ing dispelled a number of ·myths . about

the value of reclamation and irrigation projects.

I recommend both of these clippings to my colleagues and ask unanimous con­sent that they be printed at this point in the RECORD. .

There being rio objectjon, the editorial and article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the ~inot (N. Dak.) Dally News]

THEY CAME To WORK AND Dm "Bushed" is a. fair word to describe the 60

top officials of the Bureau of Reclamation as they departed Minot ,Friday at the end of their weeklong workshop.

Let there be no misunderstanding. The word "workshop" was not a.bused in describ­ing this gathering. The men were at their desks promptly at 8 a.m. each day and worked through to 6 p.m. No interruptions were permitted except by authorization.

Many devoted noon hours and evenings to meeting with delegations interested in one or more of the multitude of water and power projects in which the Bureau deals.

Out of it all came a reasonably firm work schedule for the current fiscal year and a. somewhat more "iffy" plan for the fiscal year beginning next July 1.

The "ifs" are not of the Bureau's doing. As Commissioner Floyd E. Dominy explained it, the Bureau doesn't know yet what Con­gress will appropr~ate for the current year and is even more in the dark on what will be forthcoming for fiscal 1966.

This doesn't make much sense in a. long­range program such as reclamation. From here it doesn't seem too much to ask that Congress advance a. couple of Jumps and chart-through project authorizations and appropriations--;.a clearer course for the Bureau.

At the very least, the Bureau should know by July -1 what work it is going to be per­mitted to do in the year that begins on that date.

It was nice having the Bureau executives and other personnel and we hope they'll schedule another session here· in the not distant future.

[From the Minot (N. Dak.) Dally News] INSIDE NOB.TH DAKOTA: "RIVER PLUMBERS"

MEET HERE (By Dick Dobson)

Reclamation Commissioner Floyd E. Dom:­iny and about 60 of his "river plumbers" have just concluded their weeklong work­shop in Minot. - During the annual program conference, the .Bureau of Reclamatipn's key personnel mapped the plans of the agency for the next year and more.

Since its inception about 60 years ago, the Bureau has worked to harness the great rivers of the West ·tn order to produce low­cost electric power and funnel the precious water ont.o semiarid lands.

Less than 1 cent of every 2 Federal tax dollars 1s spent . for reclamation projects in the 17 Western States and Alaska.

But it became evident to anyone who ·stopped to look in on the workshop that the Bureau's investments are made only after careful planning and study.

A number of "myths," mostly promulgated ouside of North Dakota, were exploded at the conference. They included: · (1) Reclamation projects are "pork barrel'' jobs and a waste of pu1>11c funds.

Opening the conference, Dominy quoted Representative MicHAEL J. KIRWIN, Demo­crat, of Ohio, as follows:

. "The fact is. that 92.2 percent of the cost of all authorized projects is repaid to the Government. Less than, 8 percent--repre­senting flood control, fish and wildlife and recreational benefits-has been declared by

COngress to be in the public interest and nonreimbursable." _ . .

(2) Irrigation contrib'l!te1:1 to the mounting surpl~s of agricultural products.

Representative J. EDGAR CHENOWETH, Re­publican, of Colorado, reported 1n June to the National Rivers and Harbors Congress:

"Only about 2 percent of these surplus crops constituting the total of Commodity Credit Corporation loans and inventories ' are grown on Federal irrigation projects."

CHENOWETH pointed out that irrigation encourages a farmer to convert' land pro­ducing surplus crops to other uses, such as stockraising.

(3) The Federal Government bureaucracy is growing to a monstrous size.

Dominy noted that the Bureau's staff has expanded 11 percent since the end ot World War II. At the same time, he said, the Bureau's annual program has been increased from $156 to $420 million.

Representative MoB.RIS K. UDALL, Demo­crat, of Arizona, in a recent article in the New Lepublic magazine, said: "In 1946 out of every thousand persons in the United States, 19 were civllian employees of the Federal Government. Today that number has dropped to 13, and 6 of these 13 are civllian employees of the Armed Forces."

Assistant Secretary of the Interior Ken­neth Hoium never hesitates to hand out political bouquets when he speaks in North Dakota. ·

At a banquet in Minot this week, Hoium praised Gov. William L. Guy and Sena.tor QUENTIN N. BURDICK, Democrat, of North Da­kota, for their work on behalf of the Gar-rison diversion project. ·

He also hailed the efforts of Sena.tor Mn.­TON R. YOUNG, Republican, of North Dakota, and the late Representative Hjalmar C. Ny­gaard, Republican, of North Dakota. · Rather conspicuously, it seemed, Hoium overlooked Representative DoN L. SHORT, Republican, of . North Dakota, who left the banquet to return to Washington before Hoium spoke.

But the Interior Department official didn't forget the Kennedy administration. Holum said he enjoyed supporting Garrison diver­sion, "a reclamation project so good that it has the personal endorsement of President Kennedy."

JORDAN AND ITS ARAB NEIGHBORS Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, there

was an article in the New York Times on October 10, which deserves the at .. tention of this body. I refer to a dis­patch by Mr. Dana Adam Schmidt from Beirut.

He reports that the King is disturbed by the threat to his country from fellow Arab· leaders-from President Nasser of Egypt to the south, and from a Baathist Party which is. seeking to unite Baghdad and Damascus to the north.

King Hussein has always been re­garded as a stanch pro-Western leader. He was aided by the British, and our own Government assumed responsibility for economic development in Jordan after the British withdrew. Thanks to our assistance, Jordan has made steady progress toward economic viability and there is now hope that Jordan may be­conie economically independent in the not-too-distant future.

I have often been critical of the fail­ure of our foreign aid program to dis­tinguish between friends and foes of the United States. Here ·is a good example of a friend." I hope that we shall con­thiue to grant that nation economic assistance and to accelerate progress.

20034 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD..:....:. SENATE October 22

Hussein feels him.self . threa.tened by Nasser as an . external foe and as . ari instrument of subversion. And we are partly responsible for that. In his article, Mr. Schmidt points out that King Hussein has shown increasing disap­pointment in the United States because we gave Nasser assistance after he tried to subvert Jordan and after he sent a military expedition into Yemen. Mr. Schmidt also reports that Jordan re­sents the pressure the United States has exerted to persuade that country to halt the flow of military supplies to the Yemen royalists.

There is a :final point. And that, Mr. Schmidt reports, is that King Hussein has also been disturbed by the U.S. effort to reduce aid to Jordan. I am quoting from the Times:

Budgetary support has been cut several million dollars annually in recent years. As a result, the Jordanian Government is hard pressed for cash.

And that leads me to another report on this subject. Within the last few days, our distinguished colleague, ERNEST GRUENING, senior Senator from Alaska, has published a report of a study on U.S. foreign aid in 10 Middle Ea.stem and African countries. During the course of a 2-month visit to the Middle East, Senator GRUENING surveyed our economic aid programs in Turkey, Iran, Syria, Leb­anon, Jordan, Israel, Greece, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. As a result, he has been able to present to the Senate Com­mittee on Government Operations a 470-page document, which I think all of us could examine with profit. · It is an en­cyclopedia on the problems which con­front these countries and some of the international problems in which they are involved. I commend this volume to my colleagues in the Senate and I would Uke to congratulate Senator GRUENING on a distinguished contribution to our thinking on these matters.

Now, Senator GRUENING has voted against the foreign aid program, not because he is against foreign aid but be­cause he is critical of some of the pro.; cedures that have -been followed. Under the circumstances, any recommendation on his part calling for increased eco­nomic aid becomes of considerable im­portance.

Therefore, I call attention to the chap­ter in his report on our aid to Jordan and development in that country, Sena­tor GRUENING takes note of the tremen­dous political and economic problems which confront the. courageous young ruler of Jordan and comments:

In the face of this constant propaganda against him, it is almost miraculous that King Hussein stm holds the throne of Jor­dan a.nd, it is Just as µuraculous that many have now come to the conclusion that if he continues to reign he may in time even make of Jordan a nation with a viable economy.

Senator GRUENING's reports on Jor­dan's agricultural and industrial growth are most encouraging. He recommends that U.S. economic assistance should be continued at the same or higher levels, with a review of our technical assistance projects to concentrate more upon projects of a more immediately beneficial

nature. toward ·economic development. He says:

Jordan's future economic success is most important to the United States. This is so not only because Jordan is oriented to the free world and stands as a buffer state be­tween Israel and a militantly hostile Arab world, it is especially important because Jor­dan seeks its economic development, not through socialism, which so many of the Arab nations espouse, but through the free enterprise system. In many of the other Arab countries assisted by U.S. economic aid, it can be said that we are literally using our dollars to prove that socialism is as good or better than our own system of free enter­prise. That is not the case in Jordan.

And, he finds: Under the enthusiastic leadership of King

Hussein, Jordan is making progress on the road to becoming a viable nation. Its lead­ers have the wm to do so and should be given every encouragement by the United States in achieving their goal. The excel­lent leadership of our able Ambassador, Wil­liam Macomber, . who believes that this de­sirable objective might be achieved in a decade, is really making the country team approach work in Jordan.

Mr. President, I am glad to call both this newspaper report and Senator GRUENING's constructive recommenda­tions to the attention of the Senate. They should be read together. They stress an important aspect of our aid program. Where our program is work­ing, it is desirable to maintain and per­haps increase it so that it will work bet­ter and faster and perhaps bring its termination closer because of its success. And, certainly, this kind of approach is appropriate in the· case of a country which is subjected to the political prob­lems which Jordan confronts because of the attitude of its Arab neighbors.

THE LIGHTS GO ON IN THE YAAK Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, this

month the lights went on in the b&auti­ful Yaak Valley of northwestern Mon­tana.

Central station power finally became available, thanks to many years of work by officials of Northern Lights, Inc., a rural electric cooperative-and particu­larly its general manager, Bill Nor­deen. Cooperating too were the Bonne­ville Power Administration and the Ru­ral Electrification Administration.

Russell w. Holt, assistant to Adminis­trator Charles Luce of the Bonneville Power Administration, delivered an ex­cellent address at the October 10 dedica­tion of the Yaak substation at Troy. He described the role of the Bonneville Power Administration in getting low-cost power to the people ; and stressed the need for construction of Knowles Dam. Time magazine was there and told, in its October 18 issue, how Bonnie Franke is looking forward to that waffle iron­"It's been a long time since this family sat down to waffles"-how she and others can finally have an electric iron, washing machine, dryer and water pump.

Mr. President, among the finest ex­amples of rugged individualism and free enterprise today are the rural electric cooperatives, the membership and lead­ership of oragnizations such as Northern

Lights, Inc., who · brought power to the Yaak Valley. The job of electrifying the rest of rural America requires that" kind of leadership. One farm in 20 in Mon­tana is still without electrification. I salute the- leaders of the rural electric cooperatives who believe in Government partnership in the utility business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to insert in the body of the RECORD, immediately following these remarks, Mr. Holt's address of October 10, entitled "What Low-Cost Power Means to West­em Montana," the October 18 Time mag­azine article -entitled "Montana-The Lights Go On in the Yaak River Valley" and an Associated Press story appearing in the October 18 issue of the Daily Mis­soulian, entitled "Babcock Says Co-op Image Has Suffered."

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD; as follows: WHAT Low-COST POWER MEANS TO WESTERN

MONTANA

(Remarks of Russell W. Holt, assistant to the Administrator, Bonneville Power Ad­ministration, dedicating the Yaak Substa­tion, Troy, Mont., October 10, 1963) The coming of electricity to the Yaak Val­

ley makes this a great day for the valiey. You have a beautiful valley. Now you have the electricity to put lights in your homes, electric tools in your shops, overhead lights in your yards, washers and driers in your kitchens, more water on your lands. You are now in the position to leapfrog decades of darkness and become full partners in the wonders and comforts of electrical living in the 20th century,

We're proud as a nation that some 97 per-. cent or more of our farms are lighted, and here in the Northwest that the figure is close to 99 percent. But I don't imagine this figure has been a lot of comfort to you who have done without electricity until now, or to the few remaining areas of the Nation which lack central station service. · Getting power to remote areas is an im­portant part of what BPA is all about, just as it is what the Rural Electrification Ad­ministration is all about. The Bonneville Project Act says, "the Bonneville project shall be operated for the benefit of the gen­eral public, a.nd particularly of domestic and rural consumers." It also says that pref­erence and priority shall be given to public bodies and cooperatives.

When BPA came along in 1937 only about 36 percent of the farms in the Northwest were electrified; today nearly 99 percent. In Montana., in 1936, only 6 percent were elec­trified, today about 96 percent. To say it another way, in 1936 about 96 percent of Montana. farms were in darkness, today 96 percent are in Ught.

This is not to say that BP A alone is re­sponsible for electrification of Montana or of the Northwest, or for bringing power to the Yaak Valley. · To give proper credit, you· have to .go back to the dreamers who fought for Grand Coulee Dam, the Rural ElectrUlca­tion A~t. the Bonneville Project Act, and those who have fought for public power down through the years. Here in the Yaak Valley, we are doing our share by providing the sub­station which we dedicate today. I might say that this substation is of new and in­genious design, representing a substantial savings in cost over comparable facilities.

. I hope this design will lead to new economies throughout our system.

Your co-op, Northern Lights, Inc., and its general manager, Bill Nordeen, deserve much of the credit for the electric service you are

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20035 . about to receive. Northern Lighta 1s build­ing the line, at a total coet of about ,125,000.

It may interest you to know that Northern Lights was incorporated 28 years ago and re­eel ved the ftrst REA loan west of the Mis­sissippi River. It started with fewer than 100 customers and today has almost 4,000. You people of the Yaak Valley will push Northern .Lights over the 4,000 mark. When the co-op ftrst went into business, it took lta wholesale power supply from private utm­ties; 1-n 1943· BPA was able to start supplying the co-op. Ra.tea of 8 cents per kilowatt­hour 28 years ago have dropped to 2 cents or less today.

There are still others who made today's occasion posslble--the U.S. Forest Service and the General Telephone Co. who owned the right-of-way.

And not the least of all, your congressional delegatlon--Congressman OLSEN, Senator METCAU, and Senator MANSFIELD. They were responsive to your pleas and wrote letters and strongly urged BP A to provide this service which you need, and which you deserve, and which meets · the tests of financial feasibility. I know how much they regret not being here today, because Just as this service fulfills a dream of the people of the valley, so it ls for them realiza­tion of another milestone in better electric service and economic opportunity for the people of their State.

A moment ago I said rural electrlflcatlon ls part of what BP A ls all about. Let me tell you what BPA ls. We are an agency of the Department of the Interior, with head­quarters in Portland, Oreg. We don't build the dams--the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation do that. But we market the power, sell it wholesale to public and private ut111tles and to large industries, and repay the Treasury for power's share of the cost of the dams. Today we are the power µiarketing agency for 27 Northwest Federal multipurpose dams, 20 completed and 7 under construction, which produce more than. half of all the electric power in the Northwest.

We have the obligation to repay the Treas­ury some $1.8 billion representing power's share of the cost of these dams. As of last June 30, we had ta.ken in $937 milllon in power revenues, of which $246 million werit to pay our own operations and maintenance expenses, $334 million went for interest, and the remaining $357 million was applied to repayment of the capital investment.-to re­duce the mortgage, so to speak.

We're proud that we pay our way, with interest. And contrary to what you may have heard, BPA today ls still $20 million a.head of schedule in meeting its obligations to the Treasury.

We intend to stay that way, to maintain our fiscal integrity, our fiscal responsibility, if you please. We have programs to accom­plish this goal-the new Hanford steam­plant, the Canadian Treaty, the California intertie and, to the extent necessary, a rate increase. We also have made changes in our financial accounting practices to bring them more into line with those followed by Federal agencies in other river basins.

The Hanford steamplant will add more than 900,000 kilowatts of salable firm power to our resources, and will prevent a power brownout with which the region would have been threatened in 1965-66 should we have encountered critical year streamflow con­ditions then. The steamplant puts to work otherwise waste steam which 1s produced as a byproduct of plutonium production at Hanford. During the dual purpose period, when the new Ha.n!ord reactor is used to produce both plutonium and power, power costs will be less than our historic basic rate of $17.50 per kilowatt year. Later, when the reactor is operated to-produce only power,

costs will be comparable to then available alternative steamplants. .

The treaty with Canada for joint develop­ment of the Columbia River will provide both the United States and Canada each with a great new block of low-cost power. This additional power will be produced at exist­ing U.S. dams as a result of storage dams to be built by Canada north of the border, and will be divided equaly between the two coun­tries. The treaty has not yet been imple­mented because Canada has decided she wishes to sell her share o! power in this country and use the revenues to finance Canadian projects. The problem 1s to find buyers and agree on a price. ,A great deal of work ls going on right now to resolve this problem, and we remain hopeful the treaty will go forward in the near future.

The California intertie ls vital to enable us to sell some o! the surplus power. A hydro system, such as ours, produces amounts of power which vary with streamflow. When streamflows are high, which is often, we can produce !or periods of time a lot of extra power. We call this secondary, or in­terruptible, power. There ls a limited market for this kind of power in the Northwest, but it can be sold in California. We estimate that when the lntertie is built, BPA net revenues will . increase by $8 to $25 million per year for the ftrst 10 years, depending on a number of variables including who builds the facilities, whether there be one or two lines, and so on. You have a stake in this inter­tie because to the extent that it increases our revenues it will reduce the need for a rate increase. The intertie would not affect in any way the Montana reservation of power from Hungry Horse Dam. You should know, too, that Bonneville does not propose to sell any power over an intertle, no matter who builds it, until Congress has passed the Northwest power marketing bill assur­ing Northwest customers of ftrst call on Fed­eral power produced here. We want to sell only our surplus, California utilities want to buy our surplus, and there will be great benefits to both regions when we are able to do that.

There has been no increase in Bonneville's rates in the 26 years we have been selling power, but it appears as if we must have at least a small rate increase next year. We should know within the next couple of months the extent of the rate increase neces­sary.

Another important part of Bonneville's job ls to plan for the orderly development of re­sources to meet the region's power needs. This 1s why we strongly support the Knowles project and why we are cooperating to the fullest with Canadian authorities to imple­ment the treaty with Canada for joint devel­opment of the Columbia River. The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate 2½ years . ago, but has not yet been ratlfled by Canada. Canada apparently will not ratify until ar­rangements satisfactory to her are worked out concerning disposal of her share of treaty power. ·

Under the treaty, not only would Canada build storage dams on her side of the border which would substantially increase genera­tion at American dams downstream, but also the treaty permits us to build Libby Dam which, as you realw.e, would back water 42 miles across the border into Canada.

Knowles is important any way you look at · it, but should the Canadian treaty fail to be implemented it becomes an absolutely vital storage project on our side of the border. Without the treaty dams, Knowles Dam would produce 267,000 kilowatts at site, and its stored waters would produce 747,000 addi­tional kilowatts at. downstream plants, pub­lic and private, for a total of 953,000 kilo­watts. This ls about six times as much power as would be produced by the proposed

alternative two sp:iall run-of-the-river plants in the same stretch of the river. If the treaty storage projects are built first, they would get credit for much of the extra downstr.eam kilowatt potential of Knowles, but Knowles would still be responsible for 336,000 kilo­watts at site and downstream. This 1s about three times as much as the two proposed alternative run-of-the-river plants would produce under the same treaty conditions.

Basically, the role of BPA ls to get low-cost power to the people for their personal com­forts and for economic growth; that ls, for Job opportunity and business opportunity.

We are proud of the fact that BPA serves 18 big electroprocess industries in the North­west which employ 16,000 northwest citizens directly, with a payroll of more than $80 mil­lion annually. These 18 industries make possible employment, indirectly, of another 30,000, if you assume two jobs in service and supporting industries for every Job in pri- . mary industry. They pay between $6 and $7 million annually in State and local taxes, buy about $60 million per year worth of northwest goods and services, and pay some $60 million per year in freight charges.

We're proud, also, to know that our whole­sale power sold through Northern Lights is going to mean a lot to the economy of the Yaak Valley. For example, Mr. Leighty's sawmill now will be able to operate the year around. This means more Jobs on top of the 26 men he already employs at the mill and the 26 in the woods who supply logs for the mill. His power bill for four diesel units has averaged between $8,000 and $9,000 a month. It will be cut in half. I under­stand he's already added a planer to the mill in anticipation of this new power sup­ply.

Also, Mr. Thornton's gold mine expects to utilize this new source of power for a more efficient and profitable operation.

This is only a small example of what Bonneville power means to the economy of western Montana. Consider the Anaconda Alumimum Co. at Columbus Falls and the Victor Chemical Co. at Silver Bow, which are served directly by BPA.

Anaconda and Victor, between them, em­ploy 860 people. These people were put to work between 1950 and 1960, a period ·dur­ing which total employment in western Montana fell about 3,500, due chiefly to a down turn in mining operations. If it were not for these two industries,· and the low­cost power which made their location pos­sible, the total employment loss would have been more on the order of 6,000--again as­suming two indirect Jobs for every one of 860 people employed in these two baste in­dustries.

Just recently Anaconda announced it wm add a third potllne to the two already op­erating at Columbia Falls. This could in­crease employment at the plant by another 200 or 300 workers.

And another new industry ls coming to western Montana based on low-cost BPA power. This is the Montana Phosphate Products Co., which ls investing $6 million in a phosphate mining and beneficiating · plant near Philipsburg. When completed next year, it will employ about 126 men.

You may be interested to know that the proportion of BPA sales to industry in Mon­tana ls higher than in any other State. Of the total 1.9 billion kilowatt-hours we sell in Montana, about 1.4 billion go to indus­try. Low-cost power helps Montana indus­try offset the twin disadvantages of distance from markets and high freight rates.

Furthermore, in some yea.ts Montana gets gets fr~ BPA three times as much power as is actually generated _at. Hungry Horse Dam. Generation at Hungry Horse, of course, varies from year to year, depending on streamflow and whether water must be held 1n the - reservoir for later use downstream.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE. October 22 But no matter how the actual -production at Hungry Horse . varies, BP A still supplies a steady, constant amount of power to Mon­tana.

In fact, BPA supplies more than 40 per­cent ot· all the power consumed in Montana or, to put it another way, more than dou'ble the electricity used 1n all the. homes of Mon­tana. Montana Power Co. 1s one of our customers.

What does all this really mean in terms of the people of Montana? It means lower light bills and more ·dollars in your pockets. It means those jobs for 850 of your fellow Montanans · at the two big industrial plants served directly by BPA. This leads to an­other 1,700 indirect jobs, or a total of 2,500 jobs dependent -upon BPA power. Figure that on the average·one wage earner supports 4 persons, and you find about l0,000 western Montanans who derive their support from low--cost power.

It means more. It means -increased op­portunity for people to work and earn a de­cent living, to stand on their own feet and to make a better life for themselves and their children. J:t means opportunity for businessmen on Main Street to sell more goods of every kind. · Perhaps most impor­tant · of all, it means opportunity for Mon­tana kids to grow up and find jobs in Mon­tana, without having to leave their home State to make their way in life.

Do you know, for instance, that between 1950 and 1960 the population of western Montana increased by 15,000 people, but that the natural increase-births over deaths-was actually 28,000 people, meaning that 18,000 people left western Montana in those 10 years? Or that · the bulk who left were in the 20 to 29 age group? · These are sobering thoughts, and I don't

want to belabor them on this happy occa­sion. But I think they illustrate the im­portance of power to western Mox:tana, es­pecially at a time when mining ~nd lumber are hurting, when young people are leaving, when there are Jobs to be developed, busi­ness opportunities to be created, and a bet­ter life to be earned.

It ls significant that around _ the world where energy use ls high, the economy 1s strong, and where energy use is low, the economy is weak. So it is in ~u~ o:wn coun­try. I hope what we have seen 1n western Montana so far ls only the beginning of a brighter future for you and the rest of the people of this great State, based on low-cost electric energy.

To dedicate means to set aside for future use. It 1s now my privilege and pleasure to dedicate the new Yaak Substation to the service of the people of this valley, their children, and their children's children for generations to come.

[From Time magazine, Oct. 18, 1963] MONTANA: THE LIGHTS Go ON IN THE YAAK

- RIVER VALLEY In the rugged, remote northwest corner of

Montana, the Ya.alt River Valley is a picture postcard of some yesteryear. Moose muse among the wmows. Elk graze on the slopes. White-tailed deer browse in the bottom land. Deep among the whispering pine and the hemlock, among the silver aspen and bir.ch, the bears dig Jnto windfalls for grubs. Rain­bow trout, cutthroat and white:flsh tumble . in Beetle and Winkum Creeks.

In that bucolic 45-mlle-long valley, 83 families live peacefully in humble -cabins and fine log homes. Hunting rifles adorn their walls and fishing rods and boots occupy the corners of the rooms. In cabin after cabin, there is a color picture of the President of the United States·. "Yes, sir," says one old­timer gesturing to a photo on the wall, "he was a gr-eat man, that Pranklin D. -Roosevelt." And over in the Dirty Shame Saloon, Grocery Store and Gas Station, Proprietor "Buster"

Bray, formerly of San Francisco~ says: ".I wouldn't trade any of this for Third _and Market Stree~not ever again."

HAND PUMPS

But progress has finally come to the Yaak River Valley-and last week, amid modest ceremony, the inhabitants observed the first linking-in of the area's electric poweriine. The valley will never be the same again1 a fact observed with pleasure by most, but with misgivings by some. ·

True, a .few !amili.es have had a minimum amount of power. 'Buster" Bray has kept the Dirty Shame alight with electricity generated by a diesel Caterpillar in a shed 'behind the saloon. 13ut "the Monster," as.he calls it, has been running night and day for 3 years. It costs $26 a day, and, when it coughs at night, it wakes up folks for miles around. Bray ls waiting impatiently for the rural cooperative to string its powerline to his part of the valley.

One of the first to connect his home with the power was Harry Franke, 4'(). A onetime truckdriver, Franke moved into the Yaak with his family 3 years ago to exchange the nerve-racking tumult of Chicago life for a small cattle spread. "I didn't know how to live without electricity," says his wife Bonnie, "but we had to learn." The Frankes used kerosene lamps, traded their electric refrig­erator for one that ran on propane gas, swapped their radio for an old battery set. Says Bonnie: "The ironing baffled me for a time, but I finally found a couple of flatirons and a gasoline iron." A hand pump provided water for the toilet, and the rest of the household water was hauled up to the house in buckets from a spring.

Now Bonnie can hardly wait to get a.n electric iron, an electric water pump, a new washing machine, and a dryer. A television set, she says, ls at the bottom of the shopping list. She would much rather have her three children explore the Yaak than vegetate be­fore the magic eye. "Later," she says, "we'll buy a. freezer, and after that a waffle iron. It's been a long time since this famlly sat down to waffles.''

TOO MANY PEOPLE Anton Obermayer, a 75-year-old Bavarian­

born brewmas·ter, plans to take the service, too, but he will use it only on a limited basts. He is proudly self-sufficient. He built his own home, cabinets and furniture, grows his own vegetables. His wife Mary Monica, 74, makes her own soap. "When I came here ln 1917," says Obermayer, "it was a wilderness. It is not so good now. There are too many people, ·and they are making too many roads. They kill all the animals. Oh, well, when electricity comes, we will get an electric stove and put it beside the wood stove."

Torjus "Gunnysack" Johnson, 66, was not so sure he wanted electricity. Gunnysack and his wife, Mamie, subsist on social se­curity money, and they did not know if they could afford the $10-a-month minimum charge for electricity. Besides, says Mamie Johnson, 79, "I'd rather have spent the money for a game license. I do some fishing, but I'd like to get me a deer this fall, and a bear. I'd sure \ike to get the juice from a fat bear. Makes a fine oil for salad." Never­theless, the Johnsons have signed up.

Similarly, Charles Fields, 80, and his wife, Martha, "79, sense that the coming of elec­tricity will intrude on their remembrances of long-gone times. Says Charlie Fields, slapping his thigh_: ''Back when I was a young fellow, I lived in southern Colorado. I was a gunslinger." Today the Field.S' com­bined lneome 1s only $99 a month and a memory a day. But. says Martha, "we're going to go ~h~ad and get the house wired. A'li our age, anything can happen. We don't have any electric ~ppllances, and I guess we won't get any. But we'll have lights."

The lights in the Fields' place-and appli­ances and' television and all the rest in the

valley-may lliuminate much that has .lain d.a.rk a.nd shadowy for the .,people .of the Yaak. At the Fields' place, for example, the lights will brighten walls that are hung with old rifles; a couple of pow.der horns, pictures of relatives · in · high lace collars and, of course, a photo of the President of the ·united States-Abe Lincoln.

[From the Missoulian, Oct. 18, 1963 J . BABCOCK SAYS Co-OP IMAGE HAs SUFFERED

HAVRE.-Concern was expressed by ·Gov. Tim Babcock here. over what he called the strong tide of public opinion running against electric cooperatives.

He told delegates to the Montana As­sociated 'Utilities · meeting in Havre that much· of the present criticism ··"stems from the fact that you are no longer weak infants in swaddling clothes. You are strong, genuinely prosperous business institutions."

Babcock said the public is being reminded "that the job of electrifying rural America has been substantially completed and that presently four out of every five customers connected by electric cooperatives in the United States do not classify as farm cus­tomers."

More than half of Montana's 30,000 farms are being served by electric cooperatives but nonfarm customers of these electric co-ops bring their customer total to more than 44,000, he said.

The Governor blamed some of the suffer­ing image of electric co-ops on "the fact that a large segment of the rural electrification movement, pa-rticularly your national organi­zation, has dedicated itself to the support of Government ownership in the utility busi­ness.

"This strong advocacy of public power has caused animosities to develop from the utility industry."

As a. result, his text said, "the close rela­tionship which once existed between the electric cooperatives and the utility com­panies has grown, in certain areas, to almost an antagonism."

Babcock said he feels that both utmty companies and cooperatives "reassess their positions and develop again the warm and cooperative attitude which existed between them during the early days of the electric cooperative movement."

THffiD ANNIVERSARY OF EAST­WEST CENTER

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Center for Cultural and Technical In­terchange Between East and West, often . referred to as the East-West Center, located adjacent to the campus of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, will be celebrating its third anniversary on Friday, October 25.

The East-West Center was created by Congress in 1960 as a result of an initial impetus provided by then delegate from Hawaii, John A. Burns; then Senator from Texas, LYNDON B. JOHNSON; Con­gressman JOHN RooNEY and Senator MIKE MANSFIELD. Delegate Burns is now Governor Burns of the State of Hawaii, Senator JOHNSON is now Vice President of the United States and Senator MANS- . FIELD is now the Senate majority leader. The same kind of progression has been manifested by the center. The article from the Sunday Star-Bulletin and Ad­vertiser of October 20, 196~, offers a very readable concise summary of the growth of the East-West Center in the past 3 years. Considering the very short pe­riod since its inception, the center should be extremely proud of its many program developments and accomplish-

1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20037 ments which would do justice to an es­tablished topflight educational institu­tion anywhere in the world.

The most remarkable thing about the center to me personally, is the fact that it has managed to gain such stature among the peoples of the Pacific basin and Asian areas in such a relatively short time. It is my understanding that the only students permitted out of Burma to study in an American institu­tion under American auspices may be found on the campus of the East-West Center.

Mr. President, the people of the State of Hawaii with their knowledge of an appreciation for the tremendous bene­fits of technical and cultural inter­change between the United States and Asia stand together in · support of the East-West Center.

I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the follow­ing article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Sunday Star-Bulletin & Adver­

tiser, Oct. 20, 1963] EAST-WEST CENTER MARKS 3 YEA.BS OF GROWTH

In green and rainbow-crowned Manoa Valley, a birthday wlll be celebrated Friday. There will be cake and guests and good wishes-but the guests wlll be from a good fifth of the earth's surface and "happy birth­day" may well be sung in, some 60 languages.

The birthday ls that of East-West Center and the candles on the cakes a.re three.

Chancellor Alexander Spoehr wm give a birthday reception for the Center "family" that day,

Progress of the Center's first 3 yea.rs may be told about in terms of people-statis­tics-or the concrete and steel of structures. Perhaps it 1s best told in the story of people.

Ha~ali's present Governor, then Delegate John A. Burns, and Vice President LYNDON JOHNSON had the dream. They put their ideal into the Johnson-Burns bills that led to congressional authorization for establish­ment of the Center.

Said this 1960 blll: "The purpose • • • is to promote better relations and under­standing between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Paclfl.c through co­operative study, training, and research."

University of Ha.wall Prof. MuITay Turn­bull, who beeame the first Acting Chan­cellor, saw the ideal as "an East-West Cen­ter • • • conceived and established not to erase differences between people, but to make possible respect for the ways in which we are unlike and the recognition and acknowl­edgment of our similarities • • • that we may join in the construction of a dynamic and fruitful life for all."

On October 25, 1960, the University of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of State signed a grant-in-aid agreement to estab­lish ·the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West.

East-West Center had come into exist­ence. Soon there were the students. Two of them. Abdul Zia from Pakistan. Camil­lus Silva from Ceylon. They arrived in the fall of 1960. Soon after came Lynne Kaelber Madison from Florida.

The first senior scholar, Dr. Franklin Ho of Columbia Uni.verslty, arrived to do re­search in economics in February 1961.

Early students and scholars lived in apart­ments, YM and YWCA's and in private homes. And when a student conferred with East-West Center administrators, he visited pack~ offices in Gartley Hall or Hale Aloha, the cottagellke structure that once housed the university's nursing program. In the two buildings were East-West Center's total

staff-at the end of 1961 Just 20 full-time persons.

As the Center gained more staff members, workers simply shoved their desks more closely together.

"We used to reach for the next depart­ment's phone" recalls one early staffer. "The desks were back to back and you couldn't tell whose phone was ringing or whose files were on what desk."

How do students-staff and space-stand today?

Now enrolled and living, for t!~e most pa.rt, in the two new residences are 580 students.

They come from the United States and from American Samoa, Australia, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia (Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo), Nepal, New Zealand, Okinawa, Pakistan, the Ph1lippines, the Republic of China, Tahiti, Thailand, Tonga, the trust territory and Vietnam.

More than 250 have completed their stud­ies and gone on to teaching, government, or industrial posts in their home countries and states. The first chapter of an alumni association was formed 2 months ago in Japan and the first issue of an alumni bul­letin has been printed.

The "student program" is now the In­stitute for Student Interchange, headed by Vice Chancellor John R. Hendrickson, Amer­ican-born educator with long Asian experi­ence.

Dr. Hendrickson views the third anniver­sary in his student division as "marked by progress and change."

The rolls of the Institute of Advanced Projects list 37 scholars here or to .arrive this year. A total of 64 scholars, advanced professional men from government and uni­versity life, from 14 countries have come to the institute since the advanced research program began.

The 10th scholar to arrive at the center­in 1961-is today the vice chancellor of the Advanced Projects Institute. He is Dr. Ed­ward W. Weidner, authority on public ad-' ministration, former consultant to the De­partment of State and author of "The World Role of Universities."

Technical Interchange has brought medi­cal practitioners and nurses from Microne­sia here for 6 months' work at cooperating hospitals and institutions. Emphasis is on medical skills as used in practice. At Ad­vanced Projects, scholars do research on the basic concepts that affect health conditions and practices. The two groups supplement and complement each other's work.

Programs of the technical interchange in­stitute are often termed "rice-roots work" by Vice Chancellor Y. Baron Goto.

Goto says that the 137 men and women taking part in recent institute projects and the closely connected Agency for Inter­national Development training courses are called "participants." The reason? "Be­cause they don't just absorb what we teach them," says Goto. "They teach us, too."

The center's International Panel of Ad­visors ls appointed by the university regents.,

The panel is made up of Clark Kerr, Uni­versity of California president; Ralph J. Bunche, U.N. under secretary; Detlev Bronk, Rockefeller Institute president; Yoichi Maeda, of the U:µiversity of Tokyo; Juan Sal­cedo Jr., vice chancellor of Punjab Univer­sity in India; Chakratong Tongyai, Thai­land's Under Secretary of Stat.e for Agricul­ture; Katherille E. McBride, Bryn Mawr College president, and Gerald W. Fisher, president of Bishop Trust Co. in Honolulu.

INCREASED TRADE BETWEEN HAW All AND PACIFIC NATIONS

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I feel certain that many of my colleagues who

have visited Hawaii will be intere.sted to learn of the increasingly imPortant role played by State businessmen in the ex­pansion of U.S. trade operations around the rim of the Pacific Basin.

Hawaii Business and Industry, a trade magazine published by Joseph A. Mur­phy in Honolulu, recently spelled out the story of increased trade activity between Hawaii and nations in the Pacific. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: HULA HANDS ACROSS THE PACIFIC-HAWAII

DISCOVERS FOREIGN, 'I'RADE--AS LOCAL OP­PORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION DIMINISH BUSINESSMEN ARE EYEING THE NEWLY RIB~ ING NATIONS FOR CHANCES TO EXPORT HA• WAnAN TALENT, Goons, AND CAPITAL

Until recently, mainland businessmen vis­iting Hawaii usually went home with a patronizing attitude, speaking of provincial­ism, inefficient business ways, and a tend­ency toward conservatism and maintaining the status quo. Secure in the isolation of the islands, even the biggest Hawaiian corpora­tions were reluctant to tackle the foreign market where there were too many unknown factors to consider, and preferred to reign supreme with their captive market. Smaller outfits never even dreamed of venturing anywhere outside Hawaii.

Today, however, this is changing-so thoroughly that it is hard to keep up with the latest development in international trade. This year, Hawalian enterprises, large and small, have been doing business and making news with activities all around the globe.

Harland Bartholomew & Associates are making a survey in West Pakistan for a major university center.

Yetsuo Higa, a Honolulu businessman, opened a beverage factory with a Pepsi Cola franchise in Nagoya, Japan.

Dillingham Corp. is building an airport in Malaya, modernizing an Australian railroad, and dredging an Indonesian harbor.

Inter-Island Resorts opened a Sydney of­fice, and Hawaiian Airlines one in Tokyo.

X-Ray & Medical Equipment Co. is selling scientific apparatus on Formosa.

The Grolier Society's Hawalian office opened branches in Bangkok, Borneo, Oki­nawa, Korea, Malaya, Philippines, and Japan.

The HSPA made a survey of the Okinawan sugar operations.

American Pacific Life Insurance Co., a 3-year-old outfit, purchased an insurance com­pany in Melbourne with branches in New Zealand and South Africa, and acquired an Australian trucking firm. _

One-year-old Pacific Guardian Life Insur­ance Co. already has branches in Guam and Hong Kong.

American Factors 1s participating in a joint venture to grow pineapples in Hon­duras, and Dole will do the same in the Ph111ppines.

Bishop Realty and a Tokyo real estate firm signed an agreement to sell or swap tracts of land in each other's bailiwicks.

C. Brewer is helping sugar growers in Iran, Ecuador, and Peru.

Commercial attaches from New Delhi and from Cairo visited Hawaii to stir up interest in investing in their countries. Japanese agricultural experts came to study pineap­ple production with a view of selling more pineapple in Japan. A New Zealand trade mission is due in October to consult with Hawaii manufacturers.

Bank of Hawaii opened a branch (its 57th) in Ponape, a small island in the Carolines.

Yick Lung, a candy manufacturer branched into the furniture business 1~ Thailand.

20038 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22 BROADENING THE =:;coPE

This list, by: no means exhaustive, shows a very different Hawaii from that of 10 or even 6 years ago: A slow trend starting tentatively in the mid-fifties, gathering · momentum w~th the advent of statehood, and moving along rapidly at present, it has given island businessmen a cosmopolitan outlook and an eagerness to reach out ever farther . .For the small company, export and outside branches ai:e often the only means to stay in business. For the big five, it is a welcome opportunity to broaden the scope of operations, please stockholders by getting_ a larger return on investments, and give the personnel a chance to progress within the company.

There are other advantages, of course . . Where once a few giants pretty much con­'firolled the economy, increasing competition for the limited m~rket made the profit pic­ture much- tighter, and many a f?mall enter-

- prising outfit made sizable dents in the big i;ive's no longer so secure position. The previous alternatives, buying or forcing them out of business, are ·no longer feasible. Diversification, therefore, is a logical answer.

Another problem 1s the spiralling cost of production. If Dole wants to invade the J:;uropean pineapple market, it must price low enough to .compete with pineapples im­ported from Taiwan, where labor costs are a minute fraction of comparable American· costs. However, if Dole can utilize its superior know-how together with cheap labor in the Philippine!>, it can harvest pine­apples there at so little expense that its· average cost can still be competitive. This will, in fact, enable Dole to maintain its Hawaii operations, which otherwise might be priced out of the market. · ·

Similar considerations are at work at the other big corporations. Hawaii is not grow­ing fa.st enough -to allow rapid capital ex­pansion. The two main products, sugar and pineapple, are Ievell~ng off to a point· where no significant increases. are foreseen either 1n productivity or sales. The same thing can be said of construction. Dillingham'& $60 million investment in the Ala Moana Center is working .out fine., but it's a cinch there is:Q.'t enough room for another center of such size.

Expanding to the mainland is on the in­crease, too, but this is a very expensive proposition. Recently, Dillingham swapped Z7 acres of Honolulu waterfront for just 1 acre of downtown San Francisco, and 118 acres ot producing .sugarcane for a single apartment building in Dallas. It is also a lot harder to make a profit on the nearly saturated U.S. -market, as opposed to wide open trade opportunities in Oceania and elsewhere. This was illustrated recently by American Pacific Life Insurance Co., which sold $1 million worth of insurance in its first month of operation in Hong Kong, and found even the relativ.ely sophisticated Aus­tralian market a pushover for aggressive U.S.-style merchandising.

It is easy to see that when it comes to choosing a site for expansion, the largely untapped markets of foreign countries which are, in many cases, taking their first ginger steps Into the 20th century, represent a mouth-watering opportunity. A good indi­cation of the growlng awareness of the Pacific market is the number of authorized dis­tributors of major firms to Hawaii who have recently asked for, and obtained, extensions of their fra,nchises into the Orient and the Pacific islands. -One such example ls MidPac Lumber Co., which 'Will distribute everything from Bogen sound systems to Browny per­.fumes in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Ph111ppines, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand,· Malaya, and Indonesia through a network of field offices headquartered in Hong Kong.

IS THE SHlP SINKING? aµ increase over 10 years ago, when it was S<><:>ner or - later: ~f -co~~s~. the inevi~ble 0?1y 3 percent, all the rest being mainland

question arises~ Does thts· represen:t flight of ·. traffic. There is an unfavorable ·balance, capital? Are businessmen · abandoning Ha- which last year amounted to $39- million wail? _In fact, some criticism along these, (imports, $70 million; .exports, $31 million) , lines has been heard -in ·the political circles, b.ut this is not in itself alarming,_ sip.ce t}:le spurred, ·no doubt by the Kennedy adminis-· two big export Jtems ~e sugar and pine­tration's concern over the- gold outflow. apple, sold mostly on the mainland, and the , There is a delicate .point here: no doubt import side is heavily weighted with petro­

some of the capital invested overseas is "flee- leum. brought in from th·e Middle East, which ing" Hawaii. However, a valid question is, amounts to 40 percent of all foreign imports. would that capital be doing Hawaii some In 1954, only two countries-Canada and good if it was not being invested elsewhere? Japan-imported more than a million dol­The consensus here is that it would not; lars' worth of Hawaiian goods. By 1961, .the since it could not be invested soundly in any list has grown to six, _ as West Germany, major local projects, it would simply remain French Oceania, Belgium, and Holland joined in banks gathering interest, whl~h does not the group, with Japan getting the lion's directly advance the economy of the State. share, over $6 million. On the import side, In fact, all the major companies emphasize Japan remains the biggest supplier, wlth their continuing local investments wherever Canada, New Zealand, ·west Germany, and possible, and reaffirm their willingness to Australia following, but a big item on this back any local venture which is shown to be side of the ledger is the one-sided traffic in sound. Local diversification has been.in fact oil, making Arabia, .Indonesia, and the Dutch repeatedly tried, with mixed success: Castle West Indies appear prominently on the list. & Cooke are making a go of it in macadamia The number of countries selling more than nuts, but there have been costly failures in $1 million worth of goods in Hawaii increased other commodities, such as artichokes and f!om 6 to 11 in the same perloc\, acerola cherries grown on the big island. There are indications that the unfavorable

Then, also, much of Hawaii's oversea in- balance of Hawaii's trade can be substan­volvem~:nts consists of exporting skills, such tlally reduced. Already, exports are rising as management counsel, or agricultural ex- faster than imports (35 percent versus 18 pertise, so that no money is invested abroad percent in 1962), due mainly to more vigor­by the company-on the contrary, large fees ous merchandising of pineapple in foreign are earned which will eventually bene:flt Ha- countries. and also to the fact that ·since wail. This is the case of c. Brewer, which the establishment of a petroleum refinery has so tar exported nothing but lts experi- in Hawaii, cheaper crude oil can be imported ence, and Dillingham, whose outside con- in place of refined oil. Other factors, such tracts run into billions of dollars. as attempts to open the Japanese market

Usually, the oversea profits are allowed to to Hawaii produce (hitherto barred by an earn their keep by being invested abroad for antiquated embargo, , the current tren!i to­a time, through various "tax haven" corpora- ward the general lowering of tariffs, and the tions, thus offering the 52-percent tax bite proposed for~ign trade zone developm_ent which is slapped on them the minute they will all make it easier to sell Hawall goods are brought back into the United States. abroad. · . (The ad.ministration's tax reform proposal Coupled with the intangible exports of contains a provision to close this loophole, management skills, and the long-term in­and tax such earnings in the year they were vestments in foreign tax havens which bol­made.) ster the credit side of Hawaii's balance sheet, · In the broadest sense, these oversea in- these indlcations make the prognosis for vestments represent a private foreign aid foreign tl'.ade highly favorable. program, which differs from the Govern­ment's foreign commitments mainly by the fact that a. private company, responsible to ~ts very real stockholders, is apt to investi­gate the soundness of such.investments much more carefully than the Government, whose responsibitlty to a nebulous entity known as the U.S. taxpayer has never been too sharply defined. Since this private capital flows only into countries where a return on the invest­ment is fairly wen guaranteed, it tends to :µi.ake sound syst~ms more stable, and en­courages the other regimes to provide similar ~afeguards for outside money.

An encouraging side ls the development of . ~wo-way traffic in the foreign trade field. Japan, Hawaii's largest single trade partner, has been active in establishing branches of its industries, building theaters, and using Hawaii_ as a testing ground for planned ex­pansions into the American market--such a.a the recent agreement between Sea.rs and Toshiba to offer Japanese electrical products to the U.S. public on a large scale. New franchises are being awarded: Honda Motor­cycles established a dealership in Honolulu recently, and Isuzu Trucks plan to have one before the end of the year. Japanese in­vestments in Hawaii include purchases of hotels, such as the Princess ·Kaiulani. If nothing e1se, these moves prove that Ha.wall Is far from through from th.e viewpoint of commercial expansion.

RISiNG EXPORTS

These developments are reflected in the fl.ow of goods in the Pacific. Although for­eign trade represents only 10 percent of Hawaii's total external trade, this is still

JACOB KAPLAN Mr. DODD. Mr. President I call to

the attention of the Senate the death of Jacob Kaplan, of Boston. Mass., on Oc­tober 11 at the age of 89. This remark­able man was known throughout New. England as ·an outstanding Talmudic scholar, Hebrew sage, and liberal philos­opher. Devoutly religious, he neverthe­l~ss conceived of religion as being essen­tially a way of life, and the implementa­tion of principle was the essence to him rather than the principle, itself. '

Born in Russia-Poland in 1874 in the town-of Most, Grodna, he was a grad­uate of the Grodna Theological Semi­nary, where he was trained as a rabbi. However, he did not enter the rabbinate, but spent most of his life in business instead. After serving in the czarist army for 4 years, he came to Boston where he remained for the rest of h~ years. Deeply versed in the bible he used it as his guideline for everything he undertook. A convinced optimist. he loved to console people who were heart­sick and to assist young people in begin­ning their careers. He was a wise and understanding counselor, who brought wisdom and a sense of ·humor to every­-one who was privileged to meet. him. Businessmen. consulted him on matters involving personnel and policles, while

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ·- SENATE 2-0039 rabbis consulted him on religious ques­tions. Members of other religious faiths loved him for his understanding of, and respect for, their own religious practices and beliefs. He found himself very much at home with such people and truly prac­ticed the doctrine of the brotherhood of man.

He was very much the modern man, while still preserving the meaningful traditions of the past. He followed closely the developments in international affairs. In the early twenties, he urged his children to study Spanish, for he fore-

. saw the new vistas which would open up in international trade between the United States and Latin America. He was bitterly opposed to communism and considered that doctrine as an evil dis­ease. He had little faith in the blandish­ments of Communist leaders and mis­trusted the1r motives.

He had a great respect for the Office of President of the United States and un­derstood the great burdens and responsi­bilities faced by President Kennedy. He had no patience with malicious criticism and felt it was the duty of citizenship and religious faith to support the Chief Ex­ecutive of our Nation, whether he be Democrat or Republican.

To him, a man's word was a solemn act and he never broke a promise. He also considered that to ·embarrass a person was akin to committing murder, and he carefully refrained from publicly be­littling anyone or considering himself .as superior to any person. When a friend called him 100 percent, he modestly re­plied, "I'd be satisfied to be 50 percent."

He was a member of numerous reli­gious and scholarly organizations and, though he was a man of modest means, quietly, and even without his family knowing, mad~ contributions to all of them, even up to tbe time of his last days.

He leaves his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Kap­lan, of Boston; a daughter, Mrs. Mildred Shuman, of New York City; ~nd two sons; Joseph L. Kaplan, of Boston, an outstanding trial attorney; and Sheldon Z. Kaplan, of Washington, former staff consultant of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and now an international lawyer in our Nation's Capital; 9 grand­children, and 4 great-grandchildren.

His life has been an inspiration to all who knew him and, because of his un­usual character and personality it is only :fitting and proper that we remember him.

FAILURES IN THE COMMUNIST WORLD

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, one of the faults of a free society is its tendency to introspection at the cost of a clear view of the entire world. Too often we are concerned mainly with our own suc­cess or failure and never notice that our antagonists may be 1n· considerable dif­ficulty and that we may have new oppor­tunities to promote the cause of freedom around the world.

Mr. President, fa the Washington Post of October 20, 1963, columnist Roscoe

CIX--1262

Drummond presented an accounting of · some of the recent failures in the Red world as further evidence of the inher­ent weakness of that system of govern­ment. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, -the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 20, 1963] ECONOMIC FAILURE---COMMUNISM GIVES SELF

• BLACK EYE

(By Roscoe Drummond) Communism has recently given itself such

a big, bulging black eye that many have failed to notice it. Sometimes the most ob­vious things are the hardest to see.

We have been so engrossed in the separate tribulations which the Communist nations have brought on themselves that we have failed to focus on their largest meaning.

Let me state the conclusion and then look at the evidence.

From Peking to Moscow, from Cuba to East Germany, the events of the past few weeke-particularly when added together­tell the same story;

Communism does not have the answer to how to create the good society. It is fail­ing at the very point where its propaganda promis~s are the. most glittering; it is not economically efficient; it can't even organize its agriculture to feed its own people.

Communism claims to have the answer to all economic ms. But the Communist coun­tries are today greviously ill economically­so 111 that it is no longer possible to conceal the illness.

Nothing could be more significant because, when the newly independent and underde­veloped nations realize that communism is inefficient as well as repressive, Marx and Khrushchev, Mao and Castro are going to lose their appeal.

What has happened in the past few weeks to support the conclusion that communism is working very badly? These things have happened:

The Soviet Union, with its vast agricultural assets and with nearly half its population engaged in farming, is still unable to orga­nize its agriculture to meet its food needs. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman estimates that Moscow will be buying a bil­lion tons of wheat from the West during the next few months.

Why? Primarily because its collectivized, state-managed agriculture is inefficient and unproductive. Soviet agriculture is exactly the way communism says lt should be. Stalin saw to that. In the early thirties he liquidated 8 million Russian peasants who did not want to give up their farms to the Government and since then Soviet agricul­ture has been pure Marx--e.nd recurring failure.

Red China is in a worse plight. Its self­proclaimed great industrial "leap forward" is a disaster and the nation today is in a state of economic stagnation. The Communists put the squeeze on the Chinese peasant masses in an attempt to force vast industrial grow~h. The end result is that half of the projected new factories are abandoned and agriculture is so disordered that China has had to turn to the outside world to try to repair the near-starvation diet of its people. · Castro's Communist Cuba ls in nearly total

disarray. Unemployment is high, living standards have been steadily going down, and food rationing prevails. Sancpe de Gramont of the New York Herald Tribune recently reported from Havana that 1f 'Cuba were a doctor's patient, a physician would give him 6 months to live. The Castro regime survives today only by living in ·th~ oxygen tent of

day-to-day Soviet Md; That is what com­munism has done to Cuba.

Khrushchev has recently said that the Berlin wall must remain inviolate. Why? Because ·communism has done so badly for East Germany that the only way the regime can prevent a mass exodus is to Jail the entire population. · . And, on top of it all, the two pillars of the

Communist world-the Soviet Union and Red China-are no longer marching arm in . arm; they are at each ether's throats.

Communism is showing that it has the worst answer. It may not be long before the truth catches up with propaganda.

THE JOHN BIBCH SOCIETY Mr. McGEE.- Mr. President, some­

times in the press of events we tend to see only the darker side of events. It may seem unlikely to many but there are many humorous aspects of certain "fright-wing" eleme~ts in our society that have made a real avocation of peer­ing under beds and in dark and moldy recesses in search of a threat to our way of life that exists largely in their own imagination.

The John Birch Society has recently taken on a f oeman certainly worthy of theµ- own steel. I refer to the vigor­ous counterattack they have launched against the children of America and the insidious custom of "trick or treat."

Mr. President, a certain newsman, Jerry Doolittle, is mindful of the real dangers explicit in this situation and has written a penetrating expose on the situation. I ask unanimous consent that his article, which appeared in the Oc­tober 20, 1963, issue of the Washington Post, be printed in tne· RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was. ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Oct. 20, 1963] THE POST IMPRESSIONIST! TAKES ALL KINDS

OF GOBLINS To MAKE HALLOWEEN; BIRCH• ERS MAY POP UP ON TRICK OR TREAT NIGHT

. (By Jerry Doolittle) (In his Octoper bulletin, .John Birch

$ociety founder Robert H. W. Welch, Jr., \J,rges members to give a printed de:µ.unela­tion of the United Nations to children who trick or treat this year for the U.N.'s Inter­national Children's Emergency Fund­UNICEF.-News Item.)

"Trick or treat for UNICEF, mister?" "'F'raid not, honey, but don't run off.

Look, did your Communist masters tell you anything about what UNICEF actually is?" · "Heck, I don't know. Something about

milk. It's Just what they tell me to say. It's a game, sort of."

"I figured a little blue-eyed gal like you couldn't be anything but what we call an unwitting dupe. Look here, honey. Ever see anything like this before?"

"Why, why, it looks like a booklet." , •'It is a booklet, hon, and a very special

kind of booklet. It's what we call a 'pro­blue' booklet. Lot of d~rn interesting stuff in here--Uke for instance, did you know that UNICEF is nothing but a front group for the U.N.?"

''Holy mackerel, no! What's a front group?"

"Just step inside here :for a minute, little gal, and I'll do· better than tell you. I'll show you." .

20040 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

"I don't know. I don't think my fath--"

"C'mon honey, it's only for a minute. Here, take a look at this."

"I can't read, mister. Most of us kids that trick or treat can't read yet."

Don't you ever be ashamed , of being illiterate, little lady. Lots of the finest Amer­icans I know are illiterate."

•'Oh, I'm not ashamed. My older brother can't read either, and he's almost eight. Will ·you read it to me, mister?"

"I sure will, little gal. It's all about how UNICEF is infiltrated by phony peace groups and comsymps and how they're working to undermine our national sovereignty and like that."

"Gosh, they told me the money would buy milk and medicine for little kids like me."

"Honey, most likely that money you're collecting wlll go straight behind the Iron Curtain, to some sick 11 ttle commie kid. Every time you cure a commie, you help the enemy. All the time you're out here collect­ing, they're laughing at you in Russia. You don't think they're out trick or treating, do you?

"They don't even have trick or treat night in Godless, materialistic, atheistic Russia. They don't even have Hallowe'en. Why, they don't even believe in witches."

"Gosh mister, I don't know. Somehow you make me feel kind of dirty all over."

"Look, honey, you seem like a bright little tyke. Maybe you can square yourself with America by finking on your parents for us. What's your dad's name?"

''Earl Warren." "Not Earl Warren the Chief Justice?" "No. Earl Warren the vice squad lieuten-

ant. That's him now, breaking the door down. He's a regular nut abo'l\t strange men who offer leaflets to little girls."

LIFE MAGAZINE ARTICLE CALLS FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,

I am greatly pleased that increasing at­tention is being devoted to the critical need for more effective conservation of our world wildlife. This week's Life contains a magnificently illustrated _story on the wildlife conservation problem in Africa, and an article summarizing the problem by Maitland A. Edey. This essay is another illustration of this problem, knowledge of which has led me to in­troduce Senate Concurrent Resolution GO-October 3 CONGRESSIONAJ, RECORD, page 18671-calling for the United States to take the lead in convening an International Conference to initiate co­operat~ve action furthering y,rorldwide wildlife conservation. This article from Life is an effective argument for such a move. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

SHOULD MAN TRY TO SAVE THE ANIMALS?

(By Maitland A. Edey) In East Africa today it ls still p,osslble to

enjoy the sight of 50 wild giraffe.s all at once, or a hundred elephants, ··or 10,000 wilde­beests. Numbers like this make it hard to understand that the big game ls seriously threatened. And yet conservationists the world over believe that if something is not done to reverse present trends, most of it will have disappeared in 10 or 20 years. That ls why the International Union for Conserva­tion of Nature (IUCN), instead of meeting in New York, Tokyo or Paris, scheduled its re­cent congress at Nairobi, capital of Kenya,

in the hope of emphasizing to African gov­·ernments the seriousness of the situation and of being able to make useful recommen­dations about what to do.

For the problem ls now an African one. It exists most acutely in Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, the most famous of the big game habits. It ls in the grassy savannas and open forestland of these countries that the great herds roamed in the past. Rem­nants survive today, notably in the Serengeti Park and in 8,000-square-mile Tsavo, East Africa's largest game park. Tanganyika and Uganda are independent nations, and Kenya will become one in 2 months. Unless these governments can be kept convinced that it is in their interest to conserve the game, it will vanish. This may not be easy to do.

In Tanganyika and Kenya live nomadic herders of cattle like the warrior Masai who ordinarily do not molest game but klll lions because lions klll their cows. Theoretically the game should be safe in Masailand. But heavy pressures are building up outside their territory. The Masai are vastly outnumbered in Kenya by settled agriculturist tribes like the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu dominate Kenya's politics today and their leader, Jomo Ken­yatta, has pledged he would redistribute most of the country's land. Kenya's popu­lation, now nearly 8 milllon, ls already too big for its present resources and yet it may double by 1983. Sooner or later the Kikuyu will turn their eyes toward the sparsely pop­ulated Masailand. The Masai will either have to change their way of life, yield their land or fight and be overwhelmed.

In the old days tribal warfare helped keep the human population of East Africa in bal­ance with the environment. So did slave raids, high infant fatality and the tsetse fly. But with the removal of natural controls the human wave is billowing. If it continues to blUow, no scheme or political program can provide for Kenya, and no amount of advice from outsiders is likely to prevent her game parks from being overrun.

A second powerful threat to the game is found in the attitude of most Africans to­ward wild animals. An African farmer might speak as follows to the Englishman whose farm he is taking over: "The conditions that exist here came about under your steward­ship. We have inherited them and must live with them. You have a sentimental interest in wild animals. We have not. If it comes down to a choice between an African child and a wart hog, you may be sure that we will not choose the wart hog. In fact, we think of animals in only two ways. First, we can profit by killing them; most 1of us suffer from an almost continuous protein deficiency, and we crave their meat. Also we can profit by selling their skins and their ivory, the feet of elephants as umbrella stands and the :tails of giraffes ~s fly whisks. Second, wild animals are a nuisance to us; the ilons kill our livestock, not to mention ourselves, the elephants root up our gardens a,.nd tear down our trees, the big herds of antelopes, zebras, and wildebeests compete with our stock on rangeland that ls already overgrazed. As we see it, the best thing that can possibly happen to us is for all the game to be wiped out so that we can proceed to take over the land ourselves."

These are tough arguments to beat down, and it ls here that the IUCN comes in. It numbers among its delegates some of the world's most experienced game managers, agronomists, ecologists, anthropologists, soll­and-water experts and pest-control men. When these men sit down to argue out the merits of preserving African game, they stick to the premise that any conservation pro­posal must not only make long-term eco­nomic sense to them but must also be salable to the Africans.

Talking to an ecologist can be a bewilder­ing experience. He will actually extol the tsetse fly as an agent in population control.

Despite all ·the talk here about the evils of poaching, he will dismiss it with a wave' of his hand. "Except for rhinos, which are very scarce, poaching isn't much of a prob­lem. It can be controlled by increasing your staff of game scouts and making sure that convicted poachers get stiff jail sentences. By that I mean terms of up to 5 years. If your poacher ls locked up for a mere 6 months in what he calls the 'King George Hotel,' that means only that he ls relieved of the problem of feeding himself during that time. Some poachers actually look for­ward to jail. But the fear of being locked up for a long time ls very real. It can dis­courage poaching in short order.

"That ls, if you want to discourage it. At the moment poaching is actually a good thing in some of the game parks. There ls not· a single well-patrolled park in east Africa today that ls not overgrazed.

"Take Tsavo. We heard a lot of anguished screams not long ago that elephants were being poached out of existence in Tsavo by local tribesmen, and we knew for a fact that they were being killed at a rate of a thousand a year. Well, that sounds like a lot of ele­phants. But Tsavo has more elephants than it can support. They were tearing the place to pieces. The only thing wrong with this particular poaching was the principle in­volved, so we decided to organize it. Wear­ranged with the tribesmen, who have always lived by hunting and don't really know how to do anything else, to settle on the edge of tbe park and systematically knock off the elephants that kept coming out as a result of population pressures inside. Now we help them dispose of the ivory, the meat, even the hairs of the tans, which are sold to tourists as bracelets. The result ls that a thousand elephants a year are still being kllled, but the situation is under control. And the na­tive African ls beginning to learn an impor­tant lesson in how to get a steady income from a natural asset--without destroying the asset."

What the ecologist is constantly looking at ls not the game itself; he ls looking behind it to the potential in the land to support game. To him overgrazing is more important than numbers of animals; he wlll gladly klll them to improve conditions, something that is be­ing done now in Uganda with hippopota­muses, which are being killed systematically to keep them from completely ~estroylng all riverside vegetation. I_!icldentally, this sup­plies local villagers with a steady supply of much-needed fresh meat. ·

Ultimately the ecologist must ask himself, "Is there any justification for preserving animals at all?" And this question under­lay some of the most interesting debate at the IUCN meetings in Nairobi. Most of the delegates present seemed agreed on :two basic principles. The first is that animals are a great tourist attraction and can produce quick cash income on a small investment. So persuasive ls this argument--nearly $15 million of tourist money was spent last year in Kenya alone-that Prime Minister Ken­yatta. was moved during the IUCN meetings to proclaim that Kenya, "fully realizing the value of its natural resources, pledges itself to conserve them for posterity with all the means at its disposal."

This is a powerful statement for the head of a country whose people are as land-hungry as the Kenyans. Its , only catch ls that Kenya's means may not be up to the Job, and the game along with tourists could dis­appear while plans to conserve it stagnate through lack of. funds. Nevertheless, recog­nition of the principle by the heads of Afri­can states is an enormously important and encouraging first step. Scenery costs noth­ing; wild animals, if left alive, wm pay for themselves many times over again, whereas, if dead, they pay only once. This idea has also taken firm root in Tanganyika, which although it already had 2 percent of its land

1'963. · - ·· r CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD -- · SE~ATE 20041 · 1n game preserves ( the same as the United States), announced the establishment of yet another on the day _it achieved its independ­ence 2 years ago. Tanganyika has also set up Africa's first game management school to train native experts in how to manage wild-life'. - -

A second practical argument 1n favor of wild animals is that they Jnay· turn out to be a. bett~i: investment than tame ones. This goes against a long-cherished African love for cattle. A cow is not only a source of · wealth 'to a · Masai tribesman; it ls also an intimate part of his life and his affections. He drinks its milk and its blood. He makes his house out of its dung. The herd ls a status symbol far more _ potent than the Cadillac to ~n American. The larger the herd, the more important the Masai who owns it. No thought is given to selective breeding, and' Masai eattle are in general a scrawny lot. Just as among humans in East Africa, there bas been a population explosion among cows as well, thanks largely to the cessation of native warfare and to the in­troduction of veterinary services among the tribes. The Masai, although they may seem to be thinly spread over their large holdings, are actually crowded by their cows and are in the process of bankrupting themselves by· overgrazing. Much of their range has al­ready been ravaged.

"Unless the Masai can be taught to put an emphasis op. quality rather than quantity," says Lee Talbot, an American ecologist who has, been surveying African wildlife for the U.N .• "and unless he ls willing to breed up, to dispose ruthlessly of all his bad stock, his way of life cannot survive."

'.!'he average African cow is a woefully in­efficient animal. It is undersized, not much_ good for slaughter, often yields as little as· a cup of milk_ a day, yet it eats its head off. Actually, it is much harder on the range than a wild .animal. In a herd of wild gam,e the animals tend to spread out from each other when feeding. As they move across the range they nibble here and there on a wide variety of plants, leaving many growing things behind them after they have gone. 'By contrast, African cattle travel in a com­pact mass for protection against lions. As they move they eat their favorite grasses down to nothing, their. hoofs macerating the ground and leaving behind them a bare swath that does not quickly recover. Today a Masai herd can usually be detected at a great distance by the plume of dust hanging above it as it moves slowly across the im­mense. African landscape.

Wild animals are superior to domestic cattle in other ways. They can keep them­selves fat on a far sparser di-et, they can walk farther to find water, and they are much more resistant to certain diseases. These virtues have led many farsighted men to wonder if there could be a way of substitut­ing game for cattle as a "crop" in east Africa. In 1969 a couple of American scientists, Archie S. Mossman and Raymond F. Das­mann, persuaded the owners of a large ranch in Rhodesia to let them experiment with the commercial shooting of game on part of their land. In 2 years they were able to prove conclusively that zebras and antelopes yielded more money through sale of meat than cows did. _ The only problem was mar­keting the meat. This requires the coopera­tion of the government, and at the moment cattlemen in Rhodesia are fighting to protect their interest by discouraging a game-farm program.

The animals that Dasmann and Moosman were killing-zebras, impalas, wart hogs, kud­us and other varieties-were completely wild. The largest of the · African antelopes, the eland, a noble animal the size of an elk,

,ls potentially much tamer than these smaller species. Herds of eland have. been formed

experimentally · ~or several yee.rs by Soviet scientists, and they a.re found to be as amenable to herding and milking as the gentlest cattle. The fem.ales will yield 2 -quarts of milk a day-6 or 10 times as much as some Masai cows--and are good beef when k~lled.

Evidence like this opens up· the intriguing possibility of an African agricultural and pastora;l economy based on African species. Some experts _will g~ so far as to say that t:P,e · cow, . the ·sheep and the goat have .no place at all in tropical ·Africa, although they concede that the desire to raise them will certainly die very hard-and not only among native ,t\fricans. ·

"There ls an 1:1,lmost pathological tendency for Europeans to look at African problems through European glasses," says Talbot. "Helpful people keep trying to transport a bit of old England to East Africa. But Afri­can plants grow better here than European · ones and so do African animals. It stands to reason that they should-they have had millions of years to get used to the cli­mate, to parasites and to each other."

A case in point is the so-called Ankole project. This calls for clearing a large tract o~ land in a tsetse-fly area in Uganda so that a cross of local cattle with Brangus and pure Angus cattle can be raised there. Hopefully, individual Africans will be settled on ranches of 8,000 or more acres each at a cost of about $10,000 per ranch. To Tal­bot this ,project is utterly preposterous, and he derives some bitter pleasure from the fact that the first step-heavy killing - of the small antelopes-is paradoxically pro­ducing sturdier crops of antelopes, much as the heavy shooting on a Scotch moor ls good for the grouse. The survivors are stronger and fitter; they have more food per individual and breed more prolifically.

Further steps in the project may never be taken, for it is being widely condemned. Nevertheless there are determined people interested in the scheme, just as there have been in many other comparable schemes, an embarrassing number of which always man­age to get pushed into being. Where they destroy the environment, or disrupt its deli­cate interweaving of natural forces, all things that live there---man included-suffer. Man can often recover temporarily through his mobility, enterprise, and adaptability. But the animals, birds, fl.shes, and even the plants that become involved cannot pick up and go. Sometimes they do not survive.

More than two dozen mammals tn Afri­c~ today are faced with possible extinction. Constant hunting has helped bring some of them to their present precarious state, but the real trouble for most ls that their en­vironment has been altered by grazing, de­forestation, agriculture, fencing, and drain­age. ln essence they no longer have a com­fortable place to live. It ls the preservation of this living space that preoccupies the IUCN ecologist. He is convinced that tn Africa today there exists the possibility of preserving the land for both animals and humans-to their mutual benefit. Wheth-er this will be done is another matter. .

It is only about 60 years since the world's last wild quagga, a. kind of zebra, was shot in South Africa. Today there ts scarcely anybody who remembers what the qua.gga looked lik.e, although it was once so com­mon on the veldt that it was regarded as a pest. wm the same bbllvlon overtake the· rh~_noceros and the cheetah, both now listed as seriously endangered? And what about the real exotics? Presumably the world could continue to revolve without the bonte­bok, the giant sable antelope, the mountain nyaJa, the white-'talled gnu; the a.ddax, th-e scimitar-horned oryx, or the red ha.rtebeest. But it would be a different world~ and, in the opinion of -many, not as r~ch a one.

STATE APPROVAL AGENCIES SHOW GI BILL BEST LEGISLATION TO . AID UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President

Mr. Grady L. Huddleston in an articl~ entitled "Why Experiment" appearing in the September issue of the service letter of the National Association of State Ap­proval Agencies -neals with the connec­tion between the cold war GI 'bill and the solution to our unemployment prob­lem. Mr. Huddleston discusses the suc­cesses of the World War II and the Korean GI bills in retraining and educat­ing our veterans to :fill the technical and complex jobs of a growing civilian economy. And he advocates the passage o~ the cold war GI bill in order to pro­vide the same opportunities to our cold ­war veterans so that they may in turn add their skills to our economy while at the same time eliminating the cause of unemployment which is the presence of large numbers of unskilled workers at the same time that we have a shortage of technical and trained personnel. Mr. Huddleston ends his article by asking the obvious question of why we are spending large sums of money on new programs of training and retraining while ignoring the one program which has been tried and_ proven successful-the GI bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that Mr. Huddleston's article "Why Experiment" be printed at this point in the RECORD. '

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

WHY EXPERIMENT?

(By Grady L. Huddleston) Today this country faces a crisis of a

changing age. Many problems are involved in this crisis, but, one of the major ones ,is the very economy of the Nation itself.

We are co_ntinually told through news media and statistics, of the vast numbers of unemployed. At the same time the p-eople themselves are demanding expanded services from the Government both national and local, with an almost unbearable tax burden already imposed upon them.

It seems to me that these problems- will have to be solved on a local level with assist­ance from the national level.

The majority of the problems can be solved by creating job opportunities for the people, so that they may become self-supporting rather than being dependent upon the Gov­ernment for livelihood.

The most popular means at present ts a race between the several States in inducing a fast expanding industry either to relocate or expand in their respective areas. This creates additional jobs for the unemployed and for the masses of the farm population who can no longer adequately maintain themselves on the farm.

When a new industry moves into an area, it appears that ma!).y problems are im­mediately solved. Then the fallacy of the whole thing comes to light like a shot out of a cannon. What does an abundance of natural resources, additional job opportuni­ties, and a vast source of labor to select from, accomplish, if the labor itself is not qualified to accept employment, and as a result labor must be imported.. Present-day·employment requires an educational- background and skill.

We are·greatly concerned about the educa­tional level of our population, caused by in­ade_q~te school systems both in 9-ua11ty

20042 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

and in number, students dropping out of school before completion, and as a resUlt not being able to seek a higher education or even receive training in one of the voca­tional technical schools that are being built throughout the country by a cooperative program of both national and local govern­ments.

Before this situation can be solved some type ot adult education program must be developed.

Some States have for some time conducted such programs. This for example was first made possible in Georgia through the "GI Educational Program" or Public Laws 346 and 660. Under this program 100,000 stu­dents since 1948 were trained from the first grade through the high school level and con­sequently were quallfied to enter institu­tions of higher learning or to enter the numerous vocational and technical schools whlch require a high school education or its equivalent. This develops the person and his skills to take his proper place in this industrialized era, notwithstanding the fact that hls program of education was inter­rupted by having to serve his country. Many were unable to continue thelr educations after discharge due to family obligations, etc.

Peacetime veterans are not eligible to take advantage of this training, and as a result many are not qualified to secure the em­ployment so badly needed.

An extension of the educational benefits to peacetime veterans would not only offer an opportunity to people, who fortunately were able to complete high school, to seek a higher educations to become teachers, doc­tors, scientists, technicians, etc., as proven under previous programs, but would enable thousands upon thousands to receive the necessary training so that they may take thelr proper and deserving place among the rank and file of people who would like to have an opportunity to become independent to the extent of earning a livelihood without having to be dependent upon Government agencies.

The expenditure by the Federal Govern­ment to finance this program would not be a gift, but an investment. Statistics prove that through increased income tax, the Gov­ernment has been repaid for training under Public Law 346 and wm be under Public Law 550, in the near ruture and will continue to receive the benefit in years to come.

This ls the basic problem and experience has taught that ~his ts one of the many an­swer& sought and means by which a sagging economy of a great nation can be bolstered.

No one answer will solve the problem. The manpower training program and retraining programs which are being conducted, from all reports, are not as yet satisfactorily serv­ing the purpose for which they were in­tended. It ls well to explore many areas to solve this problem, but while experimenting with an untried one, why not go ahead and put into effect one that has been tried and proven successful.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is there further morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed.

EXECUTIVE SESSION The Senate resumed the consideration

of executive business.

WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATIONS The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before

the Senate messages from the President of the United States, withdrawing the nominations of Robert A. Feinour, to be

Postmaster at New Tripoli, Pa., and Mrs. Margaret o. stover, to be postmaster at Hinkley, Calif.

PROTOCOL TO AMEND CONVEN­TION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION; CONVENTION ON EX­TRADITION WITH SWEDEN; AD­DITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY OF EXTRADITION WITH BRAZIL; EXTRADITION CONVEN­TION WITH ISRAEL; CONSULAR CONVENTION WITH KOREA; CON­SULAR CONVENTION WITH JAPAN The Senate, as in Committee of the

Whole, resumed the consideration of the protocol, Executive D (88th Cong., 1st sess.), to .amend the Convention on Inter­national Civil Aviation; the convention, Executive E (87th Cong., 2d sess.), on extradition with Sweden; the additional protocol, Executive F (87th Cong., 2d sess.>, to the Treaty of Extradition With Brazil; the extradition convention, Ex­ecutive E (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Israel; to the consular convention, Exec­utive B (88th Cong., 1st sess.>, with Ko­rea; and the consular convention, Ex­ecutive I, (88th Cong., 1st sess.>, with Japan. ·

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority leader wishes to vote on these protocols and conventions en bloc. I belie~1e it has been ordered that they be voted on en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been so ordered.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be taken at 2 o'clock.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none; and without objection, the vote will be taken at 2 o'clock to the conventions and pro­tocols, en bloc, with a yea-and-nay vote. PROTOCOL TO AMEND CONVENTION ON INTER•

NATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the first protocol is Executive D, 88th Congress, 1st session. The purpose of this protocol to the Convention on Inter­national Civil Aviation is to amend arti­cle 48(a) of the convention by increas­ing the number of requests from con­tracting states required to convene an extraordinary meeting of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Orga­nization (!CAO) from 10 contracting states to not less than one-fifth of the total number of contracting states. Un­der the present provisions of article 48(a), the ICAO Assembly must meet an­nually, but a majority of the ICAO Coun­cil-a permanent body consisting of 27 members which is responsible to the Assembly-or 10 contracting states may require the convening of an extraordi­nary meeting of the !CAO Assembly.

The · new formula contained in this protocol, while increasing the minimum number of contracting states that may require the holding of an extraordinary meeting of the !CAO Assembly, retains the substance of the relative proportion agreed upon when the convention was signed. ·There are now 101 states par.J ties to the convention and the amend-

ment would require requests from at least 21 states for the convening of an extraordinary session of the assembly. The council will continue to have its own authority to call such a session.

The amendment embodied in this pro­tocol was proposed by the United States and was approved by the 14th session of the ICAO Assembly which met in Rome last September.

The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on this protocol on September 25, 1963, and decided at that time to recommend that the Senate give its advice and consent to the rati­fication of the protocol. It will come into force after 66 states have depooited· their instruments of ratification. EXTRADITION TREATIES WITH SWEDEN AND ISRAEL

AND PRO'l'OCOL TO EXTRADITION TREATY WITH BRAZIL

Mr. President, the extradition treaties with Sweden and Israel follow, in gen­eral, the pattern of other extradition treaties which are in force between the United States and 65 other countries.

Both the Israel and Swedish conven­tions contain a list of offenses for which extradition is to be granted. Under their provisions, however, a person may not be extradited for an offense which is re­garded as one of a political character. Neither convention permits the extradi­tion of a person for an offense which is punishable by death, unless the requested party receives assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed. The con­ventions also provide that the determi­nation as to whether extradition is to be granted is to be made in accordance with the laws of the requested party.

The convention with Sweden contains a provision-article IV-which appears only in a few U.S. extradition treaties presently in force. It provides that ex- · tradition may be granted for offenses committed within the territorial juris­diction of the requested state by an offi­cer or employee of the requesting state who is a national of the requesting state. This provision would apply, for exam­ple, in a case where a U.S. officer em­bezzled funds from the American Em­bassy in Sweden. Under most other U.S. extradition treaties, extradition is not possible in this type of situation.

A protocol to the convention with Swe­den was necessary because of the fact that Sweden is undertaking a revision of its penal code, and the imprisonment pro­visions relating to extraditable offenses are being changed. In this connection, article III of the convention was drafted to conform to the contemplated revision. The protocol provides that article m shall apply to the existing Swedish penal code pending the coming into force of the contemplated revision of the code. When the revised penal code comes into effect the protocol will terminate.

The protocol to the extradition treaty with Brazil was requested by Brazil for the purpose of clarifying article VII of the original agreement which the U.S. Senate approved on May 16, 1961.' Un­der the Brazilian Constitution and extra­dition law, the extradition of Brazilian nationals is prohibited, and the effect of· the protocol-which is substantively the same as article VII of the original

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 20043 treaty-is to make it plain that Brazil has no obligation to surrender its na­tionals.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. Is that a reciprocal

provision? The United States will not be under any obligation to surrender its own nationals; will it?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct. Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,

Brazil has not ratified the 1961 treaty · and regards U.S. approval of this proto­col as a prerequisite for submission of the original treaty to the Brazilian Con­gress.

The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on the conventions with Israel and Sweden and the proto­col to the treaty with Brazil on Septem­ber 25, 1963, at which time the com­mittee decided to recommend that the Senate give its advice and consent to their ratification.

The Department of Justice has con­curred in the conventions and the proto­col. The conventions with Sweden and Israel will enter into effect upon ex­change of ratifications and may be ter­minated after 6 months' notice by the parties thereto. The protocol to the treaty with Brazil will enter into force on the same date as does the original treaty. CONSULAR CONVENTIONS WJTH KOREA AND WITH

JAPAN

Mr. President, I refer now to the con­sular conventions with Korea and Japan, Executive B and Executive I of the 88th Congress, 1st session.

Mr. President, the consular convention between· the United States and Korea was signed at Seoul on January 8, 1963; the one between the United States and Japan, together with an accompanying · protocol, was signed at Tokyo on March 22,1963.

On September 25 the Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on both conventions, at which time testi­mony in their support was given by Mr. Leonard C. Meeker, acting legal ad­viser of the Department of State. The hearing is printed as an appendix to the committee's favorable report on the con­vention.

The committee is unaware of any ob­jections to either convention.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. Does this Govern­

ment maintain any consular offices at this time in either Japan or Korea?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. We do, in both of them.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is this addition to our treaty a form of predicate for the establishment of additional consular of­fices in those two countries?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Not necessarily, but it provides a new and streamlined form of consular convention which is essentially, in its substance, similar to other conventions, which I shall explain in just a moi;nent tn, the statement I am making. But it is to modernize and · update the usual provisions with regard·

to consular conventions and clarify cer­tain t.Spects of duties of consular offices, especially with regard to such matters as estates of deceased nationals of the respective parties, which I shall explain in just a moment.

Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator will yield further, I understand that normal business relations between our country and Japan are increasing and improv­ing, Is -that correct?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes. Mr. HOLLAND. Is that same situa­

tion found with respect· to our business relations with Korea?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not think there is anything like the same volume or increase with respect to that country. It is a much less dynamic trade that we conduct with Korea. As the Senator knows, the trade is almost one way. We are still supporting South Korea very substantially-if one wants to call it trade. It is more aid than trade.

Mr. HOLLAND. As I understand, these two codicils would give identical treatment to Japan. and Korea in this particular field. Is that correct?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct. Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the

purpose of these bilateral conventions is to provide a framework to govern the consular affairs of each contracting party in the territory of the other contracting party.

Both the Korean and the Japanese Conventions are essentially similar in substance to consular conventions which have been approved by the Senate in the past. It might be noted, however, that the convention with Korea is. a new, shorter type of document than predeces­sor instruments, and its form is expected to serve as a prototype for future con­sular treaties.

Provisions in both conventions con­cern such matters as establishment of consular offices, appointment of consular officials, and the functions they may carry_ out to be of service, and offer pro­tection, to nationals of their own States, and legal rights · and privileges and im­munities to be accorded consular officials in relation to the performance of their official duties.

Several consular conventions the Com­mittee considered previously contained provisions regarding administration of estates. After members of the legal pro­fession objected to those provisions, they . were withdrawn before the conventions gained Senate approval. Articl~s in both of the pending conventions deal with administration of estates, that is, those functions a consular officer may perform when a national of his country dies in the territory of the other country without leaving therein any known heir or testamentary executor. The Commit­tee has been assured by the executive branch that these provisions in the con­ventions with Korea and Japan have been discussed with the appropriate com­mittees of the American Bar Association · and that they are "entirely satisfactory . to the bar in this country."

The executive branch informed the Committee that neither convention would have the effect of changing any· limitation presently established in Fed-

eral or State laws, beyond that long pro­vided in existing consular conventions. Nor would either convention empower the Federal Government to pass laws in any matters affecting State or local ·ac­tivities which heretofore it did not al­ready possess.

After the ratification procedures set forth in the conventions have .been met, the convention with Korea would re­main in· force for 10 years, the one with Japan 5 years. Both may continue in force beyond those terms, unless a con­tracting party serves notice of intention of termination.

Mr. President, inasmuch as it is be­lieved the pending treaties would be beneficial to American nationals in Korea and Japan, the Committee on Foreign Relations recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to · ratification of the Consular Convention with Korea and the Consular Conven­tion with Japan and its accompanying protocol.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD and · Mr. SALTON­

STALL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if

the Senator from Arkansas will yield, as Senators know all the details of the vari-· ous protocols and conventions, which have just been explained are carried in yesterday's RECORD, so that Senators may have the benefit of the detailed addenda pertaining to the various proposals.

In view of the fact that there seems to be no further debate on the protocols or conventions at this time, I move that the Senate return to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration·of leg­islative business.

CONSTRUCTION AT CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 549, H.R. 6500, to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes, and that it be laid before the Senate and made the pending business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill <H.R. 6500) to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Armed Services, with an amendment, to strike out ·a1r after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I

SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and fac111t1es by acquiring, constructing,

20044 CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD - SENATE October fl2 converting, rehabilitating, or. installing per­manent or temporary public works, incl'ud­ihg site · preparation, appurtenances, utm­ties, and equipment for the following proj­ects:

Inside the United States Continental Army Command

(First Army) Fort Devens, .Massachusetts: Maintenance

facillties, medical facilities, troop housing and community facilities, $1,091,000.

Fort Dix, New Jersey: Operational facili­ties maintenance faclllties, medical facill­ties: administrative facilities, troop housing and community facilities, and utlllties, $19,-362,000.

Fort Jay, New York: Utlllties, $131,000. (Second Army)

Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Training facilities, $1,083,000.

Fort Eustis, Virginia: Maintenance facil­ities, and ut11ities, $297,000.

Fort Knox. Kentucky, Operational facill­ties, maintenance fa.clllties, medical facili­ties, administrative facilities, and utilities, $1~56~0~ ·

Fort George G. Meade, Maryland: Opera­tional facilities, and ut111ties, $237,000.

Fort Monroe, Virginia: Operational facili­ties, and utllities, $315,000.

Fort Ritchie, Maryland: Utilities, $267,000. Fort Story, Virginia: Maintenance facili­

ties, $890,000. (Third Army)

Fort Benning, Georgia: Maintenance facil­ities, medical facilities, community faclli­ties, and utlllties, $3,665,000.

Fort Bragg, North Carolina: Training facllities, maintenance facilities, supply facillties, medical facilities, troop housing, and utilities, ,15,886,000.

Fort Campbell, Kentucky: Operational facll1ties, maintenance facilities, supply fa.cllities, medical fac111ties, and administra­tive facilites, $1,621,000.

Fort Gordon, Georga: Training faclllties, $6,700,000.

Fort Jackson, South Carolina: Mainte­nance fac11ities, medical facillties, admin­istrative fa.cillties, troop housing and com­munity facilities, and utilities, $9,026,000.

Fort McPherson, Georgia: Troop housing, · $166,000.

Fort Rucker, Alabama: Training facllities, maintenance fa.cllities, hospital and medical facilities, and troop housing, $5,823,000.

Fort Stewart, Georgia: Maintenance facil­ities, and utlllties, $430,000.

(Fourth Army) Fort Hood, Texas: Operational facilities,

maintenance facilities, supply facilit~es, troop housing, and utilities, $7,018,000.

Fort Sam Houston, Texas: Troop housing, and utilities, $216,000.

camp Wolters, Texas: Operational facm­tles, $257,000.

(Fifth Anny) Fort Carson, Colorado: Operational and

training faclllties, maintenance fac11ities, supply facllitles, community !acllities, and utllities, $7,355,000.

Detroit Defense Area, Michigan: Mainte­nance facilities, and supply facilities, $654,-000.

Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana: Tra4l­ing facilities, troop housing, and utilities, $1,822,000.

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Medical facili­ties, admin11trative facilities, troop housing and comm.unity facilities, and utlllties, e2,-493,000.

Fort Riley, Kansas: Troop housing and community factlities, $861,000.

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri: Tratning facilities, maintenance facilities, medical facilities, troop housing and community fa­cilities, •8,163,000.

(Sixth Army) Fort Irwin, California.: Training facilities,

troop housing and community facilities, $1,-715,000.

Fort Lewis, Washington: U.tllities, $610,000. Presidio of Monterey, California: Training

facilities, $979,000. Fort Ord, California: Operational facili­

ties, and community fac111ties, $1,295,000. · Presidio of San Francisco, California:

Supply facilities, $278,000. (Military District of Washington, District of

Columbia) · Cameron Station, Virginia: Supply fac111-

ties, $250,000. Fort Myer, Virginia: Operational facilities,

maintenance facilities, and troop housing, $4,000,000.

United States Army Materiel Command (United States Army Materiel Command,

Headquarters) Natick Laboratories, Massachusetts: Re­

search, development and test facilities, $3,-408,000.

(United States Army Missile Command) Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research, de­

velopment and test facilities, and utiliiiies, $4,211,000.

(United States Army Missile Command) Army Chemical Center, Maryland.: Re­

search, development and test fac111ties, $410,000.

Fort Detrick, Maryland: Utilities, $89,000.

(United States Army Supply and Maintenance Command)

Atlanta Army Depot, Georgia: Adminis­trative fac111ties, $49,000.

Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas: Maintenance facilities, $1,754,000.

Oakland Army Terminal, California: Med­ical fac111ties, $532,000.

Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado: Utilities, $1,204,000. · Sharpe Army Dep9t, California: Mainte­

nance facilities, and utilities, $152,000. Utah Army Depot, Utah: Utilities, $88,000.

(United States Army Test and Evaluation Command)

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Re­search, development and test facllities, troop housing and community faclllt1es, $4,065,000.

Dugway Proving Ground, Utah: Operation­al fac111tles, research, development and test facllitles, $1,017,000.

Fort Huachuca, Arizona: Operational ta­cilities, and utllities, $849,000.

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico: Research, development and test facilities, and ut111ties, $1,248,000.

Yuma Test Station, Arizona: Community facllities, $373,000.

Signal Corps East Coast Radio Transmitter Station,

Woodbridge, Virginia: Utllities, $88,000. United States Military Academy

United States M111tary Academy, West Point, New York: Training facllities, and utlllties, $2,291,000.

Army Security Agency Two Rock Ranch Station, California: Op­

erational facilities, and utilities, $222,000. Vint Hllls Farms, Virginia: Operational ta­

cillties, and medical facilities, $1,306,000. ·

Army Component Commands (United States Army Air Defense Command)

Various locations: Operational . facilities, maintenance tacllities, troop housing, ~nd utilities, ,22,500,000. ·

(Alasb. Oo~nd Area) Fort Richardson, Alaska: Maintenance fa­

cilities, $1,'Tll,000.

(Pacific, Command Area) · Ha wail Defense Area, Hawaii: Operational

facilities, $150,000. Schofield. Barracks, Hawaii: Maintenance

facllities, and utilities, $913,000. · Fort Shafter, Hawaii: ·utmties, $74,000.

Outside the . United States Army Materiel Comm.and

Various locations: Research, development and test facilities, $740,000.

Army Security Agency · Various locations: Operational facilities,

supply facilities, administrative facilities, troop housing and community facilities, and utilities, $5,798,000.

Army Component Commands (Pacific Command Area)

Japan: utmttes, $461,000. Okinawa: Operational fac111ties, supply fa­

cilities, troop housing, and utilities, f2,554,-000.

(European Command Area) France: Operational facilities, and supply

facillties, $3,666,000. Germany: Operational faclllties, mainte­

nance fac111ties, supply facilities, troop hous­ing, and utilities, $9,485,000.

(Caribbean Command Area) Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico: Real estate,

$111,000. Fort Clayton, Canal Zone: Community fa­

cilities, $442,000. SEC. 102. The Secretary of the Army may

establish or develop classified military instal­lations and facil1ties by acquiring, construct­ing, converting, rehabil1tating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, in­cluding land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, · and equipment in the total a.mount $8,900,000.

SEC, 103. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop Army installations and facilities by proceeding with construction made necessary by changes in Army missions and responsib111ties which have been occa­sioned by: (a) unforeseen security consid­erations, (b) new weapons developments, (c) new and unforeseen research and develop­ment requirements, or (d) improved produc­tion schedules, 1f the Secretary of Defense determines that d·eferral of such construc­tion for inclusion in the next military con­struction authorization Act should be incon­sistent with interests of national security, and in connection therewith to acquire, con­struct, convert, rehabilitate, or install perma­nent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurte­nances, utillties, and equipment, in the total amount of $12,500,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, or his designee, shall notify the Comm! ttees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, im­mediately uwn reaching a. fin.al decision tp implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this section, including those real estate actions pertaining thereto. This authorization will expire as of September 30, 1964, except for those public works projects concerning which the Com­mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives have been n~tified pursuant to this section prior to that date.

SEQ. 104. (a) Public Law . 86-600, a~ amended, is a.mendecl under heading "INSIDE THE UNrrED STATES" in section 101, as fol-lows: ·

( 1) Under the subheading "DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY" with respect to National Naval Medical Center, Maryland, strike out "$1,891,000" and insert in place thereof "$2,852,000".

(b) Publlc Law 86-500, as amended, is amended by str1kip.g out In clause ( 1) . of section 502, "$79,499,000" and "*146',429,000"

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20045 and inserting in place thereof '·'$80,460,000" and "$147,890,000", respectively.

SEC. 105. (a.) Public Law 87-57 is a.mended under heading "INSIDE THE UNITED STATES" in section 101, a.s follows:

( 1) Under the subheading "TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Signal Corps)", with re­spect to Lexington Signal Depot, Kentucky, strike out "$33,000" and insert in place there­of "$56,000".

(2) Under the subheading "ARMY COM­PONENT COMMANDS ( Pacific ·command Area)", with respect to various locations, strike out "$814,000" and insert in place thereof "$1,156,000".

(b) Public Law 87-57 is amended by strik­ing out in clause (1) of section 602, "$76;-918,000" and "$180,406,000" and inserting in place thereof "$77,288,000" and "$130,­'171,000".

SEC. 106. (a.) Public Law 87-554 is a.mended in section 101 as follows:

(l) Under the heading "INSIDE THE UNITED STATES", and under the subheading "coN­'l'INENTAL ARMY COMMAND (Sixth . Army)", With respect to "Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation, California." strike out "$159,000" and insert in place thereof ·"$282,000".

(2) Under the heading "OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES", and under the subheading "ARMY SECURITY AGENCY", with respect to "Various locations", strike out "$4,684,000" and insert in place thereof "$6,494,000".

(b) Public Law 87-554 is amended by striking out in clause ( 1) of section 602, "$101,743,000", "$29,699,000" and "$148,442,-000." and inserting in place thereof "$101,-816,000", "$31,509,000" and "$150,325,000", respectively.

TITLE n SEC. 201. The Secr~tary of the Navy may

establish or develop m111tary installations and fac111ties by acquiring, constructing, con­verting, rehabilitating, or installing perma­nent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, ut111ties, and equipment for the following projects:

Inside the United States Bureau of Ships Fac111ties

(Naval shipyards) Naval Shipyard, Boston, Massachusetts:

Operational facilities, and ut111ties, $169,000. Na.val Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington:

Maintenance fac111ties, $1,902,000. Na.val Shipyard, Charleston, South Caro­

lina: Operational facilities, maintenance fac111ties, supply fac111ties, and medical fa.c111-ties, $3,171,000.

Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, California: Ut111ties, $850,000.

Na.val Shipyard, New York, New York: Ad­ministrative fac111ties, $200,000.

Na.val. Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia: Main­tenance facilities, $5,382,000.

Na.val Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Ha.­wail: Operational facilities, maintenance fa­cilities, and research, development and test fac111ties, $2,921,000.

Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsyl­vania: Operational facilities, $90,000.

Na.val Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hamp­shire: Maintenance fac111ties, $574,000.

Naval Repair Facility, San Diego, Califor­nia: Maintenance fac111ties, $522,000.

Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, Califor­nia: Research, development and test fac111-ties, and utilities, $274,000.

(Fleet support stations) Naval Fac111ty, Cape Hatteras, North Caro­

lina: . Community fac111ties, $62,000. Naval Submarine Base, New London, Con­

necticut: Administrative facilities, and util­ities, $823,000.

Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, At­lantic Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia: Troop hous­ing, $625,000.

· Fleet Training .Group, Naval Station An­nex, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, .Ha.wall: Training fac111ties, $194,000. (Research, development, test, and evalua­

tion stations) Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, New

London, Connecticut: Operational facilities, $1,770,000.

Fleet Base Facilities Naval Station, Charleston, South Caro­

lina: Troop housing, and ut111ties and ground improvements, $754,000.

Naval Command Systems Support Activity, District of Columbia: Administrative facili­ties, $986,000.

Naval Station, Key West, Florida: Utilities, $226,000.

Naval Station, Long Beach, California: Operational facilities, $94,000,

Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia: Opera­tional fac111ties, $2,355,000.

Naval Station, San Diego, California: Op­erational facilities, $786,000.

Naval Weapons Facilities (Naval air training stations)

Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas: Operational and training facilities, and troop housing, $208,000.

Naval Air Station, Glynco, Georgia: Com­munity facilities, $310,000.

Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee: Operational fac111ties, $289,000.

Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida: Utilities, $73,000.

Na.val Auxiliary Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida: Operational facilities, and utilities, $251,000.

(Field support stations) Naval Station, Adak, Alaska: Maintenance

facilities, and troop housing, $4,765,000. Naval Air Station, Alameda, California.:

Operational facilities, $477,000. Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Oahu,

Hawaii: Operational facilities, $94,000. Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine: Op­

erational facilities, and maintenance facil­ities, $1,075,000.

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida: Operational facilities, $150,000.

Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Fallon, Neva­da: Operational facilities, $780,000.

Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida: Operational facilities, and maintenance fa­cilities, $884,000.

Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida: Op­erational and training facilities, mainte­nance facilities, troop housing, utilities, and real estate, $8,031,000.

Na.val Air Station, Miramar, California: Maintenance facilities, $2,400,000.

Na.val Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia: Op­erational facilities, and maintenance fJWili­ties, $3,242,000.

Naval Air Station, North Island, California: Operational facilities, and maintenance fa­cilities, $2,358,000.

Na.val Air Station, Oceana, Virginia: Op­erational facilities, and maintenance facili­ties, $657,000.

Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, Rhode Island: Operational fac1lities, and ut1lities, $834,000.

Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Cle­mente Island, California: Operational facili­ties, maintenance facilities, troop housing, and utilities, $1,092,000.

Naval Air Station, Sanford, Florida.: Oper­ational facilities, and maintenance facilities, $1,138,000.

Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash­ington: Operational fac111ties, $80,000.

(Marine Corps air stations) Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South

Carolina.: Maintenance facilities, and com­munity facilities, $538,000.

Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field, Camp Pendleton, Ca.ll!ornia: Operational

and training facilities, and maintenance fa­cilities, $740,000.

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina: Operational facilities, main­tenance facilities, administrative facilities, and utilities, $1,400,000.

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, Califor­nia.: Operational facilities, and maintenance facilities, $2,042,000.

Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii: Maintenance facilities, $621,-000.

Marine Corps Air Facility, New River, North Carolina: Operational facilities, main­tenance facilities, administrative facilities, and troop housing, $2,034,000.

Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana., Cali­fornia: Training facilities, $276,000.

Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona: Supply facilities, $259,ooo:

(Fl~et readiness stations) Naval Ammunition Depot, Charleston,

South Carolina: Maintenance facilities, and troop housing and community facilities, $952,000.

Naval Propellant Plant, Indian Head, Maryland: Research, development and test facilities, supply facilities, and real estate, $694,000.

Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washing­ton: Research development and test facili­ties, and real estate, $258,000.

Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Vir­ginia: Utilities, $932,000. (Research development, test, and evaluation

stations) Naval Ordnance Test Station, China. Lake,

California: Research, development and test facilities, $1,268,000.

Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, Pennsylvania: Research, development, and test facilities, $780,000.

Pacific Missile Range, Point Mugu, Cali­fornia: Operational facilities, and research, development and test facilities; at Point Ar­guello, research, development and test fa­cilities, and troop housing; and, on San Nico­las Island, research, development and test facilities, $3,869,000.

Na.val Ordnance Laboratory, White Qak, Maryland: Research, development and test facilities, $6,173,000.

Nava.I Ordnance Missile Test Facility, White Sands, New Mexico: Research, development and test facilities, $490,000.

Supply Facilities Fleet Material Support Office, Mechanics­

burg, Pennsylvania: Administrative facilities, $352,000.

Marine Corps Facilities Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina: Training facilities, maintenance facilities, and utilities, $1,892,000.

Marine Corps Schools, Quantico, Virginia: Training facilities, $735,000.

Marine Corps Base, Twenty-nine Palms, California: Community facilities, and util­ities, $179,000.

Service School Fac111ties Na.val Academy, Annapolis, Maryland:

Training facilities, and troop housing, $12,-819,000.

Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Mary­land: Utilities, $70,000.

Naval Schools, Mine Warfare, Charleston, South Carolina: Training facilities, $819,000.

Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, Cali­fornia: Utilities, $163,000.

Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center, Dam Neck, Virginia: Medical facilities, and troop housing, $1,812,000.

Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illi­nois: Training facilities, and ut111ties, $3,-235,000.

Na.val War College, Newport, Rhode Island: Training facilities. $65,000.

Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare School, San Diego, California.: Utilities, $175,000.

20046 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD - SENATE October 22 Naval Training Center, San Diego, Ca.Ufor­

nia: Troop housing, $79,000. Medical Pac111ties

Naval Hospital, Long _ Beach, California: Troop housing, $336,000.

Communication Facilities ( Communication stations)

Naval Radio Station, Cutler, Maine: Com­munity fac111t1es, $240,000.

Naval Radio station, Sugar Grove, West Virginia: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, troop housing, and utilities, $3,-480,000.

(Security group stations) Naval Security Station, District of Colum­

bia: Troop housing, $231,000. Na.val Security Group Activity, Skaggs

Island, California: Utilities, $341,000. Naval Security Group Activity, Winter

Harbor, Maine: Troop housing, and utilities, '282,000.

Office of Naval Research Fac111ties Naval Research Laboratory, District of Co­

lumbia: Research, development and · test fa­cilities, administrative facilities, and utili­ties, $6,730,000.

Yards and Docks Facilities Navy Public Works Center, Newport, Rhode

Island: Utlltties, $966,000. Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk; Utili­

ties, $1,668,000. Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor,

Oahu. Hawaii: Utilities, $171,000. Na.val Construction Battalion Center, Port

Hueneme, California: Operational facilities, and ut1lities, $1,490,000.

Outside the United States 13ureau .of Ships Facillties

Naval Station, Su.hie Bay, Republic of Philippines: Community facilities, $265,000.

Naval Weapons Facilities Naval Station, Argentia, Newfoundland,

Canada: Operational facilities, and com­munity facilities, $1,365,000.

Marine Corps Air Facility, Futema, Oki­nawa: Training facilities, $202,000.

Marine Corps Air Station, Iwakuni, Japan: Operational and training facilities, $287,000.

Na.val Station, Midway Islands: Com­munity facllities, and ground improvements, $681,000.

Naval Air Facility, Naples, Italy: Opera­tional facllities, $310,000.

Naval Station, Sangley Point, Republic of Philippines: Operatiaonal fac111ties, $57,000.

Marine Corps Facilities Camp Smedley B. Butler, Okinawa: Oper­

~tional and training facilities, maintenance facilities, supply facilities, administrative fa­cilities, and troop housing and community facillties, $6,136,000.

Comm.unlcation Facilities Naval Radio Station, Barriga.da, Guam,

Marlana Islands: Operational facilities, $414,000.

Naval Communication Station, London­derry, Northern Ireland: Operational facili­ties, $617,000.

Naval Radio Station, Summit, Canal Zone: Ut111ties, $66,000.

Naval Radio Station, Totsuka, Japan: Op­erational factllties, and utilities, $1,116,000.

SEC. 202. The_ Secretary of the Navy m1;1,y establish or develop classified naval installa­tions and fac111ties by acquiring, construct­ing, converting, rehabilitating, or 1nstall1ng permanent or temporary public works, in­cluding land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, in the total amount of $71,532,000.

SEC. 203. The Secretary of the Navy may establish or develop naval installations and facilities by proceeding with construction made necessary by changes in Navy Jltlssions and responsibilities which have been occa-

sloned by: (a)-unforeseen security con.aldera­tions, (b) new weapons developments, (c) new and unforeseen reses.rch and develop­ment requirements, or (d) improved produc­tion schedules, if the Secretary of Defense determines that deferral -of such construc­tion for inclusion in the next military con­struction authorization Act would be incon­sistent with interests of national security, and in connection therewith to acquire, con­struct, convert, rehabilitate, or install per­manent or temporary public works, includ­ing land acquisition, site preparation, ap­pUiienances, utilities, and equipment, in the total amount of $12,600,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Navy or his designee shall notify the Committees on Armed Serv­ices of the Senate and the House of Repre­sentatives, immediately upon reaching a final decision to implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this section, including those real es­tate actions pertaining thereto. This au­thorization will expire as of September 30, 1964, except for those public . works projects concerning which the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Repre­sentatives have been notified pursuant to this section prior to that date.

SEC. 204. (a) Public Law 87-57, as amend­ed, is amended in section 201 under the head­ing "INSIDE THE UNITED STATES" and sub­heading "COMMUNICATION FACILITIES", with respect to the Naval Radio Station, Chelten­ham, Maryland, by striking out "$161,000", and inserting in place thereof, "$238,000".

(b) Public Law 87-57, as amended, is amended by striking out in clause (2) of section 602, the amounts "$81,668,000" and "$140,663,000", and inse.rting respectively in place thereof "$81,645,000" and "$140,750,-000".

TITLE m SEC. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force

may establish or develop military installa­tions and facilities by acquiring, construct­ing, converting, rehabtlitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, in­cluding site preparation, appurtenances, ut111ties, and equipment, for the following projects:

Inside the United States Air Defense Command

Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colo­rado: Operational facilities, and medical fa­cilities, $677,000.

Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand Forks, North Dakota: Operational facilities and utilities, $1,439,000. . Hamilton Air Force Base, San Rafael, California: Operational facilities, and troop housing, $675,000.

Kincheloe Air Force Base, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan: Operational fac111ties, maintenance facilities, and troop housing and community facilities, •soa,ooo.

Kingsley Field, Klamath Falls, Oregon: Operational facllities, maintenance fac111-ties, and medical fac111ties, $213,000.

McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Wash­ington: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, medical facilities, and community facilities, $1,436,000.

NORAD Headquarters, Colorado Springs, Colorado: Operational facilities, $7,000,000.

Otis Air Force Base, Falmouth, Massachu­setts: Utilities, $91,000.

Paine Field, Everett, Washington: Mainte­nance facilities, $131,000.

Portland International Airport, Portland, Oregon: Operational fac1Uties, maintenance facilities, troop housing and community facilities, and utilities, $1,659,000.

Stewart Air Force Base, Newburgh, New York: Operational facilities, maintenance fa­c111ties, and utilities, $212,000.

Suffolk County Air Force Base, Westhamp­ton Beach, New York: Maintenance facili­ties, and community facilities, $907,000.

· Truax Field, Madison, Wisconsin: Mainte­nance facilities, .and community facilities, $44'7,000.

Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida: Operational -facilities, and mainte­nance facilities, $681,000.

Air Force Logistics Command Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah: Opera­

tional facilities, maintenance fac111ties, sup­ply facilities, administrative fac111ties, and troop housing, $2,717,000.

Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas: Maintenance facilities, medical facilities, administrative facilities, and troop housing, $4,345,000.

McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California: Operational facilities, mainte­nance facilities, supply facilities, administra­tive facilities, and utilities, $2,132,000.

Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California: Maintenance facilities, and util­ities, $983,000.

Olmsted Air Force Base, Middletown, Penn­sylvania: Operational facilities, and mainte­nance facilities, ,$1,247,000.

Robins Air Force Base, Macon, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, administrative facil­ities, and utillties, $1,240,000.

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Operational facilities, mainte­nance facilities, supply facilities, and util­it.ies, $1,025,000.

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio: Maintenance facilities, research, de­velopment and test facilities, administra­tive facilities, community facilities, and util­ities, $4,308,000.

Air Force Systems Command Arnold Engineering Development Center,

Tullahoma, Tennessee-: Research, develop­ment and test fac111ties, supply facilities, and utilities, $4,060,000.

Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas: Training facilities, research, development and test facilities, and troop housing and com­munity fac111ties, $1,155,000.

Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc, California: Research, development and test facilities, $9,660,000.

Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, research, development and test facilities, sup­ply facilities, hospital facilities, and troop housing, $5,110,000.

Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, New Mexico: Maintenance facilities, research, de­velopment and test facilities, $196,000.

Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Research, development and test facilities, and troop housing and community facilities, $1,035,000.

Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford, Mas­sachusetts: Troop housing and community facilities, $602,000.

Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa, Florida: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, and troop housing, $1,119,000.

Sacramento Peak Upper Air Research Site, Alamogordo, New Mexico: Research, develop­ment and test facilities, $2,889,000.

Various locations, Atlantic Missile Range: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, research, development and test facilities, troop housing, and utilities, $7,856,000.

Air Training Command Amartllo Air Force Base, Amarmo, Texas:

~aining facilities, and hospital faciUties, $3,985,000.

Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois: Training facilities, troop housing, and util­ities, $2,573,000.

Craig Air Force Base, Selma, Alabama: Op­erational fac111ties, $829,000.

Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi: Training fac111ties, hospital facilities, and utilities, $3,319,000.

Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas: Medical facilities, and troop housing, $1,394,000.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ~047 Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas:

Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, and utilities. $909,000.

Lowry Ar Force Base, Denver, Colol'.ado: Troop housing, $974,000.

Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas: Operational facilities, administrative facilities, and real estate, $3,044,000.

Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, Texas: Op­erational facilities, utilities, and real estate, $504,000.

Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls, Texas: Training facilities, supply facilities, and troop housing, $1,723,000.

Stead Air Force Base, Reno, Nevada: Op­erational and training facilities, $236,000.

Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Oklahoma: Operational facilities, $709,000.

Air University Gunter Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala­

bama: Administrative facilities, and troop housing and community facilities, $765,000.

Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala­bama: Maintenance facilities, administra­tive facilities, and troop housing and com­

. munity facilities, $852,000.

Alaskan Air Command Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska:

Maintenance facilities, administrative facili­ties, troop housing, and utilities, $1,853,000.

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, administrative facilities, commu­nity facilities, and utilities, $2,689,000.

Galena Airport, Galena, Alaska: Medical facilities, $145,000.

King Salmon Airport, Naknek, Alaska: Op­erational ,facilities, and supply facilities, $160,000.

Various locations: Operational facilities, maintenance facilities, supply facilities, troop housing a.nd community facilities, an? utilities, $9,718,000.

. Headquarters Command Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs,

Maryland: Operational facilities, mainte­nance fac111ties, medical facilities, troop housing, and utilities, $1,996,000.

Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, Dis­trict of Columbia: Administrative facllities, troop housing, community facilities, and utilities, $4,000,000.

Military Air Transport Service Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston,

South Carolina: Maintenance facllities, sup­ply facilities, medical facilities, and com­munity facilities, $1,284,000.

Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware: Operational facllities, $520,000. ·

Hunter Air Force Base, Savannah, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, $766·,000.

McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown, New Jersey: Operational and training facili­ties, $487,000.

Orlando Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida: Training facilities, $191,000.

SCott Air Force Base, Bellevme, Illinois: Operational facilities, $145,000.

Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, California: Operational and training fac1lities, mainte­nance facilities, hospital facilities, and utili­ties, $2,716,000.

P.acifie Air Force Bickan .Air F.orce Base. Honolulu, Hawaii:

Operational facilities, supply facilltles, med­ical facilities, and utilities, $1,373,000.

Strategic Air Command Altus Air Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma:

Operational faclllties, and administrative facilities, $392,000. ·

Beale Air Force Base, Marysville, Cali­fornia: Operatlonal ~acilities, $470,000.

Bergstrom Air Force ~. Austin, Texas: Operational facilities, and troop housing, .463,000.

Biggs Alr Force Base, El Paso, Texas: Op-erational facilities, $174,000. ·

Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville, Arkansas: Operational facllities, mainte­nance facmties, administrative facilities, and troop housing, $549,000.

Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana: Operational fac111ties, $168,000.

Carswell Air Force Base, Fort Worth, Texas: Operational facilities, and community fac111-ties, $841,000. ,

Castle Air Force Base, Merced, California: Operational facilities, and community facili­ties, $163JOOO.

Cinton-Sherman Air Force Base, Clinton, Oklahoma: Maintenance facilities, commu­nity facilities, and utilities, $329,000.

Columbus Air Force Base, Columbus, Mis­sissippi: Operational fac111ties, $70,000.

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, TUcron, Arizona; Operational fac111ties, and com­munity fac111ties, $709,000.

Dyess Air Force Base, Abilene, Texas: Troop housing, $653,000.

Ellsworth AiT Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota: Operational fac111ties, $51,000.

Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Chey­enne, Wyoming: Operational and training fac111ties, maintenance fac111ties, supply fa­c111ties, ,and troop housing, $1,391,000.

Glasgow Air Force Base, Glasgow, Mon­tana: Operational fac111ties, administrative fac111ties, and community facilities, $633,000.

Homestead Air Force Base, Homestead, Florida: Maintenance fac111ties, and com­munity fac111ties, $853,000.

Larson Air Force Base, Moses Lake, Wash­ington: Operational facilities, and troop housing and community facilities, $722,000.

Little Rock Air Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas: Training fac111ties, maintenance facilities, supply facilities, administrative facilities, and community facllities, $1,646-000.

Lockbourne Air Force Base, Columbus, Ohio: Operational fac111ties, and utilities, $297,000.

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, Montana: Medical facllities, and community fac111ties, $609,000.

March Air Force Base, Rive.rside, Califor­nia: ·Maintenance faclllties, and medical fa­cllities, $186,000.

Minot Air Force Base, Minot, North Da­kota: Operational facllities, medical fac111-ties, and community faclllties, $1,408,000.

Mountain Home Air Force Base, Mountain Home, Idaho: Operational faclllties, $135,000.

Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska: Maintenance fac111ties, and administrative fa­cilities, $663,000.

Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Operational fac111ties, mainte­nance facilities, supply faclllties, and utili­ties, $410,000.

Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Plattsburgh, New York: Maintenance facllities, and supply fac111t1es, $89~000.

Schilling Air Force Base, Salina, Kansas: Operational facilities, $94,-000.

Turner Air Force Base, Albany, Georgia: Operational fac111ties, troop housing and community facillties, and utlllties, $653,000.

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, Cali­fornia: Operational facilities, hospital fa­c111ties, administrative fac111ties, and troop housing, $6,666,000.

Westover Air Force Base, Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts: Operational facilities.and ad­ministrative fac111tles, $1,332,000.

Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster, Missouri: Operational fac111ties, $80,000.

Wurtsmith -Air Force Base, Oscoda, Michi­gan: Supply facllities, and troop housing and community facilities, $547,000.

Tactical Air Command England Air Force Base, Al-exanc1ria, Lou­

isiana: Operational facll1ties, maintenance facilities, administrative .facilities, and troop housing and community fac1lities, ,soo,ooo.-·

George Air Force Base, V1ctiorville, Cali­fornia: Operational and training facilities,

maintenance fac111ties, and troop housing and community faeillties, $4,226,000.

Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Vir­ginia: Administrative facilities, troop hous-ing, and utilities, $2,067,000. ·

Luke Air Force Base, Phoenix, Arizona: Operational facilities, $130,000.

MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida: ~aintenance facilities, $99,000.

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Operational facili-ties, $123,000. ·

Nellis Air · Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada: Administrative fac111ties, and troop housing, $797,000.

Pope Air Force -Base, Fort Bragg, North Carolina: Operational facilities, maintenance facil1ties, and real estate, $3,783,000.

Sewart Air Force Base, Smyrna, Tennes­see: Operational facilities, maintenance fa­c111ties, and troop housing, $1,786,000.

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Golds­boro, North Carolina: Administrative fa­cilities, and troop housing, $650,000.

Shaw Air Force Base, Sumter, South Caro­lina: Operational facilities, maintenance fa­cilities, and administrative facilities, $1,087,-000. .

Aircraft Control and Warning System Various locations: Operational facil1ties,

maintenance facilities, troop housing and community facilities, and util1ties, $1,731,-000.

Outside the United States Afr Defense Command

Various locations: Operational facilities, troop housing and community fac111ties, and utilities, $1,132,000.

Caribbean Air Command Albrook Air Force Base, Canal Zone: Medi­

cal facilities, and troop housing, $291,000. Howard Air Force Base, Canal Zone: Op­

erational ta.cillties, and supply facilities, $347,000.

Mill tary Air Transport Service Wake Island: Supply facilities., $34,000. Various locations: Operational facllities,

and ututties, $1,198,000.

Pacific Air Force Various locations: Operational and train­

ing facilities, maintenance facilities, sup­ply facilities, medical facilities, troop hous­ing and community facilities, and utilities, $24,557,000.

Strategic Air Command · Ramey Air Force Base, Puerto Rico: Sup­ply fac111tics, $93,000.

Various locatlons: Operational facillties, maintenance facilities, community facUitles, and utilities, $1,407,000.

United States Air Forces in Europe Various locations: Operational and train­

ing facilities. maintenance facilities, supply facilities, medical fa.cllitles, administrative facilites, troop housng· and community fa­cilities, and ut111ties, $23,884,000.

United States Air Force Security Service Various locations: Operational facilities,

medical fac111ties, troop housing and com­munity fac1llties, and utilities, $11,610,000.

SEC. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force may establish or develop classified milltary installations and facllltles by acquiring, con­structing, converting, rehabilitating, or in­stalling permanent or temporary · public works, including land acquisition, site prep­aration, appurtenances, utillties, and equip­ment in the total amount of $252,629,000.

SEC. 303. The Secretary of the Air Force may establish or develop Air Force installa­tions and :racllitles by proceeding with con­struction made necessary by changes in Air Force missions and responsibillties which have been occasioned -by: (a) unforeseen security considerations, (b) new weapons

. )

20048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22-

developments, . (c) new and unforeseen · re­search a.nd development requirements, or (d) improved production schedules, if the Secretary of Defense determines that de­ferral of such construction for inclusion in the next m111tary construction authoriza­tion Act would be inconsistent with the in­terests of national security, a.nd in connec­tion therewith to acquire, construct, con­vert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or temporary publtc works, including land ac­quisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment in the total amount of $12,500,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Air Force, or his designee, shall notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, im­mediately upon reaching a final decision to implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this sec­tion, including those real estate actions per­taining thereto. This authorization will expire as of September 30, 1964, except for those public works projects concerning which the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives have been notified pursuant to this section prior to that date.

SEC. 304. (a) Public Law 83-534, as amend­ed, is amended in section 301 under the heading "CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES" and subheading "AIR DEFENSE COMMANDS", with respect to Stewart Air Force Base, Newburgh, New York, by striking out "$2,659,000" and inserting in place thereof "$2,797,000".

(b) Public Law 83-534, as amended, is amended by striking out in clause (3) of section 502 the amounts of "$409,937,000", and "$419,766,000" and inserting in place thereof "$410,075,000" and "$419,904,000", respect! vely.

SEc. 305. (a) Public Law 87-554 ls amend­ed in section 301 under the heading "INSIDE THE UNITED STATES" and subheading "STRA­TEGIC AIR COMMAND", with respect to McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida, by striking out "$380,000" and inserting in place there­of "$408,000".

(b) Public Law 87-554 is amended by striking out in clause (3) of section 602 the amounts of "$131,651,000" and "$743,379,000" and inserting in place thereof "$131,679,000" and "$743,407,000", respectively.

TITLE IV

SEC. 401. The Secretary of Defense may establish or develop m111tary installations and fac111ties by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or install1ng per­manent or temporary public works, includ­ing site preparation, appurtenances, utllities, and equipment, for defense agencies for the following projects:

Defense Atomic Support Agency Armed Forces Radlobiology Research In­

stitute, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland: Research, development and test facilities, $1,200,000. .

Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Community facilities, and ut111ties, $389,000.

Various locations: Utilities, $272,000.

Defense Communications Agency Navy Service Center, Arlington County,

Virginia: Administrative fac111ties, $342,000. Scott Air Force Base, Bellevllle, Illinois:

Administrative facilities, $718,000. Various locations: Operational fac111ties,

$200,000.

Defense Intelligence Agency Arlington Hall, Arlington County, Virginia:

Administrative facllities, $61,000. Naval Station, Anacostia Annex, District

of Columbia: Training facllities, $164,000.

Defense Supply Agency Defense Electronics Supply Center, Day­

ton, Ohio: Administrative facilities, and utllltles, $623,000.

Defense Clothing and Textile Supply Cen­ter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Maintenance fac111t1es, and ut111ties, $125,000.

Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia: Administrative facllitles, and util­ities, $309,000.

SEC. 402. The Secretary of Defense may es­tablish or develop classified installations and fac111ties by acquiring, constructing, convert­ing, rehab111tat1ng, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment in the total amount of $20,000,000.

TITLE V

Military family housjng s;:c. 501. The Secretary of Defense, or his

designee, is authorized to construct, at the locations hereinafter named, family housing units and trailer court facilities, in the num­bers hereinafter listed, but no family hous­ing construction shall be commenced at any such locations in the United States, until the Secretary shall have consulted with the Adminlstra tor, Housing and Home Finance Agency, as to the availability of adequate private housing at such locations. If the Secretary and the Administrator are unable to .reach agreement with respect to the avail­ability of adequate private housing at any location, the Secretary shall immediately notify the Committees on Armed Services of· the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of such difference of opinion, and no contract for construction at such location shall be entered into for a period of thirty days after such notification has been given. This authority shall include the authority to acquire land, and interests in land, by gift, purchase, exchange of Government-owned land, or otherwise.

(a) Family housing units for-( 1) the Department of the Army, 2,631

units, $49,700,000. Fort Greely, Alaska, 62 units. Petroleum Distribution Pipeline, Alaska, 19

units. Fort Richardson, Alaska, 100 units. Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, 33 units. Fort Irwin, California, 65 units. Fort Ord, California, 200 units. Fort Carson, Colorado, 280 units. Fort Stewart, Georgia, 132 units. Savanna Army Depot, Illinois, 32 units. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 200

units. Fort Detrick, Maryland, 40 units. Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 300 units. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, 204 units. Vint Hlll Farms Station, Virginia, 30 units. Fort Myer, Virginia, 120 units. Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, 170 units. Army Security Agency, location 04, 60

units. Army Security Agency, location 23, 84

units. Fort Buckner, Okinawa, 500 units. (2) the Department of the Navy, 4,597

units, $81,200,000. Naval Station, Kodiak, Alaska, 250 units. Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona,

100 units. Naval Air Station, Alameda, California, 300

units. Marine Corps Cold Weather Training Cen­

ter, Bridgeport, California, 40 units. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California,

100 units. Naval Station, Long Beach, California, 500

units. Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, California,.

300 units. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Cali­

fornia, 100 units. Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, Califor­

nia, 124 units. Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,

Hawaii, 100 units. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 400

units.

Naval Radio Station, , Cutler, Maine, 12 units.

Naval Air Station, New York, New York, 8 units.

Naval Supply Depot, Mechanicsburg, Penn­sylvania, 75 units.

Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, Rhode Island, 200 units.

Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina, 592 units.

?faval Hospital, Beaufort, South Carolina, 1 unit.

Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, 400 units. Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington,

300 units. Naval Radio Station, Sugar Grove, West

Virginia, 20 units. Naval Radio Station, Sabana Seca, Puerto

Rico, 100 units. . Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto

Rico, 9 units. Naval Radio Station, Londonderry, North­

ern Ireland, 80 units. Naval Fac111ty, Sublc Bay, Ph11ipplne Is­

lands, 120 units. Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell, .

Scotland, 90 units. · Naval Radio Station, Thurso, Scotland, 26

units. Classified location, 300 units. (3) the Department of the Air Force, 4,992

units, $88,200,000. Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, 290

units. George Air Force Base, California, 150

units. Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 150

units. Ent Air Force Base, Colorado, 200 units. Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, 100 units. Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, 300 units. Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 100 units. Bellows Air Force Station, Hawaii, 20

units. Hickam-Wheeler Air Force Bases, Hawaii,

150 units. Sch1lling Air Force Base, Kansas, 100 units. Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, 150

units. L. G. Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachu­

setts, 200 units. K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan, 100

units. Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, 200

units. Grifflss Air Force Base, New York, 135 units. Grand Fork~ Air Force Base, North Dakota,

300 units. Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, 300

units. Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, ioo units. Arnold Engineering Development Center,

Tennessee, 40 units. Perrin Air Force Base, Texas, 100 units. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, 100 units. F. E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, 200

units. Various locations, 457 relocatable units. Goose Air Base, Canada, 200 units. Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, 100 units. Naha Air Base, Okinawa, 200 units. Clark Air Base, Ph111pp1ne Islands, 250

units. Site 4-S, 100 units. Site QC, 200 units. (b) Trailer Court Facilities for: (1) The Department of the Army, 383

spaces, $657,000. (2) The Department of the Navy, 172

spaces, $279,000. (3) The Department of the Air Force, 984

spaces, $1,607,000. SEC. 502. Authorizations for the construc­

tion of family housing provided in this Act shall be subject to the following limitations on cost, which shall include shades, screens, ranges, refrigerators, and an other installed. equipment a.nd fixtures: ·

(a) The cost per unit of family ·housing constructed in the United States sha.11 not exceed-

1ft63 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20049. $22,000- for generals or equivalent: -$~9,800 for oolonels or equivalent; fl7,600 for majors and/or lieutenant colo-

nels or equivalent; . $15,400 for all other commissioned or war­

rant officer personnel o.r equivalent; $13,200 for -enlisted.: personnel; (b) When family housing units a.re con­

struc.ted in areas other than those listed 1n subsection (a), the average cost of all such. units, : in . any project of 50 units or ..more, shall not exceed $32,000, and in no event shall the oost of any unit exqeed $40,000 . .

(e) The cost limitations provided in sub­sections (a.) and (b) shall be applied to the five-foot line. . ·

(d) No project in excess of 50 units in the areas listed in subseetlon (a) shall be con­structed at an average unit cost ·exceeding $17,500, including the cost of the family unit and the proportionate costs of land acquisi­tion, site preparation, "8.nd installation of utilities.

(e) . No family housing unit in the areas listed in subsection (a) shall be constructed at a total oost exceeding $26,000, including the cost of the family unit and the propor­tionate costs of land acquisition, site prep­aration, and installation of utilities.

SEC. 508. Sections 4774(b), 7574(b). and 9774(b) of Title 10, United States Code, are each amended to read as follows: "(b) the ml'l,ximum limitations prescribed by subsec­tion (a) are increased 10 percent for quar­ters of the commanding officer of any sta­tion, air base, or other installation, based on the grade authorized for that position."

SEC. 504. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, ls authorized to accomplish altera­tions, additions, expansions, or extensions not otherwise authorized by law, to existing public quarters at a cost not to exceed-

( a) For the Department of the Army, $52,231,000;

(b) For the Department of the Navy, $1,177,000;

( c) For the Department of the Air Force, $2,363,000.

SEC. 505. Section 515 of Public Law 84-161 (69 Stat. 824, 352), as amended, ls a.mended to read as follows:

"SEC. 515. During fl.seal years 1959 through and including 1965, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Afr Force, respectively, are authorized to lease housing facilities at or near milltary installations !or assignment as public quarters to military personnel · and their dependents, if any, without rental charge, upon a determination by the Secre­tary of Defense, or his designee, t~at there is a lack of adequate housing facil1ties at or near such m111tary installations. Such housing facilities shall be leased on a family or individual unit basis and not more than seven thousand five hundred of such units may be so leased at ony one time. Expendi­tures for the rental of such housing facilities may be made out of appropriations avail­able for maintenance and operation but may not exceed $160 a month for any such unit."

SEC. 506. Section 407(g) of Public Law 85-241 (71 Stat. 531, 556), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1594j(g)), ts amended by changing the period to a semicolon and adding the following: "And provided further, That the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, may exempt from this requirement any housing at any particular installation as to which he determines that ( 1) the housing is safe, decent, and sanitary, so as to be suitable for occupancy; (2) the housing cannot be made adequate as public quarters with a reason­able expenditure of funds; (3) the rentals charged to, or the allowances forfeited by, the occupants ·are not less than the costs of maintaining and .operating the housing; and (4) there 1s a continuing need which cannpt appropriately, be met by privately owned housing in the area."

SEC. 507. For the purpose of providing military famlly housing in foreign countries,

the Secretary of Defense . ts author-ized to enter into. agreements · guaranteeing the builders of such. housing a rental return equivalent to a specifleq portion of the an­nual rental income which ·the builders would receive from the tenants if the housing were fully occupied': Provided, That the aggregate amount guaranteed under . such agreements entered into during the fiscal years 1964 and 1965 shall not ·exceed such amount as may be applicable to five thousand units: Pro­vided further, That no such agreement shall guarantee the payment of more than 97 per centum of .the anticipated rentals, nor shall any guarantee extend for a period of more than ten years, nor shall the average guar­anteed rental on any project exceed $150 per unit per month including the cost of main­tenance and operat"ion.

SEC. 508. Section 2681(b) of title 10, ttnited States Code, ls a.mended to read as follows:

"(b) The Department of Defense shall pay the Commodity . Credit Corporation an amount_ not to .exceed $6,009,000 a ye~r until the amount due for foreign currencies used for housing constructed or acquired under this section has been liquidated."

SEC. 509. Th.ere is authorized to .be apP.ro­priated for use by the Secretary of Defense: or his designee for mUitary fami!Y housing as authorized by law for the following pur­poses: .

(a) for construction and acquisition of family housing, including improvements to adequate quarters, improvements to inade-. quate quarters, minor construction, rental guarantee payments, construction and ac­quisition of trailer court facilities, . and amount not to exceed $247,043,000 of which not to exceed $9,400,000 ls authorized to be appropriated for initial acquisition , during fl.seal year 1964 of 2,023 housing units, pur­suant to title IV of the Housing Amend­ments of 1966, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 1594 et seq.) and improvements to such units; and

(b) for support of military family housing, including operating expenses, leasing, main­tenance of real property, payments of prin­cipal and interest on mortgage debts in­curred, payments to the Commodity Credit Corporation, and mortgage insurance premi­ums authorized under section 222 of the National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715m), an amount not to ·exceed $473,400,-000.

SEC. 610. Section 406{-a) of Publlc Law 85-241, as amended, is amended by insert­ing a comma after the word "activities" and adding the following: "and no certificates with respect to any family housing units shall be issued by. the Secretary of Defense or his designee or by any of the mllitary departments in connection with section 810 of the National Housing Act, as am.ended,".

TITLE VI

General provisions SEC. ~01. The Secretary of each mllitary de­

partment may proce~ to establish or de­velop installations and facilities under this Act without regard to section 3648 of the Revised Statutes,, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529) and sections 4774(d) and 9774(d) of title 10, United States Code. The author­ity to place permanent or temporary im­provements on land includes authority for surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and supervision incident to construction. That authority may be exercised before title to the land ls approved under section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (40 U.S.C.- 255). and ev.en though the land 1s held temporarily. The authority to acquire real estate or land includes authority to make surveys and to acqulre land, and interests .in land (including te~pora.ry use), by gift, purchase, exchange. of Government-owned land, or. otherwise.

SEC. 602. There are authorized to be appro­priated such sums as may be necessary for

the purposes .of this Act. but appropriations for public works projects authorized by titles I, II, m, IV, and V shall not exceed-. (1) for title ,I: Inside the United States.­$164,976,000; outside the United States, $23,-257,000; section 102, $8,900,000; section 103, t.12,500,000; or ,a .total of $199,633,000.

(2) for title II: Inside the United States, $115,563,000; outside the United States, $11,-304,000; section 202, $71,632,000; section 203, $12,500,000; or a total of $210,899,000.

(3) for title III: Inside the United States, $11?8,725,000; outside the United States, ·$64,-563,000; section 302, $252,629,000; section 303, $12,500,000; or a total of $488,407,000.

(4) for .title IV: A total of $24,403,000. (5) for title v: · Mmtary family housing, a

total of $720,443,000. SEC. 603. Any of the amounts named in

titles I, II, III,. and . IV of this Act may, in the discretion of the Secretary concerned, be increased by 5 per centum for projects inside the United States (other than Alaska) and by 10 per centum for projects outside the United States or in Alaska, if he determines in the case of _any particular projects that such increase ( 1) is required for the sole purpose of meeting unusual variations_ in cost arising ln connection with that project, and (2) could not, have been reasonably an­ticipated at the time such project was sub­mitted to t~e Congress. However, the total costs of all projects in each such title may not be more than the total amount author­ized to be appropriated for projects in that title.

SEC. 604. Whenever-( l) the, President determines that com­

pliance with section 2313(b) of title 10, United States Code, for contracts made un­der this Act for the establishment or devel­opment of mllitary installations and faclli­ties in foreign countries would interfere with the carrying out of this Act; and

(2) the Secretary of Defense and . the Comptroller General have agreed upon alter­native methods of adequately auditing those contracts; the President may exempt those contracts from the requirements of that section.

SEC. 605. Contracts for construction made by the United States for performance within the United States and its posEessions, under this Act shall be executed under the juris­diction and supervision of the Corps of Engi­neers, Department of the Army, or the Bu­reau of Yards and Docks, Department of the Navy, lJnless the Secretary of Defense de­termines that because such jurisdiction and supervision ls wholly impracticable such con­tracts should be executed under the jurisdic­tion and supervision of another department or Government agency, a.nd shall be awarded, insofar as practicable, on a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder, if the na­tional security will not be impaired and the award 1s consistent with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The Secretaries of the military departments shall report semi­annually to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives with respect to all contracts awarded on other than a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder.

SEC. 606. (a) As of October 1, 1964, all au­thorizations for military public -works (other than family housing) to be accompllshed by the Secretary of a military department in connection with the establishment or devel­opment of military installations and facili­ties, and all authorizations for appropriations therefor, that are contained in Acts approved before July 28, 1962, and not superseded or otherwise modified by a later authorization are · repealed except--

( 1) authorizations for public works and for appropriations therefor that are set forth in those Acts in the titles that contain the genera.I provisions;

(2) . the authorization for public W~J:"ka projects as to which appropriated-funds have

t

20050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22 been obligated tor construction contracts or land acqutaitiona in whole or in part before October 1. 1964. and authorizations for ap­propriations therefor;

(3) notwithstanding the provisions of sec­tion 606 of the Act of July 27, 1962 (76 Stat. 223. 241). the authorization for utmtles and ground improvements in the amount of $126,-000 for Naval Tralnlng Center, Great Lakes. nunols, that la contained in title II. section 201. under the heading "INSIDE THE UNITED STATES" and subheading "SERVICE SCHOOL .,A_ cILITIES" of the Act of June 8, 1960 (74 Stat. 172).

(b) "Effective fifteen months from the date of enactment of thta Act, all authoriza­tions for construction of' family housing which are contained in this Act or any Act approved prior to July 28, 1962, are repealed except the authorization for family housing projects as to which appropriated funds have been obligated for construction contracts or land acquisitions in whole or in pa.rt before such date.'•

SEC. 607. None of the authority contained In titles I, II, and III of this Act _shall be deemed to authorize any building construc­tion project inside the United States ( other than Alaska) at a unit cost in excess of-,

(1) $32 per square foot for cold-storage warehousing;

(2) $8 per square foot for regular ware­housing;

(3) •1,850 per man for permanent bar­racks;

( 4) $8,600 per man for bachelor officers quarters; unless the Secretary of Defense de­termines that, because of special circum­stances, application to such project of the limitations on unit costs contained in this section ls impracticable.

SEC. 608. The last sentence of section 2674 (a) of title 10, United States Code, is a.mend­ed by changing the figure "$6,000" to "$10,-000".

SEC. 609. (a) Chapter 159 of title 10, United States Code, ta amended-

( 1) by adding the following new section at the end thereof: "12682. Fac111ties for defense agencies

"The construction, maintenance; rehabil­itation, repair, alteration, addition, expan­sion, or extension of a real property facillty for an activity or agency of the Department of Defense ( other than a military depart­ment) financed from appropriations for m111-ta.ry functions of the Department of Defense will be accomplished by or through a mili­tary department designated by the Secretary of Defense. A real property faclUty under the Jurisdiction of the Department of De­fense which ta used by an activity or agency of the Department of Defense ( other than a mmtary department) shall be under the Jurisdiction of a m111tary department desig• nated by the Secretary of Defense."; and

(2) by adding the following new item at the end o:r the analysis: "2682. Fac111ties for defense agencies ...

(b) Section 610 of the Act of July 27, 1962 (76 Stat. 223, 242), is repealed.

SEC. 610. section 412 (b) of Public Law 86-149, as amended, ta amended to read as follows:

"(b) No funds may be appropriated after December 31, 1960, to or for the use of any armed force of the United States for the pro­curement of aircraft, missiles, or naval ves­sels, or after December 81, 1962, to or !or the use of any armed force of the United States for the research, development, test, or evalu­ation o:r aircraft, Inissiles, or naval vessels, or after December 81, 1968, to or for the use of any armed force of the United States for any research, development, test, or evalua­tion, unless the appropriation of such Junds has been authorized by legislation enacted after such dates.''

SEC. 611. Titles I, II, m, IV, V, and VI of thta Act may be cited as the "Military Con­struction Authorization Act, 1964.'0

. TITLB VII

Reserve Forces f aciZities SEC. 701. Subject to chapter 133 of title 10,

United States Code, the Secretary of Defense may establish or develop additional fac111ties for the Reserve Forces, including the acqui­sition of land therefor, but the ~ost of such fac111ties shall not exceed-

( 1) for Department of the Army: (a) Army National Guard of the United

States, $7,600,000. (b) Army Reserve, $4,700,000. (2) for Department of the Navy: Naval

and Marine Corps Reserves, $6,700,000. (3) for Department of the Air Force: (a) Air National Guard of the United

States, $16,970,380. , (b) Air Force Reserve, $4,600,000. SEC. 702. The Secretary of Defense may

establish or develop installations and facil­ities under this title without regard to sec­tion 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, and sections 4774(d) and 9774(d) of title 10, United States Code. The author­ity to place permanent or temporary im­provements on land includes authority for surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and supervision incident to construction. That authority may be exercised before title to the land is approved under section 366 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, and even though the land is held temporarily. The authority to acquire real estate or land in­cludes authority to make surveys and to acquire land, and interests in land (includ­ing temporary use) , by gift, purchase, ex­change of Government-owned land, or otherwise.

SEC. 708. As of July 1, 1964, all authoriza­tions for specific facilities for Reserve Forces to be accomplished by the Secretary of De­fense, and all authorizations for appropria­tions therefor, that a.re contained in the Reserve Forces Fac111ties Act of 1961, and not superseded or otherwise modified by a later authorization, are repealed, except the au­thorizations for facllities for the Reserve Forces as to which appropriated funds have been obligated in whole or ln part before July 1, 1964, and authorizations for appro­priations therefor.

SEC. 704. (a) Public Law 87-67, as amended, is amended under the heading "Army Na­tional Guard of the United States (non­Armory)" in clause (1) of section 701 :with respect to Point Pleasant, West Virginia, by striking out "$340,000" and inserting in place thereof "$424,000".

(b) Public Law 87-57, as amended, ls amended by striking out in clause l(a) of section 704 "•22,778,760", and inserting in place thereof "$22,862,760".

SEC. 706. (a) Public Law 86-149, as amend­ed, ta amended under the heading "ARMY RESERVE" in clause (1) of section 601 with respect to Morristown, New Jersey, by strik­ing out "$317,000" and inserting in place thereof "$377,000".

(b) Public Law 86-149, as amended, ts amended by striking out in clause ( 1) (a) of section 504 "•21,530,000" and inserting in place thereof "$21,690,000".

SEC. 706. This title may be cited as the "Reserve Forces Facllities Authorization Act, 1964."

SENATOR GOLDWATER, OF ARIZONA

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, we in this body are gre·atly honored in that one of our Members is the most attrac­tive political personality in the coun­try. The distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. GoLDWATER] has attracted a following of many millions of patriots throughout the land. They are interest­ed in his basic ideas, his fundamental beliefs, and the depth of his convictions.

· On· September 8, 1963, the Nebraska City News-Press, of Nebraska City, Nebr., said in part as follows in an editorial which it published:

Not since the crusade by those who spon­taneously flocked to the banner of Theodore Roosevelt, whom the big bosses of New York tried to "bury," has any American in public life involuntarily conjured up a more bril­liant picture of himself and, let it be said, it is not being over emphasized.

Mr. President, one of the most articu­late and convincing statements con­cerning Senator GoLDWATER . was issued. by 9ur distinguished colleague from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON]. I ask unani­mous consent that the statement of the Senator from New ·Hampshire giving his support to Senator GOLDWATER be incor­Porated in the REcoRD at this point.

There being no objection, the state • . ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: NORRIS COTTON REPORTS TO You FROM THE

U.S. SENATE I am for BARRY GOLDWATER for President. I expect to be a candidate for delegate on

his team. I am not for BARRY GOLDWATER because of

personal friendship, though I am his friend. I am not for BARRY GOLDWATER because I am against anyone else. There's not a Re­publican candidate yet mentioned that I could not in good cqnscience support if nom­inated. I am not for BARRY GOLDWATER be­ca use I believe everything he believes. I have not, and shall not hesitate to differ with him on particular issues.

I am for BARRY GOLDWATER because he has fought courageously and unceasingly for a· philosophy , of government and a way of life to which thta Nation was dedicated and to which it must return if it is to endure.

I want my country to stand for something in the world, and I want my party to stand for something in the country. This admin­istration will never command respect in the world if it continues to gyrate between bel­ligerence and subservience, and the Republi­can Party will dtaintegrate if it continues to echo its opponents and has no higher aim than to sweeten up the voters and get back into office.

The next election must not be a · mere popularity contest. It must be a fight to the finish on basic principles. The people must · be given a chance to make a choice. The Republican Party must have character, not Just smooth sales talk. That's why I am for BARRY GOLDWA~.

Every passing month has strengthened my resolve and hardened my determination to go out and battle for .BARRY GOLDWATER'S nomination.

This Nation has built up the most fab­ulous economy of all time which has made it the envy of the world and the symbol of the power and drive of free men in a free competitive system. Sta.ring us in the face is the fact that the strength of that econ­omy is being sapped and drained away­and at a time when we are challenged by the most powerful combination of slave na­tions in all history. For the life of me. I can't see how anyone can be so blind or so partisan as not to see this appalling !act. With the cost of living at a.n all-time high, the value of the dollar at an all-time low, the country mortgaged to the hilt with mounting debt, and Jobs being_ del;'ltroyed by floods of cheap foreign-ma.de goods, the best the President has to offer ta nearly 200 new or expanded programs--more Federal money-more Federal power-more Federal officials. Not one positive move except . tax reduction, and that imperiled by the deluge of new spending. . And this 88th Congress refuses to get dow;t:i to brass tacks but frit- ·

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 20051 ters away the months toying with -these glit-tering panaceas. ·

Each day we lose friends abroad. Our NATO allies are giving us the cold shoulder. Our vaunted Alliance for Progress in South America_ is helping governments, not peo­ple-making the rich richer and the poor poorer: In Africa much of our money ls going into wrong hands. Asia is· exploding in our face.

I'm not satisfied to have this march to­ward disaster slowed up or even halted. I want an about-face. That means BARRY GOLDWATER.

For Obvious purposes GOLDWATER is being pictured as so reactionary that if he were President, we would abandon social security, retreat into isolation, bring back the Mc­Kinley _ tariff, and return to the kerosene lamp. That's absurd. I have known him· as a l:3enatcir . . ire has always been respon­sive to the needs of the aged and the under­privileged, but his main endeavor has been for a vibrant economy that generates jobs and gives every man a chance for advance­ment.

The GoLDW ATER I know is too wise to break down our foreign relations and too prudent to risk nuclear war. But the day he be­comes President foreign chancelleries will sit up and take notice, knowing that the days of the soft touch are over-that they must now deal with a keen, incisive, mature mind.

GOLDWATER personifies the kind of Re­publicanism for which Arthur Vandenberg appealed in almost his last speech:

"The Republican Party must prove by its works that it knows what it takes to pre­serve the American way of life-to answer human needs without sacrificing human lib­erty-to restore public thrift to a place of respectability-to conserve both the family budget and the public treasury-to avoid forever the omnipotence of the police state or the welfare state in which man becomes the servant and not the · master of his gov­ernment."

I am for BARRY GOLDWATER, and I hope you will be too.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement I issued on May 29, 1963, appear in the RECORD at this Point in my remarks.

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

. STATEMENT BY SENATOR CURTIS At the appropriate time, I shall enter my

name as a candidate for delegate to the next Republican National Convention.

I am for Senator BARRY GOLDWATER for the Republican presidential nomination. I in­tend to do everything in my power to bring about his nomination and election.

The nomination by the Republicans of Senator GOLDWATER for President wili assure victory in 1964. His nomination will bring about an upsurge of Republicanism in every part of the country. It will assist greatly in the election of many additional Republican Congressmen and Senators.

Senator GOLDWATER ls thoroughly experi­enced in t~e field of government at the na­tional level. He has dealt expertly with the problems of national defense, spending, big government, communism, taxation, job ere.a ·ation, and the other unsolved problems that plague us.

His clear and courageous stand on basic issues, his genuineness and his personal mag­netism have won for him the hearts of Amer­icans of all parties. They love a fighter like GOLDWATER. .

Senator GOLDWATER ls the best qualified individual whom our country ~n call to the high office of the Presidency to meet the gra'!e challenges of our time.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. - President, J· ask unanimous consent that the Minnesota

poll, published in the Minneapolis Sun­day Tribune of October 6, 1963, be .incor­porated in the RECORD at this point.

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

GOLDWATER LEADS IN STATE REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT CHOICES

From a list of seven possible candidates for the Republican presidential nomination next year, Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, of Arizona, ls selected by 54 percent of Minnesota's Re­publicans as "the strongest candidate" the party could name. ·

A just completed survey by the Minneapo­lis Tribune's Minnesota poll (the interview­ing took place in late September) gives GOLD­WATER an edge over the other six men among both GOP rank-and-file supporters and in­dependent voters.

The list used in the survey includes the names of two men who have been prominent in Minneapolis politics-Dr. Walter H. Judd, of Minneapolis, former Fifth District Con­gressman, and former Gov. Harold Stassen, now of Philadelphia, Pa. Neither is among the leaders in the poll results.

Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who until his remarriage last spring had been the favored choice of Minnesota Republicans for the 1964 GOP presidential nomination, has experi­enced a further drop in popularity; 22 per­cent of the Republicans now consider him to be the party's best bet, compared with 27 per­cent who felt that way at mid-August.

Voting age men and women Ii ving in all parts of the State are interviewed in Min­nesota poll surveys. During the Septem­ber 20-24 period, a balanced sampling of adult residents was asked:

"There ( on a card list) are the names of seven men who have been mentioned as pos­sible candidates for the Republican presi­dential nomination in 1964. Right now, which one of them do you think would be the strongest candidate the Republicans could nominate next year?"

The same question was asked in an August survey, but that list did not carry the names of Judd and Stassen. The responses of Re­publicans and of independent voters in the two surveys:

Strongest for GOP in 1964? [In percent)

.Aug. 1~20 Sept. 20-24.

Republicans: Goldwater _______________ _ Rockefeller _______________ _ Judd __________ --- __ -- - - ---Romney _________________ _ Stassen _____ · _____________ _ Scranton _________________ _ Morton __________________ _

~:i~inion ________ ~-------

(1)

(1)

52 27

15

54 22 11 7 3

2 ------------2 1 1 3

1-----1-----TotaL __ ·---------------

1====1==== 100 100

Independents: Goldwater _______________ _ 34 38 Rockefeller _______________ _ 36 34 Romney _________________ _ 19 8 Judd._____________________ (1) Stassen____________________ (1) Scranton _________________ _

5 l½

1 l½ Morton __________________ _ 1 1 Other ____________________ _

No opinio~--------------- - '-· 3

11 -6

TotaL _________________ _ 100 100'

1 Name not included in .August survey.

Romney was identified on the survey list as "George Romney, Governor of Michigan"; Scranton as "William Scranton, Governor of Pennsylvania"; MORTON as "THURSTON MOR­

TON, U.S. Senator from Kentucky." ~l>llc opinion in Minnesota toward the

GOP presidential :field has change<:1 marked-:­ly since June. At that time, GOLDWATER led Rockefeller, 34 percent to 27 percent, among Republicans; But the New York Governor

outpaced the Arizona Senator among inde­pendent voters, 39 percent to 26 percent.

The name of former Vice President Rich­ard M. Nixon was included in the June test. Nf.xon was rated strongest by 9 percent of the GOP supporters and by 11 percent of the in­dependents.

MOSCOW AND PEIPING Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, my at­

tention has been called to a speech de­livered by the Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang, concerning the split between the Rus­sian Communists and the Chinese Com­munists. It is a very enlightening doc-

. ument, and I believe merits a place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. For ·that reason, I ask unanimous consent that it be incorporated in my remarks at this point.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Moscow AND PEIPING-BEFORE AND AFTER THE

SPLIT

(By Dr. Tingfu F. T!3iang, Chinese Ambas­sador to the United States, delivered be­fore the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, Calif., September 6, 1963) We are all deeply interested in the split

between Peiping and Moscow. Both you, ·the United States, and we, free China, are af­fected by it. While we do not know all the causes and are not ready to forecast all 'the future developments, we must recognize that the split ls serious. ·

The relationship between Peiping and Moscow before the split was most unusual in the history of international relations. It was an international alliance. But it was more than that. For lack of a better word, let us call it an international comradeship. Indeed, between 1949 and 1959, the relation­ship between Peiping and Moscow was closer and more intimate than the relationship be­tween any other · two states in the world. Even the relationship between the Soviet Union and Poland or any of the other satel­lite states of Eastern Europe did not match the intimacy between Moscow and Peiping.

In addition to the alliance concluded in 1950, which led to close cooperation in inter­national affairs, the Chinese Communists took the Soviet Union as their model in domestic affairs. Soviet agriculture with its collectivization became the model for agri­culture on the mainland of China. Soviet industrialization with its planned economy and emphasis on heavy industry became the model for Chinese Communist industrial de­velopment. Soviet education became the model for mainland Chinese education. The Russian language suddenly became the first foreign language, almost the only foreign language, taught in Chinese schools on the mainland. Soviet books were translated by the thousands. Chinese students were sent to the Soviet Union by the thousands, and only to the Soviet Union. Soviet films be­came almost the only foreign films shown in Chinese theaters.

The trade between China and Russia throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century was almost insignifi­cant. The two countries had very little to trade with each other. From 1949 to 1959, the trade between the Soviet Union and mainland China suddenly grew to large pro­portions. Mainland China's industrial and mining equipment came almost exclusively from the Soviet' Union and her satellites In Eastern Europe. China's exports were arti­ficially directed to Eastern Europe, to the ex­tent of 70 percent; in 1955 up even to 80 per­cent. Insofar as mainland China used for­eign technicians, they were exclusively from

20052 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- SENATE October 22

the Soviet Union and other countries of the Soviet bloc. ·

"Sino-Soviet . Friendship - Associations'' mushroomed all over China. The Chinese people were taught to learn from the Soviet Union, to appreciate and value the Soviet ex­perience in socialist construction and in sci­ence and culture.

The relatlonship between Peiping and Moscow from 1949 to 1959 was certainly much more than an alliance or axis. It was a joining of hearts and souls. The world has never seen such close and intimate rela­tions between two peoples a.nd states.

In the winter of 1957, Mao Tse-tung went to Moscow to participate in the 40th ann1.:. versa.ry celebration of the Bolshevik revolu­tion. In his oration on that occasion, he said, among other things: "China has re­ceived brotherly assistance toward its So­cialist construction in many fields from the Soviet Union. In celebrating the 40th anni­versary of the October Socialist revolution, please allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude to the Communist Party, ~he Gov­ernment and the people of the Soviet Union, for giving China such friendly help."

Liu Shao-chi, the chief lieutenant of Mao, in a speech on November 6, 1957, at a mass rally in Peiping celebrating the Bolshevik revolution, went even further, declaring: "The Soviet Union was always the most faithful . friend of the Chinese people throughout the latter's protracted and ardu­ous struggles against imperialism and feudal­ism. Soon after the victory of the Chinese revolution, the Soviet Union concluded with our country a treaty of friendship, alllance, and mutual assistance. Our country has re­eel ved immence assistance from the Soviet Union in its Socialist construction. On be­half of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Government and the Chinese people, I express heartfelt thanks to the Communist Party of the Soviet Uuion, the Soviet Gov­ernment, and the Soviet people."

Yet today, in spite of these beautiful speeches, the relationship is split.

Let us look more closely at the relationship between Peiping and Moscow before the split. Let us start with the poUtical and mmtary aspect. The treaty of alliance of 1950 pro­vided that if Japan or a country allied with Japan should attack China or Russia, the two allies would fight together. It is fan­tastic, to say the leas.t, that Japan should be made the hypothetical enemy of the Peiping-Moscow alliance. Both parties must have known in 1950 that Japan was in no position whatsoever to commit · aggression against either China or Russia in the fore­seeable future. _

Of course, the alliance was really directed against the United States. The reason is not because the United States has territorial de­signs against the Soviet Union of China or for that matter, against any other country. The reason is both Peiping and Moscow believe that the United States alone blocks the world revolution. This ls the real point of the alliance. The objective ls world revo­lution, and through :cevolution, world em­pire. That ls why both parties regard the United States as their enemy No. 1.

The Soviet Union can be said to derive a secondary benefit from the alliance. In case of conventional war, the Soviet Union, with the alliance, could concentrate her forces in Europe without having to worry about her rear 1n the Fart East. In the years before the Second World War, the Soviet .Union was scared that she might have to fight against Germany in the West and Japan in the East. Now, with this alliance that worry disap­pears.

The alliance protects the Asian rear of the Soviet Union. I wish to call your attention to the fact that this Soviet objective ts achieved so long as Manchuria, Mongolia, and Sinkiang are in friendly hands. These territories border the Soviet empire. For this purpose, the Yangtze River Valley and

the regions aiouth of the Yangtze are o! less significance. I may add that in case o! a nuclear war, this advantage disappears or is diminished.

What is important about this alliance is: The Soviet Union acquired a partner in the promotion of world revolution. In that work China has certain advantages which the Soviet Union does not possess, because the Chinese Communists could reach and infil­trate into the countries in Asia and Africa more easily than the Russian Communists.

On the part of the Chinese Communists, the -alliance provides some international prestige and some sense of security, in ad­dition to the promotion of world revolution. The prestige acquired through the alliance ls proportionate to the role that they play in the international Communist movement. With a larger role the Chinese Communists would acquire a larger position in the world's affairs. With a smaller role they would be­come a minor factor, and would be laboring for the benefit of the Soviet empire.

If you believe that the world revolution is a matter o! national interest in Russia and China, then you can say that the al­liance is based on national interest. Other­wise you would have to conclude that the alliance was based less on national interest and more on ideological interest.

So much for the political aspect of the close relationship between Peiping and Mos­cow. Let us turn to the economic aspect. Why should China trade predominantly with the Soviet bloc? Is that trade economic? No. That trade is not based on business cal­culations. Again, · it is based largely on po­litical and ideological ground. China could in some cases Just as well, if not better, buy her industrial and mining equipment from the free world. Likewise, she could sell her products as well, 1! not better, to markets in the free world. And indeed with the ex­perience o! time, the Chinese Communists have discovered that trade based on political and ideological considerations ls less than profitable, and that in some cases at least they could make better bargains elsewhere. The Soviet Union, on her part, has found Communist China a ·bad trade partner. Mainland China supplies the Soviet Union with very few things which are really essen­tial to the Soviet Union. China demands machinery. The Soviet Union does not have a large surplus of machinery. The econ­omies of the two countries are, in fact, not supplementary.

In the 10-year period from 1949 to 1959, the Chinese Communists found their economic relationship with the Soviet Union burden­some and irksome. The total credit in the form o! loans extended by the Soviet Union to her Chinese comrades amounted to US$430 million. That ls an insignificant sum. The greater part of the exchange of goods was made on the basis of an annual barter agreement. The Soviet Union made no grants to Communist China, and has not been in a position to extend long-term cred­its. Toward the latter part of this period of close relationship, mainland China's exports to Russia exceeded its imports from Russia, in order to balance the books. Moreover, the Soviet Union has been · very exacting in demanding repayment.

,Today, in the economic field, the two part­ners have simultaneously come to the same conclusion; namely, that the intimate eco­nomic relationship between the two is uneconomic. . Likewise, in the cultural field. In the pa.st Chinese students went to all parts Of the world to study-to Japan, the United states, Grea.t Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgillni. Why Should China, at ~y time and for any reason, send her young men exclusively to. the Soviet Union? Is that to the interest o! China's culture? Why should Chinese schools ' pr-omote the study of the Russian language over and above the study

of other foreign languages; and almost to the exclusion of other foreign languages? Is that to the national interest of China? The close cultural relationship with the Soviet Union, which the Chinese Communists have fostered with all iheir might, ls again based on ideo­logioal reasons and not on national interest.

During the period of close relationship be­tween 1949 and 1959, the Chinese Commu­nists set up the Soviet Union as the model in China's domestic development. Just be­cause the Soviet Union collectivized agricul­ture, the Chinese Communists felt that they had to do it too. Just because Stalin fi­nanced the industrialization of Russia by squeezing capital out of agriculture, the Chinese Communists thought they could do it too ..

Now, China is radically different from Russia in this respect. At the time of the collectivization of agriculture in Russia un­der Stalin, the average size of the Soviet farm was around 25 acres. When Mao start­ed his collectivization, the average size of Chinese farms was about 3 acres. One can squeeze considerable capital out of a farm of 25 acres, but one cannot squeeze much out of a farm of 3 acres, no matter how brutal one may be. In China the obvious realistic thing to do ls to develop agricul­ture first. With the increase of agricultural production, the state might squeeze more out of agriculture for industrialization purposes.

In Russia, with such a large area of arable land, the obvious thing to do was to mech­anize. In China, in spite of all the talk about mechanization, little has been done along this line, and not much more could be done. Collectivization of agriculture with­out mechanization ls worse than meaning­less.

So far, collectivized agriculture has no­where proven .to be as efficient as private enterprise. In the United States, with 10 percent of the people working on the farms, you produce a huge surplus over and above the needs of your people. In the Soviet Union, with 40 percent of her population working on her farms. she barely manages .to supply the necessities ot her people.

In this respect, the Chinese Communists have allowed their ideology to blind them­selves to the realities of the situation. They think that so long as private property exists 1n the countryside, the ideals, habits, and desires associated with private property would eventually dominate the economy of the country and make socialism, not to· say communism, impossible. The choice before the Chinese Communists was private enter­prise in agriculture, with the prospect of increased production, or collectivization with subsistence on the margin of starvation. The Chinese Communists chose deliberately collectivization with subsistence on the mar­gin of starvation.

The bond of ideology between China and Russia has been found very costly to the Chinese people. If that bond should be loosened, the Chinese certainly would not regret it.

The speeches of Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi, at the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik Re.volution, marked the high- watermark of intimacy between Peiping and Moscow. After Mao's return to · Peiping, the mainland press and radio had nothing to say about his achieve­ments during the Moscow visit in 1957, an indirect indication of failure of mission. ~ao himself went into one o! his periodic retreats to meditate.over the course of events. In the spring of 1958, lle came out to an­nounce, with all the trumpets blowing, the "Great Leap ForWf:ll"d" movement. He told the Chinese people that. China must- depend on herself. · What did .that mean'l It meant that the Chinese regime on the mainland could not . depend on further Soviet assist­ance.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20053 The "Great Leap Forward" movement ma­

terialized in two things. First, there was the movement to make irpn and steel in backyard furnaces according to the old tradi­tional methods, as practiced in the pre­machine age. In a way, the backyard fur­nace movement was similar to Gandhi's handweaving and handspinning movement in India. It was a protest against the in­dustrialized West, in one case Great Britain and in the other, the Soviet Union. It was also a call for total mobilization of man­power. The backyard furnace .movement mobilized some 70 million people and pro­duced some substandard iron and steel. It proved very costly and wasteful, and was finally dropped.

The second part of the "great leap for­ward" movement was the establishment of the communes. The agricultural coopera­tives were forced to Join the communes, in which people lived in dormitories, ate in

,common mess halls, went to work and re­tired at the bugle call. It was a military organization of the rural population, in _order that the manpower and womanpower could be mobilized to produce. The com­mune movement ended in disaster. By 1960, people began to starve and the Communists had to retreat.

Mao found much of his inspiration and Justification for the close relationship with the Soviet Union in Marxism-Leninism and the world revolution based on it. Experi­ence should teach him that a relationspip so based could not deliver the goods he had expected. In turning from the Soviet Union to self-reliance, he again found much of his inspiration and Justification in the ideol­ogy of Marxism and Leninism. Again, the new turn failed him. That was the situa­tion in which he found himself in 1960. That was the moment when he began seri­ously and openly to quarrel with the Soviet Union.

It is natural that any Chinese Government should wish to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union, on the basis of equality and mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. In certain limited respects, the Communists did· succeed in im­proving relations with China's big neighbor.

In 1950 when Mao concluded the alliance with Stalin, he did not succeed in putting it on terms of equality, for under that alliance Soviet Russia retained special rights and privileges in Manchuria and Sinkiang. Fur­thermore, the Soviet Union imposed Joint companies to exploit the natural resources of Manchuria and Sinkiang.

In 1954, however, the inequalities in the Treaty of Alliance were removed. In that year a new agreement was concluded, u·nder which the Soviet Union returned her share of the railroads in Manchuria to China with­out compensation, and gave up her special position in the two principal ports of Man­churia. The Soviet Union likewise, by the agreement of 1954, sold out her rights in the Joint companies. In other words, by the agreement of 1954, the Soviet Union legally and factually respected China's sov­ereignty and administrative integrity in Manchuria and Sinkiang. If this agreement should continue to be respected by both sides, there is no reason why China and the Soviet Union should quarrel. What went wrong with the relationship between Peiping and Moscow was the fact that it was tied to comradeship in world revolution.

The split has come. There is no reason to doubt its reality and its seriousness. Apart from the openly stated reasons, there are, of course, others. But the openly stated grounds of the split as set forth, for ex­ample, in the letter o:f June 14, 1968, from the Chinese Communists to the Russian Communists and in the reply of the Russians 1 month later are genuine and serious. It would be wrong to treat the published ex-

changes between Moscow and Peiping as mere propaganda.

Peiping believes in the lnevitabllity of war. Its belief is based on its conception of imperialism and its faith in Lenin's teachings. It further believes that the world revolution can be achieved only through war. It accuses Khrushchev of betrayal of Marx­ism and Leninism, and of cowardice vis-a-vis the United States. Holding a one-sided in­terpretation of the outcome of the Korean war, it proclaims that the United States is a paper tiger.

Moscow, on its part, maintains that under present world conditions war is not inevit­able. It thinks that it could push the world revolution without war, and that war with nuclear weapons would be suicidal for all parties concerned. .

As a nonexpert in Marxism-Leninism, I hes­itate to pronounce Judgment as to the rights and wrongs in this controversy. I venture, however, to say that if we take the texts of Marxism and Leninism as the basis for argument, Peiping is right and Moscow is

_ wrong. I hasten to add that, according to my Judgment, the texts of Marxism and Leninism are, in the first place, unscientific and, in the second place, out of date. Com­munism, if it is to survive at all, must un­dergo drastic revision.

The dialog between Mao and Khrushchev, translated into commonsense language, runs about as follows:

Mao says to Khrushchev: "You either make war or help me to make war, to pro­mote the world revolution. You do neither. You are a traitor to Marxism-Leninism. You have abandoned the explpited classes in the capitalist countries and the oppr~ssed peo­ples in the colonial and 'neocolonial' coun­tries. Your idea of peaceful coexistence con­tradicts the teachings of Marx and Lenin. You have capitulated to the United States."

Khrushchev replies: "Under my champion­ship of peaceful coexistence, we have se­cured a solid base for communism in Cuba; our comrades in the Italian Communist Party won 1 million addi t~onal votes in this spring's election, and NATO is falling apart. We have done not too badly. You do not understand the enormous advantages of a soft approach to the bourgeois world. As to nuclear war, you are either ignorant or pretend ignorance for Machiavellian reasons. I will fight the wars of my choice. I will not allow you to decide for me the question of war or peace. Since you have . refused to follow my leadership, I will see to it that you do not acquire the means for making war on a large scale."

This is where the conftict rests today. What does the split between Peiping and

Moscow mean to mainland China in its domestic development? The split has stopped all Soviet technical assistance to Peiping. It has slowed down the supply of industrial and mining equipment. Main­land China must, for this reason, readjust its economic policy. But it was already forced to make readjustments during the period of the "Great Leap Forward" move­ment. Agriculture hereafter will be given a priority which it has not enjoyed before. Industrialization will not be pushed with the same emphasis as before.

However, the Chinese Communists do not seem to have been really roused out of their dreams. Their fanatical faith in Marxism­Leninism appears to be as strong as ever. This means that they will not make any substantial retreat in domestic economic policy. To be sure, they have allowed the farmers to cultivate as private property about 5 percent of the land and to trade freely the products of the private patches. That marks the extent of their retreat.

But they are determined not to give up the idea of collectivization of agriculture. They refuse to follow the example of Poland and condemn the agricultural policy o:f

Yugoslavia . . In fact, however, the agricul­tural policies of both Poland and Yugo­slavia would suit China much better. For this reason, I believe that the economy of mainland China cannot make substantial and enduring improvement. It will vary from year to year according to climatic con­ditions, but it condemns itself to a low level of achievement because of its ideological illusions.

In foreign trade, Peiping will, of course, try to make big changes. The hothouse­nourished trade between mainland China and Eastern Europe will go down. Insofar as r,ossible, the Chinese Communists will try to find sources of supply and markets in the free world. The countries of the free world will find the trade with the Chinese Communists as unprofitable as the countries of the Soviet bloc have found it. At this juncture, elementary prudence dictates that we should not go to the rescue of our enemy by way of trade. .

The cultural bonds between mainland China and the Soviet Union will be loosened. The intellectuals on the mainland would welcome this change.

Internationally, while the drive for world revolution will be continued l>Y both Peiping and Moscow, the split will create confusion in the international Communist movement. In many countries of the world, the Com­munist parties will be split into a minority pro-Peiping faction and a majority pro-¥os­cow faction. The in-fight between Trotsky and Stalin will be repeated today.

In this struggle for influence in the inter­national Communist movement, Peiping is at a great disadvantage. In the first place, Peiping has smaller resources to devote to this objective than Moscow. In the second place, Peiping cannot offer to the peoples suffering from poverty and underdevelop­ment the example of economic progress at home. Only the more desperate elements among the Communists in the poorer coun­tries of the world would care to follow the path of Peiping.

The Chinese people have no reason to re­gret the split. · They only wish that Peiping would deviate further from the Russian path that it has done or is likely to do in both domestic and foreign policy. At the same time, the Chinese people have no reason to rejoice over the grounds on which the split is based. They have no interest tu promoting revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America. They want more food and more clothing. They want less regimentation and slave­driving. They are terribly afraid that if Mao Tse-tung should mean what he has said, the scarce resources of the country would be diverted towards the objective of promoting world revolution. Mao naturally hopes that in challenging the Soviet Union, he could rally the Chinese people around him. He needs to divert the attention of the Chinese people from domestic failures to foreign ad­ventures. In this calculation, I believe he is mistaken. He will find that his stand on international · affairs makes him more iso­lated than ever from the Chinese people as well as from the peoples of Asia and Africa. Nevertheless, in spite of his difficulties, Mao Tse-tung will continue to oppress the Chi­nese people and threaten the peace and se­curity of China's neighbors.

TARIFFS, IMPORTS; THE TRADE EX­PANSION ACT, AND THE DOMES­TIC ECONOMY Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,

the subject of tariffs and the up-coming Kennedy round of trade negotiations are very much in the . news today. This mor_ning's -New York Times carried the announcement that all commodities will be subject to possible tariff reductions at

20054 ~(?N_GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENAT~ October -22 the bargaining next year in.Geneva, ex~ cept those speciflc items on which escape clause action has been taken. Therefore, this speech is being delivered at a vel"Y'. timely moment.

The passage of the Trade Expansion Act stands as one of the major accom­plishments of the 87th Congress. This law gives the President unprecedented authority to negotiate tariff reductions with other free countries of the world. When this was first proposed, the ad­ministration projected that this bill would have a favorable effect on our overall domestic economic picture and would assist us in keeping our position as leader of the free world nations. We hope that these expectations will be borne out.

Our domestic producers have been given a challenging opportunity to in­crease their export trade. They will be able to take advantage of the rapidly ex­panding demand in many world markets for goods for which we in the United States lead in mass production, distribu­tion and marketing techniques. In addi­tion, our foreign posture is enhanced by a liberalized and nondiscriminatory trade policy. Contrariwise, reductions in or elimination of tariffs .will mean that American markets will begin to open up to many foreign producers, and will al­low U.S. consumers to take advantage of lower prices. We hope this program will help economic growth abroad, par­ticularly in the underdeveloped nations of the world which depend on a growing export trade to achieve economic stabil­ity. Improving living standards in these areas will also help bring political stabil­ity which is definitely in the interest of all free world nations.

I supported passage of this legislation last year. · I know that my friend Gov­ernor Herter, as the President's Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, will go next year into the full-scale trade negotiations to bargain with diligence and intelligence in the effort to achieve the important objectives of the Trade Ex.,. pansion Act.

The State Department's announced in­tention to increase duties on certain im­ports from Common Market countries, as a consequence of the Common Market increasing duties on U.S. poultry im­ports, gives encouragement that we in­tend to · bargain hard in the trade nego­tiations area. We bave indicated that it is not our intent to .sit idly by while our own industries are hurt by protectionist actions by foreign governments. One of the major objectives of the Trade Expan­sion Act is to expand our foreign trade opportunities, and we must stand firm in our determination to do whatever is necessary to achieve this objective. We should attempt to lower and possibly eliminate tariff and nontariff barriers which inhibit free trade where it would be beneficial to do so, but we should ex­pect the same considerations on the part of other free nations. The whole nego­tiation must be conditioned on a give­and-take basis with all nations expect­ing to benefit from it. Useful negotia­tions are a two-way street.

However, we must not overlook the fact that although the overall effect of our

new trade policy will be favorable, cer­tain industries, which are especially vul­nerable to an increase in imports may be severely injured. In some industries the level of imports has already risen SharPlY, Plant shut-downs and local unemploy­ment may well be the unfortunate result 9f the ever-increasing volume of imports. . Recognizing this possibility, provisions allowing domestic industries, firms, or workers to petition for tariff adjust­ments or other forms of adjustment as­sistance were written into the Trade Expansion Act. Upon receipt of such a petition, under section 301, the Tariff Commission must conduct a comprehen­sjve fact-finding investigation of condi­tions within the industry to determine whether an increase in imports, result­ing "in major part" from previously ne­gotiated tariff concessions, has been "the major factor" causing or threatening to cause serious injury to or unemployment or underemployment in an industry. Upon a determination of injury by the Tariff Commission under this section, the President is permitted to impose in­creased import restrictions under sec­tion 351, or to negotiate orderly mar­keting agreements with foreign supply­ing nations, limiting their imports to .this country under section 352. In ad­.dition to or as an alternative to these two actions, he may provide adjustment assistance to firms and workers in the injured industry.

Furthermore, section 201 (a) of the :Trade Expansion Act empowers the President to enter into trade agreements with foreign countries and to impose import restrictions or other nontariff barriers if necessary to carry out a trade agreement. This can be done without a prior determination of injury by the Tariff Commission.

Continuous increases in imports have already forced many well-established ·firms to curtail or to shut down plant operations. Domestic manufacturers are not asking for higher tariffs to prevent further closings. Instead industries are requesting the administration to impose -the quantitative controls allowed under the above sections of the Trade Expan­sion Act, and under section 204 of the Agriculture Act of 1956, which allows the President to negotiate agreements limiting imports of "any agricultural commodity or product manufactured therefrom."

Many industries in my own State of Massachusetts-industries which really form the core of the State's economy­have already begun to feel the adverse effects of increasing imports. Our peo­ple and their skills are the most impor­tant natural resource of Massachusetts. Most of our major industries are labor­intensive and wage costs are an impor­tant factor in determining our manufac­turing costs. The majority of people in Massachusetts are skilled tradesmen en­joying a good standard of living. Com­petition from increasing imports hits these people heaviest. Most European nations have greatly increased their productivity; they enjoy a more favor­able tax structure, and they have a lower wage scale. In many cases work­ers abroad are paid at least a dollar less

an hour than their counterParts in the United States. These differences mean that -goods im~rted from these· nations may be sold at lower prices in our mar­kets. This competition already has caused and wm continue to cause harm to some of our domestic industries and to the people employed in them unless under the Trade Act provisions ·we take prompt action to grant them protection and relief.

Let me now cite some examples of what is happening to certain industries in my State of Massachusetts.

WOOL TEXTILES

The wool textile industry has been especially hard hit by increasing imports and is seeking relief from this ad­versity. This industry is one of ·the prin­cipal sources of manufacturing employ­ment in Massachusetts. According to a _recent census of manufactures, some 30 plants in Massachusetts employ more than 14,000 persons.

Imports of wool textile products have been increasing steadily since 1958, with a sharp rise occurring in 1962. Accord­ing to :figures compiled by the Depart­ment of Commerce, total imports of wool ~xtile products, including tops and yarns, woven fabrics, apparel and other .manufactures, in 1958 were 32.3 million pounds of clean fiber equivalent. This represented an estimated 9.3 percent of the apparent domestic market. By 1962, 79.6 million·pounds equivalent were being imported, representing 18 percent of do­mestic consumption. There have been further increases in imports in all cate­gories in 1963. In the year ending March -30, 1963, imports totaled 85.4 million pounds equivalent, or 19 percent of do­mestic consumption.

In 1958 the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy were the three chief exporting countries. Eighty percent of total U.S. "imports came from these three sources. By 1962 these three countries accounted ~for approximately 71 percent of totaJ U.S. imports with another 12 percent coming from Hong Kong, France, and Uruguay.

We are all aware that the administra­tion has pledged to take action to meet 'this textile import crisis. We are aiso .aware of the international agreement that has been entered into with regard -to cotton textile products. This agree­ment, to place quantitative restrictions on imports of cotton textiles provides a method for preventing market disrup:. tions and has been most helpful to our cotton manufacturers. But the contin­ued woolen mill closings and resulting unemployment have not brought sub­stantive action by the administration to honor its promises to limit imports of woolen textile products. It has been re­ported that since January of 1962, 20 wool textile mills in 10 States have shut down operations, with approximately 5,000 jobs lost. Since 1947 approximate­ly 300 woolen and worsted mills have closed with job losses of 100,000. In Massachusetts, four major mills which employed some 950 people, closed during the period from January 1, 1962 to May of 1963. These mills were:

First. A. D. Ellis Mills, Inc., of Monson, _ Mass. which employed 250 people.

'·

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20055 Second. Ames Textile Corp., Button's

Mills Division, Andover, Mass., which employed 200 people.

Third. L. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Marland Mill, Andover, Mass., which em-ployed 453 people. ·

Fourth. Essex Woolen Mills, Essex, Mass., which employed 50 people.

Since I began to prepare this speech, I have received further notices of closing of mills in New England. The Pittsfield plant of Wyandotte Worsted Co., employing 100 people, has announced its closing. In Maine, the 115 year old plant of the North Berwick Woolen Mills has been closed. In New Hampshire, the Dartmouth Woolen Mills of Clairmont have been temporarily closed. In all three cases, management said that im­port competition was a major factor in the decision.

Let me cite some examples of the kind of competition that domestic suppliers face:

First. In 1962 the Division of Foreign Labor Conditions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that the average hourly cash earnings per regular em­ployee in Japanese textile mills was 26 cents, including two industrywide bo­nuses paid in July and December. Fringe or welfare benefits, including unemploy­ment insurance, health benefits, pension plans, and others, brought this total to approximately 30 cents per hour, per worker. In the United States the rate is approximately $1.69 and even higher. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has esti­mated that in 1962, the average hourly earnings for woolen and worsted employ­ees in Massachusetts was $1.93, seven and one-half times that of their Japa­nese counterparts.

Second. As far back as 1958, repre­sentatives of 'the J.P. Stevens Co. testi­fied before the Special Subcommittee on the Problems of the Domestic Textile Industry headed by Senator Pastore on the threat posed by Japanese produc­tion of men's wear flannels, ranging in weight from 10 to 18 ounces. The pro­duction manager of J. P. Stevens testi­fied at that time:

We have lost . businees to the Ja,panese manufacturers because we cannot meet the prices a.nd our customers have told us on many occasions that they want to buy from us, but how could they refrain from buying fabrics which were being offered in suffi­cient quantities to meet their requirements at such low costs. We had Japanese fabrics sent to us by our New York office, asking our designers if they could duplicate these fab­rics for cost. We had to admit, ln all cases, that we could not come close to meeting the Japanese costs.

On fabrics ln the $3.60 to $4 range, we have found ourselves some 50 to 85 cents per yard higher than our Japanese competi­tion. Again, our customers would come to us and say that they would rather buy from us if we could duplicate the prices, but we found on so many occasions that we could not, and what happens, our customers, of course, bought the Japanese cloths.

Only recently the J. P. Stevens Co. announced the closing ot their Marland plant in Andover, Mass. Four hundred and ~fty-three highly skilled textile workers are out of work due to this action. There had been no hint of labor problems. no question of the quality of

CIX--1263

the goods, and the company had in­vested $1,459.000 in the plant since the Korean war so that its machinery was modern and competitive. In this case again, woolen flannel cloth imported from Japan to be sold at at least 40 cents per yard less than the Stevens price was a direct cause of the plant's shutdown.

Third. Fulton Rindge, Jr., treasurer of the Ware Woolen Co. of Ware, Mass., and chairman of the Wool Manufac­turers Council of the Northern Textile Association, has sent to me an example of a cloth imported from Prato, Italy, labeled 88 percent wool and 12 percent nylon content. Mr. Rindge says that his firm's selling price to duplicate the fabric as labeled would be $2.07. How­ever, the imported cloth is sold in New York City by International Textiles, Ltd., in the $1.30 to $1.40 range.

Fourth. At the recent hearings con­ducted by Senator PASTORE's subcom­mittee, Mr. George Selden, vice presi­dent of Methuen International Mills of Methuen, Mass., introduced three sam­ples of a polyester/worsted blend tropi­cal suiting. The first was a blend made of 55 percent polyester and 45 percent wool which Mr. Selden said was "a product of American ingenuity, and the fabric constructions were devel­oped at considerable time and expense by American mills." Mr. Selden also presented a comparable cloth made in a southern mill which competes with the Methuen product, and sells at a price comparable to that of the Methuen mill. The American selling price is $3.15 per yard. However, neither of these fabrics could compete in price with the $2.85 per yard duty-paid selling price, on the New York market, of a fabric produced in Japan of the same quality.

If the present rate of wool textile im­ports is allowed to continue unchecked, many more American firms may be forced to curtail operations, while still others may contemplate liquidation at present levels to a void further losses.

SHOES

Our domestic shoe producers are fac­ing acute problems caused by dramatic increases in the level of leather and non­leather shoe imports.

In the United States there are over 1,300 shoe factories in 38 States. Like textiles, many of these factories are lo­cated in small communities which de­pend on them as the major source of employment and income. The industry is of particular importance to the New England economy. Approximately one­third of all American-made shoes come from the New England States. In my own State of Massachusetts, in 1961-62, approximately 73,000 persons in 56 com­munities were employed in the shoe and related industries. Massachusetts pro­duced 14.8 percent of total U.S. shoes in 1962, more than any other State. However, shoe production and employ­ment in Massachusetts have been de­creasing. In 1959, one of the best years in the leather shoe industry's history, 42,000 Massachusetts people were em­ployed in that segment of the industry alone. By -1962 this figure had fallen to 35,900. Some of this is of course due

to automation, but not this much im­proved machinery has been installed.

Mr . . Allan N. Fine, of the David Shoe Co. of Lynn, has written to me about the problems facing his factory in Mas­sachusetts. The David Shoe Co. is the only shoe factory in the country which makes vinyl casuals to retail for $1.99 or less. However, their potential share of the market for these shoes has been taken over by Japanese imports of vinyl shoes called Duerahyde or Superhyde. Wholesalers can buy these at a price 20 to 35 cents below the price for a com­parable domestic shoe. They are then sold on the retail market for the same price as the American-made shoe. Mr. Fine states that one of his customers who used to purchase 250,000 pairs of shoes yearly has decreased his order to 50,000 pairs. Others have decreased their orders from 50,000 or 100,000 pairs to 10,000 to 15,000 pairs. Domestic pro­ducers are at a severe price disadvantage in competing with these imported vinyl shoes.

Mr. Melvin Fenton, president of the Alberts Shoe Co. of Middleboro, Mass., has also supplied me with some pertinent, interesting information. _Last year his company employed some 230 people. His present staff numbers 185. During this same period his monthly shoe production has fallen from approximately 48,000 pairs to approximately 30,000 pairs.

Mr. Fenton sent to me an advertise­ment from one of the leading department stores in Boston. The ad is for imported black oxfords for men, "made on authen­tic U.S. Navy surplus lasts." The ad clearly states that if the same shoes were produced domestically they would sell for $8.99. However, imported from Hong Kong, they are being sold for $4.99. Mr. Fenton states that he produces a -com­parable shoe but that his price to the retail store would have to be at least $4.60 makiQg a retail price of at least $6.99 imperative.

I have in my office two pairs of shoes sent to me by the Hill Bros. Co. of Hudson, Mass. Both are black, welt-con­struction men's shoes. One pair was produced in the United States at a do­mestic wholesale price of $9.60. The other pair is an Italian import and sells on the U.S. wholesale market for $6.50. Some further examples from Hill Bros., pointing out other price differentials are: ·

First. Domestic men's cement with wing tips-wholesale price is $9.60. Price of comparable !mport is $6.50.

Second. Domestic men's cement with­out wing tips-wholesale price is $9.60. Italian import retails on the domestic market for $10.80.

Third. Men's slippers. Domestic wholesale price is $9.60. Import retails on the domestic market for $10.80. The markup on domestic slippers is more than 20 percent so retail price of domestically produced slipper would be $11.50 or more.

Many of the problems faced by the shoe industry, as I stated before, stem from increasing imports from low wage countries which are rapidly developing high production levels and low cost pro­duction techniques, often with American assistance. Labor costs, which represent up to 30 or 40 percent of the factory value

20056 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

of a pair of shoes, average 36 cents per hour in Japanese shoe factories. In Italy the wage is about 49 cents per hour. Two other countries which account for a size­able number of shoe imports, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, have average wage rates of 97 cents and $1.15 per hour, respectively. The wage rate in the United States averages $1.95 per hour.

Imports of leather shoes alone during the year 1962 increased eightfold over the 1955 level, from 7 .8 million pairs to 55 million pairs. This means that 8.2 per­cent of the potential domestic shoe mar­ket was captured by imports in 1962. If we add to this the imports of other types of nonleather footwear, including such items as sneakers, which are a major item in my State and which are directly com­petitive or interchangeable with leather footwear, imports totaled some 12 per­cent of apparent domestic consumption in 1962. In 1955, imports took 1.3 percent of the domestic market. Exports during this 7-year period declined from 4.6 mil­lion pairs in 1955 to 2.9 million in 1962, a decrease of 38 percent.

In this same period, total footwear im­ports from Japan have risen from 2.7 million pair to 28 million, a tenfold in­crease. Italian imports increased elev­enfold to approximately 14.5 million pairs in 1962. These two countries alone account for 78 percent of our leather shoe imports. Imports from the United Kingdom and Switzerland during the 1955 to 1962 period increased 1.1 million and 219,000 pairs respectively.

According to the National Shoe Manu­facturers Association, during the first 5 months of 1963 imports have increased some 35 percent over a comparable period last year. Imports represent some 14 percent of domestic consumption for this period. During this period imports from Japan totaled 24.9 million pairs valued at $13.7 million · and imports from Italy totaled 9.8 million pairs. Imports from all other countries totaled 10.8 million pairs. According to a publication of the Foreign Trade Committee for the Shoe Manufacturing Industry, it is feared that based on these import trends, imports will rise to 77 million pairs this year and will go as high as 125 million by 1965, accounting for 17 percent of the domes­tic consumption market, with a resulting loss of 47,000 job opportunities in the nationwide industry.

ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

Mail received from representatives of the electronics industry at the time that the Trade Expansion Act was under con­sideration by the Congress indicated that imports of certain electronic devices were steadily increasing. For this reason, industry representatives ex­pressed concern over the effects that the further tariff reductions contemplated under the trade proposal, might have.

In Massachusetts we have developed a substantial electronics research and pro­duction industry. Presently 371 firms in Massachusetts are engaged in manufac­turing electronic products. According to the Electronics Industries Association, in July of 1959 these firms . employed some 88,000 Massachusetts people. Sta­tistics computed by the Department· of Labor and Industries in Massachusetts

indicate that in August, 1963, 89,500 per­sons were employed in the communica­tions equipment, electronic components, and other electrical machinery categories of the electronic industry. During the period August 1962 to August 1963, em­ployment dropped by 7.6 thousand. We want this industry to grow, but it has been hurt by imports.

Mr. Robert Sprague, chairman of the board and treasurer of the Sprague Electric Co. of North Adams, Mass., has in his capacity as chairman of the im­ports committee of the Electronic In­dustries Association, sent me some gen­eral background figures which are pertinent to this study. They are as follows:

U .S. IMPORT STATISTICS

Radio receivers: 11.1 million units in 1962; 6.5 million units in 1960. Increase: nearly double in 2 years.

Television receivers: 128,000 units 6 months 1962; 136,000 units 6 months 1963; total, 263,000 in 11 months. Increase: Cur­rent imports about 10 times 1961 level.

Radio tubes: 51.9 million units in 1962; 27.6 million units in 1960. An increase of 90 percent in 2 years.

The electronics industry is an espe­cially high labor content industry, and wage costs represent a significant per­centage of the industry's manufacturing costs. Furthermore, the research and development programs which must be continually supported by the industry to develop new products and techniques and to improve old ones are expensive to finance. However, like other indus­tries facing import competition, our do­mestic electronic firms compete with firms in countries where wage rates are significantly lower than our own. The primary competitive nation is Japan where the wage rate is about one-fifth of ours, as shown by the following table:

JAPANESE EXPORT STATISTICS (TO THE UNITED STATES)

Television receivers: 158,591 units in 1962; 23,151 units in 1961. Almost a sixfold in­crease in 1 year.

Condensel's: 70 million units in 1962; 34 million units in 1961. More than a 100-percent increase.

Transistors: 11 million units in 1962; 5.7 million units in 1961. Almost a 100-percent increase.

Semiconductors: 7.6 million units in 1962; 4.1 million units iri 1961. An 85-percent in­crease.

Parts for electronic products (general): $11.2 million value in 1962; $128,000 value in 1961. An increase of almost 900 percent.

The Electronic Industries Association of Washington has given me some de­tailed information on conditions in the transistor radio segment of the electron­ics industry. U.S. producers of transis­tor radios have lost more than two-thirds of the total U.S. market to imports in recent years. In 1957, the first year that imports became a significant prob­lem to the industry; out of a total do­mestic sale of 1. 7 million units, 100,000 were imported. By 1962, out of a total domestic sale of 16.3 million units, 11.1 million tJnits were imported. In other words, some 68 percent of the potential domestic market was lost to imports last year. The industry's current projections indicate that as much as 72 percent of

the 1963 market will be lost to imported radios.

Japanese imports alone have captured about 63 percent of the U.S. transistor radio market. During 1962, transistor radios were imported at an average value of $6.52. Thus far this year the value is $6.14. The factory sales value-exclud­ing excise tax-of U.S.-made transistor radios was $19.80 in 1962 and $18. 70 to date, 1963. Although these value com­parisons do not have precise validity, it is felt by the industry that a precise comparison would show much the same disparity.

The Electronic Industries Association points out yet another consideration which affects this situation. Productiv­ity in Japan has improved significantly in the years since 1955 due to a wage hike of only 8 percent and due to the fact that the Japanese have used a large percentage of their gross national prod­uct for capital investment, a larger share than many of the leading industrial na­tions of Europe.

WHAT STEPS CAN WE TAKE?

I hope that firms and workers with strong cases will continue to seek ad­ministrative relief by filing petitions un­der section 301 of the Trade Expansion Act with the Tariff Commission. The Commission has denied all eleven of the petitions thus far presented to it. The commodities affected are softwood lum­ber, hatter's fur, earthenware table and kitchen articles, household china, table­ware and kitchenware, certain Canadian blend whisky, china household dinner­ware, sodium glutamate technical; un­manuf actured zinc, transistor radios, iron ore, and cotton sheeting. Five of the above petitions were submitted in behalf of industries, two in behalf of individual firms, and four . by worker groups. One new petition has been filed by a worker group in a ceramic mosaic tile factory. I hope that the inflexible interpretation of the criteria in the law used by the Commission in the past for granting relief to petitioners will be modified. It remains to be seen whether additional legislation will be necessary to aid our industries claiming serious in­jury from imports.

In preparation for the so-called "Ken­nedy round" of negotiations next year, careful consideration must be given to the effect that any contemplated tariff actions will have on domestic industries and workers. The list of commodities on which tariff reductions might be ne­gotiated will be published shortly. At that time, any industry which feels that it will be severely injured by future tariff reductions may appear before the in­vestigators of the Tariff Commission and before the representatives of the interagency Trade Information Com­mittee at public hearings. I urge all industries which fear they will be seri­ously injured by tariff concessions to prepare strong arguments to support their contentions for presentation at these hearings. Governor Herter will make final recommendations to the President on the items selected for tariff concessions at the negotiations · at Geneva based on the determinations made by the Tariff Commission and the

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 20057 Trade Information Committee at the conclusion of the public hearings.

We can and should take immediate action to aid our domestic wool textile and shoe industries. Under section ~04 of the Agriculture Act of 1956, these in­dustries should be able to obtain the re­lief they seek. It is under this authority that the International Agreement on Cotton Textiles has been concluded, and I believe that a similar agreement for wool textiles should be resolutely sought. The Administration has promised such action, and it is time they gave real sub­stance to their promise.

We should attempt to obtain a similar agreement with the countries that are capturing our domestic shoe markets. The growth and development of the shoe industry .has been thwarted. It will de­teriorate further unless action is taken to limit the volume of imports. I believe that the authority for such an agreement is contained in the Trade Expansion Act as well as in the Agriculture Act of 1956,

The manufacturers of small electronic products fear that even without reduc­tions in present U.S. tariff rates, imports from Japan and from other countries within the European Economic Commu­nity will continue to increase and will possibly be accelerated. Present tariff rates are not posing any barriers to the infiltration of our domestic markets by foreign producers. The industry intends to present its case to the Tariff Commis­sion at the appropriate time with the hope that further tariff reductions, which would cause intensive injury to the do­mestic industry, will not be granted.

Many thousands of people, both at home, and abroad, wlll be affected by any trade agreements made among the na­tions of the world. We hope to be able to lower some of our trade barriers and to increase our export trade through the Trade Expansion Act. We want to see this trade increase, but this must be done in an orderly way so that the whole ef­fect is a higher standard of living, both for the United States and for the other nations of the world. We in Congress have given to the President the respon­sibility for assessing all of the factors and problems involved, and for deciding on a course of action which will be bene­ficial in the long run to all concerned and help to achieve the· objectives of the trade expansion program. That action can and must follow if certain of our industries are to continue to advance and to give employment to our citizens.

I hope that not only will the Tariff Commission listen carefully to the evi­dence that is presented and act upon it, but that Governor Herter, who has been my associate in different capacities over many years, will give thoughtful consideration to the tariff recommenda­tions when he begins to conduct the very difficult trade negotiations with other countries. ·

ARCHITECTS CALL FOR EXPERT COMMONSENSE IN CAPITOL BUILDING Mr. PRO~. Mr. President,

there has been much criticism of the . architecture of the Capitol and of the

amount of spending Congress has done on itself, in various ways, especially in connection with construction. We have been concerned with the east front con­struction and its cost; and it seems that there is still a similar problem in connec­tion with future construction at the Capitol.

The American Institute of Architects; an eminent organization which is widely recognized as being professionally com­petent and authoritative, has come for­ward with a very helpful and useful sug­gestion in keeping with the proposal made by the chairman of the House Sub­committee on Legislative Appropria­tions; namely, that nationally known and acknowledged experts be retained to make a study, and to report on it, on the structural conditions of the Capitol, and that they also be retained before future alterations are made in the struc­ture of the Capitol, because these changes involve expenditures of many millions of dollars.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REOORD, in connection With this statement, a statement of the American Institute of Architects con• cerning the proposal to extend the west front of the Capitol.

There being no objection, the state­ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT 01' THE .AMERICAN INSTITUTE OP

ARcHITEcTs CONCERNING THE PROPOSAL To EXTEND THE WEST FRONT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITOL, 0cTOBER 7, 1963 The American Institute of Architects, now

In its 107th year, ls a professional association composed of over 15,000 members represent­ing leading practitioners and teachers of architecture, with representation In all States of the Union. The institute feels that the significance of the Capitol of the United States as the Nation's highest symbol of government must be preserved, and that al­teration to the west front of the Capitol should not be made unless absolutely neces­sary.

Today, the west front contains the last remaining external vestiges of the Capitol as it was originally designed and built. It ls the only important visible llnlt with the be­ginnings of the building. If the west front of the Capitol ls extended, we will have buried the last of those walls that date from the early years of the Republlc, and will have obscured a part of our history that can never be restored.

The institute believes that the historic and architectural signl:ficance of the Capitol ls seriously endangered by current proposals to extend the west front. These proposals ap­pear to have dual objectives: (1) to correct what ls reported to be serious structural deficiencies, and (2) to provide needed addi­tional space. It is essential that these two distinct objectives not be contused. Each must be considered separately and on its own merit.

The east front extension at least followed the original facade design; however, pro­posals to extend the west front could com­pletely change the configuration, the design, and consequently the appearance of the Capitol. These proposals could be of such a drastic nature that the institute supports the suggestion of Representative ToM STEED, chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations of the House Committee on Appropriations, made during the subcom­mittee's hearings May 17, that "nationally known experts" be retained to "make a thorough stUd.y and report" of the Capitol's structural condition. ·

The American Institute of Architects rec­ommends that the full facts be studied as soon as possible and that the Congress hear expert and public testimony on the results of these studies to insure full public knowl­edge. The institute further recommends that a comprehensive master plan !or the future development of the Capitol, including the Capitol H111 area, be developed. Any piecemeal construction should be delayed until such a comprehensive plan has been prepared and approved.

RECORD STOCK MARKET HIGH, RECORD PROFITS, RECORD PER­SONAL INCOME-NO TIME FOR TAX CUT Mr. PROXMmE. Mr. President, news

items of the last several weeks have sug­gested that the administration might be supporting the tax-reduction bill by a fear technique. The implication seems to have been sent abroad in the land that without a tax cut this year, ah economic recession is imminent.

I am delighted to see now the news stories 'Which indicate that the admin• 1stration is 1n fact not forec~ting a re• cession.. one of the recent news stories dispelling this fear appe~red in the Wall Street Journal for Monday, October 21. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD at the conclu-sion of my remarks. ·

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

(See exhibit U Mr. PROXMmE. Mr. President, this

article indicates both Treasury Secretary Dillon and Walter Heller, of the Presi­dent's Council of Economic Advisers, seem to have been sounding an alarm, last week, concerning the continuation of economic growth. In fact, however, the Business Council of Economists, meeting in Hot Springs, Va., has esti­mated that ''even total absence of a tax cut wouldn't prevent business from roll­ing along without a recession next year." The administration forecasters now seem to be agreeing with this Business Coun­cil projection.

This is, indeed, good news. Certainly we in the Congress should never make policy from a position of intimidation or fear. It would have been extremely qnfortunate if the prior impression by administration spokesmen had been al­lowed to stand.

At the same time, it is also good news that business and administration fore­casters now anticipate that the economy will continue to expand through 1965.

Mr. President, I think all of us recog­n1ze that economic forecasting is an art, and anything but a science; and eco­nomic forecasters often have.been wrong. However, if ever there is a time to have a tax cut, it is not in a period of eco­nomic expansion, and certainly it is not at a time when the preponderance of economists agree that the outlook for the future is for business expansion.

The whole heart and soul of the argu­ment in favor of making a tax cut at this time is that tax reduction 1s needed bi order to promote further growth and to prevent stagnation of the economy.

I think there are times when a tax cut should be made-certainly, for instance,

20058 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 22

when there 1s a recession. But yester­day's stock market reached the highest level in history; corporate profits have never been as high; personal incomes have broken all records. A tax cut at this time would use up ammunition which we should keep in readiness for use when, in the future, we face a recession, if we do face one.

Of all times to cut taxes, this is prob­ably the worst. If a tax cut should be made now, in order to prevent a reces­sion, then when would a tax cut not be justified?

ExHmlT 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 21,

1963] ADMINISTRATION MOVES To DISPEL IMPRESSION

RECESSION Is DUE IN 1964 IF TAXES AREN'T CUT

(By Richard F. Janssen) HOT SPRINGS, VA.-Top Kennedy adminis­

tration officials moved to dispel the impres­sion created last week that they see a re­cession early next year unless the $11.1 billion tax cut 1s passed quickly.

At the same time, however, some of the optimism of business council officials here began to fade. The council's economists had said previously that the Nation wm get through all next year with no recession, even without a tax cut.

The narrowing of the apparent gap be­tween Government and business appraisals of the economy came over the weekend. at the semi-annual meeting of the counc11, a group of 175 business leaders set up to ad­vise Government on specific business-rela­tions matters. - The council doesn't take policy stands or make forecasts, but ;tradi­tionally a group of 30 economists serving the council's member executives does pre­dict the business outlook, and a summary of their forecast ls passed on to reporters.

If the jockeying for common ground be­tween Government and business forecasters didn't produce a very specific outlook for next year, it did finally yield some consensus that uncertainty about the timing, size and indeed the prospects of a tax cut do make the outlook much less clear than it would be otherwise. The contention of admin­istration men that Government spending probably would rise sharply as an antireces­sion measure if there is no tax cut brought a number of converts to the tax-cut cause among the e:xecutives, officials related.

CONTRASTING STATEMENTS Treasury Secretary Dillon and Walter W.

Heller, chairman of the President•s Council of Economic Advisers, rang economic alarm bells last week with public statements strongly hinting they didn't see how the recovery could continue very far into next year unless new zip was given the economy by the tax cut. ·

In contrast came the business council economists' projection, as passed on by W. B. Murphy, president of Campbell Soup Co., that even total absence of a tax cut wouldn't prevent business from rolling along without a recession next year.

Testifying before the Senate Finance Com­mittee on Friday, Mr. Dillon said he was cer­tain that economic growth necessary to pro­duce additional Federal revenue "would not continue" without a tax cut. The way busi­ness cycles generally run, means that "in effect one might say we're living on borrowed time, although I don"t see an immediate downturn," he said.

Efforts soon were begun to harmonize the various forecasts. Emphasizing that he's not predicting a recession will start next April 1, Mr. Dlllon told reporters at Hot Springs that by that time the present upturn wm have lasted 37 months, matching the longest peacetime recovery on record except for the long pull out of the depression of the 1930's.

"I don't think anyone expects things to slow down by that date, but after that, we'll be breaking new economic ground," he said, where chances are "obviously greater" , that factors presently lending strength wm "work themselves out." It isn't expected, for in­stance, that Federal spending will grow as fast next year as now.

He wasn't specifically forecasting a reces.­sion, he stressed, but merely asserting that as the time goes on chances increase that the economy won't continue to gain without a tax cut. An exact prediction of the timing of a downturn just isn't possible, he added.

ANOTHER FORECAST . One administration official privately stretched his outlook for continued good business to as far ahead as the whole first half of 1964, even without the cut. Another, Commerce Under Secretary Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., said at the closed meetings with the business leaders he certainly didn't predict that a recession 1s likely to develop during the next quarter and that he didn't overemphasize the contention that the tax cut ls a good general defense against reces­sion.

Frederick R. Kappel, chairman of Ameri­can Telephone & Telegraph Co. and Business Council chairman, said he doesn't think anyone ls seeking the tax cut to ward off a recession "that's as imminent as 1964." He chided reporters for finding a difference he said doesn't exist between the Government and business forecasts. At least part of the problem may be more semantic than eco­nomic, some officials suggested later, with administration men viewing failure to ex­pand as a recession, and businessmen figur­ing a recession isn"t present until things ac­tually turn downward. Mr. Kappel said his own view is that the economy would advance "more rapidly and more generously" with a tax cut than without.

Closed-door discussions among the busi­ness leaders evidenced less optimism than the public statement, some sources said. Aside from the usual inclination of many business­men to talk cheerfully in hopes it will help sales, the brighter public forecast could also spring from reluctance to admit that their companies need Government action, such as a tax cut, in order to grow again next year. Citing tax-cut uncertainties, council officials limited the public aspect of their economists' forecast to a shorter range than usual. Their forecast of a gross national product a.round $582 bllllon for this year was in line with administration thinking, but no figures for any part of 1964 were offered.

NEGATIVE REACTION

Both business and Government proponents of the tax cut find the antirecession argu­ment a potent weapon in seeking support, but also a risky one to wield. Too much talk of a recession could lead to negative busi­ness and consumer decisions that could actu­ally bring on one, some sources said, espe­cially if many of those who hear the argu­ment decide there won't be a tax cut. On the other hand, some tax-cut backers worry that talk of continued prosperity even with­out a cut could perilously lessen public sup­port for the cut.

Mr. Dillon expressed the cautious belief it is "possible" the Senate will complete work on the bill this year. A long delay would al­low more time for political hazar~s to appear, officials fear. Thanks to work of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Dillon said, the bill ls in better "technical" shape than any other major tax bill has been.

Senator HUMPHREY, of Minnesota, Demo­cratic whip, said he thinks the civil rights bill must have priority over the tax cut. The prospect of a Senate filibuster on civil rights, of course, threatens a long delay on tax action if civil rights ls taken up first. Senator HUMPHREY didn't address the busi­ness gathering here, but explained that he

had come only for a weekend holiday. Sena­tor SMATHERS, Democrat, of Florida, a Senate Finance Committee member, was a meeting speaker.

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PRO­VIDES QUOTAS ON DAIRY IM­PORTS

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, re­cently the Secretary of Agriculture an­nounced that shipments of certain dairy products would henceforth be limited under a voluntary agreement. These im­ports had previously escaped quota con­trols and had seriously affected the mar­ket for domestic cheese products.

In its most recent newsletter, the Na­tional Milk Producers Federation has commented on these quotas. I think that this newsletter should be of interest to all the Members of the Senate and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the news­letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: NEW AGREEMENTS oN DAmY IMPORTS REACHED

Several dairy exporting nations have agreed to a temporary limit on dairy shipments to the United States, the Secretary of Agricul­ture announced on October 9. The agree­ments cover Colby cheese, Junex, and frozen cream. Imparts of these products have re­sulted in millions of dollars of added cost to the domestic agricultural programs. The National Milk Producers Federation had re­quested that they be controlled.

Imports of Colby cheese from the three largest exporters, New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland, will be held to 11.2 mlllion pounds for the fiscal year 1963-64. The Secretary estimates that total Colby imports will be reduced a.bout 10 percent below the 12.8 million pounds imported in 1962-63. The imports of Colby developed after it was discovered that they could be used to cir­cumvent the import quota on Cheddar cheese. ,

Australia has agreed that its exports of Junex to the United States in the calendar year 1964 wlll not exceed 2,240,000 pou~ds. This ls a reduction of abou~ one-third from the 1963 level. Junex is described as a but­terfat-sugar mixture containing Just under 45 percent butterfat. This also 1s an im­port developed after import controls were applied to such mlxtures containing 45 per­cent or more of butterfat, the Federation stated.

Frozen cream imports from New Zealand will be held to 1.5 million gallons for the calendar year 1964. This ls an increase of approximately 50 percent over the level ex­pected for the current year.

The Secretary has agreed in the announce­ment that if these arrangements do not hold imports to the indicated levels, action will be initiated under section 22 of the Agri­cultural Adjustment Act for more effective controls.

While this arrangement is not what had been hoped for, commented E. M. Norton, secretary of the Federation, it ls a step in the right direction and a recognition by the administration of the seriousness of the problem. "We are aware of the roadblocks which the Secretary of Agriculture faced," he added, "and we appreciate the sincere efforts made in behalf of American dairy farmers in this difficult area."

SUPERSONIC WASTE OF TAXPAY­ERS' MONEY

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I have repeatedly criticized the proposed

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20059

expenditures by which the Federal Gov­ernment will participate in assisting the aviation ·industry to obtain a supersonic aircraft. Now the evidence is beginning to accumulate that even the commercial airline industry itself has grave doubts concerning the merits of this program designed on their behalf. The most re­cent evidence of these doubts is con­tained in the October 7 issue of the Wall Street Journal. This article entitled "Supersonic Grief?" indicates the nature of the questions which should have been asked about this program before it was 'initiated.

In 1963 some $20 million was appro­priated to the FAA for initial develop­ment of a supersonic aircraft. In the 1964 budget there is a request for an additional $60 million for the same pur­pose. Yet, even the FAA Administrator, Najeeb Halaby, has conceded that a supersonic transport might not operate profitably.

Many other knowledgeable persons are beginning to express the same doubts. Mr. W. C. Mentzer, senior vice president of United Air Lines, Inc., has been quoted ·as saying that the economics of the su­personic program are ridiculous. Other airlines people have referred to the pro­gram as a supersonic depression.

One CAB official has predicted that there will be overcapacity for some time after the supersonic planes are intro­duced and that a number of airlines will have to fail. This, in turn, of course, will reduce the level of competition in the industry. ·

I think a much more convincing case can be made for us to hold back on Gov­ernment funds and permit other nations to do the costly experimentation 2.sso­ciated with the development of such a plane. Then, if the program is a suc­cess, our own airlines can make a decision as to whether to purchase the aircraft. If our Federal Government launches into this program, it will be simply another case of Government expenditures for the sole purpose of national prestige, exactly in the samP- way that the moon program was justified until the President an­nounced that we would cooperate rather than compete with the Soviet Union.

I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I ref erred be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SUPERSONIC GRIEF-SOME AIRLINES QUESTION

VALUE OF PLANES FLYING AT 2,000 Mn.ES AN HOUR-THEY FEAR EXCESS CAPACITY, REA~ CosTS, BUT RrvALRY MAY FORCE LINES To BuY-U.S. DESIGN CoMPET~ION ON

(By Louis M. Kohlmeier) WASHINGTON.-The supersonic airliner,

possibly a traveler's delight of the 1970's, may bring little pleasure to its corporate op­erators or to Government overseers of avia­tion.

Distant though the plane's arrival may seem, some airline executives already are foreseeing an era of overcapacity, suicidal competition, and shriveling profits. They expect the craft to be painfully expensive to buy and fly; it may not haul enough passen­gers to pay its way effectively, many :fear. Thus a potential need for fare increases is forecast. Some airline men even question the need of flying from New York to Lon-

don. in 3 hours when today's Jets . do lt in 6 or 7.

To W. C. Mentzer, senior vice president of United Air Lines, Inc., the economics are ridiculous. To some airline men, the pros­pects add up to a supersonic depression, comparable to the squeeze that accompanied the adoption a few years ago of big, costly. Jet planes. Only now has the industry re­covered and headed toward new heights of prosperity.

SOME WASHINGTON OPTIMISM Most Washington aviation officials tend

to talk more optimistically; they're deeply enmeshed in the Government-industry plan to develop a 2,000-mlle-an-hour plane and they're hop:ng for congressional OK of the first funds soon. But even Federal Avia­tion Administrator N. E. Halaby concedes a supersonic transport might be developed that couldn't operate profitably.

It's calculated the American supersonic craft could cost $26 million each, more than four times the $6 mlllion price of today's big Jets. Federal aircraft experts predict "fuel costs will be very great" and crew payrolls high. Officials aren't sure the plane's great speed, permitting more frequent trips, will be enough to offset its high costs.

Also, at least one Civil Aeronautics Board official predicts that the overcapacity that can be expected "for some time after super­sonics are introduced" will be "quite pain­ful." On the extra-competitive North At­lantic run, he says, the 19 operators now flying won't all be able to survive. "The numbers will have to come down, through bankruptcies or mei"gers or some way."

To prove or disprove these arguments will take some time. The supersonic transport (SST for short) is today only a paper air­plane on drawing boards of U.S. agencies and aircraft companies, ·of a British-French con­soctium and probably of the Soviet Union. Commercial flight at twice or three times the speed of sound raises technical problems far more complex than any encountered in de­veloping previous genera.tlons of airliners.

PRESTIGE RACE

Yet the supersonic era without doubt is coming, if only because development of the SST has become a race among governments for national prestige a.nd domination of the world airliner market . in the next decade. Given the huge sums the governments seem willing to spend, most of the technical prob­lems probably can be solved in the next few years. ·

This very government sponsors.hip worries some aviation authorities. "The primary push behind this ls not economic, it's na­tional prestige," says one CAB official. "It's like shooting for the moon but there e<:o­nomics don't matter like they do here. Here somebody's going to have to pay for it."

The governments nevertheless are going ahead. -In the United States, the Federal Aviation Agency has started a design com­petition for airframe manufacturers and en­gine makers, with proposals due January 15. Airframe designs are being worked up by Boeing Co .• Lockheed Aircraft Coo:-p., and North American Aviation, Inc., and engine designs by United Aircraft Corp., Curtiss­Wright Corp., and the flight propulsion divi­sion of General Electric Co.

If one airframe and one engine design are clearly superior, the FAA hopes to make a selection May 1. If not, there will be a run­off between two airframe and two engine makers, with the winning combination to be selected by the spring of 1965,. Plans call for a prototype to be ready for test flights in 1968, and for production models to be de­livered to airlines hopefully by 1970.

BILLION-DOLLAR BILL

So far none of the-companies preparing to enter the design competition for an Ameri­can SST has committed itself to . chipping in

toward development costs, though President Kennedy has proposed maµufacturers put up 25 percent of the total $1 blllion blll ex­pected, with . the Government picking up the rest. Even if the Government puts up the whole amount, however, it expects eventu­ally to recoup by collect~ng royalties from airlines that buy the SST. The British and French Governments are footing the entire $450 million bill for developing a -European SST, which already has been named the Con­corde; it too is supposed to be ready for air­line service by 1970.

Once these planes are flying, the FAA forecasts a world market potential for 216 American 2,000 m.p.h. planes and 125 slower, smaller Concordes. This assumes an increase of almost 300 percent in free world air traffic by 1975, and the FAA concedes in­dustry officials consider this traffic projection too optimistic.

But the competitive pressures of the air­line business undoubtedly will force many lines to by SST's, if only to keep up with the first lines that do. Even before the planes fly, there are signs of such a movement be­ginning.

British Overseas Airways Corp., owned by the British Government, and Air France, con­trolled by the French Government, lined up early for preferred delivery positions when the first Concordes come out. Their actions seem to have been the spur behind an order for six Concordes by Pan American World Airways, their main competitor on interna­tional routes.

Atp.ong lines flying U.S. domestic routes, Continental Airlines has ordered three Con­cordes, and American Airlines, which com­petes with it, is expected to announce a de­cision on Concorde buying soon, perhaps this week. L. B. Maytag, Jr., president of National Airlines, is returning from Europe where he has been looking into Concorde progress, and some airline men think Na­tional also will make a purchase decision soon. No airline has yet signed up for an American SST.

To be sure, some airlines buying Concordes are doing so at least in part because they dissent from the widespread opinion that an SST will be uneconomic. "We expect that the Concordes will be able to operate at costs at or below those of our subsonic Jets • • • and will substantially enhance Continental's position in the 1970s," says Robert Six, presi­dent of Continental Airlines. A Pan Ameri­can engineer says that if the Concorde meets its promised performance specifications, the economics "look quite good."

"ECONOMIC SUICIDE"? But the prospect of a competitive scramble

to buy SST's frightens some airline execu­tives. Though his line apparently is think­ing of buying Concordes, William Littlewood, vice president of American Airlines, cautions: "We could easily build more supersonic ca­pacity than the world may soon need."

Airline men don't doubt that, with 3 of the biggest North Atlantic carriers signed up for the SST, the other 16 North Atlantic car­riers will be under heavy pressure to do like­wise. But the prospect of all these airlines "converging on New York from overseas• • • in supersonic transports looks like economic suicide," declares Mr. Mentzer o! United Air Lines.

Moreover, though administration officials have said repeatedly that the· United States means to develop a plane "with satisfactory economic characteristics," and Concorde de­velopers have promised much the same thing, supersonic economics to some airline execu­tives look even worse than the, overcapacity problem.

Unless research provides better solutions for the problexns of supersonic flight than are available now, the SST will be much more ex­pensive to buy and operate than today's Jets

20060 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE October .! .2 but wlll fall short of the jets' passenger­carrying capacity. While the Concord.e's backers claim its greatly increased .spe.e<i will offset the lllgher costs, U.S. officials ap­pear not so certaln about tbe offsetting ·ef­fects, for either their plane or the Concorde.

HOW PLANES COMPARE

As things shape up today, the Concorde wm carry about 100 passenger-a and the U.S, craft wm seat up to 163. . But an all-tourist Jet holds about 180. The jet, which .cruises .at around 500 miles an hour, bears a $6 milllon price tag. A Concorde. which will (lo about 1,450 miles an hour, or .twice the speed of sound, will cost something .over $10 million. The American SST, flying per.haps 40 percent .faster, could .cost two and a half times as much.

Some airline men, lt'.s true, .see tlle SST's smaller seating capacity as a virtue. The capacity of current jets, they say, is too large .for frequent competit}v.e schedullng.

But a .move to build smaller planes runs counter to the lli.stor1c trend or _aircraft de­velopment. "The real way we have increased the economy of transport planes is by .making them big,"· declares United's Mr. Mentzer. "If the :supersonic transport i.s to have a prayer of economic succe.ss it must be big, carrying even '300 to 400 passengers . .,

At thi.s point, noi.se, heat, and altltude _problems appear to rule out fulfillment of such wt.shes.

Sonic boom ls the most perplexing. Any plane flying faster than sound produces shock waves heard on the ground as a boom­ing noise. 'Though military planes have on occasion cracked plaster and shattered win­dows 'On the ground, the phenomenon is relatively unknown to "the public. Military craft,, generally :fly faster than sound only in bursts, but commercial SST's win <tr.all a continuous sonic boom path 50 miles wide on the earth below.

SPEED, ALTITUDE RESTRICTIONS

To minimize the noise, U.S. offl.eials _pro­pose to limit the plane's size and require it to .climb to 42,000 feet before breaking the sol,llld barrier,-and. then to a cruising altitude of 80,000 feet. The Fra.nco-,British team has said these restrictions .also will apply to Its Concorde. These compromises with the noise problem mean restrlcted passenger -capacity, part1a1 loss of the supersonic :speed advantage, _a.nd high fuel consumption to get the plane quickly up to .cruising altltude.

The hea.t problem i.s a cruclal Initial cost consider.ation. Th.e nose of a plane 'flying at 1,450 miles per hour, in.tended ;speed of the Concorde, will heat up to 3U6·0 , three times hotter than a jet's nose. The nose on a 2,000-mile-per-hour SST would hlt 600°, enough to broil a -steak.

Experts agree 'that aluminum, the conven­tional 1)1ane-bulldlng material, would de­teriorate ln :sustained flight taster than 1,450 m1les per .hour~ The alternatives are stain­less steel and titanium. But both are eon·­sidera.bl_y more expensive than aluminum, and engineerB say that, because both are relatively new to aircraft, costly researeh and testing will be necessary.

Uncertain that more economical answers to these problems can be found, airline men have so far passed up President Kennedy's June invitation to become the Government's ris~-taking partner in developing a. U.S. supersonic craft. ,Says one: "I don't think we have -any right to gazn,ble with .stockhold­ers' money on something as risky .as this.''

HIGHER INTEREST....:TAX CUT MEANS

FOOT ON BRAKE AND GAS ,A'T SAME TIME Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, one

of the confusing aspects of the present economic polic.Y is that while there is great concern about th~ problems of the

downturn lri the bu:siness cycle-and rightly so-there is Positive evidence that our Government money managers are tightening credit. .It puzzles me that under these circumstances the monetary authorities of our ·Nation can favor a policy of tightening money a-nd higher interest rates. Newspaper surv_eys .show that the tightening is occurring. The most recent story along these lines ap­peared in the Wall Street Journal on

' Friday, October 18, entitled "Tighten­ing Money."

Tighter money can be created through the banking system in many different ways. The indicator which we most fre­quently look at is the level of interest rates. However, an equally important indicator is simply the availability of funds. A bank may choose not to in­cr-ease its interest ·rate and yet at the :same ti.me provide fewer loans to Poten­tial borrowers at each interest rate level. This is tighter money in a true sense. .It .is held more tightly by the .banks and is less readily available to business firms that need it for expansion.

This seems to be precisely what is -occurring at the present time. The Wall Street Journal article quotes bank offi­cials and others as 'indicating that a con­.siderable restriction in availability of funds has taken place within recent weeks.

The Constitution makes it dear that the control -0f money is .a congressional ]lower. Article I, section 8, specifies that it is up to the Congress to coin money and to regulate the -value thereof. We have delegated that authority to the Fed­eral Reserve Board, but it is up to us to ·supervise the Federal Reserve Board. :i;;t makes no sense to tighten credit and cut taxes at the same time. It means we are using the two great engines of Federal ~onomic policy to go in oppo­site .directions. We are stepping on the gas and slamming· on the brakes.

I ask unanimous consent that the 'Rr­ticle entitled "Tightening Money" pub­lished iI\ the Wan Street Journal on Friday, October 18, be -printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the article ·was ordered to be printed In the RECOR)), as follows: TIGHTENING MONEY: BANKS GROW CHOOSIER

ON LoANS-SOME TRIM PERIODS OF REPAY• .MENT-hDERAL RESERVE A BIT MORE RE­STRICTIVE lJUT MANY DouBT lT WILL 'BHt.RP­LY CURB CREDIT-PINCH FRoM SLOWER St.v­INGs?

(By Lee -Silber.man) After 3 years of a plentiful .supply oi funds

in the.Nation's.banking system, signs -abound that money i.s getting tlgllter.

The most convincing evidence ls the re­luctance of o~cers of some major banks to make sizable loan commitments at this time; .ilntll recently these bankers had been press­ing vigorously to make more loans to indi­vidual and corporate custom.era.

"In the last few week.s we've turned down several requests by corporations .for substan­tial loans we would have been happy to make Just a couple of months ago,'' declares an .official o'! a leadlng 'bank ·1n New York City. Agrees a. colleague at another bank; "Cus­tomers 'who come to see us now get as friendly a reception as-ever, out we stopped listening to every proposition several weeks a.go."

A large Philadelphia bank re_porta it also has begun .rejecting certain corporate loans. Moreover, it ls reducing the repayment perl-

od on so-called term loans to less than the tracli tional 7 years. · When banks suspect they are heading _ into perlOdB of tighter money, they historically move :to :shorten the maturities of the loans they do make a:s a sa,feguard a.galnst running short of funds at some future ,time ..

MANY BANKERS STil.-X. SEEK LOANS

NGt all banke~ agree that the money supply is tightening, however. 'Many insti­tutions are ·pursuing new loans as energeti­.cally as ever. They are confident that thelr money supplies will continue to build up, as they have for nearly 2 years, from ex­panding savings deposits, including increas­ing sales of negotiable certificates o.f de­posit. Some bankers also find it hard to be­lieve the Federal Reserve Board, which con­trols the flow of money and credit to 'banks w.ould risk touching oft' an economic .setbac'k by slowing this :flow to any su'bstantlaJ degree. This holds particularly with an elec­tion year ahead, this reasoning goes.

Nevertheless, Federal Res.erve monetary ·poncy already ·has become somewhat more restrictive this -year and a number of bankers think it is likely to become much more so. These bankers note that the Re­.serve is charged not only with fostering eco­nomic prosperity anu growth, but also with .maintaining a sound dollar. It is not al­ways possible, these ;bankers contend, for B.e­serv.e policies to be in the best immediate . 1nterests of both objectives.

Thus, 1n .July, the Reserve raised lts dis­count rate, the fee it charges for loans to member ,commercial banb, to S.5 from 3 ·percent. 'This made lt .more expenslv.e .and therefore less attractive ior member banks 'to borrow from the Reserve the funds tbey in turn lend to consumers and businesses­loans that .normally would stimulate the economy. Yet the Reserve deemed the higher :cate necessary because of the United ·States' weakened balance-o!-:payments posi­tion.

Dw:rNDLlNG GOLD RESDVES

The balance-of-payment deficit-the amount by whlcll u.s·. expenditures, loa.ns, ·&nd gifts abroad .exceeds the amount taken 1n-was ti.2 b11lion 'in i962 and Treasury Secretary Dillon has estimated lt wlll .:r,each $3 billi-on or a little mo.re this yea:r. Na­tions to which 'the Tinlteu State.s becomes lndebted may and :often do talte .:part. of 'their credits in gold inst.ead of "dollars. So the eontinulng balanee-of-pa:yments lieficit- has led to a dimlni.shlng of U.S. gold reserv.es · w.hich could have .serious consequences for "thls Nation's currenc_y ·if not corrected.

Funds of U.S. investors and corporations placed abroad ,in response to higher interest .rate.s there contribute to the balance-of­l)ayments deficit. By increasing the dis­count rate. the Reserve bro-qght about a:gen­eral increase 1n short-tenn interest -rates in thiff -country and presumably encouraged rate-conscious U.S. investors to bring or .keep their mon~y .h-0me.

Also indicative of a more restrictive Re­serve pollcy ts the decline in the member bank-a' supplies of .cash imm~lately avallable for lending and investing. 4l'hese ".free re­serves" were running about -$300 million at the beginning of this year· but have been down to ,100 nrtllfon or so since early June . (For the week ended Wednesday free reserves s-tood at $81' million.)

The Reserve regulates tbese cash reserves largely through the purchase and sale of Government semli'iti'es, usually Treasury bills, in the open market. When the Re­serve on balance is a l)Urchaser of bills ·1 t pumps money into the banking system be­cause the seUers, dealers tn Governn1ent se­.curlties, deposit the proeeeds in their bank .accounts. Convers-ely, when tbe Reserve sells bllls it takes money out ot the banking sys­tem as the pur.chaslng dealer.a ctraw.s on thelr bank accounts to make the payments.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20061 A BOOST FOR BILL YIELDS

This year's decline in free reserves, re­sulting from heavy trading of bills by the Reserve, also is tied to the balance-of-pay­ments problem. By selling heavily, the Gov­ernment puts downward pressure on the prices of bllls and increases their yields, which move inversely to p"rice. As already noted, the higher yields help attract and keep investment money in this country. On Wednesday the Treasury, which works closely with the Reserve, announced it will sell an extra $1 blllion of bills over the next 10 weeks. This will add further support to bill yields.

Some bankers now see other factors they believe may force the Federal Reserve to fur­ther tighten the money supply, possibly in­cluding another boost in the discount rate. A recent flurry' of.price increases on such in­dustrial materials as steel, glass, and heavy chemicals may have caused the Reserve to become actively concerned about inflation. Should the price advances spread, the Fed­eral Reserve could try to counter inflationary pressures by further restricting the money and credit available to bid up the prices of goods.

Another worry is that the ample supply of money available to banks in the last 3 years has caused them to "reach" for loans they might not have made ordinarily, result­ing in a deterioration in the quality of credit.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman William Mee. Martin, Jr., testified to this belle!, par­ticularly regarding mortgages, in congres­sional hearings earlier this year. The Phila­delphia district Federal Reserve bank since has looked into the problem generally and its findings tend to confirm the suspicion.

The bank's examiners were asked whether, in their opinion, state-licensed member banks which come under their scrutiny have lowered their credit standards on commer­cial and industrial loans. Twenty percent of the examiners found no deterioration and another 20 percent thought "very little" had occurred. But 60 percent agreed that there had been a "moderate" amount of deterio­ration.

:M,\JtGINAL BORROWERS ELIMINATED

Under a more restrictive Reserve monetary policy, many marginal borrowers no longer would be considered for loans, of course.

At the same time that the Reserve has been tightening the money supply, other de­velopments also suggest that banks will be growing more cautious in committing them­selves on loans.

While it's true that new bank lending to business has slowed conspicuously this year as corporations have trimmed inventories and met more of their own needs with in­ternally generated cash, banks have more than made up for this by increasing other kinds of loans, such as those on real estate and securities. The upshot: Total loans of banks that report weekly to the Federal Re­serve System in the first 9 months of this year rose 5.4 percent to $87.4 billion, against an increase of 4.7 percent to $77.8 blllion in the comparable period last year.

Some bankers thus maintain the banking system already is heavily "loaned up" and declare that any sizable increase in business loans could leave them badly strapped for funds. At the end of September, the Na­tion's commercial banks had 56.3 percent of their total deposits out on loan, a shade under the post-World War II high of 56.6 percent reached the month before. At the end of September 1962 the ratio of loans to deposits was 54.1 percent.

SLOWDOWN IN SAVINGS?

Furthermore, banks may not be able to de­pend much longer on the heavy buildup of savings deposits, including those'made avail­able through the sales of certificates of de­. posit. The CD's, as they're cal.led, are re-

ceipts for savings deposits left for specified periods, such as 9 months or 1 year. They are negotiable, so can be sold before maturity if a purchasing corporation suddenly finds it needs the money.

When the Reserve increased the maximum interest rate commercial banks could pay on savings from 3 to 4 percent on January 1,· 1962, funds began to pour in. But lately they have slowed. Such deposits at weekly reporting member banks in the first 9 months of 1963 rose $5.3 billion, or 16 per­cent to $56.7 billion. This compares with an increase of $6.6 bililon, or nearly 16 per­cent, in the similar period last year. Earlier, the SEC reported that savings deposits in all the Nation's commercial banks rose only $2.7 billion in the second quarter, down from an increase of $3.6 billion in the first quarter and the smallest gain since the 4-percent rate became effective.

Banks undoubtedly are feeling pressure of competition from savings and loan associa­tions. These thrift institutions are not re­stricted as to what they can pay on savings and some associations in California recently have adopted a rate of 5 percent. Most asso­ciations pay more than banks.

BILL YIELDS THREATEN CD'S

The CD's have proved immensely popular. Deposits represented by CD's soared from $3.2 billion at the end of 1961 to $8 billion currently. But CD's compete with other money market investments and with short­term interest rates rising, they are losing there relative attractiveness. Banks now are quoting 1-year and 9-month CD's at 3% percent, just one-eighth of a percentage point below the 4-percent maximum on sav­ings. If yields on top-rated Treasury bills continue to rise--they're now at 3.46 per­cent-sales of CD's could fall abruptly.

Some bankers are convinced that any new increase in the discount rate would have to be accompanied by an increase in the ce111ng banks can pay for CD's and other savings to keep money supplies in the banking system from tightening severely.

Aga.lnst all these ipfluences restricting and threatening to further curtail money sup­plies, the demand for loans is likely to pick up markedly in the weeks ahead. At the convention of the American Bankers Asso­ciation earlier thi.S month in Washington, D.C., a spot check disclosed that practically all bankers expect business loans to go up at least seasonally for the rest of the year and that fully one-fourth of them look for loans to rise more than seasonally for the rest of this year and into 1964. Bankers who foresee a sharper pickup in loan de­mand generally expect b1..&iness to strengthen further, a development they be­lieve is almost a certainty if Congress ap­proves a tax cut.

Other bankers note that business outlays for plants and equipment continue to rise, stimulating potential demand for loans. Dr. Roy L. Reierson, senior vice president of Bankers Trust Co., expects that the upward trend in "investment outlays will persist through most of next year." Other econ­omists believe that if price. increases spread, inflationary fears may cause many corpora­tions to try to borrow to build up inventories at a lower cost than might ,be possible later. NECESSITY FOR INTEREST-RATE POLICY COMPLE-

:MENTAJ,tY TO TAX POLICY

Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of the Senate an article which appeared in the Tax Foundation's Tax Review for Sep­tember 1963. This article, entitled "Fi­nancing the Deficit" is by Dr. Beryl W. Sprinkel and Dr. Herbert E. Neil.

The authors of this article address themselves to the question of the appro­pria~ monetary policy which shoul<J ac-

company any tax reduction. Their con­clusion is that:

Financing the deficit partly through the creation of new money is likely to provide a greater stimulus to spending than would the sale of long-term Government bonds to the public.

The authors then go on to point out that the periods· of our most successful economic growth have generally been associated with an expansionary mone­tary policy. For example, they point out that significant differences occurred in the reaction of consumers to t~e 1948 and the 1954 tax cuts. In 1948 the Fed­eral Reserve System followed a quite re­strictive policy and relatively little stimu­lus to the economy occurred. In 1954 by comparison a relatively more expan­sionary monetary policy was followed and the economy responded rapidly. To quote the authors:

Monetary policy has clearly played a cru­cial role in the performance of the economy during the past 5½ years.

They also concluded that: Monetary policy also appears to have been

instrumental in determining the pace of the business recovery of the past 2 ½ years.

These conclusions are well document­ed in this article and I hope that my col­leagues here will have an opportunity to read it. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

FINANCING THE DEFICIT

(By Dr. Becyl W. Sprinkel a.nd Dr. Herbert E. Neil, Jr.)

Analysis of the President's proposal for tax reduction has focused upon the possible effects of increased consumer and business after--tax incomes upon spending and eco­nonlic expansion. Since reduced taxes will necessarily lead to larger Federal deficits, at least initially, much of the current public discussion of tax cuts relates to the impact of Government surpluses and deficits on the economy. The method ut111zed to finance the anticipated deficits has been considered of secondary importance, or even ignored, by most commentators on tax reduction. How­ever, the type of debt issued by the Treas­ury, and who holds the additional debt, is of crucial significance, based upon historical evidence.

Financing the deficit. partly through the creation of new money is likely to provide a greater stimulus to spending than would the sale of long-term Government bonds to the public. Moderate Federal Reserve pur­chase of the Federal debt, which ma.kes mon­etary growth possible, is more expansiona.ry than exclusive public financing of the defi­cit . .Since significant unemployment of la­bor and capital resources persists, a spend­ing increase would not be inflationary but would raise production and employment.

Concentration upon the size of the Fed­eral surplus or deficit as the prime determi­nant of economic activity is misdirected. According to this view, the economy could be expected to expand rapidly in periods of large deficits and slow up or even contract When the Federal Government ran a surplus. Since the U.S. economy, as measured by real gross national product, has grown at an an­nual rate of only 3.1 percent since 1957 with an average unemployment rate of 6 percent ~nd unutilized plant c·apacity,. it is argued that larg~ . Federal deficits are requ,Ired . Thus, tax reduction is supported as a ;IJle&ns

20062 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 22 of increa&lng the Federal deficit, thereby stimulating the economy.

P..resented in this context, tax cuts are de­signed to increase consumer and busine.ss purchasin_g power .so as to enoourage 'the spending needed to "I"eturn to economy to a. level of full ·employment and capacity utilization. Because the size of the deficit is often considered to be the crucia.l variable, the type .of tax ..reduction is of .secondary importance iI the goal is mer.ely :full utiliza­tion of resomces. However. tax reduction can also be used -as a measure to impr-0ve incentlves to work and invest, thereby im­proving the ltm_ger-run growtb rate of the economy. 'Th1s virtue of the tax -cu't relates to raising the potential or .capacity lev.e1 of the economy.

Potential iar economic _:growth 1s dete.r­mlned by changes ln real supply factors such as the 'Size and qual-ity '(educat1onal level, skills) of the labor .for.ee. average bour.s of work, the stock of ·capita.I., the state ·Of technology .and the effi.dency with which resources are combined. The type of ·tax cut is of prime importance .ll one is con­cerned with the long-term potential of the economy rather than just merely ' fulleT utilization of the existing resources. Sharp reductions in high personal marginal tax rates., more liberal tax treatment of -earned income of people ov-er the ·age , of 65, deduc­tions for retraining and educational expenses, lower corporate tax rntes and -additional tax incentives for business investment would be most effective in -enlargln,g th-e potential long-run growth rate Of the economy. A distinction · between the two economi-c goals-full utilization of resources and faster potential growth-should be clearly drawn in analyzing truces. The surplus-deficit em­phasis concentrates upon the first o~jective, full employment of labor and capital with a given economic 1>oten tial.

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION BANKS ON

An analysis of the sur:plus:-deficit position of the Federal account's and the rate of growth fails to support the theory that sur­pluses colnclde with slow or ·negative expan­sion and deficits witll a fast pace of galn. George Terborgh has .round a positive co­efficient of conelation of 0.39 between 'the budget posl_tlon of the _Federal Oovernm.ent In the national income accounts and 'tbe change 1n gross national product from the preceding quarter for the quarters of 1947-62? In other worc:ts, surpluses are .associated with fast growth and tteflcits with .slow or negative growth in total spending, contrary to the conventional wisdom. As an example, the Federal Gover.nment ran a aurplus of $8.2 blllion on a. seasonally adjusted annual basis 1n the first .quarter of 19.60 and GNP rose $11.9 billion between the .fourth quarter of 1959 and the first quarter of 1960. How­ever. in the fl.Tst quarter of 1:961 the Gov­ernment had. ..its largest .deficit :of the past 4 years, and GNP declined by e1.7 b1111on. When a lag of ·2 quarters is assumed between the Feder.al budget .and the effect t>n · gross national product, there 1s an insignificant correlation of -.04, .or no Telationship.

A c,omparison Of budget .surpluses or deficits as a percentage of gross national product with real :rates .of growth in GNP among SiX European countries, Canada, anti the United. States 1or ..1960-60 lllso reveals no relationships between budget deficits and economtc growth.11 Austria. the Netherlands, and Portugal had h.1,gh rates of expansion and large cumulative .surpluses 1n ·the gov­ernment accounts, while FI'.ance reported above-average growth 'W;ith substantial cumulati've deficits. Meanwhile, slow

1 Herborgh, · George, '"Capital Goods .Re­view," Mareh 1963.

_.-Levy, Mich-a.el E., a•P1sc&J. Polley, Cycles a~ Gt-owth," Studles 1n Business Economics., No. 81, ~ National Industr1al COn!erence Board.

economic advance was associated ·With a cumlilative bu<tget .surplus .in the case of Norway :and cumulative budget deft.cit$ f-or both the United Kingdom. and the United States. Again there appear.s to be little :rela­tionship between the surplus-deficit, posi­tion of a .country and 1:t.s rate of economic growth. .

A lack of correlation between the balance of government budgets and economic.expan­ston ls explained partly by the fact that .sur­pluses and deftcits -are not independent of the level of business actlvi ty. The -size of the surJ)lus or deficit is in part a ,function of tax revenu~ which in turn ·aTe determined by .incomes. -.Assuming that most government expenditures are independent of the level of economic activity (unemployment compensa­·tion would be an exception) the relationship between the budget balance and the pace of business can be shown schematically as follows;

Budget surplus or deficit income equals government revenues minus government ex­penditures.

The change ln income affects the surplus or deficit position through government rev­enues, while the budget status also affects income change if financed properly.

In technical jm-gon, if no correlation exists between the budget posl tion and the increase in GNP, or income, the elasticity of govern­ment r-evenues with respect to income ls not slgnifl.cantly different from the elasticity of income with respect to the budget surplus deficit. In nontechnical language, a given change in the .surplus or deficit has no greater effect upon income than a given change in income has upon tax receipts. If a positive relationship exists between tbe surplus­deficit balance and GNP or income cha:µge, then changes in income are more effective in altering gover.nment revenues than is the change in surplus deficit in affecting income. When Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon predicts a balanced b-udget in fl.seal 1967, he ls making the latter assumption. The administra. tion is banking on the as­sumption that tax . reduction will stimulate the economy and hence raise tax revenues -':o such an extent that a declining deficit will not in turn -slow up the rate -of economic expansion.

Although a majority of the student~' of the tax reduction ·proposal conclude that the economy-will be stimulated by enactment of the law, disagreement ;abounds .as to the amount of economic pickup ensuing from the "tax .cut and whether the budget will be balanced in 3 years. An important factor which will beal" upon answers to these two questions is the method used to 'finance the deficits expected for the next several years. Sale of short-term securities by the Treasury js more expansionary than financing the debt through the issuance of "long-term debt. Since the buyer of Treasury bl11s is more liquid than the ho1der of a long-term Gov­ernment bond, he ls more likely to spend the added disposable Income from a tax :cut. In­asmuch as the .administration is attempting to push short-term interest rates up 1n or­del" to limlt the outflow of snort-term capital ln search of higher rates abroad, Treasury b11ls will undoubtedly be used as a prime source of borrowing.

In addition to the type of debt issued by the Treasury tbe owner of the issue is of crucial lmportance 1n -evaluating the effec­tiveness of tax Teduction. To the extent 'that the Federal .Reserve purchases Govern­ment bonds, member bank reserves a'?"e in­creased, ena,bling the commercial banks to make additional loans and Investments, thereby expanding bank deposits. Con­sumers and corpora.tion-s will then have more money (currency in circulation plus demand deposits) ., · an indicator of liquidity. Since money is the DlOSt liquid of assets, depositors are more llkely to spend these deposits than Trerurury bitls , or GoverDJ.llent 'bonds. -aence, wnetber Government debt 1s bought by 'the

Federal R~rve or the ;public .1s of signif­icance for spep.ding via the effect on the money 'Supply. .

'The importance of variations in money s~pply in determlnlng spending is Tevealed in a recent study b.Y Milton Friedman and Da-vid Melselman.8 'They found a 0.985 co­efficient o! .correlation 'between ·annual volumes of money and consumer spending for 189'.7-11l58. Another :study by Friedman strongly suggests that caul3ation runs from mon~y to -spending rather than vice versa.' The stock of money displays systematic cyclical behavior with inereased monetary growth preceding ·recoveries and reduced monetary growth preceding con~actions. For foreign countries a close .relationshtp is also found between the rate of monetary expansion and GNP growth;• A hlgh :rank correlation exists between annual rates of increase .for the money supply and gross na­tional product for 195.5--60 ior Japan~ Italy, Germany, Fr.a.nee, Canada, the 'United King­dom, and the United -States. Japan ranks first for both money supply an-d gross na­tional product. Italy, Germany, and France all display above average growth tn the two series. Canada, the United KingdomJ and the United States trail the other countries in thaj; order for the money supply and GNP. InteTestingly, there is a close relationship be­tween the :rate of monetary exJ)ansion and interest rates, a.s well as gross national product. Evidently, increased economic activity stimulated by monetary growth led to a strong demand for fup.ds despite the faster pace of monetary expansion. Also, lit­tle relationship was found between the rate of monetary growth and inflation for the 1955-,60 period. For a longer periOd of time, however, a closer correlation exists between rate of change in the ·money supply .and price changes.

IMPACT OF 194~, 1954 TA1C CUTS

All of the above cited evidence indicate's that the proposed tax reduction for 1964 and 1965 will be most, effective in speeding up the pace of economic expansion in this country only if the Nation~s money 'Supply is .also increased. To expand the money supply the Federal Reserve must increase rese:rves of the banking system. The Importance of .mone­tary policy in reinforcing or limiting the effectivene$$ of tax reduction is .clearly shown through a compa.rison of th;e impact of the :1.948 and 1954 tax eut.s upon consumer spend­ing. Taxes were r.educ.ed by $4.7 billion un­der the Revenue Act of 1948,-and $7.4 billion, partially offset by a $1.3 billion ri,se in social security contributions, in 1954. In the initial two quarters following enactment of the 1948 tax cut in April of that year .disposable personal income rose by $15.2 b11lion but con­sumer spending .increased. only $5.5 'billion. Thus, nearly two-thirds of the higher con­sumer incomes went into per,sonal saving. Saving did not decline appreciably until the 1949 recession, when person~ consumption e~penditures held level despite a .modest de­cline 1n disposable personal income. The tax cut of 1948 thus appears to have played a. strong positive :role in limiting the severity of the 1948-49 recession., but it failed to pro­vide an .immediate stimulus to consumer spending .ln 1948.

In contrast, the impact of the 1.9.54 'tax reduction upon consumer spending was

·8:.Frled:man, Milton, and Meise1man, navid, ••The Relative Stability-of Monetary -Velocity and tne Investment Mu1t1pfier 1n th-e United States, 189'7-1958" {to be publisMd by the Commisslon on Money and Credit) ..

4 Friedman, Milton • .And. Schwartz, Anna, "Money and Business Cycles," Review of Eco­nomics and Statistics, February 1963 Supple­ment.

11 ~pr'inkel, 13e:ry1, -Re1.a.tlve Economic Orowth Rates and Fiscal-Monetary Policies," "The Jo~l Df Polttical .Economy .. . J\.prll lfflJ3, pp. 154,,:-159.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20063 prompt. Although disposable personal in­come rose very slowly in the first three quarters of 1954 because of the recession, consumers increased their spending a.nd cut down on their saving. In the first five quar­ters following tax reduction-fourth quarter 1953 to first quarter 1955-personal consump­tion expenditures increased $17.1 billion, while disposable personal income went up by only $10 billion. FINANCE PART OF DEFICIT WITH NEW MONEY

A plausible explanation for the different initial reaction of consumers to the 1948 and 1954 tax cuts ls provided by the diverse monetary policies pursued in 1948 and 1964. The Federal Reserve followed a fairly restric­tive policy in 1948, increasing the discount rate twice during the year and also raising reserve requirements of the member banks. Member bank reserves, adjusted for reserve requirement changes, declined by nearly $400 m1llion, or 3 percent, between January 1948 and January 1949. The decline in bank reserves led to a decline of 2 percent, $2.2 b1llion, in the money supply during this 12-month period. During the following 12 months--January 1949 to January 1950-re­serve requirements were lowered and member bank reserves rose 3 percent, coincident with a decline in personal saving. The decline in personal saving in 1954 undoubtedly reflected an easy monetary policy. The discount rate was reduced twice during 1954, and reserve requirements "fere lowered. Member bank reserves, adjusted for the reserve require­ment changes, were increased 6 percent be­tween December 1953 and December 1954, resulting in a $3.5 billion, 2.7 percent, growth in the money supply.• Monetary policy re­inforced tax reduction as a stimulant to the economy in 1954, but acted as an offset to fiscal action in 1948.

Monetary policy has clearly played a cru­cial role in the performance of the economy during the past 6 ½ yea.rs. Member bank reserves rose by over $1 billion; 6.1 percent, between December 1957 and July 1959, caus­ing a 6.2-percent increase in the money sup­ply, $8.4 billion, between January 1968 and July 1959. Gross national product rose sharply during this period-first quarter 1958 to second quarter 1959--from •432.9 blllion to $487.8 billion, 12.7 percent. During the steel strike in the summer and fall of 1969, followed by the strike-induced rebound of early 1960, monetary policy turned restric­tive. Member bank reserves were cut $600 million: 2.8 percent, between July 1959 and June 1960, and the money supply dropped by $3.9 billion; 2.7 percent, between July 1959 and June 1960. The expansion in gross na­tional product slowed up between the second quarter of 1969 and second quarter of 1960 to 3.6 percent. Moreover, the restrictive monetary policy of late 1959 and early 1960 was an important factor in leading to the recession which began in May 1960 and lasted until February 1961.

Monetary policy also appears to have been instrumental in determining the pace of the business recovery of the past 2½ years. Member bank reserves were increased $1.4 billion; 7.7 percent, between June 1960 and January 1962, while the money supply went up by 4 percent during this period. The slower rate of growth in the money supply (currency plus demand deposits) reflects a preference of depositors for time deposits rather than demand deposits. during this period. Following the 1960-61 recession the economy expanded rapidly as gross national product rose $37.4 billion between the first and fourth quarters of 1961, a period of mon­etary ease. A slower rate of GNP growth dur­ing the next 9 months coincided with a less easy monetary policy. Between the fourth

• Neil, Herbert, "Impllcations of the Pro­posed Tax Cut," Financial Analysts Journal, July-August 1963, p. 68.

quarter of 1961 and the third quarter of 1962 gross national product increased $19 billion, while member bank reserves showed vir­tually no change between January and Bep­tember 1962 and the money supply declined by $600 million, 0.4 percent during this a­month period. Renewed growth in member bank reserves of $676 million, 3.7 percent. between September 1962 and lVlay 1963, and an increase in the money supply of $4.5 bil­lion, 3.1 percent, in the 9 months following la.st September, has been instrumental in pushing the economy upward at a somewhat faster pace since the third quarter of 1962. Gross national product rose $22.2 between the third quarter of 1962 and the second quarter of 1963.

The close relationship between monetary policy and the performance of the economy suggests that an increase in member bank reserves and resulting rise in the money sup­ply are required if the proposed tax reduc­tion is to have a strong expansionary effect upon the economy. Thus, it appears that a portion of the Government deficit expected for the next several years must be financed by new money 1f tax reduction is to prove to be the stimulating factor to a faster grow­ing economy; i.e., adequate monetary growth should accompany the projected deficit. Too much money can bring inflation, but mod­erate monetary expansion is an essential supplement to the proposed tax cut.

Mr. PROXMIRE. If we are to have a tax cut-and I am sure that there will be one-whose purpose is greater eco­nomic growth and business expansion, it would make sense for us to accompany such a tax reduction with a monetary program which is expansionary and not contracting. The argument that we hear over and over again is that a tax cut will stimulate the economy. But at the same time we apparently tighten up money and prevent expansion. This means we spend some. This does redistribute in­come in the country. It means that some people will benefit from a higher after­tax income, but it means that others will have to pay higher interest rates. By and large, those who are debtors, or borrowers will be hit hard by that policy, and those who are creditors will, I pre­sume, benefit to a considerable extent from it.

MISSING LINK IN TAXES Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. the

New York Times has had a series of most thoughtful and constructive editorials on the propQsed tax cut. At one time the New York Times was an enthusiastic supporter of a tax reduction, but it has turned into a critic of the tax proposal bill.

One of the elements in the tax cut proposal which they have particularly criticized is the lack of any substantial tax reformation. Most of the reforms recommended by the administration have been taken out by the House of Representatives. But the editorial to which I refer this afternoon also recog­nizes that the present tax bill is very badly timed. I should like to read one portion of the editorial:

In the summer of 1962, when the economy seemed to be faltering after the Wall Street slide, Mr. Kennedy argued against an across­the-boa.rd tax cut "in the absence of a clear and present danger" -to the economy. In• stead, he proposed a combination of reduc­tion and reform aimed at "rooting out

inequities and complexities" and "to help us make the most of out' economic resources." Last December he added that "the present patchwork of special provisions and prefer­ences lightens the tax load on a few, only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on the many."

The great weakness of the present tax bill, Mr. President, is that it is no longer a tax reform measure at all. It is a bill designed for the purpose of providing a greater stimulus to an economy which is already expanding at a substantial rate.

There is only one other problem, it seems to me, that the tax cut is designed to meet. That, of course, is the problem of unemployment. There is no question that unemployment is our most serious economic problem, but an increasing number of outstanding economists are recognizing that unemployment is not a problem which can be solved merely by increasing demand, that the essence of our unemployment problem is the fact that the unemployed largely are those who are unskilled, those who are in mi­nority groups, those who are young who have no work experience, and those who have limited skills. In all such cases, it is clear we can move most rapidly to solve unemployment by providing a greater degree of vocational education and a greater degree of counseling.

There is one other area of unemploy­ment which is most important; that is, the regional or geographical unemploy­ment. I ref er to the unemployment so common in West Virginia, northern Wisconsin, sections of Pennsylvania and southern Illinois. This kind of unem­ployment can best be remedied by a "rifle shot" approach, by providing the kind of program which the Area Re­development Administration is designed to provide. We would pay a price in a substantially greater national debt and inflation for a cure by tax cut. We cer­tainly would not "zero.in" or "rifle shot in" on the area of unemployment which most urgently needs assistance.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that this editorial from the New York Times entitled "Missing Link in Taxes," may be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: (From the New York Times, sept. 24, 1963)

lVIIsSING LINK IN TAXES

Tax reform has been forgotten by Congress in the eager desire for across-the-board tax reduction. Now the only dispute is whether the cuts should depend on a freeze on Gov­ernment spending. There is no longer any argument in Congress about the composition of the tax bill and its failure to provide for a basic overhaul of our leaky and antiquated tax structure. Yet without the reforlllS that the President once considered essential, the tax bill resembles the "quickie'• kind of ac­tion that he rejected Just a. year ago.

In the summer of 1962, when the economy seemed to be faltering after the Wall Street slide, Mr. Kennedy argued against an across­the-board tax cut "in the absence of a clear and present danger" to the economy. In­stead, he proposed a combination of reduc­tion and reform aimed at "rooting out in­equities and complexities" and to "help us make the most of our economic resources." Last December he added that "the present patchwork of special provisions and prefer­ences lightens the tax load on a few, only

20064 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

at the cost of placing a heavier burden on the many."

When the administration sent its initial request to Congress, Mr. Kennedy's proposed reforms were not of a radical nature; but the administration threw in the towel even before the b111 was attacked by the Republicans. The few reforms still left do not represent a constructive step; they will result in further erosion of the tax structure, only increasing the inequality of its burden. Reform is now the missing link in the tax bill.

There might be an excuse for making a casualty of reforms if the economy faced the clear and present danger of recession. This is not the case. Business activity is now far stronger, with more solid underpinnings, than it was last year, when the President held off in order to fight for the "right kind" of tax b111, one that combined reform and reduction.

The case for tax cuts is a good one. But Mr. Kennedy's arguments for reforming the tax structure remain valid. He should fight for them.

UNITED STATES-SOVIET WHEAT DEAL DIALOG? YES-CONCES-SIONS? BEWARE Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, A. A.

Berle, Jr., is a distinguished professor at Columbia Law School. He recently wrote a tough minded and thoughtful analysis of the wheat deal with Russia and the future of our trade with the So­viet Union in the New York Times maga­zine for October 20, 1963. The Berle piece is one of those rare articles that deserves to be pondered thoughtfully by Members of Congress.

Berle charges that opening general trade barriers to the Soviet Union is a concession that might enable the U.S.S.R. to continue a policy of · arma­ment rather than production, o! main­taining armed occupations, of subsidizing imperialist grabs, of making overt sei­zures of great areas.

On the other hand business considera­tions are trivial compared to the great issues involved. We get a little foreign exchange. A few Americans make money. But this great properous Nation does not need this.

The wheat deal may be justifiable, especially if it is a one-shot operation and if it is hedged in by restrictions, so that it will give minimal support for Russian imperial adventures.

But general trade with the U.S.S.R. could do great good for communism and very little for freedom.

We should pin down the Soviets to firm, enforceable committments to peace and assistance to freedom.

Mr. Berle concludes: Most of us would be glad to trade with a

peace-seeking Soviet Union attending to her own people and administering her own country. Yet few, if any, of us want to be­come part of a supply line for a Soviet mm­tary and paramilitary machine.

This is the real subject of the dialog. It had better continue for awhile and show results before we make a further change in our economic policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the article by Mr. Berle be printed in the RECORD at this paint.

There being · no objection, the article was ordered to be printed 1n the RECORD, as follows:

DIALOG? YES-CONCESSIONS? BEWARE

(By A. A. Berle, Jr.) The Soviet Union and several satellite

countries have just arranged to purchase about 150 million bushels of American wheat. The purchase of 240 million bushels from Canada has already been reported. It was not enough to meet Russians needs. Bread, the chief item of Russian family food, is al­ready rationed, and the squeeze will become very severe next spring.

Preliminary information of Russia's desire to buy from U.S. stocks reached Washington last month. Formal negotiations to pur­chase were opened in early October. On Oc­tober 7, President Kennedy held a White House conference on the problem. Forty­eight hours later, he approved, in principle, a single-shot deal to sell wheat to the So­viets.

Does this decision suggest a new policy of open trade with the Soviet Union, and change the settled plan of campaign in the cold war? The one-shot wheat deal is one thing. General opening of trade barriers is something else. My own view is that the one-shot deal, on balance, was justifiable­but that a change in the no-trading policy at present would not be.

Sentimental arguments may be eliminated at the outset. Soviet good will will not be bought by selling wheat, still less by lifting trade restrictions. I doubt that the Soviet man in the street will even know about it. The Moscow Government can hardly be ex­pected to emphasize the Communist agricul­tural failure. Nor will Communist officials attribute to the United States any motive higher than capitalist avarice.

I had a vivid experience with Soviet trade. In 1919, hoping to find a basis for peaceful adjustment with Russia, a commission headed by William . C. Bullitt, reporting through my office in the American Peace Commission in Paris, negotiated a very fair working arrangement with Lenin, and re­turned with the document. (Nothing came of it: Clemenceau and the French Govern­ment torpedoed it.)

Later, the researches of George Kennan uncovered Lenin's real motive as expounded by him at the time to his colleagues. He said he was worried about Japanese moves in Siberia; he wanted temporary relief from the Western side. The agreement he offered would set American capitalists slavering for the profit and plunder of concessions in Si­beria. He explained that these hopes would be dashed in due time, but that, meanwhile, the capitalists who controlled the U.S. Gov­ernment would make sure that American and allied moves were not dangerous to the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev, Mikoyan, Gromyko and many of their colleagues today come straight out of the Leninist school. If therefore the United States opens trading with the Soviet Government, it roust do so either because the arrangements satisfy our moral instinct, or because they strengthen our position-or preferably both.

The question of trading has released sev­eral sets of American instinctive reactions, none of them originally political, though the issue is rapidly pushing toward a high place on the agenda in the 1964 presidential cam­paign. The wheat deal released a natural emotion: if Russians are hungry and need food, Americans ought not to sit on fat sur­pluses, saying "No." But even that emotion was quailified by facts, which apply with far greater force to a policy of general trading.

The Soviet Union is anything but friendly to the United States. True, there has been

some relaxing of tension. .This means only that propaganda directed at the U.S. public has temporarily stopped some of its abuse. Not so elsewhere. I was recently in Vene­zuela. There, the Soviet fifth column is damning the United States, bombing Amer­ican enterprises, murdering friends of the United States and occasionally kidnapping Americans. In varying degrees of intensity, such activity goes on over much of Latin America. Washington diplomats talk of detente-but try to find it in the Caribbean.

Will not enlarged trade with Russia merely give the Soviet Union more resources to fight our friends-and ourselves? Certainly it can; no one has forgotten American sales of scrap iron to Japan just prior to Pearl Har­bor.

Common business considerations, it is argued, indicate selling to the Soviet Union. We have agricultural surpluses of little use to us. We can sell machinery, heavy chemi­cals, and manufactured products to the Rus­sians. We can use some extra foreign ex­change. American farmers would rather see their surpluses eaten than stockpiled. American manufacturers certainly want to sell more, and nobody would object to more employment. But, important as trade con­siderations may be, they are, ultimately, only incidental to a vastly deeper issue. What bearing does trade have on the great ques­tion of the current war, now cold but po­tentially very hot (especially in Latin America) , and on the chance of peace?

The Kennedy administration has developed the strategy of a continuing dialog with the Russians. The hope is that tiny ac­cords in some fields may pave the way for a widening range of more significant agree­ments that possibly might set the stage for a real ending of the cold war. This dialog is an experimental operation.

The test ban treaty was a first, tiny step. Diplomatic exchanges are already going for­ward in other areas-as with Foreign Minister Gromyko's visit to President Kennedy in Washington-but no one can forecast· the re­sult. The President merely points out that the dialog policy seems better than pas-sively waiting for a collision. ·

Dialog-as such-can do no harm. But concessions can become dangerous gambles. If they result in peace, they may later be hailed as great statesmanship. If they fail, the end could be disaster. That was the fate of the British attempt to settle matters by dialog and concessions to Hitler at Munich in 1938.

Opening general trade barriers is such a concession. In doing that, the United States might well enable the Soviet Union to con­tinue a policy of armament rather than pro­duction, of maintaining armed occupations, of subsidizing imperialist grabs, of making covert seizures in great areas. Without the trade opportunity, Russia might have to modify, if not relinquish, her policy in sub­stantial areas.

The Soviet Union now is supplying arms, planes, and training to Indonesia. to attack Malaysia; to Cuba to attack Venezuela and Central America; to Communist armies in Laos. At the same time, a growing volume of evidence indicates that the Soviet econ­omy is in difficulties. Agriculture is in ter­rible shape. Manufacturing is at best a bad second rate. The Soviet Union has com­mitted too large a part of her gross national product to arms and military or paramilitary adventures. Indeed, she has overcommitted herself, promising other countries arms and other products (including wheat-yes, wheat) which she cannot deliver. For these reasons, she is buying outside. If the United States dropped trade barriers, we should merely help the process along.

The Soviet agricultural picture is partic-­ularly serious. Disaster and bad weather did

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20065 not produce lts defects; they are endemic to the Communlst agricultural system. A friend of mine, an excellent farmer, last year spent some time looking over farms in the Soviet Unlon. He was shocked. How could anyone, he asked rhetorically, ex­pect even tolerable results under a system so inefficient, so bureaucratic, so centralized?

Forty-five percent of Soviet workers are agricultural (in the United States abo~t 11 percent of the population 1& engaged in agriculture). With reasonable efficiency, the Soviet UI;lion and certain of the satellite countries, notably Hungary, could produce more food than they need with less than half of the, labor. More than half the food finding its way into Soviet city markets comes from the small plots Russian peasants are allowed to cultivate in their spare time for their o,wn accoun.t.

If this allocation of labor, however in­efficient, produced adequate food, and left adequate labor for manufacturing, it might l>e justified. as a way of taking care of peo­ple. But it does not, and shows no signs of ever doing so. Certainly it wlll not sup­port a huge policy of military aggre$8ion.

This is the dusty result of a half-century of Communist organization in Russia, and of more than 18 years of Communist control ln the Iron Curtain countries. These areas were the breadbaskete of Europe before the Communists took over. Some of them, like East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and parts of Poland, were great manufacturing producers. Blame had been laid by Communist govern­ments on bad planning. Yet lf the Commu­nist governments more nearly responded-to what human beings want, instead of pushing them into arbitrary frames. the planning would not have been so disastrous. It will take more than new fertilizer plants and good weather to bring Soviet agriculture within ha111ng distance o! American produc­tive standards---or, indeed, o! Soviet needs.

In manufacturing, though the picture is better than in agriculture, the "guns or but-

, ter" ratio is at length exacting its grim price. The Soviet Union has a population of 221 million, as against 190 million ln the United States. Her gross national product ls on the order of two-thirds of ours. She devotes a. far greater proportion of that than we do to armaments-guided missiles, land armies, and submarine :fleets. Additional substan­tial amounts have gone into supplying bloody adventures like those 1n Cuba, Indo­nesia, and Laos, and polltical-economic ad­ventures llke the Aswan IDgh Dam in Egypt. Now she has not enough product to go around. The Communist rulers of Russia know it. In recent speeches arguing against Red China's shrieks for mmtary con:ftict. Khrushchev has come pretty close to saying so.

The Soviet Union accordingly may one of these days want a real detente. The Ken­nedy "dialog" ls intended to explore this possib111ty. Yet Moscow has never yet indi­cated that its policy might shift to minding its own business for awhile, although such a pollcy is the only possible foundation for an enduring peace.

For an agreement 1n any sphere, the Rus­sians want concessions from us. Open trade with the United. States would be a solid con­cession on our side. What does the Soviet Union propose 1n return? So far as we know, it bas yet to offer anything of significance.

In the case of the test ban, the Russians conceded little; we conceded. something, though not much. President Kennedy and Secretary of State Rusk stated that the dia­log had produced a tiny fragment of tolerable agreement which just might pave the way for more significant settlements. The next round. probably 1n quiet preparation now, will raise far more dangerous , subject.a.

There are Berlin and its wall-involving the security ot au Western Europe. There ls Russian military control of CUba-en­dangering the peace of La.tin AmE}rica. There, are the broken treaty agreements and the Russian military supply lines run­ning into Laos. There are--always-the be­trayed. accords of Yalta and the continuing agony of Hungary and Poland.

I doubt that the Soviet Union is yet pre­pared. to make real concessions in any of these areas. I think at present the Russian leaden; would rather squeeze their people than give up an even partly successful ter­ritorial grab. , If they retire from any posi­tion it will not be for temporary economic advantage, but because they have become convinced the position is untenable.

The "dialog" la stm going on. The re­sults have still to be observed. I for one will watch carefully the terrorist campaign agal,nst our good friend, the enlightened and successful Government of Venezuela, as a sort of thermometer. If that and similar campaigns continue, the dialog test wm have failed. We shall then have to recognize that materials sold to the Soviet Union will merely increase her capacity for param111-tary and propaganda campaigns against the United States and its friends.

"Business considerations," it seems to me, are childishly trivial compared with the great issues involved. Of course, we would gather in a little foreign exchange. Of course, some manufacturers and traders could make a little money. But the United States as. a Nation, and our businessmen as well, do not greatly need this; our country is quite comfortably prosperous without it.

Equally trivial is the argument that some of our friends and allies wm sell to the Russians--and make money-if we do not. Perhaps. But the precise result of a trading agreement made for "business considera­tions" would be to pretend that we are neu­tral in the cold war. Some of our allies may feel differently-I think they are wrong-but I am clear we cannot so pretend.

The single-shot wheat deal can, probably, be cobbled up with conditions, and deliveries so arranged that it affords minimal support for Russian imperial adventurism. Without a major shift in Soviet policy, it is dlfflcult to see how this could be done with a current of general trade.

This will not be the last opportunity-and ls not even the great one---to change our eco­nomic policy toward the Communist coun­tries. My guess is that the Soviet Union wlll not be out of her agricultural troubles for a, long time. She will not be able to meet her needs for consumer goods until she cuts down on her foreign military adventures and her enormous armament ~rogram.

A realistic base for trading ls the only one that makes sense to Communist negotiators. If they think our chief concern ls that some of our traders can make money, the dialog will get no further than did the British dia­log with mtler in 1938. They will use pres­sure, of course (the recent brief blockade at Berlin may have been an illustration). Their p.ropaganda machine will make bad noisea about us. They will create tensions and ask us to buy alleviation. But their abuse has ceased to be important one way or the otl.1,,er: It has already done its work. The la.st thing Americans should consider is making conces­sions to buy relief from Soviet abuse.

My conclusion, therefore, is that trade re­strictions ought not now to be suspended.­that, although I think the wheat deal Justi­fiable, it should be treated as a single-shot operation while the dialog continues. Al­ways, we must remember, unrepresented mllllons have to be considered. There are East Germans, there are Hungarians; there are Poles. There are Malaysians in south­east Asia; peasants and patriots 1n Vene-

zuela; sllent, suft'ering Cubans in the Carib­bean. Soviet authorities alone know what the stakes are on the Sinkiang border of Red China.

Most of us would be glad to trade with a peace-seeking, peace-loving Soviet Union at­tending to her own people and administer­ing her own country. Yet few, if any, of us want to bcome part of a supply line for a Soviet mllitary and paramilitary machine.

This is the real subject of the dialog. It had better continue awhile and show re­sults before we make a further change in our economic policy.

"THE LIBERAL ARTS: LANGUAGE OF FREEMEN"-ADDRESS BY DR. GLENN T. SEABORG, CHAffiMAN, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMIS­SION Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, Glenn

T. Seaborg is a distinguished American, and an able public servant. Last Sat-1.lrday Mr. Seaborg, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, was invited to speak in Oakland, Calif. The occa­sion was a civic banquet in commemora­tion of the 100th anniversary of the founding of St. Mary's College, one of the finest institutions of higher learning in all the Nation.

Mr. Seaborg spoke on "The Liberal Arts: Language of Freemen." His com­ments are a veritable treasure house of in,f ormation, all uttered in plain and understandable English about the won­ders of life in the nuclear age.

Mr. Seaborg discussed the relationship between the liberal arts and the exact sciences in this contemporary world, in and out of colleges and universities. He spoke about the discovery of carbon-14 dating methods, under which, for the first time, scientists are able to give fair­ly accurate dates as to the products of man's earliest, activities. Charcoal from his fires, p-ieces of leather from his san­dals, and even pieces of linen from the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls now may have their secrets solved by unique scientific methods of the age in which we live.

I ask unanimous consent that the en­tire text of this excellent address may be printed in the RECORD, and I commend a reading of it to my colleagues and to all who peruse the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE LIBERAL ARTS: LANGUAGE OF FREEMEN

(By Glenn T. Seaborg) It is a very real pleasure for me to be with

you this evening, to be here with the faculty, the alumni, and some of the many other friends of St. Mary's College.

Although there always seem to be many interesting and challenging things for us to do in Washington, my family and I still have many friends in the Bay area and long per­sonal associations here. It ls good to be back here again, even if only briefly. This is our home and we look forward to re­turning when my present assignment in Washington is completed.

The occasion of our meeting here tonight is also a gratifying one to those of us who know and love well this section of our United States. St. Mary's College, aa we all know, was the first men's college in this part

20066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22 of the world when it was dedicated in San Francisco in 1863 by Archbishop Joseph Sadoc Alemany. We are all proud of St. Mary's hundred years of dedicated work in sending out her graduates into California and the world beyond. Her alumni have helped build California and our Nation by serving as leaders in business, in academic and in community affairs.

Some of her distinguished alumni include John F. Henning, the Under Secretary of Labor; Congressman George P. Miller, of California, chairman of the Committee on Science and Astronautics for the House of Representatives; Arthur Sherry, University of California Law School; Stuart Davis, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Louis G. Conlan, president of City Col­lege of San Francisco. There . are, of course, many, many more than I could possibly take time to mention. The best possible yard­stick you can use to measure a school is not the size of its buildings, not its endowment, not its records on the football field, but al­ways the quality of its graduates and their service to humanity. St. Mary's College is proud of its graduates and for good reasons; our country should be grateful for her many contributions.

Today, St. Mary's looks back with pride at her record of the past century; St. Mary's also looks ahead with anticipation to the next hundred years' accomplishments.

When you asked me to speak this evening I understood the general theme of your cen­tennial celebrations to be the liberal arts, the language of freemen. Your earlier speakers have discussed a number of inter­esting and significant aspects of this sub­ject; it seemed, therefore, that it might be appropriate for me to consider some of the relationships that can and should exist be­tween the liberal arts and the exact sciences in a college, in a university, or even in our contemporary world of thought and action.

We have all heard about our so-called two cultures of today's science and the hu­manities. I would like to talk a little about how the sciences and the arts are building bridges toward each other to discover new truths and to gain new insights.

Many people think of the new and excit­ing frontiers in science as being thousands of miles out in space, or down at the bottom of the sea, or at the end of a billion-volt accelerator, or in an electron microscope that probes the mysteries of the living cell.

We should remember that frontiers are not only at the outer edge of _an unknown intel­lectual wilderness but also exist between already developed areas of knowledge. And today, these in-between areas can· be very exciting indeed. Many contributions can be made in many unexpected ways by such in­teractions. For example, let us consider some examples of opportunities for discov- _ ery when science is used as a tool to help us understand history, art, or the development of thought.

There is a word, "sybaritic," in our lan­guage used to describe the ultimate in luxury and wealth. It refers to the actual way of life of the Greek colony of Sybaris in south­ern Italy, probably the wealthiest city of the world in the sixth century before Christ. Naturally such a city would gain the jealousy. and envy of its greedy neighbors. Sybaris had to defend itself from its neighbors in numerous battles. But the people of Sybaris were delighted by the luxuries and play­things of their affluent society-in times of peace, they even taught the horses they used in battle how to dance to music. We are told that their neighbors from Crotona finally overcame them in a battle in 510 B.C., using a unique secret weapon. They brought out a band which played· the same pieces of music to which the horses had been . trained; the horses started dancing and the victorious soldiers of Crotona slaughtered their helpless riders. The city of Sybaris was

razed and the Crotoniats diverted the river Crati over its ruins. Only traces of the old city could be found by Herodotus less than a hundred years later, and its exact location and extent had by modern times completely disappeared.

Yet today, there are new and more power­ful tools available for the scientist-historian to investigate what lies beneath the surface of the earth. We now know that the tiny nucleus of the hydrogen atom is both a kind of spinning gyroscope and a tiny magnet. It is possible to use these properties of the nucleus to build a highly sensitive device to measure local magnetism to 1 part in 100,000. Ancient tombs deep under the ground, or fireplaces or buried walls, each subtly disturb the earth's natural magnetic field; and the experienced physicist-arche­ologist can use this information to help locate these buried articles of irreplaceable value. An international group of scientists from the United States and Italy has been using this and other techniques to investi­gate the ancient valley of the Crati River. In just a few days, time they outlined half a mile of one of the ancient walls of the city of Sybaris. The sensitivity of the method may be judged by the fact that most of the wall was buried beneath about 10 feet of the accumulated silt of the centuries.

For another example of science's contribu­tion to history and art, let us consider an­other aspect of archeology. Today, this is half history, half science, and some say, half witchcraft; but it ls a remarkable tool nonetheless, which has enabled us to learn much about our historic and prehis­toric past.

In archeology, the use of radioactive car­bon 14 dating methods has given us an en­tirely new dimension of accuracy, in cases where there had previously been little more than guess work. Prof. Willard F. Libby, of the University of California at Los An­geles, and who once served as a member of the Atomic Energy Commission, made impor­tant scientific contributions to the exact study of the past through the introduction and use of carbon 14 dating methods; for this he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1960.

By using these methods it is possible for scientists to give fairly accurate dates to the products of man's early activities-charcoal from his fires, pieces of leather from his sandals, even pieces of linen from the wrap­pings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Similarly, we now know that the great monuments at Stonehenge in England were erected some 3,500 years ago. Geologists have also been able to give us a new insight into the mag­nitude of this task as an ancient engineering problem, because they have been able to identify the rock of which the monuments were made. The nearest deposit of this rock is in Wales, 180 miles away. Some of these individual stones weigh as much as 28 tons, and moving them would not be easy even with modern power machinery.

Hammurabi, the king of ancient Babylon, whom we know as the author of the code of laws that bears his name, was probably the first ruler who published the laws of his country and assigned definite punishments to those who .broke them. The code of Ham­murabi was carved on great stone slabs and erected in every city and village of the land. By carbon 14 dating of a house erected dur­ing his reign, we now know that Hammurabi, the law giver, ascended his throne in about 1750 B.C., and we can also tell the approxi­mate dates of many of the other events of Babylonian history.

We have also learned, for example, that Jericho may be one of the oldest cities in the world. . Parts of the deep ruins of the city date from the period of 8000-6000 B.C., when the ice age had n9t yet ended in .much of Western Europe.

Radioactive dating is reasonably well known by now, and has succeeded in being

of inestimable help to the historian by clari­fying many ancient and puzzling questions. It even gives us a new sort of yardstick by ·which we can measure how fast and how far we have come in our ascent from the swamps and the caves of our remote ancestors. Prof. L. S. B. Leakey has recently found the remains of a primitive, apelike creature in the Olduvai gorge in Tanganyika,. east Afri­ca. Although these were primitive crea­tures, they had already learned the funda­mental art of making crude tools of flint. By the use of another radioactive method, measuring the rate at which potassium-40 slowly turns into argon-40, scientists Curtis and Evernden, at the University of Cali­fornia, have established that these early men hunted and lived and died over 600,000 years ago. More recently, some bones from this region have been dated as being at least 1,750,000 years old-which may push man's ancestry farther back than ever before. And we have recently learned that Professor Leakey, with the help of radioactive dating by the Berkeley scientists, may have uncov­ered a near ancestor of man in Kenya, more manlike than apelike, 14 million years old. It is humbling to recognize that our span of recorded history in our usual sense is only about one-thousandth of the entire length of time that men, or manlike creatures, have walked on the face of the earth.

There are also important applications of science to the study of the arts. Neutrons from an atomic reactor can be used to make minute traces of some materials sufficiently radioactive so that we can measure . their presence and amount, even in quantities that are much too small to see with the most powerful microscope. This method is called neutron activiation analysis. Recently, sci­entists at the Brookhaven National Labora­tory, a laboratory operated by the Associated Universities, Inc., for the Atomic Energy Commission, have been working with this new and powerful method to study the chemical composition of ancient pottery from the Mediterranean and from South and Central Amerio~. The great advantage of this method for the archeologist is that it· is a nondestructive method of analysis, that is, the original artifact is still preserved in its original form and beauty. One of the fascinating things learned from this research program was that fraud was not exactly un-

. known in the anicent world. Pieces of pot­tery made in an ancient city of Arezzo, Italy, were very popular in the Roman Empire be­cause of the high quality of their workman-· ship. The potters even marked their ware in the same way that manufacturers trade­mark their goods today. Yet, by means of neutron activation analysis, it has now been possible to show that much of this ancient pottery must have been made elsewhere and given a false trademark, since the chemical composition of the clay is sufficiently distinct to clearly establlsh it was not made in Arezzo.

Scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory are now exposing old paintings briefly to neutrons from a nuclear reactor. This treatment makes the mineral pigments in the paints slightly radioactive, without destroying or harming the painting in any way. When a high speed X-ray film is placed next to the painting, the radioactive atoms take their own photograph, even though they may be down inside the hidden inner layers of paint. In this way, scientists are working with art experts to get interest­ing and unique new information on the painting techniques used by the old masters. This method may possibly even be used to de­tect forgeries.

There are hundreds of other examples of the use of scientific methods of chemistry, physics, biology, a.nd even 9:5tronomy to study our cultural and historical origins. Let me only mention ln passing that such a simple device as the aqualung, invented by

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE· 20067 M. Jacques Costeau, has opened an entire new world of underwater exploration, and has even let us study the patterns of ancient trade routes in the Mediterranean.

There was a tiny shell in the ancient Medi­terranean Sea, called the murex. The Phoe­nicians of Tyre and Sidon were very skilled at extracting a tiny colored gland from this shell and using it to dye wool in the famous Tyrian purple, so precious that it was only used for emperors, the nobles, and the very wealthy. In 1908, Professor Paul Friedlaend­er, a well-known Austrian chemist, worked up some_ 12,000 specimens of a closely re­lated snail, partly from the French Riviera. He puzzled out the molecular structure of the ancient dye, and found that it was iden­tical with another molecule which had been prepared synthetically by some German chemists.

But there was still a question-was the dye of the ancient I!hoenicians in the east­ern end of the Mediterranean really the same as that found near France? This question recently excited the curiosity of a group of scientists at the American University of Bei­rut in Lebanon. Their students excavated the ancient shell heaps left by the dyestuff manufacturers, then went out in the nearby Mediterranean with diving equipment and brought back fresh, living specimens of the same shell that all the experts had thought was extinct.

Then these scientists, as all gOOd scientists should, studied the previous literature; after that, they repeated the experimental details of their predecessors and produced a tiny amount of the dye. Using the most modern methods of electron spin resonance spectroscopy, they were able to prove that the molecular pattern of the German syn­thetic dye and of the eastern Mediterranean purple were exactly identical. Professor Friedlaender has used 12,000 snails in his analysis; Professors Bruin and Heinesken used only two or three, so sensitive are our newer methods of chemical and physical analysis.

Yet, interestingly enough, their scientific publication which appeared this year, re­ferred to their laboratory manuals; these were books by Aristoteles (Athens, 340 B.C.) and C, Pllnius (Rome, 75 B.C.); few scien­tists today can find 2,300 years of precedent on which to work.

Let us turn to other fields. There may seem to be little, if any, connection between theology and the intricacies of the modern high-speed electronic computer. Yet the computer ls beginning to make its contribu­tions to this complex and subtle field of thought. The complete works of St. Thomas Aquinas include approximately 13 million words. A complete concordance or index to the words in all his books would be of great use to those who would like to make a detailed study of the way he thought and wrote, or of how his thinking may have been influenced by others of his time and before. It has been estimated that such a complete concordance would take 60 scholars some 40 yea.rs to complete by hand in the old tradi­tional way.

By the use of the newer ma.chine process­ing of such data., such a concordance could be completed with about one-fortieth of the time and effort, permitting the researchers to use more of their time for their specific scholarly ab1lities, such as interpreting and organizing the information so obtained. Such a program is currently underway-a library in Italy has recently put all the words in the "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas on some 1,600,000 punched cards for machine processing.

A similar program is underway to study the words of the famous Dead Sea scrolls; it is interesting to note in this instance tha.t a special card punch had to be devised to punch the cards from right to left, since this is the y,ay the scrolls were written.

Perhaps the lesson to be gained from these examples ls that there ls a great unity or coherence of knowledge and knowledge seeking. There ls a continuum that extends from the theories of the origin of the uni­verse, through the rise of life on earth, and to the evolution and history of man, and on to the completion of the cycle into such a.btruse fields as high energy particle theory. There is no knowledge or true understanding that ls isolated from the total fabric.

But this is hardly a new idea. Remember that Lucretius was a renowned Roman poet of the first century before Christ, and yet was also a philosopher who taught that all the universe was com.posed of tiny atoms, perpetually in motion.

Dante, whose name is commemorated in one of your own college buildings, was the greatest of Italian poets. He was also a stu­dent of all the sciences of his day, and in­corporated some of the then-current astro­nomical ideas into his "Divine Comedy.''

Leonardo· da Vinci, of course, was a phenomenal engineer who invented the heli-

To these we must add the best of the con­temporary scholarly disciplines o! the sci­ences, the arts, the law, and the other fields of study offered here, and the graduates of this college wm continue to bear their full share of responsib111ty to their community, their nation, and the world.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that we are here today to commemorate the progress of your school for the past century. Yet I feel that we should in equal measure, think of the future yet ahead. We should be particularly grateful for the continued dedi­cation of the hard-working teachers of St. Mary's. It is their deep dedication to learn­ing which makes St. Mary's so much more than a mere warehouse of furniture, books, and laboratory equipment.

It is this dedication which will inevitably carry over to their students, who will go forth to make the world a better place to live.

EXECUTIVE SESSION copter, among other machines, and was a The Senate resumed the consideration designer, anatomist, and biologii;;t. Even of executive business. now his famous painting of the Mona Lisa has the power to attract great crowds, as it did when shown recently in Washington and New York.

Goethe could not only write a. great drama like Faust, but he earned his subsistence as a pra.ctioing lawyer; he studied geology; and he wrote some of the finest poetry of the German language. He was a skilled theatri­cal director, a political economist, and an art critic. It ls little known that his studies in the comparative anatomy of the man and the ape and on the structural relationships of plants foreshadowed some of Darwin's theories which came along some 60 years later.

PROTOCOL TO AMEND CONVEN­TION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION; CONVENTION ON EX­TRADITION . WITH SWEDEN; AD­DITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY OF EXTRADITION WITH BRAZIL; EXTRADITION CONVEN­TION WITH ISRAEL; CONSULAR CONVENTION WITH KOREA; CON­SULAR CONVENTION WITH JAPAN The Senate, as in Committee of the

Whole, resumed the consideration of the protocol, Executive D < 88th Cong., 1st sess.) , to amend the Convention on Inter­national Civil Aviation; the convention, Executive E (87th Cong., 2d sess.), on extradition with Sweden; the additional protocol, Executive F (87th Cong.,_ 2d sess.) , to the Treaty of Extradition with Brazil; the extradition convention, Ex­ecutive E (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Israel; the consular convention, Exec­utive B (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Ko-

In our own days, we have seen science and art interacting in ways which are still very much with us. The psychological discov­eries of Freud have profoundly influenced the work of Salvador Dali and many other mod­ern artists. The paintings of Piet Mondrian are based, of course, on mathematics, and are almost entirely separated from pictorial or representational art. His work helped initiate the contemporary schools of non­representational, or abstract, art. Holst and Stravinsky have composed music symbolic of the movements of the planets. This is a kind of modern echo of that section in Mil­ton's "Paradise Lost" where the Angel Raphael talks to Adam about the wonders rea; and the consular convention, Ex­of astronomy. ecutive I (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with

All of these interactions between the sci- ,,,- Japan. · · ences and the humanities have served to en- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without rich the concepts in both areas. But these objection, the protocols and conventions are only a few of the many reasons why it is will be considered as having passed

~:~:si:X:r!°: ::J'er;~;~n~~!e~h~e!~fe1:ic~ through their various parliamentary and tn the humanities. It 1s good to know stages up to and including the presenta­that a vigorous program is underway at st. tion of the respective resolutions of rati:fl­Mary's to give our next generation this kind cation. of solid background that they will need and· If there be no objection, the resolutions be able -to use. of ratification will be printed in the REC-

There will be many more opportunities ORD without being read. here for the scholars of tomorrow-and I . . mean scholars in the broadest possible sense There being no obJection, the resolu-In any case, we can look forward to many tions of ratification of Executive D (88th more fine things from the students and Cong., 1st sess.), Executive E (87th Cong., faculty of St. Mary's as a reflection of the 2d sess.), . Executive. F (87th Cong., 2d fundamental philosophy of your school. sess.), Executive E (88th Cong., 1st sess.),

This ls marked by your continued em- Executive B (88th Cong., 1st sess.), and phasls on service to the community as an Executive I (88th Cong. 1st sess.) were expression of Christian democratic ideals, ' ' preserving the best of the values of the past ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as and adding the best of the values of the follows: present. Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators -pres.

You will continue to try to create a unity ent concurring therein), That the Senate from the intellectual tools of the medieval advise and consent to the ratification of the trivium which contained logic::, grammar, protocol dated at Rome September 15, 1962, and rhetoric. The world continues to be in to amend the Convention on International vital need of men and women trained in the Civil Aviation done at Chicago on December arts of precise thinking, critical reading, and 7, 1944 (Executive D, 88th Congress, 1st ses-clear ~xpressi.on. sion). ·

I

20068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October ·22

· Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres­ent ccmcun-ing therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of a Convention of Extradition Between the United States of America and Sweden, to­gether with a related protocol, signed at Washington on October 24, 1961 <Ex. E., 87th Cong., 2d sess.), an additional protocol to the Treaty of Extradition of January 13, 1961, Between the United States of America and the United States of Brazil, which additional protocol was signed at Rio de Janeiro on June 18, 1962 (Ex. F, 87th Cong., 2d sess.), and a Convention on Extradition Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the State of Israel, 'Signed at Washington December 10, 1962 (Executive E, 88th Congress, 1st ses­sion).

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres­ent concurring therein) , That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the consular convention between the United States of America and Korea, signed at Seoul on January 8, 1963 (Executive B, 88th Con­gress, 1st session).

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres­ent concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the consular convention between the United States of America and Japan, together with a protocol relating thereto, signed at Tokyo on March 22, 1963 {Executive I, 88th Con­gress, 1st session) .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the further order of yesterday, as modi­fied today, the Senate, at 2 p.m., will pro­ceed to a yea-and-nay vote on the ques­tion of agreeing to the said resolutions of ratification of the six protocols and · conventions.

THE CALENDAR Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,

after a conference with the distinguished acting minority leader [Mr. KUCHEL] and with his approval, I ask unanimous consent that at this time there may be a call of measures on the calendar to which there is no objection, beginning with Calendar No. 554, H.R. 844. I ask unanimous consent that the measures may be considered in sequence, and I also ask unanimous consent that I may have authority to have printed in the RECORD comments, excerpts from reports, and so on.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the Senator from Montana? The Chair hears none; and, without objection, it .is so ordered.

The clerk will state the first measure.

TRUST LAND FOR OGLALA SIOUX INDIAN TRIBE OF PINE RIDGE RESERVATION The bill (H.R. 844) to declare that

certain land of the United States ls held by the United States in trust for the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, was considered, or­dered to -a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re.,POrt CNo. 576), explaining the purposes of the bill.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose o:r H.R. 844, as amended and passed by the House, ls to convey in trust status 5,422.68 acres of land formerly used for the benefit o:r the Oglala Community School to the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservat-ion in South Dakota. The present estimated, value o! the property is $196,000. The bill also provides that in the event of a judgment favorable to the Oglala Sioux Tribe by the Indian Claims Commis­sion, the Commission will determine to what extent the value of this land should be an offset.

A companion bill, S. 84, introduced by Senators McGovBRN and.MUNDT, was also con­sidered by the committee.

NEED The land was acquired by th~ Bureau or

Indian Affairs over a period of years between 1939 and 1946 from private owners at a total cost of $51,098.34 for the use of the Oglala Community School. Improvements are val­ued at $1,476. The funds employed !or this purpose are desert bed as "Indian moneys, proceeds of labor." These are funds derived from Federal operations on Indian reserva­tions which are available for expenditure un.g.er an indefinite and conti.nuing appro­priation for the benefit of the Indians. the agency, or the Indian school on whose be­half the money is collected. The money is accumulated from such activities as the op­eration of a beef herd in connection with an Indian school.

The subject land was formerly used for grazing the school beef and dairy herd but, since the dairy herd has been discontinued and the beef herd considerably reduced in size, it is no longer required for pasturing. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has no further use for the land or improvements. The tribe will probably continue to lease the land to s'bockgrowers for grazing purposes and/or for the site of an industrial development. · The land ls located near the agency head­quarters, borders an important highway, and produces some of the finest pasturage in southwestern South Dakota. All of the land ls within the boundaries of the reservation.

COST

Enactment of H.R. 844 requires no ex­penditure of Federal funds.

TRUST LAND FOR OGLALA SIOUX . 1NDIAN TRIBE OF PINE RIDGE

RESERVATION The blll (H:R. 845) to declare that

certain land of the United States 1s held by the United States in trust for the Ogiala Sioux Indian Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, was considered, or­dered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re­port <No. 577)., explaining the purposes of the bill.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 845 ls to convey 1n trust status the Government's interest 1n 40 acres of land formerly used as a site for its Wakpamn1 Lake Day School to the Og­lala. Sioux Tribe of the Pine Bi~e Reserva­tion in South Dakota. The bill also pro-

vides that in the event a Judgment favor­able to the tribe is rendered by the Indian Claims Commission, the Commission shall determine to what extent the value of this land should be an offset.

The committee also considered a com­panion bill, S. 85, introduced by Senators McGOVERN and MUNDT.

NEED The 40 acres were acquired in 1983 at a

total cost of $400 for use of the Indian sehool. Several school structures valued at $750 were constructed. The school has been closed and the children are being transport­ed by bus to a public school. Part of the land is presently occupied by several In­dian families who have constructed homes on it. The Federal Government has no fur­ther use for the land or improvements. Re­moval of the improvements, it is estimated, would ~ost more than ,they are worth.

TRUST STATUS FOR CERTAIN LANDS ON ROSEBUD SIOUX RES­ERVATION IN SOUTH DAKOTA The Senate proceeded to consider the

bill (S. 136) to place 1n trust status cer­tain lands on the Rosebud Sioux Reser­vation in South Dakota which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs~ with amendments, on page 1, line 8, after the word "the," where it appears the first . time, to strike out "Uinted" and insert "United"; in line 9, after the word "South,'' to strike out "Dakota: Provided, That building num­bered 248 <residence) on tract L-44 should be reserved to the United States with the right to remove it'' and .insert "Dakota"; on page 3, in the table, at the beginning of line 2 thereof, to strike out "old"; at the beginning of line 4 of the table, to strike out "old"; in line 8 of the table, after the word "of/' where it ap­pears the second time, to strike out "old"; in line 10, of the table, after the word "of,'' where it appears the second time, to strike out "old".; at the begin­ning of line 20 of the table, to strike out "old"; on page 4, in the table, in line 15 thereof. after "Sec. 1,'', to strike out "W½W½SE¼SE¼E½E½SW¼SE­¼SE¼SE¼" and insert "W½ W½SW¼­SE¼, E½E½SW¼SE¼, SE¼SE¼"; on page 5, after line 3, to insert a new sec­tion, as follows:

SEC. 4. This conveyance ·is subject to all valid existing rights-of-way of record and subject to that eertaln propos~d right-of­way :ror sewer purposes to the United States Public Health Service on which construction was authorized by the Superintendent, Rose­bud Agency, on July 31, 1962.

And, after line 8, to insert a new sec­tion, as follows:

SEC. 5. The Indian Claims Commission is directed to determine in accordance with the provisions o! section 2 of the Act o! August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1050), the extent to which the value of the title conveyed by this Act should or should not be set off against any claim against the United States determined by the Commission.

So as to make the bill read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,, That all the

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20069 right, title, and interest in and to the fol­lowing described tracts of land and the improvements thereon on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, purchased by the United States with funds derived from the "Indian moneys, proceeds of labor, Rose­bud School" account, shall hereafter be held by the United States in trust for ·the benefit of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Tract I-BIA-107

L--4 L-5 L-6 L-7

L-9 L-10 L-11 L-12 L-13 L-14

L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-20 L-21 L-22 L-23 L-25 L-26 L-27 Ir-28 Ir-29 Ir-30 Ir-31 Ir-35 Ir-37 Ir-38

Ir-39 L40

Land description

T. 38 N., R. 29 W ., 6th principal meridian

Sec. 5, SW¾ __________________ _ _ Sec. 6, SE¾ ____________________ _ Sec. 6, lots 6, 7, E½SW¾'- ------­Sec. 6, lots 3, 4, 5, SE¼NW¾'----

T. 38 N., R. 30 W., 6th principal meridian

Sec. 2, lots 3, 4, S½NW¾, SW¾_ Sec. 2, lots 1, 2, S½NE¾'-------­Sec. 3, lots 1, 2, S½NE¾'-------­Sec. 3, SE¾'--------------------­Sec. 3, lots 3, 4, S½NW~, SW¼_ Sec. 4, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S½NW¼,

S½NE¾'---------- ------------Sec. 5, lots 1, 2, S½NE¾'--------

~:~: i: ~Wfc:::::::::::::::::; Sec. 6, lots 1, 2, S½NE¼--------

~:~: ~: ~iij===================== Sec. 7, lots 3, 4, E½SW¾'--------

~:~: g: m)~c==================

!:: i&:N~=================== Sec. 10, NW¾'-------------------

1:~: ll: ~'~=================== Sec. 17, NW¾-------------------Sec. 18, SE¾'----------------- --­Sec. 18, alloflots 1, 2, E½NW¼,

NE¼, lying north of U.S. Highway No. 18 ______________ _

~:~: ~~: ii_============== T. 39 N ., R. 30 W ., 6th principal

meridian

Ir-42 Sec. 26, SW¼, except that part lying north of U.S. Highway No. 18 ________________________ _

L--43 Sec. 27, SE¼, except that part lying north of U.S. Highway No. 18 ________________________ _

Ir-44 Sec. 28, W½SE~SW~. except the S½NE¼NE¼N vv ¼SE~ SW¼, and N½SE¼NE¾

· NW¼SE¼SW¼ containing 0.3125 acre each _________ ,.; _____ _

Ir-47 Sec. 32, all of the N~ying south of U.S. Highway o. 18 ______ _

Ir-48 Sec. 32, all of the S½ lying south of U.S. Highway No. 18 ______ _

Ir-49 }Sec. 33 NE¼ S½NW¼,

Ir-50 :im~tJ:~w~~~~~~-Ir-51 Sec. 34, N~~------------------­Ir-52 Sec. 34, SE¾------------------ -­Ir-53 Sec. 34, SW¾'------------------­L-54 Sec. 35, W½--------------------­L-55 Sec. 35, E½--------------------­L-56 Sec. 36, NE¼ except that part

lying north of U.S. Highway No. 18 __________ · _____________ _

T. 38 N ., R. 32 W ., 6th princi­pal meridian

Acres

160. 0 160.0 149. 51 147.09

321. 64 160.47 161.95 160. 0 321. 36

323. 50 161.69 160.0 160.0 158.85 160. 0 160.0 151.29 320. 0 160. 0 160.0 160.0 160. 0 160.0 160. 0 160. 0 160.0 160. 0 160.0

261.0 320.0 320. ~

49. 3

72. 1

19.375

189.6

312. 67

310.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 320.0 320.0

104.8

L-73 Sec.1, lots 3, 4, S½ NW¾'------- 161.8

T. 36 N., R. 32 W., 6th princi-pal meridian

L-74 Sec. 12, N½NE¾'--------------- 80. 0 L-75 Sec. 12, E½NW¼, S½NE¾'---- 160. 0 L-76 Sec. 12, W½NW~ and sec. 1,

lotsl,2,N½SW¾,SW¼SW¼_ 260. 34 '

TotaL _ _ __________________ 8,838. 335

SEC. 2. That all the right, title, and inter­est 1n and to the following described tracts of land _and the improvements thereon on t_he Rosebud Sioux Reservation In South Da­kota, shall hereafter be held br the .United

States in trust for the benefit of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota:

Tract I-BIA-107

Description

T. 38 N., R. 30 W., 6th principal meridian

L-32 Sec. 16, S½--------------------- ­L-33 Sec. 17, NE¾'----------------- - ­L-34 Sec, 17, SE~;------------------­L-36 Sec.17, SW¾-------------------

T. 39 N., R. 29 W., 6th principal meridian

L--41 Sec, 18, NE¼SW¾'--- - ---- -----

T. 39 N., R. 30 W ., 6th principal meridian

L-45 Sec. 28, SW¼SW¾'--- - ---------

T. 42 N., R. 33 W., 6th principal meridian

L-68 Sec. 35, E½ ____________________ _

T. 37 N., R. 30 W., 6th principal meridian

L-71 Sec. 30, NE¼SE¾'------------- -

T. 36 N., R. 32 W., 6th principal meridian

.

L-77 Sec. 1, SE¼SW¼.- - ------------­L-78 Sec. 1, W½W½SW ¼SE¼E½

E½SW¾SE¾, SE¾SE¾'-----

T. 36 N., R. 31 W., 6th . principal meridian

L-97 Sec. 6, lot 6----------------------

Acres

320.0 160.0 160.0 160. 0

40.0

40.0

320.0

40.0

. 40.0

60.0

35.01

TotaL_________ ___________ 1, 075.01

SEC. 3. That all the right, title, and in­terest in and to the south hal! section 9, township 38 north, range 30 west, sixth principal meridian, containing 281.91 acres, more or less (Bureau of Indian Affairs ref­erence: Tract 1-BIA-107-L-24), on the Rose­bud Sioux Reserva tlon ln Sou th Dakota, pur­chased by the United States with funds de­rl ved from the "Indian moneys, proceeds of labor, Rosebud School" account, shall here­after be held by the United States ln trust for the benefit of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

SEc. 4. This conveyance is subject to all valid existing rights-of-way of record and subject to that certain proposed rlght-of­way for sewer purposes to the United States Public Health Service on which construction was authorized by the Superintendent, Rose­bud Agency, on July 31, 1962.

SEC. 6. The Indian Claims Commission is directed to determine ln accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1060), the extent to which the value of the title conveyed by this Act should or should not be set off against any claim against the United States determined by the Commission.

The amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed

for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re­port (No. 578), explaining the purposes of the bill.

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

The purpose of S. 136, as amended, is to place ln . trust for the Rosebud Sioux In­dians of South Dakota approximately 10,495 acres of land located within the boundaries of the reservation. lhe lands are ~xcess to

the needs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The blll, as amended, also provides that in the event of a judgment favorable to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe by the Indian Claims Commission, the Commission wlll determine to what extent the value of this land should be an offset.

EXCEPTION FROM 25-YEAR LEASE LIMITATIONS OF FORT MOJAVE INDIAN RESERVATIONS The bill (H.R. 2635) to amend the act

of August 9, 1955, for the purpose of in­cluding the Fort Mojave Indian Reser­vation among the reservations excepted from the 25-year lease limitations, was considered, ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, H.R. 2635 came from my committee unani­mously. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a portion of the committee report de­scribing the proposed legislation.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 2636 is to permit leases of Indian land on the Fort Mojave Reservation in California, Arizona, and Ne­vada for business and other purposes to be made for a term. of 99 years or less instead of the present 26. years with the right of renewal for another 25 years.

NEED

Enactment of H.R. 2636 ls needed to permit a lease with a term long enough to enable a prospective lessee to obtain financing for the tourist-recreation development that ls contemplated. Among others who have in­dicated an interest in this area, the Cal-A­Nev Corp. plans to develop a multlmllUon­dollar resort on a 13,000-acre tract front~ng on the Colorado River near the U.S. Highway 66 crossing lf a long-term lease can be nego­tiated. The lands are unoccupied and un­used. at present but have a high potential for development for recreational purposes.

Assurance was given the committee that the Secretary of the Interior would approve a 99-year lease only lf the extended period ls absolutely essential and 1! lt ls consonant with the needs of the Indians.

If enacted, H.R. 2636 will extend to the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation the same long-term leasing provisions which have been made applicable to the Agua Caliente, Nava­jo, Seminole, Colorado River, and Southern Ute Reservations.

COST

The enactment of H.R. 2635 wlll entail no additional expenditure of Federal funds.

TRUST LANDS FOR INDIANS OF BATI'LE MOUNTAIN COLONY

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1885) to declare that the United States holds in trust for the Indians of the Battle Mountain Colony certain lands which are used for cemetery purposes which had been reported from the Com­mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, with an amendment, on page 2, after line 12, to insert a new section, as fol­lows:

SEC. 2. The Indian Claims Commission ls directed to determine in accordance wt th the provisions of section 2 of the Act of August 13, 1946 {60 Stat. 1050), the extent to which

20070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 22 the value of the lands conveyed under the authority of this Act should or should not be set off against any claim aga.lnst the United States determined by the Commis­sion subsequent to the conveyance.

So as to make the bll1 read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all of the rlght, title, and interest of the United States in the following described public do­main lands located in the State of Nevada is hereby declared to be held by the United States in trust for the Indians of the Battle Moun ta.in Colony:

Township 32, north, range 44 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, section 13, west half southeast quarter northwest quarter northeast quarter, containing 5 acres, plus a right-of-way for access purposes across the west 33 feet of the northeast quarter northwest quarter northeast quarter of said section 13.

Township 32 north, range 45 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, section 13, west half northwest quarter southwest quarter northeast quarter southwest quarter, con­taining 1 ¼ acres, plus a right-of-way for access purposes across the west 33 feet of the south half northwest quarter southwest quarter northeast quarter southwest quar­ter, southwest quarter southwest quarter northeast quarter southwest quarter and southeast quarter southwest quarter of said section 18.

SEC. 2. The Indian Claims Commission ls directed to determine in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1050), the extent to which the value of the lands conveyed under the authority of this Act .should or should not be set off against any claim against the United States determined by the Commission subsequent to the convey­ance.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed

for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re­port <No. 580), explaining the purposes of the bill.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1885, as amended, is to· place in a trust status for the Battle Moun­tain Indian Colony, Nevada, some 6.25 acres of withdrawn public domain for use as a cemetery.

NEED

The Indians have been using the two tracts for cemetery purposes. There are about 130 graves in one tract and some 16 graves in the other. The estimated fair market value of the two cemetery sites and right-of-way areas 1s $400. The colony, which had a population of '77 in· 1962, has beneficial interest in 680 acres of land. The cemetery sites are about one-half mile from the colony lands. The public domain land surrounding the cemetery sites ls vacant.

COST

There ls no appreciable cost involved in this legislation.

AMENDMENT

The committee has added a section 2 which would require the Indian Cla1Ins Com­mission to . determine the extent to which the value of the lands conveyed by the bill should be set off against any claim the tribe may have against the United States. This

ls the language consistently adopted by the committee in legislation donating Federal lands to Indian tribes.

RIGHTS OF NAVAJO TRIBE AND UTE MOUNTAIN TRIBE TO CERTAIN LANDS IN NEW MEXICO The bill (S. 1594) to determine the

rights of the Navajo Tribe and the Ute Mountain Tribe in and to certain lands in the State of New Mexico, was con­sidered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Navajo-Ute Boun­dary Dispute Act".

SEC. 2. The consent of the United States is hereby given to either or both the Navajo Tribe of Indians and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation to bring suit against the United States, as trustee'; against each other, and against any other tribe of Indians, persons, or entities, to quiet the beneficial title in and to such lands in the State of New Mexico as are common to the description contained in article II of the treaty concluded June 1, 1868, between the United States and the Navajo Nation or Tribe of Indians and proclaimed August 12, 1868 ( 15 Stat. 667), setting apart certain lands for the use and occupation of the Navajo Tribe of Indians, and to the descrip­tion contained in section 3 of the Act ap­proved February 20, 1895 (28 Stat. 677), setting apart certain lands for the sale and exclusive use and occupancy of the Southern Ute Indians described therein.

SEC. 3. Any action commenced pursuant to section 2 of this Act shall be heard and determined by a district court of three judges ln the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, in accordance with the provisions of title 28, United States Code, section 2284, and, subject to the provi­sions of section 4 of this Act, any party may appeal as of right directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final determination by such three Judge district court.

SEC. 4. It ls hereby declared to be the intent and the objective of the Congress that the relative rights and interests of all parties making ·c1a1Ins against the United States and each other in and to the surface and the subsurface of the lands identified in section 2 of this Act be judicially determined in accordance with such principles as may be just and fair in law and equity, Including a consistent award or awards or release or releases to either or both the Navajo Tribe and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation of such bonus sums, rentals, and royalties, or other moneys paid or received on account o! the leasing of any portion of such lands and now held in a joint account 1n the Treasury of the t7nited States pursuant to the agreement dated May 9, 1957, between the two tribes, approved by the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In furtherance of the aocomplish­men t of this intent and the attainment of this objective, the parties are hereby au­thorized to enter into a settlement agree­ment, in which provision may be made for a recognition in perpetuity of their relative rights to use and to enjoy the surface and the subsurface of the lands identified in section 2 of this Act, including the division of any and all of such bonus sums, rentals, · and royalties, or other moneys paid or re­ceived on account of the leasing of a.ny portion of said lands for any purpose or purposes. Such settlement agreement may be embodied in and be made a part of any

dec;ree of th~ ~urt, which thereupon shall · be final and concl~ve wi'\;h respect to the rights and interests of all parties.

SEC. 5. Nothing in this Aet shall be deemed to be a congressional determination of the merits of the conflicting tribal, individual Indian, or other claims against the United States with respect to the lands that are the subject of this Act.

Mr. MANSFIELD. M-r. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No. 581), explaining the purposes of the bill.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1594 is to authorize the Navajo Tribe or the Ute Mountain Tribe to commence litigation to determine the loca­tion of a part of the common boundary be­tween their two reservations. The litigation would be before a district court of three Judges in the U.S. District Court for the Dis­trict of New Mexico, with a statutory right of appeal direct to the Supreme Court. The district court would base its decision on "such principles as may be Just and fair in law and equity."

NEED

The Navajo boundary immediately south of the Colorado boundary was fixed by a treaty of June 1, 1868. In 1869 the boundary was surveyed and monumented but the monuments cannot be located at the present time. The Ute Mountain boundary was es­tablished by the act of February 20, 1895. Apparently there is an overlap and the pur­pose of the blll ls to quiet title to the land in one or the other of the tribes.

The dispute became active during the past decade when oil was discovered in the Four Corners area. The Navajo and Ute Moun­tain Tribes entered into an agreement dated May 9, 1957, wita the approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to lease the area Jointly and to place all revenue from the leases in a joint account pending a resolution of the dispute.

As of May 29, 1963, the bonuses, royalties, and rentals in the Joint account amounted to $4,983,226.02. This amount is subject to reduction by payment of severance and other States and local taxes. Accrued interest on the principal ·in the Joint account amounted to an additional $550,467.

Inasmuch as the Joint account agreement covers revenues from some lands that are not in dispute, the maximum amount that either tribe could expect to receive if it established its !ull claim to title would be about two­thirds of the total in the . Joint account.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, S. 1594 is designed to authorize the Navajo Tribe or the Ute Mountain Tribe to commence litigation to determine the location of a part of the common boundary between their two reservations. The action would be )>rought before a three-judge district court for the District of New Mexico, with a statutory right of appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Navajo boundary was fixed in 1868 just south of the Colorado-New Mexico line, and was surveyed and monumented in 1869. The monuments can no longer be located. In 1895 the Ute Mountain boundary was established, and there was apparently an overlap. As a result a dispute has .arisen 1n re­gard to the strip contained in the -over­lap. Both tribes have agreed to submit the issue to a judicial determination and

1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20071 to abide by the final adjudication. This bill will allow that adjudication to be made. I therefore appreciate the Sen­ate's consideration and passage of this bill.

BILL PASSED OVER The bill (H.R. 1989) to authorize the

Government of the Virgin Islands to issue general obligation bonds, was an­nounced as next in order.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Over, Mr. Presi­dent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

AMENDMENT OF LAW WITH RE­SPECT TO TRADE WITH INDIANS The Senate proceeded to consider the

bill <S. 1718) to amend the law with re­spect to tr.ade with the Indians and for other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and In­sular Affairs with an amendment on page 2, after line 3, to strike out:

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the persons subject thereto in such cases and un­der such circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior by general rule or regulation.

(c) Nothing contained in this section or in section 437 of title 18 of the United States Code 'Shall be construed as preventing Indian employees of the United States Government, of whatever degree of Indian blood, during their term of employment or otherwise, from obtaining or -receiving any benefit or benefits made available to the Indians generally or to the members of any particular tribe, under any Act of Congress, nor to prevent such em­ployees having Indian blood from being members of or receiving benefits by reason of their membership in Indian tribes, corpo­rations, ,or cooperative associations organized by the India~s. when authorized by-the Sec­retary-Of the.Interior under appropriate regu­lations to be promulgated by him.

And, in lieu thereof, to insert: (b) Notwithstanding t}:le provisions of

subsection {a) of this section or the provi­sions of section 437 of title 18 of the United States Code, employees of the United States Government, including those employed in Indian Affairs, may, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe, be permitted to purchase from or sell to any Indian or Indian orga­nization any arts and crafts or any other product, service, labor, land, or commodity, produced, rendered, owned, controlled, or furnished by any Indian or Indian organiza­tion or by such employees: Provided, That no employee shall be permitted to make any such purchases for the purpose of engaging directly or indirectly in the commercial sell­ing, reselling, trading, or bartering of said purchases by such employee: Provided fur­ther, That no provision of law shall be con­strued as preventing Indian employees of the United States Government, of whatever de- . gree of Indian blood, during their term of em­ployment or otherwise, from obtaining or re­ceiving ~ny benefit or benefits made available to the Indians generally or to the members of any particular tribe, under any Act of Congress. nor to prevent such employees having Indian blood from being m.embers of or receiving benefits by reason of their mem­bership 1n .Indian tribes, · corporations, or cooperative associations organized by the Indians, when authorized by the Secretary of the Interior under appropriate regulations to be promulgated by him.

C.IX--1264

· So as to make the bill read: · Be it enacted by the Senate a.nd House of

Representatives of the United States of .America in Congress assembled, That section 2078 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 68). and section 14 of the Act of June 30, 1:834 (4: Stat. '738), are amended to read as follows:

" (a) Except as permitted by subsection (b), any person employed in Indian affairs who shall have any interest or concern in any trade with Indians residing on an Indian reservation which ls not for, and on account of, the United States shall be liable to a penalty .of not to exceed $5,000 and, in the discretion of the head of his department or agency, may be removed from office.

"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section or the provi­sions of section 437 of title 18 of the United States Code, employees of the United States Government, including those employed in Indian Affairs, may, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior s~ll prescribe, be permitted to purchase from or sell to any Indian or Indian orga­nization any arts and crafts or any other product, service, labor, land, or commodity, produced, rendered, owned, controlled, or furnished by any lndian or Indian organiza­tion or by such employees: Provided, That no employee shall be permitted to make any such purchases for the purpose of engaging directly or indirectly in the commercial sell­ing, reselling, trading, or bartering of said purchases by such employee: Provided, fur­ther, That no provision of law shall be con­strued as preventing Indian employees of the United States Government, of whatever de­gree of Indian blood, during their term of employment or otherwise, from obtaining or receiving any benefit or benefits made available to the Indians generally or to the members of any particular tribe, under any Act of Congress, nor to prevent such em­ployees having Indian blood from being members of or receiving benefits by reason of their membership in indian ·tribes, corpo­rations, or cooperative associations organized by the Indians, when authorized by the Sec­retary of the Interior under approprl.ate reg­ulations to be promulgated by him."

SEC. 2. The Act of June 19, 1939 . (.ch. 210, 53 Stat. 840). ls repealed.

The amendment was agreed to. · The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re­port <No. 583), explaining the purposes of the bill. ·· ·

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. , 1718, as amended, is to amend section 2078 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 68) and section 14 of the act of June 30, 1834 ( 4 Stat. '788) as amended by the act of June 19, 1939 (53 Stat. 840) relat­ing to trade with Indians.

The 1834 act provided that; "No person employed in Indian affairs shall

have any interest or concern in any trade with the Indians, except for, and on account of,... the United States; and any person of­fending herein. shall be liable to penalty of $5,000, and shall be removed from his office."

The act of June 19,, 1939, attempted to eliminate the inequities of the 1834 act, but did not do so entirely.

NEED From the 1939 act lt 1s not clear whether

employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

are authorized to purchase the labor of In­dians as distinguished from their services, or when purchase of a service would be "for the purpose of engaging directly or indirect­ly in the commercial selling, reselling. trad­ing or bartering" of such .J)urcha:se. These ambiguities are lllustrated by the :followtng case: An employee of the -Bureau o-r Indian Affairs who operates on hls own time a truck farm located near a reservation has requested permission to employ Indians for general farmwork at prevailing or above p-revalling wage rates. There is considerable unemploy­ment in the area and the Indians would be benefited materially by auch an employment opportunity. There appears to be no pos­sib111ty that the employee would overreach the Indians or otherwise take advantage of his Bureau employment tn hiring the In­dians. The Bureau, however, ls unable to give positive assurance to the employee that his action in hiring the Indians would .not subject him to the mandatory sanctions of the 1884 statute because of the question that exists about whether the purchase of labor ts permitted by the 1939 act ~nd whether th~ sale of produce from the truck farm would constitute a "direct or indirect" sale or re­sale of the Indian labor.

Although the 1939 act authorized Federal employees to make purchases from Indians, it did not authorize employees to sell any property or service to Indians. Numerous situations have been encountered where this lack of authority has worked to the detri­ment of both Indians and employees. For example, where a retired employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs who happens to be an Indian requests another employee to per­f~rm a service (such as preparing an income tax return, or appraising a piece of property) during the emplotee's free time after his weekly tour of duty has been completed, .ac­ceptance by the employee of any compensa­tion for the service performed would con­stitute a violation of the statute and subject him to the mamiatory penalties pr.escr1bed. Another example ls where an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C., who ls of Indian extraction wants to buy a home in the suburbs of Washington from another non-Indian· Bureau 'employee who ls being transferred to the field service of the Bureau, but the sale by the non­Indian employee would be a violation of the statute.

Subsection l(a) of the bill is the same as present law (see. 2078 of the Revised Statutes and act of June 30, 1834), except that it ls limited to trade · with Indians residing on Indian reservations. It does not apply to Indians who have left the reservation and have become a part of normal communities.

Subsection l(b) of .the blll, as amended, ts the same as present law (act of June 19, 1939) except for the addition of certain words. These words permit Government em­ployees to make sales to Indians, as well as to m.ake purchases (Which is the present law), and the subject matter .of the trade may in­clude labor and land in addition to products, services, .and commodities. ·

It should be noted that the pl'ohibltion ·against resales in commercial · trade 1s retained.

COST

The enactment of ·s. 1718 will not involve any additional expenditure -of Federal funds.

DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS ON DEPOSIT "T:O CREDrr OF KOOTENAI INDIANS, IDAHO.

The bill <S. 2139) to provide for· the disposition of Judgment funds on deposit to the credit of the . Kootenai Tribe of Ind~ans. · Idaho, was. considered, ordered t.o be engrossed tor a third r~ading. was

20072 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 22 read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,· That the unexpended balance of funds on deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Kootenai Tribe or Band of In­dians of the State of Idaho that were ap­propriated by the Act of September 8, 1960 (74 Stat. 880), to pay a Judgment by the Indian Claims Commission in docket 154, and the interest thereon, may be advanced or expended for any purpose that ls au­thorized by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Any part of such funds that may be dis­tributed per capita to the members of the tribe shall not be subject to the Federal or State income tax.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re­port (No. 584), explaining the purposes of the bill.

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

PURPOSE The purpose of S. 2189, intro-'1,uced as a

result of an executive communication, is to provide for the distribution of an award to the Kootenai Tribe by the Indian Claims Commission of approximately $380,000.

NEED

Docket 154 in the Indian Claims Commis­sion involved a claim based upon the value of the lands in Idaho and Montana that were taken by the United States under the treaty of July 16, 1855, without the consent of the Bonners Ferry Kootenai Band. The Indian Claims Commission found that the Bonners Ferry Kootenai were entitled to the value of approximately 1,160,000 acres of land in northwest Idaho and northwest Montana determined as of March 8, 1859, the date of the actual taking of the lands.

On March 24, 1960, the parties in the case filed a Joint motion for entry of a final judgment based upon a stipulated settle­ment of •425,000. The motion was granted. From this award, the attorneys representing the tribe were allowed fees and ~xpenses in the total sum ot $65,845.1~5,.Ieavlng a balance of $359,644.16 which ls presently on deposit in the U.S. Treasury to the credit of the Kootenai Tribe or Band of Indians and bears interest at 4, percent per annum. The prin­cipal and interest as of July 29, 1963, amounted to $379,898.46.

The Judgment was in favor of the Kootenai Tribe or Band of the State of Idaho. The Bonners Ferry Kootenai are the successors in interest of this group and the Judgment funds are made Q.vallable to them for use under the rules that apply ,to tribal funds generally. ·

The tribe has indicated it favors employ­ment of the Judgment fund for the socio­economic improvement of tribal me_mbers through a family-plan program and for other purposes. The blll will permit the Kootenai, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to decide precisely how they wlJl program their Judgment funds.

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF COLO­RADO RIVER INDIAN RESERVA­TION~ ARIZ. AND CALIF.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill -CS. 2111) to fix the beneficial owner­ship of the Colorado River Indian Res­ervation located in the States of Ari­zona and California, which had been

reported from-the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, with an amendment on page 3, after line 14, to strike out:

SEc. 4. Nothing in this Act shall affect, or be ta.k~n into consideration in the a.dJudica.­"t;lon of, or with respect to, claims now pend­ing by the tribes against the United States, except that no recovery for any of the lands subject to this Act shall be allowed in any claim.

And, in lieu thereof, to insert: SEC. 4. This Act shall become effective

upon the agreement of the tribes to aban­don the claims now pending in docket num­bered 185 and in docket numbered 283A be­fore the Indian Claims Commission under the Act of Augus-t 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049), and the dismissal of said claims by the In­dian Claims Commission. N othlng in this Act shall affect or be taken into considera­tion in the adjudloatlon of, or with respect to, any other cla.ims now pending by the tribes against the United States.

So as to make the bill read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, for the purpose o.f fixing the beneficial ownership of real property interests in the Colorado River Reservation now occupied by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, its members, and cer­tain Indian colonists, all right, title, and interest of the United States in the un­allotted lands of the Colorado River Reser­vation, including water rights and mineral rights therein, together with all improve­ments located thereon and appurtenant thereto, except improvements placed on the land by assignees or by Indian colonists, and except improvements furnished by the United States for administrative purposes (including irrigation fa.cll1tles) or for the housing of Federal employees, are hereby declared to be tribal property held in trust by the United States for the use and benefit of the Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation.

SEC. 2. For the purpose of this Act: (a) "Tribes" means the Colorado River

Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Reser­vation, with a constitution adopted pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act Of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat . . 984; 26 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), a.s said constitution now exists or may here­after be amended, consisting of a band of the Mohave Indians, the band of Chemehuevi Indians affiliated therewith, and various In­dians heretofore or hereafter adopted by the Colorado River Indian Tribes.

(b) "Colorado River Reservation" means the reservation for Indian use established by the Act of March 8, 1866 ( 13 Stat. 559) , as modified and further defined by Executive orders of November 22, 1873, November 16, 1874, May 16, 1876, and November 22, 1915, all of which area shall be deemed to constitute said reservation.

SEC. 3. Any person of Indian blood, his spouse of Indian blood ( excluding persons whose Indian blood is traceable solely to Indian tribes, bands, or groups not resident in or subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States), and any dependent child of either or both of them, who ls not a member of the tribes on the date of this Act, and who has settled on irrigated lands of the Colorado River Reservation through application for a settler's land permit and who is still hold­ing such lands by virtue of the authority of a temporary land use permit issued by or under the authority of the tribes or the Federal Government, shall be deemed to be adopted by the tribes 1! within two years from the date of this Act he files with the tribal council a statement accepting mem­bership in the tribes and renouncing mem~ bership in any other tribe, band, or group. Such ctatement may be filed on behalf of

a. dependent child by either parent or by a person standing in loco parentls.

SEC. 4. This Act shall become effective upon the agreement of the tribes to abandon the claims now pending in docket numbered 185 and in docket numbered 283A before the Indian Claims Commission und.er the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049), and the dismissal of sa!d claims by the Indian Claims Commission. Nothing in this Act shall affect or be taken into consideration in the adjudication of, or with respect to, any other claims now pending by the tribes against the United States.

SEC. 5. The Act of June 11, 1960 (74 Stat. 199), as amended by the Act of September 5, 1962 (76 Stat. 428), is am.ended to read as follows:

"The Secretary of the Interior is author­ized to approve leases of lands on the Colo­rado River Indian Reservation, Arizona. and California, for such uses and terms as are authorized by the Act of May 11, 1938 (52 Stat. 347; 25 U.S.C. 396a. et seq.), and the Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539), as amended (25 U.S.C. 415 et seq.), inclucang the same uses and terms as are permitted thereby on the Aqua. Caliente (Palm Springs), Dania, Navajo and Southern Ute Reserva­tions: Provided, however, That the author­ization herein granted to the Secretary of the Interior shall not extend to any lands lying west of the present course of the Colo­rado River and south of section 25 of town­ship 2 south, range 23 east, San Bernardino base and meridian in California, and shall not be construed to affect the resolution of any controversy over the location of the boundary of the Colorado River Reservation· Provided, further, That any of the described. lands in California shall be subject to the provisions of this Act when and if determined to be within the reservation."

· The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed

for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the re­port (No. 585), explaining the purposes of the bill. .

There being :qo objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: '

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 2111, introduced by Sena.tor CHURCH at the request of the De­partment of the Interior, is to declare the Colorado River Reservation to be the prop­erty of the Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation. Improve­ments placed on the land by assignees and Indian colonists would be excepted, as would Federal improvements. 'nle Colorado River Reservation is defined as the reservation which was established by the a.ct of March 8, 1865 ( 13 Stat. 559), and subsequently · modified by Executive orders. ·

The bill defines "tribes" to mean the group of Mohave and Chemehuevi Indians who a.re organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 ( 48 Stat. 984; 25 u.s.c. 461 et seq.), and such other Indians who have been or may be adopted by this group. Indians who are not members of the tribes on the date of the act, but who applied for a. settler's land permit and stm hold reserva­tion land under authority of the tribe or the Federal Government, shall be deemed to be adopted by the tribes if they file a state­ment accepting membership within 2 years. Such Indians would be required to renounce membership in any other tribe.

'nle bill does not become effective unless the tribes abandon the claims now pending in docket No. 186 and in docket 283A before the Indian Claims Commission.

1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20073 Existing law relating to- leasing authority

on the reservation ls a.D)ended by section 5 of the bllL

REHABn..ITATION OF GUAM The bill (H.R. 6225) to provide for the

rehabilitation of Guam and for other purposes was considered, ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

URBAN RENEWAL AND HOUSING ACTIVITIES ON GUAM

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is not the intention of the leadership at this time to take up Calendar No. 565, H.R. 6481, to permit the government of Guam to authorize a public authority to undertake' urban renewal and housing activities, but I ask to call up Calendar No. 553, Senate bill 16.

OZARK NATIONAL RIVERS, MO. There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the bill <S. 16) to provide for the establishment of the Ozark National Rivers in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendments, on page 2, line 8, after the word "Missouri.", to insert ''Notwith­standing any limitation herein, the Sec­retary, with the concurrence of the State, shall designate for inclusion in the Ozark National River.s, the lands com­posing Big Springs, Alley Springs, and Round Spring State Parks, and the Sec­retary of the Interior is hereby directed to negotiate with the State for the dona­tion and the .inclusion of such park lands in the Ozark.National Rivers."; on page 4, line 5, after the word "thousand", to strike out "acres" and insert ''acres. ex­clusive of State park land to be donated by the State of Missouri"; after line 7, to strike out:

SEC. 5. (a) In order to provide compensa­tion for tax losses sustained by c~mnties in the S1iate of Missouri as a result of certain acquisitions by the Secretary of privately owned real estate and improvements thereon pursuant to the provisions of this Act, pay­ments in lieu of taxes shall be made to each such county in which such real estate ls located, and which has been authorized, unqer the laws of Missouri, t.o assess taxes upon .real estate to the person who 1s in possession thereof and to assess taxes upon any present interest in real estate to the owner of such interest, in accordance with the following schedule: For the calendar year ln which the real estate 1s acquired 1n fee simple absolute, an amount which bee.rs the same proportion to the full amount of tax assessed thereon ln such year as the number of days remaining 1n such year a.ft.er the date of .acquisltion bears to th.e number or three hundred and sixty-.five. ln any case where _an .amount 1n excess o! the dif­ference between such proportionate amount and such full amount has already been paid to the county by or on behalf of the owner or owners from whom the real estate was so acquired. payment of such excess a.mount shall be made as reimbursement to such owner or owners out o! such proportionate a.mount and only the balance remaining o! such proportionat:e a.mount shall be pa.id to the county, For the two succeeding cal-.

enda.r YeafS there ~11 be paid on account o! such real estate an amount equal to the !ull amount . of tax assessed thereon 1n the year of acquisition.

(b) No payments tn Ueu of taxes shall be made on account of real estate and improve­ments thereon in which the Secretary has ever acquired less thiµi a fee simple and absolute under this Act.

( c) As soon as practicable after real estate taxes have been assessed by such counties in each calendar year, the Secretary shall compute and certify the amount of payments 1n lieu of taxes due to each of such counties, and such amounts shall be paid to the re­spective counties by the Secretary of the Treasury out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

( d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any property acquired by the Sec­retary after December 31 of the twenty-fifth year following the date of enactment of this Act.

On page 5, at the beginning of line 24, to change the section number from "6" to "5"; on page 6, at the beginning of line 19, to change the section number from "7" to "6"; on page 7, at the be­ginning of line 4, to change the section number from "8" to "7"; on page 8, at the beginning of line 12, to change the section number from "9" to "8"; and at the beginning of line 15, to change the section number from "10" to "9"; so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That. for the purpose of conserving and interpreting unique scenic and other natural values and objects of historic interest, including preser­vation of portions of the Current River and the Jacks Fork River in Missouri as free-flow­ing streams, preservation of springs and caves, protection of wildlife, and provision for use and enjoyment thereof by the P!:'Ople of the United States. the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Sec­·retaTy") shall designate for establishment as the Ozark National Rivers an area (herein­after referred to as "such area") not exceed­ing 94,000 acres and being generally depicted on map numbered NR-OZA-7000 entltled "Proposed Ozark National Rivers" dated January 1963, which map is on file for public inspection in the Office of the Na­tional Park Service, Department of the In­terior: Provided,, That no lands shall be designated wltbin two miles of the munici­palities of Eminence and Van Buren, Mis­souri. Notwithstanding any limitation herein, the Secretary, with the concurrence of the State, shall designate for inclusion in tbe Ozark National Rivers, the lands compos­ing Big Springs, Alley Springs, and Round Spring State Parks, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed to negotiate with the State for the donation and the inclusion of such park lands ln tbe Ozark National · Rivers.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior may, within tbe area designated or altered pur­suant to section 4, acquire lands and waters, or interests therein, including scenic ease­ments, by sucb means as he may deem to be in the public interest: Provided, That scenic easements may only be acquired with the consent of the owner of the lands or waters thereof: And pr,ovided. further, That any parcel of land containing not more than five hundred acres, which borders either the Cur­rent River or the Jacks Fork River, and which is being -primarily used for agricultural pur­poses. shall be acquired by the Secretary in its entir.ety unless the owner of any such parcel eonsen ts to the acquisition ·of · a part thereof. Lands and waters owned by the State of Missouri within- such area ma-y be acquired only with the consent of the State.

Federally owned lands or waters lying Within such area shall, upon establishment of the area pursuant to section 4 hereof. be trans­ferred to the administrative jurisd1ct1on of the Secretary, without transfer of f.unds, for administration as part of the Ozark National Rivers.

SEC. 3. Any owner or owners, including beneficial owners ( hereinafter in this section referred to as "owner"), of improved property on the date of its acquisition by the Secre­tary may, as a condition to such acquisition, retain the rlght of use and occupancy of the improved property !or noncommercial resi­dential purposes for a term ending at the death of such owner, or the death of his spouse, or at the death of the survivor of ' either of them. The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. The Secretary shall pay to the owner the 1'air market value of the property on the date of such acquisition less the fair market value on such date of the r ight retained by the owner.

SEC. 4 . When the Secretary determines t hat lands and waters, or interests therein, h ave been acquired by the United States tn sufficient quantity to provide an administra­ble unit, he shall declare estabUshment of the Ozark National Rivers by publication of notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary may thereafter alter such boundaries from time to time, except that the total acreage in the Ozark National Rivers shall not exceed ninety-four thousand acres. e.xclustve of State park land to be donated by the State of Missouri.

SEc. 5. (a} In furtherance of the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the State of Missouri, its political subdivisions, and other Federal agencies and organizations in formulating comprehensive plans for the Ozark National Rivers and for the related watersheds of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers in Missouri, and to enter into agreements for the imple­mentation of such plans. Such plans may provide for land use and development pro­grams, for preservation and · enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape, and for conservation of outdoor resources in the wa­tersheds of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

(b) The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters under his

' jurlsdlction within the · Ozark National Rivers area in accordance with the laws of Missouri. The Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunt­ing shall be permitted, for reasons of public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment and shall issue regulations after consultation with the Conservation Commis­sion of the State of Missouri.

SEC. 6. The Ozark National Rivers shall be administered in accordance with the pro­visions of the Act o! August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535}, as amended and supplemented, and in accordance with other laws of general appli­cation relating to the areas administered and supervised by the Secretary through the Na­tional Park Service; except that authority otherwise available to the Secretary for the conservation and management-Of natural re­sources may be utilized to the extent he finds such authority will furth-er the purposes of this Act.

SEC~ 7. {a) There is hereby established an Ozark National Rivers Commission. The Commission shall cease to exlst ten years after the date of establishment of the area pursuant to section 4 of this Act.

(b) The Commission shall be composed of seven members each appointed for a term of two years by the Secretary as .follows~

(1) Four members to be appointed from recommendations made by the members of the county court 1n each of the counties in which the Ozark National Rivers is situated (Carter, Dent, Shannon, and Texas), one member .from the recommendations made by each such court;

20074 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October "22 (2) Two members to be appointed from

recommendations of the Governor of the State of Missouri; and

(3) One member to be designated by the Secretary.

(c) The Secretary shall designate one member to be chairman. Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same man­ner in which the original appointment was made.

(d) A member . of the Commission shall serve without compensation as such. The Secretary shall reimburse members of the Commission for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of the duties vested in the Commission.

( e) The Secretary or his deslgnee shall from time to time consult with the members of the Commission with respect to matters relating to the development of the Ozark National Rivers, and shall consult with the members with respect to carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(f) It shall be the duty of the Commis­sion to render advice to the Secretary from time to time upon matters which the Secre­tary may refer to it for its consideration.

SEC. a. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 9. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the re­mainder of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance other than that to which it ls held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. President, October is a most appropriate time to consider the pending measure to estab­lish the Ozark National Rivers. The brilliant golds and reds of our wood­lands at this time of year make each of us extremely conscious of nature's beauty. It is the purpose of S. 16 to pre­serve for our children and our children's children a little of this beauty.

In south Missouri, two sparkling spring-fed rivers wind their way among gentle hills. A great portion of the land through which they flow is near wilder­ness. The canoe, and the johnboat have been used to float these rivers for gen­erations. The splendor and the gran­deur of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers country are unsurpassed.

S. 16, introduced by my colleague from Missouri and myself, would preserve these two beautiful rivers as free-flow­ing streams. It would place wider the administration of the National Park Service 94,000 acres situated along some 140 miles of the two rivers.

Included within the area are some of the largest springs in the world. Big Spring at Van Buren has :flowed as much as 840 million gallons a day and over the past 20 years has averaged better than 250 million· gallons a · day. Six springs in the area :flow more than 65 million gallons a day. Near to the rivers are many caves and numerous signif­icant geological, ecological, and archeo­logical sites. The enactment of this bill would insure the conse:i:vation of these many wonders of nature.

Mr. President, it ls impossible to de­scribe in words the beauty of these rivers and the surrounding wilderness. Many have tried, but even the most eloquent are unable to recreate the majesty of this area. I ask unanimous consent that several articles and editorials be printed

in the R:e:coRD at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

<See exhibit 1.) Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi­

dent, the idea that the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers be preserved as free­flowing streams dates back many years: The State of Missouri has established four State parks in the area, three along the Current River and one along the Jacks Fork. In 1955 the National Park Service with the supPQrt and cooperation of interested State agencies undertook a study and prepared a report that was printed by the State in 1956. In Janu­ary 1959, the State legislature asked the Congress to establish a national rec­reation area along the rivers to preserve them as free-flowing streams. Since that time, further studies have been made and the bill before us today is the culmination of the efforts of all inter­ested parties.

With the press of civilization, it is essential that positive action be taken if a Portion of our natural bounty is to be preserved. The Senate has an oppor­tunity today to set aside for all our Na­tion two of the few remaining free-flow­ing streams. I urge the Senate to approve S. 16 as reported by the Interior Committee.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to read a letter Written to Senator SYMINGTON and myself by a warm friend of ours, Mr. Anthony Buford. The let­ter was written several months ago prior to subcommittee hearings on the bill. It states the case for the bill most clear­ly and most eloquently.

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

CLAYTON, Mo., April 3, 1963. Senator STUART SYMINGTON, and Senator EDWARD V. LoNG, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SYMINGTON AND SENATOR LONG: I deeply regret that I will not be able to appear on Monday, April 8, favoring the passage of senate bill 16 and House bill 1803, to establish the Ozark National Rivers on the Current and Jacks Fork.

I would deeply appreciate it if you would present my respects to Senator BI'BLE and to the members of the Interior and Insular Af­f~lrs Committee, and give them, my reasons for favoring this measure.

As you well know, Senator, this is the country where I was born and spent a most happy boyhood. These are the streams I have floated, camped, and fished along for almost 50 years-the hills I have roamed since I was a youngster. I am not only a native Ozarkian, but a native of the Current River watershed which is under considera­tion. It has been my home and its people have long been my friends and neighbors.

The development of this area for recrea­tion-and its preservation for the whole peo­ple of the United States and for posterity­these are objectives which have been close to my heart and which have engaged my effort for many years.

Like many other Americans, I believe there are certain areas of this great country of ours which have unique qualities that make them especially deserving of preservation. It has been my good fortune throughout my lifetime to travel widely, not only here in America, but abroad. And I can say sin-

cerely that in our southeastern Ozarks we have qualities of beauty, and of geological and botanical interest that are u:µsurpassed anywhere. It ls not for nothing that the Current River has been called "the most beautiful stream on our continent" and its great, everflowlng springs the most beautiful in the world.

Despite these qua-lltles ·which have long attracted a considerable number of recreation seekers, the region under consideration has not been able to provide a full and rich life for its people. Its riches are of beauty, rather than of resources that can provide adequate income, education for its young people, medical care, and social services. Farmlands are submarginal in the extreme. The forest resource, badly used for nearly a hundred years, is a long way from profitable production. Mineral exploration has turned up possibilities, but experience proves these take years for development and are not of broad economic benefit to the local people.

The future lies in the field of recreation. Commercialization, however, could spell the destruction of values which must be pre­served and restored.

As a young man I had the great pleasure of floating Current River on many occasions with the late U.S. Senator Harry B. Hawes, whom many members of this committee will recall as one of America's outstanding con­servationists and aut;tior of the outstanding book, "The Black Bass... Senator Hawes so· loved Current River that he built his sum­mer home there and requested that his ashes be scattered on the waters of this lovely stream.

In view of the foregoing-and because I have considered carefully the various plans for the region-I want you, as well . as Con­gressman !CHORD, to know of my earnest sup­port for the Ozark National Rivers proposal.

Sincerely yours, ANTHONY A. BUFORD.

ExHmIT 1 [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 9,

1963) BEST CHANCE FOR THE RIVERs-SENATE BILL To

SAVE OzARKs STREAMS REcOMMENDED TO .WILDERNESS LOVERS

(The Sierra Club, with headquarters at Berkeley, Calif., was founded in 1892 "to ex­plore, enjoy, and protect the Nation's scenic resources.")

The idea of National Rivers ls one which ls long overdue, and we may yet see a few free-flowing streams preserved without com­mercial development if this new concept of recreational and scenic resource preservation can be put into practice.

The best chance for implementing such a program, at present, is offered by Senate bill 16, introduced in the 88th Congress by Sen­ators SYMINGTON and LONG of Missouri. The blll would establish the current and Jacks Fork Rivers in the Missouri Ozarks as the OZark National Rivers.

The Current and Jacks Fork are unques­tionably two of the most unique and un­spoiled clearwater rivers left in the eastern Unlted States. Located in Missouri's Big Springs country, they are not only fed by gigantic, scenic springs, but in the immediate area provide the possiblllty of numerous ecological preserves, blstorical and archaeo­logical sites, notable karst attractions such as caves, sinks, and natural bridges, and ex­cellent opportunity for family camping.

Most of the 43 canoeable miles of the Jacks Fork are near wilderness. Floaters who "put· in" at the "Prongs" or at Buck Hollow (Mis­souri 17) Bridge, find that fast, clear water carries them through short pools and numer­ous riffles in sections where Venus-hair fern and other unusual flora line the intimately close banks. Even rare lady's slippers cling to inaccessible places on overhanging bluffs. Place names along this stream.have a special

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE 200.75. lure: Chimney Rock Cave, Blue Spring, Jam­up Bluff, Lost Hollow, Lick Log Hollow, Ebb­and-Flow Spring, and others.

The most scenic and most often canoed part of the Current River is the 62-mile sec­tion between Montauk State Park and the confluence with the Jacks Fork. There are 38 more miles of attractive river before the largest single spring in the world is reached at Big Spring State Park. The trip from Montauk to Big Spring makes an ideal week­long canoe trip even for the family with small children. Provided that the youngest wear life jackets, there is almost no serious danger on this river in normal water.

In 1962, Senator SYMINGTON and Repre­sentative !CHORD introduced bills which pro­posed an "Ozark Rivers National Monument." This included the Eleven Point River and parts of the Current River not included in the present bill.

The Symington-Ichord bills were opposed by local factions who supported a bill intro­duced by Representative CURTIS. A princi­pal difference and weakness of the Curtis bill, many conservationists felt, was that it would have placed the area under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service rather than the National Park Service and emphasized "scenfc ease­ments" rather than land acquisition.

Since overdevelopment and commercializa­tion of national parks in recent years has angered many conservationists, the Curtis bill received early support out of all propor­tion to the size of the special interest groups behind it.

This support was largely lost after it be­came obvious that the bill was a "road block" measure designed to suggest that Missourians were so divided on the question that it did not want action by Congress. Unfortunately, the "campaign of obfuscation" was success­ful in delaying action and in reducing the size of the area to be protected.

The most important changes in the new bill are:

1. Th~ loss of the Eleven Point River; about 45 miles of prime quality canoe stream in the Missouri plus Greer Spring, the only wild, first magnitude spring left in the Ozarks. The present owner of Greer Spring maintains it as a preserve but there is no guarantee for the future.

Letters from both Senator SYMINGTON and Congressman lcHORD indicate that the dele­tion of the Eleven Point was made at the request of Congressman PAUL C. JoNEs whose 10th Missouri Congressional District includes Ripley, Oregon, and Howell Counties. Con­gressman JONES last year conducted a poll which indicated that a majority of his con­stituents were opposed to setting aside any land in their counties under the National Park Service.

Mr. !CHORD points out that the House of Representatives "will not pass legislation set­ting aside land for public ownership in a Member's district where the Member him­self is opposed to the legislation."

It is encouraging to note, however, that residents of the 10th District are also re­ported to show no significant support for the proposed Water Valley Dam in Arkansas which would back water up on the lower Eleven Point in Missouri. It is possible that the Eleven Point may yet be saved if action is taken in the near future.

2. Omission of the lower Current River. This section (in Ripley County) should never have been included in the first place as It does not have the high quality of the upper sections; it is bigger and slower and subject · to outboard motor traffic. The · Current is primarily a canoe and johnboat stream and should be retained as such. Mechanized travel wlll destroy its semlwilderness quality and charm.

3. :Including the scenic easements as one means of protecting the shoreline while pro­vision for acquisition of lands is retained.

4. Permitting hunting which would not interfere with public safety. Since the area would be more nearly a "recreation area" than a national park and since I have never seen a hunter along the banks of these rivers in years of floating them, I cannot see any threat to national park integrity or to public safety.

5. A provision which would strengthen the blll would be the inclusion, 1n the Ozark Na­tional Rivers Commission, of a member to . represent the paddle boat interests, since the rivers are suited for canoe, kayak, and john­boat travel. If noisy airboats and other mechanized craft continue to invade these rivers, preservation will have been thwarted.

All things considered, Senate bill 16 is sound and reasonable. If it passes in the 88th Congress, it will not only save a unique river system for high quality recreational use, but may encourage the preservation of other such rivers. The ORRRC studies showed that there are few such rivers left in the United States. If it does not pass, we may lose the Current and Jacks Fork forever because the inroads of commercialism and mechanization have been greatly increased by national monument publicity.

[From the Joplin Globe, Mar. 24, 1963] OZARK RIVERS PLAN LAGS

With the official arrival of spring-and blossoming evidence of it soon to be seen in our matchless Ozarks--one wonders when Congress is going to spring into action to bring the Current River country under some sort of protection by the National Park Serv­ice against further exploitation.

Efforts along this line have been pending in Congress for quite some years now, and each year brings more commercial encroach­ment upon the natural beauty of that south Missouri wonderland, awaiting protective ac­tion. Some of these years it may be too late.

The latest word was in late January when Missouri Senators SYMINGTON and LoNG and Congressman ICHORD introduced identical b1lls in the Senate and House to bring a reduced area of the current and Jacks Fork River basins into the Park Service under the name of Ozark National Rivers.

These measures are aime~ at overcoming opposition by eliminating the Eleven Point River and parts of three counties from the projected park area. Also the name of the reserve would be changed from Ozark Na­tional Monument to Ozark National Rivers and the Park Service would take protective jurisdiction under land easements rather than outright purchases.

BACKED BY UDALL

Counties. This would be 100 miles along the Current and 89 miles of Jacks Fork, and some 94,000 acres bordering those rivers.

- PLANS NOT COMPLETE The plan of the Park Service for develop­

m~nt has not been wo.!ked out, awaiting passage of the necessary legislation. But the general idea would be to safeguard · the natural bM,uty of the country along both streams, and to make it possible for Mis­souri's famed river floats in that area to be continued, forever prohibiting any dams or commercial developments that might interfere.

While the region involved ls not within the immediate area or' the Ozark Playgrou,nds Association, headquartered in Joplin, it is adjacent to this tourist region and its de­velopment by the National Park Service would be a fresh boon to the growing tourist industry in Missouri.

Perhaps a resolution by the present Mis­souri Legislature again endorsing the Current River program, plus new urging by the Mis­souri Division of Commerce and Industrial Development would help to speed final action on these pending bills at this session of Congress.

Springtime should be a good time to thus focus attention anew on this extraordinary beauty spot of nature.

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 13, 1963]

THE CURRENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF Nobody can speak for the Current River as

that Ozark stream speaks for itself, espe- , cially on a day with beauty to match the river's beauty. That was demonstrated again by the impression made on Repre­sentative MORRIS, · chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, and other subcom­mittee members on a weekend float in con­nection With their consideration of the pro­posal to put the CUrrent and Jacks Fork under the protection of the National Park Service.

Photographs, specialists' reports, the testi­mony of subcommittee witnesses, and the enthusiasm of Representative lcHORD and Senator SYMINGTON had not persuaded Mr. MORRIS, a New Mexican accustomed to quite different scenery, as did the sight of the river and its banks. At the end of the float he spoke ' like a real convert to the Ozarks Rivers cause, and we trust this wlll lead to action by his group on the pending legisla­tion before the end of the session.

As for the handful of "pickets" who sought to dissuade the subcommittee, they appeared in numbers too small to substan­tiate their claimed strength. Representa­tive lcHoRD's extensive poll of residents of the area is far more convincing. But the Current itself made the case for its preser­vation for posterity, and made it with Its usual dazzle.

This compromise was made after bllls in­cluding the Eleven Point River died in the 87th Congress last year, due mainly to op­position by the constituency of Congressman PAUL JONES in Oregon, Howell, and Ripley Counties. JONES is understood to favor the new plan, which also is endorsed by Sec-retary of the Interior Udall. [From the Kansas City Star, Sept. 12, .1963)

But no hearings on the new bills have OZARK RIVER~PROPER PRESERVATION OF A been held or scheduled, insofar as we have NATION'S BEAUTY learned. And, once again, time ls wasting. The Senate Public Lands Subcommittee The coming of another tourist season well has voted . to give the Ozark National Rivers may mean more exploitation and less pro- to the Nation, and obviously that is where tected scenic beauty in the region involved. the area belongs. The decision to table the

Whether It is called Ozark Rivers National Prairie National Park proposal for Kansas Monument or simply Ozark National Rivers was something else. Frankly, we fail to fol­makes no real difference. The important , low the apparent reasoning that the area in thing ls that the Current River and its trib- Pottawatomie County does not meet the utaries are the last of the free-flowing criteria of. a national park. It ls an area of streams in Missouri and among the last of unequaled prairie beauty and we are ever unspoiled scenic sections of the country. It mindful of the role that the prairies have would be fine to have the Missouri portion played in our national history. of the Eleven Point River included, but if Now, to the positive action that was taken. this cannot be accomplished, then the project Apparently it was the first of two b!g hurdles along the Current should go forward. . for the Ozark proposal. There will be a sec-

Included in the present .bills, as we under- ond, in the House, when the National Parks stand it, are the Current and Jacks Fork Subcommittee considers the project. There Rivers in Carter, Shannon, Dent, and Texas ls, however, reason for optimism. Members

20076 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 22 af the subcommittee wm have fresh 1n mind the tmpreaslons left by their visit to the ma.gnltl.cent CUrrent-Jacks Fork area. la.st month. They dlseovered, as have countless others before them, the magnificence of the region. We have no doubt that they saw why the Interior Department has labeled this a. ''priority" project. And why Secretary Udall, after a simllar float trip, said~ "I don't think I have ever seen such untouched river beauty."

Yet it ls a. faot ot our times that the urban age is closing in on the Nation's open coun­try. The need for recreational areas is in­tensified dramatically, both by the sprawl of the. cities and the growth of the popula­tion. Too many areas have been lost forever to the hustle and bustle of human activi .. ties. The chancQ to preserve this spot in the Missouri Ozarks ought to be seized, and this was the point made by the subcommittee 1n its unanimous approval.

We can be honest and admit that t:tie proj­ect, once completed, would be an economic asset to Mi1Sourl. But that is not the pur­pose. Of more importance is the. nation.al interest and the asset that this wildernesa area la to the entire United States. Con­gress has the opportunity to save the ~$l'k rivers for future generations. We c;lo not think tlla.t it can take fl,nal actlon ti, day too soon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments.

The amendments were agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

bill is open to further amendment. If there be no fwther amendment to be proposed the que&tion is on the engross­ment and third reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 16) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the th1rd time, and passed.

CONSTRUCTION AT CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President~ what is the pending business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in legislative session, and the military construction bill is the pending business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill CH.R. 6500) to authorize cer­tain construction at military installa­tions, and for other purposes.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further pro­ceedings under the quorum call may be dispensed with.

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

As this ls a question very heavily to be decided on the basts of the foreign eco­nomic policy needs of the country, t.o which I am sure the WayS and Means Committee in the other body is- gMng consideration, I think it appropriate to advance my views Upon it, as I have ad­dressed myself to it before. The views which I have expressed represent a.. rather important point oi difference be­tween myself and the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treas­ury is u,rging enactment of legislation to impose the tax.

For the information of the Senate, merely to repeat the situation, the tax would range from 2.75 to 15 per­cent on the purchase price of foreign debt securities, depending on their ma­turity, and would be a flat 15 percent on the purchase price ot foreign stocks. Ex­emptions would be granted to debt issues with maturities of less than 3 years. commercial bank loans, securities issued. by governments of underdeveloped coun­tries, securities acguired from other Americans, direct investments in oversea subsidiaries and affiliates and interna­tional organizations of which the United States is a member.

The Treasury is also seeking a clause allowing the President to give a special exemption for new securities issues of certain foreign countries if the tax would tend to disrupt the international monetary system. That is specifically apP,licable to Canada, and may be appli­cable to Japan.

The burden of the Secretary's testi­mony yesterday was that the mere threat to impose the tax-which would be effective as of the date of the bal­ance-of-payments message :which the President sent to the Congress; namely, July 18 of this year-has been already sufficient to stop a material amount of foreign capltal financing in the United States and the purchase of foreign capi­tal issues by Americans. He says that we have obtained some benefit, in terms of our balance-of-payments, as a result of a mere threat that the tax may be enacted and comes out very strongly, in his testimony, for the passage of the bill, and against the proposition which I, myself, have developed before the Senate on September 3-that a capital issues committee be appointed in New York, the principal securities market of the Nation, for the purpose of advis­ing-not having plenary power, but ad­vising-the Government on the question of specific borrowings or :flotations in this country by foreigners.

As I thoroughly disagree with the Secretary, and think the bill he proposes would result in a tax that would be harmful, I should like to spread my rea-sons upon the RECORD now, when they are likely to count for the most, since

TAX ON FOREIGN SECURITIES , the subject is now being considered in Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, Iwish· to the other body.

address the Senate on a problem which The Secretary says any other approach relates to a pending measure in the other than this tax would be a departure from body to impose a tax upon the purchase traditional policies regarding the free of foreign securities by Americans, the flow of capital and would be an attempt so-called interest equalization. tax bill, to control investment. Certainly, if this H.R. 8000. The Secretary of the Treas- tax is imposed, if it has _the effect which ury testified with respect to that matter the Secretary asserts it would, it repre­yesterday before the House Ways and sents an inhibition to U.S. investment Means Committee. · abroad and a return-because in this

case it is capital which is being taxed­to high protective tariffs on U.S. imports of securities or viewed from another point of view, a duty on exports of capi­tal, which runs contrary to our commit­ment to liberalized world trade.

The tax is discriminatory, since it se­lects only one aspect of private expendi­tures abroad; namely,. private portfolio investment, while leaving unaffected private direct foreign investment, ex­penditures abroad for tourism, and so forth. For example, if a particular cor­poration desired to ' buy the security of another corporation abroad, it would be taxed. On the other hand, if it decided to make a direct investment in the cor­PQra,tion abroad, it would not be taxed. This is unfair and discriminatory,

This tax is very clearly a type of ex­change control, because if we give the Seeret~ry the exemptions he desires and leave the matter withi:r;1 the discretion of the President as to which country will or will not be affected, we are doing what the Secretary does not want to do, and we cease to have an automatic across ... the-board tax. Instead, we would have discretionary control under the guise of administ~ring the tax.

Secretary Dillon, in his letter to me of May 28, 1963, made a statement which clearly implies that the tax would be self-defeating, because it would not i\Chieve its basic objective; namely, to reduce capital outflows through an in­crease in long-term interest rates.

The Secretary in his letter of May ·29 said the following:

Even if long-term interest rates in the United States rose above those in Europe and Japan, we would expect foreign governments and corporations, particularly those needing relatively large amounts of money, to resort to the Jlighly developed U.S. market.

It is the uncertainty over the fate of this proposal, rather than the increased cost of U.S. funds, that explains the re­duced capital outflow claimed by the Secretary since July 18. I predict that if we are unwise enough to pass this tax, it will be paid, the capital .outflows will continue, and we will get no benefit whatever in the balance-of-payments situation.

Some very eminent authorities are op­posed to this tax. I quote, for example, from an editorial in the New York Times of September 1, as follows:

The tax ls difficult to reconcile with Pres­ident Kennedy's frequent assertions that the present tax structure must be simplifled and trade barriers reduced: The addition of the tax would complicate the tax structure and would establish a tariff on capital, putting into effect a two-price system for funds. And despite the administration's claims that the tax will not interfere with the workings of the free market, it is clearly a form of control. ·

The effectiveness of the whole proposal has been significantly weakened by the numerous exceptions and exemptions which I have described, for commercial loans, for direct investment, for flotation from underdeveloped areas, and now, if the Treasury has its way, the right of exemption to the President, which would exempt Canada and perhapa Japan and other countries, leaving not much to the whole proposition. . ,

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20077

The tax would be inequitable because it would penalize small investors who might have to pay the tax, but if it came to a large corporation, such as General Motors taking over a German subsidiary, it would not come under the tax. That would be the case of a large company purchasing a large direct interest in a foreign corporation.

According to available evidence, long­term interest rates would remain lower in the United States than in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Ger­many, even if the proposed tax raises U.S. long-term rates by 1 percent. Therefore, there is again considerable doubt that anything would happen to a:tf ect the capital outflow situation.

Yesterday the Secretary said that trading in foreign securities is continu­ing between the United States and for­eign investors, although at a premium, allowing for the proposed tax. This is another indication that it will not work.

Therefore, I fail to be persuaded by Secretary Dillon's arguments in sup­port of his proposal; or by his argu­ments in opposition to the capital issues committee.

I should like to spend a moment on the question of the establishment of a capi­tal issues committee, which will work and do the job that needs to be done, without any of the difficulties which are inherent in the tax proposal.

In the first place a capital issues com­mittee would be an advisory committee of banks, investment houses, and brokers around the country. There is precedent for such a committee. We have had ex­perience with a similar effort during the Korean war, in the Voluntary Credit Re­straint Committee, which functioned very well under the umbrella of the Fed­eral Reserve System.

Second, such a committee would only be established for the duration of the emergency and could be dismantled at will. That would not be the case with the tax, which would remain in effect at least until the end of 1965 whether needed or not and would have to be re­pealed by law to abolish it beforehand.

Third, the United States already has a very important voice in respect to such international :financial transactions as those involving the expenditure of AID funds. We require registration with the SEC of foreign securities sold publicly in the United States. We require the use of U.S. vessels in transporting Government­financed shipments. We have the Buy American Act.

Therefore, there are various types of regulations of foreign :financial trans­actions in the United States. A capital issues committee would be no sensa­tional departure from the norm.

Finally, and very importantly, whereas the interest equalization tax is new and untried-no one has had any experience with it-a capital issues committee is a tried and true operation, which has not only been used by us, but used in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France. It is known and trusted by Europe. The ·swiss Na­tional Bank and the Central Banks of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France exercise reviewing authority over foreign security issues either alone

or jointly with private :financial insti­tutions. Therefore, the proposal for a capital issues committee is not a new proposal. Incidentally, it now has wide­spread support in the :financial commu­nity in the United States.

It would be composed of commercial banks, brokers, investors, and public rep­resentatives, operating within the area and under the auspices of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The bank would be the agent, and would be safe­guarded from the standpoint of the anti­trust laws, to see that those laws were not abused, and in terms of other gov­ernmental policy considerations.

The fundamental function of such a committee would not be to directly con­trol the flotation of capital issues. It would be a matter of the establishment of guidelines, which would guide bankers and brokers in the issues that ought to be :financed, and which would also in­clude some concept of overall :figures within which there should be complete freedom of action.

This kind of advisory group, safe­guarded in terms of obedience to Fed­eral laws, such as the antitrust laws, would be an excellent mechanism for the purpose of moderating capital out­flow at a time when we are suffering from an imbalance in international pay­ments.

In my judgment, and I believe in the judgment of the :financial community of the United States, it would be much more onerous to do the job in a very un­flexible and in a very dangerous way, leading directly to a form of Government control, than the advisory committee suggestion which I have made, and which already has support in the finan­cial community generally.

Let us remember that we desire, and it is in our national interest, that the United States be the preeminent cap­ital market in the world and that the dollar remain the most stable and sub­stantial currency in the world.

Therefore, it is very important that we have an eye to what is acceptable to the :financial community in the United States and in the world, and that we do not proceed in a doctrinaire way and fly in the face of the whole :financial com­munity of the United States. The equalization tax appears to be completely unacceptable to the whole :financial community.

In summary, I think the Secretary of the Treasury was unduly hasty in reject­ing the proposal advanced by responsible business and :financial experts for the es­tablishment of a capital issues commit­tee, and that this proposal merits fur­ther· consideration as a far more eff ec­tive means to advance the objectives de­sired by the Secretary, to wit, some au­thority over the outflow of capital funds from the United States for :financing abroad.

It is regrettable that during the course of his testimony the Secretary failed to deal with a far more basic cause of capital outflow from the United States, which is the relatively unfavorable in­vestment climate which prevails here. U.S. capital will stay at home in much larger measure if we create ·an attractive economic climate in this country, con-

ducive to a high rate of investing by the United States and foreign investors alike.

Let us remember that this is a ques­tion of net balance. The mere fact that an Ame·rican invests in foreign securities is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. As a matter of fact, already· we are getting more in dollars in the way of debt service and dividends and returns from investing overseas today than we are losing from investing abroad. The important thing, in terms of the trend of our balance of payments, is that the net outflow shall not exceed materially the net inflow. The Secretary spoke in terms of capital outflows of $200 million or $300 million a half year as being a fairly acceptable :figure. So what we are thinking about is the net balance.

From tbe point of view of encouraging a more _favorable net balance, the ap­proval of the investment community of the United States and the world is crit­ically important.

So I urge upon the Secretary of State and the President two things: First, that the interest-equalization tax be rejected in favor of a capital issues committee of the kind I have described. Second, far more fundamental approaches to the matter of our imbalance in international payments should be taken such as ba­sically reforming and expanding the existing international monetary system as called for in my speech of September 3. In addition, we ought to take steps to reduce the net tourist outflow which costs us far more in terms of the balance of payments--about $1,500 million a year net outflow-than capital outflows which are . very constructive in terms of the U.S. role in the world. I am all for tourism, but let us remember that more than 70 other nations are restrict­ing their tourist expenditures, and that that hurts us and reduces the income we receive from tourism. If other nations were to loosen up, there would be all the more reason for our continuing as we are.

A capital issues committee would do everything that taxes would do, and would do it in a much better way, and in a more businesslike way, more agreeably to the investment community of the United States and the world.

I sincerely hope that the Secretary and the President will utter the words which are the mark of people who are thoughtful and deeply concerned with the problem with respect to this alterna­tive, the capital issues committee-the words "I am persuaded." I hope the Sec­retary may recommend to the President that this is the better course.

One other point' before I close: An interest-equalization tax can always be passed. It is much more desirable to try the capital issues committee alternative :first, because it has every chance of working. If it does not work, we can always go to taxes.

I thank the majority leader for yield­ing to me.

AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL INSEC­TICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RO­DENTICIDE . ACT Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the Senate

20078 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

proceed to the ·consideration of Calen­dar No. 551, S. 1605.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 1605) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, to pro­vJde for labeling of economic poisons with registration numbers, to eliminate registration under protest, and for other purposes.

The PR~IDINO OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That section 2.z.(2) (b) of the Federal In­secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticlde Act (61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U.S.C., 1958 ed., Supp. III, 135(z) (2) (b)) ls hereby amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end thereof the following phrase: "other than the registration number assigned to the eco­nomic poison".

SEC, 2. Section 3 of said Act (61 Stat. 166; 7 U.S.C. 135a) is hereby amended by de­leting the word "and" at the end of section 3.a.(2) (b), deleting the period at the end of section 3.a.(2) (c) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word "and", and adding after section 3.a.(2) (c), a new proVision reading as follows: "(d), when re­quired by regulation of the Secretary to ef­fectuate the purposes of this Act, the regis­tration number assigned to the article under this Act.".

SEC. 3. Section 4 of said Act (61 Stat. 167; 7 U.S.C. 135b) is hereby amended by chang­ing the word "registrant" wherever it ap­pears in subsection a. and in the first sen­tence of subsection c. to "applicant for registration" and by deleting the remainder of subsection c. and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "If, upon receipt of such notice, the ap­plicant for registration does not make the corrections. the Secretary shall refuse to register the article. The secretary, in ac­cordance with the procedures specified here­in, ma.y suspend or cancel the registration of an economic poison whenever it does not appear that the article or its labeling or other material required to be submitted com­plies with the provisions of this Act. When­ever the Secretary refuses registration of an economic poison or determines that registra­tion of an economic poison should be can­celed, he shall notify the applicant for registration or the registrant of his action and the reasons therefor. Whenever an ap­plication for registration ls refused, the ap­plicant, within thirty days after servtce of notice of such refusal, may file a petition requesting that the matter be referred to an advisory committee or file objections and request a public hearing in accordance with th1s section. A cancellation of registration shall be effective thirty days after serVice of the foregoing notice unless within such time the registrant (1) makes the necessary cor­rections; (2) files a petition requesting that the matter be referred to an advisory com­mittee; or (3) files objections and requests a public hearing. The Secretary, on his own motion, may at any time refer such a mat­ter to an advisory committee. Each ad­visory oommittee shall be composed. o! ex­perts, qualified in the subject matter and of adequately diversified professional back­ground selected by the National Academy o! Sciences and shall include one or more repre­sentatives from land-grant colleges. The size of the committee sha.11 be determined by the Secretary. :Members of an advisory

committee shall receive as compensation for their services a reasonable per diem, which the Secretary shall by rules and regulations prescribe, for time actually spent in the work of the committee, and shall in addition be reimbUr$ed for their necessary traveling and subsistence expenses while so serving away from their places of residence, all o! which costs may be assessed against the petitioner, unless the matter was referred to the ad­Visory committee upon the motion of the Secretary without a petition. The members shall not be subject to any other proVisions of law regarding the appointment and com­pensation of employees of the United States. The Secretary shall furnish the committee with adequate clerical and other assistance, and shall by rules an"d regulations prescribe the procedures to be followed by the com­mittee. The Secretary shall forthwith sub­mit to such committee the application for registration o! the article and all relevant data before him. The petitioner, as well as representatives of the United States De­partment of Agriculture, shall have the right to consult with the advisory committee. As soon as practicable after any such submis­sion, but not later than sixty days thereafter, unless extended by the Secretary !or an ad­ditional sixty days, tne committee shall, after independent study of the data submitted by the Secretary and all other pertinent in­formation available to it, submit a report and recommenda tlon to the Secretary as to the registration o! the article, together with all underlying data and a statement of the reasons or basis for the recommendations. After due consideration of the views ·of the committee and all other data before him, the Secretary shall, within ninety days after receipt of the report and recommendations of the advisory committee, make his deter­mination and issue an order, with findings of fact, with respect to registration of the article and notify the applicant for regis­tration or registrant. The applicant for registration, or registrant, may, within sixty days from the date of the order of the Secre­tary, file objections thereto and request a public hearing thereon. In the event a hear­ing ls requested, the Secretary shall, after due notice, hold such publlc hearing for the purpose o! receiVing evidence relevant and material to the issues raised by such objections. Any report, recommendations, underlying data, and reasons certified to the Secretary by an adVisory committee shall be made a part of the record of the hearing, if relevant and material, subject to the provi­sions of section 7(c) of the Admini,strative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1006(c) ). The Na­tional Academy of Sciences shall designate a member of the advisory committee to ap­pear and testify at any such hearing with respect to the report and recommenda tiona of such committee upon request of the Secre­tary, the petitioner, or the officer conducting the hearing: Provided, That this shall not preclude any other member of the advisory committee from appearing and testifying at such hearing. As soon as practicable after completion of the hearing, the Secretary shall evaluate the data and reports before him, act upon such objections and issue an order granting, denying, or canceling the registration. Such order shall be based only on substantial eVidence of record at such hearing, including any report, recommenda­tions, underlying data, and reason certified to the Secretary by an advisory committee, and shall set forth detailed findings of fact upon which the order is based. In connec­tion with consideration of any registration or application for registration under this section, the Secretary may consult with any other Federal agency. Notwithstanding the provisions of section S.c.(4), information relative to formulas of products acquired by authority of this section may be revealed, when necessary under this section, t.o an adVisory committee, or t.o any Pederal agency consulted, or at a public hearing, or in find-

lngs of fact issued by the Secretary. Not­withstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary may, when he finds that such action ls necessary to prevent an imminent hazard to the public, by order, suspend the registra tlon of an economic poison immediately. In such case, he shall give the registrant prompt notice of such action and afford the registrant the oppor­tunity to have the matter submitted to an advisory committee and for an expedited hearing under this section. Final orders of the Secretary under this section shall be subject to judicial review, in accordance with the provisions of subsection d. In no event shall registration of an article be con­strued as a defense for the commission of any offense prohibited under section 3 of this Act.''

SEC. 4. Section 4 of said Act (61 Stat. 167; 7 U.S.C. 135b) is hereby further amended by redeslgnating subsections d. and e. as sub­sections e. and f., and by adding a new sub­section d., as follows:

"d. In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of any order under this section, any person who will be adversely affected by such order may obtain judicial review by filing in the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, within sixty days after the entry of such order, a petition praying that the order be set aside in whole or in part. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary, or any officer desig­nated by him for that purpose, and there­upon the Secretary shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which he based his order, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of such petition, the court shall have ex­clusive jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the order complained of in whole or in part. The findings of the Secretary with respect to questions of fact shall be sustained if sup­ported by substantial evidence when con­sidered on the record as a whole, including any report and recommendation o! an ad­visory committee. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evi­dence, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper, if such evi­dence ls material and there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceedings below. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts and order by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and shall file with the court such modified findings and order. The judgment of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any order under this sec­tion shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in sec­tion 1254 of title 18 of the United States Code. The commencement o! proceedings under this section shall not, unless specifi­cally ordered by the court to the contrary, operate as a stay of an order. The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of all causes filed therein pursuant to this section."

SEC. 5. The first sentence of section 8.b. of said Act (61 Stat. 170; 7 U.S.C. 135!.(b)) is hereby amended by deleting that part begin­ning with the second proviso therein down to, but not including, the period at the end thereof.

SEC. 6. Section 3.a.(1) and section 9.a.(1) (b) of said Act (61 Stat. 166, 170; 7 U.S.C. 135a.(a) (1), 135g.(a)(l) (b)) are hereby amended by changing the phrase "has not been registered" wherever it appears therein, to read "ls not registered."

SEC. 7. This Act and the amendments made hereby shall become effective upon enact-

.. 19611 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 26079 ment, ,and all ·existing regmtratlons under protest issued under said .Federal Insecti­cide, Fungicide, and .Bodentlclde Act· .shaU thereupon termlna.te.

Mr~ .ELLENDER. Mr . . President, the bill was reported unanimousls by .the Committe:e on Agriculture and .Forestzy. There w.as no obJection .from the pro­ducers of .insecticides or from farm orga­nizations.

This bill makes two changes in the FederB.l .Insecticide, Fungicide" .and Ro­denticide Act. The first chan_ge de-als w.ith registration of economic poisons under protest. The bill repeals the exist­ing provision :permitting such registra­tion. In the .future an economic :poison would .have to be determined to be in compliance with the act or it could not be re_gistered and marketed in interstate commerce.

The second change deals with c.Showing the registration number of an economic poison on its label. At present an eco­nomic poison is ·considered misbranded if its label gives the slightest intimation that the product has been registered un­der the act. The bill would permit the registration number to be shown on the label; .and, if the Secretary of Agricu1ture

· should so prescribe by regulation, the registration number would be required to be shown on the labeL

The 'Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act is -designed to assure the public of safe and effective pesticides, or, as the act describes them, '4economic poisons." Economic poisons .are .defined to include such preparations as insecti­cides, herbicides, plant regulators, de­f oliants, desiccants, and similar products. The ·act requires that they be honestly labeled, not adulterated, and meet var­ious other :requirements.

All economic poisons are requtred to be registered with the Secretacy of Agricul­ture, .:and the Secretary at the time of registration makes a determination as to whether th-e pro.duct, its label, and the other materials Fequired to be submitted at the tim.-e of registration comply with the requirements of the act. If the Sec­retary determines that the ·product and the label do not comply with the require­ments of the ·act, he so.advises the appli­cant.for .registration.

·under the -existing law the .r.egistrant then 'has two ,a1ternativ..es. Be may elect not to market the product, or lie may request that ..tlre ·product be .registered under protest. .If the product actually does .not· comply with the act's .require­ments, registration does not protect the .registrant .from penalties -and from seiz­ure of the product. 'T.he Bd)plicant w'ho registers 'Ullder protest, having been ad­vised that the Secretary considers nis product as not complying with the a.ct. may .expect prosecution ,or seizuFe ,of his produd wben be begins marketing jt in interstate commerce . .In the -case·of.such prosecution ,or .seizure, the burden of proof . l'ests upon the Government to prove that 'the :Product does :not comply with the 'act. There hav:e been very few _products :registered under protest. ·but i,1:otest ~tion does Jea;ve the d-0or open to the marketing of apr.oduet which might be extremely dangerous to the :public. ·

·The 'bill therefore repeals the provision for registration under protest. If the product does not -comply with the terms of the aet it cannot be registered; and if it 1s not :registered it cannot he mar­keted without being subject to the J)ell­

alty and seizure provisions of the law, No further showing that it is misbrand­ed, adulterated, or otherwise in violation of the aet is necessary. The burden of proof is with the .applicant at the time of registration to show that the product complies with .the act.

At present registration under :protest provides a means by which an ,applicant for registration may .appeal from a de­cision of the Secretary with which he disagrees. However" in order to take this appeal, he must take actions which sub­ject him ,to penalties, the ;product to seizure, and the public to possible .dan­ger if the Secretar.y's determination should prove to be correct.

,In lieu of this unsatisfactory type of appeal.. the bill provides for administra­tive mid judicial appeals. An applicant or registrant who dis.agrees with the Sec­r.etary's determination to refuse or can­cel registration may .request that iihe matter be referred to an advisory com­mittee which would _consider 'the matter and make re'commerrdations which the Secretary could follow or ·not as he saw flt. The bill also permits the .applicant or registrant to .file objections .and re­quest public bearings, either after ,the Secretary has received and acted upon the advisory 'Commit-tee's recommenda­tions, or without having gone through the advisory committee procedure. The hearing would be followed by .a final or­der of the Secretary, which would then be ,subject to judicial review.

The bill therefore provides better pro­cedures to protect the applicant or regis­trant from any arbitrary determination by the S.ecretary of Agriculture than does the existing law. In order that these appeal procedures may not cause delays in cases where the public ·might be en­danger.ed, the bill provides for suspen­sion of registration immediately if nec­essary to prevent imminent .hazards to the public. Such suspensiun .could then be 'followed by the various ,appeal ;pro­cedures.

At present the law prohibits the label from .show.ing that the product has .been registered under the .a.ct. This inf orma­tion would be ·useful to -a prospective user of the product, since it provides some

. assurance that the Secretary has investi­gated the product and that it is properly -labeled.. If the pr.oduct is to be used in the production of agricultural commodi­ties, the fact .that 'lt has· been registered provides some assur.ance that if the di­rections ·on the label are followed., the oommodities produced will meet -the .re­-quirements of ·the Feder.al F-00d, .Drug., and Cosmetic A:ct 1nsof ar as possible residues of tbis partictilaT poison are ~oneerned. The bill therefore ·permits the label to show the product:s reglstra­tion number; and :requires il to be shown if the Secretary should . .so prescribe.

The committee held he'erlngs an ,this bill, and 'all witnesses favored :its objec­tlves. The committee .amendment modi­fies tbe bill only to the extent .of lnelud-

ing a number -of technical and proce­dural suggestions of .the . industry and the Department of Agrjculture.

Mr4 -RIBICOFF. ,Mr. ·Pr.esiderit, will the Senator from ·Louisiana ·ylela?

Mr_ ELLENDER. Iyielil. Mr. RIDIOOFR On behalf of tbe

subcommittee, I exp:vess our gratitude to the Senator from Louisiana. ·and -t"he member.s of his committee for .rej}Ol'ting the measure.

The ,Senator from 'Kansas tMr. PEAR­SON], the Senator from N.ew Yoo:k [Mr.. JA.VITsJ, the Senator from 'Rhode 'Island [Mr. PELL]" .and I 'held .hearings on the bill. The .hearings disclosed the loop­hole which is .sought to be closed by the bill. It is most important for the health and welfare of the people.

Mr. GORE. Mr . .President, 'Will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. RIDICOF.F . .I ·yi-eld. Mr. GORE. Does the bill Telate strict­

ly to labeling, nwnbering, .and igentifl­cation; or aoes 1t go ·further and pro­pose, as I hqpe would be the case, a genuine study of the :possible health haz­ards involved in the use of insecticides?

Mr. RIBICOF'F. ·The .subcommittee conducted long .and careful hearings on the subject. As we discovered a particu­lar loophole, we made recommendations to the appropriate committee.

The first thing we discovered was that certain pesticides ·w.ere being placed on the market after they had been rejected by the Secretary of Agriculture, mere­ly by the filing of a protest registration. This was a bad loophole in the law, be­cause it allowed toxic pesti-cides to ·be p1aced on the market. We therefore called the attention of the Committee on Agriculture' to this 'Situation.

The bill would close such loopholes, so that if a pesticide is declared to be un­safe, the manufacturer will not be able to marltet 'it merely by .filing a protest· registration.

Mr. GORE. As .I understand, the bill is partially the ·result of a thor.ough study which the ·committee has made.

Mr. RIBICOFF. That .is correct. We shall continue to investigai;e thoroughly every phase of the problem. As we reach our conclusions, we will from time to time ·make recommendations to Con­gress. This bill is nne of the resUl ts of our stu.dy. 13ut this .measure 1s of such clear importance .and solves ·such a spe­cific problem that it is well we act on it pronip'tiy. I hope the .House of Repre­sentatives wm complete action at an earlY date. · .

.Mr.. President, .a quarter of a ·century :ago there .were ::fewer thttn six primary chemicals avdilable .for use as pesticides. Today over 50,000 fonnulations based ,on more than 500 indivi.dual ·ellemical com­pounds are Tegistered with the Depart­ment of Agriculture.

-In this wide ·range of ·complex -:prod­ucts-many with .similar -properties but each one :differing from .the other in some lm,portant .aspect-there is in­cluded .a great variety ef foxi-cants. They vary from 'insecticides for corn borers 'to repeUants for mosqu1toes., .from nematocides for tobacco to ant and 'OOClcroach killers, :from .herbicides for lawns to killers ·nf ,:r.ats a-nd mice, from

20080 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATK October 22

fungicides for wood to insecticides for malaria mosquitoes.

The United States produces and uses more of these products than any other nation. And the trend is continuing up­ward. In 1954 over 400 million pounds of synthetic organic pesticides valued at something over $150 million were pro­duced. Preliminary 1962 figures show production exceeding 700 million pounds valued at over $400 million. By 1975 it is estimated pesticide sales alone will reach the $2 billion mark.

Despite the huge increase in these materials since the end of World War II there has been no basic revision of the pesticide regulation laws administered by U.S. Department o! Agriculture since that time.

According to the Director of the Pesti­cides Regulation Division of the Depart­ment of Agriculture, the 1947 act-­known as the Federal Insecticide, Fungi­cide, and Rodenticide Act-is "basically a labeling law which protects the public by requiring that the label be adequate to protect the public, when followed." The key protective feature of the law­as pointed out frequently by Department of Agriculture officials over the years­was that all pesticides were required to be registered with the Secretary of Agri­culture before they could be sold in in­terstate commerce. Registration, we have been told, meant that the product was effective and safe when used as directed.

Yet despite such assurance there ex­isted from the beginning a loophole in the law. Secretary of Agriculture Free­man described this gap to our Subcom­mittee on Reorganization last May dur­ing our hearing on the use of pesticides as follows:

One provision of the Insecticide, Fungi­cide, and Rodenticide Act, in our opinion, subjects the public to danger. If the De­partment denies registration, the law. now permits a manufacturer to register his prod­uct "under protest." The product can then be sold to the public until we are able to develop performance . and toxicity records and take legal action to remove it from the market.

This is a loophole in the law that should be closed. We believe the act should be amended to do away with the provision that permits registration "under protest," and our recommendations to this effect are now under consideration in the executive branch.

Actually these recommendations had been under consideration-we learned­since 1960 but action in the · executive branch was slow. Instead of waiting for further consideration, I introduced along with Senators PEARSON; PELL, and JAVITS the bill now before us.

There was no need to wait for further consideration. The facts were obvious and the need was clear.

Over Government objection and de­spite doubts as to a product's safety or effectiveness, a manufacturer could, if he chose, market his product "under pro­test" and the registration would be con­sidered perfectly valid-with nothing on the label to differentiate it from other products properly registered. For 4 years this problem has remained unre­solved. That is why I introduced s: 1605

4-days after Secretary Freeman's testi­mony.

· This bill closes a loophole that posed a constant threat to the health and safety of the American people. Any product could be sold to the public even though evidence of its safety was completely lacking. This bill ends that possibility once and for all.

Fortunately, we have been able to avoid a national tragedy while this gap in con­sumer protection remained in the law. Only a very few products, out of the thousands registered, have been protest­registered over the past 16 years. Even these have been too many and it is time to close the gap.

Despite our relatively good fortune in the past, the danger of an unsafe prod­uct coming on the market is always with us under existing law. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.

A number of manufacturers have sub­mitted for registration under the Fed­eral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent­icide Act labeling for chlordane aerosol formulations for household use. These were intended for use in controlling various household pests, including flies and mosquitoes. Registration was re­fused for products bearing directions for use which would result in an aerosol dispersal of chlordane. USDA pharma­cologists did not consider such a use to be safe. Their judgment was based partly on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, which showed that chlordane formulations in some cases could produce skin and eye irritation. Since aerosol uses risk contact of the spray with skin and eyes, such usage could not be accepted and registration was refused. The Public Health Service was asked to review this matter and endorsed the decision.

On a number of occasions registra­tion of floor waxes containing dieldrin has been requested. Such products were intended for use in controlling various household insects. USDA pharmacolo­gists did not consider complete floor coverage with such waxes to be safe, and refused to register them. Dieldrin for­mulas for household use required direc­tions which would not exceed the pat­terns set forth in USDA interpretation 19. It was concluded that no directions could be written which would meet the requirements of . this interpretation, and still provide a useful :floor wax.

USDA was asked by one firm to con­sider registration of a .parathion formu­lation for use in rodent control. An­other firm asked USDA abo.ut the possibility of obtaining registration for a parathion product for . household use, and for the control of fle(ts and other pet insect parasites . . These firms were in­formed that such uses were unaccept­able due to the high toxicity of parathi­on. USDA toxicological experience and the scientific literature indicated that such use would be hazardous and would risk injury or death. Since there was much more than a "reasonable doubt'' as to the propriety of the use, registra­tion was denied.

. As a result of cases of methemoglob­inemia reported in premature infants on whom diapers treated with disinfectants

contain_ing TCC were used, USDA re­viewed the registration status of all formulations containing this compound. Registration was canceled on several products where directions for use in­volved industrial laundry soaps wherein the treated diapers or clothing could likely be autoclaved in routine hospital practice. Due to this action, all such products were removed from use. This specific action was taken, since detailed studies have proved that TCC was ca­pable of decomposition, and diapers were able to absorb the preakdown products in hospital autoclaves. In addition, USDA required manufacturers ·to place on the labels of certain laundry products warnings against boiling or autoclaving.

Each of these 4 products could be on the market today under protest registra­tion. Only after accumulation of con­siderable evidence could USDA move against them and cause their removal. The public, in the meantime, would serve as guinea pig. This bill makes sure that such a possibility will not happen.

The policy of this Nation should always be that a pesticide should not come on the market until adequate' proof of safety has been established and it should not be left for the public to play the role of guinea pig while the true facts of toxicity are brought out. Today, it is possible under the law to subject the pub­lic to that role when the Government is not satisfied with the manufacturer's proof of safety and yet lacks definite evidence of lack of safety. That grey area must be decided in favor of the public-the consumer. ·

Protest registration was supposedly a technique to force a court review when­ever the manufacturer and the Govern­ment disagreed on the safety or effective­ness of the product in question. The proposed legislation rejects this archaic concept of consumer protection and sub­stitutes a system under which both the public's interest and a manufacturer's rights are protected. And this protection runs from the initial decision, through an advisory committee, through a hear­ing on the record, through judicial re­view. · In addition, the legislation requires that evecy pesticide formulation carry its official registration number on the label. In this way the public will be able to tell at a glance that the product on the shelf has satisfied the require­men ts of Federal law as to its effective­ness and safety when used according to the directions on the label. · This legislation is recommended by the President's Science Advisory Committee. It has been endorsed by the heads of the varioµs affected Federal agencies, the regulated industry and by every witness to appear before our Senate subcommit­tee now studying the problem of the use of pesticides. I urge its adoption.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I should like to join the Senator from Connecticut in expressing appreciation to the Senator from Louisiana for re­porting the bill. The measure is the direct result of the work of the subcom­mittee in dealing with pesticides. I be­lieve it carries the endorsement of the

1963 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD - SENA TE 200'81 appropriate authorities .and agencies of · The bW 1S. 11;05) -was ordered to be the Government. It will be of public· engrossed for a third reading, w.as read service. the third time, and passed.

Mr. YOONG of North Dakota. ~. President~ I commend the distingUlshed. Senator :from Connecticut, who 'is .a EXECUTIVE SESSION former Secretary of Health, Education, The Senate r.esumed the consideration and Welfare, 'for doing a vast amount · of executive .business. . of work in .this field. The American -pub-lic is deep1y eoncemed about the use of insecticides and 1>esticides. The bill 1S a step in the.right direction.

The Department of Agriculture has concerned .itself ·with this problem. .In my own State a $2 million Federal r.e­searcll laboratory is now being com­pleted to conduct work .in :this field alone. More should be :done.

.Mr~ JAVITS. .Mr. President, S. 1605 is .important not only from the stand­point of eliminating the evils and dan­gers of pesticides; it is very important that pe:sticides shall continue to be used. That was the .emphasis of the testimony of experts who .have appear.ed before the subcommittee. The .danger was that .our f-Ood ..supplies :w.auld be materially af­fected ·if we ..suddenly wiped out the use of insecticides mid pesticides by impos­sible .regulations. Ther.efore~ !tis doubly important that the .Senate understand that the purpose of the bill "is n-ot only to prevent the .eVils which the Senator has suggeste~ but .also to ensure legiti­mate and constructive uses saf insecti­cides and -pesticides in connection with our ..food :supply:.

· Mr. .RIBICOF.F. "The Senator from New York is correct.

.Mr. PELL. _Mr~ :President, I .8Jll hap­py to ·add my full support to the bill proPosed b,y the .disting:uiShed Senator from -Connecttc.ut to 1>lug a, dangerous

· loophole jn our 1)eStidtie ..registration laws.

Tltis bill would simply m ·alce lt more difficult :for manuf actur.ers to market products which should not'be sold to the public, but -which under existing law could .conc.ein.bly come Jnto the hands .of unsuspecting buyers.

• .As things now stand, a nmnufacturer .can .:insist mi .securing -:a "protest regls­:tration" _even though the Department -.of Agriculture has raised doubts .as to the 'Safety and effectiv,eness of his prod­iuct. I am dn:formed that most manu­facturers actually comply with tlre De­;pantment's .suggestions, but tlmt '.a small .number-1 in every .2,280 Tegistr.ations now granted-insist on marketing their products ;:under the -pr.otes:t registrations.

".This Js DI course a very small area of risk, but it is a significant one when chemicals and1>ublic .health are involved. CleaT.ly~ we must take no chances. S. 1605 :Halves the problem by establishing new and more rigorous procedures for .registration, and .for this -reason, I urge that .it be adopted by the Senate today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. T.he . .question .is on _agreeing to the :committee amendment.

'The ..amendment was agreed to. 'Tile PRESIDING OFFICER. The

bill ls open ,to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to he l)roposed, the question is on the engross­m.ent 11.nd thim r-eatllng of the . bill.

PROTOCOL -TO AMEND CONVEN­TION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVll.i AVIATION; CONVENTION ON EX-· TRADITION WITH SWEDEN; AD­DITIONAL PROTOCOL TO .THE TREATY OF EXTRADITION WITH BRAZIL; EXTRADITION CONVEN­TION . WITH ISRAEL; CONSULAR CONVENTION WITH KOREA; CON­SULAR QONVENTION WITH JAPAN The Senate resumed the consideration

of the protocol, Executive D (88th Cong., 1st sess.) , to amend the Convention on International Civil Aviation; the con­v.ention, Executive E (87th Cong., 2d sessJ , on extradition with Sweden; the additional protocol, "Executive F c:87th Cong., 2d sess.), to the Treaty of '.Extr,a,­dition with Brazil; the -extradition con­vention, Executive E (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Israel; the consular conven­tion, Executive B (88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Korea; and the consular conven­tion, Executive I {88th Cong., 1st sess.), with Japan.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. .President, notwithstanding the unanimous-con­sent agreement, I ask unanimous con­sent that at this time there may be a quorum call for not to exceed 1 minute, and that then the order for the quorum .ca.11 ·be rescinded.

The .PRESIDING OFFICERA With­out objection, 1t is so nrdered; and the clerk will call theTOll.

The legislative -clerk -proceeded .to call the roll.

Mr~ MANSFIELD. Mr~ President, I believe the 1 minute has now expired.

The ..PRFSIDING OFFICER. That is '.OOI"rect; and the order .for the quorum call jg .:rescinded.

Pursuant "to the ])revious order., the hour of .2 o'clock having au.ived, the .question is ..on agreeing to the resolutions of r.atillcation .of the various pending protocols and conventions.

On this question, the yeas .and nays have been ordered; ·and· the clerk will call the roll.

The "legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I annonuc-e that

the Senator from Maryland [Mr BREW­STER], the 'Senator from Virginia [Mr. .BYRD1, the Senator from Nevada {Mr.. CANNON], the Sena.tor from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLA'RK], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE], tbe Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Jo'RDA!iT], the Senator fr.om Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Sena­tor from Oregan [Mr. MORSE], the Sena­tor from W.est Virginia [Mr . .RAlmoLPHJ, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. RoBERT­SON], the Senator :from Tennessee IMr. WALTERS], and the Senator from Ohio I:Mr .. LAuscHE] :are absent on official business. ·

I further announc-e that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr~ EA:sTLAND] and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND­SON] are necessarily absent.

I also-announce that the .Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent be­cause of Illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator irom Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senator from Penn­sylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Indiana 1Mr. HARTKE], the Senator from North Carolina IMr. JORDAN], the Sena­tor from Washington IMr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Oregon {Mr. MORSE], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], the Sena.tor irom Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], the Senator from 'Ten­nessee [Mr. WALTERS], and the Senator from Ohio rMr. LAUSCHE] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] and the Senato-r -from 'South Dakota [Mr. MUND'I.] are absent because of illness.

The Senator from New Hampshire lMr. COTTON] 1s absent on official busi­ness .as congressional adviser to the Radio Conference of the International 'Tele­communications Union, Geneva, Switzer­land.

The Senator From Kentucky [Mr. CooP..E.R1, the Senator .from 'Illinois [Mr.. DIRKSEN], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.

. JORDAN], the· :Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILL'ER]., 1md the Senator .from Texas fMr. TowERJ are nec·essarily absent.

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMPSON] and the Senator from .Dela­:ware IMr~ W.ILLIAMSJ are detained on official "business. ·

If present and :¥0ting, the ,Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], the .Sena­tor from Kentucky IMr. CoOPER], the Senator from Illinois [MrA DIRKSEN], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], the Bena.tor ..from .low.a !Mr. MILLERJ. the :Senator fr.om .Texas lMr. TOWER].., and the Senator ·from Wyoming [Mr. SIMP­SON] ·would eacb vote "yea."

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 74, nays o. as follows:

.Aiken ..Allott Anderson Bartlett

.Ba_yh Beall Bennett Bible Burdick l3yrd, W. Va.. Carlson •Gase -Curtis Dodd

"Dominick 'Do.uglas .Ellender Ervin Fong Fulbright Ooldwatet Gore Gruening llart Ha,yden

jNo.-198.Ex,1 YEAS-'74

Hickenlo()l)er 'Hill Holland 1Elruska Rumphre_y Inouye Jackson Ja.vlts Johnston ·Keating Kennedy :Kuchel Long,:Mo. Lon_g,La. Mansfield :McCa.rthy McClellan .McGee McGovern Mclnty;re .McNamara Me.chem Metcalf 'Monroney Morton

.Moss Muskie Nelson Neuberger Pastore Pearson Pell Prouty Proxmire Ribicoff Russell '5a'ltonsta.ll Scott ..Bmathers Smith Spa.l'kman

-Stennis Symington Talmadge Thurmond Williams., N .J • Yarborough Young, N. Dak.

-young .. Ohio

20082 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD .- SENATE· October' 22

Boggs Brewster Byrd, Va. Cannon Church Clark Cooper Cotton Dirksen

NOT VOTING-26 Eastland Edmoncls<>n Engle Hartke Jordan, N.C. Jordan, Idaho Lausche Magnuson Mlller

Morse Mundt · Randolph Robertson Simpson Tower Walters WU11ams, Del.

The P.RESIDING OFFICER. Two­thirds of the Senators present and vot­ing having voted in the affirmative, the resolutions of ratification are agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate resume the con­sideration of legislative business.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

CONSTRUCTION AT CERTAIN MILI­TARY INSTALLATIONS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfin­ished business, which will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK, A bill (H.R. 6500 > to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate provides construction and other related authority for the mil­itary departments and agencies of the Department of Defense within and out­side the United States, including author­ity for the construction of facilities for the Reserve components. The total sum of new authorization contained in the bill is $1,682,255,380. In addition there­to, approval is granted for an increase in prior years' authority of $3,606,000, or a total authorization of $1,685,861,380.

The Army would be authorized $202.8 million; the Navy $211 million; the Air Force $488.6 million; the Department of Defense $24.4 million; for family hous­ing $720.4 million; and a total of $38.6 million for the Reserve components. As submitted to the Congress this year, the bill called for a total authorization of $1,865,411,000. Subsequently, however, the Department of Defense made sev­eral additional requests for both new authority and increases in authority granted in prior years, totaling $35,199,­ooo, a.bout $21 million of which was re­ceived in the Senate after the bill had passed the House of Representatives.

Thus, the Senate committee was called upon to consider requests of over $1.9 billion. The authority finally granted by the committee is $214,748,620 less than the amount requested, and $52,389,380 above the amount approved by the House of Representatives. I might point out that the authority re­quested this year is some $259 million more than was requested last year. This apparent increase, however, is more than offset by the fact that this year, for the first time, the committee was called upon to authorize all costs related to the military family housing program. This includes not only the cost of new construction but also the costs of ma:in­tenance, operation, debt payments on

outstanding mortgages, and other simi- important research and development Iar expenditures. · program. Foremost among such projects

The authorization requested in this is a proposed pulse nuclear reactor year's bill is based upon a 5-year_ pro- facility at the Aberdeen Proving Ground jection of the missions and forces to be in Maryland. This reactor will cost supported through fiscal year 1968. about $2.1 million and the Department Such projections are important in plan- states it is of vital importance to the ning military construction in view of the · research and development program, par­lead time required for many construe- ticularly in light of the commitments and tion projects. The committee is con- safeguards which were given the Senate vinced that the authority granted in the· in the consideration of the test ban bill now before the Senate adequately treaty which was before this body a few provides for the fiscal year 1964. incre- weeks ago. _ ment for this 5-year program, which New York State had shown great ini­construction needs to be in place by the tiative in creating an authority to con- · end of the fiscal year 1966. struct a similar facility, and we heard

Almost half the projects in the bill witnesses on behalf of that facility who Will provide operational and training stated that they could satisfactorily facilities. Included therein are the proj- handle the requirements of the Defense ects for the strategfo retaliatory and F.stablishment, and that there was no continental air and missile forces which necessity for the construction of a Gov­remain the basic elements of our deter- ernment facility. rent policy. These forces cannot be re- Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the lied upon alone, however, and we must Senator from Georgia yield? provide for our general purpose forces if Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. we are to adequately meet our global Mr. JAVITS. Without interrupting commitments. Next in the order of the remarks of the Senator from Geor­magnitude, then, are the provisions to gia, I should pref er a.t a later time to. provide for these forces which include say a word about the best use of that projects to house and support the troops facility, and to express our hopes as to including provisions of medical and how the burden of the work which it community facilities. would carry might be divided as between

Of course, Mr. President, most im- it and the Federal Government. portant, is the construction provided for Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator's col­in the bill to replace the many tempo- league [Mr. KEATING] was present be­rary structures built during World War fore the committee during the entire II. Most of these structures have long course of the hearing, which lasted more since passed the stage of economical use than an hour, and the senior Senator and repair. Over 44 percent of the Army from New York was out of the city but program consists of just such items. was represented by either his adminis-

The remaining items in the program trative assistant or his secretary, who cover facilities requirements for research read a statement. I was about to state and development, maintenance, supply, what the Department presented to the administrative, and base utilities. It is committee in the consideration of this · in the area of research and development project. and administrative facilities that the Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator. Secretary of Defense made a special ap- Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator's col-peal to the committee for the restoration league [Mr. KEATING] was present and to the program of certain items denied brought expert witnesses to present the by the House of Representatives. views of the New York Authority.

In its review, the committee exercised When acting on .the bill, .the House of care to determine that all requests were Representatives denied the Army fa- · consistent with the long-range military cility to afford an opportunity for repre­plans and that projects were not planned sentatives of the Defense Establishment for those areas where tenure or the mis- and the New York State authorities to sion may be in doubt, and this particu- make a study to determine whether the larly applies to the oversea installations. private facility would provide for the The principal items eliminated were needs of the Army, The net result was those for which a compelling military that both factions remained adamant reason did not seem to exist, when the de- in their position, and strong appeals ferral of an item did not affect our mili- have been received not only from the tary readiness, when planning had not Secretary of Defense but the Director of advanced sufficiently to assure the execu- Research and Engineering for the De­tion of.. the program in the near future, partment of Defense and other compe­and in those instances when a substantial tent Army representatives to provide for backlog of authority existed that had the facility at Aberdeen. The commit­not yet been implemented. With those tee looked into this matter rather exten­criteria in mind, the committee agreed sively and had the benefit of very com­with the majority of the House deletions prehensive and enlightening testimony and restored only those items which the from competent representatives repre­department involved could demonstrate senting the views of both the New York as being of a critical nature. authorities and the Department of

Now, Mr. President, I should like to Defense. . deal specifically with certain parts of The Department of the Army ·indicated the bill. Earlier I mentioned that the that their requirements for the pulse Secretary of Defense had especially ap- reactor wUl exceed the capacities of both pealed to the committee "for the restora- proposed reactors and they would wel­tion of certain items denied by the House come the construction of the New York that had ramifications beyond a single facility in addition to their own. ?:"he service. Several of these related to the Army witnesses indicated they have an

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20083 estimated requirement for 5,500 hours operating time per year and it is esti-. mated that private industry has a re­quirement for an additional 1,500 to 4,500 hours. and yet a reactor can operate safely only 2,600 hours per year without creating a condition of dangerous radio­~ctivity.

The President, after evaluating all the testimony, the committee feels that the best interests of the Government will be served by building the Aberdeen facil­ity, not only for the above reasons but also because many necessary and essen­tial support facilities are now available at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

Rather reluctantly, last year, the Congress provided separately for the con­struction requirements of the newly formed defense agencies under title 4 of the bill. It will be recalled that sev­eral of these agencies were formed to consolidate like activities of the three military departments in order to provide a savings to the taxpayer. It was ex­pected that these agencies would be op­erated on an austere basis, drawing their personnel from those engaged in similar activities from within the military serv­ices, and that the maximum use would be made of existing facilities. The com­mittee had high hopes that these agen­cies would accomplish the intended pur­pose. It is now found, however, that the requests for new authority are not as clear cut as might be expected, and costs directly related to those agencies are found within the requirements of the military departments, and a rather ambitious construction program is being embarked upon to such an extent that

· it is difficult to determine just what these agencies will cost and, in fact, whether any real savings can be contemplated. The committee has dealt with this in more detail in the committee report, be­ginning on page 30, as any Senator can find with reference to the report which is on his desk.

The bill, as submitted to the Congress, requested new authorization in the amount of $27,020,000 for five defense agencies. Subsequent thereto, and after the house had acted on the bill, an addi­tional request for $20 million for a classi­fied project was received. After a care­ful analysis of these requests, the com­mittee granted new authority only in the amount of $24,403,000, and this in­cludes the $20 million requested for the classified project.

Next, I should like to outline certain portions of title V of the bill, which re­lates to family housing. As mentioned earlier, for the first time we must au­thorize all costs of family housing, whether it be new construction, opera­tion costs, or debt payments. Many of you, I am sure, will be surprised to learn that this program costs three-fourths of a billion dollars a year. You are able for the first time to review all the costs of this program as the result of two ac­tions taken by the Congress last year. First, the committee, last year, drafted language providing for a .fazpiJy .housiI}.g a,ccount, consolidating into one fund all the cost of housing, which had previously beel} distrf~uted through 16 different· ap­propriations, and second, requiring

authorization for all housing costs as opposed only to the cost of new con­struction as in the past. This has for the first time made possible centralized fi­nancial control of all amounts appro­priated for family housing and enabled the Congress to review as a whole all the costs of the program.

This year the Department requested funding for 12,100 units of housing. Of these, about 9,000 units were new au­thority and funding was requested for approximately 3,000 units of housing au­thorized last year. Concerning last year's authority, I might state that the Congress authorized about 13,800 units, but appropriated funds for only about half this number. The request for fund­ing this year of only 3,000 units previ­ously authorized simply means that about 25 percent of the program author­ized last year has fallen by the wayside and has been superseded by what are now deemed to be more urgent projects. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and others, considered the housing pro­gram of sufficient importance to appear before the committee and urge the restoration of 2,100 units of housing which had been denied by the House, and assured us that the program this year is sound and necessary.

The effect of the House reduction of 2,100 units is to stretch out the program over a 6-year period as opposed to a 5-year period as requested by the De­partment of Defense. However, in view of the appeals made to the committee, it was deemed advisable to restore the units denied by the House. Other sub­stantial reductions were made and cer­tain limitations were incorporated in the bill to assure a sound program.

First among these limitations is one that relates to the rental guarantee pro­gram which is designed to provide for housing requirements overseas. This au­thority has existed for a number of years, but expired on June 30 of this year. Section 507 of the bill before you would extend this authority and limit the number of units that may be guaran­teed under the program to 5,000 during the fiscal years 1964 and 1965, as opposed to 5,000 units annually as provided in the House-passed bill. It is believed that this limitation is particularly pertinent in light of statements emanating from the Pentagon that "the time has come to begin reducing American forces over­seas and cutting U.S. spending abroad."

Next, I should like to refer to the leas­ing authority provision under section 505 of the bill. The original authority to lease housing was granted by the 84th Congress. The authority was provided to permit leasing of family housing units at tactical military installations, such as Nike missile sites, where the construc­tion of housing was not justified due to the uncertain duration of the mission. It was provided in the original act that the rental could not exceed $150 per month per unit. Last year, the langUage was broadened at the request of the De­fense Department to permit leasing near any military installation. This year the Congress is asked to further modify the law to permit bloc-leasing as opposed to leasing on an individual unit basis.

In approving the change last year, the committee was of the impression that the leasing authority was to be used only where it was to the benefit of the Gov­ernment to lease rather than build, hav­ing in mind those areas where tenure was not certain or where military strength is subject to change, or where there is a surplus of private rental or sale property that might be obtained through leasing to the advantage of the Government. It was further assumed that the $150· per month limitation was being so applied as to cover all costs of this housing. It is now found, however, that such housing is costing on an aver­age of $168 per month, including the costs of maintenance and operation, and the Defense Department is proposing to lease housing in large metropolitan areas, which is not in conformity with the standards I have just described and where the Congress has refused to au­thorize housing in the past, believing that community support should be ade­quate. It has become apparent that the leasing program has gone well beyond the intent of the Congress and must be promptly curtailed. The committee is advised that there are currently about 4,800 units of housing under lease. The committee disapproved of any further expansion of this program, either domes­tic or overseas.

The committee has allowed $305.2 mil­lion for the cost of operation, mainte­nance, and leasing of housing, which is $7 million less than was requested. It is believed that this amount may easily be absorbed through more stringent econ­omy in operating and maintaining the existing housing inventory .and through the curtailment of leasing activities.

Another area in which the committee has made reductions is for the improve­ment of adequate quarters. The Depart­ment requested $10. 7 million for this purpose. This amount is believed to be excessive, and an allowance of $5. 7 mil­lion, which is $3 million less than the House allowance, has been granted and is believed adequate to provide for essen­tial repairs.

Finally, I want to refer to title 7 of the bill, which relates to reserve components. For these construction requirements the Office of the Secre~ary of Defense re­quested a total of $34.2 million, the smallest amount requested in recent years. The committee has granted $38.5 million. Excepu for the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, the amount of new authorization requested would support executed programs ap­proximately at .the levels of recent years. The tempo of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve has been tempo­rarily reduced pending completion of the reorganization and realinement of the force structure. The committee was. of the opinion that the $3.6 million re­quested for the Army National Guard is entirely inadequate to carry out the long­range con~truction plans of the Guard and in fact represents only a token· pro­gram. Therefore, the amount requested was increased by $3.9 million for a total of $7 .5 million, which it is believed will permit an orderly and necessary con­tinuation or' the National Guard program

.

20084: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

and provide for the most essential proj­ects. A small increase of approximately $370,000 was made in the Air National Guard program to provide the first in­crement of a runway extension which is required as a safety measure.

Mr. President, this concludes my sum­mation of this measure.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Mas­sachusetts, the ranking minority member of the committee.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, once again in discussing this legislation which vitally affects our Nation's defense I find myself in accord with our able chairman, the senior Senator from Georgia.

Thia bill, in my opinion, represents a thorouah and complete coverage of our military construction needs for the fiscal year 1964. At the outset I should say that the House has done a splendid job in its consideration of this bill, and we in the Senate have attempted insofar as pos­sible to stay at, or near, the House figures. Overall the House reduced the requested authorization by approxi­mately 13 percent. There are some areas where our committee felt the House cuts were too deep and in those areas restora­tions were made. There are other areas however, where the Senate has elimi­nated House approved items. I should point out that we ar.e in the fourth month of the fiscal year 1964 and, also, there is remaining available to the Department of Defense some previous authorizations where monies have been appropriated but not yet expended.

With regard to the request of the Army-the House allowance amounted to $200,672,000, whereas we recommend $199,633,000. We allowed $10 million for expenditure within the United States which was not included in the House bill and at the same time reduced the authorization for expenditures out­side the United States in the amount of $11,422,000. The two largest items ap­proved were for a pulse reactor at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., in the amount of $2,174,000, and barracks facilities at Fort Myer, Va., in the amount of $4 million. Other items mak­ing up the difference were at Fort Gordon, Ga., Redstone Arsenal, Ala., and Fort Belvoir, Va.

Turning to the Navy, the House allowed $205,277,000 and the Senate voted $210,899,000. The increase of ap­proximately $5 million involved facilities for Key West, Fla., certain items in Puerto Rico, a repair facility at Bremer­ton, Wash., the relocation of a Naval radio facility at Sugar Grove, W. Va., and a chapel at Glynco, Ga.

In considering the request for the Air Force, the House allowed $4133,950,000, whereas we recommend $488,407,000. The largest reduction in the Air Force total came from the omission of items in the amount of $8,052,000 for the Air Training Command. The other .rather large item reduced was for an addition to the hospital at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., in the amount of $3,700,000. The committee felt tllis

project could be delayed for another year.

With regard to the request for the defense agencies, the House allowed $6,511,000 and the Senate allowed $24,-403,000 for this item. Actually there was one large classified item in the amount of $20 million which was in­cluded in the Senate consideration which was not covered by the House action. Secondly, there were some air-condition­ing projects for the Defense Atomic Sup­port Agency which the Senate allowed.

Turning to military family housing, we find the greatest area of difference be­tween the Senate and the House bill. The House allowed 10,000 units for an overall total of $692,862,000, whereas we voted slightly over 12,000 units for a total of $720,443,000. Even though there was a 50-percent cutback in fiscal year 1963 in appropriations for family housing, and of this amount only half of the moneys appropriated were spent, none­theless the committee was persuaded by the testimony of Secretary McNamara and General LeMay that family housing was an urgent requirement for the fiscal year 1964. This matter will again be under review of the Senate Appropria­tions Subcommittee on Military Con­struction which will be looking into the matter of family housing in additional detail.

In regard to the Reserve and National Guard, the Senate allowed $4,270,000 more than the House committee, of which $3,900,000 was for the Army Na­tional Guard construction program. An additional item in the amount of $370,000 was permitted for the extension of a runway at Reno, Nev., to accommodate planes of the Air National Guard.

In summary, the Senate bill adds $52,-389,380 to the House-approved measure. As I have pointed out, the additional allowance for military housing and the classified item account substantially for this difference. I hope the Senate will approve the work of the committee.

I have summarized the major changes which the Senate committee made in the House bill. We have tried to keep the bill down to the House level of $1.6 bil­lion. I believe it is a good bill. I believe it provides all that is necessary for the military, particularly when we take into account previously authorized items.

I hope the Senate will suppart the committee's action and will accept the few changes that we have made.

I commend the Senator from Georgia on his conscientious work.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has been very diligent in bis attendance at the hear­ings of the committee. After all, this is a committee bill, and the Senator from Massachusetts made bis contributions to the work that brought about the bill now before the Senate.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ,

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. BARTLETT. In response to the

hope expressed by the distinguished Sen­ator from Massachusetts, I accede to his request, and if there is a yea-and-nay vote on the bill I will vote in favor of it. I do not have as intimate a knowledge of

the present bill as I posse1;1sed in previous years.

Mr. RUSSELL. I may say that the Appropriation Committee's gain was the Armed Services Committee's loss.

Mr. BARTLETT. The Senator is very kind. On that committee I served under the distinguished leadership of the Sen­ator from Georgia. I notice there is in the bill a construction authorization for Alaska in- the sum of $21,041,000. Of that amount about $1,700,000 is for the Army, and close to $5 million for the Navy. The remainder is for the Air Force.

I commend the chairman of the com­mittee, the Senator from Massachusetts, and indeed every member of the commit­tee for their discernment in placing this requested amount in the b111 for Alaska defenses.

We of Alaska like to think that Alaska is the front line of defense. Others may wish to dispute that statement, but I believe we all agree in saying that it is a front line.

When the authorization is granted, as I am sure it Will be, and when the money is subsequently appropriated, and the work has been performed, not only will Alaska be defended but the defenses of the entire United States will be strength­ened, thanks to the useful and essential work performed this day and heretofore by the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator. I now yield to the Senator from Mary­land.

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I feel that it is my duty to call to the attention of my colleagues a deletion by the commit­tee which would have remedied a deplor- . able and untolerable condition which presently exists at the WA VE barracks at Bainbridge,

These barracks are of a temporary World War II construction and are in my opinion a fire trap. During the hear­ings it was disclosed that our young ladies would have only 2 minutes to evac­uate these buildings in the event of a fire. Mr. President, I am concerned for the safety of these girls.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee what provisions are being made to insure that our WA VE recruits will have safe and adequate housing.

Mr. RUSSELL. The situation to which the Senator from Maryland refers, of course, is not desirable. We intend to remedy it. It will be remedied in due season. Unfortunately, this happens to affect some young ladies who are living in World War II barracks. We have hundreds of thousands of young men liv­ing in such barracks all over the coun­try. We are undertaking to remedy the situation as rapidly as possible. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, over 44 percent of the $200 million for the Army is for the replacement of World War II buildings. A very substantial part of the $211 million authorized for the Navy is also for the replacement of such structures.

The Senator has made a very meritor­ious case both here and in committee. The committee, however, did not feel

1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20085 the program had a sufficiently high pri­ority to be carried in the bill this year. I can assure the Senator ndw, as I did in committee, that we will undertake to give this subject prompt consideration next year. I hope we will pass ·an au­thorization bill much earlier than we have been able to do this year. I hope there will not be any undue delay in that regard, particularly in dealing with emergency situations such as the one the Senator has outlined, which affects these fine young women, the WAVES, who are taking their preliminary training at Bainbridge, where tens of thousands of naval personnel have received what is called boot training.

Mr. BEALL. I thank the chairman. He was quite sympathetic in committee. I appreciate his sympathetic remarks at this time.

Mr. RUSSELL. We have many desir­able projects, but it is impossible to reach them all at one time. We now have a $1,700 million bill. We could easily have made it twice as much and still have had projects left over.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I join with the distinguished Senator from Massachu­setts and the distinguished Senator from Alaska in commending the able senior Senator from Georgia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on his pres­entation of the military construction bill. In my following of these hearings I noted the care taken in examining each case on its merits, and the typically thorough and conscientious manner in which the bill in detail was examined under the direction of the distinguished Senator from Georgia and by the other members of the committee.

I hope the Senate will pass the bill promptly in the interest of our national security.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the distin­guished Senator from Missouri. He is one of the best informed and most earn­est members of the Committee on Armed Services and makes substantial contributions to the proposed legislation as reported by the committee.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield. Mr. HOLLAND. I recently had oc­

casion to go to the Miami-Key West area. In the course of my visit I visited two of the Hawk battalions which are now quartered there, I understand, on a per­manent basis. They were sent there originally on a temporary basis. There are two Hawk battalions and some other units, along with an air defense head­quarters.' I found in the case of each of the Hawk battalions that the accom­modations are far from satisfactory and far from efficient. I inquired and learned that the Department of Defense had requested, as of May 6, in a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services that this matter be taken care of by authorization, if possible, in this bill, of the sum of $14.4 million. To be frank, I have not had a chance to examine the bill with all the care I would like to tise, so I have not been able to find that item. I want to be certain that the item is in the bill, if the Senator can advise the Senate at this

time, because it is a "must" item. Those men are on duty on a night-and-day basis, manning not only the Hawk equip­ment, but also the radars and the other apparatus in connection with the air de­fense activities. They ought to be rea.;. sonably housed, reasonably sustained, and reasonably supported. I am won­dering if that item is in the bill; and if so, where it is. Frankly, I have been unable to find it.

Mr. RUSSELL. I assume it is in the bill and will be found under the item for "Continental Air and Missile Defense Forces." I do not recall on what page of the bill it is, but it is in a lump-sum appropriation. The Army presented it to the committee as a classified item. That is why it is not spelled out line by line.

The Senator from Florida, I am sure, knows, as I do, and as does everybody who has been in that section of Florida-­and that includes quite a few people in · the winter season-that those batteries are there.

Mr. HOLLAND. They know they are there and that the men are living in highly inadequate quarters.

Mr. RUSSELL. The money is in the bill. It is in the lump-sum appropria­tion for Continental Air and Missile De­fense Forces. The Senator will find a reference to the item on page 10 of the committee report.

Mr. HOLLAND. On page 65 of the bill, lines 4, 5, and 6, is an amount which I think may contain the funds, but the

· items are unknown to me. The item in which I am interested is for $14.4 mil­lion, but I am not sure that that is in­cluded in the amount on page 65 of the bill, because the reference there is quite general. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia if that is the case.

Mr. RUSSELL. The committee was told by the Department of Defense that that is where the item is. I cannot per­sonally vouch for that, because the item is not spelled out in the bill. We were told by the Department of Defense that that is where $14.4 million is provided, for the air and missile defense forces that were moved to Florida at the time of the Cuban controversy,

If the Senator will ref er to page 10 of the committee report, at the bottom of the page, the last paragraph, he will see the statement:

The $23 million included in the bill for these forces provides for continuing the program of improvements to the existing Nike-Hercules system to provide greater tac­tical effectiveness. The major item at $14.4 million ls for air defense of the Homestead­Miami and Key West, Fla., areas.

So the item is spelled out in the com­mittee report on page 10; although it is not a line item in the bill.

But "Continental Air and Missile De­fense Forces" is a line item, and the committee stated in the report what the Department told us the money was for.

Mr. HOLLAND. Perhaps the confu­sion in my mind results from the fact that the item in the bill to which I have referred is not for $23 million; it is for $22,560,000. I was looking for a $23 mil­lion item but could not find it. · Mr. RUSSELL. We rounded off the figure at $23 million. I have become so

accustomed to hurling around such huge sums of money when dealing with de­fense matters that this is the only op­portunity I have to round off a figure. Where more than $500,000 is involved, I give the higher classification. So I referred to the $22,560,000 · as $23 mil­lion.

Mr. HOLLAND. I wish to keep the RECORD from appearing to be too reck­less at this point. I know of no man who safeguards public funds in the matter of authorizations and expenses for the armed services, to any more zealous de­gree than does the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia.

The reason for my concern is that those men-and they are quite a large force, as the Senator knows-are endur­ing miserable living conditions. They are unable, of course, to have their fam­ilies with them or close by, as they should have, at a permanent installation, and this installation has now become permanent. I had hoped that this item would appear in the bill. As I under­stand, it is not in the House bill.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am advised by the able assistant to the committee, Mr. Nease, that it is in the House bill, and that this is the only item that was sub­mitted subsequent to the original budget that the House did approve in the bill. So the Senator from Florida has nothing to worry about. The item to which he refers is in both bills. I do not know of any greater assurance he can have than that. The item is in both bills. Now he might take it up with the-Department of Defense, and make a moving appeal to them, so that they will let this worthy contract at a very early date.

I did not know that anyone could suffer such severe hardship anywhere in Flor­ida as the Senator has depicted is the case of these men, even though they may have been living in tents on the seashore.

Mr. HOLLAND. · They are living in tents, on the coast, where there are siz­able numbers of mosquitoes. It is not too pleasant a situation for them.

I thank the Senator from Georgia for his assurance that this item is in both bills. I think there is no more worth­

. while item. The Senator from Georgia has not been

approached by me on any other of the numerous items for Florida which are in the bill, and for which I thank him. I have expected him, as he has always shown, to show the kind consideration, in accordance with, their merits, that he always shows. But this one item, I hap­pen to know from my own personal ob­servation, is badly needed. I spoke with officers of some of the commands, and they told me that the existing conditions were not such as to promote the greatest efficiency. I am delighted to know that this matter has been taken care of.

Mr. RUSSELL. The item is in the bill. I am sure that the contract will be let as expeditiously as possible. I hope the Senator will not be rebuked by the chamber of commerce for admitting that there are mosquitoes in this general area.

Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator will allow me to say so, I do not believe any­one has ever taken the position that there are not a few mosquitoes on the

20086 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD- SENATE October 22

coast of Florida. That is what I am talk­ing about-the coast, the long expanse of 169 miles between Miami and Key West. These units are deployed down along the Keys, and it is not an easy sit­uation for them. I am sure this author­ization will operate to make their situa­tion much easier and to ~ring about even more efficient service by this command.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am sure the Senator is quite correct in stating the case.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. NUCLEAR PULSED REAcrOR

Mr. KEATING. I express my grati­tude to the distinguished Senator from Georgia for the courtesy he displayed at the hearing with respect to the proposed nuclear pulsed reactor, and for the thor­ough way in which he reviewed the prob­lem. Mr. Oliver Townsend, chairman of the New York State Office of Atomic Re­search and Development was questioned extensively by the Senator from Georgia.

Naturally, I am disappointed, although not exactly surprised, by the action of the committee in providing funds to pro­ceed with the construction of a proposed pulsed nuclear reactor facility at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, in Maryland. New York State has been planning for 2 years the construction, with State and private funds, of a similar reactor, which would be available on a priority basis to the Defense Department. Despite the guarant.ees that New York Stat.e was pre­pared to off er to provide as much time as the Defense Department required, the Army continued to insist that its require­ments far exceeded the capabilities of a single reactor-even though, before the Army knew of the New York State ef­forts, ·the Army had apparently been satisfied that a single Army-owned re­actor would meet its needs.

I understand that the committee acted to duplicate the proposed New York fa­cility with Federal funds only after re­ceiving from the Secretary of Defense the strongest personal assurances that a federally owned reactor at Aberdeen was a top-priority item. The Army wit­nesses indicated that they expect an an­nual requirement of 5,500 operating hours and that they estimate private in­dustry requirements of between 1,400 and 4,500 hours, more or less based upon the formal addition to procurement spec­lfl.cations requiring the testing of cer­tain items under nuclear conditions. Since it is anticipated that such a reactor could operate safely for only a fraction of this time each year, a strong argu­ment was made that the Federal facility is also essential.

Mr. President, I sincerely hope the Army estimates and the committee ac­ceptance of them will be proved correct. I sincerely hope that as a result of con­tinuing preparedness under the t.erms of the test ban treaty, the need for such facilities will be increased as anticipated, and that there will be enough work for reactors both at Aberdeen and in New York State. However, since one of the key points in the committee decision to authorize Federal funds was the Army's insistence upon its need for more hours of operation than a single reactor could

accommodate. I sincerely-hope the com­mittee will follow closely the actual practice and experience of the Aberdeen -r~tor.

It is not expected that this reactor can possibly be completed before spring of 1965; but I hope that when this reactor does come into operation, the committee will seek from the Army a detailed breakdown on the hours of operation, the performance, and the workload-as between Government and private con­tractors. If the Army estimates on which the committee acted are accurate, there should be more than enough work for both; but if the Army estimates are not accurate or if the Army makes any effort to require privat.e firms doing work on contracts to use the Army facility, as opposed to the New York facility, I hope the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Senators from New York, would want to have this information available and to be in a position to fol­low the developments very closely.

I think the language of the committee report on page 8 is splendid; and if the facility at Aberdeen is to be constructed, this language very clearly points out that the Aberdeen facility is not in any way to supplant the New York facility, but is to be run along with it, and that there is need for both of them.

Under the circumstances, I think I should express appreciation for the very helpful language which the committee has included in the report, which would be in the nature of advice to the Army as to its conduct of the facility at Aber­deen.

I have some questions to ask on an­other matter, which I assume will be taken up later.

Mr. RUSSELL. The testimony from the Army-and we went into it rather fully with the representatives of the Army, when they were before us initially, before the Senators from New York presented their case-indicated that even if New York State completes its reactor and if the one at Aberdeen is constructed, there still will not be within the United States adequate facilities of this nature, due to the very vital impor­tance of the research in this field which necessarily must be done.

I am sure the Senator from New York knows-even though most of the details about this matter are classified-that it relat.es directly to, and affects materi­ally, the operation of the entire defense system in this country.

Mr. KEATING. There is no question about that; but it is also a matter which is of great interest to private industry, and we would not want to have all of it operated through the Government.

Mr. RUSSELL. I understand the Senator's point. If he will examine page 103 of the hearings, and the sue­ceding pages, he will see that General Ryder testified that there is a very great need for research facilities of this na­ture, and that it is essential to have one at Aberdeen, by virtue of the fact that there are a number of related activi­ties at Aberdeen, but that the facility which New York State is trying to con­struct would be fully utilized by the Army and by private contractors with

the Army. 1n· fact, Federal funds have been voted for nearly all the research done in this field, for most of it is done for the Government.

Mr. KEATING. That may well prove to be the case.

On the basis of these fl,gures, certainly there would be more than enough work for both. I simply request that the committee keep its eye-as I am sure it will-on the Army facility; and if there is any complaint about its programing ::: assure the distinguished Senator from Georgia that he will hear about it from the Senators from New York. We shall always be-a.c; we have been in the past-­most appreciative of his courteous ·and friendly reception.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I com­mend the initiative of the great Empire State for creating this authority and for embarking on this program. I am sure it will be most helpful; and I hope New York will not lose any of its electronics industry, unless some of it, forsooth, might see flt to contemplate the estab­lishment of a plant in Georgia, in which case, of course, that would demonstrate great wisdom on its part.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, that would be very close to a tragedy. If that time ever comes, I shall certainly take up the matter with the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL­SON in the chair). Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from New York?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. My remarks will be

brief, I assure the Senator. I was very glad to hear the Senator's

statement about the initiative shown by . the State of New York in establishing its State atomic research and development

. auth9rity. !'ilew York has been put to a very serious disadvantage, and serious pockets of unemployment exist in New York-particularly, for example, at Buf­falo and at some points on Long Island­and, to be precise, for the reason that New York has lost some of this business to California.

There has been honest competition, and we are trying to win back-in the

· hard way-the establishments we have lost: we are attempting to do that by making facilities available.

Mr. President, I call particular atten­tion to this item, which in the context of the vast and expensive array of projects which H.R. 6500 authorizes, is relatively small. It is small, however, only from the point of view of the proportionate amount of dollars allocated to it. It is very large and very significant, from the point of view of its implications to the security of this Nation and the enter­prising spirit of State initiative which is one of the sources of this Nation's great strength.

This item, included in the bill by the Senate Armed Services Committee, after the House-passed bill omitted it, would authorize $2,174,000 for the construction at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland of facilities -to house a nuclear pulse test reactor. -A machine of this

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20087 type ls used primarijy to sill}ulate the radiatiQn effects .. of nuclear weapons detonation i.n tile develoRment ~d test­ing of military equipment. At .Present, no machine of tJ).e _ type contem.pla1ied by this bill exists on the east coast of the United States, even though many of the military installations which serve this country are located in this area.

Authorization of funds for construc­tion of the facilities for the Aberdeen reactor was omitted from this bill by the House of Representatives upon the condition that the Army would imme­diately initiate discussion with repre­sentatives of New York State in regard to the capability and desirability of utiliz­ing the reactor facility which New York will build. At the time this bill was being considered in the House, Chairman CARL VmsoN, of the House Committee on Armed Services, wrote Congressman EMANUEL CELLER-the letter is contained on page 89 of the S~nate comm\ttee's record of hearings-to the effect that if the resulting report indicated the de­sirability of restoring the reactor facility to the construction bill, the Senate com­mittee would take that action and that the House conferees wouid agree.

In the light of the decision by the New York State Atomic Research and De­velopment Authority, a public benefit corporation of the State of New York, to construct with its own funds an advanced pulse test reactor in Saratog~ County, northeast of SchenectadY, it has been the State's position that the Department of Defense should be authorized by the Congress to proceed at Aberdeen only if the Defense Department could demon­strate to the Congress that the· national defense requires both pulse reactor facilities on the east coast, one in New York and the other at Aberdeen.

t have followed with great interest the question raised by New York State as to whether a national-defense require­ment exists for the operation of two pulse reactors, one in New York and one in Aberdeen. The New York pulse reactor, upon which preparatory work was first undertaken by the New York State Atomic Research and Development Au­thority more than 2 years ago in co­operation with the Department of De­fense installation at Fort Monmouth, N.J., is now being carried forward 1n New York with State financing. The New York State installation will utilize an improved version of the Atomic Ener­gy Commission's health physics research reactor, which recently went into opera­tion at Oak Ridge. The New York State Atomic Research and Development Au­thority has stated that it will be able to enhance sig:iiflcantly the performance of this reactor type, so that upon com­pletion it will be the most advanced pulse reactor in the country.

The New York State authorities are moving ahead full steam on a project which preceded, in its perception of a national need and in its mobilization of resources required to meet it, the present request by the Department of Defense for a similar project at Aberdeen.

The Senate Armed Services Committee in its report has indicated its recogni­tion of the national defense requirement

CIX--1265

tor two nuclear pulse reactors on , the east . coast. The ~mmlttee's repor~ states:

The Department of the Army Indicated that their requirements for the pulse reactol'. will exceed the capacities of both proposed reactors and they would welcome the con­struction of the New York facility in addi­tion to their own.

· In addition, the .Department . of the Army's views with respect to the need for the operation of two reactors was reflected in the testimony of Brig, Gen. W. T. Ryder, Director, Special Weapons, Office, Chief, Research, and Develop­ment, Department of ·the Army-pages 103, 105 of the committee hearings on H.R. 6500-in which he stated that "we would welcome New York State to build their reactor even if we get ours at Aber­deen." General Ryder also stated on page 105 of the record of the committee hearings:

I think that putting the reactor at Aber­deen, where we have, as I say, tbese two Army laboratories directly associated with this work, will be a step in that direction. It is for this reason we strongly urge the building of the pulse reactor at Aberdeen and for that matter strongly urge New York to go ahead with theirs.

With respect to the need for two reac­tors, I also point to the conclusions of the report on conferences between repre­sentatives of the Department of the Army and the New York State Atomic Research and Development Authority concerning construction of the Aberdeen pulse reactor issued by the Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Re­search and Development, on May 8, 1963, printed on page 92 of the hearing record .. which states that: . '(b) The technical characteristics of the proposed New York reactor core will be ade­quate to meet most all Army requiremenur. The location is satisfactory for the elec­tronic manufacturers and the electronic research and development work.

( c) There ls adequate workload to sup­port the Aberdeen reactor and the New York -reactor.

In view of the strong encour-agement by the Department of the Army to pro­ceed with the development of a New York nuclear reactor project, I am hope­ful that the New York State project will be able to contribute on a large -scale to the national defense effort and in cooperation with the Department of the ·Army may fulflll the vital defense mis­sion as it has been described to the Con­gress by the Department of the Army's recommendations.

I am also hopeful that the Department of the Army, after operations of the Aberdeen reactor have been commenced, will make available to the Senate and House Armed Services Committee or other responsibly interested parties, from time to time, reports of the series of experiments leading toward comple­tion of the design of the reactor and how the requirements, as described by the Department of the Army, will be met. The building of this State project and its successful operation will, I am cer­tain, be a tribute to the enterprising spirit and initiative of the State of New York.

Mr. Presi(J~t., the Federal Oovern­:r;nent is alw&.Y,s urging ·the States to .es­tablish new facilities, and New York is doing so.

In the present situation, the State of New York feels that it has the right to go ahead because of the evidence estab­lishing the need for the New York pulse reactor about which very _1~.mple assur­ances have been given. So I am ,grati­fied by the statements made by the Sen­ate Armed Services Committee.

My colleague, the Se:r;iator from New York [Mr. KEA;rING], and I only express to the committee what we know it will do, which will be to see, 'in its own way, that if there i.s an intention to require the State to change its position, based upon a set of facts and requirements which have been presented to the State, although without any guarantees, at least the committee will do its utmost to review such a situation with great care.

Mr. RUSSELL. Of course it is impos­sible for the committee to keep track on all of the activities of every one of the thousands of facilities which are under the Department of Defense. But if the Senators from New York have rePorted to them that the conduct in that con­nection is not in accordance with the instructions of the Deparment of De­fense, I shall be very glad to have them so report to me.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield again to me?

Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield to the Senator from New York. - Mr. KEATING. Let me ask whether this is an appropriate time for me to refer to a problem existing at Rochester and at Troy, N.Y., at the Naval Reserve facilities located at those two places.

Mr. RUSSELL. I think so, because, insofar as I know, we are about to con­-elude our consideration of this measure.

Mr. KEATING. Therefore, Mr. Presi­dent, as a matter of procedure, and if there is no objection, I submit, on behalf of myself and my distinguished col­league from New York [Mr. JAVlTsJ. the amendment which I send to the desk and ,ask to have stated. , The PRESIDING OFFICER. The .amendment submitted by the Senator from New York will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 120, in line 9, it is proposed to insert the .following:

SEC. 706. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, may construct, expand, rehabili­tate, convert, or equip existing facllities of .the New York Naval Militia at Rochester, New York, and Troy, New York, without regard to the provisions of section 2233 ( b) of title 10, United States Code, provided the cost is reasonable and shared equally by the State and Federal Governments.

And to renumber the succeeding sec­tion.

Mr. KEATING. ·Mr. President, the amendment offered by my colleague from New York [Mr. JAVITS] and myself would restore the language approved by the House with reference to these two facilities with a modi­fication by adding at the end of the

'

20088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

paragraph the words "provided. the cost ts reasonable and shared· equally by the State and the Federal Government." I have expressed to the committee my con­cern over the fact that the committee struck from the House-passed bill sec­tion 705, which would permit the Fed­eral Government to renovate certain Naval Reserve facilities which are rented rather than owned outright by the Fed­eral Government, roughly along the same lines as governing provision for National Guard facilities.

In New York and several other States, the NavY has entered into rental agree­ments which it considers to be very strongly in the Federal interest and which result in great savings to the Fed­eral Government.

In Rochester, N.Y., for example, the Federal Government pays an annual lease for the Reserve Training Center of $14,900. This equals only one-half of the annual maintenance and operating costs of $29,800. The other half is paid by the State. This rental agreement is renego­tiated every 3 years so that the actual operating costs can be accurately deter­mined and evenly shared.

This arrangement should be compared with what the Federal Government pays for comparable facilities in States where Naval Reserve armories are owned by the Federal Government. There the NavY has to pay: first, the cost of buy­ing land; second, the cost of construct­ing a suitable building; and third, full operation and maintenance costs. Yet, the price that the Navy could ever get from selling these properties is not com­parable to the cost, for there is a very limited demand for large armories.

In both Illinois and Michigan the Navy has a similar rental agreement for prop­erty, yet in these cases, I am informed, the NavY pays the entire operation and maintenance costs; whereas, in New York the Navy pays only half. There­fore, even if the State of New York were to turn this property directly over to the Federal Government, in the long run the annual cost to the Federal Government would be greater by half than the amount of the present rent.

In the case of the Rochester facility, the savings to the Federal Government as a result of this peculiar arrangement for shared payment of operation and maintenance cost amount to more than one-quarter of the proposed Federal share of work. Therefore, in less than 4 years, the Federal share of the work amounting to $50,000 will be fully re­paid.

Moreover, the leases-and I have cop­ies of them right here-clearly provide that any improvements in these f acili­ties shall be amortized over their useful life in such a way as to reflect a com­parable reduction in the annual lease.

Mr. President, no one would deny that the provision of NavY Reserve facilities is primarily the responsibility of the Fed­eral Goverment. Although these are also Navy Militia facilities which might conceivably be used on occasion by the State, the fact· is they are primarily, first and foremost, Naval Reserve facili­ties. They are far more closely linked to the Federal service than the National Guard, yet for National Guard construe-

tion the States pay ohly 25 percent of construction costs of State-owned f acili­ties and in these Naval Reserve installa­tions, the State is ·prepared to pay 50 percent of the costs.

Mr. President, under these circum­stances, and the facts concerning these two particular armories, it would, I sub­mit, be entirely in the interest of the Federal Government to finance improve­ments sought by the Navy for Naval Re­serve purposes. Even though I do not deny that these arrangements may seem somewhat unusual and I would concur in the wisdom of reviews on an individual basis by the committees before Federal funds -are authorized, taken as a whole, it seems to me the arrangement for these two armories is altogether beneficial to the Federal Government.

I am constrained to .ask why it is that the State of New York has acquiesced in such an arrangement. Perhaps through the fault of the State author­ities, the Senators, or whoever might be at fault, some of the facts may not have been available to the committee at the time it made the decision to delete the funds. That is the reason for submit­ting the amendment to restore the lan­guage approved by the House with this additional proviso, which I think is en­tirely reasonable and fair, and is a pro­tective feature for the Federal Govern­ment. I hope the Senator from Georgia will be able to· give consideration to the amendment.

end might be something which the con­ference might wish to consider. I am very grateful to the · Senator for his ac­tion. In the light of the Senator's assur­ances, I do not wish to press the amendment. ·

Mr. JA VITS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the sub­committee for his consideration of the installations in our State, and express my appreciation to the Senator fi.>m New York, my colleague and friend, who has presented the facts so convincingly. I join him in the feeling which we all have as to the great good faith always shown by the Senator from Georgia in matters of this character. But I espe.:. cially wish to call attention to the initia­tive displayed by my colleague in un­earthing the facts and developing them in such a way as to appeal to the judg­ment of the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. RUSSELL. I believe that the statement of facts which the Senator presented and the estimate of the ex­penses he has giveJ:l, together with the willingness of the State of New York to share these expenditures, does take these projects out of the category con­templated in section 2233 of title 10 of the United States Code, and I shall be happy to see if something can be worked out in conference.

Mr. KEATING. I am grateful to the Senator from Georgia, and also to my colleague from New York [Mr. JAVITsl for his comments.

Mr. President, I withdraw my amend­ment.

The · ·PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

NEEDED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IN WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I am frank to state to the distinguished Sen­ator from New York that when we considered the item we had the facts before us, but we did not have the figures. The question was presented to the com­mittee as an exception to the general law that the Federal Government, un­less specifically authorized, could not Mr. BYRD of West Virginia . . Mr. expend money on building facilities that President, included in the bill is a $3,­were not on federally owned lands. Of 830,000 authorization for moving the course, the Senator is well aware of the naval radio receiving station from its fact that there is a considerable differ- present location at Cheltenham, Md., to ence between expenditures for National Sugar Grove, W. Va. This item deserves Guard activities-the National Guard • our support. being primarily a State force-and the As a member of the Senate Armed U.S. Reserve forces, which are virtually Services Committee, I have personally Federal forces. concerned myself with the communica-

However, the facts and figures that the tions problems of the NavY through de­Senator has presented put the subject tailed briefings, and through visits to the in a different light. The whole question Cheltenham facilities and the Sugar will be in conference. I hope that the Grove site. During committee hearings Senator will not press his amendment. on the bill, I questioned NavY officials at In the light of the figures he has given great length with regard to the requested us I can assure him I will view the sub- relocation authorization. The conclu­ject very sympathetically in conference. sion which I have reached as a result of I know that the Senator from Massa- my keen interest in the matter is that chusetts, who will be a conferee, will the move from Cheltenham to Sugar do likewise. Grove would increase the efficiency of

We endeavor not to do injustice to any our national defense posture by provid­activity 1n our consideration of the ing the Navy with a better "ear." measure. In view of the fact that the The Naval Comµmnication System is committee, even though it might have an integrated network of naval com­been without all of the facts at hand, munications stations · strategically lo­did strike out that language,· I suggest cated throughout the world to furnish that the items will be in conference. communcations coverage of the major I assure the Senator that I will endeavor sea areas of the world. The importance to see that fair provision is made for of being able to communicate swiftly those activities. I hope he will not press and surely with our fleet units at any his amendment. given moment needs hardly to be em-

Mr. KEAT1NG. I am very grateful phasized in this time of international to the Senator for his assurances. We tensions. all know that such assurances are mean- · A Navy communications station has ingful. The language suggested at the three major components: the receiving

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20089 station, the transmitting station, and the communications center .. _Engineer­ing practices dictate that these compo­nents be geographically separated from each other by from 15 to 25 miles, in or­der that the electromagnetic activity of one component does not interfere with the function or performance of other components.

Therefore, we can see that two im­portant reasons are behind the request for authorization to move the receiving station at Cheltenham. One is the presence of a communications center at Cheltenham; the other is the electro­magnetically hostile environment which has developed at Cheltenham through the years as a result of civilian and in­dustrial encroachments.

In order to understand the urgency behind this move, it is necessary to grasp the complexity of the naval communica­tions problem. To begin with, our en­tire fleet is linked together by highly sensitive circuits that include channels for voice, teletypewriters, data, and graphics. Because of space and weight limitations in ships, and because of the inherently hostile electronic platform provi~ed by ships, the vessels at sea are limited to low-powered transmitters and inefficient antenna arrangements.

This deficiency must be compensated on shore by providing an extremely sen­sitive "ear'' or receiver station, in order to avoid communication failures which, in an emergency, might have serious re­sults. In an age of supersonic aircraft and missiles, any incoherencies which could cause communication delays, could also be fatal.

Mr. President, our Navy has developed extremely sensitive and effective instru­mentations for radio reception. But the greater sensitivity of our very latest equipment is being seriously off set by the "noise" factor, or electromagnetic hostility of the environment of the sta­tion at Cheltenham. This receiving station was originally located in the main . Navy building on Constitution Avenue. Prior to World War II it was moved to the Naval Research Labora­tory at Anocostia. Later it was moved again, this time to its present site at Cheltenham.

This history of constant retreat from the encroachment of expanding military ·and civilian activity points up the clear­cut urgency of locating this vitally im­portant receiver station in an area that is protected permariently from any such encroachment. The ideal site, in the Navy Department's opinion, would be at Sugar Grove, W. Va.

Sugar Grove is in the center of a radio-protected zone of some 3,500 square miles. Electrical encroachment in the zone is prohibited by West Vir­ginia State faw. Disturbances from air­craft, vehicular traffic, industrial plants, and other sources. which have seriously weakened the usefulness o! the site at Cheltenham are not present at Sugar Grove, and cannot be anticipated in the foreseeable future. A broad belt of na­tional forest surrounds the area and provides a natural sound "cushion."

Furthermore, there already exists at Sugar Grove an underground structure especially built with shielding_ feat.ur~

designed to inhibit .the passage of elec­tromagentic radiations. Although not yet finished, this structure originally de­signed for ·the "Big Dish"-the world's largest parabolic radio antenna,.......could be quickly completed and utilized to ef­fectively house the radio receivers.

Tests have been conducted at the .site which prove the superior reception facil­ities at Sugar Grove. Even the area proposed for supPort facilities is so lo­cated, in a valley some 12 miles below the station itself, as . to reduce to an absolute minimum all noise interference. Intervening hills tend · to attenuate any electronic "noise" which could reach Sugar Grove from nearby villages or. roads. · The fact that Sugar Grove was selected as the site for the proposed "Big Dish" project, later abandoned by the Navy, is in itself a strong indication that no finer site for radio reception could be found.

The Navy plans to locate the most modem equipment available at the Sugar Grove site-newly developed antennas, one type of which would be a broadband frequency facility which 1s :fixed mechan­ically, but is, in fact, steerable by elec­tronic means. Another newly developed antenna which would be installed would be the spiral type, which automatically selects the best incoming radio waves without manual or mechanical switch­ing. It is my understanding, too, that the Navy also plans to install a modem and adequate antenna for reception of low and very · low frequencies which are so important to naval command and control.

Thus, the radio-protected zone which encompasses the Sugar Grove site, and the construction and installation of the most advanced radio receiving equip­ment, would provide the Navy with a communications capability which it has sorely needed for many years. · The Naval Communications Center .would continue to be at Cheltenham, Md., but the Navy plans to install two buried cables from Sugar Grove via widely sepa­rated routes to Cheltenham-the two cables providing both stations with some 100 audio channels.

Mr. President, our Navy has the finest fighting men in the world, and the best tecllllical equipment. Our fleet has always been our first line of defense abroad. Day in and day out our ships prowl the seven seas maintaining a vigi­lant surveillance of sky and water. Our Navy shore units are constantly on the alert for a signal of trouble, of danger. The "ear" that will hear that signal is the Navy Radio Receiver Station. We cannot afford to risk missing important ·signals simply because the station is lo­. cated at Cheltenham, where perfect raclio reception is becoming increasingly difficult. We need to know that our radio receiving equipment 1s operating at its maximum efficiency. Moving the facility to Sugar Grove will give us that assurance.

It must be understood, Mr. President, that the Cheltenham radio receiving sta­tion has to be moved-whether now, or next year, or in the years to come-it has to-be moved because of increasing elec­tronic noise. :And Sugar Grove is where

it must go, because no other -site ts avail­able which ls so completely-satisfactory to good radio reception. By waiting to m_ake the move, not only will Navy com­munications continue to ·suffer, but the cost of relocation will surely mount and we will . be finding ourselves having to authorize considerable more moneys to remove this facility from Cheltenham.

Use of the Sugar Grove site for the radio receiving station will represent a substantial savings to the Government, which already owns the land, upon which there already exists a building suitable for operational activities.

West Virginia is at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to defense in­stallations, and authorizing the reloca­tion of the radio receiving station would be a step forward in correcting this in­equitable situation. For West Virginia the move would provide the State with a much needed new pa,yroll totaling 7 offi­cers, 98 enlisted men, and 20 civilian employees.

The bill .also contains a deficiency au­thorization of $84,000 for the planned combined field maintenance shop of the West Virginia National Guard, which is to be constructed at Point Pleasant, W. Va. The additional moneys are needed, Mr. President, because on two separate occasions the lowest submitted construction bid exceeded the -$340,000 which was authorized for this facility in fiscal year 1962. Construction of this much needed maintenance shop would proceed during this :fl.seal year so that efficiency of the Guard units of my State may not suffer from delay.s in obtaining repairs to equipment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks, an excerpt from the hearings on the mili­tary construction authorization bill for the fiscal year 1964, relating to the Naval Radio Station at Sugar Grove, W. Va.

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

NAVAL RADIO STATION, SUGAR GROVE, W. VA.

The next project is at the Naval Radio station, Sugar Grove, W. Va., for the relo­-cation of communication faclltties at the estimated cost of --3,480,000.

Radio reception at Naval Radio Station, Cheltenham, Md., has suffered Increasing <iegradation of performance because of the rapid metropolitan expansion into Prince Georges County and the growth ln confiict­·ing activity at the nearby Andrews Air .Force Base. Sugar Grove, on the other hand, offers an electronically quiet, isolated location, ideal for receiving high frequency radio signals. .

Sugar Grove was designated by the Federal Communications Commission as a radio frequency interference-free zone for the con­struction of the former radio research sta­tion. No devices ca.using radio-frequency interference may legally be located in the area without prior approval of the Navy as long as this designation remains in effect.

Relocation of the receiver facilities at this time will insure that the Navy will be able to maintain Su~ Grove as an interference­free zone. Postponing this relocation will weaken the Navy's position for Justifying ex­clusion of other interest from the area. ·

Naval Radio Station, Cheltenham. 1s the terminus for all Navy radio communication into the Washington area. including fleet operating forces, and defense communication

/

20090 CO'.NGRESSIONAi -RECORD- SENATE October 22 service functions. Garbled messages result­ing from interference ca.1ise delays Which could be extremely serious during emer- · gencies. . _ .

Relocation to Sugar Grove will eliminate the serious problems in radio reception now encountered at Cheltenham.

Basic construction which is usable exists now at Sugar Grove and the receiver facili­ties at Cheltenham must unquestionably be relocated in the near future. Authorization of this project this year will permit a timely start on this essential move and permit the economical use of otherwise vacant facilities.

Chairman RussELL (presiding). Senator SMITH.

Senator SMITH. I do not have any ques­tions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator BYRD. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. May I ask

the Chair what the plan is with regard to meeting this afternoon?

Chairman RUSSELL. We will be getting into the classlfled Items.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I am only interested at the moment in the item for Sugar Grove, page 91, book 2.

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, it would be quite all right for you to proceed with that now, Senator.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I have sev­eral questions now, Mr. Chairman. I cer­tainly want to accommodate my own time with that of the Chair.

Chairman RUSSELL. We are going to recess at 12: 30 or 12: 45 to 2 o'clock, but if you pre­fer to wait and start then you may do it then.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. All right, I wm proceed now if it ls all right with the chairman. '

Chairman RUSSELL. All right, sir, go right ahead.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Chair­man, I would like to seek the restoration of the requested authorization for something over $3 mlllion for the Navy Department to move it.s radio receiving fac111ties from Chel­tenham, Md., to Sugar Grove, W. Va.

This item was deleted from the fiscal year 1964 military construction blll by the House of Representatives.

I would like, if I possibly can, to seek ade­quate Justification for the restoration of this item.

I realize that the naval communications system is an integrated network of naval communications stations strategically lo­cated throughout the world, to furnish com­munication coverage of the major sea areas of the world primarily for command, control, and coordination of our forces afloat wher­ever deployed, and the supporting shore es­tablishment.a and, secondarily, for purposes of administration thereof.

I would like to have someone outline for the committee at this time the various com­ponent parts of the typical communications station such as Navcomsta, Washington, indi­cating generally the relationships of the com­ponents to each other.

Admiral PRESSLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Admiral Roeder, Director of Naval Com­munications, to speak?

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, indeed. Admiral ROEDER. I am Admiral Roeder. In

answer to the question, a typical communica­tions station has three major components, namely, a transmitter station, a receiver sta­tion, and a communications center.

The general procedure is to have these three activities separated from each other by about 15 to 25 miles, and linked together by microwave links.

The transmitter station and the receiving station are related operationally to the com­munications center.

The communications center itself contains a control center where the various transmit­ters and receivers are tied together, a relay center where messages are automatically re­layed and handled, a message center where

messages which require processing are han-· died, a cryptographic center for the obvious purpose of cryptography, a fleet center to handle communications to and from ·the fleet, with an adlriiriistrative maintenance, and supply facility.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. So the communications center would be the brain of the operation; the receiving center would be the ear, and the transmitter station would be the voice, is that correct?

Admiral ROEDER. Yes, sir. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. You have

the transmitter statiol) presently located at Annapolis in connection with Navcomsta, Waspington?

Admiral ROEDER. Yes, sir. The transmit­ter station is · currently at Annapolis, Md. The receivers and the communications cen­ter are currently at Cheltenham, Md.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Has this current arrangement of the three major components of Navcomsta, Washington, per­sisted throughout the years?

Admiral ROEDER. No, sir. Originally our transmitters were at Arlington. I think many will recall the large towers there that had to be dismantled in the early 1940's be­cause they impeded air traffic.

Initially, the receivers were located at the main Navy Building on Constitution Avenue, as was the communications center.

During the period between World War I and World War II the traffic on Constitution Avenue increased, and other electrical noises were generated, and we removed the receivers to the Naval Research Laboratory in Ana­costia.

In due course this site became untenable again due to noise, · and in 1938 the receiver station was commissioned at its present site In Cheltenham, Md.

In 1938 the receiver was removed. In 1958, 20 years later, the communications center was also moved to Cheltenham.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Admiral, why is it necessary now to move the receiver station from it.s present location at Chelten­ham in Prince Georges County, Md.?

Admiral ROEDER. The main reason we have to move is because the electromagnetic en­vironment there has become hostile. This has developed through the years because of civ111an and industrial encroachments with their associated electromagnetic noise.

This has continued on a gradual basis. However, it is now quite serious.

When we moved there 25 years ago, the land was principally farm and unimproved land. But, of course, since that time Prince Georges County has grown, Andrews Air Force Base has been established, major highways are passing through the area, a large number of houses with modern elec­trical equipment, which is noisy, have moved in.

At the same time, the requirements for communication receivers have become more stringent in that the receivJrs themselves must be more sensitive to do their job and, therefore, they are more susceptible, of course, to electromagnetic interferences.

It was because of these problems that we asked to move to Sugar Grove, W. Va.

Now Sugar Grove is in a radio-protected zone and offers outstanding radio receiving conditions. These outstanding, these fine, receiving conditions are particularly im­portant when we are working ships.

The shore receivers on the .end of a ship­shore circuit must be unduly sensitive in order to compensate for the restrictions on power which the ships can use. So that, in essence, we are being forced out of Chelten­ham for our receivers. We have this ideal location in Sugar Grove, where we would like to relocate those receivers.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. What· par­ticular features make Sugar Grove a pre­ferred site?

Admiral ROEDER. Well, as I mentioned, it is in a radio-protected zone.

Chairman RussEt.L. What do you mean by "radio-protected zone"?

Admiral ROEDER. Well, the Federal Com­munications Commission will not license any transmissions Within this area. That ls an agreement that has been reached with them. So, therefore, we do not believe that we will have this harmful interference. Besides that, the State of West Virginia has legisla­tion to prohibit electrical encroachment into the zone.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. It has actually legislated on it, has it not?

Admiral ROEDER. I meant to say that. Chairman RussELL. I did not understand

that. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I say it

actually has already legislated. Admiral ROEDER. There is a law; yes, sir. Another inducement at Sugar Grove: there

ls in existence an underground operations building that was built incident to the earlier project, and although it is not completed, it is an underground construction, and it has adequate space and very well protected electromagnetically.

Another reason we like Sugar Grove is be­cause of lts isolated location, and we feel that the likelihood of the encroachment that you can see we have traditionally had is less than at some other site. ·

So we felt that with these various advan­tages, the primary one being the wonder­ful receiving conditions, that this was a good place to move.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. How many people would you have at Sugar Grove?

Admiral ROEDER. We have programed 7 officers, 98 men, and we would anticipate hiring about 20 civilians from the area, pri­marily in public works maintenance, et cetera.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. What do you plan to build at Sugar Grove in addition to the actual radio receiver station?

Admiral ROEDER. In addition to the opera­tional facilities, which include the antennas, and the change to the present operations building, we have in this program a multi­purpose personnel building, limited outdoor recreational facillties, and in the family

- quarters we would propose 20 sets of family quarters.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Would these people and "!;he supporting facilities which you plan to build create a noise problem?

Admiral ROEDER. Well, not necessarily, Mr. Byrd. Of course, all housing, cars, et cetera, produce some noise. However the site cho­sen for the supporting activities is 4 miles from where the antennas will be, and there is an intervening ledge which sort of shields it.

In addition to that, since this would be our location, we can exercise stringent con­trols over the noise-generating equipment that can and will be allowed there.

In addition, any vehicles on the station can be suitably suppressed from a noise point of view.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. How do you propose to pass signals from the receiving station at Sugar Grove to the communica­tions station at Cheltenham.?

Admiral ROEDER. We propose to tie Sugar Grove and Cheltenham together by leased cables. Our plan is to have A.T. & T. install two burled cables from our Sugar Grove site.

One would go to Cumberland, Md., and one to Lynchburg. Those are the locations of two of their main trunks. From there the cables would come to Cheltenham via the planned hardened cable trunks.

.Senator BYRD of West Virginia. What would the land lines cost?

Admiral ROEDER. We estimate it would be $1.7 million installation charge, plus an an­nual lease of about $200;000 per year.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I would assume you would have less usable real

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SijNATE 2.0091 estate at Sugar Grove than you now have . at Cheltenham. Would you have enough real estate for the antennas?

Admiral Ro:imn. Yes, sir; we have looked. into this very thoroughly, and although the same amount of acreage is not there as we now have, or usable acreage rather, we pro­pose to install the most mod.em antennas that have been devised.

We propose to put in a luneburg lens an­tenna, which is a very modern one, and we propose to put in a spiral antenna.

The virtues of these two developments are that they are fine, sensitive directional an­tennas, and they do not take up the present land area that our existing old-fashioned vehicles did.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Why do you not use the naval radio receiving station at Northwest, Va., instead of Sugar Grove?

Isn't it about the same distance from Washington?

Admiral RoEDER. Yes, sir, from a distance point of view you are correct.

However, the receiving conditions at Sugar Grove are far superior to those at Northwest, Va.

Another reason, or course, I mentioned earlier. for Sugar Grove. A lot of the con­struction is done. We will get an operation there which will make it much cheaper.

Another thing we like about Sugar Grove ls that it ls well isolated. from major target areas, so we would anticipate that we would not suffer from any nuclear explosions . aimed at other prime target areas which, of course, Norfolk ls a good candidate for that.

Furthermore, we feel inevitably that Nor­folk, Northwest, Va., rather, wm face the same encroachment that we are experiencing in Cheltenham. · Chairman RussELL. What makes you think you will escape that down at Sugar Grove?

Admiral ROEDER. Well, Sugar Grove ls in one of the least populated counties 1n the United States.

It has a location which we like from a natural point of view, and it sits down in the ridges.

I am sure the Senator knows more about that country than I do, but I do not think it will develop very fast very soon.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I should not think so.

Chairman RussELL. You had better get an agreement with the Senator. At the•rate he is developing in West Virginia you had bet­ter get an agreement with him. [Laughter.]

Senator· BYRD of West Virginia. Admiral, I note that most naval facilities are near the water. Wouldn't this receiver station oper­ate better if it were near the shore?

Admiral ROEDER. Well, as a general rule we have built our receiver stations near the water and, generally on the flat terrain. However, the lack of noise at Sugar Grove will give us a tremendous receiving advan­tage that we do not realize at normal places and, therefore, between that and the new antennas which are very efficient, and the fact that the ridges running around Sugar Grove shield it from the stray transmissions, we feel this will be a superior site to any that we could locate near the water or on fiat land.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. What other fac111ties can Navy locate at Sugar Grove in addition to the radio receiver station?

Admiral RoEDER. As you know, there is now a 60-foot radio telescope operated by the Naval Research Laboratory, and it is quite p068ible that additional research-type intruments could be located there without interfering with our station or our inter­fering with them.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Have you developed working plans for installing the radio receiver station a.t Sugar Grove?

Admiral ROEDER. Yes, sir; we have the preliminary plans which are completed and, pf course, the final plans are contingent upon

authorization and appropriation for the States.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Are you . ready to commence work on the detailed plans as soon as the project is approved by the Congress?

Admiral ROEDER. Yes, sir. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Is there

any other Government-owned land anywhere along the coast that you could use for a radio receiver station?

Admiral ROEDER. No, sir. We have looked into this quite thoroughly. One possib111ty would be Fort Lewes, Del. However, the area there is not adequate.

We have recently-last year we were au­thorized a special receiving and transmitting site there. So even that would not be ade­quate for these receivers.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. So that would likely interfere with ordinary ship­to-shore radio reception?

Admiral RoEDER. Yes. senator BYRD of West Virginia. And that

would be close to beach recreational areas, would it not?

Admiral RoEDER. Yes, sir. It ls right at Rehoboth th-ere.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. How would you administer a remote. radio station such as the one you would propose for Sugar Grove?

Admiral RoEDER. Well, this would pose no problems. It would be commanded by prob­ably a lieutenant, and he would be sup­ported from the headquarters here at Chel­tenham, Md., and we anticipate no difficul­ties in command or logistical support.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. What will be the annual operating cost of a receiver station at Sugar Grove?

Admiral ROEDER. We estimate the opera­tions and maintenance would run $150,000 a year, plus about $200,000 a year for leased lines.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. How would you support a radio station in an area as isolated as is Sugar Grove?

Admiral ROEDER. Well, we would anticipate that the nontechnical support we would get from local sources, and they are not too dis­tantly removed.

On the technical spare parts, supplies, and so forth, to be procured from the Washing­ton area where there ls good transportation.·

senator BYRD of West Virginia. What plans do you have, if any, for the Communications Center at Cheltenham?

Admiral ROEDER. The plans for the Com­munications Center at Cheltenham are not quite fl.rm. We have made a study, at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, to look into what we should do with the remaining facilities at Cheltenham, assuming that this move of the receivers is made.

We have looked into a number of possible sites, which included moving them to Sugar Grove or to Newport, R.I., or to Lakehurst, N.J., or Dahlgren, Va.

The dlfflculty of any of those four moves is that there is a sizable military construc­tion price tag which ranges from $25 to $14.5 million to relocate what would remain at Cheltenham to one of the sites.

The firm decision has not yet been made, and it is still under study,

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. How many civiUans do you presently have at Chelten­ham?

Admiral ROEDER. The total we have there is 149, and these are generally divided into 2 broad categories: those in operational and those in support.

In. the operational category we refer to those who help with the maintenance and the communications equipment and in the passing of traffic.

In the support area we have, we employ there laborers, tradesmen, and people who work in th_e supply effort. ·

'I'll,e breakdown la 91 Qperatlonal, 58 sup­port, and their annual salaries run about $850,000.

senator BYRD of West Virginia. I assume that whether the Congress gives its approval this year or not, sooner or later you are go­ing to have to move the receiving station from Cheltenham to some other area?

Admiral ROEDER. That is right. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. And ac­

cording to what you have said here today, the reception capability at Sugar Grove seems to be eminently superior to that in ~my other area which has been considered?

Admiral ROEDER. This ls right. senator BYRD of West Virginia. Is that

correct? Admiral ROEDER. That ls right. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Well then,

would you not say that the longer this is delayed, the more your problem 1s com­pounded and, possibly, the greater the cost will be in transferring the station to Sugar Grove?

Admiral RoEDER. Well, the longer this is delayed, the more the encroachment at Chel­tenham will impede the efficiency of our operation, and this is getting progressively worse. So obviously we would like to move as soon as we can to (a) improve our day­to-day operations and (b) to avoid any es­calating costs which the Senator has alluded to.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. You cer­tainly do have a very fine facllity at Sugar Grove. I was over there a couple of mon tbs ago and visited the underground buildings.

Admiral RoEDER. Yes, sir. senator BYRD of West Virginia. I was

amazed at the size of it. The longer we wait the longer those fine

facilities sit there unused, and eventually you are going to have to go to Sugar Grove, I gather, because your receiving problems are going to be increased. 1n your present location.

Admiral ROEDER. That is correct. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Then, ls

it the position of the Department that it would like to see this item restored this year so that you can proceed immediately to work out your detailed plans and ef­fectuate the move?

Admiral PRESSEY. Yes, sir. We would like to take the initial step this year, and we have planned accordingly.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I believe the initial request was for $3,830,000. Would this figure still stand at this time or would this be decreased by virtue of the passage of 4 months?

Admiral PRESSEY. Unchanged, sir. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. It would

be the same figure? Admiral PRESSEY. Yes sir; $3,480,000. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. $3,480,000.

It was never $3,830,000? Admiral PRESSEY. No, sir, not as submitted.

to the Congress. The 20 housing units may have been lumped in the total for the area.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. I see. So the total is $3,480,000.

Admiral PRESSEY. For the relocation of the receivers.

Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Yes. Admiral PRESSEY. Plus housing. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Plus hous­

ing, making the total $3,830,000, which would have to be restored, is that correct?

Admiral PRESSEY. Yes, sir. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. So we are

talking about the $3,480,000, are we not? Admiral PRESSEY. Yes. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Chair­

man, I have no further questions. Chairman RussELL. Admiral, isn't that the

location of the so-called Big Dish ·that you people sold us several years ago, about $180 m1llion?

Admiral RoEDER. Yes, sir. ~ts ls the pre­cise location of that effort.

20092 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORO:-~ENATE October 22 · Cha.trm.a.n RUSSELL. What happened to the ' On the other hand, the tranmnlttei's ar.e ,

Big Dish? . very powerful compared to any of· :these Admiral RoEDER. Well, as you know, the noises, so you will be putting out as much

work was discontinued on that, and this as "20 or so kilowatts .1n your · transmitter, operations building to which I referred was and .this other signal Just . does not bother to have been the operations· bullding for the · you at all; it is so small. Big Dish, and it has been almost completed. Chairman RussELL. Are you familiar with

Chairman RUSSELL. Is the same man plan- the receiving stations ope-rated by the De­ning this new facllity down there who partment of the Air Force? planned the Big Dish? . Admiral ROEDER . . Generally ..

. Admiral CouADI. We have done the plan- Chairman RUSSELL. Do you know anything . ning for the proposed fac111ty inhouse, Mr. about the circular field reception? Chairman. We have not employed any out- · Admiral ROEDER. Circular :field? side consultants in the preliminary planning. Chairman RussELL. Yes. Instead of hav-

Chairman RussELL. Who planned the Big ing your field scattered everywhere, you have Dish? a .circular fleld ·of receivers or whatever you

Admiral CoRRADI. It would take me a long . call them. time to enumerate all the. people, but the . Admiral Ro;EDER. You are thinking of the principal planners were the Batell Memo- Wullenweber? rial Institute; the ftrms of Rath, Ervin & Chairman RUSSELL. What I have in mind­Seeley; the :flrm. of Almon & Whitney, the particularly ls 11,n oversea facility, but it may Electric Bolt Co. Those are the major par- be classified, but I have visited it and seen ticipants. it, and they claimed that they can pick up

Chairman RussELL. They sold the Navy, a, sound anywhere; they can pick it out and then the Navy sold the committee, and through this new. circular field reception the Congress. We had great pictures here system, from wherever it may be sent. flashed on a screen in the highest secret Admiral ROEDER. I think you are talking se~ion, to show you would work wonders about--With Big Dish. Chairman RussELL. No question that not

Admiral CouADx. Mr. Chairman, in all only does area noise not disturb it, but there fairness I do not think these firms I men- is no conflict on the same wavelength even. tioned had anything to do with selUng the They can finely utilize this circular field and Navy. The Navy conceived the project and pick out the one they want and bring it in. utilized those firms in the planning and Admiral ROEDER. I am quite sure I know design. what you are talking about, but I would

I had misunderstood your previous ques- prefer to discuss it further in closed session. tion or I. would not have enumerated them. . Chairman RussELL. Well, I would have I think it is the Navy that conceived the thought so. project, sold the committee, if you will,. and Admiral ROEDER. We have the same thing. was avidly interested in prosecuting it to Chairman RUSSELL. Do you propose to uti-its completion. lize that type of equipment?

Chairman RUSSELL. How much money did Admiral ROEDER. Yes. you spend on Bi.g Dish? Chairman RUSSELL. How much land do

Admiral CoRR.ADL At the time the project you have at Sugar Grove? was terminated by the Secretary of Defense I thought you had memorized everything we had obligations of $96,475,000. we had by heart, Admiral. Senator BYRD asked you expenditures of approximately $42 million, a much more complicated question than and I testifl.ed to these figures just about that, and you had no difficulty in answering this time last year. it.

In the year that has intervened, we have Admiral ROEDER. The land we have that been actively prosecuting a termination of is owned is 1,801 acres. all of the contracts and, as of right now, we Chairman RussELL. Will that be adequate have reduced the $96 million obligations to for this new facility? about $67 million, $66,500,000, and we hope . Admiral ROEDER. Yes, sir. We have no land to have the entire job liquidated for about problems. that aiµount. Chairman RUSSELL. You won't have to ac-

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you require any quire any more. personnel on this site to look after the scene What will be the annual salary costs, 01 this monumental proposition? 1;here at Sugar Grove? ·

Admiral CoRRADI. At the time that we I will not ask you but you knew what it terminated the contract we reduced the staff was in Cheltenham a few moments ago.

Admirar RoEDEB. Well, we plan to hire 20 at the site and as of now there is only an civilians there, so that would be roughly occasional check made on the site. about $100,000 a year for the hire of civ111an

We do not have a permanent guard for it employees. there or an operating force. Chairman RUSSELL. That figure you gav~

Chairman RussELL. There ls nothing left for Cheltenham is some $800,000. Does that of our $66 million to have even one man to embrace the civllian employees? guard; it is all gone? Admiral ROEDER. $850,000 was purely for

Admiral CoRRADI. There are no men in- civilian employees, totaling 149. volved in guarding it. There is a lot of Chairman RUSSELL. Do you have anything scientific and technical information regard- further, Senator Byrd? ing it for $66 million; very few tangible Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Admiral, assets. you have a Little Dish there which is in

Chairman RoSSELL. Admiral, why do these operation, do you not? sounds, traffic noise and -so forth, have an Admiral ROEDER. Sixty foot, yes, sir: adverse effect on receiving and not on send- Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Would ing? You propose to still transmit, do you there be a savings in cost by using the fa-not, for over here in Maryland? cilities at Sugar Grove over that of having

Admiral ROEDER. Yes, sir. to construct an operating facility elsewhere Chairman RusSELL. Why do all these and starting from the ground up and pur­

sounds have an adverse effect on the recep- chasing the land and so on, or have you tion but not on the sending? engineered this to the degree that you could

Admiral ROEDER. Well, of course, a receiver state what would be saved by moving there? is designed to be as sensitive· as it can, to Admiral RoEDER. Are you referring to the pick up a very weak signal, a signal it is look- radio receiving aspects? ing :for, even though it is very weak. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Yes.

So that just like in our automobile, u Adinlral ROEDER. Oh, yes, sir. This is much you do not suppress a spark you get noise cheaper than to move any place. else because 1n your own radio because the receiver 1s we would have to construct an operational very sensitive. building at another site which we get- for

nothing That would run several hundred thou.sand dollars. We already have the land so there· is no land procurement problem.

·senator BYRD of West Virginia. Would your operation building, if built elsewhere, have to be constructed under the ground as is the one at Sugar Grove?

Admiral RoEDER. No, sJJ.". It is not required for communication. ;However, it is an ad­vantage, but normally we would not do that .

Senator ;BYRD of West Virginia. That would be an advantage to your operation but you would not have to construct it under the ground?

. Admiral ROEDER. That is right. Senator .BYRD of West Virgi~ia. Mr. Chair­

man, I have no further questions. Thank you.

Mr. KEATING. There is one other problem I wish briefly to raise with the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

The Bureau of the· Budget recom­mended the consolidation of our· naval training device centers at Mitchel Field in Garden City, Long Island. The House Armed Services Committee deleted this item because the General Services Ad­ministration had not, at that time, budgeted for these improvements, and it is appropriate that the General Serv­ices Administration do that first.

I have no intention of offering an amendment in this regard. I know, as shown on page 400 of the hearings, that when Admiral Pressey, Director of Shore Activities Development and Control Di­vision, testified before the Senate com­mittee, he did not press for this item. I understand the reluctance of the com­mittee to include it. It is clearly a money-saving item; and I believe that is not in dispute. The move would be an economy move. It is regrettable to me that it must be deferred for another year.

We have suffered from economy moves resulting in moving installations out of New York. This is an economy move recommended by the Bureau of the Budget which calls for a consolidation in New· York at Mitchel Field. We hope that the distinguished senator from Georgia will keep his eye on this item and see to it that when these economy moves take place they are decided en­tirely on their merits and that the ·word does not go out to economize out of New York but not to economize into New York.

I just bring this matter up for discus­sion. I have no quarrel with the action taken by the committee in not including the item at this time. I assume it was because the General Services Adminis­tration had not done its basic work.

Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is cor­rect. It would have been futile for us to undertake to authorize the item in this bill. because no work could be done until the General Services Administration had secured appropriations and taken the necessary preliminary steps.

When and if the General Services Ad­ministration does take that action, we will be in a position to give every con­sideration to this project.

I am not too familiar with it, because even if it were authorized no work could be done on it. It would have been in vain to have ~eluded it in the bill. . But when and if the General Services Administration takes the necessary pre-

1963 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 20093 limlnary steps, I can assure the Senator that if there 1s any economy involved, I shall embrace this item and undertake tc see that it 1s enacted.

Mr. KEATING. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BYRD of West Virginia in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the com­mittee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.

The amendment was ordered to be en­grossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill <H.R. 6500) was read the third time and passed.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist upon its amend­ment and request a conference with the House of Representatives thereon, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. RussELL, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. SAL­TONSTALL, and Mrs. SMITH conferees on the part of -the Senate.

INAUGURATION OF DR. LLOYD E. WORNER AS THE NINTH PRESI­DENT OF COLORADO COLLEGE Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, on Oc-

tober 18, Dr. Lloyd E. Worner took office as the ninth president of Colorado Col­lege. ·He is the first alumnus to become president of his alma mater, having earned his;bachelor degree there in 1942. Colorado College is an independent lib­eral arts college, now in its 90th year.

The principal address at the inaugu­ral ceremony was delivered by Dr. Elmer Ellis, president of Missouri University. His remarks concerning both the school and the man who will guide it in the years ahead are worthy of attention, and I ask unanimous consent to have ex­cerpts from his remarks printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the REC­ORD, as follows: REMARKS OF DR. ELMER ELLIS, PRESIDENT OJ'

MISSOURI UNIVERSrrY

COLORADO SPRINGS, October 18.-Never was distinguished. leadership in higher education so badly needed.

Today as a result of this leadership, Colorado College stands as a highly signif­icant unit in our structure of higher edu­cation.

I bring to Colorado College and to Presi­dent Worner not only my personal con­gratulations and good wishes but also those of the leaders of higher education every­where.

Never were we so badly needed as we are today, and never was distinguished leader­ship in higher education so badly needed. It is good to be needed, even though the task is a herculean one that will demand all the talents and energies of our chosen leaders in the days to come.

Since its founding in 1874, Colorado Col­lege has stood as one of the advanced out­posts 1n American higher education. Older

than the state and contemporary with the opening of the American Far West, it nestles in this setting of incomparable natural beau­ty-bringing the wisdom and learning of the ages to a large and able student body and the consequent benefits of the Nation.

Colorado College was started as one of many New England-type colleges established by educated men with strong religious mo­tivation. It was more successful than most because its plans were sound, and its leader­ship more than adequate. Today as a result of this leadership, Colorado College stands as a highly significant unit in our structure of higher education.

In sharp contrast, many other colleges of this same type failed to find this quality of leadership and consequently never played an important role in education and in many cases no longer even exist.

It is because we recognize the importance of this leadership that we have ceremonies such as this; it is why we are here today. In another sense the inauguration of a college president is a personal observance, since it marks a stage in the career of a man.

The kinds of decisions a college president has to make from day to day are those that not only reveal his fundamental beliefs, his respect for wisdom, and his educational qual­ifications, they are also those that steer the college along the paths that lead to sound education, or end, alas, ie. mediocrity and incompetence.

I am doubly honored and doubly fortunate today in that I may pay my respects to this excellent center of liberal education and, at the same time, express my personal appre­ciation and professional satisfaction concern­ing a former student and close personal friend whose career I have watched with ap­proval and with pride. A personal encomium ls not fitting or required.

I state my relationship to him only to as­sure you that I know far more about the man we honor here today than mos.t speakers do on such occasions. When I say that the abil­ity, character and originality of the new president are a guarantee of the continued progress of the college, I am as certain as one can be of anything in an uncertain world.

CALL TO ACTION: A.JOINT DECLA­RATION, OCTOBER 22, 1963

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, 1 year ago today there began what has been described as the most dangerous week in our Nation's history. This Nation, and the other primary thermonuclear power, faced each other in a so-called eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation in which we were told the other fellow blinked and took a step backward.

The outcome of that confrontation stemmed directly from the determined resolve of this Nation to stand up with­out flinching to the grave threat repre­sented by the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons and delivery systems in nearby Cuba.

At .the end of that fateful week, all Americans stood a little straighter and a little taller. They looked to the future with some hope, because in the best American tradition they felt this Na­tion had met the threat of aggression and that right had prevailed and that a turning point in a cold war had been reached.

That turning point, they thought, was to be the withdrawal of Communist weapons and forces from this hemi­sphere. As the year progressed, however, it became apparent that what had been bought was only a brief respite, and, be-

cause we had failed to follow up on the advantage we had gained, the Communist buildup had actually gained in intensity. There was even the suspicion that the so-called withdrawal of missiles was only a red herring dragged across the trail to lull the administration into a false sense of security.

And so, today, we stand not so proud­not so tall-as we stood 1 year ago. We stand again in an evil red shadow cast by the greatest enemy to peace that civi­lization has ever known. We have ex­perienced a year in which procrastina­tion, vacillation, and an apparent lack of resolve on the part of the executive branch of our Government have again put this Nation in an increasingly un­tenable position.

For many months, Senators of both parties have taken the floor of this body urging the ExecutiYe to follow up the forceful directives of 1 year ago with action to match our brave words. Yet, not one single move has been made to follow up or even to respond to these urgings.

So, today, in behalf of myself and Sen­ators BEALL, BENNETT, CARLSON, CURTIS, DOMINICK, GoLDWATER, HRUSKA, MORTON, MUNDT, PEARSON, SCOTT, SIMPSON, and YOUNG of North Dakota, I send to the desk a joint declaration calling for a re­turn to that resolute position announced 1 year ago in order that we might once again give the American people the op­portunity to feel that sense of pride and hope which filled their very being on that fateful day. ,

It was just 1 year ago that the Presi­dent of the United States issued a call to action. He revealed to the American people-after weeks of rumors and warn­ings and official denials-"hard" and "unmistakable evidence" that the Soviet military build-up on the "imprisoned island" of CUba had become a clear and present threat to the national security and to the peace and stability of the entire hemisphere. He castigated the Soviet Union for calculated and delib­erate perfidy. He described the sur­reptitious emplacement of missiles and the basing of jet bombers in Cuba as "a deliberately provocative change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country. if"-and let us mark these words well-"if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe." The President concluded with this timeless warning: "the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing."

Today, exactly I year later, the sense of crisis and of urgency has passed. Despite contradictory information from within Cuba, we are told that the missile sites have been dismantled and the mis­siles and jet bombers withdrawn. The hastily devised naval quarantine has long since been lifted. Less tangibly, but more important by far, we are urged to nurture the hope-or the dream-that a new dawn of peace and reconciliation is about to break, to lighten the burdens of men and nations torn by conflict.

But the roots -of conflict have not changed. Soviet military forces remain in . the caribbean. Occupied Cuba is now, as it was a year ·ago, an advance

20094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 22

base for aggressive world communism­aimed at the heart of every free govern­ment- of the Americas. The "imprisoned island" is a prison still-holding in bondage the · bodies of the oppressed CUban people, their aspirations for fu­ture growth in freedom, and their liber­ties as decent self-governing human beings.

One year ago, the American people re­sponded courageously to the President's bold call. As so often before, during all the years of this Nation's ascent to the summit of world power, they were pre­pared to pay the high cost of freedom­with unity of will, with firmness of pur­pose, and with unqualified dedication to the obligations of moral and political leadership. But today, time has eroded this unity and this sense of purpose­time, and the timid refusal of America's Executive leaders to fulfill their own commitments to Cuban liberation.

There is urgent need for a new call to action. We issue that call-in the name of this Nation's honor, and of the courage and the commitments that so eloquently concerned the President just 1 year ago.

We speak as U.S. Senators, charged by the American people to preserve the national security and protect the nation­al interest, and thereby to promote the cause of freedom worldwide. We speak not as representatives of one legislative body or one partisan bloc. Our voices, rather, are raised in behalf of the vital interests of the American people. We speak with the authority that we share in equal partnership with the executive branch, as mutual servants of the public conscience, within the framework of the constitutional order. We speak, most basically, as gravely concerned Ameri­cans.

We are reminded, today, of still fur­ther words so ringingly spoken by the President just 1 year ago, and addressed directly .to the Cuban people:

I speak: to you • • • as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and Justice for all. And I have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was be­trayed-and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your .leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban fdea.ls. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy. • • •

Your lives and land are being used as. pawns by those who deny you freedom.

Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed their liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time· when they will be truly free-free from for­eign domination, free to choose their own leaders, free to select their own system, free to own their own land, free to speak and write and worship without fear or degrada­tion. And then shall Cuba be welcomed back to the society of free nations and to the associations of this hemisphere.

If these words meant what they seem to mean, then surely we could count on some evidence-hard and unambiguous evidence-that the march toward Cuban liberation · had truly begun. Surely, by now, the abundant promise of these bold words might be closer to fulfillment. But what, in sober fact, does the record show? ·

The Soviet military presence remains entrenched in occupied Cuba.

..

The CUban satellite of world commu­nism is being exploited as a base for aggressive imperialism, to infiltrate and to subvert every free government in the Americas.

Within the Cuban Communist prison, forces of potential resistance must face not only Castro's Soviet-equipped militia but also Soviet forces themselves-and thus the threat of a second Hungary daily mounts, despite solemn adminis­tration assurances that such a tragic bloodbath would be unacceptable and intolerable.

The words, the pledges, the commit­ments are uniformly bold and eloquent. But words are cheap. The factual rec­ord lists only promises unmet, endless procrastination, and action timidly de­f erred. And Cuba remains-one full year after the confrontation--Cuba re­mains a Communist prison, and a cancer deep within the heartland of free world power and leadership.

We spea:k today because we, too, find the status quo unacceptable and intoler­able. And as responsible public servants, we have been speaking-here in the high court of the Senate of the United States, continually during the past several months-in an effort to answer the ad­ministration's own challenge, not for carping partisan criticism but rather for sound and sober proposals to advance the day of Cuban liberation.

We repeat the essence of these pro­posals today-in a spirit of rededication to that national consensus which emerged a year ago in response to bold executive leadership. And thus we urge the effective rebirth of that sense of shared national purpose.

It has been proposed that, as a spur to free CUban unity, this Nation encour­age the formation of a provisional gov­ernment, to spearhead Cuban liberation and prepare the way for the restoration of a popularly elected democratic re­gime.

It has been proposed, further, that such a provisional government be ex­tended U.S. recognition as the sole leglti­mate representative of CUban ·sover­eignty- and be offered a territorial base on Cuban soil, at the U.S.-leased Guan­tanamo Naval Station.

It has been proposed, in support of U.S. initiative, that a leakproof quaran­tine-a "pacific blockade"-be reinsti­tuted, to cut off Communist Cuba from all but essential medicines and food­stuffs and especially from Soviet arms.

It has been proposed, by this same quarantine and other measures taken in concert with our Latin American allies, that Castro's Cuba be interdicted to nul­lify its use as a base for subversion and Communist penetration throughout this hemisphere.

It has been proposed that, at long last, the administration put into effect the clear congressional mandate to penalize all free nations still engaged in Cuban trade and traffic, by suspending all U.S. aid and denying U.S. facilities ·to the ships and planes of such nations.

It has been proposed, as part of a full­scale campaign of political and psycho­logical warfare, that this Nation offer freedom bounties as a spur to the de-

fection of both Cuban and Soviet mili­tacy personnel.

~ And-it has been proposed that the free nations of the Americas, in concert, take the lead in planning. and preparing for the day . when a free Cuba. might be re­stored to the community of free nations and its free institutions necessarily re­constructed.

All these proposals are on the record. They were offered initially as the pro­posals of individual Senators, and they are summarized today as examples of ways that may lead toward Cuban libera­tion.

The focus of all these proposals has been plain and straightforward: to make effective the administration's own re­peated pledge that Cuba must once more be free.

That is our motivation today. That is our overriding concern. We are parti­sans, indeed-partisans of freedom,. par­tisans of U.S. and hemispheric security, partisans of our Nation's honor and of its solemn commitments. We cannot re­main silent, so long as Cuba remains en­slaved.

One year ago today. we were issued a call to ready alert and-if need be-to decisive action. One year_ago, we knew our sworn enemy. unmasked in all his perfidy and aggressive design. Today, 1 year later, the enemy is the same. The design is the same. The area of con­frontation is the same. The menace is greater still. All that has changed is that the bold leader.ship of a year ago is now lacking, our sense of resolve has been eroded, and our will to victory has drained away. · We speak now-and issue a new call to action-in an effort to recapture that bold and resolute will. On this :first an­niversary of a critical confrontation, it is our fervent hope that there never shall l;>e a second. But hope alone is not enough, as it has not been enough dur­ing these last 12 months of endless pro­crastination. Effective action is the urgent need-so that, by the fall of 1964. when America's attention and energy will be caught up in political campaigning, the liberation of Cuba w111 be an accom­plished fact.

This goal transcends all considerations of partisan advantage. In order for the Cuban people to be liberated from the grip of a ruthless tyranny, America's purpose must first be unleashed from the bonds of crippling indecision.

And if, by prompt and effective action, that goal shall finally have been achieved, then American pride and honor will in­deed have been served. Its credentials for world leadershiP-tarnished · by fail­ure and by disuse-will thus be re­affirmed.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, Will the Sena1:or yield?

Mr. ALLOTT. I am glad to yield to my distinguished colleague from Colo­rado.

Mr. DOMINICK. I take this oppor­tunity to congratulate my colleague on an extremely important proclamation and an extremely µnportant speech. My distinguished colleague has been the sparkplug for the series of speeches which have been made during this ses­sion on the Cuban problem, in trying to

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20095 put forth constructive ideas for action now, as opposed to the vacillation and drift, to which my colleague has ref erred.

I wish to express my appreciation to him for having been the agent to get this subject moving again.

In the event my name does not appear as one of the sponsors of the declaration, I hope it, will be added, because I thor­oughly agree not only with the declara­tion, but also with the Senator's speech. I should like to ask my colleague whether my name is on the proclamation.

Mr. ALLOTT. I am very happy to answer the Senator's question. His name is on the declaration. If in reading it I omitted his name, I aPologize to him. His name is on the declaration as one of the sponsors.

Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Sena­tor. I should like to take this time to bring before the Senate some of the problems that we have been referring to in connection with Cuba and the use of CUba as an armed base for infiltration throughout Latin America. I have said on a number of occasions that the armed buildup in Cuba is extremely strong at this time and that it has been exporting infiltration and subversion through Communist agents trained in Cuba and sent throughout Latin America.

This is so despite the fact that the President and Secretary of State Rusk have stated time and time again that they would use whatever means were necessary to prevent the export of ter­rorism, infiltration, arms, and Commu­nist agents out of Cuba into other coun­tries.

To the best of my knowledge we have done nothing about it.

Recently I received some information which I believe is important, to everyone in our country. I should like to discuss it briefly for the benefit of Senators and for the RECORD, so that it will be available to all who are interested. I read from the report of the Cuban Revolutionary Council, which is the source of the in­formation, as follows: REPOR'l' OF 'l'HE CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY COUN­

CIL ON THE SOVIET MILITARY BUILDUP NEAR THE U.S. NAVAL BASE OF GUANTANAMO 1. After a careful evaluation of intelligence

reports and testimonies of Cuban refugees, the Cuban Revolutionary Council states that the naval base of Guantanamo, as well as the U.S. mainland, are directly threatened by the massive {:loncentration of Russian­Cuban troops and the emplacement of strategic arms in areas near the base.

2. The Cuban Revolutionary Council bases this assertion on the following data:

(a) The naval base of Guantanamo is sur­rounded by a "firing belt" of approximately 10,000 Cuban soldiers and Soviet combat units, who are provided with Stalin and T-34 tanks and with heavy artillery, in­cluding more than 200 155- to 188-milli­meter cannons. Near the base there are several mobile FROG missiles, which can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Some caves situated in this area, such as the Guaso cave, have been enlarged with con­necting tunnels and adapted for military purposes.

(b) In a· place called Sabana de Macurije, just north of Baltony sugarmill, in the proximity of Guantanamo, the Russians have built a military base provided with un­derground installations and more than 20 radar antennas.

(c) Near Alto de la Gloria (also called Yerba de Guinea), in the area of Guan­tanamo, underground agents have recently observed a concentration of Soviet troops, as well as the secret deployment of missiles.

(d) West o! Guantanamo, near the towns of San Luis and Alto Songo, there are two infantry bases. Cubans are not allowed to enter tilese bases, but farmers of the area. have seen many trucks- transporting to these bases heavy armaments which are carefully concealed.

(e) In a !arm called Monte Oscuro, about 2 miles from the town of Baire-sit­uated west of Guantanamo--the Russians have built an important military base. Un­derground agents recently observed the de­ployment to this base of seven missiles cov­ered with light yellow tarpaulin. The mis­siles were so long that their cones extended s.everal feet beyond the top of the driver's cabin. The entrance to this base -is situated in the first street o! the town of Baire which crosses perpendicularly the Central Highway, to the left coming from Havana. There are also concentrations of Soviet troops in the towns of Jiguani and Contramaestre.

Many other accusations of this kind have been made in intelligence data coming from Cuba. Even if only 50 per­cent of these accounts are accurate, it would mean that there 1s an extremely strong Soviet force training in Cuba at the present time, about which we are doing nothing at all, to the best of my knowledge and to the best knowledge of anyone else in the country.

I should like to read briefly from an­other report. This is in connection with what CUba is doing with respect to sub­version throughout South America.

It deals with the Revolutionary Com­mando.s for Latin Americar-CRAL. I read from the report:

AN INTERNATIONAL BRIGADE The main purpose o! the CRAL is the

training of an international brigade, the chief object of which is to trigger coups d'etat against governments which are termed "dictatorial" by the C-Onununists--Guate­mala, Nfcaragua, Haiti, Panama, El Salvador, Colombia, Peru:, Paraguay, and Venezuela.

It is important to note here that Fidel Castro, speaking on-July 26, 1963, specifically named these countries as the primary targets !or Communist revolution in Latin America.

Under the master plan for Red conquest, Cuba was made responsible for the training of agents recruited in Latin America, for the supply of contraband arms to insurrection­ary movements in those countries, for sup­plying and sending trained liaison agents, and for the installation o! local guerrilla bases.

When Communist revolutionary action began to extend itself on a continental scale backed by powerful Soviet arms and military supplies, a new International Military Com­mando came into being under the direction of Soviet Col. Jarslav Volenkeszky; Chi­nese expert Lin Cho-yen; Gen. Alberto Bayo, who, incidentally was a former Span­iard and as a colonel fought in the Spanish Civil War; the Argentine renegade Ernesto (Che) .Guevara; and little brother Raul Castro.

EIGHT THOUSAND Ai'RICAN TROOPS It should be pointed out that members of

the International Brigade in Cuba. include Africans from the Congo, Angola,. Ghana, Sudan, Guinea, Mali, Algeria, Senegal, and Kenya, ·who are considered the best material for the infiltration of Haiti. A total of about 8,000 of these troops arrived in Cuba in Soviet ships.

The man in cominand of these African guerrillas is Haitian Communist leader Rene

Depreste, who was assigned as chief of the Cuban Department !or Haitian Affairs under Decree No. 1856, dated September 16, 1962, by the Cuban Ministry of the Interior.

The Cuban Minister of the Interior, the sinister and sadistic Ramiro Valdes, is in charge of all organs of repression in Cuba. and forms an integr~l part of the Interna­tional Military Commando.

The construction of training camps in Cuba is proceeding a.pace, With a. view to having facilities for the simultaneous train­ing of 20,000 men by the end of this year. In connection with thia, there has been an intensification of the drive for recruits from Latin American countries. Their transport ls to be arranged with the collaboration of the Mexican and Brazilian airlines. '

Mr. President, I have before me an article published in the New Orleans States-Item of September 14, 1963, com­menting on the military use of the pro­posed new Cuban fleet of 200 ships. The purpose of it, according to the Cuban Citize~s Committee, is:

To transport arms and subversive agents to other Latin American countries.

To engage in espionage activities in and near U.S. coastal waters.

To disrupt U .8. defense electronics systems. To patrol Cuba's coast and waters around

Cuba and keep refugees from escaping by boat.

To offer such cooperation. as may be asked of the Soviet fleet, many of whose vessels are equipped with extraordinary amounts of electronic gear.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have the entire article printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CUBA REPORTED RUSHING To COMPLETE 200

SHIPS: MILITARY USE SAID PLANNED FOR VESSELS WASHINGTON.-Communist Cuba is rush­

ing to complete about 200 ships for its fish­ing fleet, the Free Cuba. News said today. The ships have a military purpose, the News said. ·

The Cuban fleet plans to work closely With Soviet fishing vessels based in the central Atlantic, said the News, a. pamphlet pub­lished by the U.S. Citizens' Committee for Fre.e Cuba. The committee is composed of U.S. civic and business leaders.

Moscow is paying all · the costs of the Cuban fleet, the pamphlet said.

FISHERMEN COMPLAIN New England fishermen have complained

recently that Russian fishing :fleets are so numerous and have such big and well­equipped ships they are handicapping American fishermen.

The Free Cuba News said there is a defi­nite military purpose behind the Cuban fleet and that Soviet marshal Nicolai Kri­lov, who was photographed in Havana last January conferring with Cuban officials on reorganizing of Cuba's defenses, is the de­signer of the fleet plan.

The plan contemplates improvement of various puban ports, development of new ones, and establishment of boatyards and drydocks all along the Cuban coast. AB of last April 27, the publication said, 81 ships had been built; 88 others planned, and others are being purchased.

HAD SMALL FLEET

In the days prior to Castro, exiles here said, Cuba had a small fishing fleet, with activities centered in the Gulf of Mexico, which sup­plied the island with plenty of fish.

20096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22 Today, despite · the fact the new fleet has

modern ships, Cuba is so short of seafood it is rationed, the exiles said.

The Citizens' Committee said the Cuban fleet was built:

To transport arms and subversive agents to other Latin American countries.

To engage in espionage activities in and near U.S. coastal waters.

To disrupt U.S. defense electronic systems. To patrol Cuba's coast and waters around

Cuba and keep refugees from escaping by boat.

To offer such cooperation as may be asked of the Soviet fleet, many of whose vessels are equipped with extraordinary amounts of elec­tronic gea.r.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, again, to the best of my knowledge, we do not have photographs of the items about which I have been speaking. But we continually receive reports from Cuban agents, within Cuba, of the mili­tary buildup in Cuba, the military im­position of Soviet power over the Cuban people, and the infiltration that is tak­ing place in Central America and South America.

It seems to me, as my distinguished colleague from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT] has said, that this day of historic im­portance in the United States, the an­niversary of the day of our brilliant effort to get the Russians to remove their missiles and long-range bombers from Cuba, is the time to point out that we have not solved the problem. The prob­lem is still there. There is a desperate need for a coordinated plan to try to do something about the Cuban situation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the intelligence report from the Cuban Revolutionary Council be printed in full at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: REPORT OF THE CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY COUN­

CIL ON THE SoVIET MILITARY BUILDUP NEAR THE U.S. NAVAL BASE OF GUANTANAMO

1. After a careful evaluation of intelligence reports and testiinonies of Cuban refugees, the Cuban Revolutionary Council states that the naval base of Guantanamo, as well as the U.S. mainland, are directly threatened by the massive concentration of Russian-Cuban troops and the emplacement of strategic arms in areas near the base.

2. The Cuban Revolutionary Council bases this assertion on the following data:

(a) The naval base of Guantanamo is sur­rounded by a firing belt of approximately 10,000 Cuban soldiers and Soviet combat units, who are provided with Stalin and T-34 tanks and with heavy artillery, includ­ing more than 200 155- to 188-millimeter can­nons. Near the base there are several mobile Frog Inissiles, which can be equipped with nuclear wa.rhee.ds. Some caves situated in this area, such as the Guaso Cave, have been enlarged with connecting tunnels and adapted for Inilitary purposes. · . (b) In a place called Sabana de Macurije,

just north of Baltony · sugarmill, in the proximity of Guantanamo, the Russians have built a mmta.ry base provided with under­ground installations and more than 20 radar antennae.

(c) Near Alto de la Gloria (also called Yerba de Guinea), in the a.rea of Guan­tanamo, underground agents have recently observed a concentration of Soviet troops, as well as the secret deployment of Inissiles.

(d) West of Guantanamo, near the towns of San Luis and Alto Songo, there are two infantry bases. Cubans are not allowed to

enter these bases, , but farmers of the area have seen many trucks transporting to these bases heavy armaments which are carefully concealed.

( e) In a farm called Monte Oscuro, about 2 miles from the town of Bair~ituated west of Guantanamo-the Russians have built an important military base. Underground agents recently observed the deployment to this base of seven missiles covered with light yellow tarpaulin. The missiles were so long that their cones extended several feet beyond the top of the driver's cabin. The entrance to this base is situated in the first street of the town of Baire which crosses perpendic­ularly the Central Highway, to the left com­ing from Havana. There are also concentra­tions of Soviet troops in the towns of Jiguani and Contramaestre.

(f) About" 3 miles south of the town of Baire, in a place called .Los Negros, a cave known as El Pepus is situated. Underground agents observed that after having been rein­forced and enlarged to conceal modern arms, this cave was camouflaged with palm and cocoa.nut trees. Less than a mile from this cave (which is under military control) there is a brick house where Raul Castro, the military chief of the "eastern · zone," fre­quently stays.

(g) North of Guantanamo Base, in the area of Mayari Arriba, the Soviets have built one of the most important strategic military bases in the Province of Oriente. The con­struction started in early 1960 and was in­spected by Mikoyan and the military experts who accompanied him during his first trip to Cuba. This base has vast underground installations, connected with tunnels which have railway tracks. Underground agents observed the deployment to this base of large strategic missiles, of the same type as those that were photographed last October by the reconnaissance planes.

(h) In the airbase of _Santiago de Cuba­protected by ground-to-air SA-2 missiles­there are Mig-15's, Mig-19's, and Mig-21's, the latter capable of being converted into atomic bombers. In strategic spots of the Sierra Maestra, La Gran Piedra and Sierra de Purial, there are m111tary camps and camouflaged airstrips.

3. The Cuban Revolutionary Council re­leases this intelligence report in orqer to alert the people of America to the sinister design of Soviet imperialism, which is endeavoring to paralyze the defensive action of the United States with false promises of peace, while it consolidates in Cuba a formidable atomic Gibraltar and subverts the countries of Latin America.

MANUEL A. DE VARONA, · · President.

MIAMI, FLA., September 1963.

Mr. ALLO'IT. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Colo­rado for his remarks and for his own contribution to this discussion. He has again contributed in the way that he contributed to the whole series of speeches, when he defined, item by item, the methods of infiltration and subver­sion that the Communists are using in Latin America. I do not know what will serve to call this situation to the atten­tion of the administration and perhaps force the administration to take action of some kind. The administration has challenged us to submit proposals. We have submitted certain proposals, which may or may not provide all of the answers. But somewhere in them is an opportunity for discussion and action.

The words of my colleague should call to the mind of everyone that the Cuban situation cannot be cured by walking away from it. While we delay, the sub­version of Latin American and South

Amer~can countries becomes worse every day we live. It is a continent almost on fire at this minute. The center of all this activity is, of course, Cuba, the place we have chosen, . essentially, to walk away from and forget. But it cannot be forgotten. It seems to me that this is the time-and I am sure my colleague from Colorado agrees with me-for us to live up to the brave words our President uttered a year ago today.

REDUCTION OF NONBENEFICIAL CONS:UMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN THE PECOS ·RIVER BASIN, N. MEX. AND TEX.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 550, Sen­ate Joint Resolution 49.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A joint reso­lution (S.J. Res. 49) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a continuing program to reduce non­beneficial consumptive use of water in the Pecos River Basin, in New Mexico and Texas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and 'insular Affairs, with amendments, on page 4, line 15, after the word "installment", to insert "and total obligation"; after line 19, to strike out:

( c) Any costs of the program the Secre­tary determines should be assigned to flood control, recreation, or restoration of stream­flow shall not be included in computing the cost properly allocable to the beneficiaries under this section, but shall be considered as nonreimbursable costs.

And, in lieu thereof, to insert: ( c) Any costs of the program which the

Secretary determines are properly allocable to flood control, fish and wildlife conserva­tion and development, recreation, or restora­tion of streamflow shall be considered as nonreimbursable costs.

And on page 5, after line 3, to insert: (d) In conducting the program, the Sec­

retary shall take such measures as may be necessary to insure that there will be no interference With regular streamflow, no contamination of water, and the least pos­sible hazard to fish and wildlife resources.

So as to make the ·joint resolution read:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep­resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to pre­vent further decreases in the supply of water in the Pecos River Basin, and in order to increase and protect such water supply for municipal, industrial, irrigation, and recrea­tional uses, and for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and to provide protection for the farmlands in such. basin from the haz­ards of floods, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized and directed to take such meas­ures as he deems necessary and appropriate to carry out a continuing program to reduce the nonbeneflcial consumption of water in the basin, including that by salt cedar and other undesirable phreatophytes. Such pro-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20097 gram shall be ca.rr1ed out ln. the Pecos River Basin from its headwaters in New Mexico to the town of Girvin, . Texas: Provided., however, That no money · shall be appropri­ated for and no work conunenced on. the clearing of the flood.way authorized by the Act of February 20, 1958 (72 Stat. 17), unless provision sha.ll have been made to replace any Carlsbad Irrigation District terminal storage which might be lost by the clearing of said floodway.

SEC. 2. As a condition to undertaking the program authorized by the first section of this joint resolution, th.e Secretary shall re­quire the Sia.tea of New Mexico and Texas to give such assurances _as he deems ade­quate that such States will acquire such lands, easements, rights-of-way, and other interests in lands as the Secretary considers necessary effectively to carry out such pro­gram.

SEC. 3. (a) As a further condition to un­dertaking the program authorized by this Joint resolution, the Secretary may, with re­spect to those beneftciaries in New Mexico and Texas which the Secretary determines to be likely to benefit directly from the re­sults of such program, require such com­mitments as he de-ems appropriate that such beneficiaries will repay the United States so much of the reimbursable costs incurred by it in carrying out such program as do not exceed the value of the benefits accruing to such beneficiaries from such program. The Secretary shall not require the repay­ment of such costs unless he determines that it ts feasible (1) to identify the beneficiaries that are directly benefited by the program, and (2) to measure the extent to which each beneficiary is benefited by such program.

(b) Repayment contracts entered into pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be subject to such terms and condi­tions as the Sec:retary may prescribe, except that the amount of the repayment install­ment and total obligation in the case of any bene:fl.ciary shall be fixed by the Secretary in accordance with the abil1ty of such ben­eficiary to pay, taking into consideration all other financial obligations of such bene­ficiary. · ( c) Any costs of the program which the Secretary determines are properly allocable to flood control, fish and wildlife conserva­tion and development, recreation, or restora­tion of streamfiow shall be considered as nonreimbursable costs.

(d) In conducting the program, the Secre­tary shall take such measures as may be necessary to insure that there will be no interference with regular streamfiow, no con­tamination of water, and the least possible hazard to fish and wildlife resources.

SEC. 4. Nothing contained in this Joint res­olution shall be construed to abrogate, amend, modify, or be in conflict with any provisions of the Pecos River compact.

SEC. 5. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Joint res­olution.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I do not know how much discussion of the joint resolution is needed. The Commit­tee on Interior and Insular Affairs de­voted much time to it. The joint resolu­tion provides for an experiment to be conducted by the Federal Government for the control of phreatophytes in the various States. The joint resolution was carefully prepared by the committee. I think it is a worthy venture. The ar:ea involv,ed is in New Mexico and Texas. where· the flow of the fecos River, which used.to-supply farms in_a large area,.has been depleted by phreatopbytes. Vari­ous states have tried their very -best to control phreatophytes on a -local basis

and have had difficulty in doing so. The Army Corps of Engineers has tried to control them in some places and has also had difficulty. · The purpose of the joint resolution is to try to wipe out the situation; to see if the- phreatophytes, which deplete the supply of water, can be destroyed.

I am hopeful that the experiment will be successful. Experiments conducted on the Rio Grande have so far been successful. Experiments conducted 1n the Salt River Valley of Arizona have also been successful. We believe that the methods used will succeed.

The committee has worked on the bill for a long time. -The people in the area have sponsored it for many years. I :tiave great faitll that_ the venture will be successful.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments~

The committee amendments were agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and a third read­ing of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 49) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

The preamble was agreed to. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I

deeply appreciate the cooperation of the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on both sides of the aisle. This is a joint resolution which people could jump ·on and criticize if they wished to do so. But the members of the committee nave recognized that there is a possibility of controlling this very important area, which is costing a large amount of water. I am hopeful that the experiment will succeed.

Mr. ALLO'IT. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a remark?

Mr. ANDERSON. I am happy to yield. · I compliment the Senator from Colorado, who is a conscientious mem­ber of the Committe on Interior and In­sular Affairs. He and I do not always agree on every point, but I am happy that on this committee he contributes his legal knowledge and skill.

Mr. ALLOTT. We have nothing to bate on this joint resolution; we are agreed on every point. We have come to the same conclusion about the joint resolution. I, of course, do not object to it. It is worthwhile noting that at the hearing I called attention to the testi­mony which was presented to us. This is the type of bill which is worthy from the standpoint of water conservation and land conservation. Yet the presentation that was made to us was one that any high school boy could have written. _ In my opinion, it was an inadequate presen­tation from the standpoint of the inf or­mation which is necessary and the infor­mation which might have been given to the committee. I raised this point _at the time. I do so again for the RECORD, be·­cause sometimes I think we might con­vince a few people in the executive branch of government that Congress,

individually or collectively, is not a group of people who are unacquainted with the problems with which we deal.

Mr. ANDERSON. I thank the able Senator from Colorado and say again that it was his cooperation and that of his associates that made it possible to report the joint resolution.

I am happy to say that my colleague from New· Mexico [Mr. MECHEM] joined with me in the presentation of the joint resolution.

GOVERNMENT OF THE VffiGIN ISLANDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 560, H.R. 1989.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE Cl.ERK. A bill (H.R. 1989) to authorize the government of the Virgin Islands to issue general obliga­tion bonds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Com­mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, with an amendment, on page 2, line 8, after the word "and", to strike out "operate" and insert "equip".

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD appropriate sections of the report on this measure.

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

PURPOSE

ThJ? purpose of H.R. 1989, as amended, is to amend section ·a(b) of the Revised Or­ganic Act of the Virgin Islands ena.cted July 22, 1954, in order to permit the Virgin Is­lands Legislature to authorize the issuance ef general obligation bonds.

NEED

By the act of October 27, 1949 (63 Stat. 940) , the Congress gave the Virgin Islands government authority to issue general obliga­tion bonds up to the level of 10 percent of the aggregate assessed valuation of the tax­able real property in the territory. The 1954 organic act omitted this bonding power and provided that the Virgin Islands Legislature should have-"no power to incur any indebt­edness which may be a general obligation of the Virgin Islands government."

The enactment of H.R. 1989 will reinstate the power to issue general obligation bonds for certain specified purposes, · including schools, firehouses, slum clearance, libraries, electric systems, etc. Many of these pur­poses are not revenue producing and, there­fore, cannot be financed except by current taxes or by such borrowing as H~R. 1989 will sanction.

COST

Th.e enactment of H.R. 198.9, as amended, will entail no additional expenditure of Fed­eral funds. The bill speci:fl.cally provides that the bonds shall not be obligations of the United States and that interest thereon shall be tax !ree.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. ·

The amendment was agreed to.

20098 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 22 The- PRESIDING OFFICER: The

bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engross­ment of the amendment and third read­ing of the bill.

The amendment was ordered to be en­grossed, and the bill to be read the third time.

The bill (H.R. 1989) was read the third time and passed.

GUAM PUBLIC AUTHORITY ON URBAN RENEW AL AND HOUSING Mr. MANSFmLD. Mr. President, . I

move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 565, House bill 6481.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H.R. 6481) to permit the govern­ment of Guam to authorize a public authority to undertake urban renewal and housing activities was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the rePort <No. 587), explaining the purpose of the bill.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 6481 is to clarify and make more definite and certain the authority of the territory of Guam to create a public agency empowered to carry out urban re­newal and housing activities and to partici­pate in Federal programs of assistance in this field. The bill also ratifies the action of the Legislature of Guam, heTetofore taken, in creating such an ~ency.

NEED

The need for the creation in Guam of a public ~uthority of the type covered by H.R. 6481 was emphasized by the extensive damage inflicted o:b. the island by Typhoon Karen on November 11 and 12, 1962. About 70 percent of the civ111an residential hous­ing and 40 percent of the commercial struc­tures on the island was totally destroyed or extensively damaged. The Legislature of Guam responded by the enactment of its Public Law 6-1335, approved by the Governor December 18, 1962. Subsequent thereto, Guam was struck by a second storm, Ty­phoon Olive, which destroyed another million dollars' worth of business buildings.

Although the U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency has basic authority to carry on operations in Guam as it does elsewhere in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, there is need to clarify the authority of the government of Guam to create a subordinate unit which can effec­tively carry out its part of the program. It is believed that, even in the absence of such legislation as that proposed in H.R. 6481, the Guam Legislature has authority to do what it has done, but enactment -of H.R. 6481 will set at rest any doubts that may exist. This b111 is thus similar in purpose to the acts by which Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were enabled to participate in the HHFA programs (act of July 18; 1950, 64 Stat. 344, 49 U.S.C. 910 et seq., 1408 et seq.).

Enactment of H.R. 6481 will provide one means by which Guam can assist itself not only in overcoming the disastrous effects of the two typhoons mentioned above but also in rebuilding its civilian housing accommo­dations to acceptable standards. These ac-· commodations have been largely inadequate by any standard at least since World War II

when the island was occupied by the Japa­nese and heavily shelled by our own forces,

The bill specifically provides that obliga­tions of the Guam Housing and Urban Re­newal Authority shall ndt be obligations of the United States or of the territory. There exists in many villages on Guam large num­bers of lots of substandard size and 111-defined title. The necessity of rehabll1tating Guam on a large scale provides an opportu­nity for straightening out these problems.

COST

No additional expenditure of Federal funds is required by H.R. 6481.

laws of the State of ·:Utah, relating to the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of water therein. In the event of the failure

- of the Secretary of the Interior to so com­l)ly, any State of the Colorado River Basin may maintain an action in the Supreme Court of the United States to enforce the provisions of this section and consent is given to the joinder of the United States as a party in such suits, as a defendant or otherwise.

So as to make the bill read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the

DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH purposes of developing the water resources of the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers, in­

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, l eluding the furnishing of municipal and in­move that the Senate proceed to the con- duSt rial water supplies, the fl.µ"nishing of sideration of Calendar No. 552, Senate an irrigation water supply to approximately

twenty-one thousand acres of land, the con-bill 26. trol of floods, the generation and sale of elec-

The motion was agreed to; and the tric energy, the conservation and develop­Senate proceeded to consider the bill ment of fish and wildlife resources, and the (S. 26) to authorize the Secretary of the enhancement of recreation opportunities, the Interior to construct, operate, and main- Secretary of the Interior is authorized to tain the Dixie project, Utah, and for construct, operate, and maintain the Dixie other purposes, which had been reported project, Utah. The project shall consist of from the Committee on Interior and In- the Virgin City Dam and Reservoir, tunnels,

canals, siphons, pumping plants, and other sular Affairs, with amendments, on works necessary to serve irrigated and irri­page 2, line 9, after the word "desirable.", gable lands along and adjacent to the Virgin to insert "The Dixie project shall be River; a dam on the Santa Clara River near coordinated with the Cedar City water Gunlock, Utah, and other works necessary development program which includes the to serve irrigated and irrigable lands along diversion of the waters of Crystal Creek and adjacent to the Santa Clara River and on into the Kolob Reservoir, and after com- Ivins Bench; and hydroelectric plants and

Pletion of the Dixie project said waters transmission facilities at the Virgin City Da.m and at such other points as are desir­

of Crystal Creek and of the natural able. The Dixie project shall be . coordi­watershed of said Kolob Reservoir shall nated with the Cedar City water develop­be exported for use of Cedar City and ment program which includes the diversion vicinity in accordance with an agreement of the waters of Crystal Creek into the Kolob entered by Cedar City and Iron County, Reservoir, and after completion of the Dixie Utah, on the 26th day of August 1953, project said waters of Crystal Creek and of with Kolob Reservoir and Storage As- the natural watershed of said Kolob Reservoir sociation, Incorporated, and Washing- shall be exported for use of Cedar City and

vicinity in accordance with an agreement ton County, Utah."; on page ·4, line 11, entered by Cedar City and Iron county, Utah, after the word "period". to insert "but on the 26th day of August 1953, with Kolob not to exceed $3,500,000"; in line 23, after Reservoir and Storage Association, Incor­the word "project", to strike out "in a porated, and Washington County, Utah. manner consistent with the other proj- SEC. 2. The project shall include such ect purposes" and insert "but these measures for the disposition of saline waters undertakings shall be coordinated with of La Verkin Springs as are necessary in the

opinion of the Secretary to insure the deliv­the other project purposes"; on page 5, ery of water at downstream points along the after line 12, to strike out: Virgin River for water users in the states

(b) The Secretary may make such rea- of Arizona and Nevada of suitable _quality for sonable provision in connection with the irrigation, or provision shall be made to tn­Dixie project as, upon further study in ac- demnify such water users for any impair­cordance wtih section 2 of the Fish and ment of water quality for irrigation pur­Wildlife Coordination Act ( 48 Stat. 401, as poses directly attributable to Dixie project amended; 16 U.S.C. 661,662), he finds to be operations. required for the conservation and develop- SEC. 3. In constructing, operating, and· ment of fish and wildlife. An appropriate maintaining the works authorized by this portion of the cost of the development shall Act, the Secretary shall be governed by the be allocated as provided in said Act and it, Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, together with the . Federal operation and 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory· maintenance costs allocated to this function, thereof or supplementary thereto), except as shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable is otherwise provided in this Act. under the reclamation laws. SEC. 4. Construction of the project shall

In line 23, after "Sec. 7.", to insert not be commenced until there shall be es­" (a)"; and on page 6, after line 3, to tablished a conservancy district or similar

organization with such powers as may be insert: required by the Secretary, these to include

(b) In the operation and maintenance of powers to tax both real and personal prop­all facilities under the jurisdiction and erty within the boundary of the district and supervision of the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the United authorized by this Act, the Secretary of the States for the repayment of reimbursable Interior ls directed to comply with the appli- costs. cable provisions of the Colorado River com- SEC. 5. The interest rate to be· used for pact, the Upper Colorado River Basin com- purposes of coinputing interest during con­pact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the structicm and interest on the unpaid balance J3oulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, the of those portions of the reimbursable costs C<>lorado River Storage Project Act (and any which are ·properly allocable to commerclai" contract lawfully entered into by the United power development and municipal and in­States under any of said Acts), the· treaty dustrial water supply shall be determined with the United ·Mexican States, and the- _ by the Secretary of· the Treasury, a:s of the operating principles, and to comply with the beginning of the fiscal year in which this

1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20099 blll ls enacted, on the basts of the computed average interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding marketable public ob­ligations, which are neither due nor callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of lssue. If the interest rate so computed is not a multiple of one-eighth of 1 per centum. the rate of interest to be used for these purposes shall be the mUltiple of one­eighth of 1 per centum next lower than the rate so computed. The portions of the costs which are allocable to commercial power de­velopment and to municipal and industrial water supply shall be repaid over a period of fifty yeara with interest at the rate de­termined in accordance with this section. The portion of the costs which is properly allocable to irrigation and which is beyond the water users' ab111ty to repay in fifty years plus a ten-year development period but not to exceed ts,500,000 shall be returned to the reclamation fund within such period from revenues derived by the Secretary of the Interior from the disposition of power marketed from Federal projects in the Lower Colorado River Basin.

SEC, 6. (a) The Secretary of the Interior ls authorized as a part of the Dixie project to construct, operate, and maintain public recreation facilities including access roads, to acquire or to withdraw from entry or other disposition under the publlc land laws such adjacent lands or interests therein as are necessary for present and future public recreation use, and to provide for public use and enjoyment of the same and of the water areas of the project but these undertakings shall be coordinated with the other project purposes. The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with State or local public agencies or other public entities for the operation, maintenance, or additional development of project lands or fac111ties or to dispose of project lands or fac111ties to State or local agencies or other public en­tities by lease, transfer, exchange or con­veyance, upon such terms and conditions as will best promote their development and operation in the public interest for recrea­tion purposes. The costs of the undertak­ings described in this section, including costs of investigation, planning, operation, and maintenance and an appropriate share of the joint costs of the Dixie project, shall be nonreimbursable.

SEC. 7. (a) The use of all water diverted for this project from the Colorado River sys­tem shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado River compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057; 43 U.S.O. 617t), and the Mexican Water Treaty (Treaty Series 994) (59 Stat. 1219).

(b) In the operation and maintenance of all fac111ties under the jurisdiction and su­pervision of the Secretary of the Interior au­thorized by this Act, the Secretary of the In­terior is directed to comply with the appli­cable provisions of the Colorado River com­pact, the Upper Colorado River Basin com­pact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, the Colorado River Storage Project Act (and any contract lawfully entered into by the United States under any of said Acts), the treaty with the United Mexican States, and the operating principles, and to comply with the laws of the State of Utah, relating to the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of water therein. In the event of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to so com­ply, any State of the Colorado River Basin may maintain an action in the Supreme Court of the United States to enforce the provisions of this section and consent is given to the Joinder of the United States as a party in such sUits, as a defendant or otherwise.

SEC. 8. There ls hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such

sums as may be required to carry out the purposes of thls Act.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, this bili' has been called up in order to have this proposed legislation pending before the Senate. No action will be taken to­day on the bill.

THE PLIGHT OF JEWS IN THE SOVIET UNION

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union con­tinues to shock the conscience of the world. This morning's Washington Post comments editorially on the latest evi­dence from the Soviet Union of a con­certed effort, directed by the Govern­ment, to persecute Russian Jews.

This past weekend a distinguished group of Americans met at the Carnegie International Center in New York City to attend the Conference on the Status of Soviet Jews. The conference, whose sponsors are Justice William 0. Douglas, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Sen­ator Herbert H. Lehman, Bishop James A. Pike, Walter Reuther, Norman Thom­as, and Robert Penn Warren reviewed re­cent developments in the Soviet Union and issued an appeal of conscience.

In the Senate, the resolution which I recently introduced, expressing the sense of the Senate in opposition to the perse­cution of Jews in the Soviet Union and calling upon the Soviet Government to grant full freedom of religion to all with­in its borders, now has the cosponsorship of 64 Senators. I hope the Foreign Rela­tions Committee will set this resolution down for an early hearing so that it may soon be acted upon by the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the editorial and the "Appeal of Conscience."

There being no objection, the editorial and appeal were ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: [From the Washlngtoi:.. Post, Oct. 22, 1963]

APPEAL OF CONSCIENCE

No person of fairness or feeling could fail to be shocked by Izvestia's call for a show trial and death sentences for several Soviet citizens · accused of embezzlement. The pa­per went on to say that "we mention the Jewish names of people in this ring because we do not pay attention to the malicious slander that is stirred up from time to time in the Western press." If the Kremlin had deliberately undertaken to cast doubts on the Soviet Judicial process and to raise fears about the situation of Soviet Jews, it could not have improved on the Izvestia article.

The article is of special interest in the context of a recent Conference on the Status of Soviet Jews in New York. A day of search­ing inquiry by a group of distinguished and informed Americans produced an "Appeal of Conscience" to Soviet authorities to re­move the officially imposed disabilities against Jews and to restore to them the rights accorded other Soviet groups. one part of the appeal stated: "The anti-Jewish character that so strongly colors the official campaign against economic crimes should be eliminated."

Izvestia's insistence that "we do not pay attention" to foreign protests is also of note. Before the New York conference was held, the Soviet Embassy here dispatched a statf member to visit Arthur M1ller, one of the conference invitees. The envoy's purpose, the playwright reported, was to persuade him not to take part in the conference. Mr.

Miller, of course, reJ~cted the "diplomat•sN overtures.

Now Izvestia states that it will ignore "mallcious slander" to the effect that Jews are singled out for particular publicity and punishment for so-called economic crimes. This is the same breath in which it specifies that the accused have "Jewish names" and that they deserve the death penalty.

For reasons best known to themselves the Soviet leaders discriminate heavily against Jews. The evidence ls overwhelming and incontrovertible and renewed almost daily by the Russians themselves. Civ111zed men everywhere will surely join the conference's appeal "to all those in the U.S.S.R. who genuinely desire the eradication of the evils of Stalinism and who thirst for truth, Justice and decency."

AN .APPEAL OF CONSCIENCE FOR THE JEWS OF THE SqvIET UNION

(Statement adopted by the Conference on the Status of Soviet Jews, Carnegie Inter­national Center, 345 East 46th Street, New York City, October 12, 1963) Having heard careful and objective evi­

dence about many aspects of the life of Jews in the Soviet Union, we are moved to express unanimously our grave concern and to make the following appeals:

We appeal to all those in the U.S.S.R. who genuinely desire the eradication of the evils of Stalinism and who, with us, thirst for truth, justice, and decency.

We appeal to the Soviet authorities to act in this matter on the basis of their own ideological, constitutional, and legal commit­ments.

We fervently hope that the following spe­cific steps may be taken:

1. Jewish education in all its forms should be permitted.

2. Jewish cultural institutions should be reopened and Jewish artistic life--literature, theater, music-in Yiddish and Hebrew­shoUld be allowed to develop fully.

3. Central institutions to serve the reli­gious needs of Soviet Jewry should be estab­lished; obstacles to the performance of sacred rites should be removed.

.4. Formal religious and cultural bonds with Jewish communities abroad should be allowed, official exchange visits permitted, and the right to make religious pilgrimages to the Holy Lanp. granted.

. 5. Permission for Jews to leave the U.S.S.R., so that they may be reunited with families in other lands from whom they have been separated, should be implemented.

6. The anti-Jewish character that so strongly colors the official campaign against economic crimes should be eliminated.

7. A vigorous educational campaign against anti-Semitism should be undertaken.

We issue this appeal in all solemnity as a matter of urgency and elementary decency. We cannot keep silent so long as Justice is not done on this problem.

PROCESSING AND SALE OF ALASKA SEALSKINS

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in March of 1963, the Interior Department awarded to the joint venture known as Supara of Chicago, ru., a contract award for the processing and sale of Alaska sealskins. At the time of this award, Mr. President, I protested to the Interior Department that the award was made in violation of Government contract laws and procedures. The Interior Depart­ment insisted that its position was valid, and so I asked the General Accounting Office to look into this matter to deter­mine if there had been any violation of law and procedures in select~

20100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE October 2ft

Supara over the Fouke ·For Co., which had been doing this work f~ the Government for the past 40-years in a most exemplacy ma.liner.~

On October 11. ~963, I receiyed a l!;!tter from the Comptroller General of the United stat.es. Mr. Joseph Campbell, in­forming me that the award was uin violation of law and regulations and should therefore be rescinded."' At­tached to Mr. Campbell's letter. was a 33-page opinion in the form of a letter addressed to the Secretary ·of the In­terior by Mr. Campbell.

The findings of the General Aooount­ing Office show in the ease, Mr. Presi­dent, that this contract award was rigged against Fouke Fur Co. by the Interior Department, and that the law was violated in several .instances.

I have referred this matter, with .my complete .:files, to the distinguished chairman of the Government Operations Committee, Senator JOHN McCLELLAN, with the request that his investigating subcommittee pursue this matter further with a view toward determining whether there may have been · other such viola­tions of law by the Interior Department or oth-er agencies of the Government in making contract awards. So that the Members of ,the Senate and the Members of the House might have access to some of this material, I ask unanimous con­sent there be printed at the conclusion of these remarks the following materials:

A letter addressed to me from the Comptroller General of the United. States dated October 10, 1963, .and the en­closure, which consists of a copy of a letter from the Comptroller General of the United States to the Secretary of the Interior, also dated October 10, 1963.

My weekly newsletter of Oc,tober ,21, 1963, entitled ''The Biased Umpire."

An editorial from the Greenvil1e Pied­mont, of Greenville, S.C., dated October 14, 1963.

An editorial from the Spartanburg Herald, of Spartanburg, S.C., dated. Oc­tober 14., 1963.

An editorial from the State, of Co­lumbia, S.C., dated October 18, 1963.

A front page · editorial from Barron's, National Business and Financial Weekly, dated OCtober 21, 1963.

An article from the Greenville News, of Greenville, S.C., dated October 15, 1963.

An article from Women's· Wear Daily, of October 18, 1963.

There being no objection, the various items were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

C0114PTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D.C., ·october 10, 1963. Hon. STROM: THuR:MOND,

U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATO& THURMOND: With reference

to your interest in a protest filed with this Office by Fouke Fur Co. against the award of a contra.ct for the processing and sale of seal­skins to a joint venture known .as Supara, we are enclosing a copy of our letter of today to· the Secretary of the Interior advising of our opinion that the award was in Violation of law and regUlations and should therefore be rescinded.

.If we can be of further service 1n this mat­ter, please advise us.

Sincerely yours. ·JOSEPH CAMPBELL,

· C01l[P'l'ROLLJ:R GENERAL 01' THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D.C., October 10, 1963. The Honorable THE SECRETARY OF THE IN­

TERIOR. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Reference is made

to a protest by Fouke Fur Co. against the action of your Department in awarding a contract for the processing and sale of Alaska sealskins to a joint venture known as Supara.

.As indicated by the record before this otnce, this procurement was initiated by an invitation for proposals issued by your De­partment under date of June 20, 1962, as a result of the termination effective Decem­ber 31, 1962, of a contract with Fouke Fur Co., which company has performed such services for the Government under succes­sive contracts since 1921.

The invitation for proposals in question advised prospective. contractors, In pertinent part, as follows:

"The proposals invited hereunder are for a contract which wm be negotiated in ac­cordance with the Federal Procurement Reg­ulations. (See attachments concerning standard contract provisions and principles to be observed in negotiated contracts.)"

The "attachments" referred to in the foregoing, insofar as they are pertinent to the principles to be observed in the negotia­tion of the contract, were set out as follows in a portion of the invitation entitled "Con­tract Negotiation and Award'":

"The invitation solicits proposals for a contract which will be negotiated in ac­cordance with Federal Procurement Regula­tions. For the information of pr08pect1ve contractors there are stated herein, and in the attachments, certain policies and regula­tions relating to the negotiation and award of contracts, together with clauses to be in­corporated in the contract. "DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REGULATIONS

"The following excerpts from the Depart­mental Manual state policies, procedures. and responsib111ties which will be applicable to the negotiation and award of contracts.

"In general, 1t 1s the policy of the U.S. Government to contract with the person or concern offering, through sealed bids opened publicly, to meet the Government's specifications and to provide the supplies or service at the lowest cost.

"Contracting officers are cautioned that the negotiated contracting authority should be exercised only in justifiable circumstances and shollld not be interpreted as implying any relaxation of the requirements for com­petition.

'"''Contracting by negotiation does not- re­quire compliance with the rigid limitatioil8 of formal advertising, bid, and award pro­cedures, and determination of the per13on or concern to be awarded the contract is less automatic. It allows, to a greater extent than formal advertising, the exercis~ of sound business judgment but 1n no way de­creases the responsibility of the contracting officer for properly protecting the interests of the Government. ·

"Whenever a contract is to be negotiated, price quotations and all other necessary in­formation shall be solicited from such quali­fied sources as are deemed necessary by the contracting officer to assure adequate com­petition. Due consideration must be given to the national policies affecting small busi­ness and areas of substantial unemployment.

"All solicitations of offers shall provide a fixed time for receipt of offers, prior to which no award shall be made. This requirement

is not intended' to preclude · further negotia­tion or consideration of offers or mocWlca­tions reee.ived after the ·fiXed' time, but prtor to the ,award. Necessary precautions must be taken to avoid prejudice to any ofl'erors by inadvertent disclosure of negotiations in process, &uch as prices quoted._ \he, number of: offers received, or the names o:f firms from which offers have been received. .

••n is the responsibility of the contracting officer condUcting negotiations to give con­sideration. to the following and any other applicable factors:

"(a.) The business reputation and respon­sibility of the respective persons or concerns submitting quotations •

"(b) The quality of the supplies or services offered, or the quality of similar supplies or services previously furnished, -with due re­gard to compliance with teehnieal require­ments.

"'(c} Prices quoted, and consideration of other prices. for the same or similar supplies or services, with due regard to cost of trans­portation, cash discounts, and ,any other factors relating to prices.

."(d) Delivery requirements. .. The invitation advised prospective con­

tractors that limited numbers of cured seal­skins, both male and fem.ates, would be made available "to those firms which request them and which are qualified to carry out experi­mental processing," and that samples of finished skins must accompany written pro­posals submitted in response to the invita­tion. With respect to processing o! the seal­skins, the invitation advised as follows~

"Processing sealskins includes all opera­tions, physical and chemical, manual and mechanical, to which the pelts are subjected in order to obtain the finished fur ready for use by the furrier.

"It ls essential for the leather to possess certain qualities after being dressed, e.g. soft­ness, lightness of weight, elasticity, and a certain fineness. or 'feel.' In other words, the important considerations in -dressing Alaska sealskins are the employment of means a.nd the exercise of care to preserve and improve those characteristics of the pelt which make it valuable .. A brief description of the general processes, based largely on information published some yea.rs ago by the Bureau of Fisheries, Department, of Com­merce, follows. This is not intended to ex­clude other processes or practices which a processor may elect to utmze in producing a high quality luxury product-."

Concerning the evaluation oI proposals, the invitation provided as follows-:

"Proposals submitted hereunder will be evaluated to determine whether the appli­cants qualify as responsible prospective con­tractors. In order to qualify as responsible, a pro.spective contractor must, in the opin­ion oI the contracting officer, meet the fol­lowing standards of the Federal Procurement Regulations as they relate to this particular procurement:

••1. He must be a service contractor or such other person or firm as ·may be quail.fled and responsible as a SOUl'Ce O! supply. The term 'service contractor' means a. person or firm who, before being awarded a. contract, satis­fies the contracting officer that he qualifies as one who owns, operates, or maintains a place of business regularly engaged tn per­forming nonpersonal services or who, If newly entering into a service activfty, has made all necessary prior arrangements for person­nel, service equ1pll\ent, and required licenses to perform services.

"2. He- must have adequate financial re­sources for performa.noe, or ha?e the abmty to obtaiil such resources as required during performance.

"3. Be must' have the neces&ary experi­ence, organization, technical qua111lca.tions-, skills, and facU1t1es, or b&ve tbe ablllty to ob-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20101 taln them (including prob&ble subcontract.or arrangements) .

"4. He must be able t.o comply with the proposed. or required time of delivery or per­formance schedule.

"5. He must have a satlsfact.ory record of· integrity, Judgment, and performance . .

"To facllitate an analysis of the proposal, the applicant must furnish a statement of his financial condition, evidence of his experi­ence, and business and personal references, as well as such additional data as he may consider pertinent t.o the evaluation of his offer.

"The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries will also conduct a survey of the applicant's back­ground and make an overall inspection of the applicant's plant and operations t.o evaluate his financial status, abllity, and competence t,o carry on the processing and/ or sale of sealskins."

The invitation further provided that "the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries reserves the right, as the interest of the Government may require, t,o reject any or all proposals and t,o negotiate further with any qualified firm."

As originally issued, the proposal form furnished t,o prospective contract.ors with the invitation, required offerors proposing t.o process sealskins t,o state the location and a description of their facilities. By adden­dum No. 1 dated August 22, 1962, this re­quirement was revised as follows:

"If any firm making such an offer does not presently have facilities adequ~te for this purpose, it shall state in the proposal how it intends to acquire the necessary plant, processing fac111ties, personnel, etc., in order t,o qualify as a responsible prospective contractor meeting the standards set forth tn the invitation. Firm commitments for these fac111ties and personnel need not be concluded prior to submission of the pro­posal. However, the proposal must contain a . sufficiently detailed plan as to how the firm proposes to perform the work for the contracting officer to determine that further consideration of the proposal is warranted. If the firm ls invited to enter int.o negotia­tions for a contract it must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the contracting officer that within 1 year it can have adequate fa­c111ties for processing up t.o 80,000 skins per year."

As a result of the invitation raw skins were requested by and furnished to 11 firms and individuals. Five firms submitted pro­posals, together with sample skins, prior to the established deadline of November 1, 1962. These firms were Pierre La.Clede Fur Co., St. Louis, Mo.; Supara, Inc., Chicago, Ill.; Fouke Fur Co., Greenvme, S.C.; C. W. Martin & sons, Ltd., London, England; Jonas Bros., seattle, Wash.

In order to establish evaluation standards for the 101 sample skins submitted with these proposals, 60 processed skins were se­lected from the stock on hand of Fouke Fur Co. to be used as the standard of com­parison for the sample skins. Such stand­ard skins were then classified as "Black," "Matara," "Kitovi," and "Lakoda" and given to a panel composed of nine government em­ployees for subjective inspection. Except for Lakoda (female) skins, all skins were evaluated on the following categories:

1. Uniform appearance and texture of the fur.

2. Velvety appearance and smoothness of fur to the touch.

3. Free flow of fur under stroke of hand. 4. Luster. 5. Uniformity of color. 6. Depth and richness of color. . 7. Suppleness and pliability of leather. 8. Density of fur cover.

· Lakoda skins were evaluated on the basts of points 1, 4, 5, 7, and a ninth category en­titled "Condition of Pelt."

All skins were rated "Excellent," "Good," "Fair" or "Poor" 1n each category except "Luster" which was rated "IDgh," "Medium," or "Low." The ratings were determined by giving four points for excellent, three for good, two for fair, one for poor; three points for low luster, two for fair, and one for high. While the failure of some of the panel mem­bers to rate the standard "Black" skins on all points precluded an average point rating for such skins, the average point rating on the Fouke standard skins for the remaining categories was as follows: Ma.tars., 179; Ki to­vi, 175; Lakoda, 105.

The 101 sample skins were then submitted to a Government panel, composed of seven members of the original panel, for evaluation on the same basis as the standard skins. In addition, the sample skins were submitted for evaluation on the same basis by five prominent members of the fur industry. The report by the National Bureau of Sta~d­ards t,o your Department sets out the results of the panels' evaluations as follows:

"Each skin rated by the panels as described in test No. 1 under description of 'Tests' was given a total point rating, which is com­posed of the grand totals for all panel mem­bers of the ratings in the eight categories for regular skins and five categories for sheared skins. An average rating in points for the Government standard skins was cal­culated from the ratings of the Government panel for Matara, Kitovi, and Lakoda, and is given in the table for test No. 1 (a.pp. I).

"The rankings of the top proposal Alaska sealskins by both the Government and in­dustry panels are given in tables I(a) and 1 (b) ( a.pp. II). Rank 1 ls given to the skins receiving the greatest number of points; the rankings increase in number as the points decrease. At least six skins from each company are included in the table for regular skins (la). The agreement between the two panels on the rankings for individ­ual skins is only fair. However, the agree­ment in the relative rankings for the indi­vidual companies is very good. It the totals of the rankings of the top six skins from each company are tabulated, the following data are obtained:

"Regular skins

Industry Government

Total Average Total Average points rank points rank

---------Fouke _____________ 37 6.2 21 3.& Supara _____________ 1.1 48 8.0 42 7.0 Pierre LaClede ____ 76 12. 7 65 10.8

"These results show that the order of preference for both panels was Fouke No. 1, Supara No. 2, and Pierre La.Clede No. 3. It should be observed that all the skins listed under the rankings of the Government panel are above the average for the Government standard skins.

"In a similar procedure rankings were made for the top sheared skins from the point ratings of the Government and indus­try panels, using the t.op two skins only from each company since Fouke submitted only two sheared skins. This gives the following results:

"Sheared skins

Industry

Total Average points rank

Supara- - ---------- 2 1 Basch _____________ 8 4 Pierre LaClede ____ 26 13 Fouke------------- 28 14

Government

Total points

4 12 11 4

Average rank

2.0 6. 5. 2.

0 5 0

"These results show little correlation be­tween the two panels with the exception of Supara."

Both the standard skins and sample skins were also submitted to a series of physical and chemical tests, designated as test No. 2 through test No. 15, by the National Bureau of Standards. The Bureau commented upon such test results in part 6 of Report No. 7807 in the following manner:

"6. DISCUSSION

"Outside of specific craftsmanship in the dressing and finishing of furs, it ls possible to explain certain of the results of the dif­ferences in physical properties, and speculate on others from a consideration of results of the chemical analysis. The differences in properties between the Fouke and Pierre La.Clede proposal skins on the one hand, and those of Supara on the other, ls primarily due to a difference in the tannage. The chrome tannage used by Supara will result in a tighter, less stretchy leather than that of the oil tannage used by Fouke and Pierre La.Clede. The · low tensile strength of the Supara skins may also be caused by the chrome tannage, which swelled the skins in such a way that on splitting to a uniform

. thickness less substance remained. The fact that less substance remained in the Supara skins is confirmed by the low,er weight per square :foot. Whether or not these differences are highly important .in the utilization of the skins in garmentmaking is not known. It is known that the chrome tannage in leather used for making shoes is much superior in serviceab111ty than that of any other tannage.

"The outstanding differences among the proposal skins are in the behavior of the fur toward water. The Fouke and Pierre La.Clede proposal skins are much superior to the Supara in water repellency. Again there is a difference in the chemical analysts which might explain this; namely, the fact that fur from Supara skins has much lower ash con­tent and lower pigment (Cr20 3 and Fe20 3 )

contents. The results, however, show that the lack of water resistance is not entirely caused by the fur but also by the leather, and here the chrome tannage again may be cited. The only sheared skin from Supara that is highly water resistant was the one tanned with oil and alum.

"Fina.Uy, the art and expert craftsmanship in dressing the furs are undoubtedly brought out in the subjective inspection. This was performed by a Government panel which was composed of a group of unbiased technicians and scientists, and a group of experts from the fur industry. The result of the evalua­tions of both of these groups was to rank the proposal regular skins in the de­creasing order; Fouke, Supara and Pierre La­Clede. The proposal sheared skins were ranked in decreasing order; Supara, Basch, Pierre La.Clede and Fouke by the industry panel, and Supara and Fouke first, followed by Pierre LaClede and Basch by the Govern­ment panel."

On February 7, 1963, negotiations directed to the award of a definitive contract were initiated with Supara, Inc. Under date of March 1, 1963, your administrative assistant secretary issued a statement which sum­marized the solicitation of proposals and the evaluation of the sample sealskins and con­cluded as follows:

"In consideration of the foregoing and the information included in the proposals sub­mitted by each of the five firms first men­tioned above, it has been determined that on the basis of having furnished in varying de• grees satisfactory evidence of possessing the necessary technological background and qualifications to properly fulfill the Govern­ment's needs and requirements in regard to the processing and sale at auction of Alaska fur sealskins; having furnished in varying degrees sufficient information to insure their

20102 CONGRESSIONAL REC9RD - SENATE Octobey ·B2 having available ample facilities, );o process the required number of sealskins; and h_aving furnished in varying degrees satisfactory pre­liminary evidence of financial responsibili-ty, it is hereby further determined that nego­tiations should be entered into looking to the executk>n of a mutually satisfactory contract in the following order: · ·

1. Supa.ra, Inc., Chicago, _Ill. 2. Fouke Fur Co., Greenville, S.C. 3. Pierre LaClede Fur Co., St. Louis, Mo. 4. c. w. Martin & Sons Ltd., London,

England. · "The proposal of Jonas Bros. of Seattle

and Alaska, Seattle, Wash., was determined not to be fully responsive since they indi­cated they were interested in processing female skins only."

This determination was further explained as follows in your DepaTtment's report of April 19, 1963, to this office~

"Although ft is not specified in the mem­orandum of .March 1, 1963, the technical finding concerning the quality of the seal­skins submitted was as follows: Supara and Fouke were approximately equal; Pierre Laclede Fur Co. a poor third, and C. W. Mar­tin & Sons fourth. W1th regard to potential marketability Supara was Judged to be su­perior to Fouke. Since, as pointed out in · our introduction, we are here concerned with a Government-operated business, run for profit to the 'Treasury, the quality and mar­ketab111ty of the sealskins processing, and the price they would bring on the open market had to be the first and primary considera­tion of the Department. Any failure to achieve the best possible quality and mar­ketability of product would reduce the sell­ing price of sealskins, and the resulting loss to the Government would far outweight any saving which might be made by employing a contractor who charged less for his service. As a practical matter, the 'above determina­tion reduced tn:e competftlon for this con­tract to Supara and Fouke.

"The second consideration of the Depart­ment was the responsibility of the prospec­tive contractor. Responsibility in this case means much more than mere adequate finan­cial resources. It !tlso involves a range of considerations concerning the business structure of the organization, its business practices, its attitude toward the duties it assumes, the enthusiasm for· promoting and expanding this Government business, and similar factors. It was both proper and necessary to make an evaluation of this con­sideration ln entering a negotiate<! contra.ct of this nature. (Comp. Gen. Dec. B-14'Z394 (September 4, 1962), unpubllshed.)

"As indicated by the pr.otest memoran­dum, the (iov~rnment has had a lengthy relationship with the Fouke Fur Co., and the Government could ignore this history only at 1ts perU. As lncUcated. by the ,at­tached exhibit B, •statement of the Depart­ment of the Interior ,on the termination of the contract With the Fouke Fur Co.,• it was because of factors related to responsibility that the former contract was terminated. Although no determination was made that Fouke was not ·sufficiently responsible to hold a negotiated Government contract, this. Department was justified in feeling real doubt in this regaTd. Responsibil'tty is not a matter of black and white •. but of degree.

"On the other hand, it was determined, on the basis of available :evidence, that Supara was and would be, in every respect, a re­sponsible contractor. - On the question o! responsibility, the Supara was judged sub­stantially ahead .of Fouke."

The factors relating to responsibility are summarized in exhibit B, referred to above, as follows:

"In summary. the acti-0n o! the Govern­ment to terminate the contract was necessi­tated by noncompliance by the company with the factol"ll which must be present in

negotiated Federa~ contracts. This non­coiripllance· includes: . "1. The income received by the company is excessive as found by a reputable banker in 1953 and as indicated. by the Comptroller General in a recent examination of the com­pany's operations under the contract. · ''2. Failure on the part of the company to demonstrate acceptable progress in process-ing and marketing female sealskins. ·

''3. Views of the company regarding the number of sealskins harvested.

"4. Proposals o! the company to conceal from the public pertinent data regarding sale of female sealskins. ·

"5. Action of the company in locating the female pr.ocessing operations at a site for which approval was not given.

"6. Decision of the company to relocate its complete operations without discussion with the Department and without regard to the public interest involved." · While it is assumed that negotiations di­rected to the award of a contract were con­ducted by your Department during the period February 7 through March 4, 1963, the report dated August 19, from your ad­ministrative assistant secretary, advises that he is unable to supply minutes of the negotiations, since no formal records of the proceedings were maintained.

Under date of March 5, 1963, your office is­sued a ·news release advising that a con­tract w.as awarded to Supara, "a joint ven­ture partnership composed of the Pritzker in­terests, Chicago, Ill. (experienced in the own­ership and management of a wide variety of businesses). National Superior Fur Dress­ing & Dyeing Co., Chicago. Ill. ( engaged in fur dressing and processing slnce 191'2), and the Superior Fur Dyeing Co., New York, N.Y. (founded in 1915 and noted for fur dye­ing)."

At 10:00 a.m., on March 14, 1963, the in­eorporators and subscribers to the shares of Supara, Inc .• adopted the following resolu­lutiori: . "Re-solved, That all of the assets of every kind, nature and description belonging to this corporation be transferred to its suc­cessor -in interest, Supara, a joint venture created by agreement dated March 14, 1968, between Herbert Schoenbrod as trustee of F.L.P. trust No. 1 through No. 23, and Nor­ton Shapiro.

"Resolved, That Max H. Weinberg be and is hereby authorized to execute such further documents as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the foregoing resolution."

The contract in question is dated March 14,- 1963, -and was executed for Supara, ~ ':taint venture, by Herbert Schoenbrod, as trustee of Fannie L. Pritzker trusts No. 1 to 23, joint-venturer, and by Norton Shapiro, joint venturer. The joint-venture agree­ment ·between these venturers is also dated March 14, 1963. The fact that your De­p.artment announced the award of the con­tra.ct on Ma..rch 5, 1963, to a Joint venture which does not appear to have come into existence until March 14, 1963, is not ex­plained by the record before this office.

The protest. by Fouke Fur Co. against the award of this co.ntract .is based pri­marily upon the following contentions:

1. The determination by your Department that Supara's sample skins had superior po­tential marketability is arbitrary, without foundation in fact, and is not supported by the findings of the evaluation panels and the National Bureau of Standards report.

2. The determination by your Department that Supara was substantially ahead of Fouke on the question of responsibility is arbitrary, capricious, and so without founda­tion as to suggest bad faith.

3. That, ln the absence of a determination by: your Departm.ent that Fouke either was not a responsible bidder or that its technical proposal was unacceptable, your Department '!'as requlred by the provisions o! the invita-

tion and appllc.a.ble procurement regulations to request a firm proposal, Including price, from Fouke and to consider such proposal, i_!icludtng price, on a competitive basis with similar proposals submitted by other offerors prlor to a warding. a con tract.

We shall consider these contentions in that order. ·

With -,respect to the comparative quality and potential marketability of the Fouke and l;)upara sample skins, the composite ratings and comparative rankings of the Gover_nment and industry evaluation panels are set out above. They show that both the Govern­ment and industry evaluation panels ranked the Fouke "regular" skins first and Supara's second. On sh.eared skins, the industry panel ranked Supara's first and Fouke's fo:urth, while :the Government panel rankeg. Fou;ke's sheared skins and Supara's a~ :first a.nd equal~ While marketability was not included as a separate tactor which these panels were re­quµ-ed to evaluate, it would appear that those :factors which were il).cluded should ll,ave a dir~t relationship to .marketa.billty. In reply to our request of May 9, 1963, for copies of composite ratings of the evaluation panels and for "an explanation of the basis for your determina:tions on comparative q1,1ality and potential marketability" of the Fouke and Supara sample skins, on August 19, 1963, your administrative assistant sec­retary advise4 as follows:

"The enclosed lndividual ·:rating- sheets and Bureau of Standards reports should. be self­explanatory as a basis for our determination of the comparative physical and technical quality of the sample skins. Potential mar­ketabllity is a far more subjective question and one which required the application of our best administrative judgment. which here is identical with business Jud-gment. It. involves a Judgment of the relative bnpor­tance ,of the varied tacts revealed by the panel ratinga and the Bureau of Standards tests. The most signifi:cant differences be­tween Fauke'B and Supara's sample sealskins appeared to be the greater water absorption of the Supara skins and the ,greater weight of the Fouke skins. Both were undesirable features in a luxury :fur. The decision rested on our administrative Judgment that women seldom ,stand out in the rain l n $3,000 fur coats, but that the lighter weight of that coat would be a significant factor in her ctect­sion to ask her husband to purchase it. This view was supported by the opinions of fur coat manufacturers who were interviewed on the question of water absorption by repre-· sentativerr of thls Department. With water absorption a minor factor ·and weight a major one, the greater potential marketabil­ity of Supara processed sealskins over Fouke processed sealskins was manifest:•

As set out above, the composite ratings for the Fouke and Su9ara sample skins, as compiled from the individual rating sheets of the panel members, would support a con­clusion that the :Fouke samples were, overall, superior to the Supara samples. The com­posite ratings standing alone, do not support the opposite conclusion.

Neither do we find the results of the phys­ical and chemical tests conducted by the Bureau of Standards to be self-explanatory of your determination that . the quallty of Supara's skins was physically and technically equal to those submitted by Fouke. In this connection,1 it should be noted that our analysis of the Bureau of Standards test re­sults on weight of the sample sealskin.s in­dicates that use of skins_processed by Supara might be expected to result in a coat weigh­ing about 8 ounces less than one Cabrlcated from Fouke processed skins. On the other hand, various elements other than weight and water absorption are aet out bl the Bu­reau o! Standards report and indicate qual­ities _of doubtful deaira.b111ty ln the Supara skins (see; e.g., test No. 6 which indicates

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20103 breaking strengths of the Supara skins "are very signlllcantly lower than those of the standa.Tds and are approaching what ls known in the leather industry as the critical point between serviceable and unserviceable leather;" test No. 7, "The Fouke skins more nearly approach the results of the standard skins where. in most cases the orlginal ap­pearance. was restored after treating with the solvent. None of the Supara or Pierre La­Clede skins was restored to the original ap­pearance after testing, drying, and rubbing;" test No. 11, "Changes in length under ten­sion and under release of tension are lowest for the Supara skins • • •. The property ot stretch un"Cler tension ts, of course, of im­portance tn 1ihe manufacture of garments. Skins which retain considerable stretch and recoverability are the most adaptable for these purposes.").

While this Office is not in a positfon to pass upon the relative weights which ·were to be given these factors in your evaluation of the comparative merits ol the Fouke and Supara sample skins, there would appear to be no doubt the characterJ.stics determined by the Bureau in tests 5, 7, and 11 are di­rectly related to the quality and potential marketability of the sample skins, and that the Fouke samples were superior to the Supara samples in these and other tested characteristics.

Other than the panel evaluation and the Bureau of Standards' report, it is our opin­ion that a proper determination of the com­parative quality and potential marketability of the sample skins should necessarily, and 8.8 a minimum, have included consideration of the following additional matters: . First, that the quality and marketability of Fouke processed furs has be.en established, and is reflected, by the sale prices oi proc­essed furs and manufactured garments over a period of more than 40 years during which Fouke has held the contract for processing and sale of sealskins. ·

Second" that a Supara processed sealskin had never been sold on the market and that a garment had never been manufactured from Supara processed skins or subjected to actual wear~

In weighing the above evidence we are persuaded by, and believe it proper to refer to, the following advice in the report · dated August 19, 1963, from your administrative assistant secretary:

"This conclusion, that 'any failure to achieve the best possible quality and mar­ketability of product would reduce the .sell­ing price of sealskins, and the resulting loss to the Government would far outweigh any saving which might be made by employing a contractor who charged less for his services,' waa based on hypothetical rather than actual figures, since we were obliged to base such Judgments on our experiences under the Fauke contract. We have often observed that differences in skins ol slmilar size, grade, and color, which are imperceptible to the layman, re.suit in selling prlce differences of up to 26 percent per lot. While one cannot distinguish accurately what part of this. dif­ference represents innate inequality of the skins and what part is attributable to differ­ences in quality of processing, we believe tlie latter is the primary !actor since these lots are already sorted as to the grade of the skins.

"Since these great variations of price (26 percent) are found among sealskins which received the uniform Fouke process, the drop in prices to be anticipated if an inferlOJ: p1"oc­ess were used can well be imagined. In the delicately balanced fur market, an almost imperceptible decline in quality could half (sic) the av.erage selling price for sealskins."

It is our opinion that, while the foregoing evidence, would cleaxly hava substantiated a conclusion that the Fouke processed sample skins were superior in quality and potential

CIX-1266

marketability, it does not substantiate a similar conclusion for the Supara processed skins.

With respect to your Department's deter­mination that Supara was substantially ahead of Fouke on the question of responsi­b11ity, under date of May 9, 1963, this office addressed the following request to your De­partment:

"Page 8, lines 1 through 5: Please furnish copies of any documents evidencing the de­termination that Supara was substantially ahead of Fouke on the question of responsi­b1lity, together with a listing of the various factors considered in determining degree of responsibility and the comparative evalua­tion of Fouke and Supara on each factor."

Under date of August 19, 1963, your ad­ministrative assistant secretary replied as follows:

"Many of the factors bearing on the ques­tion of relative responsibility are subjective and intangible. This Department never at­tempted to make a formal listing ot such factors or to assign ratings of them by any point system or otherwise. To do so would have been a travesty on the re~onable ap­plication of human judgment. Rather t .he judgment was made, and is still strongly held, primarily on the basis of a long accu­mulation of' impressions and observations of the personnel involved, their attitudes, and the manner in which they conduct. their business. In many -cases this simply repre­sented our long history of dissatisfaction with Fouke and our firm belief that Supara would not emulate the acts and attitudes which brought about that dissatisfaction.

"Nevertheless, we shall attempt to answer this question in orderly form. The major factors which impressed this Department were as follows:

" (a) Financial resources: Although we have never been overly concerned with Fouke's ability to me.et its financial obliga­tions or to finance all of the activity in which it was required to engage under the contract, we had found no reason to ad­mire some of Fouke's financial tactics. The Government's share of the receipts from the sale of sealskins has been retained by Fouke for periods as long as 3 months after each sale. Thus, Fouke· has had the. :finan­cial use of approximately $2 'million twice a year for nearly 3 months at the expense of the Government. This condition wlll not occur under the Supa.ra contract because m,oneys due the Government must be remit­ted not later than 30 calendar days after each auction.

"(b) Business practices: This Department has had a long ancf unsatisfactory experience with the Fouke business methods. Our complaints were outlined in exhibit B. with our April 19, 1963, reply. We would prefer not to belabor this point, but lt is basic to our determina tlon that over the. years the Fouke Fur Co. became lax in the. -degree of responsibility which should be found in a company holding a negotiated Government contract.

"(c) Attitude toward its duties: Among the prime responsibilities of any company holding this contract is the further devel­opment of the sealskin market. Fouke has always mafntalned an extremely conserva­tive attitude in this regard, resisting: almost any innovation which might change the character of its market. Its resistance to the introduction of female skins, is a well­documented case in point.

" ( d) Attitude toward people and labor~ This factor became a major element in this Department's doubts concerning Fouke's re­sponsibillty. Three examples will suffice: Fouke played a significant role in the opera­tions in the Pribllotr Islands. The inhabi­tants of these islands, and chief employees of the program, are Aleuts, who are citizens of Alaska and the United States. Yet the atti-

tude of' the company"s representatives· toward them, was at its best, paternalistic, and at its worst, oppressive. For example, Fouke brought, each summer, about 30 college stu­dents from the St. Louis area to work on the islands. These students, who lived in a bunkhouse separate , from other temporary workers, who were Aleuts, were forbidden by the company to fraternize or :rµfx socially with Aleuts. While this Department has been in the past a party to this wrong, dur­ing the past 3 or 4 years rapid advance to­ward equal treatment and opportunity for Aleuts has been made, and through Govern­ment efforts they are on the thresh-Old of first class citizenship. The Fouke resistance to these developments is a fact which casts doubts on the responsibility of their attitude toward people.

"The story of how Fouke treated its work­ers- in St. Louis when it moved to Greenville fs wen known. We note also that the union which represented Fouke employees at St. Louis filed charges against the company be­fore the National Labor Relations Board, and tnat the company settled with the union for a substantial sum. By contrast, we note with satisfaction that Supara has concluded an agreement with this same union and will, w~ understand, employ former Fouke em­ployees on substantially the same terms and conditions as· they formerly ·enjoyed as Fouke employees. This, in our opinion, is more than responsibility, it is business statesmanship.

"Finally, in this regard, we cannot overlook the Fouke attitude toward their equal em­ployment responsibilities. Observations of the Fouke plant from time to time by De­partment representatives nave revealed little progress in an affirmative attitude toward Negro employment. Particularly striking has been the observation, at the two ,auctions held in Greenville, that among the many temporary, unskilled workers hired to work at the showroom, the only Negro in evidence was the one who che<:ked our hats.

"These, in general, are some of the con­siderations which led to the determination that Fouke was lacking in that degree of responsibility which is to be desired in a company holding a negotiated Government contract."

Other than the reference to a union agree­ment concluded by Supara, the foregoing conta_ins no information relative to either affirmative or negative factors which were considered in determining the degree of Supara's responsibility. However, your De­partment's report of August 19 advises at page 2 that •~the i~tial proposal from Su­para contained all the basic data relative to the quali~eations a.nd technical knowledge of the company." Our examination of this proposal 1ndleates the following matters, among others, which it ls our opinion should necessarily have been considered under the provisions ot the invitation and applicable regu1a tions in de~rmining the degree of Supara's responsb11lity. - 1. Supara, Inc., was. incorporated with an initial capitalization of $2 million for the purpose of submitting a proposal under the invitation.

2. The corporation, both at the time its proposal was submitted and the date of con­tract award, had no fac1lities or employees for the processing of sealskins.

3. The sample sealskins submitted with the corporation's proposal appear to have been completely processed by firms, and employees of firms', other than Supara:, Inc. . - 4. The corporation proposed to have other firms continue processing sealskins in the event of its inability to obtain adequate fa­cilities and employees prior to the date on which work should commence under the contract.

5. The corporation, as such, had no rec­ord of past performance, integrity, Judgment, or ability on which to base a comparative

20104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE , October 22 evaluation of the degree of its responsi­b111ty.

6. That, while the corporation's proposal form stated it was not owned or controlled by a parent company, its written proposal stated that the corporation brings into com­bination the talents and experience of the National Superior Fur Dressing & Dyeing Co., of Chicago, Superior Fur Dyeing Co., of New York, and Pritzker & Pritzker, industrial­ists, of Chicago, and specified that it would draw upon these parent companies for plant capacity and personnel if necessary.

That all of these matters were not ade­quately considered by your Department, prior to passing upon the degree of Supara's re­sponslb111ty ls most aptly mustrated by the fact that by letter dated August 19, 1963, your Administrative Assistant Secretary attempted to convince the Ehrhardt Tool and Machine Co., it should build, for Supara, dehairlng machines which the Administra­tive Assistant Secretary termed "essential for the processing of the sealskins," and which Ehrhardt considered proprietary to Fouke and had previously refused to build for Su­para for that reason. Without reference to the propriety, or impropriety, of the Admin­istrative Assistant Secretary's letter of Au­gust 19, 1963, it is apparent that Supara had not demonstrated, as of the date of contract award or as of August 19, 1963, that it had either fac111ties or the ability to obtain commitments for the facilities deemed neces­sary to perform the processing of sealskins. See FPR 1-1.310-5(a) (3) and 1-1.310-5(b). · Without going into a detailed analysis of the merits of the factors considered by your Department in determining the degree of Fouke's responsibility, it would appear to be sufficient to point out that the responsib111-ties of a Government contractor, and the rights of the Government, should properly be deftned in the contract. Where, as ap­pears to have been the case under the Fouke contract, it was · your Department"s belief that additional responsib111ties or restrict­tions should have been assumed by, or im­posed upon, the contractor, such results could, and properly should have been accom­plished by appropriate amendments to Fouke's contract.

Be that as it may, the evidence before this office clearly indicates that your Depart­ment's determination of comparative re­sponsib111ty was b~sed upon a record, ex­tending a number of years into the past, of attitudes, actions, of inactions on the part of Fouke which were considered undesirable by your Department, but which were not necessarily violations of Fouke's obligations under the terms of its contract. While it may well be considered desirable by con­tracting agencies to contract with firms which will assume responsib111ties and obli­gations outside of the scope of their con-. tracts, it is our opinion that a contractor's failure to do so ls not a proper factor for consideration in determining either his re­sponsib111ty or, in a proper case, his com­parative degree of responsib111ty. This is especially true where, as in the instant case, one prospective contractor has a long record of performance under Government contracts, while the other has no record of such per­formance. Obviously, a prospective con­tractor with an excellent, but less than per­fect, record of past performance must rate lower than a prospective contractor with no record of past performance, if only negative factors are considered. In view thereof, and without reference to whether a determina­tion of comparative responsibility was proper in this procurement, it is our opinion that consideration by your Department of various of the negative factors set out above in con­cluding that Supara was substantially ahead of Fouke on the question of responsibility was improper.

We come then to the question whether your Department was acting within the

scope of its authority, as defined by appli­cable procurement law and regulations, in

· establishing an order of priority based upon the technical proposals (including the qual­ity and marketa.bility of the sample skins submitted) and the comparative responsi­bility of each offeror, and in limiting negotia­tions thereafter to ·the offeror who was as­signed the highest priority on that basis.

As indicated above, the invitation for pro­posals acknowledged the applicabillty of the Federal Procurement Regulations to this procurement. Additionally, we note that, with certain stated exceptions, the applica­bility of both the Federal Property and Ad­ministrative Services Act and the Federal Procurement Regulations to procurements by your Department has been acknowledged in the Department of the Interior Procure­ment Regulations, 41 CFR 14-1.000, and that the procurement of services for the process­ing and/or sale of sealskins has not been specifically exempted from such regulations, as have several other ·activities administered by your Department under special statutory authority. 41 CFR 14-1.104. We therefore are of the opinion that the instant procure­ment of services for the sale and processing of sealskins was subject to, and required to be conducted in accordance with, the poli­cies and procedures prescribed by the Fed­eral Property and Administrative Services Act and the implementing Federal Procure­ment Regulations. The primary remaining question would therefore appear to be whether all material requirements of the law and applicable regulations were com­plied with in the solicitation of proposals, the conduct of negotiations, and the result­ing award of a contract to Supara.

The basic objective of procurement by the civilian agencies of the Government is set forth in FPR 1-1.301 as follows:

"It shall be the objective to use that method of procurement which will be most advantageous to the Government-price, quality, and other factors considered. Pro­curement shall be made on a competitive basis, whether by formal advertising or by negotiation, to the maximum practicable extent, in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in this chapter." · Subsection 1-3.102 of the Federal Procure­ment Regulations provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Whenever property or services are to be procured by negotiation, offers shall be soli­cited from all such qualified sources as are deemed necessary by the contracting officer to assure full and free competition, consistent with the procurement of the re­quired property or services, in accordance with the basic policies set forth in this part 1-3 to the end that the procurement will be made to the best advantage of the Government, price and other factors con­sidered. Such offers shall be supported by statements and analyses of estimated costs or other evidence of reasonable prices and other matters deemed necessary by the con­'!;racting officer. Negotiation shall thereupon be conducted with due attention being given to the following, and any other appropriate factors:

"(a) Comparison of prices quoted and con­sideration of other prices for the same or similar property or services, with due regard to production costs, including extra pay shift, multishift and overtime costs, and any other factor relating to the price, such as profits, cost of transportation, and cash discounts.

"(b) Comparison· of the business reputa­tion, capacity, and responsib111ty of the re­spective persons or firms who submit offers.

"(c) Consideration of the quality of the property or services offered, including the same or similar property or services pre­viously furnished, with due regard to con­formance with · specification requirements."

Negotiations procedures are more specifi­cally spelled out in ·subpart 1-3.805 of the Federal Procurement Regulations as follows:

"(a) The normal procedure in negotiated procurements, after receipt of initial pro­posals, is to conduct such written or oral discussions as may be required to obtain agreements most advantageous to the Gov­ernment. Negotiations shall be conducted as follows:

"l. Where a responsible offeror submits a responsive proposal which, 1n the contract­ing officer's opinion, is clearly and substan­tially more advantageous to the Government than any other proposal, negotiations may be conducted with that offeror only; or

"2. Where several responsible offerors sub­mit offers which are grouped so that a mod­erate change in either the price or the tech­nical proposal would make any one of the group the most advantageous offer to the Government, ·further negotiations should be conducted with all offerors in that group. Whenever negotiations are conducted with more than one offeror, no indication shall be made to any offeror of a price which must be met to obtain further consideration, since such practice constitutes an auction tech­nique which must be avoided. No informa­tion regarding the number or identity of the offerors participating in the negotiations shall be made available to the public or to anyone whose official duties do not require such knowledge. Whenever negotiations are being conducted with several offerors, while such negotiations may be conducted suc­cessively, all offerors participating in such negotiation shall be offered an equitable op­portunity to submit such pricing, technical, or other revisions in their proposals as may result from the negotiations. All offerors shall be informed that after the submission of final revisions, no information will be furnished to any offeror until award has

· been made. "(b) There are certain circumstances

where formal advertising is not possible and negotiation ls necessary. In the conduct of such negotiations, where a substantial num­ber of clearly competitive proposals has been obtained and where the contra,~ting officer is satisfied that the most favorable proposal is fair and reasonably priced, aw~rd may be made on the basis of the initial proposals without oral or written discussion; provided; that the request for proposals notifies all offerors of the possibility that award may be made without discussion of proposals re­ceived and, hence, that proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms, from a price and technical stand­point, which the offeror can submit to the Government. In any case where there is uncertainty as to the pricing or technical aspects of any proposal, the contracting of­ficer shall not make an award without fur­ther exploration and discussion prior to award. Also, when the proposal most ad­vantageous to the Government involves a material departure from the stated require­ments, consideration shall be given to offer­ing the other firms which submitted pro­posals an opportunity to submit new pro­posals on a technical basis which Is com­parable to that of the most advantageous proposal; provided, that this can be done without revealing to the other firms any information which is entitled to protection.

"(c) A request for proposals may provide that after receipt of initial technical propo­sals, such proposals will be evaluated to de­termine those which are acceptable to the Government or which, after discussion, can be made acceptable, and upon submission o! prices thereafter, award shall be made to that offeror of an acceptable proposal who is the low responsible offeror.

"(d) The procedures set forth in para­graphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section 1-3.805 may not be applicable in appropriate

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20105 cases when proc.urlng research and develop­ment, or special services (sU<:h as ar-ehitect­engineer services) or when cost-reimburse­ment-type contracting is anticipated.

" ( e) Whenever in the course of negotia­tion a .substantial change· is -made in the Government's requirements, for example, in­creases. or decreases in quantities or material changes in. the delivery schedules, all ofl'erors shall be given an equitable opportunity . to submit. revised proposals under the revised requirements.''

However, the_ above regulation appears to be suppJemented by subpart 404.L 7A of J<?ur Departmental Manual which provides, in pertinent -part. as follows:

-"7. PROCEDUR"ES

"A. Contracts for other than professional architectural or engineering ·services--

•• ( 1) Solicitation: Whenever ·a contract (other than a contract for professional archi­tectural or ·engineering services) is to be negotiated, price quotations and all other necessary information shall be solicited from such qualified sources as are deemed neces­sary by the contracting officer to assure ade­quate competition. Due consideration must be given to the national policies affecting small business and areas of substantial un­employment.

"(2) Submission of offers: All solicita­tions of offers shall provide a fixed time for receipt ot offers, prior to which no award shall be made. This requirement is not Intended to preclude further negotiation or consideration of offers or modifications re­celved after the 11xed time, but prior to the award. Necessary precautions must be taken to a.void prejudice to any ·offerors by in­advertent disclosure of negotiations in process, such as prices quoted, the number of offers received, or the names of firms from which offers have been received.

"(3) Considerations· governing awards: It is the responsibility of the contracting officer conducting negotiations to give con­sideration to the following and any other applicable factors:

"(a) The .business reputation and respon­sib111 ty of the respective persons or concerns submitting quotations.

".(b) The quality of. the supplies or serv­ices offered.. or the quality of. similar sup­plies or services previously furnishe<l, with due regard to compliance With technical requirements.

"(c) Prices quoted, and consideration of other prices for the same or similar supplies or services. with due regard to cost of trans­portation, cash diseounts, and any other factors relating to prices.

"(d) Delivery requirements." The only exception to the foregoing which

ts provided by the Departmental Manual appears to be set out in subject 404.1.7B as follows: .

"B. Contracts for professional architec­tural or engineering services--

" ( 1) Selection.-Whenever a contract for professional architectural or engineering services is to be negotiated a board con­sisting of three or more qualified employees, including the contracting officer, shall be appointed by the head, deputy or associate, or assistant head of the bureau or office involved. The board shall select at least three individuals or firms with whom nego­tiations are to be carried on to assure ade­quate competiti.on as set out in 404 DM 1.7B(2) . Due consideration must be given to national policy affecting small business. Individuals or firms selected shall be from recognized lists of qualified applicants. Previous Government experience with in­dividuals or firms should be considered .in making selections.

"(2) Consideratton.-It is the responsi­billty of' the personnel set out in 404 DM 1.7B(l) . to determine as to each selected individual or 1lrm separately an order of

priority by. giving consideration to the fol-., l(xil), -a request for. authority to ..negotiate loWing and any other applicable fa~s.:. un~ the following circumstances:

"(a) 'I-he b:usiness reputation and respon- '"(xii) for supplies or services as to which sibility of ihe respective individuals 011 . the .agency head: determines _that advertising firms. and campetitiv.e biddlng would .not secur-t1

" ( b) The quality of the services offered., ~upplies or services of a quality shown to be and if applicable, the quality of ,similar necessary in the Interest of the Govern­services previously furnished, with· due re- ment." gard to compliance with technical require"- As passed by the House of Representatives, ments. H.R. 1366- included. ~is authority, and the

''(c) A detailed discussion of the scope necessity and justi:fl.ca...tlon for its enactment o! the services or work to be furn1shed, in- by the .Senate was presented to the Senate eluding an estimate of man-hou:m or other Committee on Armed Services by the As­work units required. ~ista.nt Secretacy of the Navy during hear-

" ( d) Ability of the individual or :firm to ings on .lune 24, 194.7. with the following furnish services or work within time concluding statement: allowed. "Where qual~ty is a matter of cr1tical-

" (3) Awards.-When selections have been in many cases life-and-death-importance, made and an order of preference determined discretion must reside in the services to on the basis of the foregoing factors, nego- select sources where experience, expertness, tiations shall be initiated with the individ- know-how, facilities and capacities are be­ual or firm given priority No. 1. At this lieved to assure. products of the requisite time and not- before shall cost or fee be dis- quality. Where national security or the cussed. In the event that an agreement safety and health of personnel o! the serv­cannot be reached, negotiations shall be ter- ices are involved, any compromise of quality minated and the individual or firm so noti- dictated by mandatory coniside.rations of fled in writing. Negotiations shall then be price would be indefensible." (See p. 15, initiated with the individual or firm given hearings before the Committee on Armed priority No .. 2. This procedure will be fol- Services, U.S. Senate, on H.R. 1366. 80th lowed' until a satisfactory contract has been Cong.} . negotiated. After the contract has been Nothwithstanding the above, the Senate negotiated the remaining individuals or Armed Services Committee deleted this pro­firms shall be notified in writing that award vision from the bill and explained it.s action has been made to another and that their in- a.t page 3, Senate Report No. 671, 80th Co.n-terest is highly appreciated." gress, as follows:

While the report dated April 19, 1963, from "a-he bill was amended by deleting the your administrative assist ant secretary ad- authocity to negotiate contracts for '(.he pur­vised that the negotiation procedure fol- pose of securing a particular quality of ma.te­lowed is authorized by FPR 13.805(a) (1) rials. Your committee is of the opinion that quoted above, that regulation wouI-d have this section is open to considerable admm­been applicable in the instant procurement istrative abuse and woUld be extremely dlffl­only after price quotations had been sub- cult to control. For this reason it has been mitted. On the other hand, there would eliminated.'' appear to be no doubt that the procedures As indicated by the legislative history of actually followed by your Department are, the Federal Property and Administrative for all practical purposes, those authorized Services Act~ that act was Intended to extend (apparently under FPR 1-3.806 (d) for the the same procurement principles to civilian. procurement of professional, architectural, agencies- of the Government as had previ­and engineering services as set out in sub- ously been conferred upon the military part 404.1.7B of your Departmental Manual. departments by the Armed Services Procure-

As indicated by the legislative history of ment Act of 1947. (See p. 6, H. Rept. No. the Federal Property and Administrative 670, and p. 5, S. Rept. No. 475, 81st Cong.) Services Act, the authority to negotiate for The rejection by the Congress of this re­personal or professional services is based quest for negotiation authority must there­upon the fact that architects, engineers, and fore be construed as a prohibition against members of other recognized professions are the negotiation of contracts without price prohibited by ethical standards from com- competition, where the failure ta obtain peting for employment upon a price basts. ·prtce oompetition is based solely upon a de­While the procedure prescribed by subpart termination by the contracting agency tha.t 404.1.7B of the Departmental . Manual for a particular prospective contractor will de­establishing an order of priority, without re- liver supplies and/ or services of a higher gard to price,_in negotiating for such services quality than any other contractor (41 Comp. may therefore be justified on the basis that Gen. 484). price competition cannot be obtained, that It is our opinion that the Federal Procure­situation does not obtain with respect to the ment ReguiatiollS', the procurement regula­flrms which submitted initial offers to tions of your Department, and the invitation process and sell sealskins. We therefore see for proposal& issued in the instant procure­no basis upon which .such authority may be ment recognize the necesstty for price com­invoked 1n the instant procurement. petition in the procurement of s,upplies or

As previo·tsly indicated, we do not agree nonprofessional services, and for the con­that the evidence of record supports the sidera.tion of offered prices in detei'mining

whether the a.ward of a particular type of determinations by your Department that contract to a part1cul~ colllU"actor would be Supara's sample skins were of superior qual- 1n the best interest ot the Government. tty or potential mark:'etabiltty. However, if Solicitation. and consideration of competi-1t is assumed, arguendo, that such deter- tive prices a.re therefore matertal requtre­minatlons were correct, it is clear that the ment.s in such -procurements, and oompli­resulting failure to solicit and consider firm a.nee with such requirements mus.t be con­proposals, including price proposals, from sidered a ;necessary prerequisite to a valid all responsible bidders can be justified. only contract a-vvard. if your Department has the authority to We must therefore conclude th-at your De­llmit negotiations ta those offel'Ol'S whose partment w.as without authority under ap­services a.nd products are determined to be pllca.ble procurement law and regulations of the highest quality having the force and effect of law (see Paul

· v_ United, States. 3.71 U.S. 245, 255) to nego-In this connection it would appear to be ti.ate a contract for the processing and sale

especially pertinent to note that H.R. 1366", of sealskins with a.ny offeror who responded 80th Congress, which subsequently was en- to the invitation for proposals, until fl.rm acted as the Armed 'Services Procurement proposals, including price proposals, had been Act of 1947. originally .included, as section sollcited tram all responsll)le oirerors, and

.

20106 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 22. until due consideration had been given to the comparative merits of both price and all other factors included in such firm proposala.

In -.iew of the foregoing, it 1s our opinion that your Department was acting outside of the scope of lts authority in awarding a con­tract to Supara. We must therefore conclude that such award does not constitute a valid or enforceable obligation of the Government and that the award action should be re­scinded. (See 37 Comp. Oen. 51; ld. 560.)

In view of the conclusion set out above, further oons:l.deratton of the propriety or ef­fect of other procedures which your Depart­ment followed, or failed to follow, becomes academic for the purposes of determining the merits of Fouke's protest or the validity of the contra.ct a.warded to Supara. How­ever, in the interest of full compliance with established principles of competitive pro­curement as set out in law, regulations, and the declslons of this office, the following additional matters are called to your atten­tion and should be considered in the solicita­tion of proposals and the a.ward of any future contra.ct for the processing and sale of seal­skins:

1. It is our opinion that the transfer or assignment of rights and obligations a.rising out of proposals submitted in negotiated procurements is to be a.voided, both a.s a matter of public policy and a matter of sound procurement policy, unless, as indicated by the cases cited in your Department's report of August 19, 1963, such transfer ls effected by operation of law to a legal entity which ls the complete successor in interest to the original offeror. While the report of August 19 indicates a determination by your De­partment that Supara, a joint venture, was essentially the same entity and a complete successor in interest to Supara, Inc., the evidence submitted to this Office does not, in our opinion, support this conclusion. Neither do we believe that such transfer of rights from Supara., Inc., to Supa.ra as may ha.'Ve been accomplished by resolution of the incorporators and subscribers on March 14, 1963, constitutes such a transfer of rights and obligations by operation of law as would be required to Justify· the substitution of one offeror for another in a. negotiated procure­ment. We a.re therefore unable to agree that an award to Supara, a joint venture. based upon the technical proposal submitted by Supara, Inc., was proper.

2. FPR 1-3.302(d) (3) requires the docu­mentation and preservation of all essential information bearing upon the actual nego­tiations conducted in connection with the awarding of contracts under 41 U.S.C. 252(c) (10). Your Department's advice un­der date of August 19, 1963, that no formal records of the negotiation proceedings were kept requires a conclusion that the above requirement was not complied with.

8. Subparagraph 11 (a) of the contract awarded to Supara provides that "the Gov­ernment conditions this agreement upon the approval by the Secretary of the Interior and continued existence of a joint venture agreement which shall constitute the basic organizational document of the contractor.

Subparagraph 11 (b) provides that "the Government conditions this agreement upon the approval by the Secretary of the Inte­rior and continued existence of an employ­ment agreement between the contractor and the National Superior Fur Dressing & Dyeing Co., not Inc., of Chica.go, Ill., a partnership (hereinafter designated as 'National'), Supe­rior Fur Dyeing Co., not Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., a partnership, hereinafter referred to as 'Superior'), and Superior Fur Dyeing Co., Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y. (herein~fter referred to as the 'corporation') for technical skills, know-how, secret processes, supervision of processing, supervision of dyeing of sealskins, and general administrative activities."

It is our opinion that the existence of docu­ments of this nature, acceptable to and ap-

proved by you or your deslgnee, were neces­sary prerequisites to both a determination that Supa.ra, a joint venture, was a respon­sible bidder and to an award based upon such determination. Since we are advised in the report dated August 19, 1963, from your administrative assistant secretary that the joint venture agreement and the employ­ment agreement were not approved by your Department until August 9 and August 12, 1963, respectively, it is also apparent that the contract was awarded subject to condi­tions subsequent. Whether such conditions were, or were not, met was primarily within the control of Sups.re..

It ls axiomatic in Federal procurement that execution of the definitive contra.ct by the contracting parties shall operate to bind the contractor and vest in the Government the right to require performance of the con­tract. It is therefore apparent that your De­partment was without authority to award a contract on the basis set out in para.graphs ll(a) and ll(b) of the contract awarded to Supara.

4. The protest by Fouke was fl.led with this Office on March 7, 1963, and your De­partn:.ent was advised of its receipt on the same date. The definitive contract was not executed by your Department, ~nd Supara, a joint venture, was not created until March 14, 1963. It is therefor~ our opinion that a protest was fl.led with this Office prior to the award of a contract to Supara, a joint ven­ture. Subpart 1-2.407-8(b) (2) of the Fed­eral Procurement Regulations requires con­tracting agencies with notice of the fact that a protest has been fl.led with this Office to furnish the General Accounting Office notice of intent to make award and to obtain ad­vice concerning the status of the case prior to making the award, While subpart 1-2.407-8 appears in that portion of the regu­lations which are directed to advertised pro­curements, its language ls directed to "all protests or objections to the award of a con­tra.ct", and its requirements are therefore ap­plicable to protest against both negotiated and e.dvertised awards. There is no record in this Office of compliance by your Depart­ment with this requirement. Additionally, as indicate<! above, the contract document executed with Supara on March 14 was con­ditioned upon your approval of a joint ven­ture agreement and an employment agree­ment which were to be submitted by Supara, and a binding contractual obligation there­fore could not have been consummated prior to such approval. Under date of May 9, 1963, thlfl Office requested certain informa­tion and documents, including copies of the joint venture agreement, the employment agreement, and the date of their approval by your Department. Your Department's response to that request was delayed, with­out explanation, until August 19, at which time we were advised that the agreements had been approved on August 9 and August 12. It is our opinion that your approval action at these late dates should also have been preceded by the notice of intent to this Office and advice on the status of the case which is required by FPR 1-2.407-S(b) (2).

5. Fouke holds patent No. 3,001,391, which appears to apply to production of the com­modity known as "sheared sealskin" irrespec­tive of the method employed in shearing the sealskin. It would therefore appear possi­ble, and perhaps unavoidable, that Supara would infringe the Fouke patent in process­ing female skins. While paragraph 13(d) of the Supara contract provides, with cer­tain exceptions, that the contractor shall in­demntry the Government for infringements resulting from performance of the contract, under paragraph 24 of the contract it would appear that any indemnity payments of this nature by Supara could properly be claimed as allowable costs, and that such costs could, in whole or in part, be borne by the· Govern­ment under paragraph 22 of the contract. We therefore recommend that any future

contract be drawn so as to make it clear whether any costs which may result from patent infringement shall ultimately be borne by the Government or by the contrac­tor.

6. Paragraph 19(c) of the Supara contract provides that in the event of termination, other than termination for default, the con­tractor may elect to assign to the Govern­ment leasehold interests, and to sell and transfer to the Government all depreciable assets, which it has acquired in connection with performance under the contract, and that fUnds to pay for such assets "shall be withheld by the contractor from receipts due the Government as an addition to the con­tractor's share in the proceeds of the sale of sealskins."

We are advised that Supara contemplates leasing real property for a 10:-year period and installing processing machinery in such leased property sufficient to pro_cess both such skins as would be delivered by the United States and such skins as may be offered by foreign countries.

Aside from the compllca tlons which would result upon termination of the contract if the Government attempts to assume the lease on this real property and to take title to all, or a part of, the capital assets in­stalled in such leased property, it should be noted that under the provisions of 16 U.S.C. 631 ( e) , the proceeds from the sale of seal­skins are required to be deposited into the Treasury, and under section 6(e) of Public Law 85-508 the Secretary of the Treasury is required to pay 70 percent of the net proceeds to the State of Alaska. Whlle the legislative history of these statutes indicates that certain expenses, including expenses of processing and selling sealskins, are to be deducted, and only the remaining "net pro­ceeds" are to be deposited into the Treasury, we find no indication that this legislation contemplated, or that Congress intended to authorize, the purchase by your Department of capital assets, acquired by a contractor in performing a sealskin processing contract and payment of the cost, of such capital as­sets out of the proceeds of the sale of seal­skins prior to the deposit of such proceeds into the Treasury. Obviously, such action would operate, not only to vest title in your Department to sealskin processing facilities without congressional approval, but also to deprive the State of Alaska of all or a por­tion of its congressionally sanctioned annual share in the proceeds of the sale of sealskins.

We therefore suggest that provisions of the type set out in paragraphs 19 ( c) ( 1), 19 ( c) (2) and 19(c) (4) not be inserted in future sealskin processing contracts unless specific authority to pay costs of this nature from proceeds of sealskin sales is granted by the Congress.

7. Paragraph 6 of the contract awarded to Supara provided, in pertinent part, that "the contractor, in its processing of sealskins, shall not permit, with due regard for accepted variations, the recognized standards in re­spect to quality of materials and workman­ship, which it employs in such processing, to fall below the recognized high standards of quality of materials and workmanship ex­pected by the fur industry from past ex­perience • • • ." In our opinion this· provi­sion obligated Supara to meet or exceed the standards previously established by Fouke, as reflected by the Fouke skins which were used for the purpose of establishing stand­ards to be used in the evaluation of sample skins submitted with tlie various proposals.

By addendum to the Supara contract dated August 12, 1963, paragraph 6 was amended by addition of the following proviso:

"Provided, That the results of the tests em­ployed by the National Bureau of Standards in examining Supara samples submitted prior to contract negotiations are and shall be the criteria for acceptabil1ty of quality within the meaning of this provision;

.. '

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20107 "Provided further, That in the event the

parties cannot agree as to the acceptability of quality, the sealskins in question or repre­sentative samples thereof will be submitted to the National Bureau of Standards for tests identical to those applied to precontract samples. The results of such tests will be final and conclusive on the parties_."

Under this amendment it is apparent that Supara skins would no longer be required to meet the results of the tests made by the Bureau of Standards in its examination of Fouke standard skins against which the sample skins submitted by the various of­ferors were evaluated in this procurement. Since the sample skins submitted by Supara, Inc., failed to meet such standards in various respects it is apparent that the amendment to paragraph 6 of the contract constitutes a relaxation of the requirements of the con­tract as executed. A similar relaxation was effected by the addendum in extending from January 1, 1964, to April 1, 1964, the time by which Supara is required to develop a capacity to process 50,000 sealskins per year, and in the provisions of paragraph 36 relative to the extent of liability of the joint Yen­turers.

The rule is settled that contracts may not be amended so as to reduce the contractor's obligations or the Government's rights un­less a compensating benefit also accrues to the Government. We see no such compensat­ing benefit .in the addendum of August 12, 1963.

The foregoing are illustrative only, and should not be construed to be all-inclusive, of the procedures followed by your Depart­ment in this procurement which this Office considers either improper or highly question­able.

In view of our conclusions as set out above, we are today advising the Pierre Laclede Fur Co. that a separate opinion on its protest against the award to Supara wm not be rendered.

The enclosures transmitted with the ad­ministrative assistant secretary's letter of March 20, 1968, are returned.

Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL.

SENATOR STROM THURMOND REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE-THE BIASED UMPmE

(Report to the people by Senator STROM THURMOND)

A determined effort is being made by the executive branch of the National Govern­ment to discourage the flow of industry to the South and to unionize all business es­tablishments in the South. The purpose be­hind this calculated plan is threefold: First, to stop the loss of industry in the Northeast; second, to gain or recover political strength through bloc voting dictation of union bosses; and, third, to repay the union bosses for their national political support.

This attitude has been quite evident for the pa~t few years in actions of the National Labor Relations Board in overturning almost every labor election in South Carolina where the employ~es rejected union representation. In some cases, precedents or NLRB law and regulations have been thrown out by the NLRB, to make it virtually impossible for the union organizers to lose. Last week the NLRB reversed two more election decisions on flimsy grounds, in Aiken anci Florence. Recently the NLRB's regional office recom­mended that an election vote against a union in · Orangeburg be vacated because a local newspaper and radio station editorialized against the union.

Perhaps the most flagrant example of at­tempted Government interference in the in­dustrial development of South Carolina was brought to light last yeart when the Interior Department canceled its 40-year-old contract with the Fouke Fur Co. of Greenville for processing Alaska sealskin furs. This was done b_ec~use Fouke moved from St. ·Louis,

Mo., to new, modern facilities in Greenville. When invitations were opened for a new con­tract, Interior officials illegally rigged their contract procedures to give the award, which amounted to a guaranteed profit of $177,-400 per year, to a Chicago joint venture which promised to locate in St. Louis and use union labor.

This organization, called Supara, was giv­en the prized award without any price com­petition, without having any experience, any facilities, any employees, or even any equip­ment. In fact, there is even a serious ques­tion as to whether Supara was legally in ex­istence when the contract award was made in March 1963. The officials negotiated with one legal entity and made the award te, an­other. All this has been officially reported in an opinion issued last week by the Comp­troller General of the United States after a 7-month investigation by the General Ac­counting Office, at my request.

The Comptroller General informed me the award was "in violation of law and regula­tions and should therefore be rescinded." The report also stated that Interior officials had acted in "an improper or highly ques­tionable" manner. The investigators even found that the standards Supara had to meet under the con tract had been relaxed, where they could not measure up to the superior work of Fouke. It was held that Fouke had violated· no contractural arrange­ments. Indeed, the Fouke Co. has long been the world's No. 1 processor of sealskins and its reputation for quality is unexcelled.

The Interior officials were not content, however, with just rigging the award against Fouke. They even tried to blacklist Fouke in the world market and attempted to in­timidate a manufacturer into supplying to Supara machinery which had been especially built for Fouke.

These actions on the part of the Interior Department were illegal, vindictive, and contrary to the public interest: This, to­gether with the prounion NLRB actions and similar recent acts of government dis­crimination, provide substantial evidence that the executive branch, instead of play­ing the role of an impartial umpire in ad­ministering the national laws, is dealing from the bottom of the deck against justice and the public interest, where there is a possibility of political gain.

Arbitrary political acts of this nature are inherent in big government and serve to em­phasize once again the important truism ·that "that government which governs least governs best"-and, I might add, with less political bias.

[From Barron's Weekly, Oct. 21, 1963) :MAKING THE FuR FLY-AN INVALID CONTRACT

POINTS UP THE ARROGANCE OF BUREAUCRACY Buyers from all over the world gathered

last week in the thriving town of Greenville, s.c., to listen to the chant of the auctioneer. On the block were not the fine wbaccos usually associated with that part of the country but a few million dollars worth of furs, mostly from Alaskan seals, bearing such exotic names as Matara, Kotovi and Lakoda. As prearranged hand signals were flashed to spotters on the rostrum, and the gavel de­scended again and again, Fouke Fur Co.; sponsor of the semiannual sale, was delight­ed to discover that the pelts were perform­ing like many another economic indicator these days. In a generally strengthening market, eager bidders, representing dozens of furriers in the United States and several foreign lands, gladly paid up to 6 percent more than in the spring.

Under a longstanding agreement with the Interior Department (which happens to con­trol the U.S. supply of sealskins) , Fouke has been staging these colorful affairs for nearly half a century. Two years ago, however, In­terior terminated its contr!i,ct, and thereby

hangs quite a tale. As subsequent events have disclosed, the Department proceeded to sign a new contract with a firm which boasted no previous experience in treating Alaskan seals. In the process, it ignored the interests of the Nation's furriers, who have a major stake in the quality of the products they sell, as well as those of their customers. It apparently connived at the misappropria­tion of trade secrets and the infringement of patent rights. Finally, for reasons that are either specious or unexplained, it rode roughshod over the established procedures which govern competitive bidding-conduct which the General Accounting Office has bluntly labeled "either improper or highly questionable." The Truman administration was plagued by mink coats; Eisenhower's fell afoul of vicuna. Viewed in terms of public rather than private morality, seal now shapes up in equally scandalous fashion.

To grasp why the fur is flying today, one must go back almost a century, to the Alaska Purchase. At the time, the fur seal, which lives mainly in the northern Pacific, faced extinction. To save it from that fate, the United states launched an international effort to control the size of the annual kill. The latest of a series of such pacts was signed in 1957 by Canada~ Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States. Under its domestic monopoly, Washington (i.e., the Bureau of Fisheries), "harvested" the skins, which then were handed over for processing and sale to Fouke. In the fall of 1961, learning that it needed additional capacity for the installa­tion of newly designed machines, the com­pany closed down in St. Louis and moved to Greenville, S.C. The very next month, Interior, claiming that it had not been con­sulted on the move, terminated the contract with Fouke. (Last week's auction served only to work off inventory.)

Considering the adverse effect of the re­location on the economic life of St. Louis, said the aggrieved Department, it could only conclude the company lacked "the business characteristics so essential to a negotiated contract with the Federal Government." Subsequently, Interior went through the motions of competitive bidding. Fouke and four rivals entered the lists, submitting sam­ple skins as evidence of their technical com­petence. Last March, Secretary Udall awarded the contract to a joint-venture part­nersl:1ip known as Supara, the principals of which had decades of experience · in dress­ing and dyeing mink. The winner, an In­terior official explained, was chosen on the basis of the relative quality of the samples, as evaluated by an industry panel and the National Bureau of Standards, as well as for its corporate "responsibility."

On both counts, the GAO flatly disagrees. As to the products themselves, it bluntly concludes that "while the • • • evidence would clearly have substantiated a con­clusion that the Fouke-processed sample skins were superior in quality and potential marketab111ty, it does not substantiate a similar conclusion for the Supara-processed skins." In fact, at least some of the latter fell significantly short of acceptability in water repellency and resistance to breaking.

As to the question of "responsibility," In­terior's chief · spokes.man has admitted that many of the elements involved are "subjec­tive and intangible." The record does show clearly that an NLRB examiner rejected as without merit a protest by the Amalgamated Meatcutters & Furriers that Fouke's move to Greenville was a effort to "run away" from its union contract. Beyond that, Interior's case against the company charges it with everything from a "paternalistic, if not op­pressive," attitude toward the Aleuts, who do the initial processing of its skins, to· racial discrimination in Greenv111e. Of these far­ranging charges, the GAO says bluntly: "It would appear tq be sufficient to point out that the responsibilttles of a Government

20108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SEN,ATE October 22 contractor. and the rights of the Govern­ment, should properly be defl.µed. in the con­tract. Where • • • it was your Department's belief that additional responsib111ties or re­strictions should have been assumed by, or imposed upon, the contractor, such results • • • should have been accomplished by ap­propriate amendments to Fouke's contract."

Indeed, if anyone has shown a lack of re­sponsJbillty in the whole affair, it is clearly the Department of the Interior. In the ftrst place, it displayed a remarkably casual atti­tude toward patent rights. The Department, says the watchdog agency, urged Ehrhardt Tool & Machine Co. to build, for Supara, de­ll.airing machines deemed "essential for the processing of the sealskins." Ehrhardt, how­ever, regarded such equipment as proprietary to Fouke; hence, it had previously refused to build for anyone else. If Supara had in­curred. patent lnfringement costs, the GAO observed., the Government, under the con­tract, might have wound up paying the bllls. The Comptroller General also was shocked to learn that Interior, when pressed for doc­umentation, could or would furnish no writ­ten records of negotiations with Supara.

Equally eye opening was the disclosure that Supara was not even formally organized at the time 1t won the contract. Wrote GAO acidly to Secretary Udall: "The fact that your Department announced the award of the contract on March 5, 1968, to a Joint venture which does not appear to have come lnto exist.ence until March 14, 1963, is not explained. by the record." Up to that time, no sealskin processed by Supara had ever been sold, and no garment had been manu­tactured. from Supara-processed skins or subjected to actual wear. "The corporation, as such, had no record of past performance, integrity, Judgment, or ab1lity on which to base a comparative evaluation of the degree of its responsibl11ty." Crowning evidence of Interior's bias in the whole affair is the fact that after the company had won the con­tract, the Department, without seeking a quid pro quo, agreed to relay its terms-ftrst, by absolving Supara from meeting the re­quirements of the National Bureau of Stand­ards; subsequently, by extending the dead­line by which Supara must acquire the capacity to process 50,000 sealskins a year. All things considered, said the GAO: "It is our opinion that your Department was act­ing outside of the scope of its authority in awarding a contract to Supara."

Confronted by that hard-hitting Judgment, presumably even Secretary Udall soon wm be forced to backtrack: For the aroused fur trade, ln short, this may yet be a case of all's well that ends well. For the United States as a whole, by contrast, the great fur controversy sounds yet another warning of the threat to freedom implicit in arbitrary bureaucratic power. Washington is now spending some $100 billion a year. In wield­ing this vast leverage, every Federal agency ls sworn to follow procedures that wlll do Justice to producer, consumer, and taxpayer alllte. Mr. Udall's Department, it would seem. has something to learn about good government.

(Prom the Greenvllle (S.C.) Piedmont, Oct. 14, 1963)

GAO MAKEs FuR FLY IN PuNITIVlll UDALL CONTRACT

The Fouke Fur Co. moved from St. Louis to Greenville in 1961.

The union of which the company's workers were members made an official protest to the Government. As a result, the Department of the Interior cancelled a 31-year-old ar­rangement with Fouke to process Alaskan sealskins. .

No reason for Interior's action came to mind more readily than that the Kennedys and their coterie were prepared to punish businesses which moved from one section of

the country to the South. That 1s the view of Senator STROM THURMOND, and it 1s shared by practically everyone close to the situa­tion. ~ But now the General Account~ng Office has slapped Interior down for its action after the Fouke move. It has informed secretary Stewart Udall that the contract his Depart­ment gave a Chicago fl.rm after taking it away from Fouke was invalid and should be rescinded because other bidders were not sought. Udall is expected to comply since GAO used such strong terms as "in viola­tion of law and regulations."

Meanwhile, Fouke employs about 200 work­ers at its plant here, is in full production and expects to continue on that happy basis. It 1s processing sealskins for Canada, Japan, South Africa, Uruguay and private shippers.

Fouke doesn't need the Government con­tract, but obviously the Department of the Interior and Secretary Udall need. some sound legal counsel before they carry out another such punitive operation.

[From the Greenville News, Oct. 15, 1968) ALASKAN SEALSKIN PROBE Is SOUGHT BY

THURMOND (By Frank Van Der Linden)

WASHINGTON.-Arkansas' Senator JOHN L. McCLELLAN, fresh from his inquiries into the TFX airplane contract and the Valachi case, now is being asked to investigate the case of the Alaskan sealskin contract involving the Fouke Fur Co. of Greenvllle.

At the request of Senator STROM THUR­MOND, Democrat, of South Carolina, McCLEL• LAN is looking into the General Accounting Office's ruling that the Interior Department had illegally awarded. the contract for proc­essing Government-owned sealskins from the Pribilof Islands of Alaska. . Comptroller General Joseph Campbell said Interior had improperly given the contract to a Chicago fl.rm called Supara, without getting compartive price offers from Fouke and three other bidders.

Senator THuRMOND sent the records Mon­day to Senator McCLELLAN,

"As you will notice from reading the r~­port," THuBM:oND wrote, "the General Ac­counting Office found that the procedure followed by the Interior Department in this procurement was 'either improper or highly questionable.'

"In view of the startling findings by the GAO ln this particular case, you may want to consider looking further into this contract award and also making a check to determine· if the Interior Department or other agencies of our Government have violated Govern­ment contracts, laws, and regulations, as was done in this case.''

THURMoND's letter also hinted that this matter "contains many similarities to the TFX case.''

"Supara, Inc., capitalized at $2 mlllton for the purpose of submitting the bid, camp­bell said, had never skinned a seal or made a fur coat. It had no fac111ties or em­ployees, and its sample sealskin appears to have been completely processed. by ftrms, and employees of ftrms, other than Supara, Inc."

On March 14, 9 days after the award, Campbell said, "Supara, Inc.," transferred all its assets to a new Joint venture composed of Herbert Schoenbrud, trustee of the Fan­nie L. Pritzker trust, and Norton Shapiro. Interior Secretary Stewart Udall said the partnership combined. "the Pritzker inter­ests, Chicago, National Superior Fur Dress­ing, and Dyeing Co., Inc., Chicago, and the Superior Fur Dyeing . Co., New York.'' - The contract, running until December 31, 1974, assured an annual net profit of $177,400 before taxes, or roughly $2 mlllion for the entire period.

On August 19, Campbell said, Assistant I.nt.erior ·Secretary D. Itis Bea.sley "attempted.

to convince the Ehrhardt Tool & Machine Co. it should build, for Supara, dehairing machines" which the Asslstant Secretary termed "essential for the processing of the sealskins." Ehrhardt had previously refused to build the machines because ·it believed Fouke had a patent on them. ·

For 40 years until 1962, the federally owned Alaskan sealskins had been processed by Fouke. But Interior suddenly ended the contract after the company moved from st. Louis to Greenville.

Beasley said Interior officials attending Fouke's Greenville actions had seen only one Negro employee, "the one who checked our hats.'' Also, he charged, St. Louis College students who worked for Fouke in the Pribilof Islands in the summers "were for­bidden by the company to fraternize or mix socially with Aleuts," the native workers.

_[From the Spartanburg Herald, Oct. 14, 1963 J SIMPLE FAIRPLAY DEMANDS A REvEasAL

A bit of Government justice, spotlighting some Government injustice, deserves some commendation at this point.

Remember the jam Fouke Fur Co. got into when it decided to move its operation from St. Louis to Greenville?

The Interior Department yanked its con­tract for processing Alaskan sealskins, a func­tioll the company had been fulftlllng exclu­sively for 30 years. Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall said the Government was dis­satisfied with Fouke work. Later it was awarded to a Chicago fl.rm. · The truth was, as Senator STROM THUR­MOND charged, that the contract was can­celed because of union pressure from St. Louis. - Udall's department Joined the union in anger that Fouke would have the temerity to move a plant to South Carolina.

But Comptroller General Joseph A. Camp­bell has ruled now that the Government's contract with the Chicago company· is in­valid. He said the _ Interior Department committed multiple violations of the law in negotiating it.

Among other things, he cited an Interior Department official admission that Fouke was deprived of the work because the fl.rm had been Judged as lacking responsib111ty in its attitude toward labor unions and Negro workers.

However, he overruled the Chicago con~ tract strictly on the basis of legal procedure.

What is so obYious here 1s the blatant and arrogant use of Government authority for petty and vindictive action. It charactertzes much of the attitude of Stewart Udall as Secretary of the Interior.

The Comptroller General noted, for exam­ple, that the Chicago fl.rm had neither expe­rience in sealskin processing nor the equip-ment to do the work. .

Udall's department was found to have tried to pressure an equipment manufacturer into delivering machinery to Chicago which the manufacturer said belonged to Fouke. ·

The ruling may provide Fouke Fur Co. with a temporary contract to complete proc­essing of sealskins still in stock. But final Justice has not been granted even now.

Surely enough evidence of lllegality and irresponsibillty on the part of the Interior Department has been shown to demand a reversal of its action against Fouke. Surely there ls someone in Washington, in the posi­tion to do something, interested in simple !airplay.

[From the State, Oct. 18, 1963) UNSIGNED, UNSEALED

- After all the shenanigans of top Interior Department officials to give the Federal seal­skin processing contract to anyone other tha.n the Fouke Fur Co., it must have come as _a shock to the Frontiersmen to ftnd the contract with a Chicago firm declared. n­lega.l.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 20109 The New Frontiersmen turned lividly angry

when Fouke Fur Co. moved its operations from St. Louis to Greenvllle without first asking permission of the Government. They tried to halt the move, and when Fouke in­sisted on going through with it the Govern­ment cancelled the contract.

After months of searching, the Frontiers­men finally found a company to take on the job of processing the seal skins-Fouke had a patented process. Now it turns out that there were no bids, ho negotiations, no noth­ing except just giving the contract to the Chicago firm.

Now, a new contract must be negotiated, says the General Accounting Office. If the new contract is awarded on the basis of who will do the job cheapest and best, Fouke should stand an excellent chance of bringing a good deal of business to South Carolina.

[From Women's Wear Daily, Oct. 18, 1963] .ALASKAN To BACK PROBE; FOUKE Is

''OPENMINDED"

(By Mark Baldwin) WAsmNGTON.-8enator ERNEST GRUENING,

Democrat, of Alaska, said Thursday that he would back a Senate probe of the challenged Alaska sealskin processing contract awarded to Supara of Chicago. A Senate investigation

of the affair has been requested by Sena tor STROM THURMOND, Democrat, of South Caro-lina. ·

Senator THURMOND first asked the General Accounting Office for an investigation and the GAO reported that the award was not a "valid or enforceable . obligation of the Gov­ernment" and should be rescinded. He then asked Senator JOHN McCLELLAN, Democrat, of Arkansas, chairman of the Government Operations Committee, to investigate.

Senator THURMOND's office said Thursday that no answer has been received from Gov­ernment operations but one is expected next week.

Senator GRUENING is a member of the Gov­ernment Operations Committee, but not the Investigations Subcommittee which handles such inquiries for the full committee.

The Alaska Democrat told Fairchild News Service that his State receives 70 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of skins pro­duced in the Pribilof Islands for the United States "if the furs are poorly processed the market will decline, and so will our proceeds," he said.

He said that when the Supara contract was drawn up, he called the Interior Depart­ment's attention to the omission in the con­tract of any provision for cancellation "if the quality of the furs. as processed by Supara proves to be inferior to that by Fouke and

there is a ·consequent loss of sales or diininu­tion: in price of the skins."

He said the Department made no answer to this or to subsequent queries he made.

RECESS TO _THURSDAY, AT NOON Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if

there is no further business to come be­fore the Senate at this time, I move that the Senate now take a recess until Thurs­day next, at 12 o'clock noon.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 4 o'clock and 1 minute p.m.) the Senate took a recess to Thursday, October 24, 1963, at 12 o'clock meridian.

WITHDRAW A.U3 Executive nominations withdrawn

from the Senate October 22, 1963: The nomination sent to the Senate on Sep­

tember 5, 1963, of Mrs. Margaret 0. Stover to be postmaster at Hinkley, in the State of California.

The nomination sent to the Senate on March 1, 1963, of Robert A. Feinour to be postmaster at New Tripoli, in the State of Pennsylvania.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

-Justice Department Chauffeurs Martin Luther King

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. KENNETH A. ROBERTS OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, October 22, 1963

Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 14, 1963, Martin Luther King arrived in Birming­ham, Ala., via air and was observed in Birmingham by State investigators. About 5: 30 p.m. Tuesday evening, he left Birmingham with four other colored males in a 1963 blue, four-door, Chevro­let, Impala, automobile en route to Sel­ma, Ala. He was observed until he got on U.S. Highway 31 south of Birming­ham. This automobile. displayed 1963 Alabama license No. 3-31463'. The auto­mobile arrived in Selma in the neighbor­hood of 7 p.m., Tuesday, October 15, 1963, carrying the same passengers.

Martin Luther King addressed a crowd of Negroes at a church in Selma. After the meeting he was carried to Mont­gomery Municipal Airport by a group of N~groes in two different automobiles bearing Dallas County licenses.

The Chevrolet automobile Martin Luther King went to Selma in was reg­istered to Hertz U-Drive-It, their rental agreement No. 4621806. A charge card was used and said card being issued to the Justice Department, Civil Rights Di­vision, Washington, D.C. Card No. 1969-237-0007-0-na. The car was rented on September 14, 1963, at 7:37 p.m. and was signed for by Kenneth G. McIntyre. Hertz's records disclose that the car was to be returned on October 2, 1963. Some­time between September 21 and October

2, an unknown Negro drove John Doar to the Montgomery Municipal Airport in this car. The Hertz operator was told at that time that the car would probably be returned on October 2. It has not been returned. It is still being used ac­cording to their records as of October 16.

According to. my information Martin Luther King returned to Atlanta from Montgomery after the Selma meeting Tuesday night, October 15.

The two cars previously ref erred to, and which carried Martin Luther King to Montgomery were a blue two-door Cadillac, hardtop displaying 1963 Ala­bama license No. 27-2933 registered to Dr. Sullivan Jackson, 21½ Franklin Street, Selma, and a wine, four-door Ford Galaxie displaying 1963 Alabama license No. 27-14119, registered to Rev. W. T. Mimefee, 410 Sulvan Street, Selma.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the unwar­ranted use of Federal funds for the transportation of agitators and the use of Justice Department personnel as chauffeurs for these agitators I sent the following telegram to the Attorney Gen­eral: · Reliable information has reached me that

Justice Department officials are serving as drivers for Martin Luther King, Wolf Dawson, and James Foreman in Hertz Rent-a-Cars. These cars are leased or rented in the name of Justice Department fflcials and used in driving these agitators in Selma and Dallas County, Ala. Such interference in local ad­ministration is unwarranted, highly inflam­matory, and completely unjustified. Request you advise me as to legal authority such ex­penditures of taxpayers money. Your im­mediate order stopping this flagrant viola­tion and illegal use of public funds should be forthcoming.

KENNETH A. ROBERTS, Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the con­tinued interference by Justice Depart-

ment personnel in State and local mat­ters and assisting agitators in provoking the people of Alabama, is totally and completely unwarranted and should be discontinued immediately. Such actions only tend to incite riot, · bloodshed, and turmoil. Removal of such personnel and permitting the local law officers and offi­cials to handle these matters is essential to the establishment of peace. The ob­jectives of the Justice Department, which I highly question, cannot and will not be accomplished through support of agita­tors and outside interlopers. It should be and must be stopped immediately.

Civil Rights Demonstrations in Georgia

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Tuesday, October 22, 1963

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, on Thurs­day, October 17, the· New York Times carried an editorial entitled "How Strong a Civil Rights Law?" The editorial points out that-

Retreat before the battle is the worst way to block the caIJ}paign of s·outhern Demo­crats to scuttle any meaningful civil rights legislation. There ls no place for partisan­ship in the fight for a sound civil rights bill; but to seek unity through an approach based on .the lowest common denominator of con­sensus arms the bill's enemies more than it does its friends.

The Times reiterated its stand in an editorial on Monday, October 21.

I am completely in accord with the position expressed in these editorials. We are fighting for the right. Let us

20110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22 not surrender before·the battle ls joined~ Title Ill is vital t.o · effective protection of civil rights: ·

The need for it is graphically demon.; strated in the case of Donald Harris and those who have been imprisoned 1n Americus, Ga., since early August, held without ball, and facing a charge of in­citing to lnsurrectlon, a charge that carries the death penalty. I have been in touch with the Department of Jus­tice about the matter. As yet the De­partment has been unwilling to inter­vene in the case. I believe there are very strong legal and moral grounds for doing so, and I have so written to the Attorney General. This is a flagrant instance of the misuse of law to intimidate the exer­cise of constitutional rights. If it is al­lowed to proceed it will set a pattern of Intimidation by law enforcement officers 1n many parts of the South. I believe it ls outrageous that the Government should turn its back on the case, par­ticularly at the very time that the De­partment of Justice argues that title Ill ls neither needed nor wanted.

I ask unanimous consent that the te:i.rt of my most recent letter to the Attorney General on this case, the full texts of the editorials, and a news article in today's Washington Post appear in today's REC­ORD.

There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York Times, Oct. 21, 1963]

THE TEST ON CIVIL RIGHTS The central issue in the congressional

battle over civil rights has been pointed up by the National Council of Churches of Christ in its appeal to the Kennedy admin­istration and Republican leaders to back the strong rights bill approved by a House Judi­ciary Subcommittee. "The basic issue of social justice must not be compromised," the council declares.

On at least three counts the subcommittee bill does a better job of insuring social justice than the administration's original proposals. It would authorize Federal suits to end denial of civil rights through police brutality; protect Negro voters in State, as well as Federal, elections and set up a Fed­eral Fair Employment Practices Commission. Whatever the blll's technical flaws, all of which can be eliminated through more precise language, it deserves bipartisan sup­port. Its goal is not perfectionism; it is justice.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 17, 1963] How STRONG A Civn. RIGHTS LAW?

In submitting-at long last-his omnibus civil rights bill to Congress in June, Presi­dent Kennedy said: "In this year of the emancipation centennial, justice requires us to insure the blessings of equality for all Americans and their posterity-not merely for reasons of economic efficiency, world di­plomacy and domestic tranquility-but, above all, because it is right." Now the ad­ministration finds itself embarrassed because a House Judiciary Subcommittee has ap­proved a civil rights bill the White House considers too strong to have any realistic chance of passage.

Attorney Genera.I Kennedy has gone be­fore the full committee to urge that some of the strengthening provisions be knocked out in the interest of attracting more sup­port from middle-of-the-road Republicans and Democrats. That any bill fin~y adopted will need the backing of Repub­licans, as well as of northern and western

Democrats, is incontestable. But its con­cessions to political expediency contrast sharply to the administration's previous em­phasis on the primacy of the moral issue in the national struggle for full equality for every American.

The Attorney General _may be right in sug­gesting that "unclear" language in some sections of the revised bill would give the Federal Government authority to encroach on State powers in areas totally divorced from civil rights. If so, the language ought to be, and can be, made more explicit. A similar clarification of language may be in order in other sections but always with a concern for protecting Negro rights not re­stricting them.

The inclusion of State, as well as Federal, elections in the bill's provisions to safeguard voting rights is a significant improvement over the original administration blll. So is the provision for a Federal Fair Employment Practices Commission, with power over dis­crimination by employers and unions. Both deserve more forceful backing than the At­torney General gave them.

Retreat before the battle is the worst way to block the campaign of southern Demo­crats to scuttle any meaningful civil rights iegislation. There is no place for partisan­ship in the fight for a sound civil rights bill; but to seek unity tlirough an approach based on the lowest common denominator of consensus arms the b1ll's enemies more than it does its friends.

In the appeal to conscience he addressed to the Nation a few days before his civil rights message, the President declared that this country, for all its hopes and all its boasts, "will not be fully free until all its citizens are free." That is the yardstick that ought to guide Congress in the debate now nearing a climax in the House Judiciary Committee.

FOUR JAILED IN GEORGIA TO FACE INSURRECTION TRIAL

(By Robert E. Baker) A Georgia prosecutor said yesterday that

he has changed his mind and will prosecute four civil rights demonstrators being held in the Americus, Ga., jail on charges of "inciting an insurrection."

The charge carries a maximum death pen­alty upon conviction.

The prosecutor, Solicitor General Stephen Pace, Jr., of Sumter County, thus set the stage for a showdown in a case that has caught the attention of Congressmen, the Kennedy administration and the civil rights movement as a whole.

The four demonstrators-John Perdew, 21, a '.Harvard University student from Denver; Zev Aelony, 26, a fieldworker for CORE from Minneapolis; Ralph Allen, 22, Trinity Uni­versity student from Melrose, Mass., and Don Harris, 24, a fieldworker from New York for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee-were arrested during antisegre­gation demonstrations in Americus last Au­gust 8 and 9. Perdew and Allen are white.

In an exhaustive story of the case, the October 13 issue of the Denver Post stated that Prosecutor Pace pored through the law books to find a strong law to keep the young men out of circulation.

Pace came up with the insurrection law enacted in 1871. It permits no bond. Pace said he was unaware that it carried the death penalty until after he had decided on the charge.

Last month, three members of the Colo­rado congressional delegation-Republican Senators GORDON ALLOTT and PETER H. Do.M­INICK and Democratic Representative BYRON G. RoGERs--urged the Justice Department to use its power to get the Jailed men released until their trials.

The case spurred demands for inclusion of title Ill in the proposed civil rights bill-

giving the Justice Department specific power to bring legal action in such cases.

Morris B. Abram, Atlanta attorney now with a New York law :firm investigated the case for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a top-drawer legal group that has the blessing of President Kennedy.

Abram was retained by Aelony's parents. He promptly filed suit in Federal court chal­lenging the constitutionality of the insur­rection statute and asking for an injunction to stop Americus officials from using it.

Jack Greenberg, chief counsel of the NAACP legal defense fund, filed similar suits for the other three men.

But 10 days ago, Pace taped a radio inter­view for an Atlanta station in which he said he had serious doubts that he would ever call the insurrection cases up for trial.

"The basic reason for bringing these charges was to deny the defendants bond," Pace said in the interview, which was broad­cast on Sunday. "We were in hopes that by holding these men we would be able to talk to their lawyers and talk to their ·people and convince them that this type of activity ls not the right way to go about it."

But yesterday Pace changed his mind. He said he probably would go ahead with the prosecution on the insurrection charges and indicated he had been unable to negotiate a settlement with lawyers for the men.

A three-judge Federal court will hear argu­ments challenging the legality of the law in Americus on October 31.

OCTOBER 17, 1963. DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: You will re­

call that early in September I wrote you concerning the imprisonment since early August of Donald Harris, a recent Rutgers graduate, and three others in Americus, Ga. They were arrested, as you know, in the course of demonstrations and charged with "inciting to insurrection," a capital offense under Georgia law.

I was frankly appalled by Mr. Marshall's reply of September 20 in which he stated that "our investigations relating to any of these persons would be limited to a pos­sible violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, sometimes referred to as the 'police brutality• statute." It seems to me unconscionable that the Federal Government should feel unable to intervene in what is patently an outrageous misuse of law to intimidate the exercise of constitutional rights. Further, I believe there is a statutory basis on which the Gov­ernment can and should act.

Surely the U.S. Government need not con­tinue to stand by helplessly while four young men remain incarcerated-in flagrant viola­tion of the most elementary principles of law. The Georgia constitution declares that, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted; nor shall any person be abused in being arrested, while under arrest, or in prison." The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution pro­vides, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or im­munities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its Juris­diction the equal protection of the laws.

How do these square with the facts in this case?

Donald Harris and his coworkers were en­gaged in a voters' registration campaign when they were arrested during a demon­stration. In addition to insurrection charges, a number of peace bonds have been issued against them, amounting to $40,000 in each case. In any case, since in­citing to insurrection is a capital offense, no bail is permitted. A writ of habeas corpus has been denied by the Georgia courts, I am informed. The grand jury to which the charges wm be presented for indictment wm

1963 CONGRESSIONAL ;RECORD- SENATE 20111 not meet until late November. While I assume that ultimately these young men will escape the death penalty, it could well take several years of torturous litigation to free them.

Why does not the Federal Government pro­ceed under section 1941, title 42, of the United States Code, as it did in the case of U.S. v. Wood, 295 Fed Rep. 2d 772, to enjoin the unlawful conduct of the prosecutor, the po­lice chief and other officials in conspiring to interfere with the right o! other persons to vote?

For myself, I believe the facts in the case provide ample ground !or proceeding against law enforcement officials who would, under color of law, subvert the clear intent of the Constitution and the general statutes. 1 I am particularly concerned by the failure of the Justice Department to show greater interest in this case because of your own suggestion that title III of the civil rights bill _be dropped. The position of the Department as so far taken in the Harris case is difficult to understand in any event, but it is com­pletely incomprehensible in view of the De­partment's position before the House Judiciary Committee that a title III provi­sion in the pending civil rights bill is in part ,unneeded, in part unwarranted. I cannot reconcile this with the statement that the Department is unable to act, beyond investi­gating charges of police brutality, in the Harris case, which like the Wood case is essentially a voting rights case.

I urge that the U.S. Department of Justice reconsider its position, for the injustice being done to AlneYicans in Americus. crles out for remedy.

Sincerely, CLIFFORD P. CASE,

The Role of the Federal Government in Providing Medical Care for the Na­tion's Senior Citizens

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. PAT McNAMARA OF MICHIGAN

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

- Tuesday, October 22, 1963 Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, on

October 6 of this year two of -our. col­leagues--Senator MusKIE, of Maine, and Senator MUNDT, of South Dakota-en­gaged in a debate on the topic of the role of the Federal Government in providing medical care for th~ Nation's senior citizens.

This discussion was carried over the Mutual Broadcasting System on the radio program "Reviewing Stand," which is sponsored by Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill.

Since this discussion sheds new light on an important public issue I ask unani­mous consent that the text of the debate be placed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the debate was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT IN PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE ' TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?

(A radio discussion over WGN, Chicago, and the Mutual Broadcasting System. Guests: Hon. KARL MUNDT, U.S. Senator from South Dakota; Hon. EDMUND MUSKIE, U.S. Senator, Maine. Guest moderator: Mr. Nor­porne Robinson, editor, Congressional Di-

gest. Host: James H. McBurney, dean, School of Speech, Northwestern University.)

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1963

Announcer: Northwestern University. in associat-ion with WGN and the Mutual Broadcasting System, presents the Review­!ng Stand, now in its 30th year on the air. Tonight's subject: Medicare and the Federal Government. To introduce tonight's guests, here is moderator James H. McBurney, dean of the School of Speech at Northwestern University.

Dean McBurney: The Reviewing Stand is pleased indeed to join with the committee on discussion and debate of the National University Extension Association, in pre­senting this special broadcast. It signals the opening of the new high school debate sea­son across the United States. Each year, the committee recommends a problem to be debated by high school groups throughout the country as the national high school de­bate question. Each fall, to mark the open­ing of the forensic season, the topic is dis­cussed on a national broadcast by eminent speakers from public life. The Reviewing Stand is happy to present the program on the 1963-64 subject: What should be the role of the Federal Government in providing Medical Care to the citizens of the United States?

To introduce today's guests, here is our guest moderator, Mr. Norborne Robinson, editor of the Congressional Digest, in Wash­ington.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Dean McBur­ney. In the U.S. Congress where decisions on the Federal medical policy are made, in­terest has for some time been mainly con­centrated in the area of medical care for the aged. In 1960 Congress enacted the Kerr-Mills bill in addition to expanding a longstanding program that provides Federal contributions to State welfare programs for the needy, part of which goes for the pay­ment of the medical bills of needy persons.

The bill established a new program. Popularly referred to as Kerr-Mills, this pro­gram is designed to help other individuals whose income or resources are deemed other­wise sufficient. but who may be unable to meet an, or part of the.ir medical expenses. The program is operated by the States and financed on a joint Federal-State basis. Since World War II, a prominent proposal before the Congress would add to the social security system a program of hospital and nursing home payments !or patients 65 or over to be financed by an increase in the social security tax. Popularly referreq to as medicare, this approach has the support of the Kennedy administration, among others. It is against this general background that the controversy is waged in Washington over what the role o! the Federal Government on medical care should be.

We are privileged to have with us two distinguished U.S. Senators to discuss this role. Senator KARL MuNDT of South Dakota, a Republican, has been a successful educa­tor, farmer, and businessman. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1938, he

' served there until his election to the Senate in 1948. He was reelected to the Senate in 1954 and 1960. Senator EDMUND MusKIE of Maine, a Democrat, is a lawyer. He has served , in the Maine Legislature and was elected Governor of Maine in 1954. Subse­quently, he was elected to the Senate in 1958. Senator MusKIE, you're on record as favoring the medicare approach. What are some of the reasons?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, I do support the social security approach to the problem of medical care for the aged and I do so for these reason& briefly. First, I think that the problem is such as to require a broader-based effort than we are now making. The Kerr­Mills legislation which was adopted by the Congress in 1960, has not met the problem

and I doubt that it can meet it. Second, the problem is not being met and I doubt that. it can be met by private insurance. The question of whether or not the Kerr-Mills program or private insurance is meeting the problem, I think, must be related also to the philosophy with which we approach this p,roblem. It seems to me that the underlying issue in the current debate over medicare is whether we should forestall so far as we can the poverty which health costs create among the aged, or whether we shall wait for poverty to occur and minister to only those who have already exhausted their own resources.

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator MUNDT? Senator MUNDT. Well, I oppose the King­

Anderson approach or the medicare approach and favor the Kerr-Mills approach which was initiated in 1960. I think it's gratifying in­deed that in 3 short years that the Kerr-Mills bill has been in operation, 40 different States and jurisdictions have set up their own ma­chinery for cooperating with the Federal Government to provide the necessary medical and hospital expenses for the indigent aged. Ten States or nine States' jurisdictions are in the process and only thYee States' juris­dictions, out of the 52 involved altogether, have done nothing at all.

I think that this is a most encouraging sign and it seems to me that we should recog­nize that medical cost of people who are aged, their dental bills, the other optical costs, and the rest of the costs that they con­front are just as serious and just as difficult to meet as are the hospital costs. So I oppose the King-Anderson approach, not only be­cause it is compulsory, and not only because it is unnecessary, but because it is woefully inadequate, and does not provide the kind of care which is available under Kerr-Mills as it has been implemented by at least 40 States.

Senator MusK1E. I must say that my sta­tistics on the extent to which the States have implemented · Kerr-Mills differ somewhat from Senator MUNDT'S and there may really be no difference if we analyzed the statistics. As I understand it, from -:;he latest figures provided for me by the Senate Committee on the Aging, 28 States actually have operating programs in effect compared with 24 about a year ago, so that there's been a gain of just 4 States in developing operating pro­grams, even though this year has been a legis­lative year in most States. Now another 10 States have programs in some shape, that is, pending legislation or authorizing legislation approval; whether or not in those States operating programs will finally be developed I can't evaluate at this point. And then, of course, there are some States which have not

. acted at all. But I think, in addition to looking at the

number of States which may or may not have acted in Kerr-Mills, we have to look at the adequacy of their program. There are many measures of this, of course, but the fa-ct is that most of those programs are keyed to the needs of the indigent. For example, just to use one standard that is found in almost all of the State programs, those who earn more than $1,500 a year­in some States it goes as high as $2,000 a year-are not eligible for relief under the Kerr-Mills program. And this means, to go back to the philosophic statement I made earlier, that in those States they believe that the lower-income groups are to exhaust their resources before they're given assist­ance.

Senator MUNDT: I'd like to say something about that matter of adequacy, but first as to the number of States, I know that all of these figures in this whole concept of the discussion of the various programs, the com­pulsory and the voluntary one, you have a sort of a floating set of figures because they change. I am quoting from a report as of August 31, 1963-that's this year-issued by the Department of Health, Education, and

20112 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 22

Welfare when I point out that 40 States have the program in effect or have it virtually completed. Nine are in process in one way or another or have made some effort and three have done nothing at all under Kerr­Mllls.

Now, about the adequacy of the two pro­grams. Let me point out that in this com­pulsory program of compulsory health in­surance called the King-Anderson program, or sometimes called medicare, we certainly have misnamed a monstrosity because it provides no medical care at all. It ls simply a very inadequate and partial program of hospital insurance and does not give the aged or the needy the kind of care that they require. Now the King-Anderson program, let it be said, does provide for a certain kind of visitation by visiting nurses and so forth after a $20 minimum deduction has occurred.

But the thing about the Kerr-Mills pro­gram which I like is that it recognizes that after you're 65 you may have any one of a variety of ailments and so it provides for doctors and surgeons and hospitalization and nursing and drugs and dental benefits and provides an insurance program or an insurance protection for the various kind of maladies and problems that can confront somebody in old age and who needs it. Now the reason why the program provided under Kerr-Mills can give you a more adequate protection against a compulsory universal program ls very simple. This medicare pro­gram, by being compulsory, requires that it become available to everybody so it's avail­able to those who are very rich and who don't need it at all instead of limiting it to those people who require some kind of as­sistance at the time of an ailment in old age.

Senator MUSKIE: I'm sure that I'm not going to be able to settle in a few minutes here the exact statistical count on Kerr­Mills, but we know that it lies somewhere between 28 and 40. I'd like to concentrate for Just a few moments upon this question of adequacy of care.

In the first place, the King-Anderson blll is much broader in its benefits than has been suggested by Senator MuNDT's comments. It provides hospital care for periods ranging from 46 through 90 to 180 days depending upon the options selected. Secondly, it pro­vides skllled nursing facmty care to follow hospitalization, thus making available a low­cost service for prolonged service after needed hospitalization. Thirdly, it provides for hospital out-patient diagnostic services, again to avoid hospitalization, but a service enabling older people to pinpoint their diffi­culty and their problems. Finally, it pro­vides home health services of up to a total of $240 a year.

Now, by contrast, Kerr-Mills. Federal law in Kerr-Mills requires that at least two types of care, one institutional and one noninsti-: tutional, must be covered. The only type of care common to · the 28 programs to which I referred earlier, is in-patient hospital care. Only four States provide substantial cover­age of the five major types of service. which are hospital care, physician services, nursing home care, prescribed drugs, and dental care. Only four States provide programs which are that broad and even · those States do not cover all needed care.

Now, covered care ls available in eight States under Kerr-Mllls only in certain kinds or degree of illness, and in some of them the illness has to be acute or chronic before the applicant can qualify. Periods for which care is available are short and in four States no more than 15 days of hospital care are available and no more than 15 days per stay in four other States, so that the care pro­vided under Kerr-Mills ls by no means as broad as has been suggested.

Senator MUNDT. On the contrary, the care made available by Kerr-Mms ls much broader. Now it ls true because this ls a voluntary program that each State works

out its own basis for cooperation in partner­ship with the Federal Government. And the program is still 3 yean; old. States are , moving forward in an orderly manner but at the ultimate and the optimum arrangement, it is very obvious that Kerr-Mllls does cover a great many more things than are possible at all under the King-Anderson program. My colleague suggests that under the King­Anderson program you can get a diagnostic analysis. This is true, but that doesn't cure the patient. The beauty of the Kerr-Mllls program is that after being diagnosed you can also get a cure and each State can pro­vide its own kind of medical faciVties.

There are other things that I don't like about this compulsory program besides the fact that it is inadequate and that it is un­needed, because you don't have very many people left in the category of over 66 who need the particular kind of selective treat­ment in a hospital provided under the King­Anderson program. One thing I don't like about it very much is that it violates the whole American concept of taxation. We're dedicated in this country, I believe, to a system of progressive taxation based upon the concept that you take from people in accordance with their ab1lity to pay. But the program which is compulsory, which adds to the social security tax of an in­dividual, is regressive taxation because it taxes everybody alike for the first part of their income and, incidentally, makes the benefits available to everybody alike. The millionaire and the pauper get the same benefits and each is required to pay on the standpoint of his initial income the same exact tax rate, which in my opinion is not an American concept of raising revenue.

Senator MusKIE. Senator MuNDT says that the King-Anderson bill violates Ameri­can concepts of taxation. Well now, all it does is take advantage of the system that's been in effect since the midthlrties, the social security system. Now, this is as American at this point as any program in this field that I can think of. For almost 30 years now, Americans have been paying the social security tax under a compulsory program to guard against the hazards of unemploy­ment, disability, and other hazards which afflict us in modern society. Now Senator MUNDT calls this regressive taxation. Well, under the Kerr-M1lls program, the respon­sib111ty is thrown back upon the States, most of which rely upon the sales tax to support their programs. Well, now, cer­tainly, no tax is more regressive than the sales tax.

Now, Senator MUNDT has constantly re­ferred to the social security program as being compulsory. It is no more compulsory than it ls in the case of retirement pensions under the social security system, but the purpose of the social security approach, and I think that this ought to be hammered home, ls that it provides a means for the average citizen to contribute during his working years to a program which will as­sure him that these benefits will be avail­able to him when he reaches age 66.

Now it seems to me that you've got to make your choice. Either this is a good thing to do-that ls, to save during your working years to provide for ·this care that you may need when you reach 66-or it isn't. Now, if we say it's a good thing to do then I know of no way to do it except on a. broad-based scale such as social se­curity provides. Now, 1! what we're talking about is a relief program available to people only after they have exhausted all their re­sources and only after they have reached 65 in whatever economic situation they may be, why then perhaps the voluntary ap­proach which would make the program available only to those people in such dire circumstances is the approach. But I think you've got to come back to this underlying philosophy which provides the most, if you

want to use that term, the most dignified kind of assistance, the most realistic, the most adequate when one reaches the age of 65.

Senator MUNDT. I'd like to say something about that "working years" concept because one of the many reasons why it seems to me the King-Anderson compulsory medicare concept is wrong is that it does nothing whatsoever to protect the young family dur­ing its working years. It requires them to pay a tax sometimes as long as 40 years on the gamble that sometime after they're 65 they will need some health benefits. But they get nothing during the working years and it takes out of their income money which they might better have placed into some kind of private insurance program or company insurance program. That way, 1f during the productive years of the young family life, the head of the family is stricken, he can get some benefits. This, after all, simply provides a bet that you provide and you'll pay your taxes under a compulsory program until you're 65 on the gamble you won't be sick before you're 65, you'll be so sure you'll be sick after you're 65 you need some Government aid. Now, it tends :to destroy the initiative, the desire, and the capab111ty of a young family to pro­vide the kind of heal th insurance and the kind of protection it requires during its formative years and during its productive years. So this is another reason why it moves against the concept.

Now, my friend from Maine said that most of the States raise their money by sales tax. I point out to him that a great many average States have income taxes based on a progres­sive program just the same as we have in the Federal Government and that when you provide a tax compelling the poor to pay for the health needs of the rich after they're 66, this also is not compatible with our Ameri­can concept.

Senator MUSKIE. The Senator complains that the social security approach provides nothing for people in t~eir working years but only after they reach age 65. Well, the complaint that the policyholder gets no benefits until the hazard strikes could be made against private insurance as well as the social security insurance system. The very purpose of insurance is to provide for the payment of premiums to make available certain benefits and certain protections against hazards when the hazard strikes. So I see no difference between the social security system and private insurance in this respect. Now, on that point--

Mr. ROBINSON. Our time seems to be run­ning out in the very fast-moving debate, regrettably. Senator MUNDT, in closing, how would you summarize your position on the role of the Federal Government in provid­ing medical care?

Senator MUNDT. Well, of course in the minute and a half we have for a summary, it's very difficult to even summarize the reasons why I'm against this medicare pro­gram. I'm against it for so many reasons. It leads toward socialized medicine. As I say, it compels the young working family to gamble and it has to pay a compulsory tax for the full lifetime until after 66 on the expectation and the improbable hope that nothing is going to happen to the family until after 66.

I'm against it because it's compulsory, be­cause its benefits are inadequate. I consider it legislative alchemy because the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is not there. It doesn't provide the medical facilities; it doesn't provide the doctors' cost; it doesn't provide for a great many things. It's re­gressive taxation and it's unnecessary be­cause under the Kerr-Mills program in 3 years we've had an astronomical increase in the kind of protection made available to people who need medical attention. And it provides it in a full package and a full pro-

19.63 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20113 gram so . they can get the· klnd of mecllcal care they require if they need it after 85. I'm against it. because, after all, · under -our American concept, we in this country should. promote the general welfare not provided. for the indlvidual. ·

Mr. RoBINSON. senator MUSKIE, how would you summarize your position? · . senator MUSKIE. I'd like to touch Just briefly a.gain on this question ot a compul­sory program. The Kerr-Mills program is just as compulsory in the same sense that Senator MUNDT speaks of. The Kerr-Mills is supported by the general taxpayer-the tax­payer who pays excise taxes and income taxes. He has .no choice about paying those taxes so he is compelled to pay taxes to sup­port this program in the same sense that under the social security plan the payer of social security taxes ls compelled to pay them. In addition, tlie Kerr-Mills taxpayer has to pay State taxes and he has no choice about that.

Now, I am for the social security approach, again: first, be·cause ·a broader-based e:ffort is needed in order to meet the problems; secondly, because it is an insurance scheme which makes it possible for the average work­er to contribute to his own benefits when he reaches retirement age; thlfdly, because its aim is. to prevent poverty and not deal with the problem after poverty has been enforced.

Mr. ROBINSON. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but our time is up. Our thanks to our guests for this evening, Senator KARL MUNDT of South Dakota, and Senator EDMUND MUSKIE of Maine. This is Norborne Robinson in Washington.

Dean McBURNEY. You have just heard a special Northwestern University Reviewing Stand discussion, presented in cooperation with the committee on discussion and debate of the National University Extension Associa­tion. The topic-What Should Be the Role of the Federal Government in Providing Medical Care to the Citizens of the United States?-is to be the subject of debate and discussion in high schools throughout the Nation during the 1963-64 forensic season. Our thanks to the participants in Washing­ton and to our guest moderator, Mr. Nor­borne Robinson.

Copies. of this discussion are printed and made available to the public in order to fur­ther interest in such discussions of questions a:ffecting the public welfare. Transcripts may be obtained by sending a stamped, self­addressed envelope and 15 cents for each copy to: National Publishing Co., 1300 Con­necticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

Thank you for listening. This is James H. McBurney, dean of the School of Speech at Northwestern University.

ANNOUNCER. The Reviewing Stand ls pro­duced for Northwestern University by Robert W. Thomas and directed by Gloria Werk­meister. The Reviewing Stand originates 1:p. the studios of WGN, Chicago, as a feature of public a:ffairs.

This special program was presented in co-· operation with the committee on discus­sion a.nd debate of the National University Extension Association. ·

FURTHER READING

Anyone interested 1n !urther s,tudy of the problems discussed in the Reviewing Stand program on American medicine or in the ac­ti vitles of the committee on discussion and debate is referred to American Medicine: The 37th Discussion and Debate Manual edited for the Committee by Bower Aly and Charley Lelstn~r and published in the Library Edition by the Committee on Discussion and Debate, Box 5162 University Station, Eu­gene, Oreg. The Library Edition presents the four quarterlies attractively b<?und to­gether under a single cover. The price is $6 if billed or $4.06 postpaid if remittance ac-companies order, ·

.Additional copies of -this transcript may also be · obtained at the National Publishing

eo .• Dtvtsion ot McCall Corp .. 1300 ·connectt­cut Avenue NW.. Washington, D.C.. 20036, for 15 cents per copy or fll.75 per 100 copies.

Cooperative Credit and Consumer Progress

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. JAMES A. BURKE OF :MASSACHUSETTS '

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, October 22, 1963

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Speaker, on Satur~ day evening, October 19, 1963, it was my privilege to address members of the Credit Union National Association at Valle's Restaurant, Route 9, Needham, Mass., regarding International Credit Union Day. I include my address in the RECORD in order to bring to tne attention of the Members of the U.S. Congress the great contribution credit unions have made and are continuing to make not only in the United States but also throughout the entire world. Present at the dinner were Mr. Julius Stone, presi­dent of the Credit Union National Asso­ciation, Inc., Thomas McDonald, presi­dent of the Boston chapter, ·which comprises over 100,000 people in the metropolitan area of Boston, and many others who have made a real contribu­tion toward the successful operation of credit unions throughout New En.gland~ The address follows: .COOPERA!l'IVE CREDIT AND CONSUMER PROGRESS

I am honored to be here today at this meeting~ celebrating International Credit Union Day. Credit unions have been an in­valuable asset in our democracy. Credit unions have encouraged thrift and self-help finance. They have stimulated our economy by providing a. ready source of funds for the purchase of consumer goods. They have taught many thousands how to manage their money.

I am sure that all credit union members are proud of the fact that all but one-fifth of 1 percent of all money loaned by their credit unions has been repaid. Good char­acter has been good collateral.

Here in Massachusetts, and particularly in Boston~ the credit union movement was pioneered. As far back as 1892, an organiza­tion of employees on the Boston Globe formed an association to · enable members to obtain loans at reasonable rates out of a fund built up from deposits by the mem­bers.

But the credit union movement in Massa­chusetts and in the United States did not really get started until 1909 when the first U.S. credit union law was passed in Massa­chusetts. This law was passed due to the efforts of public-spirited men, especially Edward A. Fllene, the Boston merchant. Mr. Filene had become interested in credit unions in 1907 after seeing similar groups in India. From that time to the end of his life, 30 years later, Filene devoted his energy and financial resources to the cause of eco­nomic democracy-to the spread of credit unions. His contribution to practical · de­mocracy was great. His concept of getting ahead with others rather than getting ahead of others is stni an inspiration to us all. . Due to the work of Fllene, the heart of

the credit union movement remained in Boston for many years. One of the early credit unions 1n Boston was .. the Ctty or

-Boston Employees• Credlt Union organized 1n 1915 with the aid of Mayor Curley. Mr. ;F11ene, however, felt that the credit union movement should · be extended nationally and intemationally. To promote their growth, he founded the Credit Union Na­tional Extension Bureau in 1921. This bu­reau worked bard for state and Federal cred­it union legislation. A trademark was de­veloped-the now familiar drawing of the little man under the umbrella of the credit union. The :nttle man and his umbrella have come to symbolize the alleviation of misery brought on by hard times, sickness, ·and flnaneial distress. · ·

The work of the bureau ln spreading the cooperative credit idea prospered. In 1923, 'the fu·st credit union of postal employees was started in Brockton, Mass. In 1925, a. Massachusetts commission appointed to ex­amine the credit union concept reported that the movement was a "splendid communal ·activity." States continued to pass credit union laws, and in 1934 a Federal law was enacted. Shortly thereafter the national as­sociation, Credit Union National Association, was born and the headquarters established in Madison, Wis.

CUNA and the credit unlc;m movement has gone a long way since 1934. In that year, despite the intensive organizing e:fforts of the preceding years, there were only 2,600 credit unions in the United States and less than 460,000 members. Today there are over 21,000 credit unions and nearly 13 million members in our country. Massachusetts has 7313 credit unions with about 616,000 members-more members than existed in the entire country in 1934.

But, as you know, Credit Union National Association and the credit union movement is not and has not been complacent. Credit Union National Association has become an international organization and cr~dit unions have a lot of pioneering to do in many coun­tries. Low cost credit is almost unknown in many parts of the world. The theme of Credit Union Day, "Helping Hands in Many Lands," ls certainly appropriate. Workers and their families in many lands need help to make the most of their meager resources. Although credit unions are functioning in 67 countries, many more are needed, particu­larly in undeveloped areas. I am indeed happy to see that Credit Union National As­sociation is working with the Peace Corps and other governmental agencies to promote economic democracy in other lands. As a re­sult of Credit Union National Association's good work, there were about 1,160 credit unions operating in Latin Am.erica at the end of 1962, of whlc~ 360 had been organized since midyear.· Credit Union National Asso­ciation also recently sponsored conferences in Africa to lead off' a campaign to start credit unions- throughout the African Con­tinent.

There still remains a lot of work for credit unions in this country. Loan sharks still pray upon the poor and ignorant. Many sophisticated people often pay more interest than they realize, or they can afford.

The Congress recognizes the continued worth of credit unions. It recently passed a bill which Will improve the operation of Federal credit unions. This bill will extend the time for the annual meeting of the mem­bership to January, February, or March in­stead of confining the meeting to the month of January. This bill will also make it optional with the . individual credit union whether the treasurer should serve as the general manager. As credit unions grow it is often not practical for one person to serve in both capacities. Those credit unions 1n Massachusetts which 'are chartered by the Federal Government wm thus have their rules liberall.zed by the enactment of this iegislation. -

Another piece of iegislation now pending which ls of interest t.o you all as conaumera

20114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Oetober 22 and as credit union leaders 1s the tax reduc­tion ~ill of 1963. This bill would put much­needed funds into the hands of the Ameri­can consumer. It would 11ft a portion of the heavy burden of taxati_on from the American taxpayer. You who are famillar with the loans gran:ted by credit unions must know that many people have a hard time acquiring the things necessary for a decent standard of living. They have a hard time accumulat­ing enough resources to weather a crisis. The tax reduction bill should help 11ft the living standard of the ordinary American and provide a stimulus to the economy without greater governmental expenditures. In­creased buying power will benefit us all in­dividually and will benefit the Nation. The tax reduction bill is designed to help the con­sumer progress to a higher standard of living.

Consumer progress is, of course, constantly being promoted by credit unions. Credit unions have promoted good financial man­agement since those early days in Massa­ch1,188tts when a few idealists preached co­operative credit. The good sense of their ideal1'm has been proven. The over $7 bil- . llon in assets in credit unions today 1n the United States speaks well for their practical­ity. Credit Union Day reminds us all of the moral and monetary assets accumulated in credit unions throughout our great Nation and throughout the world. May they con­tinue to prosper.

What Was the Air Force' 1 Reaction to the Gesell Report?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. F. EDWARD HEBERT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, October 22, 1963

Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, in an at­tempt to expose further the vicious and cynical nature of the Secretary of De­fense' directive implementing the Ge­sell report, I have earlier inserted into the RECORD the official positions of the Departments of the Army and Navy on this report.

It will be recalled that when the Gesell report was issued, the Secretary of De­fense asked the Secretaries of the three armed services to present their com­ments.

The Secretaries of the Army and Navy did so in a most forthright manner, and I have noted in the RECORD their numer­ous objections and reservations about the wisdom of implementing the Gesell Committee's recommendations.

Now, what about the Air Force offi­cial position?

The memorandum dated July 10, 1963, issued by Air Force Secretary Eugene M. Zuckert and concerning the Gesell report, is as brief as it is innocuous. And yet, no branch of the military has been as outspoken in opposition of the Gesell Committee recommendations as has the Air Force in uniform.

The Air Force's concern is understand­able in view of the fact that it apparently is being used as a guinea pig for Gesell report experiments. The so-called Val­des study group last summer visited four Air Force bases--all, · coincidentally, in the South-inquiring about segrega­tion in off-base communities.

The four bases vi1:3ited were Brookley Air Force Base, Mobile, Ala.; Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Miss.; Greenville Air Force Base, Greenville, Miss.; and Co­lumbus Air Force Base, Columbus, Miss.

It is interesting to note what military officials at these bases thought of Gesell report recommendations. The Valdes study group reported that the base com­manders expressed concern over possible excessive involvement in community problems.

The study group quoted the base com­manders as. stating that such involve­ment in community affairs would inter­fere with their primary-military___.:mis­sion. The commanders added that they felt a lack of clear guidance on the ex­tent of involvement in civil rights mat­ters, and they questioned their ab111ty to produce progress in this area.

Furthermore, the commanders of these four bases, according to the Valdes study group, registered strong reservations in the following areas:

First. They questioned the ultimate legality of placing public establishments off limits for the purpose of achieving racial integration.

Second. They questioned the wisdom of lowering standards in order to place persons of a particular race in positions of consequence without regard for quali­fications.

Third. They said they believe any plan to close bases to further integration would have an adverse effect on the Air Force.

Fourth. They said they believe the In­spector General system is adequate for receiving and handling complaints re­garding discrimination.

Fifth. They said they believe coercive action by commanders to further off­base integration would lower the morale of the majority of military personnel and damage the stature of the base com­mander in the eyes of both the military and the civilian community.

This, then, is the opinion of men who would be responsible for implementing the obnoxious recommendations of the Gesell report. This_ is the report of mili­tary men-not social scientists.

But there is yet another Air Force document which sheds light upon the real official position of th~t department.

I now refer to a letter dated July 5, 1963, directed to the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff and sent by Maj. Gen. Al­bert M. Kuhfeld, the Air Force Judge Advocate General.

In this letter, General Kuhfeld warned against what he termed the "question­able legality of an off-limits order" as recommended by the Gesell Committee as a sanction against segregated off­base establishments:

General Kuhf eld ref erred to prior de­cisions of the U.S. Court of Military Ap­peals. He said:

It is highly questionable whether an o1f-.... 11mits order based solely on the fact that the establishment engages 1n discriminatory practices against Negro per~nnel would be enforceable. In my opinion, such an order would be of doubtful validity.

· And yet, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary · of Defense, in his directive, has provided

for the possible use of the off-limits sanc­tion as a weapon to promote integration.

A detailed memorandum, dated July 13, 1963, '\Yas sent f;o the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff, ang. this memorandum stated "flags of concern have been raised by the Joint Staff and the other services over the pro­posed use of the military in coercing com­pliance with civil rights edicts."

An attached paper to this memoran­dum contained a series of recommenda­tions and comments about the Gesell report. Tpe final comment is most sig­nificant:

Finally, 1t must be emphasized that any such moves, as have been proposed and which the services might be called· upon to make, can only serve to operate against sub­stantial gains in community relations made over the past years.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the Air Force's reaction to the Gesell report.

There may be a very interesting story behind the reason for Secretary Zuckert's mild memorandum of "official" views. But it is no secret that Air Force mili­tary officers themselves view this tam­pering with civilian/military control with misgivings and alarm.

Just what arm twisting and "persua­sion" took place behind the scenes to make the Air Force's "official" comments on the Gesell report vary so much from the actual reaction of the military com­manders in the field?

Why are the Air Force personnel being selected and used as the "guinea pig" against the best judgment and attitudes of its personnel?

It may not be written as strongly in the ''official" report of the Air Force, but the Air Force is lined up solidly alongside its sister services, the Navy and the Army, in vigorously resisting any effort to make a mockery of the role of the military in the defense of the Nation and employing its forces to inject itself into local and national politics in local communities.

Now let the Air Force dare deny the accuracy of my statements.

Water and Colorado's Future

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. BYRON G. ROGERS OP COLORADO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, October 22, 1963

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speak­er, under leave to extend my remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, I include the remarks of the gentleman from Colo­rado, the Honorable WAYNE N. ASPINALL, before the Rotary International of Den­ver, Colo., on October 17, 1963.

We, in Colorado, are ever mindful of the proper preservation and use of wa­ter. Our colleague has shown great knowledge of the problem. He has out­lined the necessity for cooperation in the State of Colorado· and elsewhere in bringing apout the proper development of the water of our State.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20115

, The address follows: WATER AND . COLORADO'S FuTURE

(Remarks of Representative WAYNE N. AS­PINALL, of Colorado, before Denver Rotary International, October 17, 1963) Senator, Governor Johnson, officers, mem­

bers, and guests of Denver Rotary Inter­national, and, may I trespass for this par­ticular occasion on the usual requirements and offer to all of those who qualify a second salutation which is: "my fellow Coloradans."

Chance saw to it that I was born else­where, but since the time that I have been knowledgeable enough to understand values, I have been proud of my Colorado citizen­ship-and I might say that my loyalty to the State and its people is neither hampered nor diminished by my first loyalty to this great Nation of ours.

I am personally pleased and highly hon­ored to be requested to address at this time the members of this outstanding service or­ganization of Denver. To be perfectly hon­est and frank with all of you, it is a rare privilege these days for a Member of Con­gress whose people live west of the Missis­sippi to · have the <;>pportunity to return home and visit his homeland and become re­acquainted with his neighbors. This lunch­eon meeting affords me both pleasures. May I be a little bit sarcastic and advise you that 1f Congress doesn't change its way, there is likely to be the greatest crop of one-term Members that history has ever recorded.

I am very glad to be presented to this group by one of Colorado's great-the Hon­orable Edwin C. Johnson-legislator, execu­tive, and dedicated public servant, whose abilities and talents have been given unsel­fishly throughout. a long and eventful life to the best interests and welfare of his fellow Americans and his fellow Coloradans. Citi­zens of our State gener.ally do not realize the contributions made by this distinguished friend of ours. I shall mention but one of his many acts of service in our behalf, and I shall mention it so briefly that if there are those of you who are left wondering or un­convinced, then I would suggest that as a citizen who wishes to express gratitude where gratitude is honestly deserved, that you ac­quaint yourself with the facts because if this friend of ours, while serving his third term as Governor, had not stood as firm as the rock of Gibraltar in the interest of his fel­low Coloradans in the conferences which led to the Santa Fe Accord of 1956, there would have been no upper Colorado Storage Project Act. This: even without the myriad of other services, entitles him to the undying grati­tude of all Coloradans of present and future generations. Once again, I thank you, Ed.

I have great affection for this city and its people. My visits here these days are all too few and too short. Eleven years of my life--school and public servlce--have been spent here. There is no other city like Den­ver. Although young in years, it is well and favorably known throughout all parts of the world. Every Coloradan is proud of the suc­cess of this, our capital city. We rejoice in its accomplishments and we sorrow in its trials and tribulations. We do our best throughout the whole State to understand its problems. Our small communities look to it as our big brother. We share in its successes. We are hurt when its ambitions for success seem to cause it to forget that its phenomena: development stems largely from the continual stream of contributions that flow from the outside areas of the State to this metropolitan area. I do not · need to paraphrase because simply stated: we grow or decay together. This is the oneness of peoples closely welded together in the status of statehood.

All of my life I have lived in and worked for peoples of minority areas. ·As a youth, I was educated in · a small schooi only . 3

miles from a school many times as large. I have always had my home in ·a small com­munity which, on all too many occasions, looked with suspicion on the activities of its larger neighbor. As a State legislator, I served a limited population which ofttimes was bothered about the activities of the more populous areas of the State. As a Con­gressman, I represent not only a district with a small population, but also a State and also a region of the same limitations when com­pared with areas of larger populations. These experiences, if they have taught Illce nothing else, have caused me to appreciate the value of understanding. Understanding of each other's position, not agreement, should be the first goal. Understanding is always accompanied by a desire not to hurt or destroy. Confidence in each other is the natural consequence of understanding. Out of the two will come ultimate agreement. But without the two, controversy and dis­cord will be perpetuated.

And now to my subject: "Water and Colo­rado's Future." I doubt not that there are few in this audience who do not now under­stand fully why I have prefaced my remarks as I have. It goes without saying that second only to the air we breathe are we dependent upon this great natural resource-water. Colorado is neither a have not nor an abun­dantly blessed State in its possession of this resource, and yet, we are the most favored of all of our neighbors in this respect. Nature's favor has all too often brought discord and controversy among us rather than cause us to seek the best means of using every drop of this valuable resource to its fullest and best use.

As we ponder the development of water within the State, we must consider the differ­ent procedures which have been used in the past:

1. The first development and use of water in Colorado, as elsewhere, was through the efforts of private enterprise. For these build­ers I have only the greatest of respect. How­ever, Colorado's geography is such that the field for the private enterpriser has always been extremely limited. Understanding leg­islators made it possible for private enter­prise to join together in groups as irrigation companies or mutual irrigation districts.

2. More populous communities joined to­gether and brought into the picture the municipal water district. Invariably, these organizations have served the people of their municipalities effectively and well. Denver is no exception.

3. The Federal Government, in the inter­est of public land settlement, soon offered the reclamation program. The people of Colorado were not well prepared in the be­ginning to take advantage of the benefits of this program, but today they are well on the way and are receiving their share of con­sideration in this respect. I need not advise those present that it is in this area of water resource conservation and development that a Member of Congress becomes involved. In practically all other areas, his role is that of the ordinary private citizen.

I should like at this time to Just mention two other important events in Colorado's water history. First, the authorization by the legislature of the forming of large con­servancy districts without which Federal rec­lamation programs in Colorado would have been stymied. Second, the authorization of the formation and :financing of the Colorado Water Conservation Board without which Colorado could never have prepared herself to successfully press for water resource proj­ects. The second service was the work of the administration of former Gov. Teller Am­mons, and he, too, deserves the continuing thanks of all Colorado.

I desire now to -bring to your attention a very short r~sume of legal principles govern­ing the development and use of water in

Colorado. Ever ·since Colorado was admitted to the Union in 1876, our Constitution has provided that-

"The water of every ·natural stream not heretofore appropriated, within the State of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the prop­erty of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the State, sub­ject to appropriation as hereinafter pro­vided.

"The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. Priority of ap­propriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose."

Even before we adopted our Constitution this rule of first-in-time-first-in-right was the law and practice in this part of the United States. Part and parcel of it, of cour e, is the recognition that rights to the use of water cannot be made to depend on the ownership of land bordering on a stream. Part and parcel of it, also, is the recognition that -the rightful use of water is not con­fined to the watershed of origin. This was decided by our Supreme Court as early as 1882 in the case of Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co. Colorado's law in this respect is the same as that of the vast majority of the Western appropriation States. Wells Hutch­ins summarizes the law on this subject thus in his book entitled "Selected Problems in the Law of Water Rights in the West":

"The use of water under the riparian doc­trine is commonly limited to lands lying within the watershed of the stream to which they are riparian. Under the appropriation doctrine, however, the right of use acquired in the flow of a stream is not limited to riparian lands nor to any other lands solely because of their location; hence it follows logically that the use ls not generally re­stricted to the watershed, subject, of course, to the rule which applies to all features of the exercise of the appropriative right, namely, that the prior rights of others be not adversely affected. An early Colorado decision [the OI:\e I just mentioned] recog­nized the right to divert water from a stream and to carry it across an intervening divide and thence down a different stream for the irrigation of lands lying in the valley of the latter."

The importance of this doctrine is empha­sized not only in our State law, but by the terms of several of the interstate compacts to which Colorado is a party. The Colorado River compact of 1922, for instance, appor­tioned to the upper basin an exclusive right to the beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum and defined the term "upper basin" to include not only "those parts of the States of Arizona, Colo­rado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming * * * from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry" but also "all parts of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado River sys­tem which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the system above Lee Ferry." The same defi­nition occurs in the Upper Colorado River Basin compact of 1948 which apportioned to our State the consumptive use of 51.75 percent of the total use apportioned to the upper basin by the big compact.

It is worth noting, moreover, that this doc­trine has served Colorado well in its dealings With other States. Our friends below us on the Colorado--in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico--would dearly love to see all up­per basin transmountain diversions severely limited. None of use would think of acceed­ing to the po,sition advocated by powerful interests down there. And, in the Laramie River case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1922, we were challenged by Wyoming on the claim, among others, that "the waters of this interstate stream cannot rightfully

20116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 22 be taken from 1ts watershed and ca.rr~ed into another where she (Wyoming] never can 118• ceive any benefit from them." On this sub-ject, the Court said: .

"The objection of W:yoming to the pro­posed diversion on the ground th~t lt is to another watershed, from . which she can re­ceive no benefit, is • • • untenable. The fact that the diversion ls to such a watershed • • ' • does not 1n itself constitute f;I, ground for condemning it. . In neither State does the right of .appropriation depend on the place of use being within the same water­shed. Diversions from one watershed to an­other are commonly made in both States and the practice · is recognized by the decisions of their courts. The principle of such di­versions being recognized in both States, its application :to this interstate stream does not ln itself constitute a ground for com­plaint."

The fact that our basic law 'permits di­versions to be made from one watershed to another has, as we must all recognize, led to misunderstandings and difficulties in the past. Fortunately, we have generally been able to work out our problems amicably as they came along. Our water conservancy district law aptly expresses, I believe, the general policy of the State even though it is limited in its direct application to districts organized under its provisions: "• • • any works or facilities planned and designed for the exportation of water from the natural basin of the Colorado River • • • shall be designed, constructed, and operated in such a manner that the present appropriations of water, and in a~dition thereto prospective uses of water for lrrigation and other bene­ficial consumptive use purposes, including consumptive uses for domestic, mining, and industrial purposes, within the natural basin of the Colorado River • • • will not be impaired nor increased in cost at the ex­pense of the water users within the natural basin."

The Colorado-Big Thompson project has been, and the Fryingpan-Arkansas is being, constructed consistently with this law. In the first, our western slope and eastern slope people sat down together and, as a result of their negotiations, agreed that Green Moun­tain reservoir should be an integral part of the whole Colorado-Big Thompson project, that 52,000 acre-feet of its storage capacity should be devoted to "replacement in west­ern Colorado of the water which would be usable there if not withheld or diverted" by other features of the project; and that its other 100,000 acre-feet of storage capacity should be used for the production of power and to be available, without charge, "to sup­ply existing 'irrigation .and domestic appro­priations of water • • • and for future use for domestic purpose and in the irrigation of lands thereafter to be brought under cul­tivation in western Colorado." I shall not recite the other provisions o! th.e agreement, important though they are, but shall content myself with saying that the agreement, printed in Senate Document No. 80 of the '75th Congress, was the ·.foundation stone of the Colorado-Big Thompson project.

We are doing the same thing in the case of the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion. Here the pertinent document, signed on behalf of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conserv­ancy District, the Colorado River Water Con­servation District, and the Southwestern Water Conservation District, has been printed as House Docume

1nt No. 180, 87.th Congress.

It sets out, as you all know, the operating criteria for the Fryingpan-Arkansas project and includes provisions for the construction of the 100,000 acre-foot Rueqi Reservoir to supply present and future needs of the peo­ple on the Western Slope.

I would like briefly to trace the develop­ment of irrigation in our State and then tell you what we can expect in the years ahead.

lrrigatlon in Colorado dates back to the ticipating . projects, the Curecantl storage early 1860's._ when small. irrigation districts project on the Gunnison River is well under­were constructed. ,a,long the ArJtansas River ln way. Construction has already started on the vicinity af Canon City a.nd Pueblo. The the Fryingpan-Arkansas multiple-purpose 11,rst major development Jn tbe A.rkansa.s .transmountain dlverslon project which was Basin occurred 1n 1874 1n the Rocky Ford authorized only 2 years ago.

. ~ea. The first , tran.smountain diversion . There are some 20 projects enumerated in project of a;ny size was constructed by the . the planning ttection of the Colorado Stor­Twin ;t,akes Reservoir and Canal Company .age Project Aet which are either ready for and placed in operation, in 1935--ctiverting consideration by the Congress or mould be up to about 45,000 acre-feet annually from ready within the next 5 to 7 or 8 years. In the Colorado River Basin. Like other a.reas addition, the Bureau of Reclamation is con­in the Nation, irrigation was overextended tinuing its study of the Narrows unit on the in the Arkansas Valley and has been on the South Platte River and the Cache le Poudre decrease since 1920 because of the lack of a water stabilization project on the Cache le dependable water supply. The recently au- _Poudre River. thorized Fryingpan-Arkansas project should It is significant that there is only one result in stabilizlng the irrigated area. The Corps of Engineers project in Colorado and first Federal reclamation project to furnish it is the John Martin Reservoir in the Ar­water east of the Continental Divide was the kansas River Basin. Colorado-Big Thompson transmountain di- Colorado has presently some 2,800,000 acres version project authorized in 1937. of land under irrigation. Of this amount,

Irrigation in that part of Colorado west about 950,000 acres have been developed Qr of the Continental Divide started in the .are serv84 suppiemen~l water thr<!>ugh the 1880's when the Indians were removed to Federal reclamation program. The Frying­reservations and our valleys were opened to pan-Arkansas project will provide supple­settlement. The Grand Valley was opened mental water for another 280,000 acres .in­to settlement in 1881 and the Uncompahgre eluded in the presently irrJ.gated lands. To Valley in 1882. Private irrigation undertak- the amount presently irrigated, we should be ings were started almost immediately in both able to add approximately 300,000 new acres valleys. The Grand Valley canal was com- through the Federal reclamation program in pleted in 1886 to serve about 46,000 acres. the future~ and also firm up the water supply However, attempts by private interests be- for additional lands presently inadequately tween 1886 and 1902 to construct a canal to irrigated. serve higher lands in the valley failed be- The Federal Government has expended on cause private investors were unwllling water projects in Colorado about $280 mil­to back the project. In the Uncompahgre lion. To finish construction of those projects Valley, after large canals were constructed authorized by the Colorado Storage Project around 1894, it soon became evident that the Act, an additional amount of a.pproximately Uncompahgre River would not furnish an $98 million will be expended by the Federal adequate water supply for all the lands that Government. The total expenditure by the were intended to be irrigated. Federal Government for the Fryingpan-

As was the case elsewhere in the West, the Arkansas will be about $170 million. In ad.­early irrigation projects started as private ditlon to all of these, if most of the projects undertakings under the illusion in many in- enumerated 1n the planning section ,of the st.ances that a plentiful supply of water Colorado Storage Project Act are finally eon­.could be diverted from the rivers to irrigate structed together wlth the Narrows, the large areas w_ithout river storage or control. Cache Le Poudre and the further develop­There were numerous setbacks and failures ment in the Rio Grande River Basin it will in these early projects, and it was this factor require something over $500 milllon. primarily which led to the enactment of the What must Colorado's future in water re-Reclamation Project Act in 1902. source development be? Mind you, I did not

Upon passage of the Reclamation Project say what sha11, what should or what could Act in 1902, the citizens of both the Grand Colorado's future be in this regard. I used Valley and the Uncompahgre Valley orga- the phrase. "What it must be," and there is nized water user's associations for the pur- neither time nor opportunity left for wait­pose of cooperating with the reclamation 1ng, for stumbling, for second guessing or for service in developing their areas. The. Un- quarreling among ourselves. Assuming Colo­compahgre project was authorized in 1903 rado's share of Colorado River water amounts and the tunnel bringing water from the Gun- to 3,855,000 acre-feet, we have remaining nison River was completed in 1909. The about 1,690,000 :acre-feet of committed water Grand Valley project was authorized in 1911 .for use in Colorado. However, I am sure that with the first irrigation by the Reclamation everyone here will agree with me that this Service in 1915. The Uncompahgre and unused water is not likely to Temain 1n the Grand Valley projects were the only reclama- possession of our State. 11ubject to ·being used tion projects 11,uthorized ln Colorado during by our citizens, unless we see to it that it is the early years of the reclamation program. put to honest, wise, bene.flcial, and immediate

Since 1937, Colorado has been benefited use. An honest use is a use for which the greatly by the authorization and construe- water was acquired in the first place. A wise tion of the Pine River project in .Archuleta use is a use which is dominant as of the par­'8.lld La Plata Counties, the Frultgrowers Dam ticular time. A beneficial use is an efficient project and the Paonia project in Delta use to satisfy a recognized need within the County, the San Luis project (only partially area of use. An immediate use is putting the authorized and constructed) in the Rio water to work before the time llmit during -Grande Valley, the Colorado-Big Thompson which the water can legally be put to use · transmountain diversion project serving expires and before others are able to estab­northeastem Colorado, the Collbran project Ush a use of such water. Our time to put in Mesa County, and the Bonny Dam on the our presently unused water to use is not south fork of the Republican River in east- unlimited. ern Colorado. The future development of every facet o:r

To these existing projects we are adding Colorado's society w111 be limited by the or shall add in the foreseeable future those amount of water we have and the manner projects authorized or named for planning in which we use it. This 1s a lesson of his­purposes 1n the Colorado · Storage Project tory! peculiar not alone to Colorado, but o:t Act. -Of those authorized in the act, the m~jor importance to us because we are Paonia project and the Smith Fork project Coloradans. in Delta and Montrose Counties have been Agriculture in Colorado will reach its completed, the Florida project in La Plata maximum -contribution ln the foreseeable County is nearing ·completion, and the Silt future . . To be. sure, we have additional land project in Garfield County should be started areas which co:uld be responsive to larger this fiscal year . . In addition to these par- yields but -the water 1s not available and it

1963 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD - HOUSE 20117 never will be. Just as agriculture ' is reach­ing that place ·where it can develop no fur­ther in our economy because of the scarcity of wat,,.r, so shall all other parts of our econ­omy be limited sooner or later. And, I might add here sooner, in my· opinion, th.an many of us ret.lize. Farms, towns, cities, indus­tries, recreation activities, must inevitably be controlled in their growth by the amount of water at their disposal.

I repeat towns t.nd cities cannot exist without farms, livestock, mines, timber, etc. Manufacturing cannot exist without mines and timber. ·No economy or civilization can exist without people. These statements are axiomatic and are referred to here only to show that in today's world, as well as tomor­row's, we must be guided by a philosophy of live and let live, or we all sooner or later shall expire because of our own selfishness, ambitions and shortcomings.

What we must have in Colorado is rational and constructive planning from a central vantage point, and that is our own State government. Recommendations from such planning agency should be forwarded to the State legislature for implementation into policy wherever desirable and acceptable to the people. There should be no deviation from such legislative enactments by area or local interest; This is the only way that the State can be welded together as a whole. And, it is within the whole State that we receive our maximum benefits ang. str·ength.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1963

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

D.D., offered the following prayer: Psalm 37: 3: Trust in the Lord and do

good. Almighty God, in the great adventure

of achieving and doing.. that which is good for our beloved country, may we not only be eager to develop and safe­guard its economic and material re­sources.

Show us how we may promote and pro­tect ou:c moral and spiritual heritage which is so great and glorious.

Inspire our minds and hearts with a longing to release the splendor which is

· hidden in the soul of mankind every­where.

May we help humanity reach those lofty heights of unity and concord where all those antipathies and antagonisms, which exist among the nations, shall be supplanted bY. the spirit of cooperation and good will.

Hear us in the name of our Lord. -Amen.

'I1IE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of yes­

'.terday was read and approved.

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

McGown, one of its clerks, announced that the . Senate had passed without amendment .bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 844. An act to declare that certain land of the United Stat-es is held by the United Sta·tes in trust for the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation;

· In Colorado's future, there is still room and necessity for the construction of some is to 20 more participating projects of the Colo­rado Storage project; for the construction of the · Narrows project and similar projects if desired and found feasible; for the filling of Dillon Reservoir and other like reservoirs, if cooperative procedures are complied with; for the transportation of water from one basin to another when agreement is reached and honored; for the changing of an existing use to a use of a higher priority where the need is 11hown and due recompense is made, and for a coordination of benefits when in­jury to other users can and will be avoided.

Personally, I am willing to accept Colo­rado's existing water situation-commit­ments, agreements, deficits, benefits-as tliey are. I for one am willing to recognize the contributions and sacrifices made by those heretofore charged with the protection and development of this resource within our borders. '"heir mistakes and shortcomings I am inclined to overlook-but not to forget, because future dangers and pitfalls may well be avoided by remembrance rather than for­getfulness. It is my feeling that we have no time to spend in arguing what might have been if we had made some decision other than the one we made, or if we had done something or not done something which we did or which we did not do. We do not have the time for such a valueless luxury. We

H.R. 845. An act to declare that certain land of the United States is held by the United States in trust for the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation;

H.R. 2635. An act to amend the act of Au­gust 9, 1955, for the purpose of including the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation among res­ervations excepted from the :;is-year lease .limitations;

H.R. 6225. An act to provide for the re­habilitation of Guam, and for other pur-poses; and ·

H.R. 6481. An act to permit the government of Guam to authorize a public authority to undertake urban renewal and housing ac­tivities.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 1989. An act to authorize the govern­ment of the Virgin Islands to issue general obligation bonds.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the fol­lowing title:

H.R. 6143. An act to authorize assistance to public and other nonprofit institutions of higher education in financing the construc­tion, rehabil1tat1on, or improvement of needed academic and related facilities in un­dergraduate and graduate institutions.

The message also .announced that the Senate insists upon · its amendment to the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. HILL, Mr. McNAMARA, Mr. MORSE, Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. CLARK, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. GoLDWATER, Mr. PROUTY, and Mr. JAVITS to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House

have our work cut out ·for us as of tliis mo­ment. We must close our ranks. We must respect each other's position. We must strive to understand each other's needs, desires and ambitions. We must go out of our way to inform each other of plans and to become informed of the other's plans. There is no room for or need of secrecy of movement among ourselves.

As people in other areas, and other parts of our great basins, press ·their plans for development, let us be united-not as an eastern slope, not as a western slope, not as a Rio Grande basin, not as a North Platte basin, not as a metropolitan area, but rather as a vital and organized whole-not diminished in strength because of lack of confidence and controversy within-for the purpose of protecting that which is legally ours and without which all tendons of our economy will be unduly and prematurely weakened.

In closing, I would li~e to bring to you one of my favorite passages of the Scripture:

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.

"It is like the precious ointment for the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments.

"As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life forevermore."

is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 6500. An act to· authorize certain construction at milLtary installations, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment to the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. SYMING­TON, Mr. SALTONSTALL, and Mrs. SMITH to be conferees on the part of the sen­ate.

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

S. 16. An act to provide for the establish­ment of the Ozark National Rivers in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes;

S. 136. An act to place in trust status cer­tain lands on the Rosebud Sioux Reserva­tion in South Dakota;

S. 1594. An act to determine the rights and interests of the Navajo Tribe and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation in and to certain lands in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes;

S. 1605. An act to · amend the Federal In­secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, to provide for labeling of eco­nomic poisons with registration numbers, to eliminate registration under protest, and for other purposes; .

S. 1718. An act to amend the law with respect to trade with the Indians, and f.or other purposes;

S. 1885. · An act to declare that the United States holds in trust for the Indians of the Battle Mou:g.tain Colony certain lands which are used for cemetery purposes;

S. 2111. An act to fix the beneficial own­ership of the Colorado River Indian Reser­vation located in the States of Arizona and California;

S. 2139. An act to provide for the disposi­tion of the judgment funds on deposit to the credit of the Kootenai Tribe or Band of Indians, Idaho; and