HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - GovInfo

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 25989 May conference. Nevertheless, Baggs and Ashmore said they could send any messages for Hanoi through the regular mail to a North Vietnamese representative in Phnom Penh, who in turn would relay it to a North Vietnamese official who had been the principal contact of Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore in Hanoi. Accordingly, the letter now published by Mr. Ashmore was worked out with the representatives of the Department, and authorized to be sent on February 5. We were subsequently informed by Mr. Ashmore that this letter reached Phnom Penh on February 15.

7. No useful purpose could be served by giving further details on what took place in the Moscow channel. We can say, however, that on February 7, while that channel was still open and in operation, separate discussions were initiated in London between Prime Minister Wilson and Premier Kosygin of the USSR. The combined reading of the Moscow channel and of these discussions led to the dispatch on February 8 of President Johnson's letter to President Ho. This letter was of course published unilaterally by Hanoi on March 21, and is a matter of public record. It rested on, and was of course read by Hanoi in relation to, the various proposals that had been conveyed in the Moscow channel. There was no change of basic position whatever between February 5 and February 8, but President Johnson's letter did include a specific action proposal that speaks for itself, as does the tone of his communication.

8. As already noted, Hanoi had not responded in any useful way to the variety of suggestions conveyed in the Moscow channel. Its sole and apparently final response was reflected on February 13, in a letter by President Ho to Pope Paul VI. This letter, in the words of one press account today, "coupled an unconditional end to the bombing with the withdrawal of American forces and the recognition of the National Liberation Front." On February 15, President Ho replied formally to the President in similar terms. At the same time, Hanoi broke off the Moscow channel.

9. Hanoi's attitude remained nega.tive throughout. The Baggs/ Ashmore efforts were necessarily handled by the Department with an eye to the direct and then-confidential channel that existed concurrently to Hanoi. The latter appeared to be by far the more reliable and secure method of ascertaining Hanoi's views.

10. Finally, we note with regret that Mr. Ashmore is apparently ignorant of the subsequently published report Of the Moscow contacits, and of their confirmation by Department representatives. We note with still greater regret that at no time since has he consulted with the Department in order to attempt to understand the interrelationship that necessarily obtained between the Moscow channel and his own efforts. As this case shows, the Administration has been prepared at all times to cooperate with private individuals who may be in oontact with Hanoi in any way, and who are prepared to act responsibly and discreetly. This policy continues, although it seems clear that the present disclosure will not reassure Hanoi that such private contacts will be kept secret.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McINTYRE in the chair). The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without obJeotion, it is so ordered.

APPOINTMENTS TO 12TH MEETING OF CONSULTATION OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair

wishes to announce the appointment of Senators WAYNE MORSE and BOURKE HrcKENLOOPER as representatives to the 12th Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member Nations of the Organization of American States to be held in Washington, D.C., September 22 through September 24, 1967.

ADJOURNMENT TO 11 A.M. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres

ident, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the previous order, that the Senate stand in adjournment until 11 a.m. tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 5 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 20, 1967, at 11 o'clock a.m.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the

Senate September 19 (legislative day of September 18), 1967:

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Glenn T. Seaborg, of Californ!a, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the 11th session of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The following-named persons to be alternate representatives of the United States of America to the 11th session of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

Verne B. Lewis, of Maryland. Herman Pollack, of Maryland. James T. Ramey, of Illinois. Henry Dewolf Smyth, of New Jersey. Gerald F. Tape, of Maryland.

IN THE NAVY

Having designated, under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 5231, Rear Adm. Noel A. M. Gayler, U.S. Navy, for commands and other duties determined by the President to be within the contemplation of said section, I nominate him for appointment to the grade of vice admiral while so serving.

•• ..... • • HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1967 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Reverend Myron K. Guiler, pas

tor of the Marietta Bible Center Church, Marietta, Ohio, offered the following prayer:

Proverbs 14: 34: Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.

Eternal God, we approach Thy throne of grace through the person and upon the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our hearts are grateful that Thou hast extended to us this privilege of making our requests known unto Thee.

In these days of struggle with the adversary may our President, our Speaker, and the Members of Congress be

granted wisdom and be sustained by a living faith which will enable them to carry on in confidence.

May Thy wisdom cause us to recognize what Thou hast done for us in the past, may there be thanksgiving for the present, and may it prompt us to walk in Thy precepts as we face the future.

We pray in the name of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of

yesterday was read and approved.

SOUTHEAST ASIA TRIP

Mr. McCARTHY. 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 ithe gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I re

turned to Washington late last week following at 2-week tour of Southeast Asia.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. WOLFF] and I went first to Vietnam to observe the September 3 elections, and subsequently visited Thailand, Laos, Hong Kong, and Japan.

Representative WoLFF continued on to the Philippines and to Taiwan while I returned here. When he returns, we will make a full report to the House.

But in the interim-in the thought that some Members would be interested-I will insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD over ·the next several days a series of nine articles on our trip I cabled home to the Buffalo Evening News.

DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO DEAL THROUGH NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous oonsent to address rthe House for 1 minurte and to revise 1and extend my remarks.

The 'SPEAKER. Is !there objection rto the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, it was re

ported this morning that since the Detroit Police Department is not allowed to fill its needs by obtaining certain surplus Defense Department equipment, the police are getting it from a higher authority with which the Defense Department can deal-the National Rifle Association. Make your own jokes.

SUPPORT OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND THE MEN IN VIETNAM Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to address the House for 1 minute, .to revise and exrtend my remarks, and to include extraneous maroter.

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

There was no objection.

25990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967

Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, President Lyndon B. Johnson is our Commander in Chief while our men are fighting Communist aggression in South Vietnam. The question of our involvement in this war is no longer debatable. We are fighting ruthless terror and stark aggression. We were committed and involved before President Johnson became Commander in Chief. Our word was given years ago. The line was drawn at the 17th parallel. We are in South Vietnam fighting aggression to honor that commitment and keep our word. I fervently hope the United States will always keep its word and maintain our honor and national integrity.

The President, as our Commander, and our fighting men in the mud and filth of the jungles, need the prayers and support of the American people. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, I opposed American entrance into World War n. I spoke against American commitments to England which might lead to American involvement in that war. But after enemy bombs fell on our men at Pearl Harbor, I volunteered and served with six brothers all over the world to keep the tide of war away from the shores of our homeland. That war was won and we brought the boys home. The Congressman from my own congressional district voted with 49 other Members of the House against World War I in April 1917; but when the Congress voted for a declaration of war and our young men were fighting in the trenches and mud of West Europe, these men who opposed the war supported the war effort and brought the boys home.

The late Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan espoused with every ounce of his great energy the cause of isolationism, but after Pearl Harbor, he devoted his great talents to winning the war, bringing the boys home, and securing the peace. He supported President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to win that war. We can do no less today.

Mr. Speaker, those who oppose our policy in South Vietnam are prolonging the war. They are encouraging the enemy to fight harder; they are telling him to stay away from the peace table. Where would these modern day isolationists make a stand against sinister aggression? Would they withdraw from South Vietnam and fight on a second line in the Pacific? Would they fight in the Philippines? Would they fight in Alaska or would they withdraw to the Rockies? Would they wait until bombs and war came to the Ozarks? Would they fight anywhere for freedom? Now is the time for every American to come to the aid of our men fighting valiantly and gallantly in South Vietnam. Our President and our men need the loyal support of every American. We should support the boys and bring them home rather than argue and debate involvement, which is no longer debatable.

The President is our Commander. He is at the helm guiding the ship of state through treacherous waters. I have five children on that ship of state with the President at the helm. I am not going to throw sand or sugar in the gas tank. We want to cross safety to the other

side. I am not going to do or say anything against the President of the United States which will help the Communist enemy. I am not going to do or say anything about the Commander or our commitments which will jeopardize the lives and future of our children and grandchildren. Abraham Lincoln had his critics who prolonged the war. President Franklin Roosevelt and President Harry Truman were bitterly attacked and assailed. In this Vietnam struggle when everyone should be aware of the terrible consequences of disunity let us unite behind President Johnson, support the men in Vietnam, win the war, and bring a maximum number of the boys home.

CRITICISM AND WAR GO HAND IN HAND

Mr. POOL. Mr. Spea;ker, I ask unanimous consent :to address ithe House for 1 minute and ito revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection. Mr. POOL. Mr. Speaker, criticism and

war always go hand in hand. We remember the opposition President Truman endured during the Korean conflict. We recall what the isolationists said about President Roosevelt prior to our entry into World War II. Woodrow Wilson was plagued by opposition from many groups before we became involved in World War I. And to go back even further: there was a convention of New England States opposing the War of 1812, which seriously considered the possibility of seceding from the Union.

Our involvement in Vietnam has likewise evoked extensive criticism. No American likes the idea of sending our Nation's youth off to battle on foreign shores. But no one has o:ff ered a feasible alternative to American presence in Vietnam. The cause of peace and liberty is at stake, and America has no choice but to honor her commitments and hold the line against Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.

PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON BANK SUPERVISION OF THE COMMITrEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY TO SIT TODAY DURING GENERAL DEBATE Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Bank Supervision of the Committee on Banking and Currency may be permitted to sit today during general debate.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


MOTHER OF GERALD R. FORD

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

The SPEAKER. Is there objection ·to

the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I know that

I express the feeling of all Members of the House when I say that we are grieved to receive the news that Mrs. Dorothy Ford, the mother of our distinguished and beloved minority leader, passed away last . Sunday. Only time can heal the trauma of such a loss. Yet the four fine sons who survive her may find solace in the knowledge that their mother lived her life well and fruitfully. Her children and grandchildren unto many generations to come are heirs to the high standards and ideals of this wonderful Christian lady. The minority leader has been fortunate in having had the love, guidance, and support of such a mother. He is a credit to her and was no doubt a source of pride and satisfaction in her lifetime.

Mrs. Ford's dedication reached beyond the limits of her own family and circle. She was a devoted and tireless worker in almost evecy civic and philanthropic undertaking in her community. She was one of the most faithful workers in her church. By her example and her industry she contributed immeasurably to all who came within her sphere of influence. Such women add joy to the lives of all around them.

We express our deepest and most heartfelt sympathy to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. GERALD R. FORD, and to all the members of his family.

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I feel I speak for every Member on this body when I express appreciation to the majority leader for what has just been said ooncerning the desJth of the mother of our great minori1ty leader, GERRY FORD. MTS. Ford's death came as a shock to the f amlly and all of us.

The untimely death of this wonderful wife and mother, whose family was so very closely tied to her every minute of every day. Her passing leaves a void in the family circle as an unexpected death always does.

All of us join in wishing for Divine blessings on the Ford family and may they be able with strength from Him aibove, to face at this ,particular time the immense sorrow that is theirs.

Our deep expressions of sympathy goes forth to each and every member of the family.

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

Mr. ALBERT. I yield to the distinguished Speaker.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, there is no Member of the House who is more deeply respecited than my good friend, GERRY FORD, the distinguished minority leader of this great body. Each and every one of us entertains for him and his brothers our profound sympathy in their bereavement in the loss of their dear mother.

The passing of Mrs. Ford was unexpected, but I know that our dear friend GERRY FORD and his brothers will receive great consolation in the knowledge of the beautiful life she led.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 25991 As !the poet 'sMd: It is in the arms of a woman that we

enter life; it is in the arms of a woman that we gain the courage and strength to bear life, and it is in the arms of a woman that we invariably leave and for the span between, how meaningless it woultl be but for her life.

Mrs. Ford has always had her loving arms and thoughts around GERRY FORD and his brothers and loved ones. While a great sorrow exists, there is a great consolation in the beautiful life one leads-in this case, the dear mother of our dear friend, GERRY FoRD. I know that he and his brothers will derive great consolation in their sorrow from the beautiful life, the wonderful life their dear mother led, which was an inspiration for countless thousands of others to follow.

The sorrow of GERRY FoRD is in a sense the sorrow of each and every one of us because we entertain for him such deep feelings of respect and friendship and admiration. I join with the majority leader and the minority whip, and I know I speak the sentiments of all my colleagues when I express my deep sympaJthy and our deep sympathy to GERRY FORD and to his brothers.

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

Mr. ALBERT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made. I know what a tremendous loss this is for the minority leader.

To know the distinguished minority leader is ·to realize what a wonderful mother Mrs. Ford must have been. She has given to the State of Michigan and to our Nation a public servant of honesty, integrity, sincerity, and industry. I know that Mrs. Ford was very proud of her son, and she is to be commended for her ability to bestow in her son, the distinguished minority leader, real strength of character.

I know she was a fine lady and a wonderful mother and wife to the late father of Congressman FORD, and I am sure she will be missed by her family and her many friends in her home State.

Mrs. Boggs joins me in expressing our deepest sympathy to our friend, GERRY FORD, on his loss.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a saddened heart that I join my colleagues in the House in expressing sympathy to our esteemed minority leader over the loss of his dear mother, Mrs. Gerald R. Ford, Sr.

Mrs. Ford giave unstintingly of herself in service to the Grand Rlapids oommunity, 1and her going is a great loss to Michigan and to the Nation.

The character of this fine lady is nowhere better reflected than in her sons, all outstanding citizens of the great State of Michigan, and to whom she leaves the heritage of a noble memory.

Few experiences along life's pathway are more painful than the loss of a beloved mother, but I do hope that "JERRY" FORD and his brothers Thomas, Richard, and James, along with other members of their family, will find some comfort in the fact that there are many who

CXIII--1638-Part 19

share in their sorrow. To them I extend my deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members may extend their remarks on this subject.

The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mr. JACOBS). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?


THE EXPECTATION OF EXCELLENCE Mr. PIRNIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent ito ,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. PIRNIE. Mr. Speaker, it is good

news that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 is expected to reach the floor of the House for our consideration later this week.

I believe this act can do much toward assuring that radio and television are developed into excellent and far-reaching educational media.

The act, as reported by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, will continue the valuable program of the Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962, which has just expired. Also, it will expand the 1962 act's provision of grants for construction and expansion of broadcasting facilities to include educational r&.dio.

For this, the Public Broadcasting Act will authorize a comprehensive study of the whole range of instructional television broadcasting, including its relationship to educational television.

One of the most promising features of this bill is the creation of a nonprofit corporation which will develop high cultural and educational level radio and television programing without the need of accepting the restrictions of commercial financing. Most wisely, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee has acted to insure that this corporation will also be insulated from political or governmental interference with its experiments and offerings.

I endorse the basic concepts contained in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and trust thaJt it will be passed in 'a form adapted to the proper advance of its worthy objectives.

VIETNAM Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent rto address 'the House for 1 minute.

Tihe SPEAKER. rs there objection to the request of the -gentleman from K'entucky?

There was no objection. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, can you

envision the reaction that would occur in the United States if Russia or China intervened in Mexico or in Central or South America? Would the people of the United States consider this a warlike act

on the part of Russia or China and a violation of the Monroe Doctrine?

Then, if we consider intervention in our hemisphere wrong and a possible oause of war, how can we justify our presence in South Vietnam, an Asian country 11,000 miles away from home and near a country--China--which we obviously oppose and which clearly opposes us? Are we not fighting just the type of war the Communists would have us fight--with a long supply line, engaged in a bloody conflict where we have become so enmeshed that extrication is practically impossible, and which conflict is costing a minimum of $24 billion a year? Is it any wonder that Castro and Che Guevara are asking for two or three more Vietnams?

REGULATION OF MAXIMUM RATES OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS, HIGHER RESERVE REQUIREMENTS, AND OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS IN AGENCY ISSUES Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the committee on Banking and Currency be discharged from further consideration of the b111 H.R. 12754, to extend for 2 years the authority for more :flexible regulation of maximum rates of interest or dividends, higher reserve requirements, and open market operations in agency issues, and to provide for a regular audit of the Federal Reserve System by the Comptroller General, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

the request of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to ask a question of the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency.

In part of the title of the bill it says, "To provide for a regular audit of the Federal Reserve System by the Comptroller General."

As the bill was voted out of the Committee on Banking and Currency today, it did not contain the audit provision.

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

Mr. WIDNALL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PATMAN. No; we have amendments, I will say to the gentleman from New Jersey, which will be offered in this respect. ·

The bill as it callle out of the committee extends it for 1 year and removes everything about the audit-everything about the audit. So it is a straight bill to extend for 1 year, just like it has been for the last year. The bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Mr. WIDNALL. The two amendments that the gentleman from Texas proposes to offer, one propcses to strike out the audit by the GAO and the second extends the authority for only 1 year; is that correct?

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, that is exactly right; yes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to


the request of the gentleman from Texas?

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

o/ Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 7 of the Act of September 21, 1966 (80 Stat. 823) , is hereby amended by striking "oneyear" and inserting in lieu thereof "threeyear".

SEC. 2. (a) The Comptroller General shall make, under such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe, an audit for each fiscal year of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and their branches.

(b) In making the audit required by subsection (a), representatives of the General Accounting Office shall have access to all books, accounts, financial records, reports, files, and all other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the entities being audited including reports of examinations of member banks, and they shall be afforded full facilities for verifying transactions with balances or securities held by deposltaries, fiscal agents, and custodians of such entities.

( c) The Comptroller General shall, at the end of six months after the end of the year, or a.s soon thereafter as may ·be practicaJble, make a. report to the Congress on ithe results of the audit required by subsection (a), and he shall make any special or preliminary reports he deems desirable for the information of the Congress. A copy of each report made under this subsection shall be sent to the President of the United States, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve banks. In addition to other matters, the report shall include such comments and recommendations as the Comptroller General may deem advisable, including recommendations for attaining a more economical and efficient administration of the entitles audited, and the report shall specifically show any program, financial transaction, or undertaking observed in the course of the audit which, in the opinion of the Comptroller General, has been carried on without authority of law.

(d) The Comptroller General is authorized to obtain the services of experts and consUltants in accordance with section 3109 of title 6, United States Code, to such extent as may be necessary to carry out the audit required by subsection (a) .

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MB. PATMAN Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer

amendments. The Clerk read as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. PATMAN: On

page 1, line 6, strike out "three-year" and insert "two-year".

And, on page 1, strike out line 6 and all that follows through line 7 on page 3.

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

the engrossment and third reading o{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 as amended.

The bill, as amended, was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of S. 1956, to extend for 2 years the authority for more :flexible regulation of maximum rates of interest or dividends, higher reserve requirements, and open market operations in agency issues.

The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.

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

There was no objection. The Clerk read the Senate bill, as

follows: s. 1956

Be it enacted by the Senate and House o/ Representattves of the United States o/ America in Congress assembled, That section 7 of the Act of September 21, 1966 (80 Stat. 823) ls hereby amended by striking "one-year" and inserting in lieu thereof "three-year".

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PATMAN Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an

amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. PATMAN: Strike

out all after the enacting clause of S. 1956 and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 12754, as passed, as follows:

"That section 7 of the Act of September 21, 1966 (80 Stat. 823), ls hereby amended by striking 'one-year' and inserting in lieu thereof 'two-year'."

The amendment was agreed to. The Senate bill was ordered to be read

a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PATMAN

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the title.

The Clerk read as fallows: Amendment offered by Mr. PATMAN: In the

title of S. 1966 strike out "two years" and insert "one year".

- The amendment was agreed to. "To extend for one year the authority for more flexible regulation of maximum rates of interest and dividends, higher reserve requirements, and open market operations in agency issues."

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

A similar House bill (H.R. 12754) was laid on the table.

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

the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

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

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

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 260] Adams Fountain Railsback Aspinall Frelinghuysen Rarick Blackburn Garmatz Resnick Blatnik Gude Riegle Brinkley Halleck Roush Brock Hansen, Wash. Roybal Broomfield Hays Scheuer Bush Hebert Steiger, Wis. Oasey Herlong Stephens Celler Holland Teague, Tex. Oonyers Karth Tenzer Daddario Long, La. Thompson, N.J. Diggs McClure Tunney I>Ulski Mailliard Utt Evins, Tenn. Multer Vigorito Fascell Murphy, N .Y. Willis Feighan Pepper Wolff Ford, Gerald R. Pucinski Wyatt

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 378 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further pro-

ceedings under the call were dispensed with.

PRIVATE CALENDAR The SPEAKER. This is Private Calen

dar Day. The Clerk will call the first individual bill on the Private Calendar.

E. F. FORT, CORA LEE FORT CORBETT, AND W. R. FORT

The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2661) for the relief of E. F. Fort, Cora Lee Fort Corbett, and W. R. Fo·rt.

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

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


MRS. INGE HEMMERSBACH HILTON The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 6096)

for the relief of Mrs. Inge Hemmersbach Hilton.

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

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


CLARA B. HYSSONG The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 1655)

for the relief of Clara B. Hyssong. There being no objection, the Clerk

read the bill as follows: H.R. 1656

Be it enacted by the Senate and House o/ Representatives o/ the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Clara B. Hyssong of Winchester, Virginia, 1s relieved of liabillty to the United States in the amount of $3,578.40, representing the amount of sums paid to her during the period January 1957 through November 1962 as widow's benefits under title 38, United States Code, in violation of certain provisions of such title (relating to income limitation) which were appllcable to her. In the audit and settlement of the accounts of any certifying or disbursing officer of the United States, credit shall be given for amounts for which liability is relieved by this Act.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury ls hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the said Clara B. Hyssong an amount equal to the aggregate of the amounts paid by her, or withheld from sums otherwise due her, with respect to the liability to the United States specified in the first section of this Act. No part of the amount appropriated in this section in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

With the foUoWing committee amendmen.ts:

On page 1, Une 4, strike "3,678.40" and insert "$1,448.40".

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 25993 On page 1, line 5, after "representing" in

sert "a portion of". On page 2, lines 10 and 11, strike "in excess

of 10 per centum thereof".

The committee amendments were agreed t.o.

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

MAURITZ A. STERNER The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 3865)

for the relief of Mauritz A. Sterner. Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objectiOIIl to the request of the gentleman from California?


CHARLES WAVERLY WATSON, JR. The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 8091)

for the relief of Charles Waverly Watson, Jr.

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

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


SETSUKO WILSON <NEE HIRANAKA>

The Clerk called the bill <S. 534) for the relief of Setsuko Wilson <nee Hiranaka).

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



MARIA KOLOMETROUTSIS The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 7427)

for the relief of Maria Kolometroutsis. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.



HUBERT ASHE The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 4404)

for the relief of Hubert Ashe. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

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


JOANNE MARIE EVANS The Clerk called the bill CH.R. 5368)

for the relief of Joanne Marie Evans. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

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

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

COL. GILMOUR C. MACDONALD, U.S. AIR FORCE <RETIRED)

The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 10932) for the relief of Gilmour C. MacDonald, colonel, U.S. Air Force <retired).

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



ELPIDIO AND NATIVIDAD DAMAZO The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 3727)

for the relief of Elpidio and Natividad Damazo.


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


MARTHA BLANKENSHIP The Clerk called the bill CS. 117) for

the relief of Martha Blankenship. Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection t.o the request of the gentleman from california?

'l'here was no objection.

WIDOW OF ALBERT M. PEPOON The Clerk called the bill CS. 477> for

the relief of the widow of Albert M. Pepoon.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

s. 477 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in the administration of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930 (as in e1fect on August 31, 1956), Albert M. Pepoon shall be considered to have retired on August 31, 1956, pursuant to section 6 of such Act, and to have elected at such time, pursuant to section 4(b) of such Aot, to receive a reduced annuity and an annuity after death payable to his widow, Loretta C. Pepoon.

SEC. 2. No annuity shall be payable by reason of the enactment of this Act for any period prior to the first day of the month in which this Act is enacted.

SEC. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, benefits payable by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be paid from the civil service retirement and disability fund.

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

VIRGILE POSFAY The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 1884)

for the relief of Virgile Posfay. Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, on re

quest, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection t.o the request of the gentleman from California?


MRS. SOPHIE MICHALOWSKA The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 5233)

for the relief of Mrs. Sophie Michalowska.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

H.R.5233 Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th·at the Secretary of the Treasury ts authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs. Sophie Mtchalowska of Ba1t1more, Maryland, the sum of $9,940.31 as a gratuity for the sacrifices sustained by her as a result of having been imprisoned for a period of approximately eight and one-half years by the Communist Government of Poland on charges of espionage and treasonable acttvites while employed in the United States Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. No pa.rt of the amount appropriated in this section shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection w1 th this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person viola.ting the provisions of this seotion shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

SEC. 2. The period from December 6, 1947, to May 1, 1956, inclusive, during which Mrs. Sophie Mtchalowska was imprisoned by the Communist Government of Poland on charges of espionage and treasonable activities whille employed in the United States Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, shall be determined to be creditable service for the purposes of subcha.pter m (relating to civil service retirement) of chapter 83 of title 6, United States Code, if she makes the required employee contribution.

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

SECOND LIEUTENANT ALLAN L. SCHOOLER

The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 6325) for the relief of 2d Lt. Allan L. Schooler.


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


ARTHUR ANDERSON The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 10655)

for the relief of Arthur Anderson. There being no objection, the Clerk

read the bill, as follows: H.R. 10655

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, if appltcation is made by Arthur Anderson, of Detroit, Michigan, within ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act for any benefits under title 88, United States Code (as in effect on June 30, 1960), such application shall be deemed to have been filed on June 30, 1960.


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

DR. ABRAHAM RUCHW ARGER The Clerk called the resolution CH.

Res. 493) to refer the bill <H.R. 9326), entitled "A bill for the relief of Dr. Abraham Ruchwarger," to the chief commissioner of the Court of Claims pursuant to sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code.

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


There was no objection. The SPEAKER. This concludes the call

of the Private Calendar.

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6418, PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, I call up House Resolution 923 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

H.RES.923 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this

resolution it shall be in order to move tha.t the House resolve itself into the committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and expand the authorizations for grants for comprehensive health pla.nning and services, to broaden and improve the authorization for research and demonstrations relating to the delivery of health services, to improve the performance of clinical laboratories, and to authorize cooperative activities between the Public Health service hospitals and ooinmunity facilities, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the amendment in the nature Of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Interstaite and Foreign Commerce now printed in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the C<>mmittee of the Whole to the bill or committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LATTA] and, pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 923 provides an open rule, waiving points of order, with 2 hours of general debate for consideration of H.R. 6418, a bill w amend the Public Health Service Act. The resolution further provides that it shall be in order ,to consider the committee substitute as an original bill for rthe purpose of amendment. The waiver of points of order was requested due to the faot .that on page 99, Unes 21 ,through 24, and on page 39, lines 11through1'7, of the bill there is language which provides for a reappropriation of reimbursable funds.

The principal purposes of H.R. 6418 are to extend and expand for 3 additional years-until July l, 1971-the appropriation authorizations under the Public Health Service Act for formula and project grants for public health services by the States, and for grants for comprehensive health planning, and to establish an expanded program for research into and demonstrations of new methods of organization, delivery, and financing of health services. The bill also establishes a program of aid for projects for alterations, enlargement, or remodeling of, and additions to, existing hospitals having an average rate of occupancy exceeding reasonable capacity. In addition, the bill establishes a program for licensing clinical laboratories which solicit or receive specimens in interstate commerce, such as skin, tissue, blood, or anything upon which clinics perform tests in interstate commerce.

The bill authorizes a total expenditure of $950 million.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 923 in order that H.R. 6418 may be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statements just made by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'NEILL l. The primary purpose of H.R. 6418 is tQ extend, through fiscal year 1971, the authorization under the Public Health Service Act making grants for comprehensive health planning and services, and to broaden and improve the authorization for research and demonstrations relating to the delivery of health services, to improve the performance of clinical laboratories, and to authorize cooperative activities between the Public Health Service hospitals and community facilities, and for other purposes.

I believe it would be well for us today to recall the history of this act. The Comprehensive Public Health Service Act came into being after President Johnson sent a health and education message to Congress on March 1, 1966, wherein he stated:

I recommend to Congress a program of grants to enable States and communities to plan the better use of manpower facilities and financial resources for comprehensive health services .... Our purpose must be to help redirect and reform fragmented programs which encourage inefficiency and confusion and fail to meet the total health needs of our citizens.

In view of this message and the pressing need to bring some order to the administration of programs designed to

help the States and local governments overcome their particular health problems, the Congress enacted the Comprehensive Public Health Service Act on OCtober 17 of last year. This act was for 2 years, and will expire with fiscal year 1968.

In this legislation, $125 million was authorized for formula and special project grants to the States and the cities to help meet their own specific health needs. This amount is increased by $15 million in this bill.

Since this legislation has been in effect, the committee has observed and evaluated the results obtained through the grant technique, found them satisfactory, and has expanded and extended the program. In so doing, they have abandoned the system of categorical grants which have heretofore dominated Federal assistance programs, declaring that it fragmented Federal assistance, placed rigid restrictions on when and how to use such assistance, and stifled local initiative in problem solving efforts by straightjacketing them within Washington-fixed guidelines. All Federal assistance programs in the field of public health are consolidated into two program grant authorizations, one for formula grants for public health services, and one for special project grants. The formula grant is the chief Federal assistance for most State and local health programs. Funds made available are distributed within a State according to its own list of priorities, with but only two restrictions: First, that at least 15 percent of each State's allotment must be used for mental health programs, and second, at least 70 percent of the allotment will be used on programs and not on administration costs.

Special project grants are also available under the bill. These are to be used to pick up the slack where the public health problems are so massive that a State's formula grant cannot solve the problems. These are allocated on a project-by-project basis.

The bill provides for a study into the fields of health services conducted by HEW. The purpose is to attempt to find ways of increasing efficiency in our hospitals, and among medical personnel to help hold down the rising costs of medical care to the public.

The bill also places increased emphasis on coordinated, statewide planning in order to identify the needs and resources and to set priorities.

The authorizations provided in this bill total $950 million. Major items over the 3-year period are $307,500,000 for the formula g1rants for the States, $262,500,-000 for special project grants, and $188 million ifor research and demonstrations in Public Health Service projects.

The bill also provides continued Federal assistance to schools of public health and the ·training of nurses.

It amends the act in other technical areas to clear up conflicts or ambiguities.

The full committee supports the bill with the exception of the Ottinger amendment in section 12, which was adopted by the committee by a one vote margin.

It is an amendment to the Hill-Burton Hospital Construction Act. Hill-Burton

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 25995 provides Federal assistance to the States to construct new hospitals and to modernize older hospitals.

Section 12 would amend this act to provide Federal funds directly to hospitals on a :first-come, :first-serve basis and would subsidize hospital services as well as construction. It would help only a few hospitals in the Nation.

Forty million dollars would be provided for :fiscal year 1968. Naturally, this is not a budgeted item.

As all of our colleagues will agree, I am sure, the Hill-Burton Act has worked well and the best interests of the Nation would not be served by the enactment of any amendment which might do it damage.

Hence, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to refiect upon the long range effects of the Ottinger amendment to the Hill-Burton Act before deciding to support it.

After Congress passed the comprehensive public health service act last October 17, several States and cities applied for grants under this legislation for rat control.

California applied for $500,000. Pennsylvania applied for $145,000. South Carolina applied for $105,000. Washington State applied for $20,000. St. Louis applied for $130,000. Kansas City, Mo., applied for $6,000. I am advised that New Jersey also

applied, but I do not know the amount requested.

The Department stated some weeks ago additional applications were expected under this new legislation and as a consequence my list is undoubtedly not complete.

After the administration sought to lift a section from its housing bill to set up another program to assist cities with rat control, I sought to ascertain how many departments of the Federal Government were already spending money for rat and pest control.

I found that nine different departments and agencies were expending funds for such purposes. Here are their expenditures for :fiscal year 1967: Department of Agriculture______ $649, 266 Department of Health, Educa-

tion, and Welfare____________ 426, 927 Offi.ce of Economic Opportunity__ 2, 373, 671 General Services Administration_ 200, 000 Department of Commerce_______ 10, 380 Department of Housing and

Urban Development ---------- 282, 000 Department of Defense _________ 11, 800, 000 Department of the Interior______ 64, 248

Expenditures already made in fiscal year 1968--which began July 1: Department of Labor _____________ $300, 000 Offi.ce of Economic Opportunity____ 757, 024

All of these departments and agencies do not make outright grants to the cities to help them with their particular local problems, but many of them are authorized to do so. The office of Economic Opportunity-a creature of the Johnson administration-is authorized to and is making grants to cities for rat control. In fact, the Office of Economic Opportunity points this out for our city officials on page 442 of its "Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs." As noted above, it expended $2,373,671 in fiscal year 1967. The Johnson administration

could have expended several millions more from OEO funds for this purpose as over $250 million of its total $1,612,-500,000 1967 budget were in unallocated funds. Naturally, the question is why were not more OEO funds allocated by the administration for this purpose during fiscal year 1967?

The Department of Labor has just funded a rat control program under existing legislation for the District of Columbia in the amount of $300,000. This money came from its manpower development and training fund. The moneys in this fund are disbursed at the direction of the administration, and the Congress appropriated $390 million to it for :fiscal year 1967. Why were not more manpower development and training funds allocated by the administration for this purpose during fiscal year 1967? Certainly more of these funds can be used for rat control programs in fiscal year 1968 should the administration desire to do so. The House has approved an expenditure of $394 million for :fiscal year 1968 for manpower development and training.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, the same Department wherein the President de.sired to start another new program, has acknowledged that it is authorized to expend funds for rat control under the new Model Cities Act, and that it expects requests from cities for the same. The House has already voted $225 million for the model cities program for fiscal year 1968. This same department acknowledges the expenditure of Federal funds for rat control in urban renewal projects, concentrated code enforcement projects, demolition grant projects, in the management and operation of federally assisted low-rent housing projects, and so forth.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare even has a training program in rat control techniques for local and State sanitarians at Atlanta, Ga., in addition to a research center in San Francisco.

Contrary to what some may have been led to believe, the Department of Agriculture aids our cities in many ways in rodent control through its county agents, home economists, extension service, publications, and so forth.

As I understood it, an amendment will be offered to this present lbill by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REuss1 for rat control. This amendment will simply attempt to increase the moneys already provided for in rthis legislra!tion under the grant provision and will not attempt to designate where the money is to be spent in the amendment as this would be inconsistent with the bill's noncategorical grant features. They will, however, make a history on the floor of the House showing where 1the additional amount of money should be spent.

I think Members of the House should pay very close attention to the arguments that will be presented after this amendment is offered, as the bill already provides additional money for grant purposes over and above the amount which was provided last year; $125 million was provided only last

October for formula and specific grants. There is $140 million in this legislation.

In conclusion, let me say that it is up to our States and cities to ascertain what then public health needs are under this legislation and to make their applications accordingly. If some cities cannot cope with their own rat problems-and rats are local problems-and choose to put rat eradication ahead of other health problems in applying for Federal funds, they are at liberty to do so under this act. I supported this comprehensive Public Health Act when it passed last year and I intend to support it again today.

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

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

Mr. GROSS. I wish to commend the gentleman for the statement that he has made with reference to the so-called rat control bill. I wonder if the gentleman has been any more successful than I have been in trying to :find what happened to the $2 million that financed the pilot program in Chicago for this purpose? Was the gentleman able to get any information with respect to what that expenditure has accomplished, if anything?

Mr. LATTA. I do not know what it has accomplished, but I can give the gentleman the :figure that was authorized for that specific program. This was under the Office of Economic Opportunity. The. first grant was for $2,373,671. Then in :fiscal year 1968, which just began on July· 1, as the gentleman knows, the Office of· Economic Opportunity granted $757,024: to the same city for the same purpose.

Mr. GROSS. Does that mean a total of $3 million is in the spigot, or how much of that has been expended? Does the gentleman have that information?

Mr. LATTA. As I mentioned, in the fiscal year 1967 the Office of Economic Opportunity made an award or grant of $2,373,671. I would assume that since they came back for more money, that that money was expended for that purpose.

Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentleman it seems to be impossible to get any information from Mr. Shriver, the Director of the alleged poverty program, on this particular subject.

Mr. LATTA. Let me say to the gentleman on that point that I found it exceedingly diffi.cUlt to get the information, but we :finally did get the information that I regard as accurate, and if the gentleman would like, I could recite the amounts for these 9 different departments for the fiscal years 1967 and 1968.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. If I remember correctly, the gentleman put that information in the RECORD some time ago.

Mr. LATTA. Yes, on August 16. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman

for yielding. Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, will the

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

from Kentucky. Mr. SNYDER. If I recall correctly, the

President's message on the Rat Extermination Act of 1967 indicated that a portion of the attack was going to be by

25996 CONG-RESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967

way of municipal garbage collection. I wonder if any of these 9 programs involve getting into either collecting garbage at the municipal level or subsidizing the collection of garbage at the municipal level.

Mr. LATTA. I could not answer that. But as the gentleman knows, this is one of the problems in rat control, getting rid of the garbage. It is a local problem and it is something that should not come under the purview of this act. I do not know whether it will be authorized under the law or not.

Mr. SNYDER. The gentleman is not aware of whether the particular program that we are talking about today, the rat control section, would authorize the Federal Government either to be involv·ed in municipal garbage collection or the subsidization of that collection?

Mr. LATTA. No, l do not. Let me correct the gentleman. There is no specific section tagged as "rat control section" under this legislation. That is the point and the basis of the legislation. We do not want to tag it because, for example, the city of Milwaukee has a good program on rat control, as has the city of Detroit.

The needs are not the same as, perhaps, Washington, D.C., or New York City. We do not want to tag these particular programs and say, "You have got to take it or leave it." I think the President was right when he said we ought to examine the total needs of these cities and their health aspects. I think if we are going to put additional moneys in where they are needed for rat control, it should be in this legislation, as I pointed out previously, and not in the OEO, which really should not be giving out rat control money. It should be a public health function, and it should be in this legislation.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I concur with what the gentleman said and thank him for his contribution.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boaas1.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order.

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

There was no objection. SO-CALLED PEACE EFFORTS BY CENTER FOR THE

STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INS'HTUTIONS

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to discuss for a few minutes the news stories which have appeared in the last several days with respect to allegations made by ofilcials of an organization known as the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and, more specifically, Mr. Harry Ashmore and Mr. William Baggs, who are associated with that institution, located in the State of California. .

Mr. Ashmore, in an article published in a magazine which is sponsored by the organization which I just now mentioned, said that the President had "effectively and brutally sabotaged" a peace approach to Hanoi throug:p. private channels. Normally, Mr. Speaker, allegations of this kind are so totally irresponsible and their effect so limited that it is sometimes the better part of wisqoin t.o

ignore them and to trust to the good commonsense of the American people to analyze and reject this type of irresponsiple verbiage. In this case, however, Mr. Speaker, these allegations have been given such broad circulation, have been quoted so widely in the press, on the radio, and on television, both here and abroad, and they are so far from the truth that some attention must be given to rebutting these statements.

First, let us take a look at what Mr. Ashmore was doing. He was going to Hanoi in January last to drum up delegates to attend a conference called "Pacem in Terris" to be held in Geneva in May of this year. Ironically enough, Mr: Ashmore abrogated to himself and to his associates in that institution the title which had been given to an encyclical enunciated by one the great men of all time, Pope John XXIII, when he talked about peace on earth.

But Mr. Ashmore appointed himself as an ambassador and he went there to drum up someone to attend this conference, which was held later in the year.

Incidentally, I might say that he failed in that mission as well, because no one from Hanoi or from North Vietnam ac- . cepted his invitation to the gathering which was later held in May of this year in Geneva.

The facts are that his part in any type of communication with Hanoi was purely incidental, and the notion that he should be informed of all of the efforts of the Government of this country and of other countries to bring about peace in the wodd was only the thinking of a man of great arrogance.

As a matter of fact, I was interested in the observation made this morning in the Washington Post, where it referred to the gentleman as "The Arkansas Traveler" and referred to the article in this fashion:

Its high tone and imperious posture conveys the somewhat embarrassing impression that the author regards the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions as a sovereign power. The article sounds like a communique from a greater to a lesser, and infinitely more stupid and worse governed, minor state.

Referring, of course, to the Government of our own country.

The facts are that the President did address a letter to Mr. Ho Chi Minh, on February 8. Anyone who reads that letter-and it has been published widelycan only regard the letter as conciliatory, can only regard the letter as a most generous offer of peace made by a major power involved in a tremendous conflict.

That letter was rejected unilaterally, offhand, by Ho Chi Minh and published by him in his reply unilaterally some time in March of this year. The reply was one that we have received time and time and time again-that is, unconditional surrender.

But that was not the only thing that happened. I am talking now about 1967. I am not talking about 1964, 1965, or 1966, when effort after effort after effort was made to bring this conflict to the conference table.

But back to 1967, to give the lie to the charge made by Mr. Ashmore and his associates. After Ho rejected the Prest-

dent's February offer, U Thant of the United Nations made a proposal directed to this Government and the other governments involved in the Vietnam conflict. That proposal was readily and speedily and unconditionally accepted by the Government of the United States, and it was likewise accepted by the Government of South Vietnam. The Government of North Vietnam did not accord the United Nations the courtesy of a reply. It was rejected offhand in a radio broadcast emanating from Hanoi.

In the meantime Mr. Ashmore went ahead with his conference, Mr. Speaker, in Geneva. There was gathered a group of people who have come together in the name of peace. But let me quote a word or two from some of the speeches which were made there. Let us look at some of the things said there.

Dr. Linus Pauling, a member of the staff who headed the panel of scientists, repeatedly condemned our country. He talked about "the murder of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in the war in Vietnam" by the United States. A lie of the first order.

He asked what justification could be presented for the United States carrying on what he called, "A cruel and vicious attack on a poor, small, weak people of Vietnam on the other side of the world."

Speaker after speaker after speaker described the United States as evil, as despotic, as murderous, as seeking to to destroy civilization. This at a so-called peace conference sponsored by an American group.

Finally-finally, one man, a judge from New Zealand, stood on the floor of that conference. I will just cite a paragraph or two of some of these things he said at that time.

This was Judge McCarthy, justice of the Court of Appeals of New Zealand. He said:

I have been distressed at the readiness of so many speakers at this conference to impugn the motives of the administration of the United States. The people of New Zealand do not take that stand. We remember with gratitude that some 20 years ago we were saved by American power and American blood from a march of what was certainly in that case an expansionist eastern power. I hope we will never forget that. We see--

Speaking about the New Zealanders-the United States as a great and generous power and, whilst many in my country may doubt the wisdom of certain methods or means adopted by the United States, nevertheless most New Zealanders have confidence in the integrity of that nation and its elected representatives. For myself I accept that the United States could possibly be wrong in its decision, but I would n~ver accept that it is evll.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 5 additional minutes.

Mr. BOGGS. Finally there stood on the floor Mr. McEver, of New York, the executive vice president of the United Nations Association of the United States. He said:

The narrow focused passion that has marked many of the expressions of the past three days have appalled me. I have sat here

September 19, 1967_ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 25997 and heard words like "savage," "brutal," "unciv111zed" applied to a country which has poured its human and material resources into the hands of others on a scale for which history has no precedent.

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

Mr. BOGGS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CAREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Is it not true that this famous Geneva Conference which took place with the participation of Mr. Ashmore was one where the South Vietnamese Government had a duly authorized delegation to represent them in discussions and that they were there with the encouragement and support of our Government?

Mr. BOGGS. Yes. And I might say that because of the fact that North Vietnam did not send a delegation, the delegates from South Vietnam were not permitted to say a word.

Mr. CAREY. Exactly. If that is Mr. Ashmore's idea of fairness and the way to get them to the bargaining table, then I think it discloses Mr. Ashmore's idea of what is true negotiation.

Mr. BOGGS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the distin

guished majority leader. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, may I com

mend the distinguished majority whip upon the very fine presentation and documentation which he has made. Does it not seem rather strange that all of these people the gentleman has mentioned are able to find so many things about which they can criticize the United States and the actions of our Government without ever finding anything to say critical about the regime in Hanoi?

Mr. BOGGS. I would say to the gentleman that the use of the word "brutal" is one that particularly galls me. Now, if you want a lesson in brutality, go to South Vietnam and see what the Communists do. Remember the fact that Just days before the election there were literally hundreds of people murdered in order to terrorize the people so they would not go to the polls and vote. There is not a village in South Vietnam that has not been brutalized. There is hardly a family there that has not had a person murdered. There is hardly a place that has not been burned. You talk about brutality. Why, in the whole history of organized warfare I doubt seriously if there has been more deliberate brutality.

And, Mr. Speaker, I know that the United States and its troops are able to defend themselves. But I have been to South Vietnam. I have talked to many of our troops. I would venture to sayand I do not say this in any spirit of self-praise-but I would venture to say that there has never been a more humane army than the army which we have in Vietnam. The work of our soldiers in the villages and in the towns and in the hamlets in taking care of children, in their efforts to establish hospitals and to build schools, as well as to do the things needed to build a nation and to build a society, will in my judgment go down in history as one of the great en-

deavors for humanity in all of recorded time.

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

Mr. BOGGS. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL].

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana yielding. I compliment the gentleman upon bringing this subject to the well of the House for discussion at this time.

However, I would especially like to associate myself with the last remarks which the gentleman has made since the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT], spoke. I compliment the distinguished majority whip.

I have three simple questions for the leadership of the House:

First, who granted this fellow's passport?

Second, why has it not been picked up? Third, why is not the head of the De

partment of Justice prosecuting him under the Logan Act?

Mr. BOGGS. I am not in a position to answer those questions. I would suggest to the gentleman from Missouri that he direct his questions to the proper legal departments. I am not asking for anyone to be prosecuted. We have an open society. We can stand dissent. But I think it is very important that we answer these charges.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 5 additional minutes.

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

Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has, in my opinion, been favored with a most judicious and extraordinarily revealing series of remarks by the distinguished gentleman in the well of the House at the present time, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BOGGS].

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman and with the philosophy which the gentleman has enunciated.

I thank the gentleman for the information which he has furnished to the House of Representatives today.

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

Mr . . BOGGS. Of course, I shall be happy to yield to the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. ARENDS. I, too, have been concerned with reference to the exact truth of various statements which have been made as we read them in the newspapers. It is my opinion that we have to read between the lines.

Mr. Speaker, I am very :pleased the gentleman from Louisiana has made this statement here in the well of the House today, because it raises in my own mind the question which has been brought to the fore by my colleague, which is the thing that disturbs me. I hope that in the future there will be taken a constructive position with reference to this situa-

tion and that someone will pay more attention to who should be given permission to make some of these missions during the· time in which we face a catastrophe like this.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that someone must pay much more attention to the characteristics of these people that we permit to go abroad and to go into areas such as North Vietnam and South Vietnam but who come back and make statements like this.

Mr. BOGGS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for his contribution.

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

Mr. BOGGS. I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York.

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana, our distinguished majority whip, for his comments. I was particularly pleased that the gentleman presented to the Members of the House the editorial which appeared in the Washington Post this morning, an editorial which was critical of Mr. Ashmore and his charges. But I wonder if the gentleman from Louisiana would not agree with me that it was most unfortunate that such an outstanding newspaper as the Washington Post, one that has generally supported our Nation's position with respect to Vietnam, should have featured these irresponsible charges in such a sensational manner on page 1 of that paper upon yesterday, without putting the case into perspective, particularly when the refutation of :those charges was actually contained on page 18 in an article by its own correspondent, Mr. Chalmers Robel'ts, revealing the fact ithat the President had already explored in great depth the deescalaJtion which Mr. Ashmore charges him as having brutally destroyed.

Mr. BOGGS. I thank the gentleman from New York for · his contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the gentleman makes a significant observation. (I have found it di.filcult at times to delve into the minds of some of my journalistic friends.)

But let me conclude by saying that I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'NEILL] for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Vietnam is something that all of us would like to see concluded and over.

I do not believe there are any differences between Democrats, or Republicans, or members of different religious faiths or dtlferent sections of our country in the universal desire for peace. I know that all of us desperately want peace on earth, as the encyclical of the Pope called for. But, my colleagues, all of you know there is a profound difference between peace and surrender. To my way of thinking-and I bow to each man in his right to have a contrary opinion-the one thing that surrender in Vietnam would not do would be to bring peace. Of that I am sure.

It would send the word everywhere that the commitment of our country, the greatest country on earth, was worthless. I believe Southeast Asia would be lost in a matter of months. I believe that


everywhere the Power of an open society would be curtailed. I believe the Chinese Communists would increase in their stature and in their power tremendously. I believe the impact would be felt everywhere-in Thailand, in Cambodia, Laos, down into New Zealand, in Africa and in South America. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the world would be quite di:ff erent if the United States surrendered, and it would not be a world at peace.

Dim.cult as it is, as hard as it is t.o stay, as many sacrifices as are required, I am for staying until we get an honorable peace.

I am sorry Mr. Ashmore takes the position he takes. I guess that is his business. But the way I read what he says is that for all practical purposes we surrender. The day we do that the world in which we live will be quite di:ff erent from this great, open, free, magnillcent country every one of us enjoys today as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent t.o revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there obJootion to ithe request of ithe gentleman firom Louisiana?

There was no objection. <The matters referred to follows:>

THE UNENDING STRUGGLE: PROBLEMS OF PEACE IN VIETNAM CHRONOLOGY

February 8, 1967: President Johnson's Letter to President Ho Chi Minh.

February 14, 1967: Ho Chi Minh's Letter to Pope Paul VI.

February 15, 1967: Ho Chi Minh's Letter to President Johnson.

March 14, 1967: U Thant's Message to the Parties Involved in the Viet-Nam Conflict.

March 18, 1967: United States Reply to U Thant's Message.

March 19, 1967: South Vietnamese Reply to u Thant's Message.

March 27, 1967: North Vietnamese Foreign Ministry Statement on U Thant's Message.

His Excellency Ho CHI MINH, President, Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am writing to you in the hope that the conflict in Viet-Nam can be brought to an end. That confUct has already taken a heavy toll-in lives lost, in wounds inflicted, in property destroyed, and in simple human misery. If we fail to find a just and peaceful solution, history will judge us harshly.

Therefore, I believe that we both have a heavy obligation to seek earnestly the path to peace. It ls in response to that obligation that I am writing directly to you.

We have tried over the past several years, in a variety of ways and through a number of channels, to convey to you and your colleagues our desire to achieve a peaceful settlement. For whatever reasons, these efforts have not achieved any results.

It may be that our thoughts and yours, our attitudes and yours, have been distorted or misinterpreted as they passed through these various channels. Certainly that ls always a danger in indirect communication.

There is one good way to overcome this problem and to move forward in the search for a peaceful settlement. That is for us to arrange for direct talks between trusted representatives in a secure setting and away from the glare of publicity. Such talks should not be used as a propaganda exercise but should be a serious effort to find a workable and mutually acceptable solution.

In the pa.st two weeks, I have noted public statements by representatives of your Gov-

ernment suggesting that you would be prepared to enter into direct bilateral talks with representatives of the U.S. Government, provided that we ceased "unconditionally" and permanently our bombing operations against your country and all military actions against it. In the last day, serious and responsible parties have assured us indirectly that this is in fact your proposal.

Let me frankly state that I see two great difficulties with this proposal. In view of your public position, such action on our part would inevitably produce worldwide speculation that discussions were under way and would impair the privacy and secrecy of those discussions. Secondly, there would inevitably be grave concern on our part whether your Government would make use of such action by us to improve its military position.

With these problems in mind, I am prepared to move even further towards an ending of hostilities than your Government has proposed in either public statements or through private diplomatic channels. I am preparing to order a cessation of bombing against your country and the stopping of further augmentation of US forces in South Viet-Nam as soon as I am assured that infiltration into South Viet-Nam by land and by sea has stopped. These acts of restraint on both sides would, I believe, make it possible for us to conduct serious and private discussions leading toward an early peace.

I make this proposal to you now with a specific sense of urgency arising from the imminent New Year holidays in Viet-Nam. If you are able to accept this proposal I see no reason why it could not take effect at the end of the New Year, or Tet, holidays. The proposal I have made would be greatly strengthened if your military authorities and those of the Government of South Viet-Nam could promptly negotiate an extension of the Tet truce.

As to the site of the bilateral discussions I propose, there are several possib111ties. We could, for example, have our representatives meet in Moscow where contacts have already occurred. They could meet in some other country such a.s Burma. You may have other arrangements or sites in mind, and I would try to meet your suggestions.

The important thing is to end a conflict that has brought burdens to both our peoples, and above all to the people of South VietNam. If you have any thoughts about the actions I propose, it would be most important that I receive them as soon as possible.

Sincerely, LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

Ho Cm MINH's REPLY To POPE PAUL VI YOUR HOLINESS: I wish to thank Your

Holiness for his message of February 8, 1967. In his message Your Holiness expressed the wish to see an early peaceful solution to the Viet-Nam question.

Our people sincerely love peace in order to build our country in independence and freedom. However, the U.S. imperialists have sent to South Viet-Nam half a million U.S. and satellite troops and used more than 600,000 puppet troops to wage a war against our people.

They have committed monstrous crimes. They have used the most barbarous arms such as napalm, chemical products and toxic gases, to massacre our compatriots and burn down our villages, pagodas, churches, hospitals, schools. Their acts of aggression have grossly violated the 1954 Geneva agreements on Viet-Nam and seriously menaced peace in Asia and the world.

To defend their independence and peace the Vietnamese people are resolutely fighting against the aggressors. They are confident that justice wlll triumph. The U.S. imperialists must put an end to their aggression in Viet-Nam, end unconditionally and definitively the bombing and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of VietNam, withdraw from South Viet-Nam all

American and satellite troops, recognize the South Viet-Nam National Front for Liberation and let the Vietnamese people settle themselves their own affairs. Only in such conditions can real peace be restored in Viet-Nam.

It is my hope that Your Holiness, in the name of humanity and justice, will use his high influence to urge that the U.S. Government respect the national rights of the Vietnamese people, namely peace, independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity as recognized by the 1954 Geneva agreements on Viet-Nam.

With my high regards, Ho Cm MINH.

His Excellency Mr. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, President, United States of America.

YOUR EXCELLENCY: On February 10, 1967, I received your message. This is my reply.

Viet-Nam is thousands of miles away from the Uni.ted States. The Vl!etnamese people have never done any harm to the United States. But contrary to the pledges made by its representative at the 1954 Geneva Conference, the U.S. Government has ceaselessly intervened in Viet-Nam, it has unleashed and intensified the war of aggression in South Viet-Nam with a view to prolonging the partition of Viet-Nam and. turning South VietNam into a neo-colony and a military base of the United States. For over two years now, the U.S. Government has, with its air and naval forces, carried the war to the Democratic Republic of (North) Viet-Nam, an independent and sovereign country.

The U.S. Government has committed war crimes, crimes against peace and against mankind. In South Viet-Nam, half a million U.S. and satellite troops have resorted to the most inhuman weapons and the most barbarous methods of warfare, such as napalm, toxic chemicals and gases, to massacre our compatriots, destroy crops, and raze vlllages to the ground. In North Viet-Nam, thousands of U.S. aircraft have dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs, destroying towns, villages, factories, schools. In your message, you apparently deplore the sufferings and destruction in Viet-Nam. May I ask you: Who has perpetrated these monstrous crimes? It is the United States and satellite troops. The U.S. Government is entirely responsible for the extremely serious situation in Viet-Nam.

The U.S. war of aggression against the Vietnamese people constitutes a challenge to the countries of the socialist camp, a threait to the national independence movement, and a serious danger to peace in Asia and the world.

The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of the U.S. aggression, they have risen up, united as one man, fearless of sacrifices and hardships. They are determined to carry on their resistance until they have won genuine independence and freedom and true peace. Our just cause enjoys strong sympathy and support from the peoples of the whole world, including broad sections of the American people.

The U.S. Government has unleashed the war of aggression in Viet-Nam. It must cease this aggression. That is the only way to the restoration of peace. The iU.S. Government must stop definitively and unconditionally its bombing raids and a11 other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of VietNam, withdraw from South Viet-Nam all U.S. and satellite troops, recognize the South VietNam National Front for Liberation, and let the Vietnamese people settle themselves their own affairs. SUch is the basis (sic) content of the 4-point stand of the government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, which embodies the essential principles and provisions of the 1954 Geneva agreements on VietNam, it is the basic (sic) of a correct political solution to the Viet-Nam problem.

In your message, you suggested direct talks between the Democratic Republic of Viet-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 25999 Nam and the United States. If the U.S. Government really wants these talks, it must first of all stop unconditionally its bombing raids and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. It is only after the unconditional cessation of the U.S. bombing raids and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam that the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the United States could enter into talks and discuss questions concerning the two sides.

The Vietnamese people will never submit to force, they will never accept talks under the threat of bombs.

Our cause is absolutely just. It is to be hoped that the U.S. Government will act in accordance with reason.

Sincerely, Ho CHI MINH.

SECRETARY GENERAL U THANT'S AIDE MEMOIBE TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE VIET-NAM CONFLICT

On many occasions in the past, the Secretary General of the United Nations has expressed his very great concern about the confiict in Viet-Nam. Thait concern is intensified by the growing fury of the war resulting in the increasing loss of lives, indescribable suffering and misery of the people, appalling devastation of the country, uprooting of society, astronomical sums spent on the war, and last, but not least, his deepening anxiety over the increasing threat to the peace of the world. For these reasons, in the past three years or so, he submitted ideas and proposals to the parties primarily involved in the war, with a view to creating conditions congenial to negotiations, which, unhappily, have not been accepted by the parties. The prospect.a for peace seem to be more distant today than ever before.

Nevertheless, the Secretary General reasserts his conviction that a cessation of the bombing of North Viet-Nam continues to be a. vital need, for moral and humanitarian reasons and, also, because it 1s the step which could lead the way to meaningful talks to end the war.

The situation being as it is today, the Secretary General has now in mind proposals envisaging three steps: (a) A general standstill truce, (b) Preliminary talks, (c) Reconvening of the Geneva. Conference.

In the view of the Secretary General, a halt to all m111tary activities by all sides is a practical necessity if useful negotiations are to be undertaken. Since the Secretary General's three-point plan has not been accepted by the parties, he believes that a general stand-still truce by all parties to the confiict is now the only course which could lead to fruitful negotiations. It must be conceded that a truce without effective supervision is apt to be breached from time to time by one side or another, but an effective supervision of truce, at least for the moment, seems difficult to envisage as a practical possibility. If the parties directly involved in the conflict are genuinely motivated by considerations of peace and justice, it is only to be expected that earnest efforts will be exerted <to enforce the truce to the best olf their ab111ty. Should a public appeal by the Secretary General in his personal capacity facmtate the observance of such a truce, he would gladly be prepared to do so. Appeals to that effect by a group of countries would also be worthy of consideration.

Once the appeal has been made and a general stand-stm truce comes into effect, the parties directly involved in the conflict should take the next step of entering into preliminary talks. While these talks are in progress, it is clearly desirable that the general stand-still truce should continue to be observed. In the view of the Secretary General, these talks can take any of the following forms:

(1) Direct talks between the United States

of America and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.

(2) Direct talks between the two governments mentioned in (1) above, with the participation of the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference of 1954.

(3) Direct talks between the two governments mentioned in (1) above, with the participation of the members of the International Control Commission.

(4) Direct talks between the two governments mentioned in (1) above, with the participation of the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference of 1954 and of the members of the International Control Commission.

The Secretary General believes that these preliminary talks should aim at reaching an agreement on the modalities for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference, with the sole purpose of returning to the essentials of that Agreement as repeatedly expressed by all parties to the conflict. These preliminary talks should seek to reach an agreement on the timing, place, agenda and participants in the subsequent formal meeting-the reconvening of the Geneva Conference. The Secretary General deems it necessary to stress that the question of participants in the formal negotiations should not obstruct the way to a settlement. It is a question which could be solved only by agreeing that no fruitful discussions on ending the war in Viet-Nam could take place without involving all those who are actually fighting. Since the Government in Saigon, as well as the National Front of Liberation of South VietNam, ·are actually engaged in military operations, it is the view of the Secretary General that a future formal conference could not usefully discuss the effective termination of all military activities and the new political situation that would result in South Viet-Nam, without the participation of representatives of the Government in Saigon and representatives of the National Front of Liberation of South Viet-Nam.

In transmitting these proposals to the parties directly concerned, the Secretary General ·believes that he is acting within the limits of his good offices purely in his private capacity. He hopes that the divergent positions held by the parties both on the nature of the conflict and the ultimate political objectives will not prevent them from giving their very serious attention to these proposals. Indeed, he takes this opportunity to appeal to them to give their urgent consideration to his proposals.

U.S. REPLY TO UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL U THANT'S AIDE MEMOIRE ON VIET-NAM

As the Secretary General knows, the United States and other Governments have, over many months, approached Hanoi, both publicly and privately, with proposals to end the conflict in Viet-Nam. To date, all such efforts have been rebuffed. The Government of North Viet-Nam has refused to agree to discussions without pre-conditions or to take reciprocal actions leading toward a cessation of hostilities.

For this reason, the Government of the United States would be most int.erested in learning whether Hanoi 1s willing to enter into such discussions or to take reciprocal actions leading to peace in Viet-Nam. The United States has been, and remains willing to enter into discussions without pre-conditions with Hano·i at any time.

To this end, the United States accepts the three-step proposal in the aide memoire of the Secretary General of March 14, 1967 envisaging: (a) A general stand-still truce; (b) preliminary talks; (c) reconvening of the Geneva Conference.

The United States believes it would be desirable and contributory to serious negotiations if an effective cessation of hostilities, ·as the first element in the three-point proposal, could be promptJy negotiated.

It would, therefore, be essential that the details of such a general cessation of hostilities be discussed directly by both sides, or through the Secretary General, the Geneva Conference Co-Chairmen or otherwise as may be agreed. The United States 1s prepared to enter into such discussions immediately and constructively.

The United States 1s also prepared to take the next steps in any of the forms suggested by the Secretary General to enter into preliminary talks leading to agreement as to the modalities for reconvening of the Geneva Conference.

Of course, the Government of South VietNam will have to be appropriately involved throughout this entire process. The interests and views of our allies would also have to be taken fully into account.

The United States again expresses its appreoiation to the Secretary General for his untiring efforts to help bring about a peaceful settlement and an end to the conflict in Viet-Nam.

REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM'S REPLY TO U THANT'S PROPOSAL

The Government of the Republic of VietNam has carefully examined the aide memoire which His Excellency U Thant, Secretary General, handed to Ambassador Nguyen Duy Lien, observer of the Republic of VietNam to the United Nations.

The Government of the Republic of VietNam is thankful to His Excellency U Thant for his untiring search for an early end to the confllct in Viet-Nam and appreciates the constructive spirit in which the Secretary General's proposals were made.

The Government of the Republic of VietNam agrees in principle with the main points of the Secretary's proposals, but in order for these proposals to be more easily implemented, the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam submits the following:

1-A m111tary truce cannot be effective without prior agreement on details and control. Therefore, in order to discuss the details of the truce, the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam proposes that representatives of the high command of the Hanoi Government forces and those of the Republic of Viet-Nam Armed Forces should meet at the demmtarized zone, or at any other place the Hanoi Government may choose.

If the Government of North Viet-Nam agrees to this proposal, the representatives of the high command of the Republic of Viet-Nam Armed Forces will be ready to meet with them within a week's notice.

2-The Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam is in full agreement with the Secretary General when he states that an international conference is necessary to find a permanent political solution to the Vietnamese problem. But in order to gain time and thus achieve an earlier settlement, the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam proposes that, instead of holding preliminary talks prior to the full-fledged conference, a Geneva-type international conference be held as soon as possible after the truce is effectively enforced. Such a conference should have the participation of all interested governments.

This, however, does not preclude the holding of preliminary talks as provided for in the Secretary General's aide memoire if these should prove necessary. These preliminary talks shall include the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Government of North Viet-Nam, the Government of the United States, among other interested governments.

SP<>KESMAN OF THE FOREIGN MINISTRY OF THE

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM'S REPLY TO QUESTIONS ON NEWS REPORTS AS BROAD· CAST BY RADIO HANOI

I-Bulletin number 24 of the Information Service of the United Nations in New Delhi, India, in its issue on 6 March 1967 quoted

26000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, as declaring that Hanoi views the hostilities as a civil war in South Viet-Nam, With Hanoi helping one side and the United States the other. Hanoi held that if the United States was willing to withdraw support for Saigon, there might be a possibility of reciprocity.

2-0f late, Western reports also made known that U Thant had proposed a solution to the Viet-Nam problem. It consists of an appeal for an over-all cease-fire followed by a. preliminary meeting of a number of parties concerned to discuss the reconvening of the Geneva Conference and finally by the reconvening of the Geneva Conference.

The spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam declared: It is as clear as daylight that the United States is committing aggression against South Viet-Nam and bombing and shelling the DRV and that the Vietnamese people are victims of the aggression. The whole world has vehemently condemned the U.S. imperialists' war of aggression and strongly supported the patriotic struggle of the Vietnamese people. The reports by the U.N. Information Service do not tally with reality in Viet-Nam and are contrary to the views of the Government of the DRV. As the United States is committing aggression against Viet-Nam, the correct way to settle the Viet-Nam problem is that the United States must stop its aggression. That is the basic spirit of the four-point stand of the Government of the DRV and the five point statement of the NFLSV. The world's people fully support this just stand.

To call on both sides to cease fire and hold unconditional negotiations while the United States is committing agression against VietNam and taking serious -&.teps in its military escalation in both zones of Viet-Nam is to make no distinction between the aggressor and the victim of aggression, to depart from reality, and to demand that the Vietnamese people accept the conditions of the aggressors.

By the way, it is necessary to underline once again the views of the Government of the DRV, which bas pointed out that the Viet-Nam problem has no concern with the United Nations and the United Nations has absolutely no right to interfere in any way in the Viet-Nam question.

[From the Paris editor of the New York Times-Herald Tribune, May 31 or June 1, 1967)

THE UNPEACEFUL MEETING

There was no "peace on earth" at the Pacem in Terris conference in Geneva. There was, instead, a verbal war against the Americans, who had few defenders and many critics.

The emphasis was on Vietnam. Insofar as there is popular as well as intellectual suspicion and criticism of the United States' role in this war, the Geneva conference was to that extent a reflection of world opinion. However, the often strident tone of the denunciations and the unwillingness to listen to the American arguments before attacking them created an atmosphere that was neither academic nor judicial.

Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, a New Zealand judge, put the situation well when he argued that although the U.S. might be wrong in its Vietnam policy, he did not accept that it was "evil." He was undoubtedly using the term "evil" in the sense of a deliberate intention to be wicked and to do something harmful. The results of the Vietnam policy are open to attack along with the errors of the Johnson and previous administrations, but the emphasis in Geneva was too exclusively on moral grounds and was confined to U.S. faillngs. Issues of the complexity of the Vietnam war are not one-sided nor all black and white, as so many critics seemed to think.

The conference showed the extent to which the United States is being judged in terms of Vietnam. This distorts the image of a nation which is now the greatest power on earth, with manifold interests and responsibilities and with policies that are right as well as wrong.

The United States is going through a phase of history that resembles the experience of Great Britain, especially in the 19th century, when the sun never set on her empire. The contributions of Britain in the three centuries that began with Queen Elizabeth I were-and, indeed, are-incalculable. Dozens of countries and uncounted millions of people in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the South Pacific owe much to-whom? To Great Britain. But gratitude was never asked, and it certainly was rarely given.

The United States is doing a great many things in the contemporary world, some good and some bad, but its image is not seen clearly or in balance-because of Vietnam. At the Pacem in Terris conference Vietnam often seemed to monopolize the picture.

Pope John XXIII, who gave the Center for the Studies of Democratic Institutions the title for its conferences, wrote in his encyclical: "Truth further demands that the various media of social communications made available by modern progress, which enable the nations to know each other better, be used With serene objectivity."

What happened to "serene objectivity" at the conference in Geneva?

PACEM IN TERRIS II CONFERENCE, GENEVA, MAY 31, 1967

(Speech delivered by Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, Justice of the Court of Appeals)

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I ·am acutely aware that anyone of the name of McCarthy who dares to suggest in a gathering such as we have here that anything however small can be said in favor of the United States official policy in Vietnam incurs the risk of being branded as a reactionary.

But surely, Mr. Chairman, if we are to arrive at an objective and impartial judgment on this issue we must hear both sides of the question, and up till now we have heard only one; not even Senator Brooke has explained the reasons which actuated the American intervention and its continued presence in Vietnam or surveyed the evidence which is claimed to support that action. And yet we would be naive if we did not recognize that there is another point of view, one very different from that which has been advanced so persistently and emotionally over the last few days. It is a point of view which is held by many, perhaps even most, of the thinking people in Australia and New Zealand. It is the official viewpoint of most of the Governments in the South West Pacific, of Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Malaya and the Philippines. This point of view does not see China and North Vietnam as being cruelly oppressed by a power and money-hungry United States. Rather they see and fear the southward march of an expansionist communist movement and they remember Tibet, Malaya, North West India, Vietnam and now Thailand-they see a pattern in all this. Now this viewpoint may well be wrong. That is a matter of private opinion, but it is an opinion which exists and it cannot be ignored as nonexistent. How much better in these circumstances it would have been and how much more able we would have been to arrive at a balanced judgment on this question of American intervention, if some person had come forward to explain the reasons which actuated the United States policy and the evidence which it is said supports it. We in New Zealand agree, of course, that if possible an end should be put to the hideous slaughter which is going on by all sides, and

we would like to see the whole question go to the United Nations, but Mr. Chester Ronning has put his finger on the difficulty of getting the dispute before that body. How do we get it there? Will someone answer that?

May I add a personal reflection. I have been distressed at the readiness of so many speakers at this conference to impugn the motives of the administration of the United States. The people of New Zealand do not take that stand. We remember with gratitude that some 20 years ago we were saved by American power and American blood from the march or what was certainly in that case, an expansionist Eastern power. I hope we will never forget that. We see the United States as a great and generous power and whilst many in my country may doubt the wisdom of certain methods or means adopted by the United States, nevertheless most New Zealanders have confidence in the integrity of that nation and its elected representatives. For myself I accept that the United States could possibly be wrong in its decision, but I do not accept that it is evil.

[Press release from the U.S. Department of State, No. 202, Sept. 18, 1967)

STATEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

We have had a number of inqutiies concerning news stories published today, based on an article by Mr. Harry Ashmore in a publication of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI).

The facts concerning the Department's contacts with Messrs. Ashmore and Baggs are as follows:

1. During the summer of 1966, Mr. Wllliam Baggs told the Department that CSDI was planning a major conference in May of 1967 in Geneva, to follow up on the first Pacem In Terris meeting held in New York in February of 1965. Mr. Baggs disclosed. to us efforts that the Center was making to invite North Viet-Nam to attend, and the Department responded sympathetically to the idea of the Conference and to these efforts. These initial contacts were with Mr. George Ball and Mr. William Bundy. The President and Secretary Rusk were informed, and Mr. Ball was directed to handle contacts with Mr. Baggs on behalf of the United States Government.

2. In mid-November and again in early December, Mr. Baggs was joined by Mr. Ashmore in calls at the Department. In these calls, the progress of the conference plans was reviewed, and the two visitors indicated that they had a tentative invitation to go to Hanoi, with Mr. Luis Quintanilla of Mexico. Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore also suggested that, if they were able to visit Hanoi, they might be able to conduct useful explorations of North Vietnamese views towards peace. Mr. George Ball having then left the Department, the primary responsibility for these conversations passed on to his suooessor, Mr. Katzenbach, who kept the President and the Secretary of State informed as a matter of course.

In these conversations, Department representatives accepted the Baggs/Ashmore suggestion and undertook to cooperate fully. Accordingly, the position of the United States Government on key issues relating to peace was discussed at some length, so that Baggs and Ashmore could represent it accurately in Hanoi.

3. On December 23, Baggs visited the Department just prior to the departure of the three-man group on December 28. At that meeting, the basic understanding of the United States Government position was reaffirmed, and it was further agreed that Baggs and Ashmore would report confidentially what they were able to pick up in Hanoi.

4. Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore visited Hanoi from January 6 to January 14. They then returned to the U.S. and on January 18 dictated for the Department a full and con-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26001 fidential account of their conversations. This covered in particular a conversation with President Ho on January 12. In this con versa ti on, Ho had insisted that there could be no talks between the U.S. and Hanoi unless the bombing were stopped, and unless also the U.S. stopped all reinforcement during the period of the talks. Ho was reported to be adamant against any reciprocal military rest raint by North Viet-Nam. The record does not show that he solicited any USG response to these remarks.

5. Concurrently, prior to January 18, on United States initiative and without any connection to the Baggs/ Ashmore actions, United States Government representatives had established a direct channel for communication with North Vietnamese representatives in Moscow. With the apparent agreement of both sides, this channel was being kept wholly confidential, and was therefore not revealed to Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore in their discussions at the Department. It is, of course, fundamental to the United States Government dealings with Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore that there existed at the time this direct and secret channel. Exchanges through this direct channel continued through January and early February and culminated in President Johnson's letter to President Ho of February 8 (mistakenly stated by Mr. Ashmore as February 2) . As has been stated by representatives of the Department, a wide variety of proposals was put before Hanoi in these Moscow contacts, without at any time producing any useful response.

6. Toward the end of January, Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore returned to Washington and expressed to the Department the strong hope that they could be given a message for transmission to Hanoi. The Department de-

. cided that, while the direct channel in Moscow was crucial and must at all costs be preserved, it would be useful to send a more general message through Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore, which would be consistent with the important messages being exchanged in Moscow. In view of this channel (of which Baggs-Ashmore were unaware) there was some question as to the further utmty of detailed informal communications. It seemed clear from the account given by Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore that their channel of communication had been established with the primary purpose of exchanges concerning North Vietnamese attendance at the May conference. Nevertheless, Baggs and Ashmore said they could send any messages for Hanoi through the regular mail to a North Vietnamese representative in Phnom Penh, who in turn would relay it to a North Vietnamese official who had been the principal contact of Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore in Hanoi. Accordingly, the letter now published by Mr. Ashmore was worked out with the representatives of the Department, and authorized to be sent on February 5. We were subsequently informed by Mr. Ashmore that this letter reached Phnom Penh on February 15.

7. No useful purpose could be served by giving further details on what took place in the Moscow channel. We can say, however, that on February 7, while that channel was still open and in operation, separate discussions were initiated in London between Prime Minister Wilson and Premier Kosygin of the USSR. The combined reading of the Moscow channel and of these discussions led to the dispatch on February 8 of President Johnson's letter to President Ho. This letter was of course published unilaterally by Hanoi on March 21, and ls a matter of public record. It rested on, and was of course read by Hanoi in relation to, the various proposals that had been conveyed in the Moscow channel. There was no change of basic position whatever between February 5 and February 8, but President Johnson's letter did include a specific action proposal that speaks for itself, as does the tone of his communication.

8. As already noted, Hanoi had not responded in any useful way to the variety of suggestions conveyed in the Moscow channel. Its sole and apparently final response was reflected on February 13, in a letter by President Ho to Pope Paul VI. This letter, in the words of one press account today, "coupled an unconditional end to the bombing with the withdrawal of American forces and the recognition of the National Liberation Front." On February 15, President Ho replied formally to the President in similar terms. At the same time, Hanoi broke off the Moscow channel.

9. Hanoi's attitude remained negative throughout. The Baggs; Ashmore efforts were necessarily handled by the Department with an eye to the direct and then-confidential channel that exist ed concurrently to Hanoi. The latter appeared to be by far the more reliable and secure methOd of ascertaining Hanoi's views.

10. Finally, we note with regret that Mr. Ashmore is apparently ignorant of the subsequently published reports of the Moscow contacts, and of their confirmation by Department representatives. We note with still greater regret that at no time since has he consulted with the Department in order to attempt to understand the interrelationship that necessarily obtained between the Moscow channel and his own efforts. As this case shows, the Administration has been prepared at all times to cooperate with private individuals who may be in contact with Hanoi in any way, and who are prepared to act responsibly and discreetly. This policy continues, although it seems clear that the present disclosure will not reassure Hanoi that such private contacts will be kept secret.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1967] A COST ANALYSIS OF THE VIETNAM WAR-

''WIN" OR ''LOSE"

(By J. R. Wiggins) It is natural, logical and inevitable for a

people to make periodic reexaminations of a struggle involving half a million fighting men, requiring $27 billion a year and influencing domestic and foreign policy in every quarter.

Wars have their own dynamics and make and unmake issues as they go along, so we need to examine what now is the central issue of the war in South Vietnam, to study the consequences of having that issue settled one way or another and at least to enter conjectures whether the cost of influencing the settlement of that issue in accordance with our preferences ls worth the pain and the burden.

In Vietnam, there is a host of subsidiary issues {by no means unimportant because subsidiary) . But the central issue is now, as it has been for some time, quite clear.

A BEARABLE PRICE

The world is watching Vietnam to see 1! the rulers of one country, state sovereignty or territory, at an endurable risk and a bearable price, can impose a government and system of their choice upon a neighboring people by inciting internal subversion, supporting indigenous insurrection, engaging in infiltration and intervening and invading as necessary. This is the formula of the Communists' celebrated "wars of liberation."

The North Vietnamese so far seem convinced that the risk is endurable and the price bearable. The United States has intervened to make the price unbearable and the risk not endurable. The practical issue before the American people ls simply whether the costs of preventing such a conquest or the costs of acquiescing in it are greater. That, for us, is the single, central issue of the conflict.

Since the ascendancy of Mao Tsetung it has been popular in the Communist world to call such conquests "wars of liberation"; in the diplomatic vernacular of any prior

generation, they would have been identified as ordinary aggression.

American policy ought to proceed from decisions on what would be likely to happen if the conquest succeeded and what would be likely to happen if it failed. So what would happen if it succeeded?

PROOF OF A THEORY

To begin with the broadest philosophical consequences, it surely would give an impetus throughout the Communist world to the forces that are persuaded of the efficacy of "wars of national liberation." Such a practical demonstration of the minimal risks and relatively low costs of this kind of conquest would play into the hands of every doctrinal Communist hawk in every undecided Communist government, lending great force to the proponents of adventurous imperialisrtic policy in every arena offering any plausible opportunity for such conquest. It would greatly strengthen the Chinese Communists against the Soviet Communists and it would immeasurably fortify the hard-liners in the Soviet regime.

What this would mean for the United States and other non-Communist states, no one can say in any specific way, but it is safe to say that it would not mean a period of peaceful coexistence. On the contrary, it would probably usher in decades of political tumult and conflict, particularly in Asia, Africa and South America, and might even propel us into a worldwide thermonuclear holocaust set off by wars in even more dangerous areas than Southeast Asia.

The effects in Southeast Asia of North Vietnam's success in South Vietnam are more foreseeable. It is clear that the military predicament of Laos would be totally untenable. It is plain that Cambodia could not long support an independent role. Thailand certainly would have to re-examine its position and might have to exercise its genius for accommodation with neighboring aggressors.

The failure of United States policy in South Vietnam would certainly prompt the reasonable conclusion in every government in Asia that the United States was unable or unwilling to defend countries threatened with this kind of aggression. It would be logical for many of them to make appropriate diplomatic changes.

It is quite clear that Amerioan power and lnfiuence would be at an end in South Asia. This adverse consequence might be diminished, of course, by a demonstration elsewhere (say in Thailand) that the United States retained its willdngness and ab111ty to defend Asian friends.

But to lay down the gauge in South Vietnam and pick it up elsewhere would be illogical and politically impossible. And the lesson of failure in South Vietnam might fatally prejudice any subsequent endeavor if it were made. It would be wise to write off South Asia for the time being.

NATIONALISM A FACTOR

Would this be fatal to American interests? Probably it would not be fatal, however damaging in the immediate future. It is possible to make a tenable argument that the removal of American power from the region would not permanently put all of the area into the control of forces hostile to American interests.

In the fullness of time, forces of nationalism and regionalism would undoubtedly assert themselves in Asia and produce states with differing degrees of independent sovereignty. There ls no reason to suppose that the system which has failed to produce progr.ess and peace in China would find it easier to impose peace and achieve progress in an even larger and less homogeneous environment involving the whole of non-Soviet Asia.

Whatever degree of submission to ·communism might temporarily prevail over much of Asia, from India to Japan, in the

26002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 final unrolling of history, reassertion of national impulse and local interests could be expected. India and Pakistan might surrender or compromise their independence but a residual passion for national recognition and identity would linger within the body politic, "murmuring in the shell and waiting for the tide to return and flood it again."

LESS THAN AN ECLIPSE

It is reasonable to suppose that a century very different from the one hitherto foreseen would emerge from the triumph of North Vietnam and the humiliation of the United States. But it would be unfair to suggest that even a United States of vastly curtailed international influence and power would be fatally impaired or permanently diminished.

If its affairs in this vastly altered world were conducted with skill and prudence; if its international policy were realistically realigned in conformity with its diminished capacity to influence events; if its leaders accepted their liabillties philosophically; if its people cheerfully acknowledged the limitations on their power-then the nation might go on, its world role greatly changed but not necessarily eclipsed permanently.

And if North Vietnam's war against South Vietnam fails and there emerges in the South a viable state with a government that is reasonably representative of its people, will that usher in the millennium? No, it must be said in fairness that it will not do so.

The Philippines and Malaysia demonstrated that wars of liberation do not always succeed, but that did not prevent the war in Vietnam. The tragedy in Indonesia demonstrated that infiltration and subversion can fail with calamitous consequences, but no one supposes that that was the last of Communist China's efforts to subvert and overthrow regimes friendly to it.

But if this failure did not usher in the millennium, it might diminish the zeal of many Communist states for this kind of conflict. There would be fewer "wars of national liberation" than there would be if North Vietnam's attempt at conquest succeeded.

The scale of the Vietnam war already has demonstrated. that •the price tag on such wars is higher and the risk greater than the hawks of North Vietnam must have anticipated. If there occurs in Vietnam a demonstration that such wars involve an unendurable risk and an unbearable cost and are not likely to succeed, prospects for peace in the future will be increased.

Peace, however, in any sense that we have enjoyed it in the past, is not in our future, whatever happens or does not happen in South Vietnam. The world has yet to accomplish the accommodation between great historical forces that are at present antipathetic to each other and that proceed on paths that preclude any peaceful reconcmation.

Statesmen in our generation, and in generations immediately ahead, will vindicate their stature and make bold their claims on the gratitude of posterity if they succeed in holding this irrepressible conflict within such bounds that history in its patient unfolding may subject this rigidities of doctrine to the ameliorating influences of time's subtle and insidious solvent.

In this long and perilous interval, the peoples who survive will be those who keep awake to the disagreeable fact of our time: that there are no easy alternatives, no painless choices, no magic palliatives, no miracles that can spare us the anguish of struggle or guarantee us immunity to risk and danger.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 1967) CHRONOLOGY OF VIET PEACE EFFORTS

(By Chalmers M. Roberts) The record indicates that the Ashmore

Baggs peace effort ran afoul of a change 1n American policy which occurred at the

moment they were involved in Vietnam diplomacy.

This is the record, as far as it is now known, of the pertinent events:

Dec. 4, 1966-Poland reported to the United States that North Vietnam was prepared to send a man to w ,arsaw ·to meet ian American representative and to do so Without demanding as a pre-condition an end to the American bombing of the North.

American officials subsequently contended that independent checks showed this to be a Polish view, not that of North Vietnam.

Dec. 13-14--American planes raid near Hanoi. Poland later privately blamed the raids for ending chances for a meeting. After the raids Hanoi began to stress the demand that bombing must cease unconditionally before there could be talks.

Dec. 26-Jan. 6, 1967-Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times created a furor with dispatches from Hanoi picturing civilian destruction from the American raids. Officials here said Hanoi had let Salisbury in as part of a campaign to force an end to the bombing. Ashmore and Baggs arrived in Hanoi the day Salisbury left.

Jan. 12-Ashmore and Baggs met Ho Chi Minh who stressed an end to the bombing. Ashmore now writes that "we had not brought back" from this interview "any hard proposal" from Ho "beyond the reiteration of his unqualified commitment to enter into negotiations" if the U.S. halted the bombing.

Ashmore reported to State Department officials that he and Baggs felt that "Ho seemed prepared to consider a specific proposal based on a formula of mutual deescalation" of the fighting.

Early January to early February-The United States secretly sent four memoranda to Hanoi describing, officials say, possible methods of deescalation. These messages, yet to be made public, were handed by an American embassy official in Moscow to a North Vietnamese representative.

Jan. 27-Hanoi's man in Moscow gave a reply to the American official. Later the State Department described the reply as "a diatribe against the United States."

Jan. 28-North Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Duy Trinh in an interview with Australian Communist journalist Wilfred Burchett said that "it is only after the unconditional cessation of U.S. bombing and all other acts of war against the DRV (North Vietnam) that there could be talks between the DRV and the U.S."

Feb. 2.-President Johnson prepared a letter to :S:o in which he took up the Burchett interview points. Mr. Johnson said he would order a "cessation of bombing" and also halt "further augmentation of U.S. forces in South Vietnam as soon as I am assured that infiltration into South Vietnam by land and sea has stopped." These "acts of restraint," he s,aid, would make possi.ble "serious, private discussions." This letter, however, was not turned over to Hanoi's man in Moscow until Feb. 8 and the delay has never been explained.

Feb. 4--Ashmore and Baggs met at the State Department with Undersecretary Nicholas deB. Katzenbach and other top officials but not including Secretary Dean Rusk.

A letter from Ashmore to Ho was drafted with Assistant Secretary William P. Bundy, whose area includes Vietnam, as the chief departmental draftsman.

The key sentence in the letter stated that "senior officials" a.t State "ex.pressed opinion that some reciprocal restraint" was necessary along With a halt to the bombing and an end to the influx of American troops if talks were to take place.

Feb. 5-The draft letter was delivered to Ashmore at Ful,brlght's house. Ashmore malled it that afternoon. The letter did not specify the "reciprocal restraint" although the President's letter of three days earlier

had specified an end to North Vietnamese infiltration into the South.

In addition, on the day (Feb. 2) the Administration said the Presidential letter was drafted, Mr. Johnson told a press conference that "just almost any step" would be a suitable response from Hanoi. He also had said that "we would be glad to explore any reciprocal action." Sometime between Feb. 2. and 9 the official American terms were hardened.

Feb. 8-Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, who was in London Feb. 6-13, said at a press conference that the Trinh interview with Burchett "boils down" to saying that if the U.S. unconditionally stopped the bombing "then it would be possible" to open talks: Kosygin thus publicly changed Trinh's cruci:al word "could," into "would." He was never contradicted by Hanoi on this. Furthermore Kosygin passed the word to Washington, which had inquired as to when talks would begin, that they could start in thrAA or four weeks.

Feb. 9-Secretary Rusk, at a press conference which had been announced by the White House, said that "for some time now there has been evident a systematic campaign by the Communist side to bring about an unconditional and permanent cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam without any corresponding military action on their side, in exchange for the possib111ty of talks-talk.A which are thus far formless and without content."

Rusk also distinguished. between a "pause" in the bombing (here he seemed to indicate he would agree to a pause in exchange for talks) and a "permanent cessation." For thA latter to take place, he said, "we must know the military consequences." The U.S., he said, cannot stop the bombing without reciprocity for that would be "closing off one-half of the war while the rest of it goes on full force."

In short, Rusk was surfacing the central point of the President's letter to Ho, the contents of which were not made public until Hanoi broadcast it March 21.

Feb. 10---Ho said he received the Johnson letter on this day. Ashmore assumes it arrived before his own letter with the less specific request on the point of reciprocity.

Duril.ng this period, Feb. 8-14, there was a pause in the bombing over the Tet holiday in Vietnam, including a Presidentially ordered short extension.

Feb. 13-Ho in a letter to Pope Paul VI assailed the U.S. He coupled an unconditional end to the bombing with the withdrawal of American forces and the recognition of the National Liberation Front, the political arm of the Vietcong. In Washington this was taken as a reply to the President. Resumption of the bombing was ordered.

Feb. 15-Ho replied to the President in words similar to the Pope. "A little later," writes Ashmore, he and Baggs received a reply to the Ashmore letter saying there did not seem to be any point to their making a second v1si t to Hanoi.

[From the Washington Post, Bept. 19, 1967) THE ARKANSAS TRAVELER

The differences between the letter which Harry Ashmore, with State Department advice, wrote to Hanoi on Feb. 5 and the letter which President Johnson sent on Feb. 8, do not seem to justify the harsh allegation that the Government has been guilty of "a devious course" and of "crude duplicity."

The Presidential letter is more specific than the Ashmore letter but not in basic contradiction with it. And even if a contradiction exists, there seems little reason to suppose this a deUberate sabotage of a possible peace. North Vietnam could have availed itself of the option exercised by President Kennedy in replying to the apparently conflicting Khrushchev letters in the Cuban crisis. The White House in that situation chose to reply to the letter that seemed most hopeful. It seems

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26003 likely that a government in Hanoi really anxious for peace could have done the same thing.

It is not remarkable that the State Department and the President were pursuing peace through a Moscow channel at the same time that Ashmore was proceeding through his privaite and informal channel. There does not seem to be anything duplicitous about the failure to abandon all other explorations of peace until the Ashmore lead haid been run out. Nor does there seem to be anything duplicitous about failure of the Government to take Ashmore wholly into its confidence as to alternative approaches. Events would seem to afford justification for not doing so. It is not customary or conventional for governments to yield exclusive negotiating rights to priva.te citizens conducting unofficial and informal preliminary exploration of this kind.

Such inquiries as Ashmore and W1lliam Baggs ma.de in Hanoi are extremely useful and helpful. While they do not often lead directly to peace or negotiations for peace, they are an alternative means of communication when formal channels of diplomacy are closed. Through such conversations ordinary private citizens often can perform an important and patriotic function. The honest purpose and good motive of these two able journalists entitle them to the praise of their countrymen.

Unfortunately, the Ashmore article in Center Magazine is tendentious and querulous and obscures more than it clarifies the efforts of the Arkansas traveler and his companion. Its high tone and imperious posture conveys the somewhat embarrassing impression that the author regards the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions as a sovereign power. The article sounds like a communique from a greater to a lesser, and infinitely more stupid and worse governed, minor state.

The Ashmore article makes it clear that the word he has for the Johnson Administration is the word that Arkansas Traveler had for his critics in the 1850s: "You give me a pain." And that message has some political importance in 1967 but it probably does not much advance the prospects for peace on earth.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 1967] JOHNSON AND AsHMORE LE'ITERS TO HANOI

COMPARED

Following is a comparison of highlights of a letter by President Johnson to President Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam, sent Feb. 8, and a letter by Harry S. Ashmore, the editor, sent Feb. 5.

President Johnson wrote: "I am prepared to order a cessation of

bombing against your country and the stopping of further augmentation of United States forces in South Vietnam as soon as I am assured that infiltration in South Vietnam by land and by sea has stopped.

"These acts of restraint on both sides would, I believe, make it possible for us to conduct serious and private discussions leading toward an early peace."

Mr. Ashmore wrote: "They [high officials of the State Department) expressed particular interest in your suggestion to us that private t alks could begin provided the United States stopped bombing your country and ceased introducing additional United States troops into Vietnam. They expressed the opinion that some reciprocal restraint to indicate that neither side intended to use the occasion of the talks for military advantage would provide tangible evidence of the good faith of all parties in the prospects for a negotiated settlement."

President Johnson: "There is one good way to overcome this problem [of communication] and to move forward in search for a peaceful settlement. That is for us to arrange for direct talks between trusted representatives in a secure setting and away from the glare of publicity. Such talks should not be used as a propaganda. exer-

cise, but should be a serious effort to find a workable and mutually acceptable solution."

Mr. Ashmore: "They ·estate Department officials] emphasized that the United States remains prepared for secret discussions at any time, without conditions, and that such discussions might cover the whole range of topics relative to a peaceful settlement."

President Johnson: "I make this proposal to you now with a specific sense of urgency arising from the imminent new year holidays in Vietnam. If you are able to accept this proposal I see no reason why it could not take effect at the end of the new year, or Tet, holidays. The proposal I have made would be greatly strengthened if your military authorities and those of the Government of South Vietnam could promptly negotiate an extension of the Tet truce."

Mr. AshmOl'le ireLated a possible agr·eement to the new year's truce in Vietnam.

Mr. Ashmore: "They [the State Department officials] reiterated that the Geneva accords might be the framework for a peaceful solution."

President Johnson did not mention the Geneva agreements of 1954 as a possible framework.

President Johnson: "As to the site of the bilateral discussions I propose, there are several possib1lities. We could, for example, have our representatives meet in Moscow where contacts have already occurred. They could meet in some other country such as Burma. You may have other arrangements or sites in mind, and I would try to meet your suggestions."

Mr. Ashmore's letter proposed no specific meeting place.

President Johnson: "If you have any thoughts about the actions I propose, it would be most important that I receive them as soon as possible."

Mr. Ashmore: "In the light of these concerns, they [the State Department officials] expressed great interest in any clarification of this point [about mutual restraints] that you might wish to provide through a communication to us."

[From the Washington Evening Star, Sept. 19, 1967]

STATE AND THE EDITORS

The State Department has come up with two reasoned and telling answers to the charge that the administration purposely scuttled the efforts of two American newspaper editors to bring Hanoi to the negotiating table.

First, according to the State Department, neither editor was aware that at the time of their meeting with Ho Chi Minh, the administration was itself in secret contact with Hanoi via Moscow-a channel that was understandably considered somewhat more important than the impressions of two private citizens. Second, the President's letter was not intended to pull the rug out from under anybody. It was, in fact, quite similar in content to the proposals advanced by the editorial emissaries.

There is no need to doubt the sincerity of the two editors, Harry S. Ashmore of the Arkansas Gazette and W111iam c. Baggs of the Miami News. Unquestionably, they believed, as Ashmore charged in the accusatory magazine article, that President Johnson had moved in on their small, hopeful flame and poured cold water all over it.

But, at the same time, it should be clear that the two men were in no position to view their efforts against the background of the continuing diplomatic maneuvering with Hanoi. To Ashmore and Baggs, their visit to Hanoi was the sum total of their experience in the field of international diplomacy. To the President and his Secretary of State, it was one more piece in the complex Asian jigsaw puzzle.

As for the content of the two letters, Ashmore is critical of the President for what he

terms "the most stringent demands yet ma.de for advanced assurance that Hanoi would halt infiltration of troops into the South." 'In fact, what the President said was that he was prepared to stop the buildup of American troops and to halt the bombing of the North "as soon as I am assured that infiltration into South Vietnam by land and sea has stopped."

Ashmore, in his letter to Ho, suggested "some reciprocal restraint" to a halt in the bombing and in the American buildup, "to indicate that neither side intended to use the occasion of the talks for military advantage."

There is a fine line, indeed, between the two positions, and it should also be remembered that when the President's letter was made public by Hanoi last March, the gen'eral reaction was that it was the most conciUatory approach made until this time by the administration.

Ashmore's reaction to the incident is, in our opinion, understandable but mistaken. His choice of language-charging the administration with "an almost total lack of candor," claiming that the President "effectively and brutally canceled" an opportunity for peace talks, tossing out such terms as "crude ~uplicity" and "double dealing"-should also be no cause for concern. Ashmore is, after all, a former newspaper editorial writer. And editorial writers, it should be remembered, are not generally noted for restraint in the expression of their opinions.

Mr. LATrA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. THOMPSON].

Mr. THOMPSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House out of order.

The SPEAKER. Is ·there objection rto -the request· of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection. Mr. THOMPSON of Georgia. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana, the Honorable HALE BOGGS, who has just spoken. I would like to state this: that, as a member of the minority party who does have some differences with the President on the means of taking the action that is being taken in Vietnam, I certainly feel, as I am sure all people feel, that no man in America or in the world today has done more to bring about negotiations and attempt to effect peace than has the President of the United States. He has attached only one condition for the talks, that the North Vietnamese show some good faith that they will in fact negotiate in good faith. He has only asked that North Vietnam stop their aggression against the people of South Vietnam. He has made very clear that we have no territorial aims or desires against North Vietnam, but only that we want the people of South Vietnam to be able to select their own government.

The President need bow his head to no man concerning his desire for peace and in his efforts to effect peace talks. Certainly the number of sincere efforts he has made during the last several years to bring about peace talks is evidence of this.

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ANDERSON].

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of the regular order.

The SPEAKER. Is ithere objection ·to

26004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 I

the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.

Speaker, I feel as many of my colleagues have already said that the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Louisiana, has indeed performed a public service by bringing before the House today for discussion this very important question that was raised by the charges by Mr. Ashmore and Mr. Baggs, that this administration had deliberately frustrated an effort to bring the war in Vietnam from the field of conflict to the negotiating table.

Certainly I can share with him much of the indignation he expresses over some of the malevolent and wholly exaggerated statement.s that were made-charges against our country, during the so-called Pacem in Terris Conference in Geneva last May.

There is, however, one very important facet of this problem to which the gentleman from Louisiana did not address himself and to me this is the most imPort and the most intriguing part of this whole story as it emerged on yesterday on the front page not only of the Washington Post but I think in the press in this country and probably all over the world.

If I understand the chronology of the events as they were related in the press, it was on or about the second of February of this year that that celebrated letter was dispatched through normal postal channels to Cambodia and then transmitted to Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi, it was presumably framed in very conclliato:rY language in which the author, Mr. Ashmore, expressed the hope that negotiations would ensue 1between ithis country and North Vietnam.

As we further understand his account, that letter was framed not in his own omce but it was framed right downtown in Foggy Bottom in the State Department with the knowledge, aid and assistance, presumably of high ranking members of the Department of State-and I believe one other Member of the Congress, the junior Senator from Arkansas.

This is one part of the story-and the chronology as I have understood it, is that this letter was framed with the knowledge, help and collaboration of members of the Department of State.

Then, as I understand it, the other significant portion of this whole affair is that at or about the same time, a letter was being prepared by the President of the United States presumably also with the advice and assistance of the State Department which subsequently arrived in Hanoi. The charge is that it was framed and phrased much more stringently and in far harsher language than the Ashmore letter and rejected the idea that we could have negotiations unless we saw a reciprocal deescalation by North Vietnam of the war in Vietnam.

The point I want to make is this. I would like to have the gentleman from Louisiana address himself to this question. I would presume that in the letter sent by the President he certainly had the assistance and advice of the Department of State and presumably even of the Secretary of State himself. What I

wonder, when I read this story, is do we have some factionalism resident within the Department of State today on this whole question of bringing the war to the negotiating table?

I think if there is any suggestion of such disarray or that we have this kind of fumbling, if you will, within the administration on this very important and overriding issue of bringing the war from the battlefield to the conference table, then I think we ought to show some real concern.

If there is this kind of disarray within the administration, and if there is this kind of factionalism among the various segment.s of the Department of State the executive branch of our Government should provide an explanation to the American people.

I wonder if the gentleman from Louisiana would care to comment on that point?

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

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BOGGS. The gentleman from Illinois well knows that I am not in a position to give him any information relative to the internal organization of the Department of State or any other department of our Government.

In my judgment, however, and I think I am completely justified in my judgment, I do not think there has ever been a President who has held his own departments in closer check than the present occupant of the White House. It may very well be that in any department there may be some disagreement, but in this particular instance I will address myself specifically to the question that the gentleman raised, and it is an important question, because this was the gist of Mr. Ashmore's complaint.

If the gentleman will read a comparison of both letters, which was published in the press today widely-and I have before me the New York Times of this morning-he will find that in both instances, paragraph after paragraph, the letters are totally conciliatory, and for anyone to adopt Mr. Ashmore's claim that there was something brutally harsh about the President's letter, as compared with the formal letter, I say is not a correct reading of the English language. In fact, the President went further in his letter in suggesting a modus operandi, namely, the Geneva Conference.

I know the gentleman asks the question in good faith, but there is the answer and it is very well spelled out.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I appreciate the explanation the gentleman has offered, and also that he is probably in no better position than I--

Mr. BOGGS. Of course not. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. To com

ment on whether or not there are these factions within the State Department. But I would hope that by this discussion here publicly on the floor of the House of Representatives today we would serve notice that we do think that to find a formula for negotiations is the single overriding issue that confronts our Nation and our State Department, and we hope that we do not have this kind of internal dissension or bickering that

might frustrate the achievement of that end.

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

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Certainly. Mr. BOGGS. I could not agree more.

I associate myself completely, particularly with the latter statement which the gentleman has made. The search for peace-and by peace I mean an honorable peace-<has got to be the main concern of the American people and thoRP. who represent them, whether they be in this party or in the executive branch.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. And it requires a unified effort.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Louisiana on a very cogent and persuasive statement. I think we must not overlook the fact that in this trip of Mr. Ashmore to North Vietnam there was active participation in the matter by the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of the other body.

I think President Kennedy's wisdom in refusing to appoint this man as Secretary of State is becoming very clear now. This man has been crying crocodile tears. I would say that any man who votes against civil rights and then complains about the fact that the Great Society is not taking hold due to our Vietnam involvement is like the boy who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I hope the rule is adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-tion.

The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

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

Arrington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 602) entitled "An act to revise and extend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, and to amend title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965," requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. SPONG, Mr. COOPER, Mr. JORDAN of Idaho, and Mr. BAKER to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill CS. 953) entitled "An act to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 for the purpose of authorizing appropriations for fl.seal years subsequent to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967."

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House of Representatives to the text of the bill CS. 953) entitled "An act to

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26005 amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 for the purpose of authortzing appropriations for fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967," with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed amendment insert:

That the first sentence of subsection (a) of section 16 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 is amended by inserting after "June 30, 1967;" the following: "not in excess of $200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968; not in excess of $225,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969; ".

SEc. 2. Section 16(a) of such Act is further amended by inserting at the end thereof the following: "This Act shall be carried out only with funds appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury for that specific purpose and in no event shall it be carried out with funds derived from permanent appropriations."

The message also announced that the Senate .agrees ito the amendment of the House of Representatives to the title of the above-entitled bill.

PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1967

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Oommittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and expand the authorizations for grants for comprehensive health planning and services, to broaden and improve the authorization for research and demonstrations relating to the delivery of health services, to improve the performe.nce of clinical laboratortes, and to authortze cooperative activities between the Public Health Service hospitals and community facilities, and for other purposes.

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

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

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 6418, with Mr. BROOKS in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the b111. By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the

gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS] will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] will be recognized for 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before proceeding on the bill, I would like to say that the committee had this bill under consideration for some time. The bill is officially designated as the "Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967." Actually, it is a new approach to the responsibility of the U.S. Government for promoting and preserving the national health. It brings together a number of isolated projects which deal with health and combines them in a single positive and united effort. It joins State

and local competence and know-how with Federal planning and encouragement to the end that we may wage total war on poor health in the land.

This is a continuation of the bill which was brought before the House last year as a temporary measure, to do away to some extent with what we call the federalism in our health programs, and to unite about 17 of these programs into one, and leave it up to the States, that they might judge themselves what are the most important and pressing problems they have healthwise, so these may be dealt with, with the Federal Government joining in.

This is a large bill in several senses. It provides for a 3-year program, which would cost approximately $950 m1llion. However, as I said, it puts into a single package 16 or 17 old and new health projects, most of which have gone their separate ways in the past. By combining all these projects, we eliminate duplication in both cost and effort. Hopefully, the separate projects will supplement and reinforce each other, instead of being competitors, as oftentimes they have been in the past.

The bill has been prepared after extensive consideration. Our committee held 4 days of extensive heartngs and spent 7 days in the markup of the bill. I might say that the bill was unanimously accepted by all members of the committee, with the exception of one part, and-that is section 12, but that will be dealt with, I am sure, just a little bit later. I believe most of the members of the committee recognize the fact that, by uniting all these programs under one head and leaving it up to the States, we are making headway in bringing the trying problems that each State might have to the front and letting the States make the decisions, instead of the Federal Government, as to how the money shall be used. .

Two main provisions of the bill are the formula grants and project grants, which make up most of the money. The importance of the bill may be brought home to all of us when we consider that the American people spend approximately $43 billion for health each year. This is the third largest industry in the land, if we want to consider money that is spent for any one project. Of course, we spend more money on education, and I believe health and education are two things that help better the individual. I believ,e of the two, this is one of the forces and objectives of the Government which promotes a better America--the betterment of the individual. I am certain health is one of the things that affects all members of the Nation. The committee in its wisdom in considering the bill came up with these provisions.

The bill was proposed by the administration and amended many times by the committee.

I believe we have come up with a good bill which certainly will be of great benefit to all individuals in the land and can be more efficiently administered by the Federal Government and will be easier for our committee and the vartous agencies to keep track of.

Mr. Chairman, the b111 we have before us today is the most imPortant health bill

that will be reported out of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce this year. It provides a 3-year program with appropriation authorizations totaling $950 million for a number of existing programs in the health field, and establishes several new programs of importance.

The bill is very appropriately named "The Partnership for Health Amendments," since it provides for the continuation and the strengthening of the existing partnership between the Federal Government and the States in programs designed to deal with public health problems facing our Nation.

Last year, Members will recall, our committee reported to the House in the closing days of the Congress a temporary bill providing authorization for 1 year for grants to the States for public health programs, and establishing a new program of planning for public health programs within the States. At the time I told the House that we would go into this program thoroughly this year. Our committee has done this. We held exhaustive hearings, and 7 days of executive sessions, and we have brought to the House a bill which continues, expands, and improves that temporary program we provided for last year.

We had some controversy in the committee over one section of the bill providing for assistance to overcrowded hospitals; however, with the exception of the controversy over this section, which is discussed at some length both in the minority views beginning on page 87 of the report and in the majortty views on pages 26 through 28 of the report, I think it is fair to say that the commitJtee was unanimous in approving the provisions of the bill.

The bill includes a very substantial number of programs in the health field. These include the extension of the program of assistance to the States and to localities for State and areawide planning of public health services; extension and expansion of the program of formula grants to the States for public health services; extension and expansion of the program of project granrts for specifically targeted public health programs; establishment of a new program of research into new methods and techniques involving the delivery of health services; regulation through licensing of clinical laboratories doing a substantial interstate business; and granrts for a temporary one-shot program of assistance to critical hospitals whose facilities are overcrowded.

There are a num·ber of other amendments to the law made by the bill, but primartly these amendments involve relatively minor improvements in programs already underway, or make clartfying changes in the law.

RESEARCH

One extremely important program contained in the bill is made by the addition of a new section 304 to the Public Health Service Act authorizing research in the field of health services.

The American people today are spending a little over 6 percent of their disposable income every year for health services. This means that over $43 bil-

26006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 19 67

lion is spent each year for this purpose. Although the delivery of health services is America's third largest industry, the nature of this industry is such that there is no single private group which bears the responsibility for research leading to greater efficiency in this industry. If such research is to be done, this means that it must be done by the Federal Government, yet today less than onetenth of 1 percent of our total national health expenditures go for research into improved methods of delivery of health services. Our committee, therefore, approved the program contained in this bill which will provide over the 4 fiscal years beginning with the current one a total of $200 million for research and demonstrations relating to health facilities and services.

The purpose of this program is to mobilize our universities, our industries, our private practitioners, and research institutions to seek new ways of providing medical services and to hold down the costs of health care. These programs can be carried out through grants and through contracts to provide for research and for demonstrations relating to the development, utilization, quality, organization, and financing of health services, facilities, and resources. As an illustration, our committee was told about the exciting possibilities for the future involving the use of computers, automated equipment, and other new technological systems in the furnishing of better health care.

Other benefits can flow from the research programs to be conducted under this section. The more efficient use of hospital personnel can lead to savings in wage costs, and programs which can reduce total time spent by individual patients in hospitals can also significantly reduce medical care costs to the individual.

Research and development in the health services field promises substantial gains in improved quality and efficiency in the Nation's health programs. This area of research may well prove as important to the health of individual citizens of our country as the basic biomedical research programs which have been conducted over the last decade. ·

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Members of the House will recall that last year's bill provided for the first time for grants to the States for comprehensive health planning. The bill we have before us today provides for a continuation and expansion of this program.

That program provides for the establishment of a State planning agency which will engage in health planning for the various health programs conducted in the State. The planning agency is required to have an advisory council which will have representation from the various groups interested in health activities plus representatives of consumers of health services.

We are today quite short in many areas in the health field. We are short in the number of doctors, dentists, nurses, and other health personnel ithat we need. We are also short of nursing homes, hospital beds, training facilities, mental health facilities, and other facilities for

fields related to health research, training, and care. In view of these shortages, the most efficient utilization of resources requires comprehensive planning so as to assure that priority needs are met first.

This program provides a mechanism by which these priorities can be ascertained through establishment of a central group in each State which will assess the States' needs and resources, and thereby aid the operational programs in determining the best use of our scarce resources in this area.

Existing law provides for grants to the States for the costs of planning, and the bill provides an increase in the current authorization level from $5 million to $7 million, with an additional $45 million provides for- the next 3 years for this program on a State level. In addition, the bill provides for encouragement of •areawide planning rthrough authorizing grants to agencies engaged in planning for specific areas.

FORMULA AND PROJECT GRANTS

Members are, of course, familiar with the programs of project and formula grants for public health services which have been carried out by the Public Health Service-for over 30 years in the case of formula grants, and for over 20 years in the case of project grants. The formula and project grant programs were strengthened last year through the elimination of the rigid categorical limitations upon the use of funds, so that today formula and project grant funds may be used for public health programs determined by the States themselves to be necessary. These two programs are the major cost items contained in the bill, with a total of $570 million authorized for them. The formula grants are distributed among the States in amounts determined on the basis of the State's population and per capita income. We added a modification this year, to require that not less than 70 percent of the formula grant funds provided to a State must be utilized for services in communities within the State. The committee was advised that this limitation could be placed upon the use of funds without disrupting the programs of any State health department. Through this mechanism we can assure that public health programs will be carried out at the local level, while at the same time ample funds will be available for strengthening and improving State health departments.

The project grants, on the other hand, are not allocated among the States but are used for specific target programs. Where a health problem is more severe in one area of the country than it is in other areas, for example, project grant funds can be used to meet that health problem; similarly where one or more States have developed plans to deal with specific health programs, grant funds can be provided for those States based upon an evaluation of the comparative merits of their proposed program as opposed to the programs of other States. In general, the form-:.tla gr~nt and project grant programs go hand in hand to provide the maximum of flexibility in providing public health programs throughout the States.

Cl'..INICAL LABORATORIES

Mr. Chairman, the bill also provides for licensing of clinical laboratories which are engaged in interstate commerce. We received testimony that surveys had indicated that as many as 25 percent of the tests conducted by some clinical laboratories are erroneous. This constitutes a threat to public health and we propose in the bill to provide for licensing of these laboratories requiring that they maintain a quality control program and participate in a proficiency testin1g program. In addition, the director and supervisory personnel of the laboratory are required to meet certain educational and experience qualifications.

This section was quite controversial as initially proposed, but with the amendments our committee agreed to, we believe the program in the bill is a realistic one.

As proposed by the administration, the bill would have covered as many as 15,000 laboratories in the United States. We limited the bill to those laboratories which solicit specimens in interstate commerce and provided for an exemption for those whose operations are so small and infrequent as not to constitute a significant threat to the public health.

We intend by this legislation to cover those commercial laboratories which are engaged in the business of examining specimens, and provided an exemption for laboratories not directly involved in this type of operation such as those operated by insurance companies.

In addition, it should be pointed out that the bill does not cover laboratories engaged in research where the examination of specimens is directed toward that end rather than to the treatment of patients.

ASSISTANCE TO CRITICAL HOSPITALS

Our committee also adopted an amendment to the bill providing for assistance to hospitals which are suffering from overcrowding. Our committee report points out that there has been an increase in the utilization of hospitals since the passage of medicare. This has lead to some hospitals suffering from substantial overcrowding. We will be considering a revision of the Hill-Burton Act next year, and at that time our committee will consider the problems involved in the increased utilization of our hospitals because of Federal programs.

There is no question but that many of our hospitals are in need of modernization and renovation. In addition, in some areas hospitals are suffering from crowded conditions, with patients having to be treated in hallways.

Our committee therefore agreed to a 1-year program providing one-shot as-sistance for critically overcrowded hospitals. Grants of $40 million are authorized and $18 million is authorized for loans to hospitals to aid them in necessary expansion of facilities required.

OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

There are a number of other programs contained in the bill principally involving minor improvements in existing programs, or making technical amendments to the law.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26007 As I mentioned before, with the excep

tion of 1the section of the bill relating to critical hospitals, I think it would be fair to say that the bill has the support of all members of the committee, and we recommend its passage by the House.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the years, since 1936, as the concept of public health and the role of the Government in that program has expanded, the States and local governments have been urged to embark on the emerging new programs by offering grants. In order to focus attention and action upon new areas of public health activity, specific programs for each have required separate action, separate administration, and separate authority to qualify. This was partly to assure that the new did not just disappear into the already established, understood, and accepted programs which could always use more money.

Thus we have seen 16 separate categorical grant programs develop._each with its own plan, its own administration, its own personnel, and in some cases its own partisans. We have also seen these programs rock along from 'year to year at whatever level the local governments could afford to match while other, perhaps far more urgent, programs suffered. The very scheme made it difficult for a community to pass up any of the categories.

At long last we accepted a new and streamlined approach. Last year we passed the Comprehensive Health Planning Act. Too late in the session to do the job that was needed, we did at least make the plunge and consolidate all of the 16 programs, allowing States to prepare plans for public health activity which set some priorities among the programs and fund them accordingly. It is that program which we are considering here today under the new Great Society moniker of "Partnership for Health." Like the rose by any other name it is a good idea, and a fair start has been made toward its implementation.

As far as this bill sticks to public health activities it is good legislation. The various things included in that field are not new.

First. First of all, it provides funds$20 million the first year-for research and demonstrations relating to health facilities and services. Most of the categorical programs included individual versions of such an effort.

Second. Grants to the schools of public health have been included in the Public Health Service legislation for some years. It has run $3.5 million per year in recent years and would ·go to $5 million for 1968. There is nothing startling nor questionable about rthis irtem.

Third. Planning grants have been necessary for nearly every health program we have instituted. If they are to be successfully and intelligently consolidated, there is more than ordinary need for planning activity. Federal funds are provided particularly as an incentive for several localities and even several States to combine forces and make areawide plans. For State plans and areawide plans the bill provides $14.5 million in 1968.

Fourth. The bulk of the money included in the comprehensive health provisions of this bill would go for formula grants and health service project grants-$70 million for each itype in 1968. From the formula grants the State may fund the various public healith activities in the proportion it deems suitable. The only exception to this lies in a restriction that 15 percent must be used to support the mental health authority. The plan must, however, send at least 70 percent of the formula money on down to the communities where those receiving the services are to be found. We want to pay for actual health assistance and not State administrative empires. This is no real restriction because the States can and will gladly abide by it. By implementing its own program the State may attack its most pressing problems by giving to them more money or manpower as compared with some other health activity. And, since it will be mentioned later, it might be well to point out that vector control, or as it is more commonly called, pest and rat control, can be given whatever precedence it requires.

The special project grants are designed to give additional assistance where new health problems show up or old ones take on special significance and need extra attention. Such grants have been used before but narrowly confined to the special categories for which they were authorized. Obviously in some cases no categorical program would fit a new situation. And since rates have suddenly become the symbol of all that is wrong with society and the callousness of Congress to social needs, it might also be well to point out that any State, county, city, township, or village with an out-of-control rat problem and a demonstrable need for outside financial assistance could have presented a project for funding under this section of the act as now in force. When the great rat controversy first started, I inquired of the proper HEW authorities and was told that such a project could have been approved and undoubtedly would have been.

Because another bill will come before us today having to do with mental retardation, and the committee report mentions on page 16 that some of the funds under this comprehensive program will also apply to mental retardation problems, a word of explanation is in order. Hill-Burton, the Mental Health Centers Act and the mental retardation amendments all have to do with the creation, construction, and operation of institutions for the care of patients. The comprehensive health approach has to do with an entirely different aspect of public health.

It deals with those services which can be and has been taken to the public wherever it may be. It deals with educating the public about certain diseases. It provides personnel to work in the community to help discover and diagnose particular diseases. It helps people do what they can at home or outside of institutions to control, combat or recover from them as well. It deals in person-toperson contacts for rehabilitation. So it would include programs to shortstop mental diseases by steps taken in the

home or community organizations. It would provide first-hand help, advice and assistance to families with members afflicted by mental retardation. It is a first line of defense which has been recognized for many years as a useful tool in the fight for . better public health. It was probably the first such tool recognized as needing and deserving assistance from the Federal level.

This comprehensive health planning effort is expensive. I wish it were less expensive, but I am convinced by my own observation and the evidence supplied by the best qualified people of our country that it is money well spent. The investment in public health must be made. If the promise of this program works out as it should, the public will get far more service per dollar than in the past.

So much for the comprehensive health aspects of this bill. I am for them all the way. But because this program 1s so worthwhile, it is all the more regrettable that it has been saddled with two other extraneous programs which have ru:>thing whatsoever to do with public health service activities as such.

First there is the clinical laboratory section. Some need for such legislation has been demonstrated and as finally approved by our committee it is probably fairly workable. It should have been handled by itself, however, and I made every effort in committee to have that done. The bill submitted for consideration by the administration was poorly done, hastily drawn and achieved results not even contemplated by its drafters. In midstream they came forth with sweeping amendments to make the bill more acceptable and more compatible with its real aims. The committee did clean up the bill, and as it now stands I have no objection to it. This is section 5 of H.R. 6418.

The other extraneous addition to this bill is far worse and should be rejected completely. Section 12, which deals with assistance for critical hospitals, was not a part of the bill when it was introduced nor when it was the subject of hearings. No witnesses were brought in to comment specifically on this because it was not mentioned. Interested parties were not alerted to it and thereby missed the right to come forward and discuss it. A few questions about it were asked by one member of the committee who had a personal interest in such legislation. There was no reason at the time to believe that it would be a part of this bill. It does not deal with public health services but with construction and operation of hospitals.

This is a different subject. This is HillBurton, which will be taken up next year in the regular course of business. Even then it would be dangerous for the committee or the Congress to adopt the scheme suggested thereby. It purports to give one-shot aid to a limited number of hospitals in critical need because of the increased demands flowing from medicare. Projects under this section would entirely short-circuit the successful administrative arrangement used under Hill-Burton. Hospitals would come directly to Washington for the funds. The State would have no way to determine the priorities within its own boundartes

26008 CONG~SSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE September 19, 1967

as they have done thus far. The projects would inject an entirely new element into hospital assistance-funds to pay for services, whatever that may mean. Whatever it means, it is a radical departure from our present policies and should be examined very carefully and in depth before being accepted as part of our health law.

In any event, assuming that the need is as great as claimed-and there is substantial evidence that it may not be--a 1-year, one-shot program cannot correct it. Construction takes years even if the institution has its plans ready to go. It will not accomplish what it purports to. There will not lbe new beds in crowded hospitals in short order.

Another point to consider-the ad· · ministration, which has not been known. to miss an opportunity to ask for more. did not see fit to include such a program in its proposal and did not provide any budgeting for such a scheme. It still has not. It is an attempt by a very few hospitals to gain a great advantage over all others. The fund3 would be quickly taken up by a few hospitals with plans already formed. Those hospitals would be principally in New York. This is a New York amendment, and anyone who has been sold on the idea that he may get a chunk of it for a hospital in his district is being taken in.

I am very sorry to see this amendment endanger the comprehensive health bill, but it should be defeated for the protection of our Hill-Burton system which has worked so successfully for 20 years. It is the exact antithesis of partnership in health in the hospital field. It is special, discriminatory legislation which can have no other effect than to weaken and perhaps destroy the fine working arrangements between States and the Federal Government in the field of health.

I hope that the Committee will accept and pass the portions of this bill which provide for comprehensive health planning and the grants pursuant thereto. This is a step forward. At the same time I must also hope that this Committee wni reject that portion of this bill which does not reflect this progress but rather endangers and distorts the principles now accepted in Federal aid to hospitals.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL].

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from West Virginia and the entire Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce for bringing this bill to the floor of the House for its consideration today.

Mr. Chairman, as was stated by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, there is nothing more vital to the people of America today than health and education; and certainly traditionally this Congress has always treated health as a paramount consideration. In that sense, I think we are all to be commended for that approach.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the statements which have been made by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER],

the ranking member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, my concern involves the question of laboratory licensing in this bill. I do not feel, although I know that there can be improvements in our clinical laboratories throughout the country, that this should be a matter of Federal control over licenses.

It is my further opinion that most of the professionals in charge of laboratories and, indeed, in charge of most health-care activities do a good job of policing themselves.

I would like to submit, however, that there is involved here some factors of Federal control; whereas, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois said that it would be much better if it were State controlled, so that in those cases where they know best where the axle squeaks, they could apply the grease.

Therefore, why, in the opinion of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, should we initiate licensing in this area, any more than we should, say, single out 8 percent of all attorney&-for example, just the corporate attorneys of the legal profession-and decide to license them if they practiced or if they solicited practice in interstate commerce?

I do not mean to cast any aspersion upon the legal profession in respect to its so-called forwarding fee structure. However, if I may ask just one more question--

Mr. SPRINGER. Would the distinguished gentleman from Missouri permit me to answer his questions one at a time?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the other question is an allied question and therefore applies to such professions as the legal profession. Why should the SEC regulate such security transactions, since it does not regulate the licensors of various stock broker programs and firms?

Mr. SPRINGER. May I say to the gentleman from Missouri that I know of no piece of legislatlon which came before the committee which was more seriously considered and debated than this. I believe the evidence indicated that there was a small group of people who were doing a bad job, a very bad job. And, I would guess that there are some 40,000 engaged in this field in the entire country. This was limited to less than 400 who were doing a very bad job.

In an attempt to not let out those peopeople who were doing a bad job for many reasons which I will not enumerate to the gentleman, and yet not license those whom we feel are doing legitimate jobs in the public interest, we took out the pathologists, all of whom are legitimate people. We know of none of them who are doing a bad job.

We do not have jurisdiction, may I say, over those who are not in interstate commerce. This means that the hospitals in every community are not subject to this as long as they do not engage in interstate commerce. Therefore no pathologists in those hospitals or those communities would be licensed. In my own community I happen to have two of

the laregst clinics in the country. No part of them or the community would be licensed under this bill.

We may get some that are good, but we knoV' that we are going to get the bad ones when we did leave in there those who solicit or receive specimens in int.erstate commerce.

This means that if someone in Springfield, Mo., writes to my clinic in Champaign, Ill., and says "We would like to have your pathological repo·rt,'' the lett.er answer to this does not bring him within the provisions of this act. But if someone, company or organization, or pathologist in Springfield, Mo., solicits something or such business through the mails for commercial purposes from a clinic in Campaign he at that time becomes subject to the act. That is the only way we knew how to control those we felt were doing a bad job in the public interest.

That is about the only answer I can give the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the gentleman elucidating on this point. I want to po!nt out that I appreciate the good work of the committee in bringing this type of work forward, but as a matt.er of fact it does add up to the same old story that the sins of a few are always paid for by the beneficence of the many.

Mr. SPRINGER. I believe the gentleman is right. We did feel that, dealing in interstate commerce, it was our job to do something about those who were doing a bad job, who were engaged in interstate commerce. That is the best explanation I can give the gentleman.

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been informed that we can anticipate by the year 1970 a shortage of some one-quarter of a million nurses in the United States. I understand the bill the gentleman is now discussing does make some suggestions and recommendations concerning the accredidation and the quaHftoations of nurses.

I would say t.o the gentleman it has been my observation and my research has indicated to me, that it has been the great upgrading of qualifications of nurses that has made it difficult for the hospital-oriented schools ·to produce adequate nurses. I am wondering if the gentleman could tell us what consideration the committee has given t.o this problem, and what this bill will do, if anything, in that respect?

Mr. SPRINGER. What we have been trying to do is to stimulate junior college programs, and we have been trying to help the situation through that effort among others.

The gentleman from Florida [Mr. RoGERsJ , I believe, was the originator of an amendment to the bill with reference to this matter. But we have been trying, may I say, in every way we can to loosen this up without taking away what we consider are the necessary high qualifications for registered nurses. But we have opened up all the avenues that we could to induce the production of a greater number of RN's.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26009 Mr. CAHILL. It has been reported to

me-and I do not know how correct the representation is-that the Commissioner of Education has designated the National League of Nursing as the exclusive accreditation agency, and that it has been the insistence on the diploma or the degree school for nurses by this organization that has made it impossible in some instances for the hospitaloriented nursing program to succeed. What alarms me and I am sure alarms the gentleman in the well is that when the need is greater for more nurses, the nursing schools are producing less nurses. We produced less in 1966 than we did in 1964. I am wondering, therefore, if the gentleman would not agree with me that the responsibility for providing adequate nurses rests to a degree at least on the Commissioner. The Commissioner must recognize that we cannot, as much as we would like to, place such demanding qualifications on young girls who are going into nursing schools as to preclude those who want to become nurses and who can be good nurses but who cannot get through college to get a degree.

Mr. SPRINGER. With reference to that point, I would say that we are trying also to stimulate diploma programs.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MOSS. This has long been a subject of considerable concern to me in view of the fact that my State has perhaps a greater number of junior colleges and we are relaxing only the standards of accreditation and leaving the authority with the Secretary rather than repealing it as was intended in the original draft language submitted to the committee. We are doing that because of the fact that there has been no evidence that the national league would accredit many of these schools and the Nation would thus be deprived of its principal source of highly qualified nursing personnel.

It is an interesting fact that the nurses produced in this 2-year program, with 2 years of hospital work closely coordinated in the State of California have passed the State board examinations consistently with grades that compare favorably or exceed those of the baccalaureate degree nurses.

This bill preserves the incentive for that type of nurse training to continue. We need to give more rather than less emphasis to this today.


Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CAHILL. I would say to the gentleman from California that my information is that since the inception of the 1964 Nurses Training Act, over 61 hospital schools of nursing have closed and that 41 of those were accredited and that 20 were not accredited.

The problem, as I see it-and incidentally I have a daughter who is a nurse so I certainly have a strong interest in nursing-the problem as I see it is that we are trying to say to young girls today, "If you want to go into a hospital and

work as nurses have to work, you must have a college degree." By doing that we really are eliminating a large percentage of girls who want to be nurses, who could be nurses and who are needed as nurses.

It seems to me that when we are training a girl to be a nurse, it is not essential that she have a college degree. The ones who are making the rules now requiring a college degree were probably outstanding nurses-and they probably did not have college degrees. It is like that in all the other professions. Those who are in want to make it more difficult for others to get in. So my deep concern is that we are going to be spending millions of dollars for the improvement of hospitals and for the building of more facilities, and then we are not going to find either the.nurses or the dootor&--"because we are doing the same thing so far as medicine is concerned. We are not producing enough medical doctors. But to get back to the subject with reference to the nurses, I am fearful that what we are doing is really driving nursing schools out of the market.

Mr. SPRINGER. I think I should say in ,reply to the gentleman, I would not want us to be under any misapprehension that we have not done anything about doctors. We came in with a bill 2 years ago which increased the number of medical schools -by 16 and we also have an amendment ,that they must enroll 5 to 15 percent more students to take advantage of the medical school assistance bill. So we have already projected this to 1973 and we will be able to produce the same number of doctors per thousand population 1n 1973 as we are itoday.

So I do not want the gentleman to say that we have not looked after that because we have. Hospitals and nurses are another matter, but these problems, too, have been tackled.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MOSS. I thank the gentleman. The concern the gentleman expresses ls precisely the concern I have had and the gentleman from Florida has had. It is for that reason that we moved in committee to strike language which would have taken away from the Department the authority to accredit. It is to permit greater flexibility in accreditation rather than less flexibility and to expand the program of nursing training rather than to constrict it. That is what is accomplished in this bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, to spread further light on this question I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank the gentleman. I would like to endorse what has been said by the gentleman from California. That is the very purpose of the way the committee has acted on this bill as you now see it before you. We are very much concerned about nursmg, as many members in this Committee are. I know the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlewoman from Ohio share our concern on this question, and on the que.stion of hospital nursing schools as well as junior colleges and the 4-year graduate courses.

This language that we refuse to strike was put in to encourage greater help to the schools of nursing in the hospitals

and in the junior colleges. The difficulty has been that the National League of Nursing does not want to accredit anybody. This has been our whole fight, and we are beginning to move. Because of the language we put in the House bill, they tell us they are about to come to an agreement. They say they have made it, but I want to see it work before we take this language out.


Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CAHILL. Then do I correctly understand from the statement of the gentleman from Florida that it is the intent of the committee to give to the Commissioner greater :flexibility, and therefore indirectly say to him, "It is your responsibility to develop a program which will produce the nurses necessary to operate our hospitals in the years ahead"?

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. That is the thrust of the whole program. That is exactly what we want done.

Mr. CAHILL. Then I commend the committee, because I think that is something that is most desirable.

If the gentleman will yield for just one further statement in relation to the matter of the doctors, I recognize that the committee has made an effort, but I would have to say to the gentleman very respectfully that in my judgment, at least, we have not done nearly enough, and if the gentleman wants any evidence of the overwhelming need for physicians in the United States today, he has but to examine the number of foreign-trained doctors who are in the United States and who are working in our hospitals and who are administering to our patients and who are not, according to the standards of the respective States in which they are working, accredited. So there is an overwhelming need in the United States for more and more physicians than even the committee has provided.

Mr. SPRINGER. May I say to the gentleman that I think we have provided them, and I want to say-and I do not retreat from this statement-that between now and 1973 we are going to produce enough doctors so that we shall have the same number of doctors per thousand in 1973 that we had in 1965. I do not want to change that statement. There is an infiltration of doctors from England, Canada, and some of the other countries, and this is outside the program.

The gentleman has one justification. The committee has given this consideration. The gentleman from Mississippi, JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, worked on this I

· do not know how many diff erentl times with amendments to see if we could not attract doctors into the rural areas. I will admit our program has failed in the rural areas, but this is the only failure I know of in the doctors' program at the present time, as I look at it.

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

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

Mr. LAffiD. I would just like to say to the gentleman from Illinois that your


committee has done an excellent job in authorizing the various programs to which the gentleman from New Jersey refers. There is no question that the number of nurses and the number of doctors would be at a much higher level. The authorization is present.

I would just like to give several examples. Taking the medical research facilities program, we have an authorization there for $200 million, and we have a funding level of $30 million. We are going forward in the nurses' training program. The nurses' training program is funded at a level of 40 percent of what the committee has authorized. We can go straight through every one of these programs, and I do not believe the authorization in these areas is in error.

I believe the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey should be more properly aimed at the appropriation level, because there is a much higher authorization in all of these areas. Take, for instance, medical schools in this country today: 57 percent of the support for medical schools in the United States comes from the National Institutes of Health; 57 percent of the total budget of all medical schools in the United States comes from the National Institutes of Health. In addition to that, another 13 percent comes from programs authorized by the committee of the gentleman. So we are in a position where we are approaching 70-percent Federal financing in all the medical schools.

The committee has authorized 12 more medical schools throughout the country. We have not gotten on with that program. It is a question of priorities at this time, because we are engaged in a major war in Southeast Asia, and the funding levels are a problem. We are coming back and we are in conference on the HEW appropriation bill, and many of these points are in controversy right now in this whole area of the comprehensive medical program which we are discussing now.

We have heard a lot of talk about how this program should handle rat eradication and rat control. It should not be in the hands of the Housing Department. It should be in Public Health. This program was established under the leadership of John Fogarty and me at the Communicable Disease Laboratory in Atlanta, where we have been training public health omcers in cities and States. This health program cannot take care of it. Thus far, only five States have shown any desire to put in an application under this program.

I believe undoubtedly there is more authorization presently available right now than is needed. I will go along with increasing the authorization if the gentleman from Illinois wants an increase in the authorization, but an increase in the authorization by itself is not enough. We have to have the will on the part of the States, the will on the part of these people to move forward on the medical school instruction program, and also the will to increase the medical research funding as far as research facilities are concerned, up near the authorization level in this important health program.

We put a higher priority on putting 17

men on the moon than on taking care of 200 million people in the United States of America in the budget that has been submitted by the executive branch of the Gov.ernment.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman is right. Many program authorizations in the health field are not fully utilized.

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

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ref er to page 34 in the committee report, dealing with the situation as to the shortage of nurses. The point which the gentleman from New Jersey mentions is covered in this report, where we recognize, as he does, the problem.

In another area, I would like to mention the fact that the hospital schools have come down and down and down. We found that the cost to the hospitals was too great, to be carried and our committee provided that there be some assistance to the hospitals to encourage a training of nurses in our hospital schools nationwide. I have not checked the figures, but it is my understanding that this program has not moved as intended. In my judgment, it should be stimulated. It is not the Congress nor our committee that has been negligent, but somewhere down the line we have failed.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER].

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for section 12 of this bill, the hospital emergency assistance program which provides urgently needed aid for the critically "sick" hospitals of this Nation.

This program provides a balanced program of grants and loans to help those hospitals that are so overburdened or deficient in facilities that they are now unable to meet the health needs of the communities they serve. It authorizes $40 million for grants to pay up to 66% percent of approved projects. For those hospitals that are unable to raise the remaining 33 Ya percent from other sources, it authorizes $18 million in longterm, low-interest loans.

The total cost of program under section 12 is $58 million but it will make it possible for these "critical hospitals to serve 150,000 new patients each year.

A Department of Health, Education, and Welfare survey made about a year and a half ago indicated that some 143 hospitals in 97 communities in 29 States, were really in desperate condition-in such condition, in fact, that the people in those communities were not receiving adequate health services.

The emergency grants and loans proposed here are designed to reach those hospitals that are in the very worst situation and tide them over until such time as we can expand and revise the HillBurton program on a long-term basis to take care of this kind of need. In fact, I am happy to be the sponsor in the House of the new Hill-Burton expansion program, proposed by Senator HILL in the Senate, to achieve these purposes.

I yield to no man in my support of the Hill-Burton program. I believe it has

been a wonderful program. ·Section 12 was conceived in the spirit of Hill-Burton to meet an emergency situation that Hill-Burton cannot now meet. Under this measure, the Hill-Burton State priorities will be maintained. In fact, the section specifically requires that anything given under this program will be coordinated with them.

But there are certain things the HillBurton program simply could not anticipate. One was the advent of Medicare. In areas with high concentrations of aged people this program has placed tremendous burdens on the hospitals.

Other areas have experienced unexpected population shifts which have placed unpredictable burdens on their hospitals. There is one in my own congressional district, in a rural area. All of a sudden the population started pouring in, and just swamped. the existing hospital facilities.

We now make an annual Federal investment of more than a billion dollars in medical research and, as a result, there is no area in which we have scored more impressive victories than against man's oldest enemies, disease and injury. We know how to protect our families from the plague, smallpox, polio, even measles and scarlet fever. We can treat and cure tuberculosis and many forms of cancer. We can restore severed limbs, mend damaged hearts with man-made valves, and replace kidneys with machines.

Yet incredible as it may seem, many Americans are denied the benefits of these victories because our investment in delivery of health services has lagged. Overcrowded, inadequate and obsolete hospitals in many communities simply are not able to bring this billion dollars worth of knowledge to the people.

WhaJt good is a multimillion-dollar research pro~am when heart victims wait hours on wooden !benches 1for emergency treatment? Yet that :is happening in many of our hospitals.

What good are new techniques in treatment if there is no room for the patient to receive them?

The hospitals themselves are painfully aware of this problem.

I wish I could read all of the moving appeals I have received from all over the country. One example, is the telegram from the head of the Good Samaritan Hospital in Watertown, N.Y., reporting:

Our hospital is operating at 101.2 percent of capacity which necessitates beds in all solariums and with interesting frequency beds in corridors .... Our program has been approved by the hospital review and planning council of New York State (but) we do not have the funds to implement this plan.

A letter from Sister Mary Ventura of Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, reports an average daily occupancy of 107 percent.

We keep ten beds for use in the hall for emergency admissions . . .

Yet she rePorted that that very morning she had to turn away a gravely ill 6-year-old boy because there was no room in the hospital.

We have received many such letters. They come from all over the country.

The problem of the critical hospital

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26011 occurs in every section of the country. It is found in every type and size of community. For example an analysis of the 69 southern hospitals in the HEW survey showed that the smallest community involved had a population of under 450; the largest, about 100,000. The median population was under 5,700.

The program is fully coordinated with the Hill-Burton program, which I wholeheartedly support. The Surgeon General, under whose direction Hill-Burton programs are carried out, emphasized this in his letter of July 7 to the chairman of our Health Subcommittee. He said:

(This proposal) does not conflict with or substitute for provisions in the Hill-Burton program. As you know, the latter is designed to provide Federal assistance in the construction of facilities within the framework of a community and statewide plan. (This proposal) on the other hand, offers emergency financing to meet the hospital's most pressing needs which may not involve construction at all but may mean the development of other services to relieve the pressure on the hospital. (It) requires that this emergency assistance be provided within the framework of service plan, so that consistency with Hill-Burton planning is assured.:

The American Hospital Association after reviewing the proposal endorsed this opinion in its report of July 18. saying:

"As we understand your proposal it would offer an emergency financing to relieve the immediate pressure upon hospitals not only for the construction of hospital beds, but other services which may be needed. We further understand that the amendments resulting from your proposal would be administered in such a manner as to be consistent with the over-all planning of the Hill-Burton program.

May we express our appreciation for your deep concern 1n the needs of hospitals and for your efforts to assist them 1n meeting the needs of their communities for hospital services."

So there is no question here of a conflict with Hill-Burton or a violation of Hill-Burton. Indeed the act in two different places specifically requires conformance with the State Hill-Burton priorities.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OTTINGER. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. YATES. I would like to tell the gentleman that I support this section that is in this bill in favor of providing adequate grants and which has been described in the minority views as being a bonanza for the big cities of the country. Let me tell you the facts for the city of Chicago. A report that was made by the Hospital Planning Council for Metropolitan Chicago in November 1966, entitled "Appraisal of Hospital Obsolescence in the City of Chicago and the Metropolitan Area Outside Chicago" states as follows:

Total cost of modernization of hospitals In the City of Chicago and replacing those beds in non-profit and proprietary hospitals where replacement appears to be indicated from an economic point of view is estimated at 255.1 million dollars. When this ls compared with total Federal Hill-Burton grants for hospital construction in Illinois over the last 20 years, which totals $93.7 milllon and with the a.mount received by hospitals in Chicago, which totals $12.1 milllon, it 1s ap-

parent that there is a financing problem facing hospitals in the Chicago area of an extremely serious nature.

So, Mr. Chairman, when it is said, "Let us rely upon the provisions of the Hill-Burton Act," this will not offer any kind of relief for cities such as the city of Chicago, or any of the other big cities in the Nation.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.


Mr. OTTINGER. I am glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like ito commend the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] for his amendment and to say to the gentleman that insofar as I am concerned this amendment is necessary to meet the pressing needs of many of our rural hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, I happen to represent a county in New Jersey which is essentially a suburban area where the need is acute for immediate hospital construction. This need results from a pcpulation explosion in the area. This amendment could be helpful in this type of situations.

And, I would say to the gentleman, I intend to support his amendment. Even if it is riot accepted by the House, the gentleman from New York has performed a very worthwhile service by pointing out the fact that there are individual areas which need individual attention and, certainly, the formula that is now being utilized is not an acceptable one. In my own State of New Jersey, the State divides itself into 10 or 12 different districts. If a hospital happens to be located in one of those districts and if it ls not an "A" priority, that hospital cannot obtain a nickel. In many instances it is an individual hospital located in a certain area where there has been a tremendous increase in population, that actually needs the money greater than some individual hospitals located in a priority area. Individual attention in critical areas must be achieved.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the expression in suppcrt of my amendment which has been voiced by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I am enthusiastically in favor of the provisions as contained in this bill and those provisions as have been proposed by the very able and distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] to provide an emergency assistance program.

Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to have been associated 1n the sponsorship of this sorely needed amendment.

I trust that this improvement to the bill, Mr. Chairman, will be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the able gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] for his able efforts to win this provision. It is my opinion that the gentleman has contributed greatly to making this a true partnership for health bill.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his contribution.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. OTTINGER. I yield further to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I regret that the gentleman did not put into this section an amount of money that was 10 times greater than the $40 million which the committee has approved.

It is my opinion that the hospitals throughout the Nation need these funds particularly at this time when mortgage money is unavailable to so many hospitals in the cities and where those who can obtain funds will have to do so at a very high interest rate.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Illinois that there is a huge long-term need for the improvement of our hospital programs and very particularly those programs which are located in our various large cities.

Mr. Chairman, people from my own State of New York and from the city of New York came in and testified before the committee for this provision, even though if this particular bill is adopted it would not do much if anything to relieve their particular situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has again expired.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. OTTINGER. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Hill-Burton program does not come up for renewal until next year. Furthermore, current fiscal conditions do not permit us to embark upon a major national program.

Mr. Chairman, this program is directed at communities that have, for one reason or another, hospitals which have been overwhelmed by the demands upon them and the communities served by these hospitals are being deprived of needed health service.

The cold statistics of the HEW survey prove the urgent need for this program. But in the final analysis it is its significance for people, its human aspect, that is most important. If we fall to provide this modest aid, we are turning our backs on communities where people may die or suffer needlessly as a result.

We spend more than $1 billion a year on medical research. How can we afford not to invest this $58 million to make it possible for our citizens to benefit from the results of the research?

If, as the minority views would indicate, a heartless effort is made to strike section 12, I hope that each and every one of you will rise to its defense. "The life you save may be your own."


Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OTTINGER. I am glad to yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA].

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] for his offering of the amendment which was accepted by the committee and reported on to the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I shall support the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from New York.

In Hawaii there are 33 hospitals registered. Of the 33, nine are overcrowded, according to the standards of the American Hospital Association. For the purpose of this amendment, I believe 80 percent, or above occupancy is considered overcrowded. Of the nine overcrowded hospitals in Hawaii four are critically overcrowded by American Hospital Association standards.

We have the Maluhia Hospital, which has 98.6 percent average daily occupancy; the Shriners Hospital, with 100 percent average daily occupancy; the Hawaii State Hospital, with 102.3 percent aver-

.....age daily occupancy; the Waimanu Hospital, with 97.2 percent average daily occupancy, and the Kula Hospital, with 92.2 percent average daily occupancy.

Of course, the critically overcrowded hospitals are all long-term hospitals, but a substantial number of the overcrowded hospitals throughout the country are short-term hospitals. The Kuakini Hospital has 84.2 percent occupancy.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Hawaii, and I ask support for section 12 of this bill, as recommended by the committee.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. - Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. JARMAN].

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6418, the Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967. This bill extends and expands for three additional years the authorizations under the Public Health Service Act.

This Nation has dedicated itself to the goal of achieving the highest level of health possible for each of its citizens. The enormity of this task makes it clear that we must assimilate all of our available resources, public and private, in a vital partnership to achieve this important objective. The history of FederalState cooperation has brought about remarkable advancements by creating opportunities for the States and localities to identify their own most urgent health needs through Federal funding. H.R. 6418 will continue and expand this partnership, to the ultimate enhancement of our entire Nation.

Each provision of the bill is aimed at fulfilling the increasing needs of this partnership: extending the areawide planning of facilities to encompass all health services; training of the necessary personnel for these planning facilities; . and further developing the broad project grant authority for the stimulation of new and varied means of services.

The extension of area wide planning of

facilities will insure coordination by the most reliable and capable sources of knowledgeable experience. At least 70 percent of the allotments for support of health services shall be available only for services in communities-this is further evidence of the desire to move planning and programing closer to the people and the locality t.o be served.

Today the total Federal investment in health services research amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our total annual investment in health ca.re. A greater concentration of our efforts in this area will create a research and development program which will bring health services to a level of productivity which the American people demand and require. Section 3 of H.R. 6418 will give us the broad, flexible kind of authority needed to employ the Nation's best minds to design the facilities, design the information systems, and develop the training methods and the more efficient patterns of health services we must have.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, represents an enormous step toward meeting the health needs of the country by giving Federal support to local initiative and, therefore, deserves the support of the entire Congress. I most sincerely urge this body's favorable action on the bill.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I note that the gentleman ref erred to State planning, and that the gentleman endorsed the idea. I agree with the gentleman. But I would ask the gentleman is it not true that priorities as to the allocation of funds under the HlllBurton Act are determined by the State plan within the States?

Mr. JARMAN. Yes; that is correct. Mr. NELSEN. But under the Ottinger

amendment the priorities would no longer be established within the States under the State plan, but would be established at HEW; is that true?

Mr. JARMAN. Yes. Mr. NELSEN. Then, in other words,

the Ottinger amendment departs from the plan that the gentleman has so loudly praised, and in which I agree with the gentleman that we put it in the hands of the state for determination, but the Ottinger amendment turns it completely away from the States.

Mr. JARMAN. I would simply respond to the gentleman by saying I am certainly in agreement on the importance of the determinations of the basic plan b.eing in State hands.

However, I do recognize that the Ottinger amendment is emergency legislation drawn to meet a specific, immediate need. The details of this will come out in further debate.

Mr. NELSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JARMAN. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OTTINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The way this will actually work is in

accordance with a set of criteria that are established very firmly in the legislation. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will determine those hospitals in greatest critical condition throughout the country. Before an application is approved the hospital must show that its proposal is integrated with health service programs approved or planned for the community, State, or region in which the hospital is included.

Then before the Secretary of HEW approves the grant he must show that the project conforms to local, State, and regional health planning programs.

The Surgeon General and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare determine which hospitals are truly in critical condition, but the program will not be approved unless coordination and conformance with the local Hill-Burton program is assured.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALPERN].

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, this legislation, H.R. 6418, provides for a most vital and urgently needed productive partnership between the Nation's public health agencies and community health facilities. I hail its approval by the committee and feel privileged to be associated as a sponsor of the bill.

I am also particularly pleased that an amendment for an emergency hospital assistance program in which I joined my distinguished colleague from New York [Mr. OrrINGER] has been embodied in the original partnership for health bill, and now becomes an integral part of the committee bill.

The amendment was introduced as the emergency hospital assistance bill, H.R. 11571. It provides critically needed interim help for certain overburdened and inadequate hospitals, while longrange assistance is being worked out under the health partnership.

In essence, the amendment now incorporated in H.R. 6418, provides an emergency transfusion of $58 million in Federal grants and loans to help tide over "sick" community hospitals until more permanent aid arrives.

As it now stands, H.R. 6418 is well designed to meet the increasing public demand of the past several years for comprehensive health services available to all who need them.

It has become apparent that to provide these services, we will have to utilize all our health resources and put into practice all our knowledge. One of the great and sad paradoxes of today is that highly sophisticated surgical techniques are being developed and given limited application in our Nation's hospitals and medical centers, while in the slums surrounding these centers, not only these new techniques, but even existing knowledge are not being applied, for example, to reduce infant mortality rates that are many times higher than our own national average, as well as the average of at least a dozen other countries 1n the world.

Experts in the health field have known for some time that effective use of total health resources' is dependent upon a · high degree of coordination of all health

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26013 efforts, and therefore on comprehensive health planning. Dr. Berwyn F. Mattison, executive director of the American Public Health Association, has stated that:

Planning for community health on a comprehensive basis is the most important immediate task of public health.

This body recognized the impartance and immediacy of this task last year and passed, in the closing days of the 89th Congress, the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Service Amendments of 1966-Public Law 89-749. This legislation provided for comprehensive planning for health services, health manpower, and health facilities on the State and local level. Besides that, it broke down the unnecessarily restrictive barriers among health categories in the existing Federal financial assistance programs, so that the health field in its various aspects could be viewed as a whole.

Previous assistance to the States for health purposes had been heavily oriented toward specific disease categories or health problems without specific regard to State and local needs. The 1966 amendments provided for fundamental revisions in the grant structure. Formula grant funds are given through the States to local communities for comprehensive public health services on a flexible basis, with the focus redirected from defined categories of disease to health problems of individuals and families in the community. Second, project grants were regrouped to focus on priority health targets.

This new approach to a grants program recognized the fact that needs vary from one part of the country to another, from one State to another, and among different areas within a single State. Variations are particularly dramatic in urban areas, as I am aw~re from my experience in New York City. The 1966 . law, for the first time, permitted a flexibility in the use of formula grant funds so that States and communities may now use them to provide health services geared to the personal and environmental needs of their citizens. The State or locality can now plan its use of health services money for areas of highest priority. A city can now strike hard at the er:adication of syphilis, for instance, if this appears to 1be ,an area in which important success can be attained.

It is my feeling ifihwt the passage of Public Law 89-749 announced the ·arrival of a 'bright and vital new day in the provision of health services for all our people. In the same way, it is my feeling that the passage of H.R. 6418 ls a vital and necessary step ithwt this House must take today and must take by a resounding majority.

The 89th Congress, because of a time factor, enacted this program for a period of only 2 years. It was felt that more time and consideration was necessary before the measure could be authorized for the 5-year period that was origi-nally proposed. For the past months of this year the Commerce Committee has held many days of hearings and devoted many long hours of detailed and careful consideration to the b111 before us.

One of the many witnesses before the

committee was Dr. Howard J. Brown, health services administrator for the city of New York. Dr. Brown, in his testimony, gave two examples of the things this bill has enabled his city to do. I hope you will bear with me as I quote some of his remarks. The first problem situation he reported results from a recent shift of population in the Borough of Brooklyn causing marked increases in the number of children from low-income families. Dr. Brown said:

Our central city hospital in Brooklyn is Kings County Hospital which has become increasingly crowded. In the past year and one-half we surveyed the unmet needs for children's services in Brooklyn. It has become quite clear that we cannot meet them unless we use the combined facilities of our city hospitals, our department of health centers, and our voluntary clinics and, indeed, in addition, open some group practice units to meet the need.

Without this kind of planning we cannot meet the need.

A little later, Dr. Brown gave another example in the area of mental health. He said:

We have developed for the city through the mental health board a service of community mental health centers. We have found under our new planning that if we combine these with our hospitals we will save greatly on the cost because we won't have to duplicate laundries, heating plants, kitchens, and that kind of thing.

These are the kinds of things that can be done with the help of this legislation. I am sure that almos·t every other public he.alth administrator in the country could cite similar enlightening examples. I feel strongly about legislation of this type and I am privileged to be associated as a spansor of this bill.

Recognizing a vital omission in the original legislation, I joined with my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] in providing for a muchneeded improvement by offering separate legislation to add emergency assistance for community hospital services. The committee in its wisdom accepted this measure .and embodied it in the bill, making H.R. 6418 a true partnership for health measure.

While I have concentrated my remarks today on the sections of H.R. 6418 concerned with planning and with the health services gr.ants programs, I want to add a few words on provisions of equal 1mport·ance whioh were also included in my bill.

Among these are provisions dealing with research, experiments, and demonstrations aimed at developing new methods of providing health f.acilities and services; cooperative emergency health services; volunteer services; provision of health services for Federal employees at remote facilities of the Public Health Service; and improvement of clinical laboratories oper.ating in interstate commerce. These provisions, in their way, are also vitally important.

The program which was started by Public Law 89-749 and which will be continued by H.R. 6418 if it is p.assed, and it must be passed, can be a strong program and accomplish wonderful things. Its strength lies in its emphasis on a "partnership for health"--,.the par-ticip.ation of the provider and the con-

sumer of health services. Health planning has been brought closer to the consumer so that his needs may be readily identified and effectively filled. At the same time, the consumer has been given the -responsibility-together with representatives of private org.anizations and public agencies, local, State, and Federal Government-of shaping the health system of tomorrow.

We in the House of Representatives have the OPPortunity, Mr. Chairman, to help in shaping this he.alth system of tomorrow, by passing H.R. 6418. I hope with all my heart that we will take this opportunity.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. CAHILL].

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I probably will not use the entire 5 minutes, but I want to take this time to point out the fact that at a time in our history when we need more and more physicians and more and more nurses to take care of the elderly and to take care of the sick of our Nation, we are producing less nurses and less physicians.

For example, in 1964 I am advised that we graduated 35,259 nurses from all the various schools of nursing. In 1966 we only graduated 35,125.

So that in the 2 years, and during those years as we all know, we ha'Ye had the implementation of the medicare program, we have appropriated more and more funds on the Federal level for hospitals and we have become aware I think more acutely of this great need, and yet we are producing less nurses.

Many of your hospital administrators in your own congressional districts will tell you that with the medicare program, more and more people are coming to the hospitals and that there are less nurses to take care of them.

One of the problems has been the closing of nursing schools. We have closed 61 hospital schools of nursing. Now why is it when there is such an acute need, and when so many young girls want to become nurses that we closed 61 schools?

There are two reason for it. One is that unless a school is accredited, they cannot get any Federal assistance.

Under the present formula, the commissioner has been relying almost exclusively on the recommendation of the National League of Nurses. They probably properly and understandably want to raise the criteria and the qualifications of nurses, with the result that tl:ere is emphasis on the baccalaureate degree. But because of this emphasis many schools were not accredited and did not qualify for Federal funds. Some of these, therefore, had to close.

At the very same time that we are closing the nursing schools, by reason of the situation in Vietnam and by reason of the increase in our Armed Forces, our Federal service hospitals are requiring more and more nurses. So the civilian hospital oriented schools that are producing nurses, find that the military is competing with these hospitals to get these nurses and are offering great inducements to the young nurses.

The second thing that I would like to point out is that while it is true that we


have authorized sufficient funds to develop additional medical schools, the executive branch of the Government has not seen fit through the appropriation mechanism to provide the funds. I also suggest to my colleagues in the House that it is about time that we found another method to establish medical schools in this country.

We can no longer meet ithe criteria that is established by the American Medical Association in the development of medical schools. We have to come up with a new concept-a concept perhaps like that being utilized at Dartmouth College where some of the theory is taught at the university and then the students are transferred to the medical schools for clinical studies and the hospital experience.

We have to find more seats for more young American youth who have the ability and who have the dedication and who can afford to pay their WJJ,Y into a medical school but who cannot get in the medical schools.

We are, I believe, in this Congress under a great responsibility today, because of the very legislation th/J,t we have enacted, to anticipate the overwhelming burdens that we are going to find in our hospitals and in our communities for more nurses and more doctors.

I wish to make it crystal cleJJ,r that anything I have said is not to be construed as any criticism of this great committee of Congress. I think they have done a good job. I think this is a good bill and I intend to support it. I do not s,ay that it is their sole responsibility, but I say that it is the responsibility of all of us to engage in some thoughtful, provocative, innovative thinking for the purpose of solving what is one of the real problems of the country.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he m,ay require to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. KORNEGAY].

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding to me.

First, I would like to state that I rise in supPQrt of this legislation. I would like at this time to propound a question to the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have received a joint letter from the deans of the three medical schools in the State of North Carolina: Dr. Manson Meads, dean, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University; Dr. Issac M. Taylor, dean, University of North Carolina School of Medicine; Dr. William G. Anlyan, dean, Duke University Medical Center.

These .three deans have expressed their support of this bill but are concerned with a statement fiound on page 22 of the report, which states:

It is not the aim of this legislation to submit the operational activities of any health institution-whether it be medical school, voluntary health agency, private practitioner, or State program operator-to any additional Federal or State controls.

The question I would like to put to the chairman of the full committee is as follows: Are the operational activities of medical schools and teaching hospitals understood to include planning and program development?

Mr. STAGGERS. The simple answer to that question is, "Yes."

Mr. KORNEGAY. I thank the chairman very much for that good and forthright answer.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. HECHLERJ.

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6418. I am particularly pleased that section 12 has been incorporated into this legislation because this section will mean so much to those areas of the Nation where overcrowding in hospitals has resulted in very critical shortages of facilities. I hope that all attempts to delete this section will be beaten back, because I think this is one of the most important sections of the bill.

I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] for his imaginative leadership in fashioning this particular section of the bill. I commend the chairman of the full committee, my colleague from West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS], for his leadership in bringing it out with the legislation.

The director of the hospital and medical facilities bureau of West Virginia's State Department of Health, Dr. Paul Bibb, with whom I talked earlier in the day, indicated that a larger number of the hospitals in my State have occupancy well over 90 percent: Holden Hospital has 122 percent; Guyan Valley Hospital in Logan, 110 percent. In the two largest cities in my district, Parkersburg and Huntington, Camden-Clark Hospital in Parkersburg has an occupancy of 100 percent, and Cabell-Huntington Hospital, 96 percent. In southern West Virginia counties, the average occupancy rate is 92 percent. In Charleston, occupancy rates run over 90 percent in many hospitals.

I must say I was a little disturbed by the comments of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES], who described this section of the bill as a "big city bonanza." I would like to ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] if it is true that these modest funds of $40 million in grants and $18 million in loans are going to be confined to the large urban areas of the Nation.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from West Virginia yield?

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. OTTINGER].

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, there is no size community specified in the legislation. The basis of the legislation is a survey made a year and a half ago of all U.S. hospitals showing 143 hospitals in critical condition. Of those 143, the median size community those hospitals served was only 5,700. The communities ranged in size from a low of 450 inhabitants to a high of over 100,000 inhabitants, so the gentleman can see there is ample range as to size.

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Those statistics are very interesting. But I seek some additional reassurance. Mr. Chairman, is it not true, as to the figures presented by the gentleman from Illinois, that the big cities with their larger needs, with larger amounts of money available to prepare plans and applications, will

be getting the lion's share of this $40 million in grants?

Mr. OTI'INGER. No, not if the money is distributed as it would have been on the basis of the survey to which I ref erred. Certain things have changed since the survey was taken. But, in any case, the communities of the most critical need, where the health of the people is jeopardized because of lack of hospital services are those that will receive help. On the basis of the survey, the communities aided are likely to be the smaller communities rather than the larger, the rural rather than the urban.

Mr. HEClil.JER of West Virginia. I am very pleased to hear the comments of the gentleman from New York, and his assurance that the funds will be fairly distributed. Mr. Chairman, is this money going to be used only for buildings, or can it be used for some other critically needed services in hospitals?

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, whatever type service will help the hospital more efficiently over its crisis can receive money under this bill-for services, for buildings, or for equipment.

Mr. HECHLER of west Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman noticed that Dr. Howard Brown of New York City mentioned in his testimony before the committee that one of the reasons for the shortage of nurses was the lack of interest on the part of nurses to work in hospitals with the most crowded facilities. He used this as a reason for suppcrting this section of the bill.

Mr. OTTINGER. I most certainly did. I am grateful to Dr. Brown for his support of this provision.

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the case has been very clearly made in support of this valuable section of the bill. I commend the gentleman for his efforts in getting this excellent plan incorporated into the bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from West Virginia yield?

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman ought to be enlightened a little further. The gentleman has used the words "big city bonanza" and he could noit have used them better. The ones who are going to get this are the ones who are ·tooled up for Federal grants. The man who wants .the g.rant does not go ito Albany ito get it, 'but he goes to HEW direot and signs and gets his gra:::11t. This $40 million iand $18 milUon cannot take care of the 160 hospitals which the gentleman from New York says he has a 1ist of. It cannot take care of a f.raotion of tha!t. In f acit, I doubt whether iJt can take care of one-.third of tJhat.

This takes care of something the HillBurton never has done. It is for services. They can go out and hire nurses or doctors or whatever they want to. We have never provided services under any act. I think the gentleman from West Virginia can well understand why we have not provided for services. A Niagara of money could not take care of the things the gentleman from New York has put in this bill by the insertion of the word "servioes."

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26015 May I say that the people who are go

ing to be in here the next day after the President signs the bill-and may I say the gentleman there has a hospital for which he is going to be in, if this is signed by the President and section 12 is in there, and the gentleman looks after his people, and I cannot blame him for that-but chiefly it will be those areas which are tooled up to do the job, because in a year it is almost impossible to get tooled up for this. The big cities are the ones who will get the big money under the Ottinger amendment.

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare-in the interest of the legislative history which we are making here-can pass on not only those ready-made plans which large urban hospitals take off the shelf, but, in order to meet the intent of the legislation, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will give priority to those applications which come from those areas who have the most critical need.

Mr. OTTINGER. The amount of money in the bill was arrived at in consultation with the Public Health Service to take care of the critical conditions of the entire 143 hospitals in the original survey.

It is not just for the fellow who gets in the fastest but, on the basis of information available to the Public Health Service, for the fellow who needs assistance the most.

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I am pleased the gentleman from New York has helped to make legislative his·tory, because I do not want the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES] to get in here ahead of me on any of these requests. I am pleased that these requests will be passed on in the order of priority of critical need.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REussJ.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my congratulations to the leadership in the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on both sides of the aisle for bringing to the floor an excellent piece of legislation. The comprehensive, flexible, noncategorical principle it embodies is a real landmark in our legislative history now, as it was last October when first adopted.

I take this time briefly, Mr. Chairman, to explain an amendment which will be offered shortly, when we read the bill under the 5-minute rule, on behalf of myself and behalf of my colleague from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS], to make it clear that the bill contains an authorization for the same $20 million annually for programs of rat control and extermination as was the subject of an earlier ill-fated venture which died for want of a rule on the floor of the House here only 60 days ago, on July 20.

On the question whether this country needs federally assisted rat control programs, anyone who doubts that we do should have accompanied me a few days aigo on a walk rthrough the slum section of my home city of Milwaukee.

I saw houses with hundreds of ratholes gnawed in the walls and in the

CXIII--1639-Part 19

floors. I talked with citizens who told me that every night rats climb over them when they try to sleep. I saw mothers who try to keep their homes clean and decent, but who cannot because of this most disgusting of animals.

There was a little 4-year-old boy who was crying bitterly because he wanted someone to hold his hand and walk him to his home. It turned out his home was about 100 feet away, but each time he went home, when the sun went down, there were rats in the alley, and the rats bit the little boy.

Our cities, with demands of the local property tax already pressing homeowners about as far as they can be pressed, need Federal help if they are to mount an adequate program of rat extermination.

It is not my purpose today to conduct a post-mortem on the events of July 20. The debate there speaks for itself. The moving finger of the official reporter wrote it down, and all our piety and tears today cannot change it.

But I would point out that there is an important difference in the amendment here today and the program which was offered on July 20. While the amount of money is the same, this amendment does not dictate from Washington the priorities of the public health needs of our local communities, and it preserves the right of our localities to decide which are the most serious public health problems and to allocate funds, Federal and local, to these problems accordingly.

The amendment does not set up a new or separate categorical grant program, and it does not backslide on the important principle of flexibility of the Partnershiip for Health Act.

I wish that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce could have had an opportunity to hold the same full hearings on the rat control program, its means and methods, which were held before the Committee on Banking and Currency. This was not possible, because the Commerce Committee's hearings were concluded long before the July 20 date when the first venture in rat control and extermination came to the floor of the House.

I commend the amendment to Members on both sides of the aisle. I believe this is a real opportunity to undo the action that we undertook on July 20 and to undo it in a way which will conform with the excellent principle of flexibility inherent in this bill.

I hope when the amendment is presented it will be favorably regarded.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. KUYKENDALL].

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of this bill and wish to commend the chairman and ranking minority member for the outstanding work that the committee has done.

I would like to point out and emphasize the necessity of moving ahead by the people downtown at the Department of HEW with the matter of nurses training. My district is the city of Memphis, Tenn., with one of the larger medical centers of this Nation. We, as most areas do, have a very serious shortage of nurses today.

The presently existing shortage is not really the most alarming situation but, rather, the fact that we are not progressing, as has been pointed out, with the use of the authorized funds for further nurses training. I think the universities and particularly the junior colleges in cooperation with the hospital program may very well be part of the future answer to this problem. I wish to go on record as urging the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to work in this area of cooperation between the hospital nurse program and the junior college program for the 2-year certificate nurses.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that it be brought out the authorizations from this committee, of which I am one of the newest members, have not been the problem of moving forward in this ~r~a of doctors and nurses but, rather, it is the failure of the people downtown ~ expedite this program, which is gettmg to be a serious situation. I think the nu~se situation, if anything, may be more ser10us than the doctor situation because in this area they are having prohlems of raising the prestige of nurses, at least in the area of money, whereas we do not have so much of a problem with the doctors there.

I want to commend this legislation and urge the people downtown to move forward in this critical area of nurses training.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS].

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me time. I want to congratulate him and the distinguished chairman and members of the committee on the very fine job they have done in bringing this legislation to the floor. Also I want particularly to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REussJ, with whom I am supporting an amendment to add the necessary funds to insure that the cities and States of this country have an adequate program and the means to execute an adequate program for the extermination of rats wherever they are a public health problem. This amendment will be brought forth at the proper time. I think this is a very important part of the overall public health picture and is a proper addition to this bill.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I am glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NELSEN. Earlier in the debate one of our colleagues mentioned the fact that there were nine programs now in operation that could meet this need. I expect this is one of the nine. If the dollars are put into this bill, the job that some think needs doing and which very likely does need doing can be done under this particular piece of legislation. Is that not true?

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. That is exactly right. The amendment that will be offered wm provide muscle to do a thorough job under this bill with existing machinery and without the necessity of


creating further Federal bureaucracy can be accomplished.

Mr. NELSEN. I thank the distinguished Member for yielding.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time he may require to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS].

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give my strong support to this bill and urge its passage.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, the Congress of the United States has for many years joined with the States and local communities in finding ways in which to improve the health of the American people. Over 30 years ago, with the enactment of the Social Security Act, Congress committed itself to help in the fight against certain categories of disease and illness. More often than not, however, a new area of concern to the health of the Nation was met with a specific program designed to deal with the specific problem under consideration. Over the years, therefore, there grew up a fragmented pr0gram of categorical grants with restrictions and limitations prohibiting the maximum use of Federal funds by many of the States in meeting their public health problems.

By 1966, it became clear that something had to be done to assure that Federal assistance to the States aimed at improving the public health was responsive to the needs of a particular State and its communities. Public Law 89-749 offered a constructive solution to the problem of fragmented public health programs. In place of the categorical programs, Congress substituted a system of grants for public health without categorical limitation coupled with a program providing for comprehensive health planning by each of the States. Such a program offered the States and communities an opportunity to tailor health resources, manpower, and :finances to fit their particular needs and priorities. With the restrictions of categorical grant programs removed, State and local authorities could more effectively and realistically make decisions regarding the health needs of their constituents.

The action taken by Congress last year was limited in duration, and we must now consider extending provisions of this · program into the future in order to obtain the maximum effectiveness from the consolidated, rather than categorical, method of helping to improve the Nation's health.

In order to sustain the beginning made in 1966, I introduced H.R. 12353, to expand and broaden this approach of Federal aid to the States for public health. My bill, H.R. 12353, is identical to H.R. 6418, which 1s being considered rtioday.

Under the bill, the formula grant will be the principal source of Federal assistance for most ongoing State and local public health programs. These funds will be made available for distribution within each State in accordance with each State's determination of health needs and priorities. In this way, we can be assured that not only will the problems of the categorical approach be overcome, but also that the State health agencies wm be strengthened and made more effective.

The bill also provides for a special project grants program where a specific health problem may be attacked in some one area and where a formula grant approach would not be as responsive to the needs as would a direct project grant.

Overcoming the inherent problems in a categorical grants program is, unfortunately, not enough to assure maximum utilization of Federal health dollars. The bill, therefore, extends the comprehensive health planning provisions enacted into law in 1966. Increased funding is authorized to support the staffing and study costs necessary for thorough data acquisition on which to base health planning decisions. ,

A number of other significant provisions are contained in the bill: First, the creation of a mechanism to assure that there will be a dialog between planning groups; second, a licensing section to authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to license clinical laboratories which operate in interstate commerce; third, a provision to provide for assistance to hospitals where severe shortages of bed space which has resulted from increased demands for services; fourth, a program of formula grants to schools of public health; and fifth, other sections each aimed at helping to maximize the effectiveness of the Nation's health resources in the States toward meeting the needs of the people.

I am certain that the 90th Congress will continue the commitment toward improving the health of our Nation as has previous Congresses. This legislation offers workable and responsive answers to the health problems of America. Although this measure does not provide solutions to all of our health problems, it offers a bold and positive new direction for achieving our national health goals.

I urge each of you to consider the merits of this proposal and give it your strong support.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6418, the Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967.

When the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee reported on last year's comprehensive health legislation, I felt we had removed a major roadblock in the effort to make the possible use of federal support to state in the field of health. For in that bill we established the block grant which allows the state to set its own priorities on health matters and thus use the money as it sees best.

I have long been an advocate of the block grant theory, both for health and other areas. These types of grants help eliminate regional and mvtional guidelines which may not hold itrue in the individual States. It allows the State to purt the emphasis on cancer if that is the State's num;ber one health problem and does not bind the state.

This :flexibility and encouragement of state initia;tive is the most direct way to tackle our health problems, and at the same time lessens Federal interf erence. Under this system, each State can determine its own needs and act straight forth to solve the problems.

I hope we will give this matter favorable consideration.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I most earnestly hope that, following full discussion and debate, this House will overwhelmingly approve this bill before us, H.R. 6418, the very aptly termed "Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967."

Mr. Chairman, the principal purposes of this bill are to extend and expand for 3 additional years-until July 1, 1971-the appropriation authorizations under the Public Health Service Act for formula and .projeot grants for public health services by the States, and for grants for comprehensive health planning, and to establish an expanded program for research into and demonstrations of new methods of organization, delivery, and financing of health services. The bill also establishes a program of aid for projects for alterations, enlargement, or remodeling of, and additions to, existing hospitals having an average rate of occupancy exceeding reasonable capacity. In addition, the bill establishes a program for licensing clinical laboratories which solicit or receive specimens in interstate commerce.

Other major provisions of the measure would-

First, extend for 3 years-through fiscal year 1971--grants to schools of public health;

Second, strengthen the role of the Public Health Service in assisting States and localities to cope with health emergencies and disasters;

Third, authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to accept uncompensated services of volun .. teers in the operation of health care facilities;

Fourth, clarify and strengthen the authority of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to enter into agreements with health schools, hospitals, and other health care or training facilities for the interchange or cooperative sharing of scarce or highly specialized health resources;

Fifth, provide that not to-exceed 1 percent of appropriated funds for formula and project grants for public heal·th service~ well as .g.rants to schools of pulblic health-shall be av·aila:ble to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for program evaluation, analysis, and review;

Sixth, emend to July l, 1971, the contract authority in section 301(h) of the Public Health Service Act, which expires June 30, 1968;

Seventh, authorize provision of medical rand other health care to Federal employees at remote startions but only where care other than that provided by .the Public Health Service is not available, and make certain seaman-trainees eligible for such care;

Eighth, allow assistance under the Hill-Burton hospital construction program to be furnished to certain joint hospital enterprises;

Ninth, allow a loan to be made of up to two-thirds of the additional costs of an experimental hospital construction project where such costs have risen substantially after initial approval of the project;

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26017

Tenth, for the purposes of partial reimbursement of diploma nursing schools for the cost of training, make clear that students receiving loans from the nurse student revolving fund are "federally sponsored studenJts" in the same sense as those receiving loans from the capital contribution loan fund; and

Eleventh, increase from 12 to 13 the number of members of the National Advisory Council of Education for Health Professions required to be chosen from among leading authorities in the field of higher education.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, this bill provides for the further consolidation of the many and confused fragmented grants in the public health field into two program grant authorizations, one for formula grants for public health services and another for special project grants. For a number of varied health programs, it establishes a single set of requirements, a single authorization and a single appropriation.

It directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to initiate an expanded and coordinated program of researoh, e~periments, and demonstrations designed to substantially improve the quality and effectiveness of our health services.

It authorizes and directs the Secretary of Health, Educaition, and Welfare to enter into agreements with health schools, hospitals, and other health care training facilities to provide for the cooperative use of personnel, facilities, services, and information in order to better utilize scarce professional personnel and expensive facilities.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the authorized appropriations to carry out the provisions of this bill are commonly and expertly agreed to be reasonaJble in consideration of the very severe budgetary problems plaguing the Nation, but it is hoped that they will, for the time being, serve to meet the critical health service needs that cannot be longer delayed without grave possibility of very serious consequences being visited upon the health and welfare of the majority of the people of this country. I hope that the House will very soon and resoundingly approve this measure which is undoubtedly in the best national interest.

Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6418, the Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967.

As the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we should accept no less than the best in health services for all of our citizens; certainly the strength of the Nation depends on the health of its people. We have made considerable progress in achieving the goal of a healthy society, but much remains to be done. This bill will provide the tools necessary to continue our efforts to achieve better health for all our citizens.

The central purpose of the bill is to extend and expand for 3 years the appropriation authori~ation under the Public Health Service Act for formula and project grants for public health services by the States. There are a number of advantages in this program. First, it consolidates the many fragmented

grants into two grant categories, thus allowing the States the flexibility to solve their particular health needs in their own way. Second, this program requires that at least 70 percent of the State's allotment shall be used for services in the local communities of the State. This is in recognition of the fact that health is a local problem, and services must be focused at the level of most need: the individual and his community. Third at least 15 percent of the State's allotn{ent must be made available to the State mental health authority.

A second purpose of the bill is to provide for comprehensive health planning. Our national medical resources to meet the needs of health services are not unlimited, and the increasing demands for health services will mean additional shortages of health personnel and facilities in the future. One way to approach this problem is to increase training of medical personnel and construction of health facilities, and the Congress is showing the proper concern in these areas. But our shortage of resources also demands that we develop comprehensive plans to determine needs, set priorities and commit resources to meet those needs. This provision of the bill provides financial assistance to statewide planning groups and to community-based areawide planning agencies. By reinforcing the local and State health agencies, the bill recognizes that these levels of government are best suited to understand their health problems and develop their comprehensive response to the problems.

A third provision would increase health services research and development. With a shortage of personnel and facilities, it is of primary importance to increase the efficient utilization of health personnel and make the best use of existing technology,

A fourth vital area of health services is covered by a provision which would provide assistance for critical hospitals, or hospitals faced with a critical shortage of beds. Under the Hill-Burton hospital construction program, our hospital facilities have kept up with the demand to a remarkable extent. However, with the initiation of medicare the need for hospital beds has increased considerably in the past few years, and today we face a shortage of over 66,000 beds. All hospitals are not affected, but some are critically overcrowded. This provision would provide emergency assistance on a tern· porary basis to such hospitals until full consideration can be given to the entire hospital bed situation next year.

There are other important provisions in this bill which I think provide a balanced approach to the problem of health services in this Nation. The bill is a necessary and important response to a vital area of concern for all citizens, and I urge my colleagues to support it today.

Mr. RHODES or Arizona. Mr. Chairman, late in the 89th Congress, a 1-year Comprehensive Health Act was enacted into law with Republican support. This act rejected the standard Great Society formula of categorical grants. It consolidated 16 separately administered public health programs and permitted States to develop plans, establish priori-

ties, and coordinate local activities. Under this approach, the priority health problems in each State and community whether they stem from communicable diseases, narcotics, or rat infestation, can be identified and programs designed to combat the problems established and properly funded.

At the time the Comprehensive Health Act was introduced, President Johnson stated:

At present, the Federal Government offers the States formula grants for categorical programs dealing with specific diseases. This leads to an unnecessarily rigid and compartmentalized approach to health problems.

Our purpose must be to help redirect and reform fragmented programs which encourage inefficiency and confusion and fail to meet the total health needs of our citizens.

We believe this statement is as true today as it was a year ago. We continue to support a comprehensive health program that encourages maximum coordination and permits the States and localities to establish priorities. We believe this concept should be expanded and employed in additional fields.

In one important instance, despite the earlier overwhelming bipartisan support for the Comprehensive Health Act, the administration has abandoned this forward-looking concept of block grants and has retreated to the old philosophy of categorical grants that impedes the development of an overall program and binds the hands of State and city officials. It has proposed a Rat Extermination Act under a new Federal admin· istrator that would compete with the pro· visions of the Comprehensive Health Act and make even more dimcult a coordinated attack on this very serious problem. Moreover, in proposing this new act, the administration ignored the fact that in addition to the Comprehensive Health Act, the community action portion of the poverty law provides substantial funds which can be used at the option of the State and local govern .. ments for rat eradication. Chicago alone has received $2.9 million of Federal poverty money for rat eradication in the past 3 years.

The gentleman from Wisconsin, Representative HENRY REuss, who serves on the subcommittee that handled the rat extermination bill, made the following observation in support of the block grant approach in the Comprehensive Health Act as opposed to the restrictive provisions of the rat extermination bill.

I am all for exterminating rats, but just last year the Congress was at great pains to take some 10 or a dozen public hoo.lth programs, including programs in the environmental field, and to put them together into one program so as to move toward greater flexibility in Federal-State-local relations. It was a remarkable piece of legislation in the Public Health Service. The President signed it last Oc·tober. Under the Act, which gives localities freedom to choose the things they want to ooncentrate on, at least seven states are now coming in with excellen·t vector mt control programs. But here, having done a.11 that, what do we do but come in with another tiny specific program, very costly to administer. It gets HUD into the health bust .. ness, it confuses the local health departments who have been dealing uniformly with the Public Health Service of HEW, it is going to result in shopping around, whether you

26018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 get rat-control money from HEW or whether you get it from HUD.

The House Republican policy committee supports the extension and expansion of the Comprehensive Health Act as provided in H.R. 6418. Under this bill, $892 million in comprehensive health grants will be made to the States during the next 3 years. With these funds, each State and locality will be able to zero in on its most serious public health problem whether it is due to rat infestation or some other cause. For example, Gov.ernor Rockefeller, of New York, and Governor Volpe, of Massachusetts, have .announced the formulation of State rat.control plans that can be assisted by these funds.

We urge the elimination of section 12 of this bill. This provision was not the subject of hearings and is in no way related to the stated purposes of this act. Section 12 completely short circuits the formula system that has been successfully employed for 20 years under the Hill-Burton Act to grant money to the various States for hospital construction. It would authorize the Secretary of HEW to select and then make direct grants to a few hospitals. The money required for this hastily conceived program did not receive Bureau of the Budget approval nor was it provided for in the administration budget. A provision of this type demands, at the very minimum, full hearings and careful committee consideration before it is brought to the House floor for final action.

Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, the vote to add $20 million annually to the authorization to the HEW represents a phenomenon of sorts. This is action which has not been requested by the administration, has not been requested by the HEW, but is the culmination of attacks upon the Congress over the past 2 months for refusing to adopt ill-conceived legislation to make a categorical grant to the Housing and Urban Development Agency for a rat-control program.

There used to be a fictional character in the 'Lil Abner cartoon strip named "Available Jones." Anyone having a frustration or grievance against anyone or against the world in general could make a payment to "Available," 2 bits or 4 bits or whatever, for which compensation "Available" would permit the payor to give him a good, swift kick. In a frustrating summer marked by riots which became intolerable, a large part of the American public and the press found the Congress to be a convenient "Available Jones" upon which to vent their frustrations. The rat-control measure seemed to off er a dramatic and apparently easily understood specific measure, upon which to zero in.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] has again called our attention to the fact that OEO already has plentiful funds which may be distributed to the cities for rat-control expenditure, and that there are eight other Federal programs which provide rat-control money. The city of Chicago, for example, has a reported $3 million rat-control program under the aegis of OEO. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MINSHALL]

has pointed out as an example, that the city of Cleveland, from which criticism of the previous congressional action has emanated, has failed even to make application for such funds already made available.

We are told that the Ways and Means Committee is demanding that the executive branch bring in indications of expenditure reductions as a condition precedent to favorable consideration of the tax increase proposal. The additional authorization of $40 million over the next 2 years for a program which is already operative, for which no request for additional funds has been made, appears then to be an action not warranted by the evidence or by the realities of today's fiscal situation, but rather a surrender to the unwarranted insistence that the Congress of the United States take action demanded as a result of misapplied frustrations.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time on this side.

The CHAIRMAN. There being no further requests for time, pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will read the substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 6418

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 "Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967". GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING

AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

SEC. 2. (a) (1) Subsection (a) (1) of section 314 of the Public Health Service Act ( 42 U.S.C. 246, as amended by section 3 of the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Services Amendments of 1966, Public Law 89-749) is amended (1) by striking out "1968" the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "1971" and (2) by striking out "and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $20,-000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971".

(2) Subsection (a) (2) of such section is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (I) and (J) as subparagraphs (J) and (K), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new paragraph:

"(I) effective July l, 1968, (i) provide for assisting each health care facility in the State to develop a program for capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and expansion which is consistent with an overall State plan developed in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary after consultation with the State which will meet the needs of the State for health care facilities, equipment, and services without duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and economical manner, and (ii) provide that the State agency furnishing 15UCh assistance will periodically review the program (developed pursuant to clause (i)) of each health care facility in the State and recommend appropriate modification thereof;".

(3) The last sentence of subsection (a) (4) of such section is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof ", except that in the case of the allotments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19-70, and for the

next fiscal year, it shall not exceed 75 per centum of such cost".

(b) (1) Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking out "1958" the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "1971" and by striking out "and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968", and inserting in lieu thereof "$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $15,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971".

(2) Such subsection (b) is further amended by inserting immediately after "project grants to any other public or nonprofit private agency or organization" the following: "(but with appropriate representation of the interests of local government where the recipient of the grant is not a local government or combination thereof or an agency of such government or combination)".

(c) Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking out "1968" the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "1971" and by striking out "and $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "$2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971".

(d) (1) Subsection (d) (1) of such section is amended by striking out "$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," and inserting in lieu thereof "$70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $110,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,''.

(2) Subsection (d) (7) of such section is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Effective with respect to allotments under this subsection for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1968, a.t least 70 per centum of &Uch amount reserved for mental health services and a.t least 70 per centum of the remainder of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be available only for the provision under the State plan of services in communities of the State."

( e) Subsection ( e) of such section is amended by striking out "$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,'' and inserting in lieu thereof "$70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,".

(f) Effective July 1, 1967, subsection (c) of section 309 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 242g ( c) ) , as amended by section 4 of the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Services Amendments of 1966 (Public Law 89-749), is amended by striking out "each" after "$5,000,000" and by inserting after "the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968," the following: "$6,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,". RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO

HEALTH FACILITIES AND SERVICES

SEC. 3. (a) Section 304 (42 U.S.C. 242b) of the Public Health Service Act is amended to read as follows: "RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO

HEALTH AND FACILITIES SERVICES

"SEC. 304. (a) The Secretary is authorized-

" ( 1) to make grants to States, political subdivisions, universities, hospitals, and other public and nonprofit private agencies, institutions, or organizations for projects for the conduct of research, experiments, or demonstrations (and related training), and

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26019 "(2) to make contracts with public or

private agencies, institutions, or organizations for the conduct of research, experiments, or demonstrations (and related training), relalting to the development, utilization, quality, organization, and financing of services, facilities, and resources of hospitals or other medical facilities (including, for purposes of this section, facilities for the mentally retarded, as defined in the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Cent~rs Construction Act of 1963), agencies, institutions, or organizations or to development of new methods or improvement of existing methods of organization, delivery, or financing of health services, including, among others-

" (A) projects for the construction of units of hospdtals or other medical facilities which involve experimental architectural designs or functional layout or use of new materials or new methods of construction, the efficiency of which can be tested and evaluated, or which involve the demonstration of such efficiency, particularly projects which also involve research, experiments, or demonstrations relating to delivery of health services, and

"(B) projects for development and testing of new equipment and systems, including automated equipment, and other new technology systems or concepts for the delivery of health services.

"(b) Except wheTe the Secretary determines that unusual circumstances make a larger percentage necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this section, a grant or contract under this section with respect to any project for construction of a facility or for acquisltion of equipment may not provide for payment of more than 50 per centum of so much of the coot of the facility or eqUipment as the Secretary determines is reasonably attributable to research, experimental, or demonstration purposes. The provisions of clau.se (5) of the third sentence of section 605(a) and such other conditions as the secretary may determdne shall apply with respect to grants or con tracts under this section for projects for construction of a facility or tor acquisition of equipment.

" ( c) Payments of any grant.a or undeT any contracts under this section may be made in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments and on such conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

"(d) There are authorized to be appropriated for payment of grants or under contracts under this section $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $40,000,000 for the fisca.l year ending June 30, 1969, $60,-000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971; except that, for any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1968, such portions of such sums as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program. authorized by this action."

(b) Effective with respect to appropriations for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1967-

(1) section 624 of such Act is repealed; and (2) the first sentence of section 314{e) of

suoh Act is amended by inserting "or" at the end of clause (1), bys.triking out clause (3), by striking out ", or" at the end of clause (2), by inserting "(including related training)" after "providing services" in clause (1), and by amending clause (2) to read: "(2) developing and supporting for an initial period new programs Of health services (including related training)"; and

(3) the second sentence of such section 314(e) is amended by striking out "or (2) ". Any sums app·ropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, for carrying out such sections 624 and 314(e) (3) which remain

unobligated on the date of enactment of this Act shall be available for carrying out section 304 of the Public Health Service Act, and the total of such sums (and any portion of the appropriations for such year for such purpose obligated prior to such date of enactment in carrying out such sections) shall be deducted from the authorization for such year contained in such section 304.

COOPERATION WITH STATES IN EMERGENCIES

SEc. 4. Section 311 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243) is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(c) The Secretary may enter into agreements providing for cooperative planning between Public Health Service medical facilities and community health facilities to cope with health problems resulting from disasters, and for participation by Public Health Service medical fac1lities in carrying out such planning. He may also, at the request of the appropriate State or local authority, extend temporary (not in excess of forty-five days) assistance to States or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature as to warrant Federal assistance. The Secretary may require such reimbursement of the United States for aid (other than planning) under the preceding sentences of this subsection as he may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances. Any reimbursement so paid shall be credited to the applicable appropriation of the Public Health Service for the year in which such reimbursement is received."

CLINICAL LABORATORIES IMPROVEMENT

SEc. 5. (a) Part F of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262-3) 1s amended by changing the title to read: "LICENSING-BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS AND CLINICAL LABORATORIES", and by adding after section 352 (42 U.S.C. 263) the following new section:

"LICENSING OF LABORATORIES

"SEC. 353. (a) As used in this section"{l) the term 'laboratory• or 'clinical lab

oratory• means a facility for the biological, microbiological, serological, chemical, immuno-hematological, hematological, biophysical, cytological, pathological, or other examination of materials derived from the human body, for the purpose of obtaining information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of, man;

"(2) The term 'interstate commerce' means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication between any State or possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof, or within the District of Columbia.

"(b) (1) No person may solicit or accept in interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, any specimen for laboratory examination or other laboratory procedures, unless there is in effect a license for such laboratory issued by the Secretary under this section applicable to such procedures.

"(2) The Secretary shall by regulation exempt from the provisions of this section laboratories whose operations are so small or infrequent as not to constitute a significant threat to the public health.

" ( c) A license issued by the Secretary under this section may be applicable to all laboratory procedures or only to specified laboratory procedures or categories of laboratory procedures.

" ( d) ( 1) A license shall not be issued in the case of any clinical laboratory unless (A) the application therefor contains or is accompanied by such information as the Secretary finds necessary, and (B) the applicant agrees and the Secretary determines that such laboratory will be operated in accordance with standards found necessary by the Secretary to carry out the purposes of this section. Such standards shall be de-

signed to assure consistent performance by the laboratories of accurate laboratory procedures and services, and shall include, among others, standards to assure-

"(i) maintenance of a quality control program adequate and appropriate for accuracy of the laboratory procedures and services;

"(ii) maintenance of records, equipment, and facilities necessary to proper and effective operation of the laboratory;

"(iii) qualifications of the director of the laboratory and other supervisory professional personnel necessary for adequate and effective professional supervision of the operation of the laboratory (which shall include criteria relating to the extent to which training and experience shall be substituted for education) ; and

"(iv) participaition in a proficiency testing program established by the Secretary.

"(2) A license issued under this section shall be valid for a period of three years, or such shorter period as the Secretary may establish for any clinical laboratory or any class or classes thereof; and ma.y be renewed in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe.

"(3) The Secretary may require payment of fees for the issuance and renewal of licenses, but the amount of any such fee shall not exceed $125 per annum.

"(e) A laboratory license may be revoked, suspended, or limited if the Secretary finds, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the owner or operator of the laboratory, that such owner or operator or any employee of the laboratory-

.. ( 1) has been guilty of m.1srepresentation in obtaining the license;

"('2) has engaged or attempted to engage or represented himself as entitled to perform any laboratory procedure or category of procedures not authorized in the license;

"(3) has failed to comply with the standards with respect to laboratories and laboratory personnel prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to this section;

"(4) has failed to comply with reasonaible requests of the Secretary for any information or materials, or work on materials, he deems necessary to determine the laboratory's continued eligibility for its license hereunder or continued compliance with the Secretary's standards hereunder;

" ( 5) has refused a request of the Secretary or any Federal officer or employee duly designated by him for permission to inspect the laboratory and its operations and pertinent records at any reasonable time; or

"(6) has violated or aided and abetted in the violation of any provisions of this section or of any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder.

"(f) Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that continuation of any activity by a laboratory licensed under this section would constitute an imminent hazard to the public health, he may bring suit in the district court for the district in which such laboratory is situated to enjoin continuation of such activity and, upon proper showing, a temporary injunction or restraining order against continuation of such activity pending issuance of a final order under this section shall be granted without bond by such court.

"(g) (1) Any party aggrieved by any final action taken under subsection ( e) of this section may at any time within sixty days after the date of such action file a petition with the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for judicial review of such action. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary or other officer designated by him for that purpose. The Secretary thereupon shall file 1n the court the record on which the action of the Secretary is based, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code.

"(2) If the petitioner applies to the court

26020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall fl.le such modified or new findings, and his recommendations, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original action, with the return of such additional evidence.

"(3) Upon the fl.ling of the petition referred to in paragraph ( 1) of this subsection, the court shall have jurisdiction to aftlrm the action, or to set it aside in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently. The findings of the Secretary as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.

"(4) The judgment of the court aftlrming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such action of the Secretary 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 28, United States Code.

"(h) Any person who willfully violates any provision of this section or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction thereof be subject to imprisonment for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both such imprisonment and fine.

" ( i) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any clinical laboratory operated by a licensed physician, osteopath, dentist, or podiatrist, or group thereof. who performs or perform laboratory tests or procedures, personally or through his or their employees, solely as an adjunct to the treatment of his or their own patients or to any clinical laboratory operated by a pathologist in which all laboratory tests and procedures are performed by such pathologist or by such pathologist and his employees acting under his direct supervision; nor shall such provisions apply to any laboratory with respect to tests or other procedures made by it for any person engaged in the business of insurance if made solely for purposes of determining whether to write an insurance contract or of determining eligibility or continued eligibility for payments thereunder.

"(j) . In carrying out his functions under this section, the Secretary is authorized, pursuant to agreement, to utilize the services or facilities of any Federal or State or local public agency or nonprofit private agency or organization, and may pay therefor in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments, as he may determine.

"(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the power of any State to enact and enforce laws relating to the matters covered by this section to the extent that such laws are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section or with the rules and regulations issued under this section.

"(1) Where a State has enacted or hereafter enacts laws relating to matters covered by this section, which provide for standards equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this section or than the rules and regulations issued under this section, the Secretary may exempt clinical laboratories in that State from compliance with this section."

(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall become effective on the first day of the thirteenth month after the month in which it is enacted, except that the Secre-

tary of Health, Education, and Welfare may postpone such effective date for such additional period as he finds necessary, but not beyond the first day of the nineteenth month after such month in which the amendment is enacted.

(c) This section may be cited as the "Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act of 1967".

VOLUNTEER SERVICES

SEC. 6. Title II of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding after section 222 (42 U.S.C. 217a) the following new section:

"VOLUNTEER SERVICES

"SEC. 223. Subject to regulations, volunteer and uncompensated services may be accepted by the Secretary, or by any other officer or employee of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by him, for use in the operation of any health care fac111ty or in the provision of health care." COOPERATION AS TO MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES

AND RESOURCES

SEC. 7. Part 0 of title III of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding after section 327 ( 42 U.S.C. 254) the following new section:

"SHARING OF MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES AND RESOURCES

"SEC. 328. (a) For purposes of this section-

"(1) the term 'specialized health resources' means health care resources (whether equipment, space, or personnel) which, because of cost, limited availability, or unusual nature, are either unique in the health care community or are subject to maximum utilization only through mutual use;

"(2) the term 'hospital', unless otherwise specified, includes (in addition to other hospitals) any Federal hospital.

"(b) For the purpose of maintaining or improving the quality of care in Public Health Service facilities and to provide a professional environment therein which will help to attract and retain highly qualified and talented health personnel, to encourage mutually beneficial relationships between Public Health Service fac111ties and hospitals and other health fac111ties in the health care community, and to promote the full utilization of hospitals and other health fac111ties and resources, the Secretary may-

" ( 1) enter into agreements or arrangements with schools of medicine, and with other health schools, agencies, or institutions, for such interchange or cooperative use of facilities and services on a reciprocal or reimbursable basis, as will be of benefit to the training or research programs of the participating agencies; and

"(2) enter into agreements or arrangements with hospitals and other health ca.re facilities for the mutual use or the exchange of use of specialized health resources, and providing for reciprocal reimbursement. Any reimbursement pursuant to any such agreement or arrangement shall be based on charges covering the reasonable cost of such utilization, including normal depreciation and amortization costs of equipment. Any proceeds to the Government under this subsection shall be credited to the applicable appropriation of the Public Health Service for the year in which such proceeds are received.''

PROGRAM EVALUATION

SEC. 8. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 314(d) of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: ", except that, for any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1968, such portion of such sums as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program authorized by this subsecttoi;i and the amount avail-

able for allotments hereunder shall be reduced accordingly".

(b) Section 314(e) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new sentence: "For a.ny fiscal year ending after June 30, 1968, such portion of the appropriations for grants under this subsection as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program authorized by this subsection."

( c) Section 309 ( c) of such Act is amended by inserting " ( 1) " after "except tha.t" and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: ", and (2) for any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1968, such portions of the funds made available under this subsection as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be ·avaJ.lable to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program authorized by this subsection".

RESEARCH CONTRACT AUTHORITY

SEC. 9. Paragraph (h) of section 301 of the Public Health Service Act ( 42 U.S.C. 241) is amenQed. by striking out "two succeeding fl.seal years" and by inserting in lieu thereof "five succeeding fiscal years".

MEDICAL OARE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AT REMOTE STATIONS OF THE SERVICE

SEC. 10. (a) section 324 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 251) is amended by inserting " (a) " immediately after "SEC. 324." and by redesignating clauses (a) through (d) of such section, and references thereto, as clauses (1) through (4).

( b) Section 324 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(b) The Secretary is authorized to provide medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization and optometric care for F-ederal employees (as defined in section 8901(1) of title 5 of the United States Code) and their dependents at remote medical fac111.ties of the Public Health Service where such care and treatment are not otherwise available. Such employees and their dependents who are not entitled to this care and treatment under any other provision of law shall be charged for it at rates established by the Secretary to reflect the reasonable cost of providing the care and treatment. Any paymenrts pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be·credited to the applicable appropriation to the Public Health Service for the year in which such payments are received."

(c) Paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of section 322 of such Act is amended to read as follows:

"(7) Seamen-·trainees, while participating in maritime training programs to develop or enhance their employability in the maritime industry; and".

JOINT HOSPITAL ENTERPRISES

SEC. 11. (a) Section 6oo(a) of the Public Health Service Act is amended by striking owt "or by a public or other nonprofit agency" and inserting in lieu thereof ", by a public or other nonprofit agency. or by a joint hospital enterprise".

(b) Section 605(a) (3) of such Act is amended by striking out "or in a public or other nonprofit agency" and inserting in lieu thereof", in a public or other nonprofit agency, or in a joint hospital enterprise".

(c) Subsection (c) of section 625 of such Act is amended ( 1) by inserting " ( 1)" immediately after "(c) "• (2) by inserting "or owned and operated by a joint hospital enterprise" immediately after "and central service facilities operated in oonnection With hospitals", and (3) by adding a:t the end thereof the following:

"(2) The term 'joint hospital enterprise' means a nonprofit organization organized and operated exclusively to provide services for public or other nonprofit hospitals."

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26021 EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY

HOSPITAL SERVICES SEC. 12. (a) Section 314 of the Public

Health Services Act ls amended by redeslgnating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by lnser·ting immediately after subsection (f) the following new subsection:

"Emergency Grants to Hospitals "(g) (1) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds

that certain public and nonprofit private hospitals in the several States are unable to meet the present urgent health service needs of the communities served by the hospitals or to participate in comprehensive health services programs or planning to meet future needs due to a critical la.ck of adequate facilities and services; that there do not now exist adequate sources of public or private financing to provide the direct emergency assistance needed to resolve this critical condition; and, that this results in a serious threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the communities involved and of the Nation.

"(2) AUTHORIZATION.-ln order to provide emergency aiSsistance to those hospitals found to be in critical condition as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection and in the cases where the communities they serve would otherwise be deprived of needed health services, the Secretary is authorized to make direct emergency grants of up to 66% per centum of the cost of any project to provide necessary facilities and services in accordance with the provisions of this subsection: Provided, That no grant of assistance for any single project under this subsection may exceed 7¥2 per centum of the amount appropriated under this paragraph. For the purpose of making emergency grants as provided in this subsection there ls hereby authorized to be appropr1ated $40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, .196·8. Sums appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence

· shall remain ava11able for obligation for two fiscal years following the fiscal year for which they are appropriated.

"(3) ELIGmILITY.-Public and nonprofit private hospitals may qualify as critical hospitals and be eligible for assistance under this Act, if the Secretary finds that-

"(A) the average rate of occupancy or the demand for necessary and essential faclUties and services of such a hospital so far exceeds reasonable capacity that the community served ls deprived of health services of a type and quality conforming to generally accepted standards;

"(B) full and effective use is being made of the existing facilities of the hospital and o! other health facilities available to the community;

"(C) the needed assistance is not available from other public or private resources; and

"(D) the failure to provide the needed !acll1ties or services constitutes a threat to the health, welfare, or safety of the community.

"{4) APPLICATIONS.-Any hospital seeking emergency assistance under this subsection shall apply to the Secretary, declaring itself to be in critical need of emergency assistance and setting forth-

" (A) evidence of .ellglblUty under the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection in such manner and detail and with such supporting data as the Secretary shall require;

"(B) a detailed description of the project for which emergency assistance ls being r.equestecl, specifying the deficiencies in health services that the project will correct, and how the project, if approved and completed, will-

" (I) meet the health services needs of the community it serves,

"{U) be coordinated with existing health services available to such community, and

"(111) be integrated with health services programs approved or planned for the com-

munity, State, or region in which the hospital ls included;

"(C) the estimated cost of completing the project, set forth in such manner and detail as the Secretary shall require;

"(D) the amount of emergency assistance, under this subsection, that will be required to complete the project; the period of time during which such assistance will be utlUzed; the source and the amount of funds, other than the grant assistance requested under this subsection, but including any emergency loan requested under paragraph (7) of this subsection, which will be used to complete the project;

"(E) reasonable assurance that adequate financial assistance will be available to support and maintain the added or expanded facilities or services after the project requested ~nder this subsection ls completed;

"{F) reasonable assurance that wherever any project for which assistance under this subsection iS requested involves construction, all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of such construction will be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar work in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a(5)); and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the labor standards specified in this paragraph the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization !?Ian Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended ( 40 U.S.C. 276c); and

"(G) agreement that the Secretary may exercise such review authority as he deems

· advisable in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of this subsection.

"(5) APPROVAL OF ~PPLICATION.-The Secretary may approve such application if he determines that--

"(A) the hospital malting application !or assistance is eligible for assistance under the terms of paragraph (3) of this subsection, and that the hospital has complied with all relevant provisions of this subsection;

"(B) the project described in accordance with paragraph (4) of this subsection will help to correct existing deficiencies in health services available to the community, will h~lp to enable the hospital to provide he"alth services of a type and quality conforming to generally accepted standards and conforms to local, State, or regional health planning and programs;

"(C) sufilcient funds are available from amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection to make the grants of assistance covered by such applications; and

"(D) the project covered by such application is entitled to priority over other projects for which applications have been received under this subsection but which have not been approved under this paragraph: Provided, That in making such determination special consideration shall be given to hospitals participating in health services development programs authorized under section 304 of this Act.

"(6) REVIEW AUTHORITY.-For the purpose of determining whether a hospital ls eligible

· for assistance under paragraph (3) of this subsection and whether an application conforms to the conditions for approval under paragraphs (4) and (5) o! this subsection, the Secretary ls authorized to visit anf hospital submitting an application for assistance, to review any relevant records and to make or request surveys of health fac11ities and services of the community served by the hospital.

.. (7) EMERGENCY LOANS TO CRITICAL HosPITALS.-Any hospital unable to secure adequate funds to pay that portion of the project cost not covered by the emergency grant requested under this subsection, may apply to the Secretary for an emergency loan and

the Secretary is authorized to loan such a hospital up to 90 per centum of that portion of the project cost not covered by the grant provided under this subsection if (A) the Secretary determines that the hospital is unable to secure the needed funds from other public and private sources and (B) the Secretary approves the requested emergency grant under this subsection: Provided, That no emergency loan shall exceed 90 per centum of 33% per centum of the total project cost as defined under para.graph (4) of this subsection and approved by the Secretary. Each such loan authorized by this paragraph shall bear interest at the rate of 2¥2 per centum per annum on the unpaid balance thereof and shall be repayable over a period determined by the Secretary to be appropriate, but not exceeding fifty years. In order to make the loans provided for in this paragraph, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. Sums appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence shall remain available for obligation for two fiscal years following the fiscal year for which they are appropriated.

"(8) SURVEY OF HOSPITALS AND COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS.-To aid in fulfilling the goals of this section and carry out the purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a survey of public and nonprofit private hospitals in the Nation and shall evaluate the type and quality of facilities and services available from such hospitals. Based upon this study the Secretary shall establish and maintain criteria for determining generally accepted standards of health services and shall report the results of the survey and his determinations to Congress and the President no later than June l, 1968. Thereafter the Secretary shall revise the survey and his determinations annually and shall report to the President and Congress at the beginning of each session of Congress. Such reports shall include estimates of the cost of meeting the emergency needs of critical hospitals, the availab111ty of funds from public and private sources to meet such costs and recommendations for additional appropriations under this subsection if he finds that such are needed to meet emergency situations. For the purpose of preparing and maintaining the survey according to the provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with and utl!ize the resources of such public and private organizations as he deems necessary and advisable.

"(9) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this subsection-

"(A) The term 'State' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

"(B) The term 'hospital' includes facilities furnishing domiciliary care.

"(C) The term 'nonprofit' as applied to any hospital means a hospital which is owned and operated by one or more nonprofit corporations or associations no part of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

"(D) The term 'project' includes additions to existing hospital plant, alterations, enlargement, or remodeling of existing buildings, equipment, instruments, furnishings, and programs involving personnel."

(b) This section may be cited as the "Hosp! tal Emergency Assistance Act of 1967".

PROJECTS FOR HOSPITAL EXPERIMENTATION, LOANS FOR INCREASED COSTS

SEc. 13. Title VI of the Public Health Service Act ls amended by inserting immediately after section 623 the -following new section: "LOANS FOR CERTAIN HOSPITAL EXPERIMENTA

TION PROJECTS "SEC. 623A. (a) In order to alleviate hard

ship on any recipient of a grant under section 636 of this title (as in effect immedi-


ately before the enactment of the Hospital and Medical Facilities Amendments of 1964) for a project for the construction of an e·xperimental or demonstration facility having as its specific purpose the application of novel means for the reduction of hospital costs with respect to which there has been a substantial increase in the cost of such construction (over the estimated cost of such project on the basis of which such grant was made) through no fault of such recipient, the Secretary is authorized to make a loan to such recipient not exceeding 66 % per centum of such incre·ased costs, as determined by the Secretary, if the Secretary determines that such recipient is una.ble to obtain such an amount for such purpose from other public or private sources.

"{b) Any such loan shall be made only on the basis of an application submitted to the Secretary in such form and containing such information and assurances as he may prescribe.

"(c) Each such loan shall bear interest at the rate of 2Y:z per centum per annum on the unpaid balance thereof and shall be repayable over a period determined by the Secretary to be appropriate, but not exceeding fifty years.

"(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $3,500,000 to carry out the provisions of this section."

MINOR OR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 14. (a) Section 806(c) (1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296e(c) (1)) is amended by inserting after "from a loan fund established pursuant to section 822" the following: "or from sums paid by the Secretary from the revolving fund created by section 827 ( d) ".

(b) The second sentence of section 312 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 244) is amended by inserting "and officials of other State or local public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations" after "such health authorities".

(c) Section 725(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 293e(a)) is amended by striking out "twelve" and inserting in lieu thereof "thirteen".

(d) Section 314(f) of such Act is amended by-

( 1) inserting "for" before "the expenses of travel" in paragraph (5);

(2) striking out "Service" and inserting in lieu thereof "Department" in paragraphs (6) and (8).

(e) Section 795(1) (A) (11) of such Act is amended to read as follows: "(11) of education in optometric technology, dental hygiene, or curriculums as are specified by regulation, and".

(f) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective as of November 3, 1966.

MEANING OF SECRETARY

SEC. 15. As used in the amendments made by this Act, the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. STAGGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be considered as read, printed in the RECORD at this point, and open to amendment at any point.

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

There was no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. REUSS

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. REuss: On Page

24, in line 23, strike out "$70,000,000" and insert "$90,000,000"; in line 24 strike out "$75,000,000" and insert "$95,000,000".

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

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair will count. Ninety Members are present, not a

quorum. The Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 261] Abbitt Feighan Railisback Adams Ford, Gerald R . Rarick Aspinall Fountain Resnick Bliackburn Frelinghuysen Ryan IDatnik Garmatz Steiger, Wis. Brinkley Halleck Stephens Brock Hays Teague, Calif. Broomfield Hebert Tenzer Casey Herlong Thompson, N.J. Celler Holland Tunney Conyers Landrum Utt Diggs Multer Williams, Miss. Dulskl Murphy, N.Y. Wolff Everett Pucinski Wyatt

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BROOKS, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 6418, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 390 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

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

Wisconsin [Mr. REUSS] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment before us is to give the Members another opportunity to consider the problem of rat control and rat extermination, but under more favorable circumstances, I hope, than when we last considered it on July 20. This is a bipartisan amendment. It is cosponsored by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS].

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield to me?

Mr. REUSS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. LAIRD. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me.

It seems to me the circumstances under which we are considering this amendment are somewhat different than the circumstances a few months ago inasmuch as that program provided for a new, a completely new, program in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This amendment provides increases in an existing program operated by the Public Health Service in cooperation with the state boards of health and the city health officials.

Mr. REUSS. That is entirely correct. I would also point out that the amend

ment here in no way departs from the excellent principle of flexibility in the Partnership for Health Act. The money would be available for communities that come up with worthy programs of rat control and extermination, but there would be no compulsion there.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I shall be glad to yield to my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARRETT. I thank the gentleman

from Wisconsin for offering this amendment, and I am sure that the gentleman agrees the Housing Subcommittee has held several weeks of hearings upon this subject. We had expert testimony on rat extermination and control, and we have learned through those hearings that the best way that rat extermination and control bill could be handled is through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which Department has the mechanics and the machinery with which to place this rat extermination program into operation. Therefore, we could do a more absolute and positive job in the extermination of rats than we can through the operations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare upon several occasions indicated that we could only exterminate 75 percent of the rats, leaving 25 percent of the rats unexterminated, which percentage will multiply a;gain to the same original number within the period of 6 months.

So, why do we not use the taxpayers' dollars better, as the gentleman said a moment ago, to exterminate and control the rat population? Let me say that I do support the amendment, though I would prefer our committee bill.

Mr. REUSS. I shall be glad to answer the gentleman's question.

In the first place, while this amendment lodges the authority-the overall omnibus power-in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, there is nothing in the world to stop the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from using the good offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist it in that overall omnibus control.

Second-and this is a very important factor-we want to pass a rat control program. The fact of the matter is that the Members of this body, on the vote upon the rule on July 20 of this year, were reluctant to accept the advice of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania and the advice which was offered by myself. We voted for the rule on that bill. The majority of the Members of the House did not.

It is, thus, in an effort to get a rat control and extermination program on the books that we are here this afternoon with what I believe is a good way to do it, and the way I feel a majority of the Members can respond to.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I shall be delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mrs. BOLTON. How much per rat? Mr. REUSS. There are some 90 mil

lion rats now in our American cities, according to the estimates. This program would run for 2 years, at $20 million a year. If all of the money is taken, and if my arithmetic is reasonably correct, that amounts to about-what is it--about 40 cents a rat.

However, I would point out to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio the fact that 12 States have already put this program into effect in the event it is

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26023 funded, as this amendment seeks to do. Included among those States are the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri, Washington, Indiana, New York, South Carolina, California, Illinois, and Michigan, and I assume--

Mrs. BOLTON. At 40 cents a rat? Mr. REUSS. The distinguished gentle

woman is correct. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen

tleman from Wisconsin has expired. (On request of Mr. WAGGONNER, and by

unanimous consent, Mr. REUSS was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I shall be glad to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, when the House of Representatives earlier this year refused, by voting down the rule on the so-called rat bill, to consider this legislation, I think i.t was commonly known that the proposal then contained authority wherein in administering this act the Department of Housing and Urban Development could, through local political subdivisions, utilize grant money, up to two-.thirds thereof, if found necessary, to become involved in the construction and renovation of public and private facilities, if they could, in making these grants, come to believe or ascertain that the renovation and construction of facilities would accomplish some-thing toward the long-range control of rats.

Does this amendment as the gentleman has offered it here today or will this amendment, as the gentleman has offered it, allow any agency of the Federal Government to enter into the renovation and construction of facilities in the socalled effort to control rats?

Mr. REUSS. No agency of the Federal Government is designated per se to do that. This amendment, just like the earlier proposal, would permit matching grants to localities, when included in a State program, for the systematic extermination and the institution of prescribed control methods against rats, efforts designed toward the elimination or modification of physical surroundings and conditions including rat harborage and food supplies which encourage rat habitation, and any other activities designed to reduce or eliminate, on other than a temporary basis, disease and injury to property.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield at that point, then the gentleman is saying to me that the Federal Government does not supervise these moneys which could be spent for renovation and construction purposes, but in making these grants to the local political subdivisions we permi·t, with the approval of the Federal Government, these funds, two-thirds of which will be Federal, to be used in construction or renovation of facilities if they determine at the local and Federal level this will do something toward the control of rats. Am I correct?

Mr. REUSS. The gentleman is correct, OXIII--1640-Part 19

providing of course that the State plan includes that.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. REUSS. The State would have the authority to do that.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman for off ering this amendment to the House.

As we both know, I serve on the House Committee on Banking and Currency, and when the legislation was first considered in that committee the point was raised as to what part of the Government should supervise such a program. I had the same feeling that the gentleman at that time had, and some others, that HEW, having an existing program, would be one that should be seriously considered in that respect, and should enter into it as the supervising authority.

I would like to say, that if a rat control program is enacted, I believe this is a way of doing the job, and actually gaining the support of the Congress who, I feel, want this, but in many instances were not satisfied that it would be under the prop-er division of the Government. ·

Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will be adopted.


Mr. REUSS. I will yield to the gentleman in a moment, but I would first point out in connection with the statement of the gentleman from New Jersey that this is not a matter of evaluating a rat--we are not buying rats. We are buying freedom from the 14,000 rat bites that annually afflict our children in our city and rural slums. We are buying freedom from 20,000 cases a year of communicable diseases which are passed on by rats. We are buying, I hope, freedom from $400 million annually in food wastage caused by uncontrolled rats.

I believe it is a good project. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle

man from Pennsylvania. Mr. BARRETT. I thank the gentleman

for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would have to agree

with the gentleman that that is the purpose of the bill, but we should not do this in a piecemeal fashion. We want to develop a bill to cover every inf estation of rats in every community throughout the country.

But let me mention this: I have here a letter from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which was sent over here, and it says in part--and I will not read it all--

Mr. REUSS. What was the date of the letter, and to whom was the letter addressed?

Mr. BARRETT. This comes over from Wilbur J. Cohen, Under Secretary.

Mr. REUSS. When was the letter dated?

Mr. BARRETT. On July 18. The CHAmMAN. The time of the

gentleman has expired. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ri.se

in opposition to the amendment. <By unanimous consent, Mr. SPRINGER

was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes)

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that some of my colleagues were not here when I had the chance to explain what the Comprehensive Health Act does.

What we are doing in this bill is getting away from categorical grants. That is, the very purpose of the act is to get away from 16 categorical grants we have had previously through this bill. Now here we are, very slyly behind the scene, attempting to make a categorical grant of $20 million for rat control.

Now the gentleman says in order not to violate the very rule--


Mr. SPRINGER. I cannot yield at this point. I will yield later to the gentleman. I do not wish to be impolite, but I want to get this all in the RECORD.

But now very slyly the gentleman from Wisconsin goes around to the rear and comes in the back door-he does not say that this is for the rat control. But in his talk I believe that over four-fifths of the time was devoted to the fact that rat control was the purpose of the amendment.

Now maybe the gentleman's amendment would be perfectly all right if there was no money for rat control. I think I would support him if there was no money for rat control. But let me just say that in this bill one of the purposes of this bill is to allow these agencies and these communities and these States to come in and ask for rat control money. That is one of the purposes of the bill. We do not need any additional money. That is what the money is for. That is one of the things the $70 million is in there for.

Let me see if I can bring out some facts here to you so that you can understand what has been done in the past year or two with respect to this problem. Let me just give you this. We passed a bill; that is, the Congress did, last October 17, which was the beginning of 1this program. Finally, we came up with a bill this year that blossomed out into the full program of some $900 million of which $70 million could qualify for the program that the gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about.

Let us see what happened last year under this program. I am not going to talk about the OEO or even the others that I am going to list in a moment-but just on what this program did last year.

Of the small amount of money that we appropriated, and what the applications were, this program carried an appropriation of $125 million for formula and special grant purposes.

California, $500,000. Pennsylvania, $145,000. South Carolina, $105,000. Washington State, $20,000. New Jersey and the city of St. Louis,

$130,000. Kansas City and.Missouri, $6,000. The supply of Federal grants for rat

control under this act totals $960,000. May I say that anyone who wants to

apply under this can do it. There is no additional money. We anticipated there


might be rat control programs. We anticipated some communities and some States would set their priorities includ-ing rat control. ·

There is $70 million here, and anyone who wants to apply for it can, and I anticipate that as a result of the publicity given that there will be a whole raft of applications this year for rat control, and the Department already informed me that they are ready to act on anybody's request that wants money for rat control.

I just want to be sure that you understand that under the Comprehensive Health Act that we have brought to the floor of the House today, we anticipated that there are going to be rat control applications and we provide for it in this bill. That is why the $70 million is in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, if this was the only thing involved, we might even quit there. But just let me give you here the additional programs that I mentioned.

But for rat control, let me just read them to you.

Last year: The Department of Agriculture, $649,-

000. The Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare, $426,000. The Office of Economic Opportunity,

$2,373,000---and that does not include all of it because the city of Chicago last year got $2,900,000 for rat control itself.

The General Services Administration, $200,000.

The Department of Commerce, $10,-380.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, $282,000.

The Department of Defense, $11,800,-000. .

The Department of Interior, $64,248. Of the expenditures already made in

the fiscal year 1968, that is all the record I have.

The Department of Labor, $300,000. The Office of Economic Opportunity,

$757,024. How many more programs do you want

for rat control? I believe I am just as firmly convinced

that rat control is necessary in this country as anybody on either side of the aisle, but somewhere there ought to be brought some reason into this program. That is why we have elected and very wisely may I say, with some support for the gentleman from Wisconsin who mentioned here some 2 months ago that we need this program to put it under this program.

Now here you are going to take the same old categorical grants that you are trying to get away from, and are allowing them another $20 million, but coming in the side door and saying to HEW, .. Be ready now, here is an extra $20 million and we want to be sure it is spent for rat control." From the type of record that we are going to make on the floor of this House, that is actually the situation.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I mentioned the gentleman's name, and I am glad to yield to him.

Mr. REUSS. The gentleman did mention my name. He even used an adverb.

Mr. SPRINGER. If the adverb was adverse, I withdraw it.

Mr. REUSS. The gentleman has men- months ago, when he was on the floor of tioned that my amendment would set up the House, said it ought to be in HEW a categorical grant. The gentleman, with in the health program. That is where due respect, could not have read the we put it, and we provided the money amendment, because it does not set up a for it. No additional funds are needed. categorical grant. I do not believe in a Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, will the categorical grant in this section of our gentleman yield? health programs. I believe in flexibility. Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentle-All this does is to increase by $20 million, man from Wisconsin. for this year and the next, the sums Mr. REUSS. I wish to make crystal available for rat control and extermina- clear that this amendment does not set tion, sums which have been abundantly up a categorical, segmented, sealed-off demonstrated to be necessary to fund the program for rats. It simply adds to the program. overall health services authorization

If they are not spent for rats, they can that amount of money, $20 million, for either lapse or be spent for some other this fiscal year, and $20 million for the worthy health purpose. I am confident next fiscal year, which, in the judgment that there is a need in this Nation to un- of the administration experts, is necesdertake a program of the dimensions of sary for this program. The grant is in$20 million a year for the control of rats. creased by that amount, and the DeBut there is absolutely nothing in this partment of Health, Education, and amendment which compels it. Welfare, in its complete discretion, can

While the gentleman is at perfect decide whether a rat control program liberty to oppose an adequate program or other program is more necessary. for the extermination of rats, it should Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I be done on that basis and not on the move to strike the requisite number of ground that this is a categorical pro- words. · gram, because it certainly is not. r rise in support of the amendment

Mr. SPRINGER. In answer to the gen- of the gentleman from Wisconsin. I tleman from Wisconsin, may I say that think the need in the area of rat exterI cannot interpret his words as any- mination is critical. The problems of rat thing else. He does not say in the amend- infestation are compelling. The amendment, "You are going to spend it," but ment makes this money available so he uses words to the effect that if they that local communities and State agendo not spend it for rat control, they can cies can request funds for this purpose. spend it for some other worthy purpose. HEW is by far the best agency to handle I take it the gentleman is saying that the program. I urge its support. it can go for rat control first. 'rhis worthy amendment of the gen-

We have been trying to get away from tleman from Wisconsin deserves our spending any kind of appropriated suppart. money for any specific program unless the State comes in and says, "We have a Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, -high priority for rat control." We can will the gentleman yield? t Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ake care of that request under this bill yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

without the addition of the $20 million, which the gentleman has indicated, I Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I take it, should be spent for rat control. rise in supPort of the amendment. I

That is not categorizing it. That is not commend the gentleman from Wisconsin · t th D t t th who offered the amendment, for I would

saymg 0 e epar men ey are have offered the amendment had he not bound by the law. But how can you get away from the debate which has gone done so. on on the floor, if this amendment The amendment would authorize the passes, they are not going to spend the expenditure of $20 million a year for $20 million for the benefit of anyone who fiscal years 1968 and 1969 for the eradicacomes in and asks for it? tion of rats as part of our public health

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, will program. the gentleman yield? On July 20, 1967, this body wrongfully

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gen- rejected, by a vote of 176 yeas to 207 nays, tleman from Pennsylvania. the rule providing for consideration of

Mr. BARRETT. I thank the gentleman the so-called Rat Extermination Aot of for yielding. I wish at the outset to make 1967. The consideration of the rule was a correction, because I believe you said punctuated with jocularity. We have $20 million instead of $40 million. It is since been told in letters from constitu$20 million for 1968 and $20 million for en ts and in the editorial columns of 1969. newspapers across the Nation that such

Mr. SPRINGER. If I said $20 million, conduct was unbefitting the Members of I meant $40 million. this House and the seriousness of the

Mr. BARRE'J.'T. I wish to say to the legislation involved. gentleman from Wisconsin that I have . We have had time in the intervening heard his statement. Certainly I am weeks to reflect upon and review our going to vote for the amendment if he in- action of July 20. It was only after the sists on g·oing through with it. I ani for laughter had subsided that the voice rat extermination, and I am for rat con- from the ghettos came through loud and trol, but it is giving it to HEW. I feel that clear. It was a voice that was always it would be better to give it to HUD. He there, but not always heard. It was a very definitely points out that this voice that told us in unmistakable terms, money is to be used for HEW, and HUD as it does now, that rat extermination would not get a dime for rat control. I is a necessary first step upward in the thank the . gentleman for yielding. improvement of life in America's ghettos. -'

Mr. SPRINGER. If I understand the It is a voice that we can no longer refuse gentleman correctly, that is where the to hear. program ought to be. The gentleman 2 Mr. Chairman, we are today being

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26025 given an opportunity to rectify the record of July 20. By this amendment, a second opportunity is being afforded this body to take the first necessary step to improve the health, safety, and welfare of a large segment of this country's urban population. It is a step that we ought to take unanimously and decisively to show the Nation, and the world, that this body has reviewed, reconsidered, and revoted to do that which is right.

J The amendment we are considering would provide the same authorizations as the defeated Rat Extermination Act of 1967 would have to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In a sense, it is perhaps more appropriate that rat eradication be undertaken as a nationwide public health program. In the final analysis, however, it matters little which Federal agency is to be assigned the responsibility of administering this project. The primary consideration is the passage of the legislation represented by this amendment. lt is only then that we can begin to give hope to those who are in m~ed of hope for eventual improvement of life in America's ghettos.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to add my words to the praise for the gentleman from Wisconsin, my former associate on the Banking and Currency Committee. He has performed a fine service by bringing this matter before the House.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 5minutes.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I also want to speak on this, but if we get to the point where we are going to cut off the time, I will object. I will ask the chairman if we are going to attempt to cut off time on this debate. If we are, I am going to object to the gentleman having extended time on this amendment.

I am going to object. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I did

not answer the question yet. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Is the chair

man going to attempt to cut off debate? Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will

say this: At this present time I would have no intention of cutting off time or trying to, because I want to speak on it myself.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, what is meant by "present time"?

Mr. STAGGERS. The present time. Mr. GROSS. All right. Then I object,

Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House today to look forward, not backward; to take a new look at this whole problem. This is a new approach, and I hope that it is going to be judged on its merits and not on the echoes of some old disputes.

I would say for the gentleman from Wisconsin and for myself that we have a better rat trap. This is a better rat trap. It is a straightforward amendment which

the gentleman from Wisconsin and I have advocated for the past several weeks. It is a bipartisan amendment. It is merely adding $20 million per year for the fiscal years 1968 and 1969 to the authorization and project grants under subsection (e) of the Comprehensive Public Health Planning and Services Act to assist more States and cities in developing effective rat control and elimination programs.

My father was for 35 years the president of a county children's aid society in Frederick, Md. Throughout my youth I was familiar with the shocking conditions of children who came into the society's care. Some of these children had fingers and toes eaten by rats. I particularly remember my father's distress at the plight of a little girl whose face had been gnawed beyond recognition. And these things happened not in urban slums, but in a beautiful and relatively prosperous rural area.

We have conquered many of the dread diseases and disease-producing conditions which used to ravage mankind. Yet rats persist, as perhaps the greatest single threat to public health. In some of our great cities, they may outnumber human beings. Yet this summer has shown that the American people will no longer tolerate this ancient scourge.

This summer has brought a new determination to act, not only to kill rats but to eliminate the conditions in which they breed. Mayor Theodore R. McKeldin of the city of Baltimore, for example, has developed a very promising program, which emphasizes not just extermination but public education and continuing community efforts which the Baltimore Sun called "the equivalent of a military scorched-earth campaign." Other jurisdictions are making similar efforts.

Federal support for rat control is already authorized under this act. At least a dozen States have already included rat control programs in their State plans submitted to the Public Health Service.

But my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], has made the statement that there is money enough in this bill without the amendment. I would like to explore that question with the gentleman. The gentleman said that we did not need this amount. In fact, there is very little money available. The House has funded subsection (e) project grants up to the present ceiling of $62.5 million for fiscal year 1968. However, the Public Health Service estimates about 900 continuing projects will consume about $56 million this year, leaving only $6.5 million under the present law and $14 million under the committee bill for an anticipated 725 new applications. I say to my friend from Illinois that this is not enough money under the present bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I would say this in reply to the gentleman:

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded to the gentleman. My time is very limited, and I want to make several points.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman used my name and I think he should yield.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I will say the Department does not have to follow what the gentleman says they have to do. If any party wants a priority for rat control, he can ask for it and get it.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I thank the gentleman.

There are three brief points to be made, Mr. Chairman.

First, this amendment would not impose a categorical grant program, or write any administrative strings into the present law. To do so is not necessary, and would be completely contrary to the principle and spirit of the comprehensive act. Rather, I feel it is sufficient to rely on the legislative history we are making today to indicate the purpose of these funds.

Second, these are budgeted funds. The administration's budget for this year includes $20 million for rat control. This amendment would simply insert these funds into the public health program, where vector control programs have traditionally been located, rather than using the money for a new program, run by an agency with no experience in this field, with restrictions which would make many communities ineligible for help and would impose new burdens on all involved.

Third, this amendment is wholly in accord with the purposes of project grants, which emphasize meeting special local and regional health needs, and developing innovative programs and services.

Mr. PIRNIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PmNiE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues from Wisconsin and Maryland which will increase the authorization for health service project grants by $20 million. The intent of this amendment is to provide the Public Health Service with the funds to expand its already existing program to assist our States and localities in the elimination of rats.

However, it should be noted that this amendment is not categorical in approach, but rather continues the block grant concept which characterizes this fine legislation. In addition, the funds which are to be used are budgeted by the administration and therefore will not represent an increase in expenditures.

Many may question this amendment since on July 20, the House defeated a proposal to consider the Rat Extermination Act of 1967. Those of us who opposed that bill did so not because we were against a Federal program to help our municipalities eliminate this dread rodent, but because we saw no reason to establish a new bureaucracy in one department when there was already existing machinery capable of carrying on an expanded program in the Public Health Service. Our support of this amendment today evidences our sincere desire to get on with the eradicaton of rats and to insure that the job is done


by the agency best equipped to handle it.

This amendment represents a sensible approach to a serious problem that for too long has received little or no consideration. It places the primary responsibility for rat and rodent extermination in the hands of qualified experts in the public health field. It allows for fiexibility in the methods employed by local public health officials in dealing with their individual rat problems. Finally, it insures that those cities and towns which are plagued by these rodents will be given the resources to begin an effective campaign toward their elimination. In this regard, it must be remembered that fundamental to the solution of the problem is the cooperation of individuals at the local level. Proper sanitation and garbage disposal are necessary preliminaries to effective rodent control. No government program can change this very elementary fact of life.

However, we trust that Public Health officials, armed with the funds which this amendment will provide, will direct their efforts to programs and projects which will eliminate the environment in which the rats are permitted to thrive. This requires more efficient trash and garbage collection, the elimination of dumps and the utilization of land fills, and better public sanitation methods. This amendment will make available means by which work on this serious problem can be intensified. No new agency will have to be established and overhead can be kept to a minimum.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I thank the gentleman from New York for his words and for his support.

Mr. Chai:iiman, :iiats are a local health problem-but a problem not confined to any one community. There are city rats and ithere are country raits. Ce:ritainly local aotion is required; certainly citizen efforts are essential, block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I thank my friend from California.

Mr. Chairman, more Federal aid is imperative within the framework of our progressive system of public health services. This amendment would provide that help.

The rat is more than a carrier of disease. He has become a symbol of official cynicism of inertia. We have an opportunity today to change that image and to advance the great effort to make America more healthy and hopeful.

I say to all of my colleagues in the House that Members of Congress are often forced, by conscience or conditions beyond their control, to support difficult or unpopular causes. This amendment should be supported both by conscience and by the knowledge that it will be well received by the whole country.

This is an appropriate time to remem-

ber the words of a great Frenchman, Voltaire:

The only way to compel men to speak good of us is to do it.

I urge the Members to support this amendment and this bill.

I thank the gentleman for making this time available.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BIESTER] may extend his remarks at this point in .the REcoRD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objeotion to the request of -the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection. Mr. BIESTER. Mr. Chairman, I sup

part the Mathias of Maryland amendment and urge its adoption by the committee. This measure provides the appropriate legislative vehicle for the anti-rat program. It does not, as did the former anti-rat bill, create a new program. It does not, as the former bill did, involve heaVY additional administrative costs. It leaves, as the former bill did not, direction and method to the States and local communities. It should, therefore, meet the objections of Members opposed to the former bill and is worthy of their support.

Furthermore, this amendment will enable the House to look toward the elimination of several other rat programs and thus avoid wasteful multiplicity of administrative costs.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. STEIGER] may extend his remarks ait this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to ·the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

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

Chairman, I take this OPPortunity to state my support for the amendment now under consideration offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REussJ and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS]. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BIESTER], who has eloquently expressed the sound basis for support of this approach to health problems in urban areas.

The Public Health Service is the agency best equipped and best prepared to work with the local communities in carrying forward a coordinated and comprehensive program for attacking all of the health problems which exist from rat control and extermination to venereal disease control.

The comprehensive Public Health Service approach adopted by the 89th Congress-which consolidated a number of small, but important, categorical pro-grams into one in which grants are made on the basis of the community's assessment of the greatest needs-represented a forward step in properly meeting the health problems of this country. It would be a mistake-a backward step-to return to a categorical approach as some have proposed. The Public Health Service has been working closely with local

health departments and that relationship should be strengthened, not jeopardized; this amendment provides additional strength.

I also want to make clear my strong support for this legislation, but do agree with the minority views of the members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee regarding section 12 of H.R. 6418. It does seem to me that we should await the findings and recommendations of the Presidential Commission on hospital costs and programs before embarking on a new program outside of the sound approach which has been developed by the Hill-Burton program for the past 20 years.

I urge, Mr. Chairman, the adoption of this amendment to provide additional funds for the comprehensive Public Health Service Act, the adoption of the amendment to delete section 12 of the bill and the passage of H.R. 6418.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryl•and. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. BuT'l'ON] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection. Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUssJ.

I have, Mr. Chairman, been dismayed by the extent of the misunderstandingsometimes, it seems, willful misrepresentation-which resulted from the vote in the House on the proposal to give ratcontrol funds to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Much of the response to that vote has been an emotionally charged overreaction, without particular regard for the facts; namely, that many of us felt a hard look at the administration bill would reveal serious fiaws, that it would be extravagant and inefficient to create a new rodent control program, run by local housing agencies, when local and State public health agencies already have great experience in this field, and are beginning to expand their efforts with the limited funds already available through the Comprehensirve Public Health Planning Act of 1966. Further, many other Members oppose that provision in the administration bill which would restrict rat-control assistance to those jurisdictions which have an approved workable program for community improvement. Unfortunately, the first discussion of rodent control did not focus on the substance of the proposal offered, or the alternatives available, but instead took on the coloration of evil men who rejoice in having babies bitten in cribs. Naturally, some of this reaction is partisan in nature, but some is merely emotional, based on a lack of understanding of the situation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, by this amendment it would be possible to designate an appropriate agency for administration of the rat-control funds by simply altering H.R. 6418 to authorize $20 million more per year for public health


project development, enabling more areas-urban and rural-to initiate intensive rat-control programs. I hope this House will accept this course, thereby causing no further delay in other important legislation.

The smokescreen of blind emotion and blinder partisanship behind which many critics of the House have operated is very well illustrated in my home city of Albany.

After decades of inattention to this fundamental health need of the people, the city administration-the very same administration which has controlled the city absloutely for more than a generation-has now obtained $70,000 in funds earmarked for rat-control purposes by the State of New York under Governor Rockefeller's leadership, and has contracted with one of its mostfavored vendors to bait the sewers. But this same administration, Mr. Chairman, still refuses to back down from the unbelievably arrogant position to which it has clung with rat-like tenacity for all these decades--our Albany city administration will not even pick up the city's trash and debris, the jetsam of 125,000 people living close together, but instead leaves it for Albany's rat population to fatten on. Such almost inhuman inconsistency, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately typifies that crocodile-like response by many critics of this Congress. Today's vote should clarify, we may all hope, the intent of Congress and ratify the desire of this body to see that a rat-extermination program is effectively carried out under appropriate auspices.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in expression of support for the amendment. If we are to err today I would rather err on the side of authorizing an excess amount than an inade-quate amount. ·

I believe the legislative history here created will be sufficiently persuasive to encourage the Department to take cognizance of it and to make the grants to the applicants when the applications are forwarded.

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

Mr. MOSS. I yield oo the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of _my distinguished colleague from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS].

Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of debate on the whole matter of where the Federal Government should participate in rat eradication programs.

Certainly the Public Health Service is the agency where such participation is appropriate. The flexibility of the program is clearly delineated in H.R. 6418, which we have now under consideration.

The Reuss-Mathias amendment does not impinge upon this flexibility. It does not restrict or burden the authorization provided in this Public Health Service Act. The amendment is a recognition of a real problem.

The fact that funds which have been expended under other agencies-such as the million dollar plus program in ChiCJ:..gO attempted by the Office of Economic Opporttinity, which has not been· fully

effective-would indicate clearly that the Public Health Service approach is the right approach.

I do not challenge or dispute the points made by the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the gentleman from Illinois, that considerable funds for rat control are available under the program as outlined in this act without the Reuss-Mathias amendment.

I am convinced, however, that with the amendment this act will represent a higher priority for our domestic ·environment as visualized by the Congress of the United States. We have been moving away from our environment as far as its priority is concerned. We have made proportionately larger commitments in the areas of space exploration, welfare, assistance to foreign countries, and have proportionately reduced our effort toward the enhancement of our own physical environment.

Perhaps we can debate the amount of money specifically authorized by this amendment, and this opportunity we will have in the appropriations process.

In conclusion, may I say that here is the proper area in which to consider rodent control and a participation by the Federal Government in those programs which are devoted to the eradication of this menace caused by our failures in the past. I am for the amendment and hope it becomes incorporated in the act.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Like all others in this House, I am as concerned about the problem of rats as is any other Member. On the other hand, I am concerned about the expressions of some of my colleagues because not one single word has been mentioned on the floor of the House as to what has been accomplished by a demonstration program which the Office of Economic Opportunity has funded to the extent of nearly $3 million in the city of Chicago. This program, if it ran according to schedule, should have been completed by this time.

It is all well and good to stand here in debate after debate on this floor and say that we were deeply concerned with the problem of rats. I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who so expressed himself, but again I would like to ask anyone in this Chamber-anyone at all in this Chamber-among all of you who have this depth of concern, if you have made any study of the program in the city of Chicago. A year ago the Office of Economic Opportunity provided $1,995,-159 for a demonstration grant on a 9-month rodent control program in the city of Chicago, after having provided $900,000 in the spring of 1965, for what the Department says was a continuation of a program experts evaluated as technically one of the best developed to service the urban slums. It goes without saying that this is a saturation rat control program and will provide a block-toblock follow-up program, and so forth. OEO gives the names of the two very distinguished gentlemen, Mr. Edelman, the head of the city health department ,of Chicago who ,is the project dir~ctor,

and its supervisor, Edward King, chief of the rodent control program.

It seems to me that if this House is going to act on any one or more of the several rat control programs, we ought to have these experts before the proper committee to determine just what we do need in this area of rodent control. If we do not, how do you learn what kind of a program is needed or how it can be improved.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. COLLIER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARRETT. We have held hearings on this, and if we can bring this bill before the House, the bill which was considered in the Committee on Banking and Currency, in its housing subcommittee, then I think we can create a program that will show consistency in exterminating and controlling rats. That is the only way we can do it. We can take this money and allocate it to areas where there are rat infestations and have them controlled. We understand this will cost $6 per person per area.

Mr. COLLIER. But how do you know? Why deal in guesses when we have a pilot program in existence? Why do we not determine on the basis of some fact and experience what we are getting into? I know that it is very popular to be against rats. But let us get down to cases so that we know what a Federal program will cost instead of everyone getting up on the floor here and saying, "I am more against rats than you are because I am willing to spend an extra $20 million to get rid of them." I do not think that that is the sensible approach to dealing with what has apparently become primarily a Federal responsibility.

Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLIER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. JONAS. Does the gentleman from Illinois mean to tell the House today that the Committee on Banking and Currency, before it reported its bill, did not even have the witnesses from Chicago before it?

Mr. COLLIER. I do know. I merely say that this is a program that has been funded. It seems to me almost elementary that if we are getting into an expansion of this program, this would have in fact been the thing to do. I am just trying to find out if anyone gave any thought to trying to learn something from the demonstration program.

Mr. BARRET!'. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me-yes; I can tell you that we had witnesses from Chicago and from all the big cities before us.

Mr. JONAS. I was asking about those who are in charge of the program in Chicago and should be better witnesses than departmental spokesmen.

Mr. COLLIER. I am talking about this specific program and learning something from those running it. Let us find out from these able men what happened to the program in Chicago so that we know where we have been and where we are going.

Mr. BARRET!'. Unfortunately, the rule was defeated. If we had had the opportunity, we would have spelled this

26028 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 out fully for you in the general debate had we been able to bring this out on the :floor.

Mr. COLLIER. I do not see that that is in any manner relative to the question that I am posing, but I thank you.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I think the House acted upon the basic principle of this amendment when we had ithe opportunity ito vote on the issue which was before us a few weeks ago when we voted against the rule making in order a bill to pour $20 million down another rathole.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER]' the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, has pointed out, to my amazement today, the number of programs upon which we are already spending millions of dollars for programs supposed to eradicate rats, while the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REussJ may not specifically be earmarked for rat programs, the author has been frank in stating the additional $20 million is for this specific purpose.

Mr. Chairman, the record has been made here today that we say this $20 million is for rat control; is that correct?

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?.

Mr. JONES of-Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for an answer to my question.

Mr. REUSS. The amendment increases the authorization for the whole spectrum of Public Health Service projects by $20 million.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Now you have answered my question.

Mr. REUSS. This is true for fiscal year 1968, and it may or may not be used for the control or extermination of rats.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. But what the discussion has been directed toward, and the gentleman himself said that, and he is a; supporter of the rat eradication program-I think it would be reasonable for all to assume that the sum of $20 million additional, if put into the bill and which has been agreed ·to by the gentleman from Illinois, is for the purpose of rat control.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MATHIAS of l\{aryland. I think it is fair to say that $20 million additional would go into this bill under the

.proposed amendment. But, as I tiied to point out in my remarks, we certainly need. the $20 million if we are to meet the rat control problem in any logical and effective manner. · Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? · Mr. JONES of Missouri. · Of course I

·yield to tl)e gen~leman from Illinois . . Mr. · SPRINGER. We considered this

:question in committee. We talked about rat control and we discussed and talked about ·this very section of the bill. We

.came to the conclusion that this amount of money was adequate to do everything

'which the Department thought was 'nee-

essary to be done. We had testimony with reference to the rat control program. The $70 million is adequate for all of the purposes of the Department, a.s explained to us. It is not a matter of $20 million for anything else. It cannot be anything else but a rat control program. You can read this record and cannot come to any conclusion but what this $20 million is to be utilized for the purposes of rat control.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman, we are not going to eliminate or to exterminate rats until we sell the public upon the question as to where the rats are and until we sell them upon the desirability and necessity of getting rid of them. In many areas where the people are trying to kill rats, they are just wasting their time, until those people who live in the area come to the realization that they as individuals will have to have some pride and some knowledge with reference to dealing with the problem. In other words, we are not going to be able to do it with the expenditure of $20 million or $50 million, until we sell these people upon the basic principle of ridding themselves of these rats. I have lived around areas where rats abounded in gre.at numbers. It is my opinion that we are not going to get rid of them until we sell the people upon doing the job and in carrying out an intelligent program of getting rid of these rats.

Mr.- Chairman, I just found out the other day that ''C.atfish" Mayfield, this so-called leader of the juveniles, has got these juveniles under the so-called PRIDE program out killing rats. I do not know from where they got the money with which to carry out this project. However, it is my understanding that the Department of Labor is paying for this, under what authority I have been unable to determine. '

However, Mr. Chairman, I have learned that the Urban League h.as something to do with the PRIDE program, and that Mayfield's salary is being channeled through the league. However, we get the impression that Mayfield is working for the Government. He is not.

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

Mr .. JONES ·of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. · I think we can clear up the purpose of the amendment by' reading from the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUssl. He says on page 2 of the statement he released to the press that $20 million a year which J::\e would add to the bill in fiscal years 1968 ar:i.d 1969 would increase the money av.ailable to the Public Health Service for

.projects designed to rid the Nation of rats:

1

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I think that is absolutely the purpose of -the proposed amendment. However, I feel that if we are going through the b.ackdoor and if we are to use the program that has some merit--:-and this. 'Qill has some i:µerit, arid when I came. oii.to the floor-of the House today I was prepared to vote .for it-but I,, w!µ t,ell you th.a;t if yqu are going ,to make a rat oontro1 bill~ out of it, I am

going to vote against it and I do not think the members of the committee who support this amendment, are being fair with the entire membership of the House in following this approach.

Mr. Ch.airman, the Members of the House spoke very positively about this matter when it was under consideration previously on the question of the adoption of the rule. They voted down the rule. . Mr. Chairman, if we adopt and follow this approach we will only be pouring more money down the rathole, .although we are pouring it down there now, but I will be darned if I am going to vote to give them more authority to pour more money down the same rathole. If they want to do it, they ought to do it openly and not try to sneak in through the backdoor.

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin one or two questions in connection with ithis amendment:

Does the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare want this money for the purpose of rat control?

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. REUSS. Yes, they do. They would

welcome the addition of $20 million to the administration's overall funds, every penny of it not necessarily to be spent on rats-particularly if other, more imperative needs occur-but the dimensions of the program are on the whole $20 million. The Department supports the administration position that the program is better administered by HUD, but it feels the money is needed.

Mr. WYMAN. I can understand that, but to continue this for a moment, if the gentleman will, did they ask for this money for the purpose of rat control; do they need $20 million, and do they say they need it?

Mr. REUSS. There is no doubt that the administration neeeds $20 million, more than $20 million for rats, and there is also no doubt that they need more than $70 million for all the things other than rats that are already in the omnibus partnership for health bill. If we give them this additional money, they will have to spend it according to the greatest priority needs of the States and -localities.

Mr. WYMAN. The gentleman said they told him they needed the money for this purpose-rat control. Might I ask if, during the course of the committee hearings, they told the committee they wanted it?

Mr. REUSS. No, unfortunately they did not, because they had no opportunity to do it, be.cause the committee hearings were completed weeks and weeks before this day, Jtily 20, ·when the House voted

_not even to consider the original rat.con.:'trql bill. Thus we present it here today in a new form, and we hope werc'an P.ersuade some who may have votetl against it to vote in favor ot it. . Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, wlll the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYMAN. I yield to, the gentleman from Illlilois. - · · · ·

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26029 Mr. SPRINGER. May I say, if the

Chairman will listen to this, I believeand I will stand corrected-we gave them every single penny they asked for in any one of these categories, did we not?

Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, the gentleman is right.

Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like now to ask the gentleman from Illinois. who spoke at length earlier, is it the gentlemen's statement as the senior Member on the minority side in connection with this particular problem that there is enough money in this bill to meet every request for matching funds that may be submitted from the various communities all around the country for rat control?

Mr. SPRINGER. May I say this: that it is a matter of priority. The Department can do anything they want based on pri'Ority. If .they oan get ·the communi·ties to come in on a priority basis and say they want it for rat control, they will get it for rat control. This is on a priority basis, and it depends on the local communities to say if they want it for rat control.

As I said earlier, nine communities last year did come in and ask for rat control, and received almost $1 million, which went to those nine States, because they asked for it, because they believed they could use it, and wanted it, and they came in and asked for it on a priority basis. And I believe that if they come in on a priority basis they can get it, and there are adequate funds in this bill for it, I

May I say the gentleman's request is not in the budget, as far as that goes. There was no formal request in the committee for this additional $20 million that I ever heard of.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a correction?

Mr. WYMAN. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. REUSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The amount mentioned in the amendment is in the 1968 fiscal budget, and it has been earmarked for rat control.

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. ·chairman, I cannot yield further. I want to ooserve that I live in the vicinity of our Nation's Capitol, and when I left the Capitol last evening I saw two live rats on the street in the headlights of my ear. Also there is a field right near where I live, and you can take a :flashlight and go outside any night and you can see ali the rats you want to.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a serious problem. I believe we are interested in meeting it, and we want to meet it in the .right w·ay, but I must admit I am confused now, !because I do not know whether this agency ·which 1s the proper agency ito handle it, asked the Congress for m9ney for this purpose, or not.

I am also confused because other responsible Members of this body s_ay that we have probably enougli money in ongoing programs to meet this necessity of helping :ftg~t ~ats. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe we ought to resolve

that question and have this information before we vote on this amendment. · When this House was debating the rule on H.R. llOOJ on July 20, I voted against the rule. I did so, not because of any lack of concern for the rat problem, but because r felt then, as I do now, that the bill then being considered would have provided for a duplicity of effort and a consequential overlapping and diluting of our efforts in this area by bringing yet another Federal agency into the picture.

On the other hand, the amendment now under consideration seeks to put additional funds and effort into an already existing program of vermin control under the purview of the U.S. Public Health Service. This is the right place for this.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very real and serious problem in our cities and on our farms because of the existence of vermin. We can act now to exterminate the greater percentage of the rat population through an effort of cooperation among Federal, State, and local authorities and by giving to the Public Health Service funds necessary to assist in carrying out this job. Here is an agency experienced in controlling rats; one that has the necessary function and the machinery to do the job as it ought to be done.

I shall support the proposed amendment provided I am satisfied the money will be used and can be used for this purpose.

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen

tleman from New Hampshire [Mr. WYMAN J has expired.

Mr. CEBLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS].

Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I would just -like to say to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. WYMAN], whose knowledge of constitutional procedures is recognized and respected, that we certainlyl in this House are able to make a leglslative judgment as · to what functions we want the executive branch of the Government to carry out. I think the House here today should make the legislative determination that we want the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare through the Public Health Service to carry· out this function and that we will provide_ them the means to do so. The administration had a right to its opinion, expressed through the budget, that this money should be expended ~Y HUD. We have an equal right and a responsibility to amend that recommendation by transferring that same money to, the HEW budget and by directing that HEW discharge this duty.

Mr. CELLER. I think · the gentleman from Maryland has given an appropriate answer to all those who may have any doubts on that score. ~

Mr. Chairman, I was for many years the presiaent of a family welfare organization 1µ my bailiwick 1n Brooklyn .. . · We were confronted with a great many

cases that came to us for family relief where rodent bites of little children were involved. That was a very vexacious problem-the problem of rats, in the rat-infested tenements of Brooklyn. The problem is still with us in Brooklynwith us in exacerbated form. We had all we could do in trying to remove those rodents from the tenements that were within our control. We found that these rodents bred most prolifically-and there was and is no birth control among the rats-and such control is desperately needed.

As I said, the cases involving ratbites were most numerous. These ratbites contain the poisonous microbes that spread throughout the system of the person who is bitten and cause serious injury and death, as you know.

There is something else that must be emphasized-and that is that the bubonic plague often comes from contact will rodents and from ratbites. There is nothing more dreadful than the bubonic plague. We have had these plagues. They are most horrendous. If we had had the kind of control that is envisaged by this bill, we might have avoided many evils in Brooklyn during my tenure as head of the family welfare unit. Infants and children cannot pro.,. tect themselves against rats--they are helpless. All civilized communities do their best to prevent the spread of rats. We would be well nigh uncivilized were we not willing to control or banish rats.

I have listened with great and rapt attention to some of those who are opposed to this bill. To my mind, they are rather cynical--some of those who oppose this bill. They are cynics-and a cynic has been described as one who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

There is nothing more valuable than a child's life. It is invaluable. I do not want it on my conscience that I would fail to vote for this amendment and therefore fail to save even one child's life. ,

I think we will be saving the lives of many.children by passing this bill. I am sure it will be on your conscience also if you vote against this bill.

It is rather brash if not inhuman Jor some to say that this is putting this money down a rat hole. That is sort of a smart aleck tactic. It is very brazen and I hope you pay no attention to that kind of argument, and that you vote for this amendment. ·

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I was not present when the so-called rat legislation was reported from the Banking· and Currency Committee. The rule was considered 2 months ago. Had I been present I would have voted a~inst that rule because that rule m.aµe in order a program handled by the new HUD Department. This was not the proper agency to handle basic health pro_gra,Iis. ~~ Pl,lblic Rea.Ith Service, through the many training programs for city health oftl.cers, State health' o'~cers, and U.S. Public' Health officers, shoul~ have prlµlary respb~billty : for our health programs. '


The responsibility for vener~l disease control, rat extermination, mental retardation, and the many other categorical programs-heart, cancer, dental health-all should be handed in one program area and by one DepartmentHEW.

This Congress in 1966 acted very wisely in passing a Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Services Act, with amendments, which put together all of these various categorical grant programs so that each of our 50 States could come to the Public Health Service with a State plan establishing priorities-for mental retardation, for heart disease, for cancer, for tuberculosis, and for all of the general health activities that are carried on in each of the States.

This amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin does not deal with the rat program, and anyone presenting it as a rat amendment I believe is doing a disservice to the Comprehensive Health Planning Act.

This year the priorities under this act will be established by the States, and this authority must remain with the States. There is a need for further authorization in fiscal year 1969 and this amendment provides the necessary authorization for fiscal year 1969. The increased authorization will provide the necessary funding for the known increases in State funding for venereal disease, mental retardation, and other programs which have a higher priority in the plans of many States than rat extermination.

Mr. Chairman, I have here the estimates on the amounts needed by the various States for comprehensive health planning in fiscal years 1968 and 1969. There is no need for any further increase in 1968. We have plenty of authorization, and the administration will not come to the Congress for more funding in the area of comprehensive health planning in fiscal year 1968 even if this amendment passes.

I can assure you of that fact today, because right now they are under orders 1n the Public Health Service to curtail the spending under this program by from 5 to 15 percent in a budget review that is going on right now. This review I believe will show that no major reductions can be made but will also show that any increase ln funds to the States can be postponed until the 1969 fiscal year.

We have plenty of authorization for fiscal year 1968 and I am not going to debate the 1968 authorization today. I will, however, support this amendment because it provides an increased authorization for aids to the States in the amount of $20 mlllion for fiscal year 1969 when more authorization will be needed for venereal disease, cancer, radiological health, aged health problems, mental retardation, and other State projects that are of greater priority in the minds of most States than rat control.

I think it is important for all of us to realize that this amendment we are voting on today is not a rat amendment. It is up to each of the 50 States to determi:p.e in their State programs for what purpose these funds will be '1Se4.

The priorities will be established by each State. We are spending millions in comprehensive health planning around the world. It seems to me we can authorize an increased program level at home next year to meet the priorities as well as the promises we have made to each of our 50 States.

Mr. Chairman, for several years now we in the minority have been urging enactment of bloc grants and revenuesharing as a better way for Americans to do things than the discredited approach of categorical grant programs. The socalled rat bill that was defeated 2 months ago would have been simply an·other new categorical grant program whose promises almost surely would have out stripped its performance.

Federal categorical programs, more often than not, prevent cities and States from using the proper mix to attack their problems.

Block grants and revenue sharing will not provide miracles. They will not eliminate poverty, slums, rats, ill health, and poor education overnight. But they will provide a better framework than the categorical approach within which tangible progress can be made on a steady basis.

Under categorical Federal grants-and today there are some 458 of them-terrible conditions have grown worse. In fact, the categorical program often compounds the very problems it is designed to correct.

The Federal sewer program is a prime example of this, and the categorical rat extermination bill would have been another if enacted 2 months ago,

Mr. Chairman, the Federal sewer construction program in the Department of Housing and Urban Development actually contri'butes to the pollution of our Nation's streams and rivers.

The President asked Congress for $165 million for the sewer construction program. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development already has more than $5 billion in applications from every corner of this country.

The municipalities that get a small slice of the Federal money available might make some progress-but all the others will wait and wait-postponing a locally initiated program in the hope that the Federal program will take care of them too.

It would not, of course, because it can not. There are 45':' other Federal programs that also have a demand on Federal appropriations.

Like the sewer program, the Rat Extermination Act that the House defeated 2 months ago would have been just another categorical grant program.

There are five or more departments or agencies of the Federal Government that already have rat elimination programs. This one would have been administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop~ent, the same Department which administers the sewer program with such a notable lack of sucqess.

Like many categorical programs, the Rat Extermination Act would probably have wasted the Federal dollars that are available. A new rat administrator would have been appointed with still another

staff to administer the program. There would have been too few dollars chasing too many goals. The 2-year, $40 million program could at best have served only 2% percent of the Nation's population and only a little better than one-half of 1 percent of the Nation's 18,000 communities.

Like most categorical Federal programs, no funds would have gone to any community unless it had a workable program approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. When the bill was considered, only one of 12 communities had such programs. Yet, if the bill had been passed, a great many of the communities that really have serious rat problems would have delayed attacking the problems themselves because of the hope of getting Federal money under the new program.

As a nation, Mr. Chairman, we must get away from this self-defeating approach to our Nation's problems and find new and better ways for Americans to do things. It is time we abandoned the outr .oded, outdated, ineffective approach of the 1930's and replaced it with bloc grant programs such as the comprehensive health planning program we are amending here today.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ascertain at this time, if I could, about limiting time. I believe we have proceeded for r.n hour and some minutes on a subject which was not included in the bill itself. I think the Members have been very patient. I think we ought to be able to vote on this very shortly. I would suggest that by a quarter after 5 we vote on ·this amendment and all amendments thereto.

I ask unanimous consent that we do vote on this amendment and all amendments thereto by a quarter after 5.

Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time does that give us?

The CHAIRMAN. About 20 minutes to be divided among those standing.

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

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman make his request for 20 minutes?

Mr. STAGGERS. All right. I will set the time at 20 minutes.

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

There was no objection. The CHAffiMAN. Does the chairman

of the committee, the gentleman from West Virginia, yield back the balance of his time?

Mr. STAGGERS. No, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa wish to be recognized?

Mr. GROSS. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: How much time is allowed to each Member?

The CHAIRMAN. Approximately 1 % minutes.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be recognized for 1 Y:z minutes.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26031 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog

nizes the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, the sole

interest I am pursuing here is the administration's Position. As I understand it, they have not requested this money. I might say right now the Ways and Means Committee is in session with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget in regard to what might be done in the way of cutting back expenditures in the light of the request for a tax increase. As I listened in the committee, the administration, which I am certain is concerned about rats and rat control-as I am, certainly-has not requested this amount.

This oratory-and I regret it-saying that those who want to have fiscal soundness and have these matters programed properly are thereby unconcerned about the problem in rat control, is a dastardly thing to do. That is no way to base a debate. I think it is quite clear from the testimony of this fine committee-and I

ihave a great respect for it-that they have given the administration what the administration requested in this area. If the House is ·going to act in the fashion of adding things on that the administration itself has not requested, we are going to have a very difficult time, I can assure the Members, in trying to get expenditures down while the Vietnam war is on.

Regretably those pressing this amendment have resorted to the lowest techniques of debate. Instead of debating forthrightly what kind of programs will help eradicate rats they have falsely stated that those who oppose their amendment are against eradicating rats. Their opponents actually have stated that after studying the matter they believe the rat eradicating programs as encompassed in this bill, without the amendment, are as fully developed as possible at this particular point. This is the issue.

Of course, all Members are aware of what the picture really is. Large segments of the news media falsely reported that when the House voted down consideration of a measure to put rat control programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development instead of developing it fully under the Public Health Service, it was showing a. calloused attitude toward the problem of rats. This segment of the news media reported only the attempts at humor of some Members during the debate. It failed to report th& serious .issues involved as set forth in the written report accompanying the bill and as expounded upon by members of the committee and others who had studied the issue.

This false reporting has put the House of Representatives in a derogatory light. Some Members--those sponsoring this amendment-bow to the false reporting instead of standing up against it to demand that the truth be reported to the people. Bowing down to this evil will only encourage more of it. It certainly will hurt rather than help in developing good programs to eradicate rats.

The CHAffiMAN. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. RYAN].

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity for the House to make

amends for the action which it took on July 20 of this year. That was a sad day for the House, when the House ridiculed a most serious measure and voted not even to consider the rat control bill. There was a hilarious discussion that day of two-legged rats and four-legged rats, of discrimination against country rats in favor of city rats, but no serious attention was paid to the problem at hand. One colleague suggested that the "rat smart thing" was to vote down the bill "rat now." Another distinguished gentleman recommended cats. And House Resolution 749 was defeated by a vote of 176 to 207.

Today the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. JONES] has started talking about pouring money down a rat hole.

That vote on July 20 became symbolic throughout the country of the indiff erence of the House toward the problems and the plight of our cities.

I hope that today the House will dispel that symbolism of indifference. We have been through a long summer of discontent, a summer which has proved that the agitators which have caused the disorders in our cities are not outside agitators whom the House overwhelmingly voted against the day before refusing to take up the rat control bill but inside agitators--poverty, misery' rat-infested slums. '

In the refusal to consider the rat control bill there was an almost perverse delight in denying slumdwellers the chance to rid their squalid homes of rats. After overwhelmingly adopting an antiriot bill that betrayed an incredible misunderstanding of the nature and cause of riots, the House was not about to question its premise that outside agitators cause riots by passing a minimal program to make life more bearable in the slums.

It is tragic enough when the crisis of our cities is not responded to with urgency. It is nothing short of criminal when it becomes the occasion for mockery and ridicule.

Following the defeat of the rat control bill, Jimmy Breslin wrote a, moving article which scores of Members of both the House and Senate read into the RECORD. There was a particularly moving account of a family in East Harlem who live with the sound of rats in their walls, whose baby is regularly bitten by rats, and who have daily bouts with rats in their kitchen. The janitor of the building once put a large cat in the boiler room to cope with the problem, and the next morning found only cat fur. So much for the cat remedy.

East Harlem is presently without representation in this House. I represent the adjoining district. I would be pleased to show the conditions in these districts to any colleagues who still believe that rats are a problem which can be dealt with by cats, or by dime store traps and cheese, or by purely local efforts.

I do not propose to repeat the statistics of rat damage to health and cost to property. I am much more concerned with the larger issue_: that Congress is not comprehending the urban crisis of our time.

By refusing to even open debate on a minimal measure to make the ghetto livable, the -day after imPoSing repres-

sive legislation to deal with ghetto outcries, this House disgraced itself.

Let us not repeat that spectacle. Let us not make more jokes about cats and rats, about rodent bureaucracies and civil rat acts at the expense of those whose misery threatens to make life miserable for us all.

Let us seize this second chance and pass the amendment overwhelmingly.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield my time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL].

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman I ob-ject. '

The CHAffiMAN. Objection is heard. Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.

Chairman, quite obviously the author of the pending amendment and all of its cosponsors and supporters are against rats. In fact, they are unalterably op.posed to riats biting children and to all other deplorable acts of destruction committed by these filthy vermin. If there is any question about the position of the spansors of this amendment, let the record make it clear right now, they are against rats.

Now, Mr. Chairman, who is on the other side of this question? Is there any individual or group of individuals in this body who do not share ·the same concern as the sponsors regarding the menace of rats to our society?

This is a ridiculous question, of course. We don't need to choose sides to determine who feels or expresses the greatest sympathy for those afflicted by the problem which must be solved. So let us do away with the question as to who is more against rats.

Mr. Chairman, I only wish that the solution to this problem was as simple as the sponsors of this amendment would have us believe. I only wish that by adding $10, $20 or $100 million to an existing program we could make a problem dry up and go away.

On the contrary, it is going to take the cooperation, determination, leadership and persistence on the part of every individual American and every level of government to bring about a real and lasting solution to this problem.

We have several programs on the statute books at the present time, including the program that this bill wowd extend which are designed to solve the proble~ of rats in this country. The question is whether we should add another $20 million to this program in order to prove our concern regarding the rat problem.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are caught in a wave of emotionalism and sheer political demagoguery, and we are scrambling for a position for fear that some of our oonstituents will fail t·o understand our problem.

Another question even more serious is the $29 billion deficit with which we are confronted today. Most of us are against a tax increase. The overwhelming majority of the American people have asked us not to increase taxes. Yet we cannot tolerate a $29 billion deficit; our only alternative is to reduce spending.

I believe that the overwhelming ma-


jority of ithe Members of this House agree with the necessity of reducing spending. Most every witness who appeared before the Ways and Means Committee expressed their opinion that it was necessary for us to reduce spending, including witnesses from the administration. But we were unable to get representatives of the administration to tell us what programs they would recommend cutting to reduce spending.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in other words, it is difficult to cut expenditures, to reduce existing programs or to fail to enact new programs. But we must face up to our fiscal responsibility, and we must do it here and now.

So, Mr. Chairman, the question is not simply whether we are for or against rat extermination, but whether we are for or against increasing the cost of the program that this bill extends. I say it has been pointed out very clearly that the pending bill will take care of the rat problem without adding more to the cost of the program . . It is simply a matter of establishing priorities within the program as to which problem needs to have the greatest emphasis placed upon it. This can be done without · the pending amendment, which will do nothing more than further increase Federal expenditures which must, and I repeat, Mr. Chairman, must, be reduced if we are going to avoid a fiscal catastrophe.

So the time has come, Mr. Chairman, for the Members of this body to stand up and be counted.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. W AGGONNER].

Mr. W AGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, this House is doing. today what it seems to do over and over again; that is, reacting to pressure.

I remember that just a few weeks ago, or not very long ago, a group of people,

. protesters, two-fogged rats, came from New York City down here to demonstrate, and the police had to drag them out of the galleries. They threatened to turn rats loose in this particular Chamber to ridicule Congress.

I suppose a good many people are reacting to that pressure here today.

Generally speaking, the emotion seems to be that.

We have heard an awful lot of talk ·abou~ this measure -being intended to eradicate rats. · .

Who · is kidding whom? This measure was never intended to eradicate rats. This ·measure, by the admission of the gentleman from Wisconsin [M:r. REussJ, who ofierro the amendment, is not intended to provide money just for the eradication of rats1 He. admitted that the people in the Public Health Service did not ask for this money but have said that if they cannot use it · for rats, they can use it .for · other purposes.' What other purposes? For wllat was this money orig·-1nally intended? What is it' intended for

now? It was and still is intended to be an aid to the ghettos bill. It is intended to make money available for the renovation and construction of public and private property in the bankrupt cities of this Nation. It is slum legislation. What else is it intended to do? It is intended to provide money to pay for garbage collection for cities that cannot pay for the collection of garbage themselves. This is not a Federal function. It is money to give to these people to defray expenses that do not have the money to pay for it themselves. Now who will deny this? You know I am right. This bill is pure camouflage.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. BusHJ is recognized.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS], for his work on ithis amendment. I endorse his approach.

It gives local communities control over the rat programs. Further, it leaves the

·priorities on health spending to the States.

More important, it does not start a new Federal agency with all the waste that that implies. It puts rat extermination in a going program-in Public Health where- it belongs.

I visualize this as the first step in coordinating all the Federal activities in this field. Such coordination will result in savings to the taxpayer and will, in my opinion, result in more efficient rat eradication. .

I opposed the bill o:ff ered several months ago. It was poorly conceived and -would have promoted inefficiency.

This Oommittee must not turn its back on this vital problem. We are being offered here a good amendment. I urge its adoption. ·

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. JACOBS].

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman,' I detect a strange change in the nature of debate on this subject today from the one that took place a few days ago. Members are saying "right now" instead of "rat now" in this debate. I am wondering if this is not because the subject has come up suddenly as an amendment rather than as a bill that was announced ahead of time. This time those who oppose the rat extermination program did not have the opportunity to prepare some good humor on this subject. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their jokes on this subject.

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIHMAN. ·That , request is properly made i.n the House and not in Committee .of the Whole. Objection is not necessary.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am sure all of us are opposed to rats, venereal disease, and all the other health problems which this act is trying to provide funds to meet. As a matter of fact, some people are so opposed to such blights that they take -action on their own initiative at the lbcal community level, .using local ·funds; ror, they take

action at the family and individual level with their own resources tO avoid or cure such health problems.

I should like to point out that if a local community-or its citizens-controls rats or controls venereal disease or controls other health problems under its own initiative and with its own resources, then its participation in this program will be only to pay for the program.

This legislation now authorizes $70 million, all of which can be used for rat control or venereal disease control, or whatever the local need is. The responsible local communities and local citizens who have solved their own problems are expending this amount of money to assist those who have not resolved their problems at the local level.

In view of the desperate economic circumstances in our Nation today which have obliged the President to call for a 10-percent tax increase and which see us facing a record deficit and the threat of inflation which follows, I feel that increasing the authorization from $70 to $99 million is unreasonable. It may be more of an exercise to expunge some feelings of past embarrassment.

The authorization of $70 million qualifies as a responsible exercise in social concern for tl)e underprivileged. But the authorization of $90 million may go beyond th~t so far that it qualifies as fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER].

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman I object. '

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER.]

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, if I add these figures up correctly of these nine agencies which made grants last year plus what HEW did under this bill last year, it comes to between $19 million and $20 million. Now, that is what we did last year. I think I would be just as much against rats, Mr. Chairman, if I lived in the city and they were bothering me as anyone else. Just ·because I happen to live in a rural area is no reason why I should not be willing to help out people in the city with a rat problem. It ought to be just as much my duty as a good citi~en as it would be my duty as if it were within my own communitY. However, for the life of me I cannot understand why we do-this here. Here we come in with another amendment to raise the amount in this bill $20 million. You are going to h~ve $70 million in this bill for this if the communities want to put their prforities high enough to get it. In addition, you will have $16 million which will be Gaming from other agencies if they spend at the same rate that they did last year .for this. If there is a need for it, I am certainly willing to give it to them, but I just cannot understand why, with nine departments or agencies dispensing rat money, we come in with an expanded bill this year in which there will be another $70 million and, as I understand it, there will be $140 million at least that · could go for this purpose of r~t c~:mtrol. !just cannot .understand why, with all that money available, we need another $20 million.'

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26033 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog

nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER].

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I do not believe I have the time. I certainly will if I do.

It seems to, me that as a matter of good citizenship we are providing everything that a city or any other community needs in order to accomplish the completion of the program which I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Maryland are just as sincerely interested in as I am, that is, the extermination and control of rats. I am certainly not going to stand here and say that what I am necessarily saying is what ought to be done. Any reasonable look at the figures which we had last year plus the amount of money that is going to be available under this bill for the next few years would satisfy anyone that we have sufficient money to do this job.

Now, not only is there $70 million provided for this year, but this program of $70 million increases at the rate of about $18 million this year and the next year, and then it will jump to the extent of about $25 million in the third year of this program.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is not a small program, I might say. It is a 3-year program. There is involved some $860 million in the entire program. But this is a program which is going to be expanded at a steady rate during the next 3 years. There certainly is enough money contained in this bill to take care of every single thing that these gentlemen are asking for now.

And, Mr. Chairman, with nine pro:grams, it seems to me that that ought to be adequate to do the job, regardless of where you come from or regardless of what the circumstances are.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MINSHALL].

Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this debate today represents a very healthy state of the Congress. Not like several weeks ago, it has brought out the fact that there are many agencies that have funds appropriated-many millions of dollars that are already available for rat control. In the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare there is in this very same legislation-Public Law 89-749 funds available for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a lett.er from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which-shows that my own State of Ohio has under the provisions of last year's bill $2,325,000 available for the so-called public health services in the State of Ohio but the city of Cleveland has not applied for 1 cent of the over $2,300,000 available to the State of Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I might point out at this time the fact that -the city of Cleveland that has made much hullaba~oo ~bout not having enough rat control money, has not, I .repeat, as 'of today made application for cent 1 under any of these programs, -any one of which could be used for a rat control program. Of course, I am against rats but feel strongly as has been

brought out so clearly that there are already sufficient funds that can be used. If more money is needed in the future, I will gladly support such legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. COLLIER].

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I must say in all kindness and in all frankness and, certainly, with no intention of being nasty, that I get the impression that many of my colleagues here today think that their responsibility and obligation with re~erence to this problem of rat control is discharged merely by going on record as voting for funds for this purpose.

I say to you today that I am amazed with all the concern that has been expressed today and previously primarily in the form of the proposed expenditure of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, no Member of this House and no committee of this House has taken the time to find out as to how the major demonstration program has worked. I am deeply concerned and greatly surprised at this approach. However, I hope this concern expressed here today will extend beyond the mere funding of the program hereafter.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa CMr. SCHERLE]. · Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I noted the other day in the local newspapers some rather interesting and I thought rather objective statements concerning the "Pride" program in the District of Columbia.

I do not know where this group obtained the money they used. I suppose they received it from the OEO. But this organized group stated they had removed from certain areas of this city, 7,500 truckloads of debris, filth, garbage, or whatever one chooses to call it. This was .removed from the city slum areas. It likewise was stated in the newspapers that this group had killed 7,500 or 10,000 rats. I do not recall the exact figure. This is seems to me is the manner in which these programs should b~ worked out. It was done with money made avilable from existing agencies of Government.

So, Mr. Chairman, if funds are now available for this purpose, then the objectives can be reached. This represents just one example right here on our own doorstep which have proven that it can be · done with available funds, funds available for the asking.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. SCHERLE. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GIBBONS. I was going to add that that is the way the rat control program is being done in Chicago, and is , being done with OEO funds, and the program is effective. I am sorry I do not have the time to discuss it, but the program has been carried on in a succ.essful manner in Chicago. Rats are being eliminatedheaith is being improved in a systematic, thorough maimer. But, this can be rio

short-term program. Iit will require a continuous education and cleanup program. By all objective standards the program in Chicago has been successful.

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

Mr. SCHERLE. Yes, I yield to my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I thank my colleague from Iowa for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. GIBBONS], has any reliable information with respect to the program in Chicago, I wish he would state it, because I have been trying to get from Mr. Shriver, director of the poverty program lo, these many weeks, some information as to what has taken place uridei the $3 million rat expenditure in Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS] is recognized for 1 ~ minutes.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia ·had been recognized prior to the time the motion for the limitation of debate had been made, the gentleman had been recognized for 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the Chair understood that the limitation as to time was made prior to the expiration of the gentleman's 5 minutes, for which the gentleman was recognized, which was when the gentleman made the motion that all debate on this amendment . cease after 20 minutes' time.

Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but I had been recognized for 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman was among those standing, and was included among those who were standing; . in addition to the gentleman 13 other Members were standing, so that there were 14 Members who were entitled to a minute and a half.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will do the best I can in a minute and a half.

-Mr. Chairman, I wish to say in closing the debate that I wish to pay tribute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER].· I believe. the gentleman has made some very valid points.

I also wish to say that I know of no more dedicated, hard-working public servant that Mr. SPRINGER in the interests of the public and in the-interests of all the people of our country.

Another thing I would like to say is this: that the gentleman made a very valid point that the committee-and I feel that he spoke for every member of the committee--would not want funds earmarked for any special situation. Of all the programs that we have 1n the bill, not · one of them has been earmarked, except for mental health, which involves a special situation. Funds provided under this -- amendment should have to take thei.r place along with funds for venereal diseases, heart disease, can-

rcer, stroke, or what-have-you. All States are alike-they have to determine that .programs they seek . to carry out are more pressing than other programs-in

-other words, , the States set their own priorities. In fact, that is ·the plan as

26034 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 outlined. It has to be approved under the State's plan before it can be put into operation.

Mr. Chairman, the HEW, under its present rat control program, is to develop and maintain a system for collection and analysis of data related to rat problems on a nationwide basis; provide effective and continuing training for State and local personnel engaged in rat control programs; provide technical assistance in the planning and operation of rodent control programs; perform evaluations of the effectiveness and costs of local rat control programs; conduct demonstrations of rat control measures by organized community campaigns; suppart community activities in refuse disposal through solid wastes programs; and incorporate rodent control measures into ongoing related programs such as Aedes aegypti eradication.

Mr. Chairman, a total rat control program involves a social situation, which means the control of things that breed rats, such as garbage, poor housing, and the unwillingness of men and women to do the job that needs to be done. There are other problems that are associated with it, and not just the things that are set forth in this health bill that we have before us today. The bill is not designed for that-it will not get rid of the rat situatio1', though programs established under the existing HEW health program certainly help.

I am for anything that may hel'P get rid of rats. For that reason, I am not opposing this amendment. But I would state the same thing that many of the members of the committee have already stated, and that is that we should not put 1 penny in for rat eradication except as the States come in and ask for it, based on their State plan and priorities. · The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a bill that is almost as important to the public image of the Congress as it is to our fell ow Americans who live in metropolitan areas.

We have an opportunity to redeem ourselves as a serious legislative body by enacting this addition to the partnership for health amendments.

Seldom has this Nation and this Congress witnessed such an outpouring of rage as that against our earlier vote to deny a Federal rat eradication program a chance to receive a full debate. All of us in this House suffered from the consequences of the tone and style of that denial of an opportunity to carefully consider an antirat bill.

It has been shown how we continue to pour thousands, even millions, of dollars yearly down the rural ratholes in this Nation to stop the ravages of rodents in agricultural districts. Yet it was expressed on that black day for our Congress that people did not deserve the same consideration as crops.

In an action that reflected the rural bias of this House more than any other recent vote, we clearly showed how little regard some Members have for urban problems. It seems that we can mount a national campaign against destroyers on the farms, but an urban evil is only . the

subject for some monumentally misplaced and incredibly insensitive humor.

The present membership of this Congress has shown little willingness to support fully the plans of the Johnson administration to rid our Nation of slums. Let us at least show a human concern for those who are forced to engage in a daily fight for living space with rats.

Let us today pass a bill that will make a positive contribution to those whom our society has apparently decided must continue to occupy slum areas.

Many times we speak in self-righteous terms of the dignity of the Congress of the United States. Let us earn some respect here today by passing a bill designed to relieve the agony of many of our fell ow Americans and, in doing so, restore the_ dignity of the House of Representatives.

Mr. MORSE of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the partnership for health amendments are before the House today to extend and expand the appropriation authorization under the Public Health Service Act for a wide range of public health programs to communities with comprehensive public health plans. I am addressing my remarks in support of the amendment offered on the floor which would authorize an additional $20 million and incorporate rat and related pest control into this act as an eligible program.

In my judgment, the provisions embodied in this amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUssJ and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS] are far superior to the rat control measure which came before the House earlier this year.

I have never had an interest in prolonging the lives of rats. I conducted a careful study of the situation and existing Federal programs at the time of the initial proposal, and was convinced that rat extermination must be conducted by the agency most equipped to do the job. That agency, in my judgment, was not the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the Public Health Service.

HUD would have had to step in new to the situation, and create machinery necessary for the task. PHS, however, has already had experience in running a rat control program. It has already developed both the personnel and techniques to be effective, and with greater financial support will be in an excellent position to handle the problem. Insofar as the control of rats is principally a public health problem, PHS is the right agency for the job.

I point out, in addition, that the administration's Rat Extermination Act would have benefited only a fraction of our Nation in that the bill required that to be eligible for participation, communities have a "workable program" currently certified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As of June 30, 1967, only 1,174 communities met this requirement while the Bureau of Census lists some 18,088 incorporated places in the United States.

I have never considered the rat prob' Iem as anything but serious. I did not deal with the earlier bill with levity. For the ·very reason of the grayity of tpe

situation, I did and still do insist that we get the most and the best for our money. This amendment to the Partnership for Health Act now before us would allow a rat control program and increase the authorization by $20 million, the same amount the President requested for his bill.

I give my full support to the amendment and strongly urge its acceptance.

Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I join with my many colleagues in the support of the amendment to add 20 million dollars to the total amount available under the Public Health Service Act which could be used in a rat control program. Our cities, our Nation, our people need this fund to effectively combat the problem of rat control-a problem which causes damage to property, disease and distress not only to people in our urban areas but to people in our rural areas as well. I ask all my colleagues to j.oin with me in this most worthy effort.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REUSS].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. REuss and Mr. STAGGERS. . The Committee divided, and the tell.ers reported that there were--ayes 129, noes 128.

So the amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MRS. MINK

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendments offered by Mrs. MINK: On

page 24, aif·ter line rn, insert ·the following: "(2) Effective July 1, 1968, subsection

(d) (5) of such section is amended by inserting 'the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,' after 'American Samoa,'."

On page 24, line 13, strike out "(2)" and insert in lieu thereof "(3) ".

On page 25, after line 2, insert the following:

"(f) Effective July l, 1968, subsection (h) (4) (B) of such section (as redesignated by section 12(a) of this Act) is amended by inserting 'the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,' after 'American Samoa,'."

On page 25, line 3, strike out "(f)" and insert in lieu thereof "(g) ".

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Hawaii?

There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman

from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, I am to

day introducing amendments to H.R. 6418 to make the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands eligible for section 314 comprehensive health planning and public health services grants. I can conceive of no more urgent need for us, under the responsibility mandated to us after World War II by the United Nations to administer these islands of Micronesia, than to upgrade the woefully inadequate health services and facilities available to the 90,000 inhabitants of the trust territory.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26035 This population is spread over 2,100

islands encompassing 3 million square miles in the western Pacific, and in addition to the peculiar diseases attributable to their tropical climate, they suffer excessively from diseases virtually eliminated in our country. The active tuberculosis rate in the trust territory is 19 cases for every 10,000 inhabitants compared to 2.9 per 10,000 in the United States; the infant mortality rate is 32.7 per 1,000 as compared to our 25.2 per 1,000; the maternal mortality rate is 1.9 per 1,000 whereas in the United States it is 0.4 per 1,000. Other prevalent afflictions include leprosy, filariasis, respiratory ailments, and a variety of intestinal parasites including amebic dysentery. A 1966 survey of the islands of Palau and Truk revealed that 48 percent of all children aged 10 had diseased teeth, and that 80 percent of all teeth in children at the age of 14 were diseased.

Yet to meet these staggering health problems there are but 414 hospital beds to accommodate the entire population of 90,000, a ratio of 4.6 beds for every thousand people, half of the United States proportion. To serve these 3 million square miles there are six district hospitals, three subdistrict hospitals, and six regional health centers with a total of 46 beds. And this is an area of the world where transportation is so sadly lacking that irregular interisland schooners are the only means of travel for many of the people.

But the statistics on medical personnel are even more stunning. There are 12 medical doctors in the entire trust territory, one doctor of dentistry, and only eight registered nurses. This amounts to one qualified doctor for every 7 ,500 people, one dentist for 90,000, and one fully trained nurse for every 11,250. The services supplied by this inadequate personnel are somewhat supplemented by some 150 trained Micronesian medical practitioners to help in the hospitals and the 90 poorly equipped outlying dispensaries, which are largely ill equipped to provide medical assistance.

The immediate and urgent need for health assistance is obvious, and I am hopeful that my amendments to H.R. 6418 will win the approval of my colleagues to cast some light on the dreary picture I have presented. If the requisite administrative and planning functions can be accomplished, there are many ways this legislation could assist the trust territory to upgrade and expand its health services. Under the authorization of formula grants to assist States in establishing and maintaining adequate public health services, including the training of personnel for State and local health work, my amendment would place the trust territory in the same category with Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands in order to be eligible for a Federal share of 66% percent of the cost of their program.

The grant for comprehensive State health planning, even though the allotments would be based on population and per capita income, both indexes exceedingly low in the trust territory, would nevertheless provide an important stimulus for development of a comprehensive plan for Micronesia. Section 314(e), au-

thorizing project grants to public or nonprofit private agencies or institutions to cover part of the costs of developing and supporting new programs of health services for an initial period, but especially to meet part of the costs of providing services to meet the health needs of specialized regional significance, could have special applicability to the trust territory if that region is made eligible through favorable action today.

It is especially in section 314(f) that I see truly promising possibilities for improvement of these long neglected conditions in the trust territory, however. This part of the amendments would authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to assign State health officers to his Department or departmental health specialists to the various States in order to effectively discharge his responsibilities under the partnership for health amendments. The Secretary's cooperative arrangements with the States, which includes again Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and-if my amendments are accepted-the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, could include his providing technical or other assistance, and this authorization along with the possible assignment of public health personnel for periods up to 2 years could contribute most significantly to our meeting of our economic and social commitment to the peoples of Micronesia.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for H.R. 6418, a fine bill which will enhance the health services available to all of our citizens as well as those who reside in territories under U.S. jurisdiction. In order to most completely and equitably extend the benefits of this legislation to all those people whose welfare is in our charge, I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively for the partnership for health amendments with the inclusion of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands as provided in the amendments I am offering today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, there is no opposition to the amendments on this side of the aisle.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. MINK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SPRINGER. I have no objection to the amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

The amendments were agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SPRINGER

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. SPRINGER: Be

ginning with line 1 on page 43, strike out all down through line 4 on page 51.

Redesignate the following sections accordingly.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, some of the Members were present when I spoke in general debate on this bill, and I mentioned what is generally known in the committee as the Ottinger amendment. It would add $58 million to the bill

for the purpose, so-called, of relieving situations in critically located hospitals. On the whole, I suppose this amendment sounds attractive. However, I think when we get an inside understanding of what the amendment does, it has serious implications to our entire hospital program.

In the first place, it violates all of the concepts of the Hill-Burton Act, which we have had since 1937. The States do not have any opportunity to determine priorities at all. The application is made directly by the hospitals to the Federal Government on an emergency basis, socalled, and the grant is made directly to the hospital. In other words, this is a shortcut, entirely, by the hospital directly to the Federal Government. Neither the State nor any of its agencies has anything to say about to which hospitals it should go, nor any priority in the State as to who needs the help the most. This is the first objection.

The second one is this was not requested, may I say, by the Department or the President. This was put in entirely by the gentleman from New Yorkand he will tell who requested him to put it in. It is not a budgeted item, I am advised by both the Department and by the Bureau of the Budget itself.

In the third place, I think the most important, may I say to my colleagues of the Committee, is that the President's Health Commission is now considering all problems with reference to health, including hospital care under Hill-Burton and under medicare, and they intend to report to this Congress early in 1968 on a comprehensive overhaul of our whole health program, and the matter which is now under consideration will be given all the consideration which 1s necessary in the report when that Commission reports to this Congress and to the President.

In the fourth place, this bill violates all our previous concepts about assistance. It not only does provide bricks and mortar, but it also provides services. We can take "services" any way we want to, but the way I would define ''services" would be anything that the hospital needed in the way of assistance or help, whether this was scrubbing floors, or doctor help or nurse help, or any kind of assistance that was needed in the hospital that the administrator in his discretion determined was necessary, and he could make an allotment for that purpose.

We have never, so far as I know, ever provided for services of any kind in the form of a grant. we have provided bricks and mortar under the Hill-Burton, we have provided help for those hospitals which needed ancillary services in the way of equipment and additions to the hospitals. We have done that. Even in the nature of laundries and that type of thing, we have done that. But we have never provided "services."

Let me say there are two other reasons why this is not good legislation. This is on a crash basis for 1 year. We are going to consider this in our committee next year. We are going to go over this whole thing. I think by this time next year our whole hospital situation will be


very clearly defined, so that we can see it, and possibly the Members themselves will be able to see just as clearly by this time next year, what our hospital needs are.

<By unanimous consent, Mr. SPRINGER was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. SPRINGER. There is one further thing. I want all Members to listen closely to this.

Someone said here earlier in the day that this was just "a big bonanza for the big cities." May I say, whoever said that told the truth.


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

Mr. YATES. I was the one who used the phrase, but I lifted the word from the report of the minority.

Mr. SPRINGER. It is a bonanza for the big city hospitals, for the reason that this is a crash basis, for 1 year. The only people who will get an advantage from this are the people who are tooled up f o.r Federal grants in the first place. The ones who are tooled up are the big cities, who are ready to get the grants and who have lawyers who come to Washington every day or every week.

This is the kind of situation we will have. Any of the Members from the rural areas who feel that they are going to partake of this program I hope will not be disillusioned.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. COLMER. The gentleman has answered one of my questions, about the big cities. There is another question I should like to ask.

The gentleman, if I understand him correctly, said that this was not budgeted . . we are going to be faced here with a tax increase, and a $30 billion deficit; that is correct, is it not?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. If we put this in, that is $78 million today which we have added to this bill alone which is not budgeted.

Mr. COLMER. Finally, this. would not come under the Hill-Burton program, but it would be a separate matter and there would be problems of administration.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is correct. The President, down at the White

House, has been asking the Congress not to authorize or to appropriate more money than he has requested. We have an opportunity here today to follow his advice.

Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

With all due respect for my colleague from Illinois, some of the representations he has made about section 12 of the bill are simply inaccurate.

For instance, the gentleman says that the President has a Commission which is studying the hospital ~acilities problems. The only health Commission presently operating is the National Advisory Commission on Health Manpower. That deals with manpower problems only.

The President has promised ·to con- -Burton program. He expresses the supvene a National Advisory Commission on · port of their association to this amendHealth Facilities. That Commission has ment. not yet been appointed. It will probably Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment take a year or more for such a Commis- will be supported and adopted as re-sion to complete its work. ported by the committee.

It is true that the committee will con- Mr. OTTINGER. I thank the gentle-sider the Hill-Burton program next year. man. In the meantime there are hospitals It is also supported by a great many within our land in desperate situations, hospital associations as appears in the so desperate that the people in the com- RECORD of September 18 on page 25774. munities involved are not getting ade- Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the quate health services. Their health is gentleman yield? being jeopardized. Mr. OTTINGER. I yield to the gentle-

What the gentleman from Illinois says man. about the provision's relationship to the Mr. YATES. The inference here is that Hill-Burton program is simply not true. the Hill-Burton Act would not be in comThe American Hospital Association has pliance with this. The fact is that the said this will do nothing to the Hill-Bur- Hill-Burton Act, according to the words ton program. It will not conflict with it. of the Department of Health, Education, I read that letter previously. and Welfare, is rural in nature almost

The people who administer the Hill- exclusively. The big cities are suffering Burton program in the Department of for l•ack of fiunds. Hill-Burton has not Health, Education, and Welfare, the Sur- made available funds. I have a list here geon General's Office, have written about of the funds that were made available to this provision to the chairman of our the 10 largest cities through Hill-Burton Subcommittee on Health, saying that since the inception of the act. I would nothing in this program will harm the like to read them. I just received these Hill-Burton program. :figures from the Department of Health,

In fact, every cent that goes to this Education, and Welfare from its Hillprogram must be coordinated with and Burton section. conform to the local Hill-Burton pro- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-grams. tleman has expired.

The gentleman from Illinois repeated Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask his statement that this is going to be unanimous consent that the gentleman a bonanza for the cities. This is false. from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] may proThe program will go to the most need- ceed for 1 additional minute. ful communities in accordance with a The CHAIRMAN. Is ·there objection to survey of the communities' hospital fa- the request of the gentleman from cilities shortages. It is not going to be a Illinois? question of first come, first served. To There was no objection. qualify, the hospitals have to demon- Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman. I yield strate conclusively they meet the stiff to the gentleman from Illinois. criteria of the act--that they are over- Mr. YATES. This is what they say has crowded, they do not have and cannot been made available for the big cities by raise, publicly or privately, sufficient Hill-Burton since its inception. New York funds to do the necessary programs City includes 20 years, $17.5 million. themselves, that the health of the people That is the No. 1 city in the Nation. of the communities in which they operate Chicago received $14,125,000 for a period will be jeopardized. of over 20 years. Philadelphia received

In short, the allegations of the gentle- $28,850,000. Los Angeles-and listen to man from Illinois are inaccurate; his this-$3,610,000 over the last 20 years. amendment should be defeated. Detroit, $6.5 million. Baltimore, $6,215,-

There are hospitals in your own com- 000. Cleveland, $10,605,000. St. Louis, munity that are just simply not able to $12,860,000. Washington, D.C., $8,500,000. meet their needs through existing pro- Boston, $4,305,000. grams. There are people in your own The entire program has made funds communities who are not able to get into available for the entire country, since hospitals who need that hospital treat- its inception, in the amount of $2.75 bilment. These are the people that we want lion. Of this amount only $113 million this for. The Public Health Service, ac- have been made available to the cities cording to a survey on which this proof the Nation. gram was based, said that we could help Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I move another 150,000 people a year if this pro- to strike the last word. gram were enacted. Now, this is a whale Mr. Chairman, I recently spoke to the of a big bang for the buck and is well Michigan Municipal League at its annual worth your support. meeting on Mackinac Island, Mich., on

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the subject of "Federal-Local Relations," the gentleman yield? and I cited the Partnership for Health

Mr. OTTINGER. I yield to the gentle- Amendments of 1966 as an example of man from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. on this point of action by Congress to eliminate over-the administration of this not being lapping Federal grants and to consolicompatible with the Hill-Burton pro- date them in one workable authorization. gram, I have a letter from the director of It is significant that the partnership for the Oklahoma Hospital Association in health amendments for this year, 1967, which he states that he is satisfied under while intended to serve the same p·urpose, the amendment adopted by the commit- departs from this principle in section 12. tee the administration would be consist- Instead of consolidating existing proent with the overall planning of the Hill- grams and thereby making life easier for

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26037 those who have to administer these programs, as well as those who have to administer the hospitals themselves, we are again duplicating programs and estab-

. lishing different criteria in section 12. Mr. Chairman, the Acting Governor

of the State of Michigan, William G. Milliken, best summed it up in a telegram to me today in which he stressed the need for only one formula for administering hospital construction funds; namely, the existing formula under HillBurton. I quote Acting Governor Milliken:

There should not be two programs of grants for community hospital construction that have different criteria for determining need, amount of assistance and priorities for . grants of limited funds. Hospitals are major providers of services, and their operations a major factor in cost of health care. Grants and loans which bypass state planning would be detrimental to coordinated and effective state comprehensive health planning under Public Law 89-749, the Partnership for Health program.

Mr. Chairman, having taken a step forward in consolidating these health programs last year, it would be inexcusable for Congress to take a step backward this year and thus render the administration of these programs less efficient. This is what the inclusion of the Ottinger amendment in committee has done. It should be eliminated and section 12 should be stricken from this bill.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

. Mr. HARVEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HARVEY].

Is it not true that in the last revision of the Hill-Burton Act passed by this body, that one entire title was named and involved solely metropolitan area hospiital renovations? Is it not ia fact that the great majority of the funds in the succeeding year went for the renovation of hospitals in metropolitan areas, areas wherein they had the greatest amount of money available for the purpose of funding hospitals in the :first place; is this not true?

Mr. HARVEY. It is my understanding that that is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will -the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARVEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, my colleague.

Mr. DINGELL. I wanted to ask my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HARVEY], whether or not the telegram which the gentleman read was sent before or after our Governor's brainwashing?

Mr. HARVEY. The telegram comes from the Acting Governor of the great State of Michigan, Bill Milliken, whom I am sure my colleague knows very well and for whom he has a very high regard, and I might say who is well acquainted with the problem involved.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in suppo.rit; of the section iand in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct

the attention of the Members of the Committee to page 43 of the report, because I think it is rather important that we look at the type of criteria imposed upon the hospitals which would be eligible for consideration under this additional $58 million.

In paragraph 3 of the report, section 12, under the heading of "Emergency Assistance for Community Hospital Services,'' we :find that there are specific items of criteria as follows:

(A) Its average rate of occupancy or the demand for necessary and essenUal facllities and services so far exceeds its reasonable capacity that the community served by it is deprived of health services of a type and quality conforming to generally accepted standards;

(B) Full and effective use ls being made of the existing facilities of the hospital and of other health facillties available to the community;

(C) The needed assistance ls not available from other public or private resources; and

(D) The failure to provide the needed facillties or services constitutes a threat to the health, welfare, or safety of the community.

Mr. Chairman, in the drafting of this amendment the gentleman from New York took great care to drastically limit those institutions which would be eligible to make applications.

Indeed, it deals with the hospitals of this Nation where the greatest demand on their facilities exist. Frequently the hospitals which are looked to to provide part of the teaching, part of the training in specialities. For too long a time we in the committee and in the Hill-Burton and in the Hill-Harris Acts have overlooked need for better facilities 1n the metropolitan centers. I believe it is time that we give a greater share to them. After all, the vast majority of our tax dollars come from these communities. It is here where the concentration of the elderly and the poor exists. It is here where you have the demand, and the most pressing demand, for assistance. Therefore, I suggest that we examine the criteria and not let some formula which was dreamed up 20 years ago and amended from time to time since, as being, for some reason, known only to those who oppose the language in section 12, as sacrosanct.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise 1n order to get some understanding on the time. I believe this has been pretty well covered up to now, and also in the general debate. Several Members do want to leave early.

I was wondering whether we could come to some agreement to limit the debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto at 5 minutes after 6.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if we could not make it 15 minutes after 6?

Mr. STAGGERS. Make it 10 minutes after 6.

Mr. SPRINGER. In view of the number of Members standing, I would think 25 minutes would be better.

Mr. STAGGERS. All right; 15 minutes after 6. I will agree to that.

Mr. SPRINGER. In other words, we will .have 25 minutes?

Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, 15 minutes after 6, and everybody to have an equal , amount of time.

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. Mr. STAGGERS. I ask unanimous

consent to so limit debate. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from West Virginia?

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I ask how many Members are standing at this time?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state there are approximately 16 Members standing.

Mr. WATSON. That would then probably give each Member at best 2 minutes?

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair will state that would be correct.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I hate to object, but we do have a number of members of the committee here who have not even been extended the privilege of speaking on this tremendously important amendment; therefore, I will have to object.

The CHAffiMAN. Objection is heard. Mr. STAGGERS. Might I say to the

gentleman that we will probably have to go over until tomorrow some time, to complete work on this.

Mr. WATSON. May I respond to my distinguished Chairman that if it is necessary to go over until tomorrow in order to have complete debate on this in order to come to a just decision, then I believe it would be best to go over until tomorrow.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of the Springer amendment. I would like to point out that we have heard arguments here on the floor about the fact that in the large cities some of the hospitals have not received the amount of money they feel they should have received, but I wish to point out that the Hill-Burton funds presently are allocated under a State plan, and this is as the Congress has long determined, many years ago, was the better plan.

In this entire bill we have moved in the direction of giving more :flexibility to the States. We have moved in the entirety of this bill in the direction of recognizing that within the States these decisions ought to be made. Many years ago in the Hill-Burton program it was decided the formula would give nationwide fair attention to the hospital situation, whether it be in the country or be in the city.

As a result of it a plan was set up on that basis.

I well recall in the REA program we had a formula, the · purpose being there also to see that nationwide fairness occurred.

I can well imagine what will happen in this program with $40 million of Federal allocation out of HEW where everyone of you is going to have people calling on the man with the most political pressure to try to get some of that money.

All of the formula and all of the discussion as to what the criteria is also contained Jn the Hill-Burton Act.

I might point out, if everyone felt that the hospital fund is inadequate they


could have increased the amount under ,, the Hill-Burton Act.

I might also point out in the committee this amendment barely squeeked through and had all of the members been there, I doubt that it would have passed and I question that it will be in the bill when it is finally acted on.

I want to point out that the HillBurton Act has been a good act. You now depart from the formula provision in the Hill-Burton Act and move toward a direct allocation of funds--a complete reversal of what this bill attempts to do in dealing with our States.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] is adopted.

If there are those who feel that the money in this bill is inadequate for hospitals, then increase the total amount for the total bill and contain it within the application of the Hill-Burton Act.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and to follow up a remark made by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. NELSEN] about the fact that every Member of this body knows full well there are one or more hospitals in his district that are in desperate need because of overcrowding.

I can envision, and I think everyone else in this body can envision, the fact that we will have camped on our doorsteps immediately one or more hospitals that can show us definite need and there will be pressure put upon us.

Seven out of eight of us are going to be disappointed if this bill passes because that is how many people---one out of eight---that can possibly get a grant. You can figure out the mathematics of it.

I have not been around this body but a few months, but I have come to one definite conclusion-that the raising of false hopes through crash programs is one of the most unwise things that this body can do.

As has been said here before, if the Hill-Burton funds are inadequate, let us increase the Hill-Burton funds.

The idea of taking $40 million and giving it to people who are already tooled up to come to town to get it and not to give it to people on any sort of equitable basis throughout the country, based on an historical figure or formula, in my opinion is raising false hopes.

I would like every Member of this body to consider that seven out of eight of you are going to have hospitals in your districts that cannot :possibly be considered with this piecemeal short-range program.

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in suppor.t of the amendment offered ·by ithe genrtleman from Illinois.

As a member of the committee, I had voted not to add this amendment during the committee deliberation. I do commend the gentleman from New York for the objective that he wishes to achieve. There is need for extra hospital help and this has particularly been augmented within the last 2 or 3 years. It ls true in my district as it is true, I am sure, in the districts of Members on both sides of the aisle.

I do feel very strongly that the very place for a change is in the Hill-Burton program and not as an addition to a partnership or comprehensive health bill.

This has not been recommended by the administration. I do not think the gentleman from New York has in his file any letter from either the administration or the HEW, as such, that says they recommend that this be put into the bill at this time.

I would support the gentleman at the right time and place to accomplish what we hope to achieve in an increase in the hospitalization program, that is the regular Hill-Burton program. When he otiers that, I will support it. But I do think that this fragments what we are trying to do if we set up a separate program now.

I cannot agree with the gentleman from California when he says that we should not pay any particular attention or be hidebound necessarily, or whatever his words were, to a program that was started 20 years ago. I say to you that a program which was started 20 years ago, such as Hill-Burton, has worked well, and there is general and strong agreement to this point.

For example, in my State, my State health department wants this bill to operate through the Hill-Burton program. The Governor of my State says it ought to be coordinated through the State department of health. I do not have any acknowledgment from my hospital QISsociation, although I am sure they would say they would not be for it, as written now. But there is a time and place for this kind of addition but it is not in this particular bill.


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

Mr. OTTINGER. I would be very sympathetic with the gentleman's idea that the best place for this provision would be, as the gentleman said, in the HillBurton Act. But the facts with which we are faced indicate that either we get this kind of assistance here and now or we will not get it in time to save many critical situations.

Mr. PICKLE. I am sure the gentleman would not take the position that merely because we do not have time to get any one of a hundred different measures passed by the House this week or this month, we must tack the measure on another bill, like the other body does. We cannot do business that way.

Mr. OTTINGER. If the gentleman will yield further, there will be people who suffer because of the delay in their getting into a hospital. People will even die because of the critical situation which exists. I feel we cannot wait until next year when we have before us the HillBurton Act.

Mr. PICKLE. I cannot agree with the gentleman when he attempts to dramatize the situation to that extent. I do not think he means we would have hundreds of people dying in the meanwhile. We must consider this extra hospital care, but it should be done under a regular existing program.


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

Mr. YATES. I do not agree with the g,entleman. I do not think it has to be under an existing program if that program is operating unfairly. I think HillBurton must be changed to give recognition to today's facts. I <;lo not think HillBurton has done justice to the health needs of the big cities, the centers of population. The statistics which I read a few moments ago show that the vast bulk of the money went to the rural areas and a most inadequate amount went into the great cities.

For example, the gentleman has said, "Let us do it under the ordinary formula of Hill-Burton." The fact is that under the ordinary formula of Hill-Burton by city of Chicago, which has a hospital obsolescence of approximately $255 million, has received only about $14 million since the inception of Hill-Burton. This is obviously inadequate.

Mr. PICKLE. I do not yield further. I have been a member of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee for 4 years. I have worked with the State medical groups in Texas before that. I have not heard any undue criticism of the Hill-Burton program. Not a voice has been raised against the Hill-Burton program in my committee in the last 4 years that I know of. I have not heard any criticism of it on the floor today. I think when the gentleman says that we have a great weakness in our Hill-Burton program--

Mr. YATES. Yes, we have. Mr. PICKLE. Then I think we cer

tainly do disagree. Mr. YATES. The statistics show it. Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, will

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

from New York. Mr. OTTINGER. I wish to assure the

gentleman that the money spent here must be coordinated and conform to the Hill-Burton formula. It is to conform the local, State, and regional plans for the area; so we are not going to do any violence to Hill-Burton through this program.

Mr. PICKLE. There seems to be some disagreement between you and the gentleman from Illinois. Do you say the HillBurton program is sufficient?

Mr. OTTINGER. Here is the language of the bill--

(By unanimous consent Mr. PICKLB was permitted to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.)


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

Mr. OTTINGER. Under section (4) (B) (iii) the following language appears:

Applications shall be integrated with health services programs approved or planned for the community, State, or region in which the hospital is included:

Under section (5) on page 47 of the bill:

(B) the project described in accordance with paragraph (4) of this subsection will help to correct existing deficiencies in health services available to the community, will help to enable the hospital to provide health services of a type and quality conforming

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26039 to generally accepted standards and conforms to local, State, or regional health planning and programs;

Therefore, there would be no conflict between what the Secretary does under this program.

Mr. PICKLE. The point I was going to make is that there seems to be a difference between your position and that of the gentleman from Illinois. Obviously the gentleman from Illinois wants to start a brandnew hospital program. If that is so, then there should be full hearings.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The gentleman mentioned my name.

Mr. PICKLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CABELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. For your information, this morning I talked with the administrator of one of the larger hospitals in Dallas, one of our great southwestern metroPolitan cities, an officer of the Hospital Administration Association.

He said: By all means keep these funds within the

province of the Hill-Burton funds. Do not fragment them. We recognize that there is not enough money in the Treasury to cure all our evils within one year. Let us do it m an orderly fashion and keep it under a program that has worked.

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES).

Mr. YA TES. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman misread my statement. What I did say was that Hill-Burton needs revision in order to take care of the needs of the metropolitan areas of this country.

Mr. PICKLE. It seems to me the gentleman is equivocating from a very bold statement he made a few minutes ago.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I am not equivocating at all. The figures I stated before validate my statement. I say we have to think in terms of establishing a formula which will make money available to the big cities where the greatest number of people live.

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, In addition, I would like to say a few words about the portion of the bill known as the Hospital Emergency Assistance Act of 1967. This program is incorporated ln the committee bill as section 12, and, briefly, it works to funnel Federal funds directly to those hospitals which, according to specified standards written into the bill, are determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be critically overcrowded and unable to provide adequate service.

The impartant thing about the Partnership for Health bill, in my estimation, is that it carries out a philosophy we have been working toward since the enactment of public health laws back in 1936. Without question, the main thrust of the partnership for health bill, as originally introduced, was to consolidate many existing categories of grants, and allow the States greater flexibility and autonomy in incorporating Federal assistance into their own overall health programs. I believe this is a commendable goal. It shows that the health pro-

gram has matured to the point that the States can initiate individual efforts, utilizing Federal assistance without overriding Federal control.

Part and parcel of the theory of autonomy in planning and action is that States must be able to exercise an effective control over the health programs within their area. If they are to provide a good public health program, they cannot have numerous uncontrolled public health programs :flying about. Fragmentation of health planning and construction is what we are :fighting at every turn, and whether we speak of the private or public sector of health, there is no denying that control and guidance is essential. There is no reasonaible way a public health program can effectively supplement the private health sector without consolidation of public programs on the one hand, and coordination of State agencies with the private sector on the other.

Only last week, the House passed a bill perpetuating a fragmented program. The Appalachian Regional Development Act provided $28 million over and above the $41 million already approved for demonstration health projects. If there is such a pressing need for new health facilities and services in the Appalachian area, why not channel these funds through the existing Hill-Burton agencies to assure that their application is consistent with what is going on in the rest of the State?

The Hospital Emergency Assistance Act sets standards that are applied entirely in the discretion of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. There is an incidental provision that applications for emergency assistance will be ''coordinated" with existing health services available to the community, but this amounts to little more than a notification to the State agency of a project already set for implementation. In bypassing the priorities procedures that have worked so well under the Hill-Burton State agencies, section 12 is a step back rather than forward.

A Presidential Commission is studying the changes needed when Hill-Burton related programs come up for review next year. Emergency assistance of the type covered in section 12 is one of the subjects under consideration by the Commission. I believe that before we take a step which could do harm to the HillBurton program, and set a precedent for further splitting off of assistance programs, we should study the problem more carefully.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary number of words.

I rise in sunpport of the Springer amendment. I cannot agree with the inclusion of section 12 in this otherwise commendable legislation.

This section was not included in the original bill. It was not the subject of complete and full hearings. It was not requested by administration witnesses.

This is an amendment to the HillBurton program for construction and modernization of hospitals, a program which has operated successfully for over 20 years. Hill-Burton program comes up for review and renewal early next year.

Then is the time to go into questions of additional funds for hospital construction.

Under Hill-Burton, funds for construction of new hospitals and modernization of old hospitals, are provided by formula to the individual States. At the State level, the plans for implementing the program are made, here is where the priorities are set.

I can speak from some experience in having seen the program operate in my State of North Carolina. In North Carolina, the Medical Care Commission has the responsibility of submitting statewide plans and setting priorities. This commission has done a good job. It has been alert to the health needs of the State.

However, under section 12, the North Carolina Medical Care Commission will be completely bypassed in the allocation of funds. The secretary would make grants directly to individual hospitals and communities. Where are the guidelines? How will the Secretary decide where to allocate the funds? It should be clear that we are in danger of setting up a new program under Hill-Burton which would be complicated to administer, and open to "political log-rolling." In fact, with a new and untried program of this sort, Members of Congress would be under considerable pressure from back at home to obtain a Portion of these funds. Let us not set up a program that could create confusion within a successful program, and where political manipulation could be possible.

I agree with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER]. Keep in mind, that these funds were not requested by the administration and are not in the Federal budget. Next year will be the time to go into this program in greater detail.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, for his support of this amendment. He and I both know that in 1947 the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an act implementing the passage of the HillBurton Act in 1946, creating the North Carolina. Medical Care Commission.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.. That is correct.

Mr. LENNON. Under this proposal, under section 12, we would for all practical purposes bypass the State planning organizations that were created by the legislatures of the several States. Irrespective of what may be said by our friends from the large urban cities, those States have comparable medical care commissions or State planning bodies, and the applications should properly go through those State planning bodies in order that we can move forward under a very splendid program.

It is my urgent hope that the Members of this House will support-and I concede to my friend from the urban area of Chicago that there is need, and if this legislation could be drawn so that


under section 12 these applications both for construction grants, and for planning for construction, and for staff' and nurses, as well as general deficits, could go through the State planning bodies, we would see it a little bit diff'erently, but it does not go through the State planning bodies or boards.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from North Carolina has stated the case correctly for North Carolina, where, of course, I have had the most experience with this program. The medical care commission has the responsibility for planning, and it is alert to the needs. It has done a good job.

I think this amendment is in order so that we can continue a program that has accomplished a good purpose and which shoUld be continued.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall not take the 5 minutes.

Aside from the points that I think are very valid, that this section 12 bypasses the normal processes in the State, I have been sitting here just asking myself the question: Have we totally lost our minds?

The gentleman from New York is saying here that 150,000 people will go without medical help or proper care if the Federal Government does nothing about it. How foolish can we be?

Medical care is not our responsibility alone. I applaud the Hill-Burton program. If Members are so concerned about folks in their distrJct not getting -adequate medical care, why do they not do what we just did in Richland County, S.C., where the folks are the poorest-or, thanks to Mississippi-next to the poorest? Just a month ago our people decided we did not have adequate medical care, and we voted upon ourselves a $24 million bond issue.

What is wrong with us? We do not want to tell the American people and other folks that unless we pass this section .12, with $58 million-$40 million in grants and $18 million for loans-people are not going to have adequate care. How ridiculous can we ·be?

We have an orderly program. The President has not requested this.

Although they say it is a single shot proposition, we can rest assured that they will have 10 times as many applications the first year as funds available to care for them. They will never be able to stop, because if we give emergency help to New York we will have to give it to California and to Illinois, and we will have to give a little bit down South.

I say to my friends, consider the taxpayers.

If Members have such a drastic problem in their areas, what about asking the people to do something about it, as we just did in Richland County, S.C.?

Frankly, gentlemen, we not only have compassion for those who need medical help, but we are willing to put our money where our mouths are and not run up to Washington and try to get the Federal Government to take care of our problem.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BROOKS, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill <H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and expand the authorizations for grants for comprehensive health planning and services, to broaden and improve the authorization for research and demonstrations relating to the delivery of health services, to improve the performance of clinical laboratories, and to authorize cooperative activities between the Public Health Service hospitals and community facilities, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

GENERAL LEAVE Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered, and on the Reuss amendment and on the Springer amendment to section 12.

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


APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 602, TO REVISE AND EXTEND THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965, AND TO AMEND TITLE V OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 Mr. JONES Qf Alaba~a. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent to take from the ,Speaker's table· the bill (S. 602) to revise and extend the Appalachian Re- · ·gional Development Act of 1965, and to amend title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, with House amendments thereto, insist upan the House amendments, and agree to the conference asked _by the Senate.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. FALLON, JONES of Alabama, WRIGHT, EDMONDSON, CRAMER, ScHWENGEL, and CLEVELAND.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 953, AMENDMENT OF FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 Mr. POAGE submitted the following

conference report and statement on the bill <S. 953) to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 for the purPQse of authorizing appropriations for fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967.

The conference report and statement follow:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 649) The committee of conference on the dis

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the blll ( S. 953) to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 for the purpose of authorizing appropriations for

fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, having met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree.

W.R. POAGE, E. C. GATHINGS, FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, PAGE BELCHER, CHARLES M. TEAGUE,

Managers on the Part of the House. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, HERMAN E. TALMADGE, JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, WALTER F. MONDALE, GEORGE D. AIKEN, Mn.TON R. YOUNG, J. CALEB BOGGS,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

STATEMENT The man.agers on the part of the House

at the conferenoe on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to tlle bUl ( S. 953) to amend the Food Sta.mp Act of 1964 for the purpose of authorizing appToprliations for fiscal years subsequent to the fisoal year ending June 30, 1967, report that the conferees have been unable to agree.

W.R. POAGE, E. c. GA.THINGS, FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, PAGE BELCHER,

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, Mana[fers on the Part of the House.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference repart on the bill <S. 953) to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 for the purpose of authorizing appropriations for fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year ending June· 30, 1967, and ask for its. immedia;te consideration.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the conference report.

The Clerk read the conference report. The SPEAKER. The Chair lays before

the House the Senate amendments to the House amendment to S. 953, which the Clerk will read.

The·Clerk read as follows: . In .lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted "Qy the House engrossed amendment insert:

"That the first sentence of subsection (a) of section 16 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 is amended by Inserting after 'June 30, 1967;' the following: 'not 1n excess of $200,000,000 for the &cal year ending June 30, 1968; not In excess of $225,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969;'.

"SEC. 2. Section 16(&) of such Act 1s turther amended by inserting a t t h e end t her eof t.he following: 'This Act shall be carried. out only with funds appropriated from the g·eneraJ fund of the Tr.ea.sury for that specific pur:pose and Ln no event shall it be carried out with funds derived from permanent a.pproprla.tions.' "

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. POAGE

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. PoAGE moves that the House concur

in the Senate a.inendments ·to ;the House amendment to S. 953.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed the extension of this bill for a longer period than 1 year, but it seems quite obvious that if we are to have a food stamp bill-and I want a food stamp bill-we are going to have to accept some kind of a compromise. This is a compromise between the 3-year and the 1-year versions. I think that a properly admin-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26041 istered food stamp program is the best and cheapest program of its kind. For that reason I feel it is desirable that we proceed to accept the Senate amendments at this time.

I felt, and still feel, that a 1-year extension was the better course. This House voted for a 1-year bill. I felt that your conferees were obligated to insist on this provision inasmuch as the House had by separate vote recorded its wish. As a conferee it is my purpose to reflect the expressed will of the House. I think that my colleagues on the conference agreed with this thinking. For this reason we refused to accept an agreement on other terms.

On the other hand, we felt that if this House now wants to reverse its position it has a perfect right to do so. Our action is intended to allow the House to reverse its action if this is its desire. I feel that you have that right. As your agent I did not have it.

The motion I have made gives you the opportunity to decide for yourselves. I believe that is fair to all. I am for the food stamp program, so I shall vote "aye."

Before I complete my statement I want to express my appreciation to my colleague from Oklahoma [Mr. BELCHER]. Although he does not agree with me as to the desirability of the food stamp program, he has cooperated to bring this matter to a vote. Let me also express my appreciation to the lady from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN], who has worked so hard for the program. I have disagreed with her methods, but never her motives.

I yield now 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BELCHER].

Mr. BELCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have always opposed the food stamp plan and opposed it here when it passed the House. The House did not agree with me. They passed the bill for a 1-year extension. The Senate passed a 3-year extension. We have had a meeting of the conferees between the House and the Senate several times. We have not been able to get together. Today we had another meeting, and we agreed to disagree and report back to each house for further instructions. The senate took the bill back to the Senate and made an amendment to their original bill for 2 years instead of 3 years. In my opinion, the House will probably sustain the 2-year version for the reason that iri the first place the Senaite met us halfway. There is no question of bullheadedness or stubbornness on the part of the Senate. We asked them to accept the 1-year, and we stood pat all this time. The chairman and I stood pat today. As far as I am personally concerned, I do not see anything to be gained by fighting the matter any longer. I do not think the House will turn down a bill if it means either 2 years or no bill.

There is one other fact to take into consideration, and that is the fact that the appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture, as I understand it, cannot be passed, an act in the amount of $6 billion or $7 billion, until some disposition is made of this food stamp bill.

Mr. Speaker, I always fight the issues involved just as hard as I possibly can. I fought the issue involved in this particular case. However, I got overruled. I

feel that the attitude of the House will be to accept this amendment and concur in the Senate amendment.

If that is true, that is all right insofar as I personally am concerned. I do not care to carry the fight any further. I know, however, that when it comes to a vote, of course, I shall vote against it.

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

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, I yield to the g·entleman.

Mr. SCHERLE. Can the gentleman tell me whether we are still supplying food stamps to the hippies in Drop City, Colo.?

Mr. BELCHER. No, I cannot tell the gentleman that. There have been a lot of things in the food stamp plan that I do not personally agree with and of which I do not approve. I do not know whether that has happened or not.

Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. EV ANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. SCHERLE] by saying that the city to which the gentleman refers which is located in the congressional district which it is my honor to represent. I am happy to report that they are not receiving any of these 'funds for the purchase of food stamps.

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

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, I yield further to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. SCHERLE. Will the gentleman from Colorado tell me whether or not, or for how long a period of time, the Government has supported a food stamp program for the hippies that have gathered in the State which is represented by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. EVANS]?

Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, . I yield to the gentleman from Colorado in order to respond to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Well, I will respond to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. ScHERLE] by saying, ·! do not know exactly how much time elapsed, but it was not too' long after the discovery was made that they were there and had applied for food stamps and had received food stamps that the decision was made that they do not qualify and thus were denied the benefits ·of the food stamp program.

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

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, I yield further to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. SCHERLE. But, for a short period of time they were issued food stamps, although they are no longer qualified to receive them?

Mr. EVANS of Colorado. That is correct.

Mr. SCHERLE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. BELCHER. Yes, I yield to the gen

tleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Let me see if I have this

correct: This is a 2-year program? Mr. BELCHER. That is correct.

Mr. GROSS. And, what is the cost per year?

Mr. BELCHER. I will ask the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE], to respond to that question.

Mr. POAGE. The authorization now exceeds $200 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and not to exceed $225 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969.

Mr. GROSS. So, this is something above a $400 million program, or is a program which represents the expenditure of funds amounting to close to onehalf billion dollars?

Mr. BELCHER. That is correct. Mr. GROSS. Am I wrong in my mem

ory that the President of the United States asked the Congress to cut back upon expenditures?

Mr. BELCHER. I do not think the gentleman is wrong in his memory. I see that in the paper quite often.

Mr. GROSS. Well, this scarcely coincides with the President asking the Congress to reduce expenditures; is that not correct?

Mr. BELCHER. No; that is one of the reasons why I voted against it when we had it up here to be passed originally. I went along with a whole · 1ot of other Members. However, I nevel' was sold on the bill to start with, but it passed the House, and under the circumstances which now exist the proper appr'oach is to accept the Senate amendment. I see no other alternative. I would be willing to fight from now on, except for that fact.

Mr. GROSS. Who is it that says that there will be no agricultural appropriation bill passed until and unless this bill is disposed of? -·

Mr. BELCHER. Well, my understanaing is that there is some disposition to accept this compromise because this is contained in the agricultural appropriation bill, and some decision has to_ be made on it before we take the bill back for final approval.

Mr. GROSS. There would be no harm in taking this money out of the bill, would there?

Mr. BELCHER. Of course, that is whait I tried. to do from the very beginning on it.

Mr. GROSS. That would be a service to the taxpayers of this country, would it not?

Mr. BELCHER. I think it would. But nevertheless, as I told the gentleman, I fight the issues just as hard as I possibly can. I voted with the gentleman all the way through on that issue. I voted with the gentleman when we had the peanut bill up. The gentleman will recall that. But, nevertheless, there comes a time when it does not necessarily serve a purpose to keep on fighting and losing battles.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN].

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker. I am glad this logjam has been broken finally, and that we are now being given an opportunity in the House to pass in final form a food stamp bill to authorize a continuation for at least 2 years of one of the most successful antipoverty programs of the Federal Government.

26042 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

Now that the stalemate has been overcome, this is perhaps not the time for complaints about how long the issue has been dragged out. The important thing is that the House conferees, have provided the rest of us with a chance to vote on ·the bill. So I thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and his four colleagues who were the House conferees for finding a way to resolve the issue.

The legislation, as it is now before us, would continue the food stamp authorization for 2 years, and set ceilings on appropriations of $200 million for the current fiscal year which began July l, and $225 million for the 1969 fiscal year. As passed by the Senate, it also requires that the funds be appropriated directly and not come out of section 32 funds. There is no reason why all of us who believe in rthe food stamp program cannot support rthe bill in ·this form.

As the Members know, the administration bill which I introduced called for an open-ended appropriation authority and for indefinite extension of the program. The law we enacted in 1964 was permanent legislation but the appropriation authorization was for only 3 years. The bill we are now considering would extend that authorization for only 2 more years. This is, of course, far better than the legislation which we passed in the House in June, which provided for only a 1-year extension. The Senate had passed a 3-year extension. It has taken since June to get this bill out of conference in one way or another so that both Houses could compromise on a 2-year bill. It is not the bill I introduced, but I nevertheless am more than willing to support this compromise in order to keep the program alive and to allow it to continue to expand.

Under the bill in its present form, New York City and Boston, and many other areas of the country which do not have the food stamp plan in operation, will be able to apply for certification, so that their low-income families can enjoy a good diet in the American way. The ceiling of $200 million for the current fiscal year should permit expansion of the program from nearly 2 million people to about 2% million this year, and to more than 3 million next year, when the appropriation ceiling would be $225 million. This certainly does not include all of the poor people in this country who need the help of the food stamp program in order to enjoy an adequate diet. But it is a very respectable expansion of a program which began originally with just a few hundred thousand people 6 years ago.

There is no reason in the world why this legislation has been tied up so long in a fruitless controversy over whether it should be extended for 1 year or 3 years or 2 years. However, as I said, this is not a time for recriminations. I am just glad that we have gotten l!t to the point of passage. No one has pointed to any scandals or serious shortcomings in the administration of this program. The most important criticisms have been directed not at the laxity of administration but the severity of the purchase requirements in buying the stamps. Secretary

Freeman has reduced the minimum purchase requirement to 50 cents per person in Mississippi, so that should take care of the most serious participation problem we have had under the program. There is room for :flexibility in the administration of this program, as I have insisted from the start. It is certainly not perfect.

But as I said, it is undoubtedly the most successful antipoverty program we have had for enabling poor families to eat properly. This is basic. If children are underfed, undernourished, no other program of Government is going to help them to overcome environmental problems. They cannot learn on an empty stomach. Families which cannot eat properly certainly will have very little motivation other than to find a way to overcome hunger. In this rich country with such an abundance of food, we would have a right to feel deep shame if we were unable to feed our own people a decent diet. This legislation solves that problem for us in an intelligent and effective and efficient manner. I urge its passage.

Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that rthe gentleman from West Virginia. [Mr. MOORE] may en.end ·his remarks at rthis point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objecrtion. Mr. MOORE. I rise in support of the

motion by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE] to concur in the Senate amendment to the House bill. I feel this 2-year extension of the food stamp program, under the circumstances, is much needed and desirable. It is far preferable to the original proposal.

I have favored the food stamp program since its inception, and since the first pilot project was inaugurated in McDowell County, W. Va., it has proven beneficial to thousands of individuals in my State. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote for this nonpartisan program and would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE] that the House concur in the SenaJte amendments rto the House amendment to S. 953.

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

Mr. ASHBROOK. 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 will 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 196, nays 155, not voting 81, as follows:

Albert Anderson, Ill. Anderson,

Tenn. Andrews,

N.Dak.

[Roll No. 262] YEAS-196

Annunzlo Ashley Bevlll Biester Bingham Blanton

Boggs Boland Bolling Brademas Brasco Brooks

Brotzman Brown, Calif. Burke, Mass. Burton, Calif. Byrne, Pa. Cahill Carey Carter Clark Cohelan Conte Corbett Corman Culver Daniels Dawson de la Garza Delaney Dent Dingell Donohue Dow Dul ski Duncan Eckhardt Edmondson Edwards, La. Ell berg Esch Evans, Colo. Everett Evins, Tenn. Farbstein Fascell Fino Flood Foley Ford,

WilliamD. Fraser Friedel Fulton, Pa. Fulton, Tenn. Gallagher Gathings Gibbons Gonzalez Gray Green, Oreg. Green, Pa. Griffiths Gude Halpern Hamilton Hammer-

schmidt Hanley Hanna Hansen, Wash. Hardy Harsha Harvey

Abbitt Abernethy Adair Andrews, Ala. Arends Ashbrook Ashmore Ayres Baring Bates Battin Belcher Bell Bennett Berry Betts Bolton Bow Bray Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burleson Burton, Utah Bush Cabell Cederberg Chamberlain Clancy Clausen,

DonH. Clawson, Del Cleveland Collier Colmer Conable Cowger

September 19, 1967

Hathaway Perkins Hawkins Philbin Hechler, W. Va. Pike Heckler, Mass. Poage Helstoski Pryor Holifield Purcell Horton Quie Howard Randall Hungate Rees !chord Reid, N.Y. Irwin Reifel Jacobs Resnick Joelson Reuss Johnson, Calif. Rhodes, Pa. Jones, Ala. Riegle Jones, Mo. Rogers, Colo. Karsten Ronan Kastenmeier Rosenthal Kazen Rostenkowskl Kee Roush Kelly Roybal Kupferman Ruppe Kyl St Germain Kyros St. Onge Landrum Saylor Long, Md. Scheuer McDade Schweiker McDonald, Schwengel

Mich. Shipley McFall Sisk McMillan Skubitz Macdonald, Slack

Mass. Smith, Iowa Machen Stafford Mahon Staggers Mathias, Md. Stanton Matsunaga Steed May Stratton Mayne Stubblefield Meeds Sullivan Mills Thompson, Ga. Mink Tiernan Monagan Udall Moorhead Ullman Morgan Van Deerlln Morris, N. Mex. Vanik Morse, Mass. Vigorito Mosher Waldie Moss Walker Murphy, Ill. Wampler Natcher Watts Nedzi Whalen Nix White O'Hara, Ill. Whitten O'Hara, Mich. Widnall O'Konski Wright Olsen Yates O'Neill, Mass. Young Ottinger Zablocki Patman Zwach Patten Pepper

NAYS-1'56 Cramer Cunningham CUrtis Davis, Wis. Dellen back Denney Derwin ski Devine Dickinson Dorn Dowdy Downing Edwards, Ala. Eshleman Findley Fisher Flynt Fuqua Galiflanakls Gardner Gettys Goodell Goodling Gross Grover Gurney Hagan Haley Hall Hansen, Idaho Henderson Hosmer Hutchinson Jarman Jonas Jones, N.C. Keith Klng, N.Y. ~ornegay Laird

Langen Latta Lennon Lipscomb Lloyd Lukens McClory McClure McCulloch McEwen MacGregor Mailliard Marsh Mathias, Calif. Michel Miller, Ohio Minshall Mize Montgomery Morton Myers Nelsen Nichols O'Neal, Ga. Passman Pettis Pickle Pirnie Poff Pollock Price, Tex. Quillen Reid, Ill. Reinecke Rhodes, Ariz. Rivers Roberts Robison Rogers, Fla. Roth

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26043 Roudebush Rumsfeld Satterfield Schade berg Scher le Schneebeli Scott Selden Shriver Sikes

Smith, Okla. Waggonner Snyder Watkins Springer Watson Steiger, Ariz. Whalley Stuckey Whitener Taft Wiggins Talcott Williams, Pa. Taylor Winn Teague, Calif. Wydler Teague, Tex. Wylie

Smith, Calif. Smith,N.Y.

Tuck Wyman Vander Jagt Zion

NOT VOTINiG-81 Adams Gilbert Addabbo Gubser Aspinall Halleck Barrett Harrison Blackburn Hays Blatnik Hebert Brinkley Herlong Brock Hicks Broomfield Holland Button Hull Byrnes, Wis. Hunt Casey Johnson, Pa. Cell er Karth Conyers King, Calif. Daddario Kirwan Davis, Ga. Kleppe Diggs Kluczynski Dole Kuykendall Dwyer Leggett Edwards, Calif. Long, La. Erlenborn McCarthy Fallon Madden Feighan Martin Ford, Gerald R. Meskill Fountain Miller, Calif. Frelinghuysen Minish Garmatz Moore Giaimo Multer

Murphy, N.Y. Pelly Pool Price, Ill. Pucinski Railsback Rarick Rodino Rooney, N.Y. Rooney, Pa. Ryan Sandman Steiger, Wis. Stephens Tenzer Thompson, N .J. Thomson, Wis. Tunney utt Williams, Miss. Wi111s Wilson, Bob Wilson,

CharlesH. Wolff Wyatt

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

pairs: On this vote: Mr. Moore for, with Mr. Utt against. Mrs. Dwyer for, with Mr. Bob Wilson

against Mr. Button for, with Mr. Martin against.

Until further notice: Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Gerald R. Ford. Mr. Hebert with Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. King of California with Mr. Halleck. Mr. Addabbo with Mr. Erlenborn. Mr. Rodino with Mr. Byrnes of Wiscons1n. Mr. Minish with Mr. Broomfield. Mr. Gilbert with Mr. Harrison. Mr. Daddario with Mr. Johnson of Penn-

sylvania. Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Pelly. Mr. Feighan with Mr. Gubser. Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Sandman. Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Bow. Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Thom-

son of Wisconsin. Mr. Multer with Mr. Railsback. Mr. Garmatz with Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fallon with Mr. Kleppe. Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. Meskill. Mr. Wolff with Mr. Wyatt. Mr. Tenzer with Mr. Brock. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Black-

burn. Mr. Oeller with Mr. Kuykendall. Mr. Hays with Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin. Mr. Holland with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.

Conyers. Mr. Barrett with Mr. Pool. Mr. Adams with Mr. Rarick. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Herlong. Mr. Madden with Mr. W1lliams of Missis

sippi. Mr. Fountain with Mr. Casey. Mr. Rooney of Pennsylvania with Mr.

Davis of Georgia. Mr. Hull with Mr. Long of Louisiana. Mr. Stephens with Mr. Willis. Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Tunney. Mr. Miller of Gallfornia with Mr. Mc-

Carthy. Mr. Price of Illinois with Mr. Brinkley. Mr. Hicks with Mr. Edwards of California. Mr. Ryan with Mr. Karth.

Mr. W AGGONNER changed his vote from "yea" to "nay."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

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

table.

CORNELIO MANESCU-CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF U.N.?

Mr. W AGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask un•animous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

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

'I1here was no objection. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I

have read with great concern continuing reports that the administration is seriously considering supporting Corneliu Manescu, Foreign Minister of Communist Rumania, for the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly next session. The idea that we would give a second thought to such a mockery of freedom appalls me and I urge my colleagues here in the House to voice their protests to the White House.

Communist Rumania openly supports the Vietcong in its war against South Vietnam and supports them with strategic materials that are being used, daily, to slaughter American servicemen. The United States is the subject of repeated, vicious attacks in the state-controlled press of Rumania and there is no freedom anywhere in the nation. Even the leftist New York Times calls it "the most oppressive regime in Eastern Europe."

Rumania boasts that their cooperation with Russia is the cornerstone of their foreign Policy and as long as this is true, it is unthinkable for the United States to support, directly, indirectly or by passively taking no position, any Rumanian Communist for the presidency of the General Assembly.

I make no bones about my position concerning the United Nations. For 10 years I have advocated that we withdraw from it and form in its place an international council of free nations.

Had we taken steps to create such an organization to take the place of the U.N. when I first proposed it, we would have today an effective worldwide body of nations dedicated to peace, working constructively for peace. Instead we are stuck with the same old discredited, Communist-dominated, U.S.-ftnanced gabfest.

After the debacle of the Middle East crisis this summer there should not be any reasonable men left who has confidence in the U.N.'s ability to mediate disputes or maintain peace. Certainly any desire to promote peace will in no way be advanced by having a Communist from an Iron Curtain country as the President of the General Assembly. The only time the U.N. takes any active part in any dispute is when there is a desire to do so on the part of the leadership. Thus, no action is taken against Communist Cuba, yet sanctions are enforced against Rhodesia; a classic case of activity resulting from selfish interest rather

tban principle. With a Communist sympathizer as its head and a Communist as President of the General Assembly, there will be absolutely no inclination in the U.N. to pursue democratic principles in the future.

Not only should this administration announce without equivocation that it does not support Rumania's Foreign Minister, but it should announce that it will exert every ounce of its fading prestige to see that he is not elected.

The U.N. has been brought to the edge of nothingness by the direction of the profoundly anti-American U Thant. With a fellow Red in the presidency of the General Assembly, the entire concept of a body of "peace-loving nations" becomes sheer foolishness. Every voice of protest against Manescu is a drop of water on the stony heads of the State Department and I plead with my fellow Members to raise their voices before it is too late.

BILL TO INCREASE NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT MEMBERS

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and e~end my remarks, and ito include extraneous matter.


There was no objection. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I am in

troducing today a bill that would augment the Supreme Court by permitting an increase in its number from nine to 15. This would aid it in disposing of the constantly increasing volume of its workload and grant the Chief Executive an opportunity to add to the Court members aware of not only what the law should be, but also aware of what the law is.

The need for this bill is, I think, illustrated daily and as one example, I include a letter of a present member of the Court to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor and published therein, September 14, 1967:

SPECIAL TRUST

To THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: In a recent Monitor you carried an article

by your distinguished Erwin D. Canham, called, "The right of dissent." In that article he says, "There are laws against treason, in peacetime as well as in war. When does dissent become treason?"

The Constitution defines "treason" as follows: "Art. 3, Sec. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

This comes into play when there is "war" and "war" comes into being by a "declaration" by Congress, as provided in Article I, Sec. 8. The difference between "war" and a state of host111ties ls tremendous-as constitutional students know.

So it is a form of llliteracy to talk about "treason" and "war" in the constitutional sense when speaking of those who voice their dissent against our Vietnam policies.

Sedition, of course, is quite a different thing. Whether speech alone could ever qualify •ls a. muoh mooted question. It was so condemnP-d in one case where "war" had been declared and was in process.

It was condemned in another case where there was a "conspiracy" to teach the noxious creed even though there was no "war" in existence.

But there were qualifications originally

26044 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in the "clear and present danger" test.

The tP.rms "treason" and "war" as used in the Constitution are words of art. The truck drivers and field hands of the nation cannot be expected to undstand subtle constitutional nuances.

But news editors who mold public opinion have a special trust, a special responsibility.

Justice WILLIAM 0. DoUGLAS, Supreme Court of the United States.

WASHINGTON. [It is with utmost temerity that a mere

newspaperman should disagree with a supreme Court Justice. Frankly, though, I do not see the basis of Mr. Justice Douglas' statement that Sec. 3 of Art. III only comes into play "when there is war.'' The section says that treason consists not only "in levying War against them,'' but "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It seems to me giving aid and comfort to enemies can happen in these days when a declaration of war is somewhat unlikely under certain conditions. At lea.st one federal district court has stated that, "In times of peace it is treason for one of our citizens to incite war against us." U.S. v. Stephan, 50 F. Supp. 738 at 741-42 (1943) E. D. C.]

Some ref er to this bill as a "Court packing" proposal. From this letter you can see that it is not. The Court is packed already.

THE VICTORY OF THE "INTREPID" Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent oo address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter,

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

There was no objection. Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker,

I believe that all of us in the Congress and throughout America would wish to salute with deep pride Intrepid's overwhelming victory and successful defense of the 20th challenge for the America's CUp. Intrepid, skippered with consummate skill and seamanship by Bus Mosbacher of White Plains, N.Y., was sailed by a topflight, talented, and hardworking crew. Intrepid led not alone in each of the four races but also ran ahead on each leg of all the races.

Intrepid's victory is, I think, a tribute to many in the United States who shared in this endeavor, including Olin Stephens, the understated and gifted designer of the Cup defender; Bus Mosbacher, the successful skipper now for a second time; and the very fine crew, composed of Ned Hall, Jory Hinman, Toby Tobin, Billy Kelly, Bob Connell, Bizzy Montesano, Buddy Bombard, David Elwell, Sam Wakeman, Bill Strawbridge, and Vic Romagna.

While our most hearty "well done" goes to the Intrepid, in her victory we also salute the three other fine boats who participated in the America's Cup trials and, in the words of Yachting magazine, "devoted their summer, and more, to the quest for the America's Cup." The Constellation, the 1964 Cup winner, was skippered by Bob Mccullough, and her crew included John Browning, Norris Strawbridge, Rich DuMoulin, Tom Young, Dick Strawbridge, Westy Saltonstall, George O'Day, David Rockefeller, Jerry Silverman, and Putter Brown. The skipper of American Eagle was George

Hinman and his crew consisted of Tony Parker, John Dickerson IV, Steve Colgate, John and Tony Termaine, Clayton Ewing~ Irving Pratt, John Nichols, Konrad Ulbrich, and John Kelly. Briggs Cunningham skippered Columbia and his crew was Tom Schock, Burke Sawyer, Fred MacDonald, Don Vaughn, Rob Dougan, Kent Edler, John Creed, James Jones, Pat Dougan, and Bill Ficker.

Equally, I think, we should pay tribute to Dame Pattie, the spirit of Australia, and to Jock Sturrock, her skipper, for the national effort and sportsmanship shown throughout the race. Her fine crew included Pod O'Donnell, John Taylor, Tony Ellis, Michael Greenaway, Andrew White, Sandy Schofield, Richard Dickson, Norm Booth, Bill Barnett, Norm Wright, Bob Thornton, and Ed Beacham.

Intrepid's victory marked the 2oth unsuccessful attempt to wrest the America's Cup away from the United States since 1851, when the trophy was first established after the schooner America beat Britain's best yacht to win the Royal Yacht Squadron 100-guinea cup.

It is a measure of the international spirit that characterizes these races over more than a century that Australia has given so freely and so painstakingly of her t~me and effort to make the series worthwhile, and we would certainly hope that there will be another race in this fine tradition in which Australia will again participate.

Under unanimous consent, I am inserting in the RECORD a history of the America's Cup race that appeared in the September 1967 issue of Yachting and the front-page story from today's New York Times giving an account of the final and winning race, which decided the series 4 to O.

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

Mr. REID of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I join the gentleman in complimenting the victorious vessel and crew and our very fine neighbors across the Pacific but I also suggest that while we are speaking on the subject of yachting, we stay off the subject of tennis while talking about sports in recent times.

Mr. REID of New York. I think the Australians deserve great credit for their attainment in tennis. I am glad that we can return the compliment in yachting.

The articles mentioned above follow: [From Yachting, September 1967)

THE CUP CHRONOLOGY-A DIGEST OF THE COMPETITION SINCE 1851

(By Alfred F. Loomis) Of all the races that have been run since

seafarers started salllng for the fun of it none has had so profound an effect as that of August 22, 1851, when the 102-foot schooner America raced around England's Isle of Wight and won the Royal Yacht Squadron's 100-guinea cup. The prize for defeating Britain's best in this 53-mile event was valuable in itself. After it had been presented to the New York YC by the syndicate which owned America, renamed The America's Cup and placed in international competition, it became invaluable. Nineteen attempts have been made to remove it from the custody of Americans and in the process all the concomitants of sailboat racing from

yacht design t,o helmsmanship and crew technique have developed and improved.

The first defense of the Cup occurred when James Ashbury's 108' schooner Cambria, bearer of a challenge from the Royal Thames YC, arrived in our waters after having narrowly defeated James Gordon Bennett's schooner Dauntless in a race from Daunt Rock, Ireland, to Sandy Hook, New York. We raced a fleet of 23 sloops and schooners against the lone Britisher around a Sandy Hook course, and it was not altogether surprising that Cambria finished after seven American yachts had crossed the line or that she dropped to 10th place on corrected time and lost to Franklin Osgood's schooner Magic by a margin of 39 minutes and 12 seconds.

But Ashbury seemed to be a good sort and the following year came back with the 126' schooner Livonia and a challenge from the Royal Harwich YC. We agree to race only one boat against the challenger and to make it a series of the best four out of seven races. But we fudged a bit by lining up four defenders from which to choose, our choice to be determined by the state of the weather on any given day. As it happened we used only two of the four-the light-weather schooner Columbia and the heavy-weather schooner Sappho. Columbia won the first two and might have taken the third had it not come on to blow. On the beat out to the lightship she parted her flying jib stay, losing a few precious minutes, and on the run home broke her steering gear. Livonia won by a comfortable 15-minute margin. The score then being two to one, we sailed Sappho in the fourth race in which a slack air at the start hardened into a reefing breeze, and we beat Livonia by more than half an hour. Sappho's margin for the fifth race was nearly half an hour.

Canada had a try at the Cup in the centennial year of our independence. Toronto's Royal Canadian YC challenged wl:th the syndicate-owned schooner Countee of Dufferin, which lost two races to John S. Dickerson's schooner Madeleine. The venerable America, then owned by General Benjamin F. Butler, accompanied the two centerboarders a.round the course, keeping out of the way, and was sprightly enough to beat Countess by 20 minutes, which was only seven minutes less than Madeleine's winning margin.

The Bay of Quinte YC of Lake Onta.rto challenged five years later with the 70' cb. sloop Atalanta and we defended with the 67' sloop Mischief, affectionately known as the "Iron Pot.'' After having won two races by 28 and 39 minutes, we Americans realized that Atalanta was a dangerous skimming dish whose draft was identical with that of Mischiefs. Should a future, faster centerboarder be towed to New York, as Atalanta was, via the Erie Oanal, · there was no telling what might happen to the America's CUp. The deed of gift was changed so that only a club having an ocean water regatta course could challenge and so the challenger must arrive for the match under sail on her own bottom.

For the first time the Royal Yacht Squadron entered the lists and for good measure challenged with Sir Richard Sutton's cutter Genesta and with Lt. William Henn's cutter Galatea. The former was met by the cb. sloop Puritan, designed by Edward Burgess and owned by a Boston syndicate headed by General Charles J. Paine. Purttan won two races and retained the cup, though the contenders came four times to the starting line. On the first day there was too little air. On the second Puritan fouled Genesta and the committee awarded the race to Genesta if she sailed around the course. Sir Richard courteously rejected the offer, saying that he had come for a race and not a sallover. On the third try, which Puritan won by more than 16 minutes, there was spectator interference. But the British sportsman remained goad tempered, and at the conclusion, when Ge-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26045 nesta lost iby only 1 minute 28 seoonds, s!he balled the winner with three rousing cheers.

Postponed a year, the challenge of Lt. Henn and his cutter Galatea was tendered not by the Yacht Squadron but by the Scottish Royal Northern YC. General Paine commissioned Burgess to design a new centerboarder for his own account. The design of this beamy, powerful centerboard sloop was so different from that of the ex·treme "plank-on-edge" challenger that the series became known as the battle of the types. Mayflower won two races with margins of 11 and 29 minutes.

The Royal Clyde YC of Scotland now challenged on behalf of James Bell with the cutter Thistle from the designing board of George L. Watson, whose later Britannia became the most famous of all British racing yachts. Built behind closed doors, Thistle proved inferior to the third Paine-Burgess defender. The match, won easily by Volunteer in two straight races, was attended by mutual distrust and acrimony.

There was worse to come. Changes in the deed of gift required, among other things, a future challenger's waterline length and beam, extreme beam and draft to be made known 10 months in advance. The British, as represented again by the Royal Yacht Squadron, charged in 1889 that such information would permit us to outbuild any yacht that they designed, and broke off negotiations for a challenge on behalf of the Earl of Dunraven. It was not until 1893 when we demanded only the length of a prospective challenger that dickering was resumed, and Lord Dunraven re-entered the fray with Valkyrie II, a new 92' sloop of Watson's design. J:n the meantime Edward Burgess had died and Nathaniel G. Herreshoff had entered upon a career that continued with success after success for an entire generation. His 124' bronze sloop Vigilant owned by a New York syndicate headed by C. Oliver Iselin, defeated Valkyrie II in three straight races.

Next came Valkyrie III and a whole packet of disagreeable contention. Lord Dunraven unjustly charged after losing the first of three races that the waterline length of our Defender (for such was the name of the new Herreshoff creation) had been illegally increased by the addition of ballast. After loss of the second race Dunraven accused Defender of having fouled Valkyrie at the start, although photographs subsequently revealed that Valkyrie had in fact fouled Defender. The irascible Earl withdrew after the start of the third race, charging that spectator crowding made it impossible for him to sail without danger. By such tactics the challenger virtually forced the New York YC into the dual role of judge- and executioner and Dunraven was "tried" by the club, deemed guilty of conduct unbecoming to a gentleman and a lord, and was expelled from honorary membership.

The Lipton Era, 1899-1930. Fortunately for the continuance of America's Cup racing there was nothing contumacious about Sir Thomas Lipton, the tea vender, for whom the Royal Ulster YC gladly tendered five successive challenges in 1899, 1903, 1905, 1914 (sailed after the completion of World War I in 1920) and 1930. Sir Tommy, who knew little about yachting but who had good advisers, chose Will Fife of Fairlea for the design of his first Shamrock, Watson for the second, Fife again for the third and then the greatest of them all, Charles E. Nicholson for Shamrocks IV and V. For our part we had "Mr. Nat" Herreshoff for the design Of a second Columbia (1899 and 1901) Reliance (1905) and Resolute (1920). By 1930 Mr. Nat had retired. As the head of a New York syndicate it was entirely fitting that Harold s. Vanderbilt should select W. Starling Burgess, son of Edward, to design the yacht which was chosen to defend.

These five matches, satled out of New York Harbor until 1930 when the scene was sensibly shifted to Newport, totaled 18 races,

in one of which the American defender Resolute withdrew because her main halyard had rendered on its winch drum. All the Shamrocks lost all the other races with such good Wlll that Sir Tommy became known as the world's most gallant loser.

J-Boat Era, 1930-1937. The overlap of the eras is intentional. By mutual consent Enterprise and Shamrock V were built to the top of the Universal Rule of Measurement for the J Class. Therefore, contenders had been rated in successive matches according to one formula or another and the races had been scored on handicap. But the J-boats were built to a rule embracing sail area, hull dimensions and other essential factors which arrived at a certain rating, in this case 76. So the contestants for the first time in the long history of the Cup raced without handicap on a boat for boat basis. Enterprise, with Vanderbilt at the helm, won the first, second and fourth in approximately 3, 10 and 5 minutes. Shamrock V withdrew from the third race with a parted main halyard.

After a lapse of 39 years the Royal Yacht Squadron once again threw down the gauntlet in behalf of the noted airplane manufacturer, T.O.M. Sopwith, whose Nicholsondesigned yacht Endeavour was generally conceded to be the fastest and most beautiful of them all. But Vanderbilt, skippering the new Burgess-designed Rainbow, was a better helmsman and tactician. After losing two races of a four-in-seven match, a predicament in which no preceding defender had ever been, Vanderbilt rallied himself and his troops (among whom were the late Sherman Hoyt and Frank Paine) and took the next four in a row.

The RYS, Sopwith and Nicholson came forth with Endeavour II but, alas, for all their hopes, Vanderbilt built at his own expense to the joint design of Burgess and Olin Stephens, a new J which was selected to defend the Cup. Ranger was such a breakthrough in speed potential that she won four races in a row and in the fourth broke the course record which had been set in 1934 by Endeavour and prior to that in 1930 by Enterprise. Ranger's time for a 30-mile equilateral triangle was 3 hrs. 7 ms. 49 secs.

The second World War came and put a stop forever to racing among the lofty J-boats. Recognizing the economic chranges, the New York YC appealed in 1956 to New York's Supreme Court for permission to alter the America's Cup deed of gift so that yachts of 44' w.l. (instead of 65') could compete for the trophy and so that the challenger need no longer be brought on her own bottom to the scene of the conflict. There resulted a challenge from the Squadron on behalf of Sceptre, a 12-Meter to the design of David Boyd. We defended with the new Stephens-designed Columbia. With Briggs Cunningham at the helm of the third Columbia, the result of the 17th match for the America's Cup was a foregone conclusion five minutes after the start of the first race. The first two races were sailed in light airs and were lost by Sceptre b-¥ margins of 7 ms. 44 secs. and 12 ms. 52 secs. People said that Sceptre needed wind. She got it--22 knots in the third race and 15 knots in the fourth-and lost by 8:20 and 7:5.

The first challenge from Australia, by Sir Frank Packer with Jock Sturrock In the Alan Payne-designed Gretel representing Royal Sydney YC, piroduced an interesting, ha.rdfought series and the first race win by a challenger since 1934. After losing the opener by 3: 42 to the experienced Bus Mosbacher in Henry Mercer's Phil Rhodes-designed W eatherly, the first "non-maiden" to defend since 1901, Gretel took the second race. After a back-breaking tacking duel in heavy air, Gretel, 12 seconds astern at the second mark of a 24-mile triangle, broke through under spinnaker, surging swiftly on one wave, and swept home ahead by 47 seconds to touch off a wild celebration by her crew. Missing

another heavy breeze by opting a lay day, the Aussies dropped a drifter by 8:40, and Mosbacher then staved off a severe challenge in the fourth race. By slick defensive maneuvers, he preserved a 26-second margin, closest finish in America's Cup history. In an anticlimactic finale, Weatherly won by 3:40, but the series had proved that 12-Meter match racing can be exciting.

This series did much to destroy that impression. With Bob Bavier at the helm, the Olin Stephens-designed Constellation, owned by a large syndicate, soundly trounced Peter Scott in Anthony Hoyden's Sovereign, another David Boyd design, by margins of 5:34, 20:24, 6:33, 15:40 over 24.3-mile Olympic type courses. A masterful maneuver by Bavier at the start of the first race provided the only close action of the series. The summer was more notable for the exciting selection duel between Connie and American Eagle and for the first selection series to pick a challenger ever held in U.S. waters, in which Sovereign beat out her twin-hulled sister, Kurrewa V.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 1967) U.S. YACHT SWEEPS FOUR-RACE MATCH FOR

AMERICA'S CUP (By John Rendel)

NEWPORT, R.I., September 18.-The drama of a successful America's Cup defense was enacted for the 20th time today. Intrepid and a crew working with machinelike precision kept the symbol of world sailing supremacy in the United States, delivering a fourth straight thrashing to Australia's inadequate challenger, Dame Pattie. It was dull drama.

The latest of the line of cup defenders, not beautiful, but powerful and fast, swept across the finish line first by more than half a mile and with a margin in time of 3 minutes 35 seconds.

Intrepid became the third 12-Meter yacht to complete a four-race sweep since the class was Introduced into the competition in 1958. Following the pattern of her previous successes, she sealed the victory after the first several minutes and led at every turn of the 24.3-mile, six-sided course by margins of up to three-quarters of a mile.

The blasts from the horns of spectator craft were tributes to the new queen of deepsea racing and tributes also to Emil (Bus) Mosbacher, Jr. of White Plains, a successful America's Cup skipper for the second time, and to his 10-man crew.

Indirectly, tribute was paid also to Olin Stephens 2d of New York, the designer of a successful 12-Meter for the third time; the syndicate that financed Intrepid, and the Mlnneford Yacht Yard of City Island, which built her soundly and well.

At no time in the series did Jock Sturrock of Melbourne and his stalwart Aussies aboard the challenger have the weight of wind they had hoped for-the lighter the better.

Today's southwester, usually in the 12-to-14-knot range, came closest to their ideal, and there was hope at one stage when it faded to six knots or less.

Now they would return home never to be sure how much better their yacht would have been had the wind been always truly light.

RACE NEARLY POSTPONED Intrepid followed Constellation, the 1964

defender, also Stephens-designed and Minneford-built, in a four-straight success.

The final race almost was not held. Fog that draped Rhode Island Sound from Brenton Reef light tower to the starting line at the America's Cup buoy seven miles away had lifted, then settled again just as the starting routine began.

It was 2 P.M. before the start was made, 1 hour 50 minutes behind schedule. With the fog rolllng back again, spectators thought

26046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 a postponement signal would be broken out, but instead the yachts went on their way and the fog dissipated into haze for the rest of the afternoon.

The fog held the spectator vessels to about 75 boats, a small number for an international event of the first magnitude. They were rewarded with the first really tense duel of the series. It lasted through the opening stages after an unorthodox start on which the yachts started on opposite tacks.

There was a close-quarters tacking duel that had those who followed cheering, but when it was over it was the same old story. Intrepid had her adversary firmly in hand, showing the windward prowess that has made her exceptional among her kind.

Intrepid nailed down the 62d American victory for the historic cup since the New York Yacht Club acquired possession through the victory of the schooner America in 1851. Since 1870, the year of the challenge, there had been only six defeats.

Intrepid entered the competition beaten only once in 20 selection trial races, that time through rounding a wrong buoy which proved that those aboard were human after all.

There was no mistake today, unless a false tack by Mosbacher that did not succeed was a mistake. And when the race was over there was a bit of byplay. Sturrock ordered the "N" flag hoisted to signify there would be no race tomorrow.

Intrepid acquired the clincher with customary consummate ease after a start on the port tack while Dame Pattie was on the starboard. It almost looked as if Mosbacher had joined the spectators in expecting a postponement signal instead of the starting cylinder. That's how thick the fog was.

It looked like the Aussies' day. The wind was about 12 knots and the sea ruffied only slightly. Sturrock had his yacht 100 yards to leeward when Mosbacher made his covering tack a minute from the gun. The Dame was moving briskly, ahead in clear wind. Intrepid was moving through the water better.

STURROCK STARTS DUEL Ten minutes from the gun, Dame Pattie

tacked. She was behind. Mosbacher put his yacht about on the challenger's weather bow and Sturrock started the short-tacking duel.

It lasted through a dozen tacks, one the false one that did not fool Sturrock, with both yachts going from one hand to the other cleanly and sharply and not more than a boat-length apart.

It was tense going while it lasted, with Sturrock fighting to clear his wind and Mosbacher equally determined to keep him pinned down. When it ended, Dame Pattie had her wind clear, all right, but she also was three boat-lengths, then four boatlengths, to leewa.I"d and astern.

When the duel was broken off, Intrepid really began to climb upwind. She was around the Navy tug that was the weather mark 1 minute 25 seconds ahead.

Norris Hoyt, head of the English department at St. George's School in Newport had a stadimeter aboard the Coast Guard cutter Point Turner.

He figured that Intrepid was 230 yards ahead at the end of the short-tacking exercise and gruining steadily until it was 375 yards a quarter-mile from the Navy tug that was the weather ma.rk. It was 515 yards early in the spinnaker reach that followed and slightly more when it ended.

The distance grew until it was three-quarters of a mile the second time they were on the wind. The next-to-last of the six legs was a 4¥2-mile run and it was toward 1ts close that the wind faded and Dame Pattie made the only substantial gain of the entire series.

But it was not due so much to the challenger's superior downwind speed as to the fact that Intrepid almost ran out of breeze and the Dame did not.

Both tacked downwind and the wind threatened to quit altogether while the defender was where it was lightest. The Aussies held the better of it and reduced the distance to a quarter-mile.

It didn't mean a thing. Upwind for the last time, Intrepid was her wind-eating self again in freshing airs and doubled the distance.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1967

Mr. RY AN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 'Consent to extend my remarks at this paint in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 1to the request of ithe gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, on August 17

the Social Security Amendments of 1967 came to the floor under a closed rule which did not permit any amendments or points of order.

H.R. 12080 contained regressive f eatures which presented a serious dilemma to many Members of the House. While proforma debate was permitted, concerned Members had to vote for or against this legislation as a whole, and it did include inadequate but sorely needed increases in social security benefits. No option was provided to amend the bill or to single out its negative provisions for defeat.

On August 28, 17 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to Members of the Senate Finance Committee citing the problems in the bill and urging them to take remedial action. Since then I have received various expressions of support. Among them are an appraisal of some of the regressive features of H.R. 12080 by the National Social Welfare Assembly of New York and a press release including a policy statement signed by 18 lawyers and law professors protesting the objectionable provisions.

I would like to call both of these thoughtful statements to the attention of my colleagues. The statements follow: CRISIS IN PUBLIC WELFARE POLICY: APPRAISAL

OF WELFARE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 12080 (By Elizabeth Wickenden, technical con

sultant on public social policy) CALL TO ACTION

At no time in the memory of this generation have the friends of a progressive and humane welfare policy been so challenged as by the welfare provisions of the House-passed bill, HR 12080. This new version of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 replaces HR 5710 and includes a modification of the Administration's proposals for social insurance benefit increases and other changes in the social security program in itl:l Title I. Title II, dealing with public welfare changes, is, however, almost totally new with no resemblance to earlier Administration proposals. Tragic results from its Draconian provisions (described below) can be anticipated unless immediate and effective action is taken to make clear to the Senate, through testimony and individual contacts, their full effect and implications.

• • CHANGES IN THE WELFARE PROGRAM FOR

CHILDREN General Effect.-The most drastic and

punitive changes are those affecting children dependent upon or eligible for public assistance under Title IV (Aid to Families with

Dependent Children) of the Social Security Act and their parents. The effect of these changes is to impose a more socially acceptable pattern of behavior (including the reduction of assistance rolls) on their parents by mobilizing the whole range of public welfare policie8 and services, including those now authorized under Title V Part 3 of the Act for Child Welfare Services, for the following purposes:

1. A requirement that all adults on the rolls, including mothers and out-of-school youth over 16, engage in work and training (unless specifically exempted) as a condition of receiving assistance. This work and training would be a required part of the state plan but could be administered directly by the public welfare agency or could be delegated to voluntary or profit-making organizations. An exemption from minimum wage requirements is recommended and no mention is made of labor conflict situations. Persons refusing such assignments without good cause could be penalized in the following ways:

a. They could be dropped from assistance. b. Their grants could be cut by eliminating

the adults from calculation of the family budget.

c. Assistance could be given in the form of voucher relief or payments could be made to a third party without the restrictions now governing such "protective payments".

d. Their children could be removed from the home by court order and placed in foster care.

2. Reduction of the incidence on assistance rolls of children in need because of illegitimacy or desertion by the following measures:

a. Required programs of family planning. Compulsion is not extended to the family but states are required to report the numbers to whom it has been offered and the "extent to which it has been accepted". The requirement that all states "establish programs to combat illegitimacy" and the :financial penalties for failure (see d below) invite coercive approaches.

b. Required cooperation with law enforcement agencies in determining paternity, locating absent fathers (including the use of social security records for the purpose) , and sharing in the cost of enforcing support orders.

c. Special requirements with respect to reporting neglect and abuse of children receiving assistance and referral of such children for foster home placement financed through AFDC grants. Past experience shows that the threat of child removal in cases of illegitimacy is a powerful deterrent to the mother's applying for assistance regardless of the child's need.

d. A financial sanction on the state failing to hold its broken family caseload which would either penalize all dependent children in the state or undermine the present right of all eligible children to apply for assistance, receive a prompt determination of eligibility, and equal treatment under the state plan. States would receive from the Federal government only the amount it would have received on a maximum broken home caseload equivalent to the January 1967 ratio of such children to the total state child population. A state with a rising incidence of need a.m.ong broken families due to economic conditions or heavy in-migration would be obliged to impose more stringent eligibiUty condttions or reduce its level of payments if it were unable to appropriate more funds. Thus an children in need would be penalized.

Social Welfare Consid.erations.-HR 12080 contains many provisions long sought by various welfare organizations. These include: an increase in Federal financing for a variety of social services such as family counselling, day care, family planning, foster care and other protective child welfare services; for demonstration and other research projects;

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26047 for the special costs associated with work and training programs; for the training of social workers and their aides; and provision for an incentive exemption of earned income.

The question is whether otherwise desirable services and policies can be carried out under the shadow of a coercive and repressive policy without being discredited and their effectiveness destroyed.

Lab0tr Policy Considerations.-Three areas of policy are involved:

1. Should all adults, including mothers, be required to work as a condition of receiving assistance? In addition to the question of compulsion this raises a basic question about the social value of a mother's work in the rearing of her children and caring for their home.

Under present law a bona fide job offer to an able-bodied male has been treated like other "resources" in determining eligibility for assistance but a mother is assumed tcJ have some choice in determining whether her children's welfare would be best served by her working outside the home.

2. Oan a universal and compulsory work program be mandated on a welfare agency without reducing such employment to a "work test", lending dignity neither to the job or the worker? Despite the excellent job done by many public welfare agencies under existing law in developing small work and training programs on a selective basis ( especially in areas of their own competence) , most welfare agencies are not well equipped to develop efficient and constructive public work on such .a massive scale. These are needed 1(several bills are pending in Congress for this purpose) but could be administered under more appropriate auspices.

3. 1What would be the effect of such a massive compulsory work program on labor standards? While the bill states that other workers are not to be displaced, it permits the assignment of assistance recipients to private employers, suggests a sub-minimum wage level, and makes no reference to labor confiict situations.

Constitutional Considerations.-There is a serious question whether the provisions of HR 12080 would not lead to infringement of the constitutional rights of actual or potential assistance recipients in several areas including the following:

1. Can children in need because of illegitimacy or desertion be treated differently from other needy children without infringing the anti-discrimination provisions of the 14th amendment?

2. Can poor families receiving or applying for assistance be subject to a discriminatory application of child neglect laws?

3. Is the right to ptivacy invaded? 4. Can assistance recipients be compelled

to work under the conditions specified in HR 12080 without infringing the 13th amendment protections against involuntary servitude?

5. In a program predicated on need can a different standard of eligibility be applied to recipients and applicants for aid by exempting earned income of those already on the rolls while denying supplementary assistance to those with lower earned incomes? CHANGES IN TITLE XIX (MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

FOR THE NEEDY)

Eligibility Levels.-A major restriction ls placed on the level of eligibility for medical assistance for the medically indigent (persons not receiving cash assistance) on which the states may receive Federal reimbursement. Such eligibility levels may not be more than one and one third higher than the amount a similar fam.ily group would have received in cash assistance (this may actually be lower than the eligibility level for cash assistance where the state is paying less than 70 % of budgeted need) or one third higher than the average per capita income in the state. For states already above this

CXIII--1641-Part 19

standard a transitional maximum of 150% ori the same criteria is provided.

Range of Services.-States would no longer be required to provide the five basic types of service specified in the present law but could select among a larger number of formerly optional and less fundamental types of care.

Comparability Provisions.-For persons over 65 the states would not be authorized to provide services which could have been provided under Part B of the Medicare Program. They would no longer, however, be required to provide comparable services for persons under 65. The effect of this provision will probably be to delimit or reduce the care going to families with children.

Free Choice a'nd Direct Payment.-Persons receiving medical assistance are to be assured a free choice of practitioners and facilities and the medically indigent may receive cash payments against their bills rather than direct payment. Many experts feel that this will result in exploitation of the patients and a lowered quality of care.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In such a drastic and wide range of policy changes each organization will need to single out its own area of special competence and concern. The following general considerations are, however, germane to all.

1. Relationship to Social Insurance Improvements. The best way to reduce assistance levels and costs is to assure other sources of adequate income and health care. It is thus important that groups concerned with the welfare policies of Title II express their support for more adequate ·social insurance benefits and policies as provided in Title I, including their recommendations for their improvement. For details on these provisions and needed changes, see memoranda prepared by the AFL-CIO Social Security Department.

2. Desirable Goals in Welfare Policy.-The Advisory Council on Public Welfare appointed under Congressional mandate proposed a comprehensive program of assistance and service based on Federal standards of adequacy and supported by a new pattern of Federal financing. Most organizations have formulated goals in their own areas of concern. These desirable goals should be stressed as an alternative to regresi:iive policies.

3. The original administration proposals incorporated in HR 5710, on which House Ways and Means Committee hearings were held, contained useful, if limited, welfare improvements and none of the coercive elements of HR 12080. Some groups may wish to urge the Committe to return to this bill.

4. The coercive elements of 12080 should be eliminated from the bill in the Senate. These include the new and unnecessary sanctions imposed on individuals and the financial penalty imposed on states not holding their broken family caseload at the January 1967 level.

[From press release, Aug. 29, 1967] POLICY STATEMENT SIGNED BY 18 LAWYERS AND

LAW PROFESSORS

Deeply disturbed, by the House passage of H.R. 12080, several attorneys issued the statement below. While signing as individuals, the lawyers are affiliated with the following organizrutions:

Project on Social Welfare Law New York University School of Law

Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law Columbia University School of Social Work

NAACP, Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Mobilization For Youth, Inc. American Civil Liberties Union New York Civil Liberties Union The statement reads: "The undersigned lawyers and law pro

fessors urge congressional rejection of the welfare provisions of H.R. 12080. There are

at least eight distinct features of this bill which are objectionable on policy and constitutional grounds.

"The bill would: "(1) arbitrarily freeze federal participation

in state payments to needy families with an absent parent;

"(2) encourage states to employ a variety of discriminatory measures which would penalize illegitimate children;

"(3) give congressional sanction to a version of the "man-in-the-house rule" recently outlawed by HEW regulations;

"(4) require state welfare agency disclosure to police officials of information about the private lives of impoverished families, obtained from them on a confideri tial basis as a condition of aid;

"(5) require harsh enforcement of child neglect laws against welfare clients, and encourage compulsory placement of welfare children in foster homes;

" ( 6) expand the use of methods of payments which severely restrict the freedom of choice of people receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children;

"(7) force AFDC mothers to work; separating them from their young children;

"(8) and deny aid because of a parent's long-term unemployment, or on the basis of other classifications not related to a family's needs.

"Passage of this bill would arbitrarily deprive thousands of needy families of basic subsistence and deprive still thousands of others of constitutional liberties and human dignity."

Steven J. Antler, Leroy D. Clark, Norman Dorsen, Martin Garbus, Brian Glick, Jack Greenberg, Charles H. Jones, Jr., Alan H. Levine, Raymond F. Narral.

Burt Neuborne, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John De J. Pemberton, Jr., Stephen Ralston, Harold J. Rothwax, Lois P. Sheinfeld, Edward V. Sparer, Melvin L. Wulf, Stanley A. Zimmerman.

STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS A CONTINUING PROBLEM AND CHALLENGE

Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 mfuute, to revise and extend my remarks, and ito include extraneous maitter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the reques·t of the gentleman from Utah?

There was no objection. Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Speaker, a continuing

problem and challenge before the Americ.an people are strikes and lockouts which leave the general public paralyzed before the inability of the disputants to reach agreement. The possession of economic strength, the application of economic force, and the ability to ,absorb losses become the determining !factors in settlement of these disputes rather than the application of judicial guidelines which are equitable both to labor and to management as well as to a civilized society.

This condition which exists in our country is perpetuated in the name of freedom. I hold that freedom should not be abused for personal gain and that when the great body of a citizenry is damaged that it is our responsibility to subject that freedom to proper surveillance.

I am today introducing legislation first offered in the other body by Senator ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, of Michigan, which would establish a permanent 15-judge Labor Cou.rit to bring judicial principles to bear in labor-management disputes


when a material public interest is involved.

Two citations on this date are pertinent.

Last Friday, the special board appointed by the President to help settle the railroad shopcraft dispute made its report. I was a supporter of the resolution which established this special board. The resolution came under bitter attack by a great portion of organized labor, despite the fact that President Johnson, in requesting the legislation, pointed not only to ,the threat to an orderly domestic society of a nationwide tieup, but asserted that such a tieup would adversely affect the flow of supplies to Vietnam. Those of us who supported the resolution have been singled out for attack by labor in many labor publications and communications. The resolution was attacked as antilabor and a threat to free labor. The report of this special board negates both charges in my opinion. The recommendation of the board which was unanimous, despite a demurrer on the part of one member, recommended a settlement which was far more than that offered by management and was nearly equal to the demands which were made by labor. It provides for a 6-percent increase retroactive to January 1, 1967, and for another 5-percent increase effective next July 1. These increases are recommended in the face of threats of a "demand pull" inflation caused by excessive consumer purchasing power which this administration offers as a principal argument in support of a tax increase upon all the people. If ever there was proof that a compulsory settlement necessary in the public interest is neither an enemy of free labor nor antilabor in concept, this should be dramatic proof indeed.

The second citation I make today in support of a National Labor Court, is the strike in the copper industry. This strike has shut down 87 percent of the Nation's copper mines, 72 percent of the refining, 70 percent of the fabricating industry, and 99 percent of the copper smelting. In Utah alone, the strike has cost the economy nearly $24 million in lost salaries and wages, material and supplies, States and local taxes. It is estimated that more than 50,000 persons will be idled by the strike in six Western States by the end of this month.

I insert at this point in the RECORD an edit orial from the Salt Lake City Deseret News, dated Friday, September 15 :

COPPER STRIKE NEEDS FAST, LASTING RELIEF What does it take to get the President to

invoke a.n 80-day cooling-off period in the national copper strike as provicied by the Taft-Hartley Act?

And whait does it take to get him to follow tbxough on his long-promised legislaitive solution to the problem of debilltarttng strikes?

As the copper strike begins its third month today, with settlement evidently about as far a.way as ever, these questions are becoming inorea.singly important as the public's patience wears thinner ·and thinner.

Two weeks ago Secretary of Labor Wlllard Wirtz and SeCll'etary of Commeroe Alexander Trowbridge confirmed tha:t the strike "is having an adverse impact in the economy of va.rious sections of the country and constitutes an increasingly s-ertous threat to the conduct of the defense procurement program of this nation."

At the first of t his month, Secretary Trowbridge estimated tha t the nation's copper supply would reach rock bottom in three to five weeks if t he strike continued.

As matters now stand, the strike has shut down 87 per cent of the nation's copper mines, 72 per cent of the refining, 70 per cent of the f abl'icating industry, and 99 per cen1t of the copper smelting. Several lead and zinc operations also h:ave been closed by the strike, which has curtaned the output of silver, a by-product of copper, lead, and 21inc mining.

In Utah alone, the strike b as cost the economy nearly $24 million tn lost salaries and waiges, material and supplies, state and local taxes. The strikocs have lost an average of more th:an $1,200 each. Even if they win five oonts an hour more than management's original offer, it will take each strike.r 12 years to make up the wages lost so far.

Moreover, public welfiare payments to strikers' families in Salt Lake Coun.ty &re running about $38,000 a month.

Under these conditions, if the White House and congress can't persuade labor and management to come to an equitable agreement promptly, the least that should be done is to impose a cooling-off period.

As welcome as such action would be, a cooling-off period is only a stop-gap. That's why President Johnson promised strikecurbing legislation in his State of the Union Message 21 months ago.

But nothing has come of this vow despite overwhelming public support for such a move. A year ago a public opinion poll found that slightly more than 50 percent of Americans thought strikes should be halted and settlements imposed after seven days of work stoppage. Last April a similar poll found 68 percent as believing that a strike should be stopped after 21 days.

Since the public usually suffers the most from a serious strike, it has a right to demand better protection than it has been getting. Let's cool off the copper strike ·as fast as possible, then get down to the business of making such relief more effective and lasting.

Also a statistical summary printed by the Salt Lake Tribune, September 19, 1967:

COPPER STRIKE Box SCORE

The strike will ultimately be settled. It should be settled not by force, but by fairness to all three parties-labor, management, and the public.

As Senator GRIFFIN himself has said, the precise language of his present bill may not be the ultimate answer. But it is an answer toward which dialog should be directed.

The labor court does not replace free collective bargaining. It provides an ongoing vehicle for settlement by men of judicious rather than political or administrative temperament when labormanagement negotiations fail and the public becomes defenseless against the economic punishment of labor-management stalemate and work stoppage.

I urge the Congress to take up its responsibility. To begin, if freedom is indeed at stake, let us get on with the evidence.

PETITIONERS SEEK REVIEW OF "FEE" POLICY

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to exrtend my remarks at this Point in the RECORD and include a. pertinent letter.


There was no objection. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, earlier this

year the executive branch announced the resumption of fees to be charged those admitted to certain recreation areas on Federal lakes and impoundments under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and subsequently imposed mooring fees upon private boat docks and similar installations.

In response to this oppressive taxation, those living on or near Table Rock Lake. located within the district I am privileged to represent in Missouri, have trans-

1. Number of days on strike. 2. Impact of strike on Utah's

economy to date.• $24, 991, 000

67 mitted petitions to Chairman FALLON of the House Committee on Public Works. These petitions contain over 26,000 names and ask for a congressional investigation, and the elimination of these

3. Wages lost to date by each striking employe.• •

4. Time required for each striking employe to make up lost

$1, 811

wages, assuming 5 cents per hour additional (to the com-pany's original 25c offer) 1s n egotiated .

5. Time required for each st riking employe to m ake up lost wages, assuming lOc per hour additional is negot iated .

12.60 years

6.30 years •salaries and wages, material and supplies; new fac111ties and improvements; treatment charges, freight; commissions, services, etc.; payroll, state and local taxes. Based on $373,000 per day.

••Based on 5-day work week with average wage of $3.16 per hour plus average wage increase of 25c per hour in original company offer.

This strike is now in its 67th day. All public efforts to effectuate a meeting of the minds have been a failure. There is no indication that the President will invoke the Taft-Hartley law in the · iinmediate future, and this may wait for more than a month. Both parties of the dispute are obviously dug in for a long and ruinous stalemate. The Utah economy will likely not recover for many months following final settlement.

fees. I certainly hope that the House Public Works Committee will, in the very near future, hold hearings on H.R. 11236, introduced by some 25 Members, including myself, which would eliminate these King George III type of taxes.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I insert into the RECORD the letter accompanying the petitions sent by Mr. Howard Mcilrath, president of the Central Crossing Association of Table Rock Lake: CENTRAL CROSSING AsSOCIATION OF

TABLE ROCK LAKE, Shell Knob, Mo., September 11, 1967.

Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, House Public Works Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE FALLON: We are pleased to transmit, herewith, for the consideration of your committee, and the Flood Control Subcommittee, petitions bearing 21,173 signatures of citizens from many states. These, together with petitions transmitted to your attention by the Lake Norfolk Recreation Association of Mountain Home, Arkansas, constitute the prayer of over 26,000 persons for relief, in accordance with the First Amendment rto the Constitu tion of the United States of America.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26049 This effort was launched by the Central

Crossing Association of Table Rock Lake in Missouri's Ozarks, during the height of our busy season when it was impossible for anyone to travel to other areas of the country, where other Federal impoundments are located, to seek their aggressive, organized help. None of our members were even able to devote any substantial time to this effort. With this in m ind, we think that you must agree that the number of signers and the area of their residences, shows how vitally concerned our citizens are about this matter.

Please note that these petitions seek a Congressional investigation of the entire administ rative policy, insofar as recreation is concerned, on all Federal impoundments under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We can not believe that it was the intent of congress to direct or empower the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or any other branch or agency of the government to harass, unduly restrict or penalize those citizens seeking recreation on Federal impoundments which were built with taxpayer's money which the congress appropriated, at least partially, for the purpose of providing such opportunities for public recreation.

Although many, many instances of reported grievances have come to our attention, we have relied upon only four specific items which we firmly believe involve so many citizens that the prayer for relief is fully justified.

Item Number 1 on our petition is the socalled "Golden Eagle" access permit program which we understand was instituted under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Interior and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are advised that the Corps of Engineers has been required to hire additLonal Rangers, provide them with automotive transportation and other equipment and train them for their jobs of enforcing this regulation without receiving any of the revenue produced. We have information leading us to believe that, at least as far as Federal impoundments are concerned, the revenue from this program will not offset the cost of enforcement. We also have reason to believe tha.t the grea.test portion of the funds granted to States, counties and munlc1-palities, in the name of this program, are not actually receipts from the sale of these permits or from the fines collected from c1tations. We sincerely hope tha.t your committee will require evidence to be presented by the proper agencies and we sincerely believe that such evidence and records will confirm this assertion. The only persons that we have come in personal contact with who did not oppose this program were those who had the mistaken belief that the funds collected were to be used to ma.l.ntain, improve and expand the public fa.c111ties at the location or at similar public use areas on impoundments. To us it seems absolutely unjust that a Taxpayer should be required to pay more fees just to get upon public land set aside for such use, to put his boat upon the water, let his children wade at the edge of the water, rest in the shade of a tree, use the sanitary facilities or picnic, beside camping, which is the only way that many families can have any recreaitional outing.

Item Number 2. The proposed mooring charges for private boat mooring fac111ties, duck blinds, ski jumps, floats, diving platforms, fishing piers, rafts and similar installations.

On or about June 26th, all permittees of such installations received a letter, from the Resident Engineer of the impoundment concerned, advising the permittee that his permit, regardless of the term for which it was issued, was canceled effective 31 December 1967, and that it would be necessary to obtain a new permit on or before 1 January 1968. This letter further advised that charges are to be made for new permits on the basis

of square footage of the structure involved, including walkway approaches. The annual rate will be $10.00 plus 7Y2 cents per square foot for each square foot of area in excess of 200 square feet . This letter states that the new permit will be issued for as much as five years, but since the permits canceled by the June 26th letter had unexpired terms, we have no assurance that these permits will not also be cancelable by 10 days notice and a new schedule of fees and/or restrictions applied.

In the opening paragraph of the form letter canceling existing permits, a copy of which is attached, Marked A, the Resident Project Engineer advises, "Because of growing use of Corps of Engineers reservoirs by the public and resultant increases in the cost of administering such projects, it has become necessary for charges to be levied for privately owned boathouses and other privately owned faciUties on Corps projects throughout the United States. In addition, the new charges are in compliance with a Federal law (65 Statute 290; 5 U.S. Code 140) requiring Federal agencies to obtain a fair rental for the private use of federally owned property."

Insofar as fair rental is concerned, it takes only simple arithmetic to determine that the rental which the Corps of Engineers considers fair, amounts to the sum of Three Thousand, Two Hundred Sixty Two Dollars {$3,262.00) per acre, per year.

This figure far exceeds the pr.evamng price at which improved, choice lots in shoreline subdivisions, with roads, water, electric service and telephone service available, are able to be sold for in the Ozarks region.

You will also find attached a copy of a letter addressed to Senators Symington and Long, l'vf.arked B, from Colonel Max McCord, Director of Real Estate in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

In paragraph 4 the colonel speaks of the owners of private docks which would come under these exhorbitant rentals. Although he does not specifically state the fact. the adjacent property must be owned or controlled by the owner of the dock. This limitation has made shoreline property much more expensive than that which does not have access to the water. Therefore, this property is assessed at a higher valuation and cons~quently must pay more taxes. People were influenced to purchase shoreline property because of the previously existing policy of allowing docks, provided that they were built and maintained to meet the requirements of the Corps of Engineers Resident Engineer. They have also been required to open any and all roads, which cross the government line, plus any which connect to it, to the general public. It must be maintained by the property owner and kept open to unlimited public use. Any trash or waste left by the public and all grass, weeds or brush control on the Flood Control Storage Pool shoreline area or exposed power pool shoreline area is left entirely to the adjacent property owner. We believe that these things should mitigate the colonel's statement that "the private dock owner has no vested rights in the lake or the shores thereof, but may use the lake as a n .ember of the public."

We also find it very interesting to note that in t he 8th paragraph of Col. Max McCord's letter the Senators are advised that the fees collected will be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts; whereas the letter, of June 26th, from the Resident Engineer, which originally announced these fees advised, as previously set out in this letter, that these fees were being levied as a result of increased admini.:tratlve costs of these projects.

Under date of 23 August 1967 most, if not all, resorts which are already paying $24.00 per year, in advance, for each boat dock stall

that they are authorized to have for boat rental for only their bonafide, overnight guests, received another letter from the Resident Engineer, attached and Marked C, advising them that no action will be taken regarding collection of fees for the facilities, pending procedures to be followed. Since Colonel McCord's letter, (B), in paragraph 10 advises the Senators that, in the case of resorts, such as those described above, "no additional charge will be imposed, unless additional facilities above that authorized by the existing license," here again there appears t o be varying interpretations of regulations or directives.

Number 3 on our petition of grievances is the lack of an established, published and publicly available set of rules and regulations for recreation facilities. We sincerely believe that until, under provisions set out by the Congress of the United States, detailed rules and regulations are established for each Federal impoundment, with specific information as to what may or may not be done and what charges, if any, may be charged and under what conditions, and by whom, the rules might be changed, we will be forced to come to the Senators and Representatives to ask for their intercession each time some person interprets some rule, law, regulation or directive concerning Federal property, equipment or resource in a different light from that of his predecessor or subordinate. Everything heretofore set out in this letter ls vivid evidence of the drastic need for detailed, publicly available, printed rules and regulations for each reservoir, but if the committee wishes, many, many more ins·tances of injustice and harassment to the recreation seeking public can be produced, all of which can be traced to the lack of such a set of detailed regulations.

Item Number 4 concerns another grievance which we believe stems directly from the lack of detailed rules and regulations; the prohibition of legally licensed fishing guides from working out of resort docks. For 9 years the maximum fees that guides could charge has been regulated by the office of the Resident Engineer and resorts were furnished a list of maximum charges, showing, among other things, guide service. A reproduced copy of such a list is attached and marked D. On April 21, 1967 the Real Estate officer of the District omce of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 'in a letter, copy attached marked E, notified resorts that they may not permit a guide to work from a resort dock, and that if the resort owner permirttee does allow a customer to secure the services of a guide who works from such a dock, such action may be considered a violation of the resort's permit or license.

Guides in the Ozark area have an extremely ditficult time making a bare living. We doubt that there are a half-dozen guides on Table Rock Lake that earn Two Thousand Dollars a year from guiding. It appears that someone in the Corps of Engineers must be unaware of the meager earnings of almost all guides.

It requires a very vivid lmagination to believe that guiding can be construed within the general understanding of a commercial venture which can be forced to be run through the Public or Commercial Boat Docks and be required to pay a percentage of the earnings that, at best, can only help him, as part-time work, to have the barest necessities of life. These guides do not work for the resorts or boat docks, but for the fisherman who wishes his services. We believe that guiding should be freely permitted, if not actually encouraged, as an economic aid. This is another glaring example of restrictions against recreation.

We just cannot believe that the Congress of the United States ever intended to allow any agency of the Government to so severely restrict the opportunities for a livelihood, on one hand, while authorizing the

26050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 spending of millions, if not billions of dollars, throughout the country to try to create and encourage economic opportunities.

All restrictions which act as a deterrent to tourism, vacationers or recreation seekers, affects the entire economy of the Missouri and Arkansas Ozarks area, and we are sure that they must also so affect other such areas surrounding Federal impoundments throughout the country. This effect is felt in surrounding cities, towns and communities many miles away from the actual lake. All additional fees which are imposed on resorts and docks, must be passed on to the customers and we do not feel that they, the taxpayers providing the funds for these impoundments, should be required to pay and pay and pay, just to have access to and the use of these reservoirs which they were led to believe they were going to have when the money was appropriated to create them.

Concerning the costs of administration, we have information, which we believe is reliable, that indicates that the power revenue estimate, used in justifying building these impoundments, has been exceeded many, many times. Your committee can require the Southwes•t Power Administration to reveal these oomparative figures and if power revenue has so greatly exceeded expectations, would it not be entirely right and proper that some of these funds be credited to recreation facilities and administration?

We sincerely implore, for our own organization and the 26,000 signers of these petitions, that your committee thoroughly consider these matters and submit, with a favorable report, legislation that will prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from enforcing the "Golden Eagle" access program or any changes in rules or regulations that may have been proposed, introduced, announced or directed since January 1, 1967, until such time as the Congress of the United States shall have investigated the entire recreation policy on Federal impoundments and enacted legislation clarifying and directing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as to the specific wishes of the Congress.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration and support, we are

Yours very truly, HOWARD MCILRATH,

President.

A PIG IN A POKE AGAIN

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and e:xitend my remarks.


There was no objection. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, there is new

and mounting evidence that the TFX, or perhaps I should say the "Flying Edsel" is a "Pig in a Poke," and still another indication of the dismal record of Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara. The September 18 issue of Barron's Weekly says:

Two years ago we called upon Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara to resign. Today Barron's urges that he, along with his cadre of discredited "Whiz Kids" be fired.

Having made the same suggestion almost 2 years previously, I commend the Barron's article to the attention of my colleagues, and to the White House in particular: MOMENT OF TRUTH-IT'S TIME THE NATION

CUT ITS LoSSES ON THE TFX "What are the penalties on the contractor

for having failed to meet his contractual

requirements during the R. and D. phase?" With that innocent-sounding question, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee recently forced a jolting admission from the Pentagon. "On some of the specifications there are provisions for penalties, specified penalties, or incentives and penalties, Insofar as they don't meet the target specifications," testified Paul H. Nitze, Deputy Secretary Of Defense. "Wl-th respeot to all specifications, the contractor was under obligation to meet them and to retrofit until he did meet them. It is perfectly clear that he can't do it. It is not within the realm of being technically possible to build it." The questioner persisted; what financial penalties will be exacted? "We have a list of them," replied Rear Admiral W. E. Sweeney, Deputy Director of the F-111 (formerly TFX) program. "S.:>me of them are $1,750,000 for not meeting specifications, some (are) $875,000, depending on what item it is. But there is a long list ... "

Given at closed hearings two months ago, and released (in heavily censored form) last week, the testimony is a blockbuster. For the first time, the Defense Department has disclosed part of the truth about the scandalridden TFX. Documented in black and white ls, in effect, the Pentagon's own admission of a shn.meful campaign to deceive the American peopl~and w:l.lly-nllly, thereby, to Jeopardize •the niationaJ. security. Af.ter years of bitterly rejecting all strictures on the biservice, swing-wing aircraft project-costliest piece of military hardware in U.S. historythe Pentagon now concedes that it's moving to penalize the F-lll's prime contractor, General Dynamics. Meanwhile, every significant criticism-Barron's was an early and persistent critic-unhappily remains valid today. Program costs have more than doubled. Research and development (to say nothing of production) on both Air Force and Navy versions are running over two years behind schedule. Performanee of this "best airplane ever built," has fallen far short not merely of gra,ndiose hopes, but also of specifications in such strategic areas as weight, range and speed. Five years after General Dynamics won the TFX contract, in sum, it has dismally failed to deliver.

From the foregoing, several points emerge. For one thing, General Dynamics, in widespread promotion campaigns as well as In its financial reports, all of which have depleted the F-111 program In glowing terms, has been less than candid either with Its shareholders or with the general public. During last week's ugly disclosures, its stock (a high-flyer all year), in a market which surged to new recovery highs, plunged nearly 10 points. The Pentagon, which long ago elevated lying to the level of high public policy, also stands exposed. Two years ago we called upon Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara to resign. Today Barron's urges that he, along with his cad.re of discredited Whiz Kids, be fired. Moreover, a new Defense team should review the whole program with an eye toward fixing responsibility; exacting proper penalties from the contractor; and replacing the TFX wherever feasible with weapons which will make a genuine and timely contribution to the nation's defense.

That the TFX can't do so has grown abundantly clear. The testimony released last week documents the deficiencies dogging an aircraft which the Pentagon now admits was never "within the realm of being technically possible to build." Thanks to a concept called "commonality"-which holds that two different planes, despite varied missions, can be created from one design-Secretary McNamara projected savings to the taxpayers of $1 billion. Instead, both the Navy's carrierbased F-lllB and the Air Force's F-lllA have fallen far short of what either service wants and needs. Costwise, commonality never had a chance. Thus, compared to General Dynamics' bid of $2.9 million apiece, the

larger volume F-lllA now is running around $6 million, while the Navy's version sports a provisional "flyway" price tag of $8 million. Against an originally programmed cost of $5.8 billion to design, develop, test and produce 1,700 TFX planes in all, the price for some 1,300 planes now proposed has skyrocketed to $12.4 billion. The fictitious billion-dollar saving, flatly asserts the redoubtable Sen. John L. McClellan (D., Ark.), has turned into a multi-billion-dollar blunder.

Technical flaws also abound. "There are some things that the F-111 can do," plaintively testified Vice Admiral T. F. Connolly, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air. "It can fly. Even though the speed brake is not what it ought to be, we can fly without it. It has gone (deleted) on the deck with the same bum speed brake. It won't serve the pilots' needs like it should, and it ought to be fixed and fixed properly, but it still oan fly (deleted)." Otherwise, it has its faults. For example, the Navy's version of the plane has been critically overweight from the first, although officials used to deny the seriousness of the problem. To the Senators Admiral Sweeney confessed that "at the time of fleet introduction" of the F-lllB, or after the full effect of two crash programs aimed literally at scraping off every extra ounce, the plane will weigh in at "more than 16,000 pounds" heavier than the maximum set by the contract.

"The takeoff weight is what you fight with," Sen. McClellan explained on the Senate floor after the hearings, in an effort to clarify (and partly declassify) the testimony. It is "estimated by the Navy" at "more than eight tons over the take-off weight specified in the General Dynamics contract. It is more than 15 tons heavier than the Navy originally wanted back in 19£2." (In trade-offs with the Air Force, the Navy was forced to settle for a contract specifying 63,500, instead of 50,000 pounds; hence, the plane now will weigh some 80,000 pounds.) "Its enormous weight growth," Sen. McClellan said, "is one of the factors primarily responsible for its present unsuitability for service use."

The plane's heft has led to shortfalls in other stJ."lategic realms of performance. Equipped with the air-to-air Phoenix missile, the F-lllB is what Pentagon pundits had been calling an "air-superiority fighter," which would loiter far away from its task force, detecting and intercepting enemy attackers. But--<and this is the most hopeful estimate for future F-lllBs--the plane will fall short of specifications by over half an hour in loiter-time capability, by a mile in loitering altitude, by two miles in the combat ceiling, as well as in acceleration to combat speed, single-engine rate of climb and maneuverability. Those estimates are computer calculations of the results of forthcoming design changes.

The results in actual flight tests are worse. According to test pilots who have been up in the TFX (the program has suffered two crashes to date), it is "unsuita-ble for service." A report by Navy fliers last June pinpointed 253 deficiencies, of which 100 were described as "mandatory for oorrection"; 23 are "items required in the production of aircraft for which a fix is difficult or adequacy of proposed fix is questionable," while another nine are production aircraft items "fOr which no fix is in progress and difficulty of achieving an acceptable fix is uncertain." When the Pentagon claimed that these were minor defects, Sen. McClellan, who saw the report, replied: "These ... are in the basic design of the aircraft, in the air inlet, speed brake, control system and artificial stability system."

Indeed, the Tactical Fighter, Experimental no longer is viewed by the Navy as a fighter; it's now a long-range missilelauncher, which must be escorted by fighters to defend both the carrier and itself.


"We did come to the conclusion," Admiral McDonald testified, ~'that the F-lllB also would have to have another fighter plane aboard the carrier ... When we came to that conclusion, it eased the minds of a lot of people."

Nor is the Air Force "fighter-bomber" version, the F-lllA, proving much better--:although, in contrast to the Navy plane, this one is in full production and scheduled for deployment to Vietnam next year. "Whatever ts done for us," Admiral Connally stated, "is done for the Air Force. There ts no difference. The problems we are discussing are the same for the Air Force." Sen. McClellan asked: "So far as stalls are concerned?" The Admiral replied: "Performance, thrust, climb, everything connected with the airplane is the same." Heavily deleted testimony indicated that the F-lllA is some 200 miles per hour short of the specified top speed of Mach 2.5, and boasts less than one-third the specified range for its primary mission of low-level approach bombing.

Most damning of last week's disclosures was the admission that the Defense Department has moved to penalize the prime contractor. There is, as Admiral Sweeney said, "a long list" of financial penalties "for not meeting certain specifications." When the first production contract for 493 F-llls was signed earlier this year, according to Mr. Nitze, "a reduction of 1.2 percentage points in the profit ratio" was exacted, lowering General Dynamics' "target profit" by slightly over $20 million, or "more than 10 % " from the approximately $170 million the company apparently stood to earn on its $1.82 billion order. In addition, each shortfall in the still far-from-completed RDT&E (Research, Development, Test & Evaluation) con.tract is subject to penalty. Thus, a penalty of $1,-750,000 charged for the overweight of the first five F-lllB R&D models is, according to Admiral Sweeney, "under negotiation right now." If overweight persists, "there could be another penalty exacted." Conceivably on the RDT&E contract, General Dynamics' maximum potential profit (including all incentives) of around $65 million could be cut to as low as $17.5 million. On the production contract, Mr. Nitze now reports that the prime contractor could be penalized by as much as "41 % of the potential profit."

So much for the technical defects of the program. What should concern the U.S. at least as much are the moral lapses which have plagued it from the outset. Thus, under the relentless probing of Sen. McClellan, the highly-touted cost accounting procedures by means of which Secretary McNamara presumably overrode the unanimous judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who favored a competitive design) turned out to be merely the official's "rough judgment." In the Spring of 1965, with some fanfare, General Dynamics fulfilled its contractual obligations by delivering the first Navy plane on schedule. However, with Pentagon approval, the company made a few strategic substitutions, notably Air Force landing gear and various fuselage components. What finally got off the ground-"to meet the delivery date," according to Sen. McClellan and thereby to avoid any penalty-was "a wired-up thing for demonstration." In the interests of a spurious "commonality," which Mr. McNamara has never publicly disavowed, General Dynamics for two years resisted the urging of Grumman, chief subcontractor on the Navy version, for a new and more powerful engine. Only when experience made the switch imperative did it finally yield.

The propaganda smoke-screen and lack of candor persist. Thus, in his July testimony, Deputy Secretary Nitze sought to minimize the trouble the program is in. "Mr. Chairman," he stated, "I am just informed there were 127 mandatory deficiencies in the A-7 . . . This plane we are right now deploying.

This confirms that this is usual." However, in a correction of the record, Mr. Nitze reduced the A-7's deficiencies to 102. At the request of the ever-alert Sen. McClellan, the record was further revised to show that at a comparable stage in the evaluation process, the A-7 had racked up only 18 "mandatory for correction" defects, compared with 100 for the F-lllB.

In an even more brazen attempt at distortion, Robert A. Frosch, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and Development), last week publicly asserted that carrier tests of the F-lllB "are planned to begin within the current fiscal year, not two years from now." Here is the pertinent testimony to the contrary:

"Sen. McClellan. When will any version of the F-lllB first land and take off from a carrier with the P-12 engine in it?

"Admiral Sweeney. We said the tests would begin in August 1969.

"Admiral Connolly. August 1969 is what we said."

The time has come for the nation to cut its losses. The TFX should be phased out as fast as the national security permits. Congress should launch a fresh investigation of the program that has gone from scandal to disaster, to fix the blame and to prevent a recurrence. Above all, through the power of the purse it should force a complete retreat of the Defense Department Whiz-Kids. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned against the so-called industrialmilitary complex. He should have aimed his fire at civilians who insist on playing soldier. Accountants and efficiency experts should take, not give, the orders.

THE ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE PROPOSAL

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unanimous consent to address the FWuse for 1 minute and to revise and exrtend my remarks.

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

There was no objection. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I wish

to call to the attention of my colleagues a most important speech which was made yesterday by Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, before United Press International editors and publishers in San Francisco.

First, I want to say that it is a bit unusual for any Member to tal{e the well of the House for the purpose of commending our Secretary of Defense for anything which he does. It is far more popular to add another lash on the back of the most popular whipping boy in the administration.

I do rise today, however, to commend Secretary McNamara for a most comprehensive and judicious exposition of the psychology and particularly of the problems of technology involved in adopting a policy of antiballistic missile defense of critical establishments in the United States. In my opinion the approach which has been decided upon is a reasonable approach, when related to the degree of technology of our country and the technology of possible enemies.

It is a program commonly called the "thin" line of defense, rather than the "massive" line of defense. For those critics who would not be satisfied with any act of Mr. McNamara's, I am sure the thin line will not be considered adequate. However, let me point out that a step-by-

step advance toward a massive defense system is not incompatible or unreasonable when we consider that the "thin" line can be the first step if other steps become necessary, and when we consider that a massive defense system installed over a period of the next 5 to 10 years can be accommodated to our budget, and also more important to improvements in technology. In other words, each target defense installation can be installed independent of those in other geographical locations. Each successive target defense system can be improved with new discoveries and advances in technology.

In closing let me say that any antiballistic missile defense, whether it be "thin" or "massive" will not guarantee the United States that every enemy missile will be intercepted. Our present interception technology is far from being perfect. There are serious deficiencies in any defensive system which we can deploy. We must, therefore, maintain in the future as we have in the past, our massive power of offense.

To those who will immediately seize the opportunity to criticize the Secretary of Defense as having moved too little, too late-let me state emphatically that should the actions of the Red Chinese and Soviets force us to expand this system, I am confident that it will be expanded quickly. Their hostile actions should alone be the criterion for our further investment in this system.

To those who will now clamor for the "massive" defense, I would counsel "Let us meet the need as it becomes clear, rather than forcing our foes to even greater escalation." It is their choice. We have the capacity to respond quickly when response is necessary.

We must sooner or later realize that building bigger weapons systems just to be building them has in itself an effect on the course and direction of our foreign policy. Our options are limited-not expanded-by allowing these weapons to assume an unstoppable momentum.

The antiballistic-missile system will do little in and of itself to save millions of lives in this country should nuclear war occur. We must not be forced to rely on terminal solutions. Our deterrent capability must be flexible-a mix of strong offensive strength and protection at home of vital centers. I have long belived that "a good offense is the best defense"-that this is the most effective deterrent if its potential is fully understood by the Chinese and Soviets.

To those who guide the destinies of China and Russia I would counsel a close attention to the willingness of America to invest whatever is required to maintain our strength. It must be clear to our adversaries that we can pay any price, and that we will pay any price to protect the safety and security of our people. Perhaps that determination will convince the Soviets and Chinese that the arms race is folly-and that the continued building of these massive machines of war place further financial burdens on the people of their nation and ours. That building of greater and greater machines of war carries not only our hopes for deterrance of war, but the danger of destruction of civilization if deterrence fails .


We must not only consider offensive and defensive military methods, we must make every attempt possible through diplomatic channels to establish a peaceful world which will make it unnecessary for mankind to indulge in the madness of a nuclear missile interchange.

They must believe us when we say that we have met the test before. We can do so again. The next move is up to them.

McNAMARA'S SAN FRANCISCO SPEECH

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


There was no objection. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I also

approve of Secretary McNamara's decision to deploy a so-called thin missile defense system against the Chinese nuclear threat. However, I am a little shocked that his speech went out of the way to depreciate the system by stating, page 22, "there are marginal grounds for concluding that a light deployment of U.S. ABM's against this possibility is prudent." Since the thing is going to cost $5 billion I would have hoped his decision might have been slightly more enthusiastic and based on something more than "marginal grounds." This is particularly true since the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for at least 2 years, have unanimously, to a man, recommended not only a thin system against the Red Chinese, but a full system capable of blunting Soviet attack as well. It is also true for the reason that but a few weeks ago the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy put out a report thoroughly, competently, and authoritatively documenting the reality and imminency of the China threat and left no room for doubt that ABM defense against it not only is prudent, but already is a little late in getting started. It appears the Secretary has little respect for the opinions of either the Joint Chiefs or the Joint Committee and others who for many months have had to take the case for deploying the system to the public and arouse public opinion to this gap in the arsenal of U.S. national security. In this context one legitimately wonders just how much of the Secretary's reasoning on this issue was in a military context and how much in a political context. One also legitimately wonders whether the decision was a thing of his own initiative or whether he was instructed to make the decision by his immediate superior.

I have only just received the complete copy of the Secretary's text and had to wade through 21 pages of apologies to the Kremlin for making this decision and promises that we would not expand it to before actually finding it stated at the top of page 22 that the thin system is to be started.

It was interesting reading, however, not only for its semantic charisma, for its exposition of the Cambridge disarmament group's--Bethe, Wiesner, York,

Lapp, Morgenthau, and others-various minimum deterrence-reciprocal reduction themes, but also for its sometimes subtle sophisms and other times plainly obvious gaps in logic. For instance:

Secretary McNamara thoroughly chastises the measurement of relative nuclear capabilities between two countries by counting nuclear delivery vehicles or counting the number of megatons of nuclear explosive power a country can deliver-page 7. Yet in another part of this speech-page 4-he devotes two full paragraphs to playing the exact "numbers game" he so abhors.

He states-page 6-that "neither the Soviet Union nor the United States can attack the other without being destroyed in retaliation." Which is just another way of saying that each has the other deterred from starting a nuclear war. Yet for many long months running into years the Secretary has again and again reiterated the argument that we should not bomb North Vietnam in a serious way because it would bring the U.S.S.R. into the war and risk a nuclear holocaust. My eyesight is not notably good. Maybe that is why I cannot see how he can have this argument both ways.

Secretary McNamara defines deterrence to mean "the certainty of suicide to the aggressor-not merely to his military forces, but to his society as a whole-page 3." He says this means, on our part, a capability to take his firststrike surprise attack and still be able to hit back with that kind of destructive attack in retaliation. His thesis is that the way the U.S. should maintain such a deterrent capability is through an "assured destruction" capability. That is, to forget about protecting our people and our armaments from the first strike with an ABM system and just concentrate on having enough nuclear hardware survive to retaliate with the necessary destruction. He apparently assumes Red Chinese leaders are crazy enough to make a suicidal first strike and suffer our retaliation. Apparently this is why he OK's a thin ABM system to reduce the damage of such an attack. He assumes Soviet Communist leaders are not carzy enough to make such a first strike and therefore no ABM defense against them is required. I assume Secretary McNamara has competent psychiatric reports on whoever rules these two countries today, but what about the unknowns who may in the future succeed them, suddenly or otherwise?

Secretary McNamara claims we have great nuclear superiority over the Soviets-page 8 and elsewhere. He postulates the question-page 13:

How can we be so certain that the Soviet cannot gradually outdistance us-either by some dramatic technological break-through, or simply through our imperceptively lagging behind, for whatever reason: reluctance to spend the requisite funds; distraction with military problems elsewhere; faulty intelligence; or simple negligence and naivete?

The Secretary describes his answer to the one as "simple and straightforward." It is:

We are not going to permit the Soviets to outdistance us.

Just how in the world are we going to stop Russian scientists from making

some technological breakthrough or, recalling Cuba, guarantee against faulty intelligence or, after some of the performances over the last few years--the TFX, killing and then reviving the nuclear carrier, getting bogged down in a land war in Asia and so forth-rule out negligence and naivete? I doubt if the Secretary's answer to his self-posed question is as simple and straightforward as he has characterized it.

Although laying heavy burden on the matter of deterrence in most of his speech, Mr. McNamara left everyone wondering whether there is any validity at all to the theory of deterrence by tossing in for little apparent reason this statement-page 11 :

Even with our nuclear monopoly in the early postwar period, we were unable to deter the Soviet pressure against Berlin, or their support of aggression in Korea.

From this did he mean to imply that the Soviets either do not believe the U.S. deterrent is credible or, if so, we do not impress them with a determination to use it, or both?

On the space of a single page of his speech-page 14-the Secretary really asks us to make a 180-degree turn in thinking. At the top of the page he argues that both the United States and Soviet Union have a great deal larger nuclear arsenal and. second-strike capa-. bility than either needs because neither of us knew the intentions of the other and the!'ef ore built to cope with the "worst plausible case" as to the other's buildup. In the middle of the page he argues that we ought to agree to scale back these arsenals. At the bottom of the page he argues "it would not be sensible for either side to launch a maximum effort to achieve a first-strike capability" because "the intelligence-gathering capability of each side being what it is, and the realities of leadtime from technological breakthrough to operational readiness being what they are, neither of us would be able to acquire a first-strike capability in secret." Just how it can be that intelligence-gathering capabilities are inadequate as to second-strike capabilities but fully adequate as to first-strike capabilities is something of a mystery, despite leadtime considerations.

The McNamara speech contains lots of other things subject to possible compliment, comment, and criticism, but before anybody suggests starting to carve all its 25 pages in stone on the side of a mountain I thought it worthwhile to point out at least a few passages which might fail to justify such a lasting recordation.

RICHARD M. NIXON'S ARTICLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at 0this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, consider

able interest in the press has been evidenced concerning former Vice Presi-

September 19, 19 67 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26053 dent Richard M. Nixon's article in the just-released issues of Foreign Affairs for October. Since copies of the publication are hard to come by and there is widespread interest in the article, entitled ''Asia After Vietnam," I have obtained unanimous consent for its reproduction below:

ASIA AFTER VmTNAM

(By Richard M. Nixon) The war in Viet Nam has for so long domi

nated our field of vision that it has distorted our picture of Asia. A small country on the rim of the continent has filled the screen of our minds; but it does not fill the map. Sometimes dramatically, but more often quietly, the rest of Asia has been undergoing a profound, an exciting and on balance an extraordiinarily promising transformation. One key to this transformation is the emergence of Asian regionalism; another is the development of a number of the Asian economies; another is gathering disaffection with all the old isms that have so long imprisoned so many minds and so many governments. By and large the non-communist Asian governments are looking for solutions that work, rather than solutions that fit a preconceived set of doctrines and dogmas.

Most of them also recognize a common danger, and see its source as Peking. Taken together, these developments present an extraordinary set of opportunities for a U.S. policy which must begin to look beyond Viet Nam. In looking toward the future, however, we should not ignore the vital role Viet Nam has played in making these developments possible. Whatever one may think of the "domino" theory, it is beyond question that without the American commitment in Viet Nam, Asia would be a far different place today.

The U.S. presence has provided tangible and highly visible proof that communism is not necessarily the wave of Asia's future. This was a vital factor in the turnaround in Indonesia, where a tendency toward fatalism is a national characteristic. It provided a shield behind which the anti-communist forces found the courage and the capacity to stage their counter-coup and, at the final moment, to rescue their country from the Chinese orbit. And, with its 100 million people, and its 3,000-mile arc of islands containing the region's richest hoard of natural resources, Indonesia constitutes by far the greatest prize in the Southeast Asian area.

Beyond this, Viet Nam has diverted Peking from such other potential targets as India, Thailand and Malaysia. It has bought vitally needed time for governments that were weak or unstable or leaning toward Peking as a hedge against the future--time which has allowed them to attempt to cope with their own insurrections while pressing ahead with their political, economic and military development. From Japan to India, Asian leaders know why we are in Viet Nam and, privately if not publicly, they urge us to see it through to a satisfactory conclusion.

II

Many argue that an Atlantic axis is natural and necessary, but maintain, in effect, that Kipling was right, and that the Asian peoples are so "different" that Asia itself is only peripherally an American concern. This represents a racial and cultural chauvinism that does little credit to American ideals, and it shows little ·appreciation either of ithe westward thrust of American interests or of the dynamics of world development.

During the final third of the twentieth century, Asia, not Europe or Latin America, will pose the greatest danger of a confrontation which could escalate into World War III. At the same time, the fact that the United States has now fought three Asian wars in the space of a generation is grimly

but truly symbolic of the deepening involvement of the United States in what happens on the other side of the Pacific-which modern transportation and communications have brought closer to us today than Europe was in the years immediately preceding World War II.

The United States is a Pacific power. Europe has been withdrawing the remnants of empire, but the United states, with its coast reaching in an arc from Mexico to the Bering Straits, is one anchor of a vast Pacific community. Both our interests and our ideals propel us westward across the Pacific, not as conquerors but as partners, linked by the sea not only with those oriental nation on Asia's Pacific littoral but at the same time with occidental Australia and New Zealand, and with the island nations between.

Since World War II, a new Asia has been emerging with startling rapidity; indeed, Asia is changing more swiftly than any other part of the world. All around the rim of China nations are becoming Western without ceasing to be Asian.

The dominant development in Asia immediately after World War II was decolonization, with its admixture of intense nationalism. But the old nationalist slogans have less meaning for today's young than they had for their fathers. Having never known a "colonialist," they find colonialists unconvincing as scapegoS1ts for the present ills of their societies. If dissatisfied with conditions a8 they see them, the young tend to blame those now in power.

As the sharp anticolonial focus blurs, the old nationalism is evolving into a more complex, multi-layered set of concepts and attitudes. On the one hand are a multitude of local and tribal identifications-the Montagnards in Viet Nam, the Han tribes in Burma, the provincial and linguistic separatisms that constantly claw at the fabric of Indian unity. On the other hand, there 1s a reachingout by the governing elites, and particularly the young, for something larger, more like an Asian regionalism.

The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order. This is not excessively chauvinistic, but rather in the nature of a coalescing confidence, a recognition that Asia can become a counterbalance to the West, and an increasing disposition to seek Asian solutions to Asian problems through cooperative action.

Along with the rising complex of national, subregional and regional identification and pride, there is also an acute sense of common danger-a factor which serves as catalyst to the others. The common danger from Communist China is now in the process of shifting the Asian governments' center of concern. During the colonial and immediately post-colonial eras, Asians stood opposed primarily to the West, which represented the intruding alien power. But now the West has abandoned its colonial role, and it no longer threatens the independence of the Asian nations. Red China, however, does, and its threat is clear, present and repeatedly and insistently expressed. The message has not been lost on Asia's leaders. They recognize that the West, and particularly the United States, now represents not an oppressor but a protector. And they recognize their need for protection.

This does not mean that the old resentments and distrusts have vanished, or that new ones will not arise. It does, however, mean that there has been an important shift in the balance of their perceptions about tlle balance of danger, and this shift has important implications for the future.

One of the legacies of Viet Nam almost certainly will be a deep reluctance on the part of the United States to become involved once again in a similar intervention on a similar

basis. The war has imposed severe strains on the United States, not only militarily and economically but socially and politically as well. Bitter dissension has torn the fabric of American intellectual life, and whatever the outcome of the war the tear may be a long time mending. If another friendly country should be faced with an externally supported communist insurrection-whether in Asia, or in Africa or even Latin America.there is serious question whether the American public or the American Congress would now support a unilateral American intervention, even at the request of the host government. This makes it vitally in their own interest that the nations in the path of China's ambitions move quickly to establish an indigenous Asian framework for their own future security.

In doing so, they need to fashion arrangements able to deal both with old-style wars and with new-with traditional WM'S, in which armies cross over national 1boundaries, and with .the so-called "wars of national li:beration," in which they burrow und·er national boundaries.

I am not arguing that the day is past when the United States would respond militarily to communist threats in the less stable parts of the world, or that a unilateral response to a unilateral request . for help is out of the question. But other nations must recognize that the role of the United States as world policeman is likely to be limited in the future. To ensure that a U.S. response will be forthcoming if needed, machinery must be created that is capable of meeting two conditions: (a) a collective effort by the nations of the region to contain the threat by themselves; and, if that effort fails, (b) a collective request to the United States for assistance. This is important not only from the respective national standpoints, but also from the standpoint of avoiding nuclear collision.

Nations not possessing great power can indulge in the luxury of criticism of others; those possessing it have the responsibility of decision. Faced with a clear challenge, the decision not to use one's power must be as deliberate as the decision to use it. The consequences can be fully as far-reaching and fully as irrevocable.

If another world war is to be prevented, every step possible must be taken to avert direct confrontations between the nuclear powers. To achieve this, it is essential to minimize the number of occasions on which the great powers have to decide whether or not to commit their forces. These choices cannot be elimlna ted, but they can be reduced by the development of regional defense pacts, in which nations undertake, among themselves, to attempt to contain aggression in their own areas.

If the initial response to a threatened aggression, of whichever type--whether across the border or under it--can be made by lesser powers in the immediate area and thus within the path of aggression, one of two things can be achieved: either they can 1n fact contain it by themselves, in which case the United States is spared involvement and thus the world is spared the consequences of great-power action; or, if they cannot, the ultimate choice can be presented to the United States in clear-cut terms, by nations which would automatically become allies in whatever response might prove necessary. To put it another way, the regional pact becomes a buffer separating the distant great power from the immediate threat. Only if the buffer proves insufilcient does the great power beco:tne involved, and then in terms that make victory more attainable and the enterprise more palatable.

This is particularly important when the threat takes the fonn of an externally supported guerrilla action, as we have faced in Viet Nam, as is even now being mounted in Thailand, and as could be launched in any


of a half-dozen other spots in the Chinese shadow. Viet Nam has shown how difficult it is to make clear the distinction between this and an ordinary factional civil war, and how subject the assisting power is to charges of having intervened in an internal matter. Viet Nam's neighbors know that the war there is not internal, but our own allies in Europe have difficulty grasping the fact.

The fragmenting of the communist world has lent credence to the frequently heard argument that a communist advance by proxy, as we have seen attempted in VietNam, is of only peripheral importance; that with the weakening of rigid central control of the communist world, local fights between communist and non-communist factions are a local matter. This ignores, however, the fact that with the decentralization of communist control has come an appropriately tailored shift in communist tactics. National communism poses a different kind of threat than did the old-style international communism, but by being subtler it is in some ways more dangerous.

SEATO was useful and appropriate to its time, but it was Western in origin and drew its strength from the United States and Europe. It has weakened to the point at which it is little more than an institutional embodiment of an American commitment, and a somewhat anachronistic relic of the days when France and Britain were active members. Asia today needs its own security undertakings, reflecting the new realities of Asian independence and Asia needs.

Thus far, despite a pattern of rapidly increasing cooperation in cultural and economic affairs, the Asian nations have been unwilling to form a military grouping designed to forestall the Chinese threat, even though several have bilateral arrangements With the United States. But an appropriate foundation-stone exists on which to build: the Asian and Pacific Council. ASPAC held its first ministerial-level meeting in Seoul in June 1966, and its second in Bangkok in July 1967. It has carefully limited itself to strengthening regional cooperation in economic, cultural and social matters, and its members have voiced strong feelings that, as Japan's Foreign Minister Takeo Miki put it at the Bangkok meeting, it should not be made "a body to promote anticommunist campaigns."

Despite ASPAC's present cultural and economic orientation, however, the solidifying awareness of China's threat should make it possible--if the need for a regional alliance is put in sufficiently compelling terms--to develop it into an alliance actively dedicated to concerting whatever efforts might be necessary to maintain the security of the region. And ASPAC is peculiarly well situated to play such a role. Its members (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, South Viet Nam, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, with Laos as an observer) all are acutely conscious of the Chinese threat. All except Malaysia have military ties with the United States. It has the distinct advantage of including Australia and New Zealand, which share the danger and would be able to contribute substantially to its strength, without an unbalancing great-power presence.

I do not mean to minimize the difficulties of winning acceptance of such a concept. In Japan, public opinion still lags behind official awareness of military needs. The avowedly neutralist nations under China's cloud would be reluctant, at present, to join any such grouping. But looking further down the road we can project either an erosion of their neutralism or the formation of their own loose association or associations, which might be tied into a militarily oriented ASPAC on an interlocking or cooperative basis. One can hope that even India might finally be persuaded to give its support, having itself been the target of overt Chinese

aggression, and still cherishing as it does a desire to play a substantial role beyond its own borders.

m Military security has to rest, ultimately,

on economic and political stability. One of the effects of the rapidity of change in the world today is that there can no longer be static stability; there can only be dynamic stability. A nation or society that fail to keep pace with change is in danger of flying apart. It is important that we recognize this, but equally important that in trying to maintain a dynamic stability we remember that the stability is as important as the dynamism.

If a given set of ends ls deemed desirable, then from the standpoint of those dedicated to peace and an essential stability in world order the desideratum is to reach those ends by evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. Looking at the pattern of change in non-communist Asia, we find that the professed aims of the revolutionaries are in fact being achieved by an evolutionary process. This offers a dramatic opportunity to draw the distinction between the fact of a revolutionary result and the process of revolution&ry change. The Asian nations are showing that evolutionary change can be as exciting as revolutionary change. Having revolutionized the aims of their societies, they are showing what can be achieved within a framework of dynamic stability.

The "people," in the broad.est sense, have become an entity to be served rather than used. In much of Asia, this change represents a revolution of no less magnitude than the revolution that created the industrial West, or that in the years following World War II transformed empires into new and struggling nations. It is precisely the promise of this reversal that has been at the heart of communist rhetoric, and at the heart of the popular and intellectual appeal whioh that rheto\ric achieved.

Not all the governments of non-communist Asia fit the Western ideal of parliamentary democracy-far from U. But Americans must recognize that a highly sophisticated, highly advanced political system, which required many centuries to develop in the West, may not be best for other nations which have far different tradi.tions and are stlll in an earlier stage of development. What matters is that these governments are consciously, deliberately and programmatically developing in the direction of greater liberty, greater abund.anoe, broader choice and increased popular involvement in the processes of gov.ernment.

Poverty thrat was accepted for centuries as the norm is accepted no longer. In a sense it could be said that a new chapter is being written in the winning of the West: in this oose, a winning of the promise of Western technology and Western organization by the nations of the East. The cultural clash has had its costs and produced its strains, but out of it is coming a modernization of ancl·ent civilizations that promises to leap the centuries.

The process produces transitional anomalies--such as the Indian woman squatting in the mud, forming cow-dung patties with her hands and laying them out to dry, while a transi!stor radio in her lap plays music from a Delhi station. It takes a long time to bring visions of the future to the fa.r villagesbut tim1e ls needed to make those visions credible, and make them achievable. Too wide a gap between reality and expectation always produces an explosive situation, and the fact that what the leaders know is possibl·e is unknown to the great mass of the peasan·try helps buy time to make the possible achievable. But the important thing is that the leaders do know what is possible, and by and large they are determined to make it happen.

Whether that process is going to proceed at a pace fast enough to keep one step ahead of the pressure of rising expectations is one of the great ques•tions and challenges of the years ahead. But there is solid ground for hope. The successful Asian nations have been writing extraordinary records. To call their performance an economic miracle would be something of a semantic imprecision; it would also be a disservice. Precisely because the origins and ingredients of tha.t success are not miraculous, it offers hope to those which have not yet turned the corner.

India still is a staggering giant, Burma filrt.s with economic chaos, and the Philippines, caught in a conflict of cultures and in search of an identity, lives in a precarious economic and sooial balance. But the most exciting trends in economic development today are being recorded by those Asian nations that have accepted the keys of progress and used them. Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, Singapore and Malaysia all have been recording sustained economic growth rates of 7 percent a year or more; Japan has sustained a remarkable average of 9 percent a year since 1950, and an average 16.7 percent per year increase in exports over the same period. Thailand shifted into a period of rapid growth in 1958 and has averaged 7 percent a year since. South Korea, despite the unflattering estimates of its people's abilities by the average G.I. during the Korean War, is shooting ahead at a growth rate that has averaged 8 percent a year since 1963, with an average 42 percent a year increase in its exports.

These rapidly advancing countries vary widely in their social traditions and political systems, but their methods of economic management have certain traits in common: a prime reliance on private enterprise and on the pricing mechanisms of the market as the chief determinant of business decisions; a pacing of monetary expansion to match growth in output; receptivity to private capital investment, both domestic and foreign, including such incentives as tax advantages and quick government clearance of proposed projects; imaginative national programs for dealing with social problems; and, net least, a generally restrained posture in government

' planning, with the government's role suggestive rather than coercive. These nations have, in short, discovered and applied the lessons of An1erica's own economic success.

r.v Any discussion of Asia's future must ulti

mately focus on the respective roles of four giants: India, the world's most populous noncommunist nation; Japan, Asia's principal industrial and economic power; China, the world's most populous nation and Asia's most immediate threat; and the United States, the greatest Pacific power. (Although the U.S.S.R. occupies much of the land map of Asia, its principal focus is toward the west and its vast Asian lands are an appendage of European Russia.)

India is both challenging and frustrating: challenging because of its promise, frustrating because of its performance. It suffers from escalating overpopulation, from too much emphasis on industrialization and not enough on agriculture, and from too doctrinaire a reliance on government enterprise instead of private enterprise. Many are deeply pessimistic about its future. One has to remember, however, that in the past five years India has fought two wars and faced two catastrophic droughts. On both the population and the agricultural fronts, India's present leaders at least are trying. And the essential factor, from the standpoint of U.S. policy, is that a nation of nearly half a billion people is seeking ways to wrench itself forward without a sacrifice of basic freedoms; in exceedingly difficult circumstances, the ideal of evolutionary change is being tested. For the most populous representative democ-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26055 racy in the world to fail, while Communist China-surmounting its troubles-succeeded, would be a disaster of worldwide proportions. Thus the United States must do two things: (1) continue its aid and support for Indian economic objectives; and (2) do its best to persuade the Indian Government to shift its means and adjust its institutions so that those objectives can be more quickly and more effectively secured, drawing from the lessons not only of the United States but also of India's more successful neighbors, including Pakistan.

Japan has been edging cautiously and discreetly toward a wider leadership role, acutely conscious at every step that bitter memories of the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere might rise to haunt her if she pressed too hard or too eagerly. But what would not have been possible ten, or even five, years ago is becoming possible today. Half the people now living in Asia have been born since World War II, and the new generation has neither the old guilts (in the case of the Japanese themselves) nor the old fears born of conquest.

The natural momentum of Japan's growth, the industry of her people and the advanced state of her society must inevitably propel Japan into a more conspicuous position of leadership. Japan's industrial complex, expanding by 14 p ercent annually since 1950, already is comparable to that of West Germany or the United Kingdom. Japan's gross national product ($9•5 billion) is substantially greater than that of mainland China, With seven times the population. Japan is expected soon to rank as the world's thirdstrongest economic power, trailing only the United States and the Soviet Union. Along With this dramatic economic surge, Japan will surely want to play a greater role both diplomatically and militarily in maintaining the balance in Asia. As the Prime Minister of one neighboring country put it: "The Japanese are a great people, and no great people wm accept as their destiny making better transistor radios and teaching the underdeveloped how to grow better rice."

This greater role will entail, among other things, a modification of the present terms of the Japanese Constitution, which specifically provides that "land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." (Japan's 275,000 men presently under arms are called "Self-Defense Forces.") Twenty years ago it was considered unthinkable that Japan should acquire even a conventional military capabi11ty. Five years ago, while some Japanese thought about it, they did not talk about it. Today a substantial majority of Japanese still oppose the idea, but it is openly discussed and debated. Looking toward the future, one must recognize that it simply is not realistic to expect a nation moving into the first rank of major powers to be totally dependent for its own security on another nation, however close the ties. Japan's whole society has been restructured since World War II. While there still are traces of fanaticism, its politics at least conform to the democratic ideal. Not to trust Japan today with its own armed forces and with responsibility for its own defense would be to place its people and its government under a disability which, whatever its roots in painful recent history, 111 accords with the role Japan must play in helping secure the common safety of noncommunist Asia.

Any American policy toward Asia must come urgently to grips with the reality of China. This does not mean, as many would simplistically have dt, rushing to grant t"ecognition ·to Pe'king, to admit i.t to >the United Nations and to ply it with offers of trade-all of which would serve to confirm its rulers in their present course. It does mean recognizing the present and potential danger from Communist China, and taking measures designed to meet that danger. It also means

CXIII--1642-Part 19

distinguishing carefully between long-range and short-range policies, and fashioning short-range programs so as to advance our long-range goals.

Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leav·e China forever outside the family of nations, there to nuture its fantasies, cher:ish its hates and threaten its neighbors. There is no place on thls Sllll'B.11

planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry lsoLatl.on. Burt; we could go disastrously Wl'long if, in pursuing this long-range goal, we failed in the shOII't range to read the lessons of history.

The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus our aim, to the extent that we can influence events, should be to induce change. The way to do this is to pe.rsuade China that it must chani©e: that Lt caninot satisfy its imperial ambitions, and that its own natural interest requires a turning away from foreign adventuring and a turning inward toward the solution of its own domestic problems.

If the chaUeng.e posed by the Sovtet Union after World War II was not precisely sdmUar, it was sufficiently so to offer a valid precedent and a valuable lesson. Moscow finally changed when it, too, found that change was nect:ssary. This was essentially a change of the head, not of the heart. Internal evolution p1ayed a role, to be sure, but the key factor was that the West was able to create conditions-notably in the shoring up of European defenses, the ra.pid restoration of European economies and the cementing of the Atlantitc Alliance--that for.ced Moscow to look to the wisdom of reaching some measur·e of accommodation with the West. We are still far from reaching a full detente, but at least substantial progress has been made.

During the next decade the West faces two prospects which, tog.ether, could oreate a crisis of the first order: ( 1) that the Soviets may reach nuc1ear parity with the United States; and (2) tha·t China, within three to five years, will have a significant deliverable nuclear capability-and that this same China Will be outside any nonprolifevation treaty that might be signed, free, if it chooses, to scatter its weapons among "liberation" forces anywhere in the world.

This heightens the urgency of building buffers that can keep the major nuclear powers apart in the case of "wars of national liberation," supported by Moscow or Peking but fought by proxy. It also requires that we now assJ.gn to the strengthening of noncommunist Asia a priority comparable to that which we gave to the strengthening of Western Europe after World War II.

Some counsel conceding to China a "sphere of influence" embracing much of the Asian mainland and extending even to the island nations beyond; others urge that we eliminate the threat by preemptive war. Clearly, neither of these courses would be acceptable to the United States or to its Asian ames. Others argue that we should seek an antiChinese alliance with European powers, even including the Soviet Union. Quite apart from the obvious problems involved in Soviet participation, such a course would inevitably carry connotations of Europe vs. Asia, white vs. non-white, which could have catastrophic repercusions throughout the rest of the nonwhite world in general and Asia in particular. If our long-range aim is to pull China back into the family of nations, we must avoid the impression that the great powers or the European powers are "ganging up;" the response should clearly be one of active defense rather than potential offense, and must be untainted with any suspicion of racism.

For the United States to go it alone in containing China would not only place an unconscionable burden on our own country, but also would heighten the chances of nuclear war while undercutting the independent development of the nations of Asia..

The primary restraint on Chin·a's Asian ambitions should be exercised by the Asian nations in the path of those ambitions, backed by the ultimate power of the United States. This ls sound strategically, sound psychologically and sound in terms of the dynamics of Asian development. Only as the nations of non-communist Asia become so strongeconomically, politically and militarily-that they no longer furnish tempting targets for Chinese aggression, will the leaders in Peking be persuaded to turn their energies inward rather than outward. And that will be the time when the dialogue with mainland China can begin.

For the short run, then, this means a policy of fl.rm restraint, of no reward, of a creative counterpressure designed to persuade Peking that its interests can be served only by accepting the basic rules of international civility. For the long run, it means pulling China back into the world community-but as a great and progressing nation, not as the epicenter of world revolution.

"Containment without isolation" is a good phrase and a sound concept, as far as it goes. But it covers only half the problem. Along with it, we need a positive policy of pressure and persuasion, of dynamic detoxification, a marshaling of Asian forces both to keep the peace and to help draw off the poison from the Thoughts of Mao.

Dealing with Red China ls something like trying to cope with the more explosive ghetto elements in our own country. In each case a potentially destructive force has to be curbed; in each case an outlaw element has to be brought within the law; in each case dialogues have to be opened; in each case aggression has to be retrained while education proceeds; and, not least, in neither case can we afford to let those now self-exiled from society stay exiled forever. We have to proceed with both an urgency born of necessity and a patience born of realism, moving step by calculated step toward the final goal.

v And finally, the role of the United States. Weary with war, disheartened with allies,

disillusioned with aid, dismayed at domestic crises, many Americans are heeding the call of the new isolationism. And they are not alone; there is a tendency in the whole Western world to turn inward, to become parochial and isolationist--dangerously so. But there can be neither peace nor security a generation hence unless we recognize now the massiveness of the forces at work in Asia, where more than half the world's people live and where the greatest explosive potential is lodged.

Out of the wreckage of two world wars we forged a concept of an Atlantic community, within which a ravaged Europe was rebuilt and the westward advance of the Soviet contained. If tensions now strain that community, these are themselves a by-product of success. But history has its rhythms, and now the focus of both crisis and change is shifting. Without turning our backs on Europe, we have now to reach out westward to the East, and to fashion the sinews of a Pacific comm.unity.

This has to be a community in the fUlles·t sense: a community of purpose, of understanding and of mutual assistance, in whieh military defenses are co0dinated while economies are strengthened; a community embracing a concert of Asian s'trengths as a counterforce to the designs of China; one in which Japan will play an Ina-easing role, as befits its commanding position as a world economic power; and one in which U.S. leadership is exercised with restraint, with respect for our partners and with a sophisticated diSCll'etion that ensures a genuinely Asian idiom and Asian origin for whatever new Asian institutions are developed.

In a design for Asia's :fUture, there ls no room for heavy-handed American pressures; there is need for subtle encouragement of the

26056 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 kind of Asian initiatives that help bring the design to reality. The distinction may seem superficial, but in fact it is central both to the kind of Asia we want and to the effectiveness of the means of achieving it. The central pattern of the future in U.S.-Asian relations must be American support for Asian initiatives.

The industrial revolution has shown that ma.es abundance ls possible, and as the United States moves into the post-industrial world-the age of computers and cybernetics-we have to find ways to engineer an escape from priv·ation for those now living in mass poverty. There can be no security, whatever our nuclear stockpiles, in a world of boiling resentment and magnified envy. The oceans provide no sanotuary for the rich, no barrier behind which we can hide our abundance.

The struggle for infiuence in the Third World is a three-way r.ace among Moscow, Peking and the West. The West has offered both idealism and example, but the idealism has often been unconvincing and the example non-idiomatic. However, the industrialized Japan demonstrates the economically possible in Asian terms, while an advancing Asia tied into a Paclfic community offers a bridge to the underdevelQped elsewhere. During this final third of ·the twentieth century, the greait race will be between man and change: the race to control change, rather than be controlled by it. In this race we cannot afford to wait for others to act, and then merely react. And the race in Asia is already under way.

THE OPEN SOCIETY-WITH EXCEPTIONS

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, in a

statement made when he signed into law the so-called Freedom of Information Act of 1967, President Johnson said:

This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: a democracy works best. when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.

And, he further said: I have always believed that freedom of

information ls so vital that only the national security, not the desire of public officials or private citizens, should determine when it must be restricted.

In contrast to these words, the "Capitol Views" column of the Chicago Tribune's Willard Edwards points out that either there is another facet of the credibility gap showing up or that Mr. Johnson does not have much control over the State Department. For from his words, one would think that he truly has instructed "every official in this administration" to help achieve the intent of the new law. Either he has not or they are not listening. Case in point: Otto Otepka.

I include at this point, the statement of the President and the article by Mr. Edwards, as follows: STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT JOHNSON UPON

SIGNING P'uBLIC LAW 89-487 ON JULY 4, 1966 The measure I sign today, S. 1160, revises

section 3 of the Administrative Procedure

Act to provide guidelines for the public availability of the records of Federal departments and agencies.

This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: a democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.

At the same time, the welfare of the Nation or the rights of individuals may require that some documents not be made available. As long as threats to peace exist, for example, there must be mllitary secrets. A citizen must be able in confidence to complain to his Government and to provide information, just as he is-and should be-free to confide in the press without fear of reprisal or of being required to reveal or discuss his sources.

Fairness to individuals also requires that information accumulated in personnel files be protected from disclosure. Officials within Government must be able to communicate with one another fully and frankly with out publicity. They cannot operate effectively if required to disclose information prematurely or to make public investigative files and internal instructions that guide them in arriving at their decisions.

I know that the sponsors of this bill recognize these important interests and intend to provide for both the need of the public for access to information and the need of Government to protect certain categories of information. Both are vital to the welfare of our people. Moreover, this bill in no way impairs the President's power under our Constitution to provide for confidentiality when the national interest so requires. There are some who have expressed concern that the language of this bill will be construed in such a way as to impair Government operations. I do not share this concern.

I have always believed that freedom of information is so vital that on ly the national security, not the desire of public officials or private citizens, should determine when it must be restricted.

I am hopeful that the needs I have mentioned can be served by a constructive approach to the wording and spirit and legislative history of this measure. I am instru cting every official in this administration to cooperate to this end and to make information available to the full extent consistent with individual privacy and with the national interest.

I signed this measure with a deep sense of pride that the United States is an open society in which the people's right to know is cherished and guarded.

[From the Chicago {Ill.) Tribune, Sept.19, 1967] CAPITOL VIEWS

(By Willard Edwards) WASHINGTON, September 18.-The state de

partment, defying President Johnson and the unanimous will of Congress, apparently has decide to ignore a new law guaranteeing t h e right of the American people to know how their government operates.

The freedom of information act of 1967 went into effect last July 4 after a 13-year struggle in Congress to loosen the bureaucratic secrecy cover on government records which often was used to cover up blunders and errors, if not m alfeasance.

James M. Stewart of Wood Dale, Ill., was the first man in line at the state department to seek information under the act. He asked for data on a cause celebre-the Otto F. Otepka case-which the state department, for four years, has fought with every artifice at its command to conceal from public scrutiny.

Seventy-six days later, after repeated rebuffs. Stewart has been forced to the conclusion that "the state department either reads

this law differently than I do or various responsible officials have not read it at all."

Altha President Johnson adjured all executive departments to obey both "the wording and spirit" of the new act, Stewart has been able to obtain only some meaningless pamphlets, releases, and printed material.

He has been refused a copy of the ruling and the name of the official responsible for keeping the Otepka records secret.

PASS LAW OVER UNITED OPPOSITION The Otepka case represents precisely the

type of concealment thru official arrogance which drove Congress by unanimous vote to overcome the united opposition of every federal department and write into law the public's right to access to federal records.

There is no precedent in American history for the harassment, isolation, prosecution on trumped-up charges, and eventual dismissal of Otepka, former chief of evaluations in the state department's office of security. A Senate investigation left no doubt that he was fired in November, 1963, because he angered his superiors by questioning their security procedures and then compounding the crime by airing his doubts when summon ed before the Senate internal security subcommittee.

At every step, the state department sought to obstruct the Senate's inquiry into its campaign of revenge against Otepka. Two officials perjured themselves in an attempt to conceal evidence. Otepka's efforts to defend himself were frustrated until last June when he was given a secret "trial" from which public and press were barred. The 2,000 page transcript of testimony was declared "classified."

Stewart had a legitimate interest in the Otepka record. He is director of the American Defense Fund, formed to help pay the heavy legal expenses attached to Otepka's long battle for vindication.

PROMISED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS His request for access to the records, it was

learned, came up at a closed hearing in the state department last July 18, when Otepka and his attorney, Roger Robb, met with Idar Rimestad, deputy undersecretary of state for administration, and J. Edward Lyerly, deputy legal adviser for the state department.

Lyerly announced that Stewart's petition would be rejected, despite the provisions of the new law. This statement contradicted a state department announcement to the press four days earlier that Stewart would be given "all documents concerning the Otepka case he requested except one which does not exist."

Otepka and Robb protested that they wanted all evidence in the case to be made public. There was no possible legal basis for declaring any of the records "classified," they contended. Moreover, the Civil Service commission on July 11, acting under the new freedom of information act, had ruled that all "appeal flles" should be open records.

The state department refused to yield. Secretary of State Dean Rusk will be given the case for a decision Oct. 10. He is reported to have sworn that, as long as he retains office, Otepka will never be reinstated.

In signing the new law, the President proclaimed the United States "an open society in which the people's rights to know is cherished and guarded." The state department obviously wasn't listening.

WHO ARE THE CRITICS OF THE GREEK GOVERNMENT?

Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include ext!'laneous matter.

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


September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26057 Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, when

King Constantine, of Greece, visited the White House last week, there was a protest gathering which, according to the Washington Post, spoke out "against the ruling military junta in Greece." In this day of protests, there should be nothing unusual about that.

One picture of the protestors showed the actress, Melina Mercouri, Joseph Rauh, Jr., of the Americans for Democratic Action, and Jules Dassin, husband of Miss Mercouri. The ADA is not hard to understand. They are silent as to Communist oppression-can anyone ever imagine Mr. Rauh appearing to protest the ruling clique in Poland or Yugoslavia ?-but generally tend to take a dim view of anything which is not a Communist- or Socialist-dominated government.

As for Miss Mercouri, however, some entirely different questions should be raised. She received a great amount of publicity and her TV presentation was that of a sincere, chagrined person. I think that we have a right to know how much she has been influenced by her husband, identified by one of his fellow movie directors on May 7, 1951, as a Communist. Edward Dmytryk, witness before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities in 1951, admitted his past membership in the Communist Party and identified Jules Dassin as having been one of a group of persons in the Screen Directors Guild whom he had personally known as a member of the Communist Party. Frank Wright Tuttle, who also testified that he had been a Communist, identified Mr. Dassin as one of those he had known to be a Communist.

Mr. Dassin's record is long and clear as a member of Communist-front organizations.

Miss Mercouri's late father was very prominent in the United Democratic Left Party and was elected to political office on several occasions as a member of that party. The United Democratic Left was the successor to the Communist Party after the Greek · Government officially outlawed the Communist Party following the Red effort to overthrow that country some 20 years ago. The United Democratic Left was the party of Miss Mercouri's faJther, Stamatis Mercouri.

All of this is not to say that Miss Mercouri is insincere in her opposition to the present regime in Greece. It is to candidly place her position in its proper perspective and quite properly raise the question "How much have you been in:fluenced by Jules Dassin, Miss Mercouri?" Before the press lionizes her so-called righteous indignation, we should have an answer to that question.

A SEA-BASED ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE NET

Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. l\C... Speaker, I ask unan~mous consent to address the House for 1 minute, ito revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.

Speaker, before we commit the energy, disciplined brainpower, and wealth of America exclusively to a terminal-phase missile interception system, I respectfully call upon the Congress to consider most thoughtfully a fresh, hard concept as promising and revolutionary in the realm of strategic defense as was the Polaris concept in strategic offensive systems. The contemplated Sprint-Spartan terminal phase defense system may be likened to the gladiator's helmet and breast plate. Our scientific establishment now offers us a shield or net.

The new concept bears · the name SABMIS, standing for sea-based antiballistic missile intercept system. We are dealing here with a marriage of the Polaris-Poseidon technology with the Sprint and Spartan systems. In effect, the deployment of a SABMIS unit would place in the seas close to an adversary's homeland and across his "launch trajectory window," a mobile, partly submerged screen of antimissile forces. The outstanding features of SABMIS are these:

First. Early interception of an adversary's offensive missiles promises the destruction of multiwarhead missiles before such weapons split into a virtual shower of decoys, penetration aids, and destructive thermonuclear warheads over the United States. The proposed terminal phase and antimissile defenses surrounding our priority targets within the United States would have to deal with each incoming element of the "shower" individually, unless the launch vehicle is thus intercepted before its dispersion is effected.

Second. Along with the Polaris-Poseidon forces, SABMIS would move much of the impact of any future nuclear confrontation out to sea and away from our population centers. One example of this feature is that SABMIS interception and destruction, with its inevitable nuclear collisions and fallout, would take place over the adversary's homeland or over the sea.

Third. A wisely balanced mix of SABMIS and fixed terminal-phase, SprintSpartan-type defenses would give us two interception zones, thus vastly increasing any opponent's difficulties in insuring penetration, and magnifying his doubts of any reasonable prospectus of achieving a disabling first strike. The latter are deterrent factors, but should irrationality prevail and deterrence fail, the ultilization of SABMIS would reduce the task of the terminal-phase defenses to manageable proportions and/ or force an attacker to divert substantial forces to attempts to find and neutralize the ocean-based barrier. These attempts in themselves, it should be noted, would constitute warnings of the most valuable sort.

"li10urth. SABMIS promises a substantial alleviation of that most crucial shortage in crisis decision time before committing our land-based offensive missiles. Where first strikes by a paten -tial enemy against our strategic retaliatory forces can be deflected by SABMIS far from our shores, that terrible counterblow need not be launched immedi-

ately to avoid destruction of the launch sites. Such a time buff er reduces the chances of overreaction, accident, or error.

Fifth. A remarkable feature of SABMIS is the ability it can provide us in turning aside nuclear blackmail bargaining by adversaries who, in effect, hold our friends and allies "hostage" under the threat of missile-borne destruction. Thus, the deployment of a SABMIS unit in the Sea of Japan or the Bay of Bengal could cover the approach routes of missiles from China directed against Japan or India, respectively. No fixed-base system in the United States offers such an answer to this type of threat to our international interests.

Sixth. Needless to say, the unique shielding capability of SABMIS is of enormous significance to the whole nonproliferation thrust. SABMIS, very simply, can offer a substantial degree of security to poorer friendly nations against crude but terrifying nuclear missiles acquired by ideologically militant neighbors-without requiring such threatened states to develop their own deterrent nuclear forces.

Seventh. We are not speaking here of a defensive system requiring a chain of technological breakthroughs for practical realization. The R. & D. requirement for SABMIS is largely a recombination of state-of-the-art hardware and technology. Sufficiently feasible and promising does the Department of Defense consider the SABMIS concept that several major military systems manufacturers are under contract to develop design proposals.

Mr. Speaker, it has been estimated that Red China will have a ballistic missile delivery capability in the early 1970's. When this happens we will have a most pressing need for SABMIS. The time to get going is now.

Mr. Speaker, I insert these articles detailing the progress of SABMIS and commend them to the attention of all legislators concerned with the strategic security of the United states:

[From the New York Times, July 4, 1967) ANTIMISSILE NET AT SEA PROPOSED--8HIP·

BASED DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT WOULD BOLSTER NIK.E-X PRESSED BY THE NAVY

(By William Beecher) WASHINGTON, July 3.-The Navy, with the

encouragement of Defense and Army officials, is pressing studies of an antimissile missile system based on larg·e subma..rines and warships.

Such a system, it is said, could increase the protection of the United States by stationing water-borne antimissile platforms in international waters off Communist China and the Soviet Union to get an early chance to intercept long-range missiles fired from those countries.

And, in a crisis situation involving friendly nations such as Japan, proponents say, an antimissile fleet could be placed in position between that nation and a potential aggressor to reduce or even eliminate the threat of nuclear t>lackmail.

Defense officials say the proposed Navy system would not compete with the Army's Nike-X m issile defense. A decision is expected this fall on whether to start deployment of a $4-billion to $5-billion Nike-X system around the United States to provide a "thin" defense of the entire country against a Chinese-type threat, as well as tight defense around Minuteman silos.

26058 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 The Navy system, code-named SABMIS for

Seaborne Anti-Balllstic Missile Intercept System, would make Nike's job more manageable by knocking down large numbers of enemy intercontinental ball1stic missiles well before they reached airspace over the United States.

And, in the event that the Russians and later the Chinese introduce very sophisticated ICBM's that employ penetration devices, multiple warheads and maneuvering warheads, officials say, SABMIS-if deployed far enough forward-could intercept some of these missiles before they have a chance to make use of such advanced devices.

Pentagon officials say the Navy system could be deployed in special submarines under the North Polar icecap, in surface and subsurface fleets off the Aleutian Islands, and in several other loca.tions even closer to enemy territory. They say that such ships have unlimited deployment possibilities so long as they stay in international waters.

Last month, when the Navy advised industry that it was about to put out some preliminary design studies for the new system, 31 companies rushed in an expressed interest in participating.

From the list the Navy selected six companies-Hughes Aircraft, Martin-Marietta, Boeing, Aerojet-General, McDonnell-Douglas and Raytheon-to compete for a sixmonth study on the design of the system.

Initially, the Navy was thinking of using either the present Polaris missile booster or a new booster for SABMIS, but the Defense Department urged the Navy to make use of the Army-developed Spartan and Sprint missiles.

Now, Navy officials say they contemplate making use of Nike-X technology instead of undertaking on entirely new development program. The Army has already spent more than $2-billion developing the Nike system.

USE ON SHIPS POSSmLE "We feel that anything that has been de

veloped for land basing may also be based on ships," a Navy planner said.

He said it was hoped that the industry studies would come up with the best combination of submarine and ship platforms to insure survival against a surprise attack, as well as effective interception of enemy ICBM's.

There would always have to be some surface ships in any deployment, he said, in order to get good radar coverage of the defended area.

The Navy planner said that a fan could be drawn on a globe with the apex at the point of ICBM launching. The fan would spread out across the globe to the extreme range of the missile. The closer the missile defense to the point of launching, the smaller the section of the "threat fan" to be defended, he noted.

An antimissile fleet position off the Aleutians, he said, would be athwart the path of missiles aimed at the western half of the United states.

A high ranking Army Nike-X specialist was just as enthusiastic. He commented:

"The Navy system is both feasible and attractive. It could intercept enemy ICBM's before they can deploy most of their penetration aids; it would reduce the number of missiles Nike-X would have to contend with; and it would tremendously increase the enemy's technological problems by forcing him to become very sophisticated indeed if he wants to stand any chance of getting his ICBM's past both the mid-course and terminal phase defenses."

[From Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 17, 1967]

PROPOSALS DUE ON SEA-BORNE ABM SYSTEM WASHINGTON.-Industry proposals are due

this week for a Navy-funded contract to

study the feasibility of a . Sea;borne AntiBalllstic Mls$1le Intercept System (SABMIS).

It is intended to complement a land-based Nike-X system by permitting the intercept of enemy ICBMs during the early portion of their trajectories. Additionally, such a system could be used to defend other countries against the threat of missile attack.

Companies selected to submit proposal$ include: Aero jet-General; Boeing; a team of Hughes Aircraft and Lockheed; Martin Marietta; McDonnell-Douglas, and Raytheon. In addition, Ling-Temco-Vought requested and was granted permission to bid.

If the six-month study indicates the concept is feasible with essentially existing technology, the contract definition phase competition could begin as early as Fiscal 1969, assuming Pentagon officials approve. But most observers expect that additional investigations and exploratory development wlll be required.

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES The concept of a mobile missile defense

system which could be deployed so as to intercept enemy ICBMs before they can deploy decoys and thereby to reduce the number of targets that must be handled by a land-based Nlke-X system offers many potential advantages. Since an effective SABMIS would improve the over-all ability to defend against ICBM attack, the Army welcomes the concept rather than viewing it as a potential competitor for Nike-X.

Navy officials see SABMIS as a valuable tool of U.S. foreign policy because it could be moved into position to protect allies or neutral countries from ICBM blackmail, especially from Communist China.

For example, it might, upon request, be deployed in the Sea of Japan or the Indian Ocean.

CNO STUDIES The concept ls an outgrowth of long-range

strategic studies that have been conducted by the Chief of Naval Operations. In February, the Navy formed its Office of Strategic and Defen$e Systems, under ONO, with Rear Adm. George H. Miller as director, to push the concept. The SABMIS program currently is centered in this office, but responsibility may soon be transferred to one of the systems commands, probably the Naval Ordnance Systems Command.

Initial emphasis is to be placed on a surface-based sy$tem, with ships serving both to mount the required radars and as missile launching platforms. Eventually, submarines outfitted with interceptor missiles might be deployed for greater security.

One of the potential advantages of a seaborne missile defense system ls that it would be sufficiently mobile to prevent an enemy from using ICBMs against it. Thus the deployment of SABMIS would require an enemy to develop and build a new class of weapons, rather than merely building additional ICBMs, which is the logical response to a land-based missile defense system, according to Navy planners.

In some respects, the problem of intercepting an ICBM in mid-trajectory is easier for a seaborne system than for a land-based Nike-X system, but in other respects it ls more difficult. The absence of decoys eliminates the problem of discriminating between worthwhile targets as well as reducing the number of targets that must be handled. But the problem is made more difficult because the target is changing relative position more rapidly in mid-trajectory than during the final entry, at which point the principal change is in range.

The lack of decoys will ease the demands on the SABMIS radars and computers, bµt the fast-changing t arget position may require a more maneuverable interceptor missile than for Nike-X.

Present thinking is that the SABMIS system will use the technology of Nike Spartan

and Sprint but not necessarily the same missile designs. Since the Sprint is designed for low-altitude point defense, the Spartan 1S expected to be more applicable to the seaborne system requirements.

MAJOR PROBLEM One major problem may arise in trying to

operate a large phased-array type radar suitable for missile defense aboard a ship. This problem results from flexure of the ship itself and the need for rigidity in a large phased-array radar antenna.

Flexure of the array could cause serious errors in the formation of the radar beam or present a requirement for the use of elaborate compensating techniques.

Navy planners believe that SABMIS can be built without any major advances in the state of the art, largely by adapting radar, computers and missiles developed for Nike-X and other programs. But observers believe that the Defense Dept. officials will insist upon a number of feasibility demonstrations before committing themselves to a contract definition phase. For example, it is expeoted the Pentagon will require the ·Navy to demonstrate shipboard launch of a Nike Spartan-type high-acceleration missile and shipboard operation of a large phased-array radar antenna similar to that required for the missile defense system.

Observers also expect the Air Force to challenge the Navy's attempt to encroach further on USAF's traditional missions. Area defense against air-breathing targets has long been an Air Force responsibility. Current Air Force studies are examining satellite-borne missile defense concepts (AW&ST May 15, p. 84). Because such space-borne ICBM defense systems would require new technology which would preclude early deployment. USAF is expected to seek other near-term alternatives to blunt the Navy's SABMIS concept.

One likely possibility is the use of the Lockheed C-5A as an ABM missile launch platform, with another configuration of the C-5A as a platform for ICBM detection and tracking radars.

But such an airborne missile-defense concept would require considerably more new hardware ·development than is anticipated for SABMIS.

Although the Navy initially will emphasize ship-based intercept missiles, it believes that a mixed force of ship and submarine missile launchers would add to SABMIS effectiveness. Submarine launchers would enjoy greater security from enemy attack and they ·could operate in the Arctic Ocean, surfacing through breaks in the lee to fire their missiles, according to Navy planners.

[From the Christian Science Monitor, July 24, 1967]

SEA MISSILE KEY TO U.S. DEFENSE? (By George W. Ashworth)

WASHINGTON .-The key to tomorrow's nuclear deterrent force may be the se•a.

The concept of the sea as the main base for the United States deterrent force in the latter 1970's and 1980's is being pressed in some Navy circles as a feasible, practical means of securing United States primacy in the strategic balance.

If present plans were ·to reach fruition, Navy sources say, the continental United States might be kept safe from nuclear destruction.

One aspect of the over-all concept is the planned study of design of a seaborne antiballistic missile (ABM) intercept system.

As envisioned, a naval ABM system would complement any ABM system built on land. Should the administration fail in its efforts at meaningful talks and subsequent agreement on the ABM question, it is expected to move toward deployment of a thin, landbased ABM system providing some defense

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE ·26059

of the entire continent with Spartan nuclear missiles and some point defense of strategic centers and complexes. With point defense by Sprint missiles, such a plan would cost an estimated $4 to $6 billion dollars.

FLEXIBILITY CITED The Navy says that a sea-based ABM sys

tem could be moved about to protect aga.inst changing ballistic missile threats.

Studies of the proposal are to take six months. If there were a decision to go ahead with the development, deployment would take about five years. Costs would be cut by using much of the research and technology that has gone into the land-based Nike-X system.

Because the force could be con centrated to counter any given threat, Navy sources argue, the United States could build a defense in depth without the vast expenses entailed in development of a heavy land-based system. Surface ships and submarines would probably both be used to allow a capability against varying threats. The submarines, for instance, would be able to operate in the Arctic Ocean , surfacing through ice breaks to take on en emy missiles. By intercepting at a point earlier in the tra jectory, sources say, the m issiles could strike before decoys were deployed and early enough so systems farther alon g in the trajectory would have less of an offensive force to cope with.

OTHER SEGMENTS Essentially, however, the seaborne ABM

system is thought of by some Navy strategists as just one part of a vast strategic force. That force, as they see it, might also include:

Huge nuclear-powered aircraft carriers capable of carrying strategic bomber squadrons.

A large force of ships carrying strategic missiles to complement the nuclear submarine force equipped with Poseidon missiles. That submarine force could be somewhat expanded and equipped if necessary with successor missiles to the Poseidon, which has yet to be deployed.

Antisubmarine forces and attack aircraft and warships to take on enemy aircraft and ships. The planes, ships, and submarines would reflect the future state of the art and would be of sufficient sophistication to pose a threat of devastating potency.

All of this would, of course, cost billions of dollars. Whether it would be worth the cost will be decided in secret strategy-planning sessions. Whether the nation could afford it would be influenced largely by whether the United States is still embroiled in the war in Vietnam or some other conflict.

DEFENSE CONCENTRATED The United States strategic missile and

bomber forces are largely based in the United States at present. One thousand Minuteman and Titan II missiles are based in the continent, as are the bulk of the B-52 and the B-58 bomber forces. Only 656 Polaris missiles in the 41-submarine nuclear fleet are based at sea.

Navy strategists argue that the sea presents advantages for the United States not available to its cold-war adversaries. In terms of land area, they point out, the United States ls at a disadvantage, particularly visa-vis Russia, with twice the area. As a result, they argue, attacks of equal force would cause the United States to sustain greater comparative losses. Conversely, United States access to the sea is excellent on two oceans, while the Soviets are greatly limited.

As these strategists see it, however, a change in emphasis to get most of the United States strategic strength out to sea would mean that an opponent would be forced to contend first with a United States retaliatory and defensive capab1llty well away from the United States mainland. The Chinese Communists or the Soviets would be forced to develop new types of weapons in an effort to

counter the naval force, thus diverting energies from other efforts.

COMPLEXITY INCREASED Because enemy planners would find it ex

ceedingly difficult to determine the exact location and composition of the various forces in the United States strategic fleet, the sources argue, it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to do the necessary planning and targeting for a successful surprise attack.

As envisioned, perhaps, 75 percent of the strategic capability would be at sea. But the remaining land-based bombers and missiles would suffice to make any enemy wary of taking on a multifaceted threat, the strategists say.

Basically, the Navy men argue, moving the bulk of the capability out to sea while retaining the land-based deterrent force would accomplish six strategic objectives:

Eliminate temptation or motivation on the part of an enemy to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the continen t al United States.

Reduce the vulnerability of United States nuclear forces to surprise attack.

Reduce the danger of nuclear war by accident.

Afford more negotiation and decision time during a crisis, without thus opening the way for unacceptable destruction of forces.

Get the United States, its people, and industry out of the line of fire in a nuclear exchange.

Reduce the need for overt military movements that could alarm allies and frighten foes Into precipitous countermeasures.

[From the Washington Post] CLOSE TO LAUNCHING SITES: NAVY PROPOSES

FLOATING DEFENSE AGAINST MISSll.ES OFF RUSSIA, CHINA

(By George Wilson) The Navy has entered the antiballistlc race

with a proposal to station ships equipped with antimissiles off the Soviet and Chinese coasts to intercept enemy missiles shortly after they are fl.red.

While Navy proponents claim their plan would only be an extension of, and not a replacement for, t he Army's land-based Nike X program, the proposal reflects the increased interest of all three services in playing a major role in an ABM system.

The Air Force also has taken a new look at its earlier proposals. One of these would employ such airplanes as the giant Lockheed C-5A transport, as launching platforms to intercept enemy missiles.

Navy leaders argue that a close-in, shipbased line of defense would permit the United States to catch an enemy missile before it has time to break into a shotgun scatter of real and decoy hydrogen bombs. In addition, there would be fewer technical difficulties in tracking and finding enemy missiles.

The United States, Russia-and most likely Red China-are spending a lot of effort on making sure their long-range missiles can get through ahy defense.

Techniques range all the way from the old trick of blinding the defender's radar with clouds of metal chaff to making H-bombs that can maneuver on their own as they fly in at the target.

But the bag of penetration tricks does not open until after the missile is a safe distance off the launching pad. An antimissile from a nearby ship might be in time to catch the whole package-missile, warheads and penetration aids-before they spread too far apart.

The Navy has enough faith in the concept-called Seaborne Anti-Ballistic Missile Intercept System, or SABMIS for short-to pay industry money to formalize it in paper designs.

Last week, several aerospace companies bid for the Job: Aero Jet-General; Boeing; a team of Hughes Aircraft and Lockheed; Ling-

Temco-Vought; Martin-Marietta; McDonnell-Douglas and Raytheon.

The Navy expects to pick one or more of those firms by fall to conduct a six month feasibility study of SABMIS. Then, Defense Department superiors willing, the Navy would be ready to move toward the hardware stage.

Besides the advantage of getting close to likely launching sites, Navy leaders see SABMIS as bargain-basement protection for neutral nations afraid of nuclear blackmail by Red China.

A bunch of SABMIS ships, goes this argument, could stand between Chinese missiles and a neutral like India. Then India might not feel compelled to build an ABM system, having money for economic development.

NOT WITHOUT DETRACTORS SABMIS ls not without its detractors in

the Pentagon. One top weapons official said: "We're going to get a decision on our own ABM system before we start worrying about one for the Bay of Bengal."

But this opposition has not deterred the Navy's new Office of Strategic Defense Systems, headed by Rear Adm. George H. Miller. His office sees SABMIS as a system which could do for defense what the Navy's Polaris submarine fleet has done for offense.

The SABMIS fleet-like the Polaris subswould be kept moving. Of course, the enemy might sink surface ships just before launching a missile attack.

Asked about this vulnerability, one Navy strategist countered: "This kind of warning would be worth the cost of SABMIS."

ESTIMATED AT $2 BILLION Rough Navy estimates are $2 billion for

SABMIS, counting the whole works-ships,. radars and the missiles themselves.

Navy planners are thinking in terms of six to 40 ships for SABMIS, with a possibility later on of using submarines to launch ABMs.

In hopes of avoiding an Army-Navy fight~ Navy leaders stress their system is not designed to replace the Army's Nike X. The Navy would use the 400-mile-range Spartan missile for SABMIS and also the Nike X radar. The ships would be built with special armor against nuclear blast and fallout.

Building a Nike X missile defense around the United States ls gaining Johnson Administration support in the wake of Red Chinese nuclear tests.

Congressional demands for a $3-billion to $10-billion version of Nike X will intensify this week if the Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Committee releases as planned, its report on Chinese nuclear progress.

[From the Springfield (Ill.) State Register, July 3, 1967]

NAVY ADVOCATES USE OF ANTIMISSll.ES AT SEA '

(By L. Edgar Prina) WASHINGTON.-Navy planners believe it

would make sense to put antimissiles at sea so that enemy ICBM's could be destroyed far from the continental United States.

Accordingly, the Navy-with the blessing of the Defense Department-has asked industry to join in a study it hopes will lead to the design of a ship-based missile intercept system.

The Office of Naval Research on June 1 advertised for help as follows:

"Firms and organizations having demonstrated capab111tles for performing a study of balllstic missile intercept systems and subsystems are invited to submit information regarding their qualifications.

"Selected firms and organizations w1ll be considered for participation in a study program leading to preliminary design of a sea.based ballistic missile intercept system (SABMIS) .... It is expected that a study etfort in this field will cover a six-month period."


The Navy got 31 responses from industry. After reviewing them, it selected six firms or teams of firms, to submit proposals for the study. The firms were given classified briefings and have until July 19 to turn in their proposals.

It is understood that one-and possibly two-firms or teams will get the contract for the study, probably by August 1 or soon thereafter. The Navy hopes to have the study completed by next Feb. 1.

The Navy has declined to identify the six firms in the competition.

Navy planners say that the beauty of a sea-based anti-missile system is that the U.S. could knock down enemy rockets long before they approached the continental limits. This is particularly important in this era of multiple warheads.

Defense officials have told report.ers that the Navy's submarine-based Poseidon rocket will have several warheads.

It is understood that each of these thermonlA.clear "bombs" could be directed at individual targets several hundred miles or more apart.

Multiple warhead rockets obviously would greatly magnify the job of a U.S. land-based antimissile system, such as the Nike F, for it would have to handle a great many separate enemy warheads.

[From the New York Times, July 9, 1967] M1ssn.Es Go TO SEA

(By Hanson W. Baldwin) The nuclear age has gone to sea. Last

week's news from the Pentagon that the Navy is studying a ship-based anti-ballistic missile system emphasizes once again-in modern context-Alfred Thayer Mahan's "infiuence of sea power upon history."

In mobility and in weapons the marriage of the "Nuke" and the ship has transformed the two-dimensional navy with control of the seas as its objective to a three-dimensional navy with the added objective of attack against, and defense of, the great continental land masses of the world.

Strategically and tactically the role of the Navy has been transformed by the nuclear age; the depths of the sea, the space above the atmosphere and every part of every land mass on earth are now accessible to modern naval power.

Today, the single most important nuclear contribution of the Navy is its fleet of 41 missile-firing submarines, each equipped with 16 missiles, each capable of destroying with its megaton nuclear warhead any city on earth.

Nuclear-powered engines-which require no air-enable these submarines to remain completely submerged for indefinite periods and their mobility and invisibility give them unequaled defensive invulnerability.

PLANS FOR POSEIDON The submarine-launched ballistic missile

has, moreover, another major asset; it draws the lightning of enemy nuclear attack toward the seas rather than-as land-based missiles do-toward the populated land.

In the next few years the Polaris family of missiles will be succeeded by the fourthgeneration Poseidon, a missile with greater power, capable-alternatively-of carrying a larger warhead for a longer distance or several warheads, as well as various devices known as penetration aids to help the missile break through the enemy's defenses.

This submarine missile force, which is an important part of the nation's strategic nuclear offensive capability, may become even more important in the next step of the arms race. If the Russians develop MIRV-Multiple Individually Guided Reentry Vehicles-or several warheads for each missile, each capable of maneuvering along a different trajectory to its target, the threat of destruction to a fixed missile launcher ashore may

become so great that the defensive answer may have to be to put more missiles at sea.

In addition to the Navy's ballistic missile bombardment force, the Navy's planes, flown from carrier decks, have a definite role in nuclear war. However, the nuclear role of naval avia.tion is now more "tacitical" than "strategic"; the targets of naval aircraft are primarily near the periphery of the enemy's territory-submarine bases, airfields, radar and missile sites-rather than targets deep in the interior.

NUCLEAR DEPTH CHARGE The Navy, like the other services, has de

veloped so-called tactical, or smaller, nuclear weapons for specific purposes. A nuclear depth charge, which can be projected from plane or surface ship, is designed for use against enemy submarines. Small atomic bombs for taking out point targets-such as a strongpoint on a beach, are available. As far as is known, the Navy has no nuclear shells, but its short-range missiles-fired from surface ships or from planes--can carry nuclear warheads. Development of a naval model of the Army's 175 mm. gun is under way, and a whole "fa.m.ily" of new naval guns, some with rocket-assisted shells, others with devices to multiply present ranges many times, are under study. Any or all of these could utilize nuclear shells or warheads.

The Navy has also pioneered in the use of nuclear power for surface ships; the nuclearpowered aircraft carrier Enterprise has chalked up records in combat off Vietnam.. Nuclear power for surface ships provides virtually unlimited high-speed cruising range, frees the ship of dependence upon oilers, eliminates stack gases and provides so many other advantages that despite Secretary McNamara's reluctance (based on greater costs) a nuclear powered fleet for all major vessels seems certain.

The Navy's seagoing anti-ballistic missile system would work thl.8 way. A number of ships-some with powerful radar, others as launching vessels--would position themselves across the "window" or angle of approach of missiles launched against the )United States from bases in Communist countries.

[From the Philadelphia (Pa.) Inquirer, July 5, 1967]

AN ANTIMISSil.E DEFENSE AT SEA The studies being pressed by the Navy,

with the encouragement of Defense and Army officials, of a possible antimissile missile system based on submarines and warships offer a promising means of strengthening this Nation's defensive posture and countering the nuclear threat posed by China's development of the H-bomb.

The feasibility of the Navy's idea is stm subject to question, and sometimes it is impossible to hurry the kind of patient, painstaking work necessary to resolve all doubts in such a technological matter, but this is a hopeful development which might well serve to break a dangerous stalemate in thinking on U.S. security matters.

With the Soviet Union goiilg ahead on its own antimissile system and Mao apparently triumphant in China and still committed to policies of aggression, it may be the worst kind of folly for the U.S. to neglect such a key defensive measure.

If the Navy can offer a practical system, as its spokesmen seem convinced it can, of basing anti-missiles at strategic points where the chances of success against a sneak nuclear assault are better than from permanent bases on land-and at a lower price-this may be a measure that will appeal to Secretary McNamara's cost-conscious type of thinking.

In our view, the need for starting at once on some kind of anti-missile missile system is growing more and more compelling every hour of every day. We hope the Navy has an idea capable of commanding a fair hearing

from the Administration and the Secretary of Defense.

SABMIS: SEA-BASED PROTECTOR OF UNITED STATES

(By Charles F. Duchein, national president, Navy League of the United States)

SABMIS may sound like a hero of Greek mythology, but it's a new naval term that stands for a "sea-based anti-ballistic misslle intercept system." It marks the start of a new naval strategic defense role. Its concept is to force potential enemies to spread their missile pattern and to provide for the -preservation of the nation in a nuclear age through a defense tn depth.

Upon returning to Washington after my trip to Viet Nam, I learned that our policymakers were giving the SABMIS concept priority consideration. I believe an up-to-date look at SABMIS would, therefore, be of interest.

The SABMIS plan is to place anti-ballistic missiles aboard surface ships and to deploy them off the Soviet and Chinese coast, relatively close to Communist missile-launching positions.

By intercepting enemy missiles shortly after they are fired, the defense problem would be simplified and the blunting of a nuclear attack against the United States made manageable. There is another compelling reason to intercept quickly. The Soviets are known to be able to produce a multiple warheaded missile which breaks open at some point near the end of its trajectory and sends its several warheads against individual targets. By early interception, a single SABMIS can destroy all of the warheads at once.

The SABMIS ships, as contributors to continental defense, would be built to complement the proposed fixed Nike-X land sites inside the continental U.S. Though final plans for the construction of these ships are not yet firm, naval strategists are counting on this mobile system to do for defense what Polaris has done for the offense.

Several months ago, the Navy took a historic step in adjusting its organization to the strategic realities of the 20th Century. At the instigation of the then Secretary of the Navy, Paul H. Nitze, the directorate of Strategic Offensive and Defensive Systems was set up in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations under Rear Admiral George H. Miller, a recognized maritime strategist. SABMIS is the first tangible result of the reorganization. The rapidity with which this concept is taking hold is a tribute to the organizational wisdom and strategic discernment of Mr. Nitze, now Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Underlying all military strategies is the primary provision for the protection and preservation of a nation. This was the starting point for the naval strategists who conceived SABMIS. In moving seaward to solve this perplexing problem, the land deficiency of the United States as compared to the Soviet Union was a major consideration. Since the Soviets possess 2 Y2 times more land mass than the U.S., we are, megaton for megaton, at a damage-inflicting disadvantage by a factor of 2.5.

By placing anti-missile defense forces at sea, nuclear fire is drawn away from the industrial and population concentration of our cities. By the same action, the survivabil1ty of the defense systems is enhanced. Military systems, rather than civilian populations, are the primary targets enemy planners must destroy to insure their own country's survival. Consequently, much of their strike effort would have to be directed to SABMIS ships and Polaris submarines in launching a preplanned nuclear attack against the United States. The result would be a lesser number of nuclear warheads directed at the United States. The fallout, as ·well as the blasts, would be at sea, away from our cities.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26061 SABMIS is not being marketed as a de

fense panacea, but the problem of intercepting an ICBM early in its trajectory is much easier for a sea-based system to solve than for the land-based Nike-X.

Few new strategic systems have gained such early interest and excitement. Industrial firms see much promise in it. They have moved quickly to offer the Navy their program and production know-how. The State Department is interested in SABMIS. Officials there welcome its anti-nuclear proliferation features. Our allies could come under the protective umbrella of the mobile SABMIS ships and their need for nuclear defense armament would be eliminated.

With the deployment of SABMIS, opportunities for the naval contribution to the vitality of our national strategy would be tremendously enhanced. Therefore, as a matter of policy, I am placing SABMIS in a top priority in the Navy League's maritime education program relating to the national strength at sea. With all the purpose and prestige of the League backing up the Navyindustry team, I am confident that SABMIS will be on schedule and, on that day, we will have taken a long step towards the preservation of this maritime nation.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent ito address the House f.or 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I am con

strained to take this time, because of the misunderstanding that took place a little earlier in the day. After the debate or activity on the other bill and the Committee had risen, I understood from some of the leadership that there would be no other business to be considered this afternoon. Unfortunately, I went to the telephone and I did not know this matter would be brought up for consideration. Accordingly, I advised some of the Members on our side of the aisle to the effect that there would be no other business brought up this afternoon and that they could leave. Thus, several of the Members on this side of the aisle left the floor of the House.

I want to make it perfectly clear-and to leave the impression that this was done unintentionally-and I am sorry that it happened.

ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I take this

time to advise the Members thait the conference report on the Inter-American Development Bank will be called up for consideration on tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. GROSS. Will that be the first order of business on tomorrow?

Mr. ALBERT. It is intended that that will be the first order of business.

H.R. 100, THE SITUS PICKETING BILL

Mr. SMITH of Okl1ahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES] may extend his remarks ait this paint in the RECORD and include e~traneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Speaker,

I am opposed to H.R. 100, the situs picketing bill.

Under the present law, every building trades union has the clearly established right to picket at a construction site if such picketing is directed in good faith at the employer on the jobsite with whom it has its dispute.

H.R. 100 would broaden this right so that a union with a dispute with one employer would be able to shut down a whole construction project. It would permit a union to throw a picket line around an entire construction project for the purpose of inducing the employees of all the contractors on the jobsite to strike. It would reverse the Supreme Court decision that held that such picketing violated the ban on secondary boycotts contained in section 8(b) (4) of the TaftHartley Act.

By enacting the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959, Congress made clear its intent to close certain loopholes in the TaftHartley ban against secondary boycotts. H.R. 100 would open a new loophole larger than any of those closed by that legislation.

At the present time, a number of building trades unions are seeking or have obtained wage increases that far exceed those that have been granted to any other segment of the American economy. For example, in San Francisco the plumbers have increased their hourly wages 54 percent since 1961. Last year the White House had to threaten the withdrawal of nearly $200 million in Federal highway funds from the New Jersey area in order to force the operating engineers union to modify its demand for a wage increase of approximately 29.5 percent over the next 3 years. In Cleveland, Ohio, the building trades unions obtained some of the biggest wage increases ever granted in the construction industry. Pipefitters, carpenters, bricklayers, and ironworkers received a wage-fringe package of $2.30 per hour spread over 3 years. These increases will run as high as 14 percent a year.

The passage of H.R. 100 would give the building trades unions a new and devastating weapon. Such a weapon could be used to enforce future wage demands that would make the high price settlements of today appear moderate by comparison. Certainly, the cost of construction would skyrocket.

Moreover, under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, as it is administered by the Department of Labor, whenever a

building trades union wins a wage increase, and such union represents 30 percent of a particular category of workers in a certain area, that wage then becomes the prevailing wage. Thereafter, all employers in that area performing that type of work on a Government project must pay that wage and such payment is enforced by the Solicitor of the Labor Department.

Under these circumstances, it is entirely possible that in the event H.R. 100 is enacted, the Federal Government may be forced to seek wage controls in or<:ler to combat excessive wage demands by the building trades unions. For these demands could be backed by a greatly increased picketing power as well as the broad provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. And this would be at a time when inflationary pressures are increasing and the cost of living is advancing at an alarming rate.

Last year when the situs picketing legislation was pending before the Rules Committee, I testified that the broad additional powers granted to the building trades unions could be used for purposes that are not in the best interest of the American public. I noted that under the broad language of the pending bill, a building trades union could engage in situs picketing to force an employer to discriminate against an employee because of his race, color, or creed. Proponents of the legislation were quick to claim that this was not the case and that the additional picketing powers could not and should not be used in this manner. The validity of my contention has now been proven by the fact that the Edu ca ti on and Labor Committee has amended H.R. 100 to prohibit picketing for this purpose.

In my testimony last year I also stated that under the proposed legislation, situs picketing could be used:

First, to close down a defense or space installation.

Second, to mount a product boycott. Third, to breach or to interfere with

an existing labor contract. Fourth, to coer'ce an employer whose

employees the picketing union does not represent or does not seek to represent.

Fifth, to force an employer to repudiate a labor organization that is lawfully recognized as the representative of his employees.

Sixth, to remove from the site a contractor who has bid for and won the contract under the provisions of a statute that requires the governmental agency to award the contract to the lowest bidder.

I see nothing in the provisions of H.R. 100 that would prevent this type of conduct.

The serious consequences that could flow from this legislation are graphically illustrated by the following:

First. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, National Woodwork Manufacturers Association, and others, against the National Labor Relations Board, it has been held that the Carpenters Union could engage in a so-called product boycott. Despite what I believe is extremely clear language in the Taft-Hartley Act as it was amended by the Landrum-Griffin amendments in 1959, the Supreme Comt held ithat the


Carpenters Union could refuse to install precut and prefitted doors and force the contractor to buy blank doors which the carpenters would cut and fit on the job.

If H.R. 100 is enacted, building trades unions not only could engage in this type of product boycott, they could picket and close down the entire site in order to enforce their demands. This would mean that important advances in construction techniques and prefabricated products could be banned from construction sites and the savings and improved construction flowing from such advances denied to the American public.

Second. Under the provisions of H.R. 100, the building trades unions are required to give 10 days notice before they are permitted to engage in situs picketing at a missile site. This so-called safeguard is totally inadequate. In the first place it only covers missile sites and does not concern itself with the hundreds of other Government defense facilities. Also, after the 10-day notice period is over, a union would be free to close down the entire site.

Significantly, even the building trades unions are concerned over the ramifications of this broad picketing power. In a letter to the chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor, the president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, C. J. Haggerty, stated:

A large area such as Cape Kennedy could include a number of different sites in terms of different building projects and that picketing the one project does not authorize picketing of the entire Cape.

Unfortunately, Mr. Haggerty then went on to say that--

The determination of what is a site cannot be fixed in terms of linear distance and that it would be for the administrative agency and the court to make reasonable determinations on the issue.

Third. Under the language of H.R. 100, nonunion employers and those employers whose employees are represented by independent unions become fair game and any construction site where they may be working, can be subjected to common situs picketing. Thus, District 50 of the United Mine Workers, the Christian Labor Association and any other independent union would be faced with a near labor union monopoly in the construction industry.

Fourth. At the present time, many industrial plants are being remodeled and modernized. In addition, at many plants there is extensive construction work in connection with the normal plant expansion. When this construction work is performed, industrial plant employees, employees of manufacturers who are installing their preassembled product and contractors employing building trades unions will be at the construction site. Under the provisions of H.R. 100, a building trades union may picket the entire construction site in an effort to remove the industrial plant employees or the manufacturers' employees from the job.

Fifth. In many states and localities, statutes have been adopted that require the submission of sealed bids. Then, un-

der the provision of the statute, the bids are opened and the award is made to the lowest bidder. The contracting agency has no control over the selection of the contractor. The contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder. H.R. 100 would permit a union to picket the entire site in order to remove a successful bidder from the job. This would mean that the State or municipality would have to either helplessly stand by while its entire construction project is shut down or it would have to break the law and take the contract away from the successful bidder. A Hobson's choice of this type must not be forced upon our Sta·tes and localities.

Under all the circumstances, I do not believe that H.R. 100 should be given a rule. There are far too many serious defects in this legislation. It should not be scheduled for House consideration.

BOEING-WICHITA NAMED "EMPLOYER OF THE YEAR" BY PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED Mr. SM:ITH of Okl·ahoma. Mr. 'Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER] may ex·tend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.


There was no objection. Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Speaker, this year

we are observing the 20th anniversary of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. It was a source of pride and pleasure to those of us from Kansas to note that the Boeing Co., Wichita division, is the recipient of the committee's Employer of the Year Award.

In a White House ceremony on Monday, September 18, 1967, President Johnson presented the large business award for 1966 to Mr. Ernest A. Ochel, Boeing general manager of the aerospace and aircraft productions facility at Wichita and COrPorate vice president. Mr. George Trombold, manager of Boeing's personnel division in Wichita, also was present at the ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, Boeing is the largest industrial employer in the State of Kansas, and it is a leader in providing employment opportunities for handicapped persons. In fact, Boeing-Wichita was cited as having more than 5,000 handicapped men and women among its 19,000 workers. This is a very significant figure and an outstanding example for others to follow.

The Boeing division at Wichita has worked out a system of matching a person's capabilities to the demands of a specific job, so that disabled employees can become fully productive workers.

I join in congratulating and commending Boeing-Wichita for its exemplary leadership in hiring the handicapped. They have demonstrated that much can be done to utilize the skills and capabilities of handicapped persons in business and industry. It is encouraging to find, too, that there is increasing acceptance and utilization of the handicapped in the

plants and factories and offices throughout our Nation.

In addition to recognizing the contributions of Boeing management in this effort, we also should congratulate the handicapped themselves who have demonstrated their readiness to work despite disabilities.

AIR SAFETY Mr. SMITH of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DEVINE] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.


There was no objection. Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, during our

hearings on air safety, before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics, it was suggested by several witnesses that general aviation should be diverted from the major airports, thus leaving these facilities to the exclusive use of commercial planes.

Assuming serious consideration would be given to this plan by the FAA, some of the general aviation pilots have prepared the following petition:

PETITION

We, the undersigned, all legally registered voters, do hereby petition the Department o! Transportation in the following matter:

Whereas, in view of the congestion which has developed at certain areas which causes inconvenience and delay to those passengers who have paid their fare to a public transportation system; and

Whereas, such congestion may be contributed to by individuals operating their own vehicles;

Therefore, we petition proper authorities to take immediate measures which will prohibit each and every privately owned automobile from operating on or near any street, highway, road, parkway, bridge, tunnel or similar publicly paid for facility in order that these facilities will be available for the exclusive use of bus and truck companies. This, however will not preclude the owner of a private automobile from operating that vehicle back and forth on his own driveway on his own property as he may desire.

Although this may be a tongue-incheck petition, it certainly is thought provoking when we consider whether the general public should receive the benefit of public funds.

CONGRESSMAN SCHWEIKER ASKS GHETTO SCHOOLS FOR JOBS

Mr. SMITH of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent ·th<at the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BrESTER] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the genrt;leman from Oklahoma?

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

call to the attention of our colleagues an interesting and thought-provoking proposal by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCHWEIKER]. In a recent graduation address at the Pathway School, Audubon,

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26063 Pa., Congressman SCHWEIKER ·called for a program to provide "school for jobs" using idle school buildings during the summers in our cities.

His speech follows: SPEECH OF HON. RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER AT

GRADUATION EXERCISES, PATHWAY SCHOOL, AUDUBON, PA., AUGUST 18, 1967 It's a double honor for me to be here to

day. First, I am proud to be associated with the Pathway School as a board member. Second, I am proud to be associated on this program with these very fine young people who are graduating today.

This graduation is a milestone for the Pathway School, a sign of its continuing story of achievement. For these young people it's a big day, too. This graduation shows them that their courage and hard work at Pathway School have paid off. I wish Pathway School many more graduations like this in the years to come.

To this year's graduates I extend my congratulations and wish them more success as their education goes on.

Education is a process of constant growthand educational institutions themselves must keep on growing. Pathway is no exception. The demand for Pathway's program is very great. And Pathway is determined to growto meet this large demand.

It has a target of 200 students, along with increases in staff and facilities. But only part of Pathway's growth will be measurable in physical terms.

Pathway is going to grow in its influence throughout its field. I have high hopes for the advances that will take place when Pathway joins its program with a major university.

You are most fortunate in having such outstanding and well qualified leaders as Phil Klein to head this community effort, and Dr. Rappaport to head this educational effort.

And finally, Pathway is going to grow as a center for information and research on the teaching of these young people. The physical size of the school may have a practical ceiling of 200 boys and girls-but the knowledge Pathway is going to produce will have no limit.

So the boys and girls graduating today are part of the story of the Pathway school's growth and our progress in education. But we are all citizens of the larger society as well as this small society at Pathway school. As these students return home and rejoin regular school systems, let us all do some thinking about our public schools and some of our own more pressing problems. My point is that we have an urgent educational problem in the United States. We have neglected it for too long. We must now do something about it.

I don't have to remind you that this summer our cities have split wide open with terrible rioting. As a Congressman I believe our first objective must be to stop the riots and restore law and order to our cities' streets. But next, and just as important, we must stop breeding the conditions that have caused these riots.

Poor education I place at the top of the list of these riot-causing conditions.

Who were the rioters, after all? They were the poorly-educated products

of post-war slum schools. They were the poorly-educated men with

no skills to sell in today's sophisticated job market, due to their inferior schooling.

They were the poorly-educated fathers who can't support their famllies.

They were the poorly-educated fathers and mothers who see their children going to the same overcrowded, inadequate schools that they knew.

They were the poorly-educated men with worthless high school diplomas, worthless be-

cause 12 years in slum schools failed to teach them enough to find a good job today.

In our country, education has been the traditional way up the ladder for minority groups. But today many of the slum schools merely spin their wheels. They are grinding out graduates or producing dropouts who can barely read and write enough to apply for a job.

In our country today most people, including some Negroes, are earning more and living better than ever. But the Negroes left in the slums .are living worse; in the very midst of an afiluent society which they see portrayed every day on television.

In our Nation we have believed in civil rights. We have believed the Negro was making progress out of his poverty-thanks to civil rights. But the riots of 1967 have showed us we have been too complacent--too satisfied with ourselves!

We must halt the cycle of poverty that has plagued the Negro from the Deep South to the northern city ghettos. And we will not stop that cycle until we close the "education gap"-the major gap preventing Negroes from sharing in America's opportunities.

Without a good education, a Negro boy cannot hold a decent job in today's skilledlabor economy. There are fewer and fewer jobs being created for the unskilled.

Without a job, he can't support a family. When men can't support their families,

mothers have to work. That makes two strikes against the children. ·

When those children don't at least get a good education, that's strike three. They've struck out. By not giving them an equal opportunity, society has struck out, too. And in that kind of ball game there are no winners-everyone has lost.

The choice for our society is all too clear. Either we move now to combat the defi

ciencies of ghetto education, or we watch our major cities go up in smoke every summer.

Either we guarantee good schooling for every ghetto child and job training to every ghetto adult, or we and our children face guerrilla warfare in the streets between Negroes and whites.

We must take a massive new program of education into the ghettos. We must focus initially on job training for adults and high school dropouts.

In the slums of our major cities, literally hundreds of school buildings stand idle during the summer months. In Philadelphia alone there are close to 100 such public school buildings in or near ghetto areas.

I propose that in every large city, these empty buildings become "schools for jobs" next summer, and when the school year begins these "schools for jobs" would keep right on teaching in the evening.

"Schools for jobs" would have job training classes.

"Schools for jobs" would have individual counseling.

"Schools for jobs" would teach whatever the working world requires of employeesjob sk1lls and all job-related habits.

"Schools for jobs" would instill pride, selfrespect and self-confidence in its students.

And "schools for jobs" would supply the jobs themselves. These jobs would not be make-work positions swelling the Government payroll. They would be jobs with all types of business firms, large and small. Many of these jobs would be with small firms which need men but presently have no central place to recruit them.

"Schools for jobs" would arrange fast, cheap transportation between ghetto neighborhoods and outlying areas where the jobs are found.

I would like to see this "schools for jobs" program cover the ghettos of our large cities like a blanket next summer. If it gets otf to a good start then, after months of careful

preparation, we may very well prevent another "long, hot summer."

We may change the ghetto chant from "burn, baby, burn" to "learn, baby, and earn." ·

We already have seen the superb job training effort done in Philadelphia by the opportunities industrialization centers. Their founder, the Rev. Leon Sullivan, has been a dynamic and inspiring leader. He has shown the way, out of the ghettos.

The OIC should be the model for the "schools for jobs" program that I believe we must now establish on a national basis. Like the ore, "schools for jobs" must be based on a spirit of Negro self-help and brotherly concern. It must not become just another white man's handout program.

Cities and States will have a vital stake in the success of the program. They should take their share of its costs. But if this program is going to be adequately funded, the cost will be too much for either the cities or States to absorb easily. The Federal Government will certainly have to participate in a major way.

The school systems of our larger cities could all use Federal payments. The city schools, already short of funds, with a dwindling cdty tax base, fiace the challenge of improving the education of Negro youngsters.

It would indeed be a half-measure if we gave job training to Negro adults but did nothing about the e1ementa.ry school.a Negro children attend.

If Negro children are not bl"ought up to par during these all-important ea.rly grades, they will always lag behind. This is why I favor a Federal payment for the use of public school buildings in the "Schools for Jobs" program, provided the money stays in those ghetto schools.

In the past this Nation has settled for ptecemeal soluttons for the Negro conditions. What was worse, we puffed up these solutions as pana.cea.s for the people being helped. But both we-and they-have lost our illUSlions in this hot summer of 1967. I rhope that proposals like "Schools for Jobs" will help us get on with the task we have neglected for so long.

"Schools fo~ Jobs" would provide badly needed job tr.al.ning. Lt would give impetus for Negro self-help. It would pTovide jobs for men and women, and take them to the jobs with an imaginative low-oost tl"ansportation plan. It would let Fed,eral funds stimulate the improvement of public education in needy ghetto areas.

Finally, it would activate two of our idle national resources--s.chools with empty claissrooms and men with empty pockets.

I have one final word for the class of 1967 here at Pathway School. This is a oomplioated and far-from-perfect wocld to live in. Today I've talked about one of its most serious problems. But we aire fortunate to live in a great nation. Our Nation has the resources and the energy to do an illlCredible range of things within our lifetimes. I have the confidence that America can find an answer to this number one internal problem. And I have the confidence that you, the graduates who have pioneered here at Pathway, will be making your own important contributions as citizens of our Nation. Our future is very much in your hands.

CEREMONIES AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON Am FORCE BASE

Mr. Sl\llTH of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous maJtter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to


the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,

last evening, Monday, September 18, 1967, I had the pleasure of attending and participating in ceremonies at WrightPatterson Air Force Base at Fairborn, Ohio, in the Seventh Ohio District, which I have the honor to represent. These ceremonies commemorated the 20th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force. Wright-Patterson is one of the finest Air Force installations in the world. It is one of the most important, and certainly the most historic, of all military aviation centers. It is, further, one of the few twin airfield bases in existence.

The Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, :flew their Wright Flyer airPlane in experimental and :flight-training maneuvers from the area now in this :field. From their work came the first military aircraft which was bought by the U.S. Army Signal Corps around 1909. Wilbur Wright Field was activated in 1917 with the lease of a 2,075-acre tract and, under the Wright brothers' direction, was used to train American, British, and Canadian pilots for World War I service.

From this beginning, the base has evolved as the leading site for research and development in the field of aeronautics.

Wright-Patterson is the home of the Air Force Logistics Command, the Aeronautical Systems Division of the Air Force Systems Command, the 17th Bombardment Wing of the Strategic Air Command, and the Foreign Technology Division. It also encompasses the Air Force Institute of Technology and the 2750th Air Base Wing.

Over 28,000 personnel, military and civilian, are employed at Wright-Patterson, and the base is called home by many more thousands of Air Force people around the world.

The 20th anniversary ceremonies were cosponsored by the Wright Memorial Chapter of the Air Force Association and the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce.

Three major awards were presented during the ceremonies, and I wish to extend additional congratulations to the following Air Force personnel for their outstanding contributions to the Air Force and the American people.

Brig. Gen. Jowell C. Wise, base commander, WPAFB, was presented the Annual Air Power Award;

Capt. Howard E. Bethel, assigned to the Aeronautical Research Laboratory was presented the Junior Officer of the Year Award;

M. Sgt. Virgil L. Brownlee, assigned to the Air Force Institute of Technology who received the Airman of the Year Award.

Robert Hunter, president of the Wright Memorial Chapter presented the outstanding service awards to the three winners.

In presenting the Air Power Award to General Wise he commented:

This award is presented to General Wise for his outstanding efforts and continued support which contributed to the formulation of the airport zoning regulations.

Captain Bethel, who received the Junior Officer Award, was recognized for his

pioneering work in the field of fluid mechanics. A research engineer in the Aeronautics Research Laboratory, he developed a general method of obtaining a solution of boundary layer fluid which is far more accurate than any previous method.

The maintenance chief of the Nuclear Engineering Test Facilities, Sergeant Brownlee's modification and maintenance program contributed markedly to the success of the program and continued to portray the excellence of performance that has typified his Air Force career.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to share with my colleagues the remarks of Gen. Thomas P. Gerrity, Commander of the Air Force Logistics Command on this happy occasion. REMARKS BY GEN. T. P. GERRITY AT THE

Am FORCE ANNIVERSARY DINNER, SEPTEMBER 18, 1967 It was on this date, 20 years ago, that the

A1r Force became a separate department and millitary service with its own Secretary and Chief of Staff. Tonight we are gathered to commemorate that birthday.

As you all know, our origins actually go back 60 years. Millta.ry aviation, as part of the Nation's defense structure, had its beginnJ.ng in August 1907-four years after the first fiight-when the War Department created the aeronautical division.

The growth of our military aviation is a fantastic story in a. fan.tastlc century. It is a story of progress, leading from Kitty Hawk to cape Kennedy-from the 12-horsepower engine of the Wright Flyer to engines with 20 million pounds of thrust.

Tmough all these years, the Dayton area, old McCook Field and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base have played a predominant role in the growth of aviation.

The A1r Force Association, and our own Wright Memorial Chapter, have made many contributions in fostering public understanding of the Air Force mission.

While the Wright brothers made their first flights at Kitty Hawk, this turning point in world history was made possible by work they performed in this area.

Their pioneering experiments and tests with gliders which led to powered flight were conducted near the present site of WrightPatterson. There ls a concrete marker on the base which designates the spot where the Wright brothers built their first aircraft hangar for Dayton operations.

The first flight at Kitty Hawk lasted only 12 seconds and covered a distance of 120 feet. This is 65 feet less than the wing span of a B-52 StraJtofortress. By comparison, the research vehlcle--the X-15-has flown at speeds of over 4,200 miles an hour and has reached altitudes of over 350,000 feet. That altitude ls difficult to imagine but it ls about 67 miles straight up.

Wright-Patterson is not only the most historic of military aviation centers, it is also one of the most importan t and busiest. It is the center of Air Force logistics m anagement, aerospace research, and many other activities. Its traffic is tremendous, with its two airfields averaging about 170,000 takeoffs and landings a year.

In the years before 1947, the airplane proved it had an important place in the military structure during World War I. And we know that alrpower was decisive in all the theaters of World War II-in North Africa, in Europe and in the Pacific.

When our new United States Air Force was born in 1947, it had a new commitment. It was to support the "Truman doctrine" under which this country affirmed its intention of aiding peoples anywhere in the world

who were threatened by Communist aggression.

The late forties saw the Air Force participate in the "Berlin airlift,'' an operation symbolic of its role of serving the free world. Airpower supplied that blockaded city with food and fuel supplies.

In June of 1950, on the other side of the world, friction in Korea erupted into war. The United Nations called on the United States and other nations for help. In Korea, as elsewhere, the Air Force proved its versatility and effectiveness in fighting a "different" kind of war.

But we all know that the history of the Air Force is really the history of its people. The great progress that has been made would not have been possible without pioneering men . . . men who look ahead without blinders, who cast aside convention, who are not afraid to make decisions, who think beyond today, who are willing to try something different.

The history of our military aviation is replete with such men. The list is a very long one. There are such names as Benjamin Foulois . . . Frank Lahm . . . Henry "Hap" Arnold . . . Eddie Rickenbacker . . . Billy Mitchell ... Jimmy Doolittle ... Ira Eaker ... Oarl Spaatz ... Curtis Lemay ... to mention just a few.

Additional names are becoming a part of Air Force history as the conflict in Vietnam intensifies. Names like that of Airman First Class William H. Pitsenbarger, whose home was in nearby Piqua, Ohio. He was awarded posthumously the Air Force Cross. Airman Pitsenbarger sacrificed his life to aid wounded members of an Army ground force in a Vietnam jungle in April of 1966.

Another who has won a permanent place in Air Force history is Major Bernard Fisher. For rescuing a downed pilot from an enemyheld airstrip, he became the first living airman to receive the Nation's highest decoration-the Medal of Honor-since the Air Force became a separate service.

As we observe the 20th anniversary of the Air Force--and pay tribute to the men who have helped to make its history-we should give special thought to men like these. We can be grateful and proud that there are so many of them.

But we must credit not just the men of the Air Force. Due credit must be given to the wives of the Air Force who meet the challenges of establishing new homes in new areas, raising and educating Afr Force families, and keeping the home fires burning during long periods of separation.

It is said ithat "brevity ls the soul of wit."• And I think it is also the soul of afterdlnner speeches, therefore, let me conclude with the observation that this 20th anniversary of our young, dynamic and vigorous Air Force ls more appropriately recognized by a party than a sermon. So let us go on with this Air Force association and chamber of commerce party in honor of our United States Air Force.

CONGRESSMAN QUIE INTRODUCES TEXTILE IMPORT MEASURE

Mr. SMITH of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. QuIE] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include ex,traneous matter.


There was no objection. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I am today

joining many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have introduced

*Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2.

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26065. the Textile Trade Act of 1967-more popularly referred to as the Mills bill, after its author, the gentleman from Arkansas, WILBUR MILLS.

I am particularly disturbed by the adverse effects that an ever-increasing, unrestricted flood of foreign textile imports are having on the Minnesota woolen manufacturers and their counterparts in the other States as well. I think that the time is at hand when we must take immediate and concerted action that will off er a measure of protection and relief to an industry that simply cannot compete with low-wage foreign imports. If remedial action is not forthcoming, the domestic markets will suffer even greater disruptions than they have to date.

What is more, this industry has played, and will continue to play, a critical role in our national defense efforts. This is well recognized. The continuation of policies that jeopardize this industry cannot help but have serious implications on our Nation's security. I am, therefore, introducing legislation identical in content to that originally sponsored by Congressman MILLS and respectfully urge that the Committee on Ways and Means expedite consideration of this measure by the full House.

TRUTH IN PACKAGING The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mr.

GONZALEZ) . Under previous order of the House the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANIK] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include emraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, on April 19,

1966, I introduced legislation along with many of my colleagues providing for truth in packaging, as part of an effort to protect the consumer from being deceived in the marketplace. Although somewhat weakened in the House, legislation was passed by this body on October 3, 1966, and signed by the President last November 3.

The law was intended to become effective July 1, 19·67, and its provisions may be summarized as follows:

I. Mandatory labeling provisions: A primary objective of the Act is to promote uniformity and simplification of labeling. The bill provides that:

(a) t h e identity of the commodity shall be specified on the label;

(b) the net quantity of contents shall be stated in a uniform and prominent location on the p ackage;

(c) the net quantity of contents shall be clearly expressed in ounces and, 1f applicable, pounds or, in the case of liquid measures, in the largest whole unit of quarts or pints; and

(d) the net quantity of a serving must be stated if the package bears a representation concerning servings.

II. Discretionary labeling provisions: The Act authorizes the administering agencies to promulgate regulations when necessary to prevent consumer deception or to facilitate value comparisons:

(a) to determine what size packages may be represented by such descriptions as "small," "medium," and "large";

(b) to regulate the use of such promotions as "cents off" or "economy size" on any package;

(c) to require the listing of ingredients in the order of decreasing predominance; and

(d) to prevent nonfunctional slack fill. III. Packaging provisions: The Act provides

for the voluntary adoption of packaging standards. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to call upon manufacturers, packers, and distributors to develop voluntary standards whenever he finds that undue proliferation of weights, measures, or quantities impairs the ability of consumers to make value comparisons. If voluntary standards are not adopted, the Secretary of Commerce shall report this fact to Congress together with his legislative recommendation.

I would like to comment on a few of these provisions. Under part (c) of the mandatory section, the law provides that statements of quantity should be constructed so as to avoid the necessity of conversion. Thus, a package labeled 1 pound, 14 ounces is no longer permissible without also stating it as 30 ounces. Part (d) of the mandatory section prohibits the display of the number of servings to a package without stating the quantity of each serving. Until the law is enforced, the shopper will have no way of telling if the statement of "serves 4" on a gelatin box will actually do just that or will only be enough for one or two adult servings.

There is also a discretionary section in the law which authorizes the administrative agencies, FDA or FTC as the case may be, to promulgate regulations when necessary to prevent the consumer from being deceived or to facilitate value comparisons. In other words, if the agencies assume their responsibility, it will no longer be necessary to choose among 18 different cereal box sizes or 10 different pork and bean sizes and then try to figure out from all the different prices which is the best buy.

These provisions of the Truth-inPackaging Act if carried out, Mr. Speaker, would insure an informed demand by the consumer.

The Federal Trade Commission issued its first set of tentative regulations on June 27 with a correction on July l, the effective date of the law. Interested parties had 30 days from June 27 to make comments on the regulations. After these comments were then studied, the regulations were republished in the Federal Register. This is standard operating procedure. However, when the industry protested that it did not have time to study the regulations and prepare comments, an extra 30-day extension was granted. Another 30 days in which the industry took advantage of the consumer, especially the poorly educated consumer.

The question naturally arises, why did not the industry concern itself with the regulations before the law was to become effective on July 1?

Once the Federal Trade Commission gets past its various 30-day comment periods, and republishes the regulations, there is a 30-day comment period in which formal objections can be filed, hearings held before a hearing examiner

and the question adjudicated. It appears that the snow will fall before the American consumer gets the benefit of the truth-in-packaging law, mild as it is.

The Food and Drug Administration is going through the same process but recently stated that its regulations will not take effect before December 31, 1967.

It was clear even in May that in the industry, with some exceptions, had absolutely no intention of moving one step faster than it had to. In an article on the coming effective date of the law in the Washington Post on May 7, 1967, one spokesman for the merchandisers said, "If the printing industry turned loose all its capital industry, it probably could not re-do all the labels by July 1." But he pointed out that "executives of labeling organizations all over the country met in Washington at the end of April to go over the Hart Act-truth in packaging-section by section and agreed to seek Government action to bring about changes."

As one industry spokesman said, "We have reason to believe the Government will yield to changes." In other words, once the elected representatives of the people have considered a bill for several years, held hearings on it, debated it, and the President has signed it, the industry still believes it proper to apply pressure on selected points in the bureaucracy to change the intent and meaning of the law and to delay its implementation with highly organized tactics of obstruction.

What has 1actually 1been done to help the consumer make a rational choice in the marketplace as a result of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act which was supposed to become effective July 1, 1967? According to a study conducted by my staff, many packagers have not taken a single step to conform to the law. Those responsible for packaging food and drugs are guilty of legalistic foot dragging, delay, avoidance, and disregard for the obvious provisions of the law in an attempt to take advantage of the innocent consumer for as long as possible.

Several weeks ago, I had my staff do some package sampling at a modern supermarket in Southwest Washington, D.C. They noted a number of packaging practices prohibited by the new law both before the effective date of the law, on June 26, again on July 13, during the Labor Day recess, and on September 18. In all cases; there were no significant changes or improvement in the honesty of the packaging; indeed, there were some changes for the worse.

On all four of our sampling dates, we found a large number of products st111 being marketed with a statement of number of servings but without noting the quantity of each serving. Birds Eye and Bel-Air sell frozen vegetables with a statement of servings, generally "3-4, servings,'' without a clear statement of the quantity of the servings. Birds Eye, for example, marks its packages "makes about 1 Ya cups-two servings," thus introducing conversions and confusion. Other frozen vegetable brands use the same tactic, but_ they were removed from the sample store after our first visit.

·26066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 19 67 Captain's Choice Frozen Fish also offers the buyer "four servings" but with no mention as to size or amount of servings.

The gelatin and pudding manufacturers have improved their packaging over the sample period. At first, of the five gelatins available on the shelves of the sampled store, five bore ''number of servings" contained in the box, but only one defined the quantity of a serving. Now, only Junket and My-T-Fine still advertise "servings'' without defining rthe quantity.

Even though the act contains a section which authorizes the appropriate agencies to promulgate regulations when necessary to facilitate valued comparisons, there still exists gross diversifications of product sizes coupled with equally unrelated prices which add up to deliberate attempts to confuse the consumer and keep him from making an intelligent demand choice. Our sampling of cereal box sizes was a typical example of the industry's failure to help facilitate consumer choices. My staff has found 24 different cereal box sizes between 4 % ounces and 1 pound 4 ounces. This diversification makes it almost impossible for the consumer to compute which cereal gives him the most for his money, especially since there is no standardization:

Brand name Weight size July 13

Snack Pak ___________________________ -------Puffed Wheat__ _________ ------------ -- -------Treat Pak __________________________________ _ Puffed Rice ________ ___ ____ ____ _ ------ ______ _

~~~~jri~~= = == === === ==== == == == == ====== == == === Luckey Charms _____ -- ------- ------- -- - - -- __ _ Coccoa Krispies __ __ _________ _____ _____ _____ _ Honey Comb __ ------------------------------Jets _____________ __________________________ _ Post Tens ___ _____ ____ __ ______ ______ ---------Sugar Smacks ___________ __________ __ _______ _

Shredded Wheat__ __ --------------- - --------_

~8%ii1

r:r1"Flakes== ========================== Captain Crunch ________ _________________ __ __ _

~?6~ ~:rs~1~s=== == == == == == ==== == ==== = = == == = = = Raisin Bran _______________________ __ _______ _ Frosted Flakes _________ _____ _______________ _ Shredded Wheat__ ____ - - ---------------- ____ _ All Bran ___________________________________ _ Wheaties _________________ _________________ _ Frosted Flakes _____________________ ___ _____ _

Weight

4Ys oz. 5 oz. 5~ oz. 6 oz. 67'::1 oz. 7 oz. 8 oz. 8Yii oz. 9 oz. 9.25 oz. 9~ oz. 10 oz. 10~ oz. 107'::! oz. 11 oz. ll Yli oz. 12 oz. 13 oz. 14 oz. 15 oz. 15~ oz. l lb. l lb. 2 oz. 1 lb. 4 oz.

This bewildering proliferation of sizes does not stop at the cereal industry but is practiced by countless other manufacturers. The companies who make pork and beans are a typical example. From observing the following table of the various pork and bean sizes found on the shelf of the local supermarket, it is easily understandable that the average shopper would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out the best buy. There is no apparent reason for this except purposeful confusion of the consumer.

Prices

Aug. 31 Sept. 18

Hanover __ -_____ ---------- l lb. 12 oz_ _____ _ 25 cents __ ____________ _ 25 cents_______________ 25 cents. Not on the shelL______ 39 cents. 3 lb. 4 oz_ ______ _ Not on the shelf__ _____ _

6 lb. 14 oz ______ _ ___ __ do ______________ _ _ ____ do_______________ 75 cents. Highway ________________ _ 8 oz ___________ _ _____ do ______________ _ _____ do_______________ 11 cents.

l lb ____________ _ 6 for 79 cents _________ _ 6 for 79 cents__________ 6 for 79 cents. 2 for 45 cents__________ 2 for 45 cents. Not on the shelf________ 37 cents.

l lb. 14 oz ______ _ 2 for 39 cents _________ _ 3 lb. 4 oz _______ _ Not on the shelf__ _____ _

Libby ___ -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - 2 lb. 2 oz ______ _ 39 cents ______________ _ 39 cents_______________ Not on the shelf. 2 for 35 cents__________ 2 for 35 cents. 14 oz_ _________ _

4 for 51 cents. --------Campbell_ ____ _____ _____ _ l lb. 5 oz _______ _ 2 for 37 cents _________ _ 2 for 37 cents __ ______ __ 2 for 37 cents. l lb ____________ _ 6 for 85 cents _________ _ 4 for 59 cents __ _____ __ _ 4 for 59 cents. 9 oz_ ____ ______ _ Not on the shelf__ _____ _ Not on the shelf__ ______ 2 for 27 cents. l lb. 12 oz__ ____ _ ____ do _______________ _ _ ___ do ________________ 2 for 49 cents.

Ritter_ ________ ---- __ ----- 14 oz_ ____ __ ___ _ ____ do ____________ ___ _ ____ do ___________ __ ___ 2 for 33 cents. Van Camp _______________ _ l lb. 5 oz_ ______ _ 5 for$!_ __ ___________ _ 2 for 43 cents __________ 2 for 43 cents.

2 for 25 cents ____ ___ ___ 2 for 25 cents. American Beauty _________ _ l lb _________ ___ _ 2 for 25 cents _________ _ B & M __________________ _ l lb. 2 oz_ __ ____ _ 31 cents _____ ____ _____ _ 31 cents _____ ____ ______ 31 cents.

l lb. 11 oz_ _____ _ 35 cents ____ __________ _ 43 cents __ _____ ______ __ 43 cents. 9 oz ___________ _ 2 for 37 cents __ ______ _ _ 2 for 37 cents _____ _____ 2 for 37 cents.

Heinz __ ____________ _____ _ l lb ____ ________ _ 4 for 59 cents _________ _ 4 for 59 cents___ _______ 4 for 59 cents.

It is interesting to note that American Beauty has reduced the size of its oan from 16 ounces, or 1Pound,to15 ounces between the August 31 and September 18 visits. The price, however, is sti~l the same.

Yet another example of seemingly meaningless diversity is offered by the paper towel companies who wisely avoid advertising the square footage of their towel rolls and leave it to the consumer t.o make sense out of the variety of roll sizes:

Scott: 2 rolls, single package, 120 towels, 11x9% ; 1 roll, single package, 180 towels, 11X9%.

Truly Fine: 2 rolls, single package, 250 towels, 11x9; 1 roll, single package, 185 towels, 11X9.

Hudson: 2 rolls, single package, 108 towels, 11x10.

Kleenex: 2-ply, 75 towels, 11.lXl0.3; 2-ply, 125 towels, 11.1x10.3.

The industry's pricing structure was further complicated between July 13 and August 31 by Scott and Kleenex posting

"cents off" labels and Hudson placing a 5-cent coupon in its one roll package. By September 18, Kleenex had raised its dimensions from 11.lx 10.3 to 11.lX 10.8.

A glance at the tooth paste shelves is enough to confuse any consumer as to the actual size or value of the tube he is buying. The wide variety of sizes represented by this sample of descriptions makes clear the need for standardization of sizes and their descriptions:

Ounces Crest, Inediuni _______________________ 1.75 :M:acleans, giant ______________________ 3.25 Gleein, large _________________________ 3.25 Gleem, extra large ____________________ 5. 00 :M:acleans, king _______________________ 5.00

Gleeni, fam.ilY------------------------ 6. 75 Colgate, super ________________________ 8. 75

Colgate adds insult to injury by adding a "cents off" label to one of its sizes on the September 18 check.

"Cents off" and "economy size" packaging ads are still common and justify the enforcement of discretionary labeling provisions designed to regulate the

use of promotions. A quick look at the cofiee counter found Cha.se & Sanborn and Edwards coffee offering "cents off" labels although the retail price at the store had not changed in over 16 days, Edwards coffee had removed the label by the end of August, but Chase & Sanborn was still ofiering from 4 to 20 cents off. This raises the legitimate question of "cents off" what? The price of a Maxwell House 3-pound can of coffee was raised from $2.23 to $2.29 between our first two visits and to $2.47 by September 18, while a label on the can during our July 13 visit, and still there today, stated that it offered a canister inside at "no extra cost."

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is deplorable to find the interests of the people and the intentions of Congress so openly disregarded. Under these circumstances, the consumer appears like a "helpless patsy" in the marketplace.

THE U.N. AND CONTINUED STRIVING TOWARD RULE OF LAW

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GONZALEZ). Under previous order of the House the gentleman from California [Mr. BELL] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent rto revi1se and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro rtempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, the convening

of the 22d General Assembly of the United Nations today should focus our attention, if only briefly, on the need for mature understanding of both the strengths and the weaknesses of this important international forum as they have been revealed to us in the past year.

It seems to me to be appropriate on this occasion for us to reaffirm our fundamental commitment to the goals of the U.N., our continued satisfaction with the great majority of services it performs, and our hope for the extension of its influence in bringing the world to acceptance of rule by law.

In 22 years the U.N. has not achieved this objective.

But it must be remembered that men and nations have been engaged in the quest, also without durable success, for thousands of years.

There is a tendency to expect too much of the United Nations and to criticize it when those built-in organizational inadequacies which make it possible for the body to exist at all, contribute to failure in quieting the crises which cause us anxiety.

We must remember at these tense moments that individual nations and other peace-seeking institutions are failing similarly and simultaneously.

The United Nations in today's world can be relied upon neither to quench the flame of war nor even to c.alm the spirit of militarism.

But it is still our best means O·f appealing to the instinct for peace and order that must surely exist, however remotely, in the hearts of all human beings.


STRENGTHENING THE GOVERNMENT'S FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL Mr. BETTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to extend my remarks at this point in rthe RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is ·there objection to rthe request of rthe gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection. Mr. BETTS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

myself, Congresswoman DWYER, · Congressmen WYDLER, BROWN of . Ohio, ERLENBORN, COWGER, and MYERS, I am today introducing a bill to strengthen the Government's fiscal administration and control of the vast sums appropriated for the conduct of its many programs and activities. This legislation is designed to establish improved management and accounting practices in each department and ·agency. With a pending tax increase facing the Congress and the Nation, this measure which can result in saving untold millions now lost through waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency, should be of particular concern to every Member of the House.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended, provides in section 113(C):

As soon as practicable after t h e date of enactment of this subsection (1956), the head of each executive agency .shall, in accordance with the principles and standards prescribed by the Comptroller General, cause the accounts of such agency to be m aintained on an accrual basis to show the resources, liabilities, and costs of operations of such agency with a view to facilitating the preparation of cost-based budgets as required by section 216 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, as amended. The accounting system required by this subsection shall include monetary property accounting records as an integral part of the system.

At the time of enactment of this amendment to the Budget and Accounting Act, agencies of the Federal Government maintained obligation accounting systems. These systems showed the amount of money the agencies had been authorized to spend and the general categories of expenditw·e. But, they failed to show the actual costs of partic-ular programs or operatiqns. ·

Approved cost accrual accounting systems are a necessary tool of modern financial management. As pointed out in the 1966 Comptroller General's Annual Report:

One very important management tool is a n adequate accounting system designed to provide control over funds, property and other assets; current cost information on operations; and other information of value to management officials. The availability of reliable cost information particularly when related to assignments of management responsibility, is also of great value in promoting in responsible officials and employees desirable attitudes of cost consciousness which are so important to conducting Government operations economically.

With such a system, an agency is better :able to aisce:ciiain whether money is being spent wisely, whether programs or operwtions are being administered in an efficient manner, and whether results are being realized which justify the expense. Without such a system, an agency is

basically at a loss to know how well its employees are performing or how productive are its programs and operations. In essence, it Lac~s an effective tool for measuring its work.

Elmer Staats, the Comptroller General of the United States, in recent testimony before a subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, put it succinctly when he said that adequate cost accounting systems are "basic and fundamental to the whole operation of the Federal Government." The Comptroller General went on to testify:

We believe that the application of accrual (cost) accounting in terms of the cost of various types of work performed or other costs incurred and applied to activities and programs, coupled with the actual use of cost-based budgeting by the agencies, 1s essential to achievement of improved financial management in the Federal Government, including implementation of the planningprogramming-budgeting system.

Today, as amazing as it may seem, most" agencies of the Federal Government have continued to disregard compliance with the law.

During the past few years, the Comptroller General has issued numerous reports pointing out deficiencies in fiscal administration because of lack of adequate cost accounting systems.

Between 1960 and 1965, the General Accounting Office issued 12 reports citing 51 cases in which it believed excessive noncash grant-aid credits totaling over $29 million were granted by the Urban Renewal Administration on urban renewal projects. This situation was again reported to Congress in 1966.

The GAO reported to Congress in 1961 that the Social Security Administration needed to strengthen its accounting controls for benefit overpayments. More recently, it was discovered that $7.9 million in overpayments were outstanding during ·l965. In 1967, Congress was informed that a continuing need existed for this agency to establish an effective system of cost accounting controls for benefit overpayments.

Many reports have been issued in recent years showing that savings could be achieved by the Departments of State and Defense under the military assistance program by having recipient governments pay for more of the administrative expenses incurred under this program.

In 1962, the GAO pointed out the need for improvement in the accounting procedures of the Communicable Disease Center of the Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. A follow-up report in 1966 indicated that many deficiencies continued to exist in the accounting system.

The GAO reported in 1966 that, while the Bureau of Public Roads had greatly improved its accounting. procedures and practices, its accounting system did not produce adequate breakdowns of costs to provide management with the kind of financial information necessary to eff ectively control costs or to evaluate financial performance.

Reviews of AID's :financial statements in recent years have disclosed that the agency's accounting system is inadequate to its financial management needs and has led it to materially overstate or understate the financial conditions underlying loan programs which involve some one thousand agreements totalling $12 billion.

The above are but a few of the many reports that have been issued in the past few years by the Comptroller General which disclose instances of fiscal mismanagement due to inadequate accounting controls. Because a detailed discussion would require more space than can be allotted, the following itable of inemciency and mismanagement, which is by no means inclusive, will be included at this point. This table cites particular departments and agencies, reports the status of their accounting system, identifies the nature of the deficiency, and enumerates the frequency of occurrence. The examples and table are only in.tended to give some indication of the present conditions:

TABLE OF INEFFICIENCY AND MISMANAGEMENT COMPILED FROM GAO ANNUAL REPORTS t

Department or agency

Department of Agriculture: Stabilization and Conservation Serv

ice and Commodity Credit Corporation.

Soil Conservation Service • ••• _____ _ Department of Commerce: Bureau of

Public Roads.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare:

Office of the Secretary ___ _______ __ _

Public Health Service _____________ _

Department of Housing and Urban Development:

Public Housing Administration _____ _ Urban renewaL __________ __ _____ _

Department of Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs __________ _

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ___ ___ _ Department of Labor:

Bureau of Employment Security ____ _ Office of Manpower, Automation, and

Training. Post Office Department__ __________ ___ _

Federal Aviation Agency ____ ____ _____ _ _

Footnotes at end of table.

. Status of accounting system 2

Unapproved •• _

____ do ______ __ ____ do ________

_ ___ do ______ __

____ do ________

____ do ___ _____ __ __ do ________

Approved Jan. 27, 1953.

Unapproved ___

_ __ _ do ______ __ ___ _ do ___ _____

____ do ________

Partial_ ____ ___

Inefficiency and mismanagement

Slack contract policies and practices ____ Unsatisfactory utilization of storage

faci I ities. Unnecessary procurement_ ____ ________ Deficiencies in design, acquisition, and

contract practices. Inadequate financial reporting proce-

du res.

Inefficient records and property manage-ment

Inadequate inventory controls. ________ Unnecessary procurement. •• _____ _____

Excessive cost_ ___ ____ __ __ ___ - - - - -- -- _ Unexact budgeting procedures __ ___ ____

Questionable use of appropriations. ____

Unauthorized use of appropriations _____

Uneconomical use of funds _________ ___ Unconstrained duplication _____________

Excessive cost. •• ___ ---------------- _ Inefficient manpower utilization ________ Unproficient employment of automated

data processing equipment Excessive cost_ __ __ -- ---- _ ------- -- -- _ Unsatisfactory utilization of supplies. -- -

Fiscal year

1966 1965 1964 1963

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

26068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 TABLE OF INEFFICIENCY AND MISMANAGEMENT COMPILED FROM GAO ANNUAL REPORTS 1-Continued

Status of Fiscal year Department or agency accounting lnefficency and mismanagement

1966 1965 1964 1963 system 2

National Aeronautics and Space Admin· Unapproved ••• Unproficient acquisition or employment x x x x istration. of automated data processing equip-

ment. U.S. Information Agency ••••••••••••••• •••• do •••••••• Questionable use of appropriations ••••• x lnteragency Food for Peace ••••••••••••• •••• do •••••••• Questionable utilization of supplies ••••• x

Excessive cost._ _______ ------------- -- x x --x-Department of Defense •••• ------------____ do ________ Inadequate inventory controls __________ x x x

Inefficient procurement practices _______ x x x x Unsatisfactory maintenance _______ ----- x x x x Inefficient manpower utilization ________ x x x x Slack contract policies_ ••• ------------ x x x x Unconstrained duplication_----- __ ----- x x x x

i Table compiled from Comptroller General of the United States Annual Report, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966, by Congressman Jackson E .Betts. • M 967 • 2 Status of accounting systems taken from U.S. General Accounting Office Cumulative Summary, ar. 31, 1 •

In 1964, there were 128 agency accounting systems within the executive branch subject to approval by the Comptroller General under the cost accounting requirements of the Budget and Accounting Act. At that time, only 41 systems had been approved. In 1967, there are 173 agency accounting systems subject to approval and only 61 have been approved. But, this does not tell the whole story. As will be seen in the tables that follow, most of those systems that have been approved are in the lesser agencies which spend only a small portion of the Federal expenditures. More important, most of those that were approved were done so a number of years ago. As indicated by the General Accounting Office:

Because of subsequent legislation and refinements in prescribed requirements, most of the accounting systems that have been approved 1n the past now need reexamination and appropriate revision in light of current requirements.

TABLE 1.-STATUS OF ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS AS OF JUNE 30, 1967

Systems Systems subject Systems in proc·

to approved ess of approval approval

Agriculture______ __ ________ 15 Commerce__ ____ __________ 8 HEW _____________________ • 12 HUD_____ ______ __________ 1 Interior___ ______ _____ __ ___ 17 Justice______________ _____ 4 Labor_ ___________________ 3 Post Office _____ ___________ 2 State_ ___________________ _ 6 DOT_ ____________________ 10 Treasury____ ______________ 18 NASA__________ __ ________ 1 VA____ _________ __________ 9 AEC__ ____________________ 1 BOB_____ ________________ 1 OEQ ______ _____________ ___ • 1 DOD ___ .__________________ 6 Army_ ___ ______ ________ ___ 5 Navy_____________________ 4 Air Force __________ __ _____ 4 District of Columbia govern-

ment___________________ 3 Other agencies________ ____ 42

5 5 0 0 6 1 0 1 2 4 4 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 24

3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 l 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total. _____ _______ _ _ 173 61 24

It may be seen from the above table that those agencies expending the largest sums of Federal money have few if any of their cost accounting systems approved. Thus, HEW has none of its 12 systems approved and only three under review; HUD has neither its one system approved or under review; the same may be said of OEO; NASA does have its one system under review but not yet approved; DOT has only four of its 10 systems approved

and none under review; State has only two of its six approved and none under review; and the Treasury Department, which should be a leader in this effort .since it has joint responsibility with the BOB and the General Accounting omce in fiscal management and accounting procedures, has only four of its 18 systems approved and six under review.

The Department of Defense and its constituent military departments are a case unto themselves. Here ls an agency which spends approximately half of the Federal Government's entire annual expenditures and which is headed by an individual who daily propagandizes his department's leadership in fiscal management. Yet, of DOD's 19 systems subject to approval, only one has been approved, and that one is for the Corps of Engineers which was approved in 1955. Only one other of the 19 systems is under the process of review.

As indicated above, due to changed circumstances, most of those systems already approved require reexamination and reapproval because they were approved a number of years ago. Table 2 illustrates this fact:

TABLE 2.- DATES OF APPROVED SYSTEMS

Systems Approval Approved approved in 1959 or in 1965 or

earlier later

Agriculture _______ ___ ___ __ 5 4 1 Commerce. __ ---.--------- 5 4 1 Interior __________________ 6 6 0 Justice ________ __________ 1 0 1 Post Office _______________ 1 0 1 State _________ _. _____ _____ 2 1 1 DOT __________________ __ 4 2 2 Treasury _________ - -- - - -- - 4 2 2 VA ______________________ 6 6 0 AEC _____________________ 11 0 0 BOB ____________________ 1 0 1 Army ____________________ 1 1 0 Other agencies ___________ 2 24 19 3

TotaL _____________ 61 45 13

1 Approved in 1963. 2 One system approved in 1961; the other in 1964.

Through the efforts of the Comptroller General, agencies in the past few years have put forward a greater effort to develop cost accounting systems for submission for approval. But, the pace continues disappointingly slow. Since June of 1966, five systems have been approved: Agriculture, one; Justice, one; DOT, two; and Treasury, one. At this rate, over 22 years will have to elapse before all systems will be approved and that does not take into consideration the reapproval of systems approved a

number of years ago or the creation of new agencies. Also of concern is the fact that some agencies have neither submitted an accounting system for approval nor established a target date for submission:

TABLE 3.-NO TARGET DATE AS OF JUNE 30, 1967

Interior ______________ __ __ _

DOT. __ ------------------Treasury ______ -- -- -- -- -- -DOD_ - - - -- -- -- -- - - - --- -- -Army ____________________ _ Navy ______ __ ____________ _ Air Force ________________ _ District of Columbia govern-ment. _________________ _

Systems subject Systems No target

to approved date approval

17 10 18 6 5 4 4

6 4 4 0 1 0 0

11 6 3 1 1 1 1

Although the agencies are apparently making a greater effort to comply with the law, more needs to be done and done quickly. As Mr. Staats recently indicated:

We must maintain or accelerate the pace if we are to approach realization of the full potential of benefits which can be provided through enlightened financial management.

Because of the lagging pace which appears to be continuing among the agencies, it would seem not only warranted but necessary for Congress to step in.

This is especially necessary today because, in response to pressure from the White House, agencies are under orders to establish planning-programing-budgeting-PPB-systems.

PPB is designed, in the words of the Bureau of the Budget, to "improve the basis for the major program decisions" by developing "clear statements of what the decisions are and why they were made. Program objectives are to be identified and alternative methods of meeting those objectives are to be subjected to systematic comparison. Data are to be organized on the basis of major programs, and are to reflect future as well as current implications of decisions." To put it most succinctly, as has the Rand CorP. in a publication entitled "Program Budgeting," PPB involves-

First. Appraisals and comparisons of various government activities in terms of their contribution to national objectives.

Second. Determination of how given objectives can be attained with minimum expenditure of resources. - Third. Projection of government activities over an adequate time horizon.

Fourth. Comparison of the relative contribution of private and public activities to national obfoctives.

Fifth. Revisions of objectives, programs, and budgets in the light of experience and changing circumstances.

The objectives underlying PPB may well be sound. As in the case of approved cost accounting systems, adoption and use of PPB should enable the agencies of the Federal Government to more capably ·determine how effective they are managing their programs and operations and how efficiently they are spending the taxpayers' money. But, as has been acknowledged on many occasions by the Comptroller General, an agency cannot

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26069 develop or utilize PPB in a comprehensive and intelligent manner unless and until it has first developed a sophisticated cost accounting system. This fact cannot be stressed too often. Without such an accounting system, PPB cannot be effectively utilized and could lead an agency and the Congress into dangerous waters.

There can be but one solution to these problems. Additional legislation must be enacted by Congress to require rapid development of approved cost accounting systems.

We are taking this action today by introducing appropriate legislation.

This proposed legislation is in two parts. The first part is based upon a proposal made recently by the Comptroller General. It seeks to amend the Budget and Accounting Act by requiring the head of each executive agency to transmit a report to Congress on the status of the development of its accounting system or systems at the end of any calendar year during which its systems have not been approved. In addition, each agency shall be required within 1 year following the approval of its accounting systems to submit to Congress a report setting forth the manner and extent to which such systems are being used by the agency's management and the benefits derived therefrom.

The second part of the proposed legislation is designed to restrain the executive agencies from putting into effect PPB systems and from preparing budgetary and appropriation requests based upon PPB until they have developed approved cost accounting systems. In effect, the second part of the legislation is intended as an inducement, if not a pressure, upon executive agencies. The bill provides that appropriated funds shall not be used by an executive agency to prepare budget estimates or estimates or requests for appropriations based upon PPB until and unless the agency has in effect an approved cost accounting system. If the executive branch is as desirous as we believe it to be in instituting PPB, then it will devote the needed time, effort, and expertise to develop approved accounting systems.

Failure to be on top of Government spending in 1956 was bad enough when Federal expenditures were $66 billion and the public debt was $273 billion. But, to not know how the taxpayers' money is being spent today can lead to disaster. Federal expenditures in 1967 were estimated to be $127 billion. For fiscal year 1968, estimates at the beginning of the year were set at $135 billion. But, recent revised figures indicate that spending could rise to $143.5 billion. As for the public debt, estimates for 1968 initially were set at $335 billion. Only recently, however, the President has indicated that the fiscal year 1968 deficit could exceed $28 billion. If that were to occur, then the public debt would, of course, rise even higher.

If we are ever to reduce this tremendous burden upon the taxpayers and, at the same time, find the necessary funds available to tackle the enormous problems facing us domestically, we need to employ every tool of financial management to get the full benefit for each dollar

expended and to squeeze out every last penny of waste and inefficiency.

Yet, we are failing to pursue these objectives to the fullest extent.

The President has repeatedly called for increased efforts to save the taxpayers' money. He has periodically cited his commitment to tighten controls over Government spending. He has regularly called for an end ·to waste. The proposals we have made here are not revolutionary, but, if enacted into law, can in our opinion lead to rapid adoption of an effective cost accounting system throughout government and to the development of accurate and workable PPB systems.

IMPROVED RURAL LIFE GOAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. HECIILER of West Virginie.. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. RESNICK] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous maroter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Speaker, the other

day our distinguished colleague from Minnesota presented us with a "remedy for farm and city" and expressed his concern about the problems that beset our rural areas. He presented an effective argument for making small town and rural life more attractive so that people would not desert the country and stream to the overcrowded cities as they are doing now.

Everyone can agree with Congressman QurE's generalities about making rural life more attractive, but action is needed, not talk. And the administration is acting toward this objective. The record speaks for itself.

Today, more than 3 .2 million rural people are benefiting from loans designed to strengthen family farms and rural communities. This is four times the number in 1960.

Last fiscal year, these loans to help family farmers get on their feet and to help rural communities improve their living and future through water systems and other facilities reached nearly $1.4 billion. As a point of comparison, the 1960 total was $308 million.

Net farm income, while still too low and in need of improveri1ent, has risen steadily in recent years and $16.4 billion in 1966 was second highest on record. Farm income improvement has moderated in flight from the country and the drop in farm numbers during the 1961-66 period was less than in 1953-61.

It is simply not true that this administration is holding down farm prices. To remove a serious threat to farm prices, this administration got rid of the surpluses built up in the 1950's. With the surpluses gone and a free market again in operation, this administration has been recommending that farmers market their products in an orderly manner to prevent unjustified price declines resulting from temporary heavy supplies in commercial channels and to get better prices.

This administration is determined to prevent a repetition of the surplus climb of the 1950's and its disastrous effect on farm prices. To insure economic stability in rural areas, this administration is committed to the kind of farm program that will harness our exploding farm productivity to work for instead of against farmers. It solicits the support of Congressman QurE and his associates to keep U.S. agricultural overcapacity from wrecking farm prices, income, and rural communities.

Improved rural life has long been a goal of this administration. Rural-urban imbalance has been apparent for a long time, but little interest was shown by many until violent city strife appeared. It is ironic that many of the more vocal advocates of action have a long record of sitting on their hands and withholding their support for past efforts to encourage better living and greater economic development in rural communities.

THEFARMBUREAUAUTOCRACY Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I rask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. RESNICK] 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 geilltleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Speaker, may I at

this time continue my report on what my recent hearings on the Nation's farm organizations revealed about the activities of the American Farm Bureau Federation . .

As the real aims of the Farm Bureauthe building of an economic empirebegan to emerge from this inquiry, the question inevitably arises: Why do its members allow this to occur? The answer is simple. To begin with, many Farm Bureau members, between 50 and 60 percent, are not farmers. Their problems are not farmers' problems. They are the urban, suburban, and rural customers of Farm Bureau insurance, or businessmen who are pressured to join because it is good business.

Of the 800,000 to 900,000 Farm Bureau members who may actually be farmers, most are captive members. They hold a Farm Bureau insurance policy-life, accident, health, auto, fire, and so forthwhich will be canceled if they quit. Many older, retired people continue their membership for the same reason. This fear also prevents many members from freely expressing their opinions on Farm Bureau policy, and forces passive acquiescence. They live in areas where Farm Bureau so dominates both the supply and marketing cooperatives that they are forced to become members, whether they want to or not. With such a large, inactive membership it is relatively easy for a disciplined minority to take the organization over and use it for its own purposes.

Occasionally, members aware of the conflict between Farm Bureau policies and farmers' interests, actively try to


change the policy, but find themselves up against a barrier more formidable than the Berlin wall.

The myth of internal democracy piously proclaimed by Farm Bureau leaders is a blatant hoax. I have read countless letters and heard a great deal of testimony from Farm Bureau members who have become viotims of this democracy. Mr. Robert Wilson of Argenta, Ill., testified that--

The annual "Policy Development Meetings" are a cynical farce. Frequently less than a dozen people attend such meetings, because they know they will have to listen to a lot of "background material" and "basic facts" which are so slanted as to presuppose the answers in the very way the questions are phrased.

If an individual or an organization protests loudly enough, they may be summarily thrown out of the Farm Bureau. That is exactly what happened to the Webster County, Nebr., chapter in 1964 when they had the temerity to oppose a Farm Bureau policy and actively work for its change. As Mr. Alfred Schutte, former president of that chapter and a Nebraska farmer, testifies:

We used to sell Farm Bureau membership and we know what it is like. We still blush when we think about how we took our own farmers when we d idn't know any better.

Mr. Melvin Fink, of Ainsworth, Nebr., was sent to the preliminary resolution committee at the Farm Bureau convention in Nebraska. When he tried to propose a change of policy, he was shouted down by the Farm Bureau leadership.

Mr. W. E. Holiway, of Hartford, S. Dak. was elected as a delegate to the State convention because he represented the wishes of his local county Farm Bureau in support of REA. However, because the Farm Bureau leadership knew of his support of REA, which they opposed, he was replaced as a delegate on the grounds that, because he was a member of several non-Farm Bureau co-ops, this represented a conflict of interest. It never occurred to them that the real conflict of interest was between their obligation to their business interests and their farmer-members.

The Farm Bureau leadership has a neat trick to perpetuate itself and its policies. Although in most, if not in all, States, delegates to their State and national conventions are initially elected by the membership, they are ultimately officially appointed. Thus, they can be prescreened, as was Mr. Holiway, and only "party faithfuls" are rewarded by becoming delegates. This is not my idea of democracy. It has been told to me many times that if 90 percent of the rank and file wanted to replace the top leadership of the Farm Bureau against its wishes, they would find it impossible.

One thing can be said for the Farm Bureau-they do not discriminate in their use of heavy-handed tactics to suppress their opposition. They exercise their muscle on members and nonmembers alike. Under unanimous consent, I am including a statement of Mr. V. E. Rossiter, Sr., a respected banker of Hardington, Nebr., describing a ruthless and successful bureau attempt to silence him:

[Exhibits referred to in statement not submitted for RECORD.]

My name is V. E. Rossiter, Sr., and my address is Hartington Nebraska. My occupation is banking and I am the President of the Bank of Hartington. I come before this committee as a private individual. I am not now holding any official capacity with any group or organization which is currently involved in a discussion of, or plans for, rural America. Further more, for the record, I absolve any organization from any responsibility for what I will say here today.

My purpose in appearing before this committee is to support some of the charges made by Congressman Resnick against the American Farm Bureau Federation.

It ·is my observation and conviction that the Farm Bureau officers will attempt to dominate any individual, or any group of individuals who choose to differ with its farm policy, and failing to do this will attempt to discredit and destroy them.

In more than a <iecade of active interest in the inequity of Farm Income, and the income level of other sectors of the economy, I can confirm with conviction the charge that the Farm Bureau has done and is doing more t o p revent the economic and social advancement of rural Americans than any other organization in American life.

I will a ttempt to bring some light to bear on the proven method by which the Farm Bureau engages in h a rassment, vilification and character assassination, in the crudest heckling campaign con ceivable, in order to discredit, intimidate and if possible to destroy any individual or group with the courage t o oppose it.

At t he same time I hold no brief with the individual farmer members of the Farm Bureau beca use they h ave never to my knowledge evidenced an y host ility toward me, nor h ave they ever performed any disservice to me. However, the m embership can hardly be completely absolved of t he responsibility for t h e acts of their officers, if they have knowledge of these acts.

My first brush with the officers o! the Farm Bureau came rather unexpectedly in the su mmer of 1961 following the publication of an interview that I m ade with a magazin e of n a t ional circulation entitled "A Small-town Banker looks at business at the grass roots."

I was, needless to say, quite honored with this recognition of my opinion on the rural economy and I awaited any public reaction with a great deal of interest and anticipation.

My own mail was predominantly favorable, with only a half dozen dissenting letters from individuals. A week or so after publication the editors of the magazine advised me that its mail was also running very favorable to the tone of the interview, with but 3 exceptions. One of these was a communication from Dr. Roger Fleming, the Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the Washington Office of the American Farm Bureau Federation, who was very critical of the interview and of the magazine for publishing it, and he demanded equal space for himself and the Farm Bureau "to put the record straight".

I didn't receive any word at all from the Farm Bureau myself.

Some time later the magazine arranged for an interview of Dr. Fleming, but when the time for the interview arrived President Charles B. Shuman presented himself at the editorial offices of the magazine to receive this national recognition.

It has always impressed me as being pretty high handed when the U.S. News and World Report can evidently be bludgeoned into giving its valuable space to the President of the Farm Bureau in order to restore precious economic principles which had presumably been torn asunder by a country banker from Nebraska. How ridiculous can they get?

Having the Farm Bureau take after me could be compared with the Air Corps trotting out its most potent atomic rocket (the Farm Bureau) to shoot down a harmless unarmed Cub aeroplane (me) . It was just a neat way to confiscate some high powered magazine space which it probably couldn't get by just being nice.

This incident is as nothing, however, compared to the campaign they have mounted to discredit and destroy Congressman Resnick who has discovered their "gigantic, interlocking nationwide combine of insurance companies and other businesses" and properly challenged their right to appear before congress as a farm organization.

I submit Exhibits A and B copies of the two aforementioned interviews.

My next experience with the Officers of the Farm Bureau was even more bizarre, if not quite so surprising. It occurred in the spring of 1963 when information inadvertently lea ked to the Morgan Beatty "News o! the World" radio program, that there could be an alliance between the proponent farm organizations on the upcoming Wheat Referendum, and an association of bankers with a national membership.

This rumor was partially true, but greatly exaggerated in the radio news article. What was actually happening was, the agricultural Committee of this National Bankers Association had prepared what it considered a rather objective study of the situation in the wheat indust ry as it related to country banks, and as it related to agriculture generally. It was a trial balloon, as far as the committee was concerned, which would be presented to the annual convention of the association as a committee report, and to discover whether or not the association membership liked to be aligned with the progressive farm organizations of the nation, various commodity groups and with the rural departments of all of the major church organizations.

A copy of the wheat article is submitted as Exhibit C.

I was the author of this article which was published in advance of the April convention date of the association, but it was not distributed until the convention was in session. It had been approved by the members of the committee, and most of the executive officers of the association. Our President found it sufficiently informative and pleasing to suggest in a letter of March 1st, 1963, (Exhibit D) "I believe that we can get our Executive Council to endorse the wheat referendum at the Convention in New Orleans."

On March 6th (Exhibit E) Morgan Beatty's "News of the World" broadcast, heard on WDAF, Kansas City, Mo., announced that the bankers were allied with the proponent farm organizations in favor of the Wheat Referendum and inferred that the bankers would bring pressure on the wheat growers to vote for the referendum.

The Farm Bureau and its allies mounted one of the most fantastic efforts to interfere, to change the minds of the officers of the association, and in other ways to destroy the character of anyone connected with the wheat referendum, that I have ever had occasion to observe.

Their method of operation was to have the National and State officers of the Farm Bureau, and certain employees of the organization, write letters and make repeated telephone calls to the officers and members of the bankers' association, day after day and week after week. The finesse with which this was carried out was truly remarkable, and could only suggest that it had been done before. Their basic fear seemed to be that the Association would endorse the wheat referendum in convention. They still had no knowledge of the article which would appear in the association magazine as a committee report, nor did they have any way of knowing that in spite of the President's apparent approval of the report, there was no intent on

Septernber 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26071 the part of the committee to ask for the approval of the conver.tion of the wheat referendum as such. We only wanted approval of the committee's e:ffo.r.t to wor'k wi,th other farm oriented groups with similar interests in greatly improved farm income. This we did receive.

Then with the opening of the Convention early in April of 1963 the Farm Bureau obtained copies of the article on the wheat referendum, and the Bankers' Association Committee on Agriculture received protests from its individual members, because they in turn had been contacted by the Farm Bureau or some other ally of the Farm Bureau. But the article had been published and distributed all over the United States. It was reprinted by the proponents of the Wheat referendum. This made the Farm Bureau furious and it redoubled its efforts to get an officer of the association to repudiate the article, or denounce the committee, or at least to publicly fire the author.

The Farm Bureau's tactics changed from attempting to influence the convention, which was now over, to one of direct attack on me, my character and integrity, my associations, and you name it and they tried it.

On April 3rd, 1963, President Shuman directed a letter to one of the executive officers of the Bankers' association with an arrogant demand to know "Why should bankers presume to tell farmers how to vote in a commodity program referendum." (Exhibit F.) He earned himself a reply in kind. At the same time the association offered to reprint his letter in the association magazine for all bankers to see if he would correct one statement, which was factually untrue, and if he would divulge the makeup of the membership of the Farm Bureau. He complied and his letter was published. (Exhibit H.)

But the harassment of the Association Officers continued to come by letter and by telephone even beyond this exchange of letters. On April 8th, 1963, Mr. L. L. Lovell of Cheneyville, La., the President of the Louisiana Farm Bureau directed a critical letter to the President of the Bankers Association, and sent copies of it to several prominent Louisiana bankers. (Exhibit I.) I have no way of knowing for sure how many times this was repeated by other State Farm Bureau Presidents, but undoubtedly there were other le·tters written by Farm Bureau Officers and received by Bankers connected with the Association.

The President of the association mailed Mr. Lovell's letter to me for reply. (Exhibits J, K, and L.)

It is interesting to note the subtle change in the attitude of the President of the Bankers Association after several weeks of the Farm Bureau's harassing and heckling campaign. The cover letter from the President of the Bankers Association, containing the Lovell letter, stated, "We were wise not to bring the wheat referendum matter on the floor of the convention." Now our President of this year was a man of great courage and integrity and not one to be cowered by Mr. Shuman and all of his as.sociates, but he evidently also had the intelligence to recognize a stacked deck when he saw it. He wasn't frightened nor had he changed his opinion on the value of the report on the wheat referendum, he just couldn't see an end to the harassing and heckling of the Farm Bureau and there was important work to be done by the association in other and completely unrelated areas of interest.

Then I received three letters, all dated April 16th, 1963. The first came from the President of the Association acknowledging receipt of a copy of my reply to Mr. Lovell, and carrying a word of thanks for my services on the Committee on Agriculture during his term of office. (Exhibit M.)

The second letter came from another officer of the Association ·Wlllch recounted

some of his experiences with the officers and representatives of the Farm Bureau during the course of the several weeks of day in and d ay out, and week in and week out, heckling and harassment of the officers and membership of the association. (Exhibit 0.)

For example, one of the demands made on the telephone by a Jack Angell, who was evidently employed by the Farm Bureau, was for an officer of the association to make a tape recording of the association's disavowal of the article, the committee or the author, to be played to farm bureau members around the country. Evidently this is the way the Farm Bureau entertains its membership-character assassination by tape recorder.

The third letter was from the newly elected President of the Association, again offering thanks for my efforts, but announcing my dismissal from the Association Committee on Agriculture. He was the one man who could do this by himself, and he did it under direct pressure from and in sympathy to the wishes of the Farm Bureau. {Exhibit N.)

Now all of this is in the past and probably of little interest to anyone anymore. Still isn't it a good example of the overbearing arrogance of the Farm Bureau and doesn't it help to illustrate the extreme pressures and wanton vilification that it will implement to gain its ends. If the Farm Bureau will go to these extremes to influence a comparatively small association of bankers, and to influence the outcome of a comparatively insignificant incident, and to d iscredit, or if possible destroy, an unimportant country banker, then what in God's name must it have in store for a real honest to goodness critic like Congressman Resnick. The planning that must be taking place in the Farm Bureau right now, to get rid of Congressman Resnick, must compare favorably with the nation's mobilization for World War II.

Isn't it interesting to refer back to the letters which I offer in exhibit with this testimony to observe the slow erosion of conviction on the part of the association under the merciless onslaught of the Farm Bureau program of harassment and heckling.

For example, at first introduction to it the President of the Association liked what he read on the wheat referendum and casually speculated "I believe that we can get our Executive Council to endorse this in New Orleans." Then after several weeks of Farm Bureau activity, the convention is past, and the same President says with a note of relief, "We were wise not to bring the wheat referendum matter to the floor of the convention." And from that point to a position of complete and abject surrender to the wishes of the Farm Bureau on the part of the newly elected President when he wrote; " ... have resulted 1n your not being .reappointed to the Agriculture Committee." I was dropped to placate the hatchetmen of the Farm Bureau, there can be no doubt about that. Still I have no rancor toward these association officers. Recognizing the pressures placed upon them and their responsibilities to the membership in other areas of interest, given the same circumstances I might have come to the same conclusion, but I doubt it.

Did the harassment and the heckllng stop here? Of course not. The Farm Bureau evidently keeps a dossier on everyone it doesn't like and it makes this information available to those whom it presumes will help it in undermining the character and integrity of individuals and of groups it doesn't like, for some reason.

This work isn't all done by underlings and hirelings, as one might presume, but quite often the top officers are assigned, or take it upon themselves as a matter of pure personal pleasure, I would imagine, to cut up someone they don't like.

For example: It was late in October of 1963. The Iowa Bankers Association invited

me to speak on their famed first morning panel of speakers. I gratefully accepted the invitation only to learn later that Doctor Roger Fleming had the prime 9 : 30 a.m. spot on the program, on which I would speak at 11: 10 a.m. Frankly this knowledge made me uncomfortable, though I h ad never seen nor met Dr. Fleming up to that point I had heard about his finesse with the verbal stiletto. No one had told me about his meat axe.

This gentleman, if I may use the word loosely, got to his feet in supreme confidence, and complete command of everything, when his time to speak came. He greeted his fellow Iowans in kingly fashion and then for 25 minutes of his scheduled 30 minutes, he hacked and he chopped a certain unnamed country banker into a thousand pieces. Then he thoughtfully spent 5 minutes on his text "Because" he explained good naturedly, "I have already released it to the press." and everyone laughed and applauded. To illustrate the relative importance of our respective presentations on this occasion, I attach copies of the press report for your information and amusement.

I had a tight speech prepared, fully 30 minutes long, and I didn't quite know what to do. I finally found one page, during the time from 10:00 a.m. when Doctor Fleming completed his speech and promptly left the meeting room, and 11: 10 when I was due to speak, that I could delete, and quickly prep are a counterstatement about a certain unnamed individual, and his unnamed organization. It went something like this. "There is resistance to the correction of the income inequity in rural America, and this income inequity is being perpetuated by people who are philosophically against change, as are their organizat ions, though they like to talk aoout the great technological revolution."

I stated further, "These people and their organizations are, for the most part, so ideologically obsessed with the extreme rightwing, antigovernment philosophy, and with a doctrinaire interpretation of the farmers' 'freedom' that they are incapable of looking real facts in the face when they are confronted with them.

"In some cases" I continued, "it is their specific job to keep farm raw materials cheap, and thus to indirectly relegate the whole segment of society engaged in agriculture to a permanent state of social and economic inferiority."

Then I suggested that "the task of getting past these selfish and selfseeking interests, in cheap farm raw materials, is the first hurdle to the solution of the farm income problem, and after that the rest of the problem is comparatively simple."

My tormentor didn't hear this statement. It made little difference, he wouldn't have understood it.

I suggest to you, however, that one must stretch his imagination pretty thin to assume that there is no conflict of interest, for example, when the President of the Farm Bureau also is the President of the National Food Conference, a group of processors, wholesalers and retailers of farm grown foods. I submit that the very nature of proces.sing and distrilbuting farm produced foods is to buy the raw material as cheaply as possible, and to process and distribute it at the lowest possible labor cost-a procedure which in no way promotes the ideal of a. relatively high fa.rm raw material price level, which is the a vowed goal of all farm organizations.

It is my studied opinion that alliances such as this by the Farm Bureau have created this 'first hurdle' to relative farm prosperity. I sincerely believe that until Congressman Resnick is successful in completely exposing the Farm Bureau for what it is, "A gigantic interlocking, nationwide combine of insurance companies and other businesses" which, I might add, is masquerading as a farm organization while promoting poli-

26072 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967. cies which really serve the best interests of non-farm individuals and organizations, there can never be equity of income in Agriculture.

When I look back at my experience as a Farm Bureau Whipping Boy I sometimes wonder if my own beloved mother could have withstood the inferences in the vilification of her son, that I was subjected to in the eyes of my colleagues, in the course of the campaign of character assassination visited upon me without having some misgivings about the character and integrity of her baby boy.

I submit that if this could happen to the independent National Bankers Association, and to me, in a period of 60 days-and it did-then how many more times does it happen unbeknown to anyone, in a year, or in a decade or in a generation?

I recommend a complete investigation of the American Farm Bureau Federation, its officers, and its business enterprises.

CAMPAIGN AGAINST NFO

A perfect illustration of the Farm Bureau's mode of operation can be seen in its premeditated and carefully plotted attempts to destroy the National Farmers Organization. Alarmed by the growing membership of that organization, which-unlike the Farm Bureau-limits its membership to farmers, the Farm Bureau leadership met in Chicago in August 1963 to plan the strategy for total destruction of the NFO. The 12-point blueprint which was developed at that meeting can be read in the transcript of my ad hoc Washington hearings. However, I would like to specifically mention point No. 11:

Investigations should be made of opportunities to neutralize politicians, Federal Government administrators, industrial union leaders, and others who promote NFO. Special attention should be given to religious leaders who are economically uninformed, but highly partisan and articulate proponents of NFO.

The plan also arrogantly suggests that county Farm Bureau units purge from membership "those persons who transfer their primary allegiance to NFO."

It must be noted, as their own blueprint clearly states, that the Farm Bureau set out to destroy the NFO-not because it competed for membership, but because the Farm Bureau viewed the new organization as a threat to its control over the supply and marketing cooperatives. In other words, the issues as the Farm Bureau saw it was economic power, not the welfare of the farmer.

This is more like something out of "Mein Kampf" than what one would expect from the country's largest farm organization. And the disturbing fact is that the Farm Bureau actively attempted to carry out this 12-point master plan for the annihilation of its young rivals. Orin Staley, president of NFO, admitted that this attempt in 1963 did, indeed, seriously hurt the NFO. He stated that Farm Bureau action took various forms of pressure applied to influential persons:

Local Farm Bureau leaders might call and talk to them about rumors they had heard concerning NFO. It might take the form of occasional economic pressures against various other people which is directly or indirectly applied.

Staley also said that he knew of direct and indirect pressure which had been ex-

erted on church leaders who spoke in favor of NFO.

Interorganizational rivalry is nothing new. But never in the history of this country has one farm organization set out to annihilate another, and attempted to prevent the farmer from exercising his free will in joining the organization he wanted to.

F ARM BUREAU AND MIGRANT LABOR CAMPS

Not only does the Farm Bureau earn tremendous pro.fit from insurance, oil, real estate, farm supply sales, automotive stores, radio stations, and scores of other businesses, they are also in the business of selling human misery. The Farm Bureau owns, operates, and pro.fits from some of the worst migrant labor camps in the country. In two Virginia counties, Northampton and Accomack, the county Farm Bureaus each own and operate two migrant labor camps. The existence of these camps, and a vivid description of conditions there, was recently revealed in an outstanding story by Hank Burchard in the Washington Post. It was a story of misery, squalor, and filth that trampled on the dignity of human life. Farm Bureau officials interviewed expressed no concern for the ~elf are of the people that they forced to live in this manner. The fact is that the Farm Bureaus were collecting rent from the migrant w.orkers for these hovels. I learned more about conditions at these camps from Virginia health officials who testified at my Washington hearings.

If the Farm Bureau were a bankrupt organization, their exploitation of migrant workers in this manner might at least be understandable, though not f.orgiveable. As we have seen, the American Farm Bureau Federation, with its 50 State units and 2,700 county units, has assets exceeding $8 billion. That this wealthy organization allows such conditions to continue-and indeed, perpetuates and profits from them-is a situation that almost defies human belief.

In New Jersey, the Glassboro Service Association, Inc., an affiliate of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, owns and operates a migrant camp in Glassboro which annually houses and processes thousands of Puerto Rican workers for some 900 growers in New Jersey and neighboring States.

In addition, another Farm Bureau affiliate, the Garden State Cooperative, conducts recruiting drives for these laborers in Puerto Rico.

The New Jersey Farm Bureau and its affiliates make a neat pro.fit out of this kind of commerce. They charge the farmers 5% percent of their total payroll for recruiting these workers. This amounts to a 1966 income of between $300,000 and $400,000 that the Glassboro Service Corp. earned from migrant labor recruitment. It is hard to distinguish who the Farm Bureau is exploiting most-the member-farmers or the migrant workers. But pro.fit it does, and handsomely.

Many of the camps for which the New Jersey Farm Bureau has been recruiting labor are those, which as the New York Times recently exposed, Governor Hughes has been asked to close because of the deplorable conditions.

Not only has the New Jersey Farm Bureau been actively profiting from the migrant labor trade, they have erected the most effective roadblocks against measures to upgrade the conditions in migrant camps, and have generally obstructed those agencies seeking to provide some improvement in farm worker conditions. As Mr. Joseph T. Wilkins, executive director of the Southeast Citizens Organization for Poverty Elimination, a New Jersey community action agency, stated at my hearings:

SCOPE has conducted a variety of farm education projects, day-care centers, and community organization efforts. Farmers have given excellent cooperation and have brought us into a sharp awareness of certain forces which, by short-sighted policies and out-dated obstructionism, provide powerful support for the perpetuation of poverty among our most productive people. Chief among these forces, in my honest opinion, is the New Jersey Farm Bureau-an organization allegedly speaking for the farmers of New Jersey, which conducts extensive labor recruitment, migrant labor processing, and lobbying activities. I say "allegedly speaking for the farmers," because I must state clearly that I have found little or no support among the hard-working farmers of South New Jersey for either the pronouncements or the positions which the New Jersey Farm Bureau assumes on a number of public issues. The chief adverse effect the New Jersey Farm Bureau has on th& elimination of poverty among farm workers comes through the continued dissemination of misleading and hostile information about the operations of those agencies seeking to provide some improvement in farm worker conditions.

In May 1967, the New Jersey Farm Bureau published a booklet, "A Guide to Farm Labor and the Protection of Property Rights." Its subtitle might well have been, "How to prevent VISTA workers, church leaders, and others from learning about and alleviating the terrible conditions in which migrant farm workers live."

This Farm Bureau document advises the farmer to do two things: First, post a sign which says, "No trespassing without permission, area patrolled." By the way, the New Jersey Farm Bureau sells these signs at a pro.fit. Second, to prevent poverty workers and ministers from visiting tenants, the Farm Bureau advises the farmer to have his workers sign the following agreement, the text of which is provided in the booklet:

I, (employee's name) understand that the land owned by my employer (farmer's name) , is private property and I agree not t.o invite or receive any guests or visitors on (farmer's name) 's property unless I obtain written permission at least one (1) day in advance. If I should receive an unexpected visit.or, I will notify my employer immediately, and will ask my v1s1tor to leave 1! my employer does not grant permission for him to stay. I understand that the issuance of visitor's permits is in the sole discretion of my employer, and I agree to accept his decision.

(Farmworker's signature.)

Unfortunately, the semiliterate or illiterate migrant workers duped into signing this surrender of their basic human rights, find that they have signed themselves into a state of virtual bondage. It is a return to the Dark Ages.

As Mr. Wilkins stated at my hearings:

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26073 I think they (New Jersey Farm Bureau)

place a higher value on the tomatoes than on the people who pick them, and that a distorted sense of priorities leads them to find any given channel that permits them to slow down a change.

The migrant labor problem in this country is not a new problem, and it is a stain on the character of America. The outrage, however, is multiplied when we allow a tax-exempt association to deal in this human misery for profit, while projecting itself as a simon-pure organization interested only in "truth, justice, motherhood, and the American way." STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: FARM BUREAU AND EX•

TENSION SERVICE

One of the primary means by which the Farm Bureau has risen to its position of dominance in vast areas of this country is its association with the Extension Service and the county extension agents who work with the farmers.

The history of Extension and Farm Bureau has been interwoven for over 50 years. It began in 1914, when the Government felt that the interests of the farmer would be served if they were encouraged and assisted in developing a farm organization to serve their needs. The Extension Service-an educational agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, working through the land-grant colleges-was selected to do the job. Thus, the Extension Service and its county agents actively promoted and participated in the organization of the Farm Bureau. Extension agents--Government employees, mind you-recruited members for the Farm Bureau-a private organization-and helped run its programs. In the early 1920's Farm Bureau President J. B. Howard wrote:

The County agent is the strong right arm of the American Farm Bureau Federation. We need to make increasing use of the county agent.

The Farm Bureau later began to contribute money to the Extension Service, together with other private groups. Eventually, it became the principle private contributor to the Extension Service. As we shall see, this situation has continued to the present day. The ties were drawn still closer as county extension offices invariably became located in Farm Bureau buildings.

As a result of the overlap of offices, and the participation of the Extension county agent in Farm Bureau membership drives and other activities, people could not tell them apart, indeed, they did not even realize that they were apart. Whole generations of farm families grew up thinking that the Extension Service, with its cou,.vity agents and 4-H clubs, was a formal part of the Farm Bureau-or vice versa, that the Farm Bureau was connected with the U.S. Government. Several witnesses in Chicago and Omaha testified that they had believed it was necessary for them to join the Farm ·Bureau in order for their children to participate in 4-H activities. The Farm Bureau encouraged these beliefs by giving their employees and insurance agents the same titles-county agent, for example-as the Extension Service did.

In 1948, a committee composed of in-

dividuals from USDA and the Land Grant College Association evaluated the services and experiences of the Extension Service. They decided that things had gone too far. Their August 1948 report recommended that--

It would be in the public interest for any formal operating relationship between the Extension Service and any general farm organization such as the Farm Bureau to be discontinued at the earliest possible moment. The Extension Service can function more effectively when it is recognized as a public agency available to and operating in the interests of all on an equal basis.

This was nearly 20 years ago. Progress was so slow that on Novem

ber 24, 1954-6 years later-Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson found it necessary to issue Memorandum No. 1368. Under unanimous consent, this important memorandum is enclosed at the end of this statement. In this memorandum, the Department of Agriculture presented six guidelines to hasten realization of the goals recommended in the report of 1948, to separate the Extension Service and the Farm Bureau. Again, the Department reiterated:

Employees of this Department are to be available to serve all farmers. Membership in any general specialized organization of farmers shall not be a prerequisite to obtain assistance from employees of this department.

This was 1954, 13 years ago. In 1964, the president of the Univer

sity of Illinois and Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman set up a joint task force to-in the words of the Illinois Extension Director J. B. Claar-

Study the Extension-farm organization relationships in Illinois and to make recommendations concerning the future.

In March 1965, the task force released its findings. Sixteen years after the initial report recommending separation of Farm Bureau and Extension, and 10 years after Secretary Benson's order, the task force found that--

The cooperative Extension Service has a mixed identification in the mind of the public. This is natural enough because of its long association with the county Farm Bureaus.

The many recommendations made by the task force can also be read as a catalog of abuses that exist in the peculiar relationship between the two agencies.

Sixty percent of the Illinois farm advisers--extension agents--said that farmers more commonly think of the farm adviser's office as part of the county Farm Bureau.

Seventy percent of the Illinois vocational agriculture instructors polled held this view. When this was asked of farmers and businessmen in 15 counties, nearly 60 percent believed the farm adviser's office was part of the Farm Bureau.

Ninety percent--90 out of 99-of the Illinois farm advisers and 70 percent of the home advisers--all Extension Service personnel-were located in Farm Bureau-owned buildings in which the local farm bureaus are located.

All Farm Bureau insurance and other commercial sales activities are also conducted from these offices.

What was the attitude of the Farm

Bureau? The report states that the leaders of the Illinois Agriculture Association-the Illinois Farm Bureau-felt that--

The situation as it now exists is satisfactory. They felt that many county Farm Bureaus would withdraw funds if Extension moved out of the buildings. One cannot help but conclude that Farm Bureau feels there is some benefit to Farm Bureau in having Extension physically located in their buildings.

Farm Bureau certainly must feel they are receiving "some benefits,'' when they have contributed several million dollars to the Extension Service of Illinois.

The "benefit" was certainly worth the investment. Being able to sell Farm Bureau insurance and membership from offices shared with a Federal agency has given Farm Bureau the carefully calculated image of a "quasi-governmental organization." Refusing to buy Farm Bureau products and insurance would almost be like refusing to buy U.S. savings bonds. The Farm Bureau married the Extension Service for money, and one can just imagine the profits they have earned from this liaison, if they have been willing to invest several million dollars to keep it going.

The 1964 Illinois task force handed down six more "recommendations" for the purpose of establishing "separate identities for the Extension Service and Farm Bureau." They are included at the end of this statement. This was 17 years after the initial recommendation.

Now, in 1967, my investigation has elicited countless letters from the Midwest describing the close association still existing between the Extension Service and the Farm Bureau. As a result, I invited Dr. John Claar to attend my Chicago hearings on August 4. But a "long-standing commitment" prevented him from attending. I was told that there was no one else on the staff of the Extension Service or the University of Illinois who was available to represent him.

However, on August 1, I received a letter from Dr. Claar describing the "progress" made since 1965 to implement the six recommendations designed to establish "separate identities" for the Farm Bureau and the Extension Service. Dr. Claar assured me that--

Today the office standards are met in every county with the exception of three where construction of facilities is underway and one county which has been temporarily delayed at the request of the county Board of Supervisors.

Unfortunately, this is not so. Dr. N. P. Ralston, Assistant Director of the Federal Extension Service, stated at my Washington hearings that last year, the Farm Bureau gave nearly $1 million to the Extension Service, mostly in the State of Illinois. Witness after witness in Chicago testified that the task force recommendation produced evasion, not action. For the most part, either nothing at all has been done to correct the situation or separate entrances to the Extension offices were simply added in the Farm Bureau buildings. The fact is, that today, almost 20 years after action was originally urged, 63 out of 112 Extension


offices are still in Farm Bureau buildings. In 63 locations in Illinois, Uncle Sam is paying rent to a private organization, which is not paying tax on the income, and-in most cases-is not paying any property taxes on their buildings either. At the same time, the Government is being used by that organization to sell its merchandise, and fill its coffers with a tremendous competitive advantage over private, taxpaying enterprises engaged in the same business. And the Government is being used to promote one particular farm organization at the expense of the others. Despite the selfsatisfied pronouncements by the Illinois Extension Service that the Farm Bureau and Extension have been divorced, one witness in Chicago summed the situation up like this:

If a man and his wife are divorced but still living in the house, it's pretty hard for anyone beslde\S themselves to know they're divorced.

New York State has an interesting variation on this same theme. In seven New York counties, the Farm Bureau rents office space from the Extension Service. In all of New York State, the Farm Bureau is the only private organization that rents space in any Extension buildings, except for one county where an office is rented by the American Cancer Society. Prominent signs in front of some of the buildings-in Erie County for example-proclaim the purpose of these offices: the sale of Farm Bureau insurance and automobile tires. Furthermore, the Farm Bureau rents the space at half the 'price of the Government agencies.

Sandwiched between the ASCS, FHA, 4-H Clubs, and the county agent offices, the Farm Bureau gets a lot more than office space for its rent money.

The 1964-65 Illinois task force points out that local Farm Bureaus have radically changed in character over the years. The report admits that they are no longer simple farm organizations. Instead, they are deeply involved in commercial and political activities.

Therefore, to the many and long-disregarded recommendations that have been made in the past about relations between Farm Bureau and Extension, I have added three more to Secretary of Agriculture Freeman that I hope will not be disregarded:

First. In no case shall the Extension Service, or any other agency of the Department of Agriculture, rent or occupy offices in a building owned by the Farm Bureau.

Second. The Farm Bureau shall not be allowed to rent or occupy offices in any building owned by the Federal, State, or local extension service.

Third. Since the Farm Bureau is primarily a commercial enterprise in competition with private business, no extension agents or advisers shall be allowed to belong to the Farm Bureau. This will provide assurance that no conflict of interest arises when the agent suggests goods and services for the farmer to purchase.

Mr. Speaker, additional information elicited by my Washington hearings will be forthcoming.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.O. November 24, 1954. MEMORANDUM No. 1368-ACTIVITIES OF DE

PARTMENT EMPLOYEES WITH RELATION TO GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED ORGANIZATIONS OF FARMERS

It ls desirable at this time to call the attention of employees of the Department to policies with respect to activities concerning both general and specialized organizations of farmers. Under Section 4 of Title 8 of the Regulations of the Department of Agriculture are set forth the general policies regarding activities of the Department employees with respect to general farm .organizations. These policies, as expanded and clarified by this memorandum, should be extended to all organizations of farmers, particularly to those general or specialized · organizations of farmers whose functions include the influencing of legislation affecting the activities of this Department or the promotion of the activities of Federal Agencies.

As used in this memorandum, the expression "general or specialized organizations of farmers" is intended to cover such national, regional, or State organizations as, among others, the Nat:lronal Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Farmers' Union, the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Breed and Commodity Organizations, and their regional, State, and local constituent groups. The expression "general or specialized organizations of farmers" is not intended to cover organizations such as cow test associations and similar groups.

No employee of this Department shall: 1. Accept the use of free office space or

contributions for salary or traveling expense from any general or specialized organization of farmers;

2. Advocate that any particular general or specialized organization of farmers is better adapted for carrying out the work of this Department than any individual citizen, groups of citizens, or organizations;

3. Advocate that the responsibilities of any agency of this Department or any other Federal agency sliould be carried out through any particular general or specialized organi-21ation of farmers;

4. Advocate or recommend that any State or local agency should carry: out its responsibilities through any particular general or specialized organization of farmers;

5. Approve contracts for the Department with any cooperative or other commercial organi21ation whenever such cooperative or other commercial organization deducts or "checks off" from payments due farmers, membership dues of such farmers to any general or specialized organization of farmers, except as it is determined that current authorization for such deduction has been knowingly filed by such individual farmers with the cooperative or other commercial organization;

6. Shall directly or indirectly solicit membership in any general or specialized organization of farmers as defined herein.

Employees of this Department are to be available to serve all farmers. Membership in any general or specialized organization of farmers shall not be a prerequisite to obtain assistance from employees of this Department. Conversely, any such membership shall not be deemed grounds for discrimination. Employees of this Department shall be subject to the supervision and control of regularly appointed Departmental employees, and such supervision and control shall not be delegated directly or indirectly to any general or specialized organization of farmers.

This memorandum shall be effective immediately, except as it applies to situations requiring special attention or change in op-

erating procedures, in which cases it will become effective as expeditiously as possible.

The cooperation of all organizations of farmers is requested · in administering this regulation.

EZRA TAFT BENSON, Secretary.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 1964-65 STUDY TASK FORCE REPORT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AND USDA

RECOMMENDATION 1

The primary purpose of Cooperative Extension is education and this needs to be reiterated and reinforced.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The County Extension Offices in Illinois should be identified as an integral part of the University of Illinois and the U.S.D.A. and not as a part of any general farm organization.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The County Cooperative Extension Service offices should be located in physical facilities which emphasize to the public they serve their close association with the University of Illinois and the U.S.D.A. and not imply close association with any general or specialized farm organization.

RECOMMENDATION 4

Since the County Extension Service is an educational program serving all persons engaged in agriculture and homemaking, the primary source of financial support for their programs and their administration should be public tax funds provided from federal, state and county appropriations.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The County Extension Councils and the County Homemakers Extension Councils should be clearly identified as representing all of the farmers and homemakers in the county and the two councils should work together very closely.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Farm and Home Advis.ers should be clearly identified in their important role as University of Illinois staff members extending the educational program of the College of Agriculture to all citizens of the state.

CIGARETTE SMOKING AND HEALTH Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I •ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. Moss] may extend his remarks at this :point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is there objection to ithe request of ·the geDJtleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, to help edu

cate the youth of our Nation as to the health dangers · of cigarette smoking, I am today introducing legislation which would direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish regulations prohibiting certain broadcasting of advertising of cigarettes; and a second measure to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to tax cigarettes on the basis of their tar and nicotine content. These bills are identical to S. 2395 and S. 2396 introduced in the Senate on September 12 by Senators ROBERT F. KENNEDY and JENNINGS RANDOLPH.

I also support a third measure introduced last week by Senators KENNEDY, RANDOLPH, and FRANK E. Moss which would strengthen the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act with re-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26075 spect to the labeling of packages of cigarettes. At the appropriate time, I will support amendments to my bill H.R. 11717 to incorporate the provisions of s. 2394.

Startling statistics pointing out the health hazards of smoking are increasing in number. Last week at the World Conference on Smoking and Health it was reported by E. Cuyler Hammond, vice president of the American Cancer Society for epidemiology and statistics, that "approximately 3.4 years of life expectancy are now lost due to the smoking habit." The following article by Morton Mintz of the Washington Post details Mr. Hammond's report: SMOKERS' LIFE CUT, DATA FIND-CANCER

SOCIETY HOLDS MEDICAL ADVANCE VOIDED (By Morton Mintz)

NEW YORK, September 11.-American men who smoke cigarettes may cancel out most of the· additional life span given them by a half century of advances in medicine, public health and the standard of living.

This was reported to the World Conference of Smoking and Health today by E. Cuyler Hammond of the American Cancer Society on the basis of a mass of new data involving a half-million men.

Hammond described the data as the first that are sufficient to permit the construction of statistically sound tables comparing the life expectancy of smokers and non-smokers.

WHAT THE TABLES SHOW One indication from the table is that

among 25-year-old men who have never smoked regularly, 77.7 per cent may expect to live to age 65. That percentage ls 23.7 points higher than for men of 25 who smoke 40 or more cigarettes a day, and 10.4 points higher than .for those who smoke only .1 to 9 cigarettes a day.

Similarly, the tables suggest that the chances of an average 25-year-old man to live to 85 are 19.2 per cent provided he has never smoked regularly. But if he smokes 1 to 9 cigarettes dally, his chance of living to 85 are reduced to 7.3 per cent-only onetenth of a percentage point more than if he smokes 20 to 39 cigarettes. The percentage in the tables for 10 to 19 cigarettes is 8.5 and for 40 or more it is 6.5.

MORTALITY RATIOS Hammond, the Cancer Society's vice pres

ident for epidemiology and statistics, said the new study brings a new dimension to the understanding of the effects of cigarette smoking. These usually have been expressed in terms of mortality ratios. Thus it has been reported that among heavy smokers the death rate is 2 to 3 times as high as among non-smokers.

"I doubt that most .people quite comprehend what this means in terms of their chances of living to a ripe old age, or at least living through the most productive years of life," Hammond commented.

The new approach came from a study of 447,196 men enrolled by Cancer Society volunteers. Of the total, 39,178 died in the fiveyear period ending June 30, 1965.

One table shows that in 1965 25-year-old American white men-smokers and nonsmo,kers--could expect to survive for an average of another 45.6 years-4.0 more than they could have expected in 1919-21. For comparable non-whites, the expectation in 1965 was for 40.7 additional years of life, or 5.2 more years than in 1919-2'1.

During those decades, Hammond said, "cigarette smoking . . . increased by leaps and bounds. It is estimated that approximately 3.4 years of life expectancy are now lost due to the habit." In support of this, Hammond cited data showing that 25-year-

old non-smokers generally can expect to live to age 73.6, compared with 70.2 for all men of 25 including smokers.

The 3.4-year loss of life expectancy "is not far short of the net gain from a half-century of scientific and social progress," Hammond continued, "Were it not for this, it appears that life expectancy of American men would have increased by about 7.4 years for white males .and 9.6 years for non-white males.

"Most distressing is ... that the life expectancy of American men has shown no improvement since 1959-61," Hammond said. "Substantial improvement w111 be difficult ... unless a solution is found to the problem of .cigarette smoking."

The Cancer Society tables also suggest: That for men of 40, life expectancy is 34.5

more years if they have never smoked regularly, 30.2 years if they smoke 1 to 9 cigarettes daily, 29.3 years if they consume lC>-19 a day, 28.7 years for 29-39 cigarettes and 26.9 for 40 or more.

That non-smokers of all ages "may look forwa·rd to more years of life than cigarette smokers."

That the lives of men in the age range 35 to 65 who smoke 2 or more packs da.ily will be 20 to 25 percent shorter than those of non-smokers in the same age bracket.

A concerted e:ff ort must be made by the Congress to warn the thousands of youngsters who start smoking every day that there are definite health dangers in smoking cigarettes. I know that many of my colleagues are concerned with this problem as was demonstrated by the 41 cosponsors of legislation identical to H.R. 11717.

I urge hearings at the earliest possible moment to consider the various bills pertaining to cigarettes and health.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I am including at this point in the RECORD the texts of the two bills being introduced in the House today:

H.R. 12994 A bill to direct the Federal Communications

Commission to establish regulations prohibiting certain broadcasting of advertising of cigarettes Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of Amer ica in Congress assembled, That part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new seotion as follows:

"PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN BROADCASTING OF ADVERTISING OF CIGARETTES

"SEC. 331. The Commission shall establish, and make effective not later than six months after the effective date of this section, such reguliations as may be necessary to ( 1) prohibit any licensee from broadcasting any advertising of cigarettes between such hours and in connection with such types of programs as the Commission determines would be most likely to influence children of elementary or secondary school age, and (2) regulate the total amount of such advertising broadcast to such extent as the Commission determines for the purpose of protecting the health and welfare of the public, and particularly children of elementary or secondary school age."

H.R. 12995 A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954 to tax cigarettes on the basis of their tar and nicotine content Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 5701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (tax on cigarettes) is amended to read as follows:

"(b) CIGARE'ITES.-On cigarettes, manufactured in or imported into the United States, there shall be imposed the following taxes:

" ( 1) SMALL CIGARETTES.-On cigarettes weighing not more than 3 pounds per thousand, the tax shall be the lowest tax applicable under the following table:

" If the tar content thereof is-

If the nicotine content thereof

is-

The tax per thousand cigarettes

shall be-

10 mg. or less and___ 0.8 mg. or less_ __ $4 20 mg. or less and___ l.4 mg. or less._ _ 7 30 mg. or less and___ 2 mg. or less___ __ 10 More than 30 mg. or_ More than 2 mg__ 15

" ( 2) LARGE CIGARETTES .-On cigarettes weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand the tax per thousand shall be 2.1 times th~ tax prescribed by paragraph (1); except that, if more than 6¥2 inches in length, such cigarettes. shall be taxable under paragraph ( 1) , counting each 2% inches, or fraction thereof, of the length of each as one cigarette.

"(3) DETERMINATION OF TAR AND NICOTINE CONTENT.-

" (A) TESTING BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION .-The Federal Trade Commission shall from time to time (but not less often than once each calendar quarter) test each brand of cigarettes manufactured in or imported into the United States for the tar and nicotine cont ent of cigarettes of such brand. The conditions, methods, and procedures for conducting such tests shall be prescribed by (and may be changed by) the Commission by regulations issued by it for purposes of this paragraph. Until such time as such regulations are first issued, the conditions, methods, and procedures for conducting such tests shall be those approved by the Commission for formal testing which are in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph.

"(B) CERTIFICATION TO SECRETARY.-At least once each calendar quarter, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall certify to the Secretary or his delegate, on the basis of the tests conducted pursuant to subparagraph (A), the tar and nicotine content of each brand of cigarettes manufactured in or imported into the United States. The tar and nicotine content of a brand of cigarettes as contained in such certification shall, f9r purposes of applying paragraphs (1) and (2), be the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes of such brand for the period beginning with the day after such certification is made with respect to such branu and ending with the day on which the next certification is made with respect to such brand."

(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of the first calendar quarter which begins more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that, with respect to the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to issue regulations for purposes of section 5701 (b) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (as added by subsection (a)), such amendment shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

PROGRESS IN ITALY

Mr. HEOHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. MINISH] may e~tend his remarks at this Point in ithe RECORD and include exitraneous maitter.

The SPEAKER pro rtempore. Is there objection ito ithe request of the gellltleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. MINISH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday

President Johnson welcomed a most distinguished guest to our Nation's Capitol.

26076 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - H OUSE September 19, 1967

He is President Guiseppi Saragat of the Republic of Italy, one of the fastest growing most progressive countries of the free world. I would like to take the oppor tunity afforded by President Saragat's visit to outline the amazing progress of his country to internal prosperity and international respect from the moral and physical devastation left by World War II.

The difficulties encountered by Italy after the war were enormous, but , with vigor and courage, Italians seized the opportunity to rebuild their proud nation to its historical status in the vanguard of Western Civilization . Their task has been accomplished. Between 1947 and the end of 1961, Italy attained a steady 5.9 percent rate of annual growth, rebuilt its agriculture, expanded its industry, recouped its exchange reserves, put its balance of payments in order, became a strong international trader, added enormously to its capital, and largely overcame the serious problem of unemployment--all of this with a comparatively small amount of inflation and a pronounced improvement in its citizens' standards of life. Moreover, the "great boom," has at last made possible an impressive long-term program for the renewal of the underdeveloped south.

Italy's "revolution" was not a violent one: it involved neither a coup d'etat nor a civil war, nor was it directly political, for the formal institutions of the parliamentary system remained as they had been created by the constitutional convention of 1946-47. Rather, I am speaking of Italy's second industrial revolution, continuing even now, which transformed the ancient land from a predominantly agricultural and rural society to a predominately industrial and urban society. In 1942, 48 percent of Italy's labor force was occupied in agriculture; at the beginning of 1965 only 25 percent was in agriculture, while 41 percent was in industry and 34 percent in tertiary activities.

Profiting from a tradition of engineering stemming from classical Roman times, from the creative energies of the Italian people, and from the role of aggressive trader dating back to the beginnings of modern capitalism, Italian industry has been the major element in th e postwar economic surge. This success is recorded in t he vigor with which investment opportunities were seized, the speed with which foreign markets were penetrated, and the enormous gain in labor productivity that was achieved. All in all, the last 20 years have seen a fourfold increase in Italy's industrial production.

After a slight slump in the early 1960's the Italian economy has been moving ahead at great speed, and 1966 was one of the best years on record. The gross national product last year reached $61.4 billion, an increase of 7 .9 percent. This represents the highest rate of growth in Europe. Among the leading industrialized countries of the world, it was matched only by the United States and Canada and surpassed by Japan alone.

The past year's solid record of accomplishments was the more notable since it occurred against a backdrop of stagnat ion or near recession in some of Italy's

biggest export outlets, such as Germany. The devastation caused by the November floods, which inflicted heavy damage and losses to the cities of Florence and Venice as well as large surrounding areas, was largely overcome as a spirit of self-help and resilience led to a prompt restoration of economic activity. The traditional handicraft and artistic manufacturers, who bore the brunt of the disaster, were back on their feet within a few months.

We are all aware of Italy's friendship and loyalty to the United States and to the ideals of freedom , justice, and democracy. A staunch ally of the democracies of the West, Italy today is one of the strongest and most vital links in the NATO command and serves as a bastion against totalitarianism and despotism.

Mr. Speaker, Italy had, and still has, many serious problems, but the years between 1945 and 1967 clearly demonstrated the will and determination of the Italian people to face up to them within the framework of political democracy. While it is true that Italy faces a long, hard road in its efforts to spread the good life to all its citizens, no one can deny that monumental tasks have been undertaken and accomplished. I congratulate President Saragat, his government, and the Italian people.

FREEMAN URGES PURCELL BILL ENACTMENT

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [MT. PuRcELL] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro rtemPore. Is there objection to the request :of the gentleman from West Virgini•a?

There was no objection. Mr.PURCELL.Mr.Speaker.Secretary

of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman, at a news conference in Omaha, Nebr., yesterday, urged passage of the Purcell strategic reserve grain bill.

I was most pleased to see the Secretary take a strong stand in favor of this badly needed legislation, H.R . 12067. Our Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains held extensive hearings on the proposal and has met in executive session t o consider it. I anticipate further subcommittee consideration in the near future.

In addition to his support for the legislation I have introduced, the Secretary also outlined a number of steps being taken by the administration to bolster grain prices. I would like to insert in the RECORD, at this point, the news release on the Secretary's news conference which was issued by the Department of Agriculture yesterday:

FREEMAN URGES PURCELL BILL ENACTMENT

Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman today expressed deep concern over falling wheat an d grain pr ices, listed a number of actions being t aken to check the downward trend, and called for quick enactment of the Purcell Strategic Grain Reserve bill as a much-needed remedy.

In Omaha, Nebr., to address the National Association of County Agricultural Agents, Freeman issued the following statement at a press conference:

"I share the frustration of our country's grain growers over a price problem that ls

persisting beyond the end of surpluses. There is no wheat surplus in the United States t oday, but as we try to adjust to the "New Era" farm programs that m '.l.ke it possible to approximately gear yearly production t o yearly needs we are finding that immediate supply levels occasioned by world-wide bumper crops are prompting irregular and discouraging short term market action.

"An oversupply at harvest time in the U.S. has temporarily glutted the market and forced p rices down.

"We are also faced with the continuing effect on our price levels of production in other countries. Both West ern and Eastern Europe grain crops are big t his year. The Soviet crop, while not as large as last year , is expected to be large. Indian crop prospects are far better t han in the last two years . Can ad a's crop has shown considerable improvement, and bot h Argentin a and Aust ralia expect t o h ave large quan tities for export. Despite t his competition, however, we are still optim ist ic that ou r export goal of 750 million bushels will be m et.

"What is crucial a t the moment, h owever, is t he urgent need t o sh ore up prices . We have t aken every possible act ion we can legally take to check this downwar~. t rend.

"Looking to next year, we have already reduced the wheat acreage allotment as a move designed to strengthen whe~t prices. This action is consistent with the New Era Farm program. The program's flexibility is geared to any supply need. When more production is needed, acreage can be increased. If less is needed, acreage can be reduced.

"CCC stocks are off t he market. We just are not selling any grain-wheat, fee.i grains or soybeans. A very limit ed volume of the lower quaUties must be moved for prudent inventory management. And we are continuing to provide a very limited amount of wheat for export on the West Coast as an interim and necessary action to insure the supplies needed to encourage expansion of our dolLar market s in Asia, particularly Japan.

"We are moving large amounts of wheat tn the Food-for-Freedom program. Just recently another million tons of grain were made avallable to India. Additional quantities under the program will be announced in the near future.

"We are taking all possible actions t o help farmers achieve a more orderly movement of their wheat in order t o get bett er prices. Most wheat program par ticipan ts h ave received their 1967 m arketing certificat e payments. These h ave averaged 47 cents per bushel on all production. They t otaled $725 m illion. This payment enables farmers to withstand the financial pressure many of them experien ce at harvesttime. In addition, the loan program offers immediate money, t h us helping farmers t o keep their wheat off the temporarily distressed market.

"I urge once again that farmers use the loan program to hold back their grain and not rush to sell at distressed prices.

"We have stepped up utilization of CCC surplus bins as a supplementary means of adding storage facilities for farmers who want to withhold their wheat from the temporarily glutted market. Bins are being sold or rented. We are emphasizing use of the faci11ty loan program which h as made it possible for farmers to add millions of bushels of storage capacity on their farms and materially st rengthen their holding power.

"Since wheat prices in every area influence prices in others, we have tried to relieve storage distress in the South and East earlier this year. An oversupply of CCC bins in some Midwest areas has been moved South and East t.o give those farmers added storage for the grain and soybeans they want to keep off the market at harvest. We have moved, or will move shortly, more than 6,700 bins with a t.otal capacity of 22.5 million bushels.

"A new provis10n in the price support pro-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26077 gram this year will enable farmers who have wheat and other grains in commercial warehouse storage to extend these loans beyond the initial loan period. This will supplement the long-time farm reseal program which has enabled us over the years to hold millions of bushels out of market channels.

"The new International Grains Agreement, while not effective until next year, will insure a higher minimum export price-about 23 cents a bushel above the level of the old agreement.

"Notwithstanding all these specific actions, what we need most now is passage of the Purcell Bill.

"This bill is designed to establish and maintain government reserves-insulated from the market--of essential grains and soybeans at not less than specified percentages of the amounts needed annually for domestic use and export. Such a reserve would be in the national interest, as insurance against domestic or global emergencies, and would serve to bolster farm prices.

"Purchases for reserve supplies would significantly increase farm income. If the COO had the authority to buy grain at prices above the loan level, market prices would move up quickly. In making these purchases, CCC obviously would reduce its loan activity. There would be correspondingly less cost to the Government as the volume of price support loans lessened. Stocks acquired for the reserve would have value and probably would return to the Government more than the original asset value. The boost in market prices would increase total farm income for 1967-crop wheat, feed grains and soybeans.

"This blll, so urgently needed by our grain producers, is being sidetracked and stalled by some members of the House Agriculture Committee who seem to want a political issue more than they want higher farm prices. I take this occasion to make a direct and personal appeal to every farmer who raises wheat or feed grains or soybeans to contact h1s congressmen and let them know that they need-end want-the Purcell Strategic Reserve Grain bill."

"THE NEW LEFT"-A CBS REPORT Mr. HEClffiER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thalt the gentleman from Florid.a. .[Mr. PEPPER] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is there objection to the request of the gellltleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, last Tues

day night, September 12, CBS News once again demonstrated their high degree of journalistic responsibility by broadcasting on the CBS Television Network a superb study of the so-called new left in America. Because I believe this broadcasting to be so important to our understanding of American youth I insert at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this program, "The New Left."

THE NEW LEFl' (As broadcast over the CBS Television Net

work, Tuesday, Sept. 12, 1967. Reporter: Blll Stout; produced and written by Jack Beck; executive producer: Burton Benjamin) BILL STOUT. This 1s a meeting of Amer

ican radicals. Some would ca.II themselves revolutionaries. But almost none are Marxists and almost none are Communists. They are members of the New Left. Nine days ago at this convention of the National Conference for New Polit~cs, they made their first attempt at political unity. Who they are,

what brought them here, what they hope to achieve, and how important they may be is the subject of the next hour.

This is their view of America: MARIO SAVIO. There's a time when the

operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. I ask you to consider--

STOUT. In the swelling voice of American youth, an insistent note of discontent can be heard. It sounds like this :

SAVIO. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.

STOUT. The new radicals spring from an affiuent America, torn by racial conflict and by dissent born of the Vietnam war.

FANNIE Lou HAMER. There are some strange things going on in America! It's not only in Mississippi. If the Constitution of the United States meant something to all the people of the United States, they wouldn't have to pass a law a day. But I got news for you, baby. It's from the top to the bottom.

RoBERT ScHEER. If somehow you discuss this war in very mild terms and you're sort of disapproving and you're a little bit upset about it, then you're reasonable. But if you try to cut through that and get across the monstrous nightmare of that war and just what we're doing to that country and just what we're doing to the people there and you try to put it in its proper poetic terms with its proper emotive values, then you're irresponsible.

STOUT. The target of the New Left is not right-wing conservatism but Democratic Party liberalism.

FARREL BROSLOWSKY. Since it is the liberals primarily who are keeping people oppressed in our society by their unwillingness to come to grips with the problems, then I feel they have to be dislodged.

ToM HAYDEN. The question is: Whose views shall prevail today? The majority of people in this country are my age and younger. The people who run this country are people whose ideas were formed during the '20's and '30's.

CARL OGLESBY. People are abused, used, pre-empted, forced, coerced and, in many cases, handled fairly roughly by the system, which holds out the-only the promise of a material affiuence. Only the promise of two cars. Only the promise of a split-level divided again and again and again in suburbia after suburbia after suburbia. That's the only thing that this-this culture can offer people now-bread alone. The question is whether or not you're going to accept that.

Peace marchers: Get out of Vietnam. Get out, get out, get out of Vietnam.

BOB DYLAN (singing} :

"You've been with the professors And they've all liked your looks With great lawyers you have discussed Lepers and crooks You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books You're very well-read, it's well-known But something is happening here And you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones?"

(Announcement.} ANNOUNCER. CBS Reports: "The New

Left." Here now is OBS News Correspondent, Bill Stout.

STOUT. The New Left-its members call it the Movement for Social Change--is a noisy blend of people, .mostly young, and ideals, mostly American. It has, at best, perhaps 300,000 members-a tiny minority but including some of the brightest young leaders in the generation that now accounts tor more than half this country's population.

Two points to keep in mind: the young radicals scorn communism and they see liberals as their enemy-not the right-wing Goldwaters and Reagans, but the New Deal Democrats like Hubert Humphrey and the Johnsonian consensus. They say Vietnam is the liberals' war because John Kennedy sent in the first large contingent of troops and Lyndon Johnson ordered escalation. It is also the liberals they blame for poverty and racism at home. And that accusation is the New Left, not so much a political program as a way of looking critically at America.

CARL OGLESBY. You coUld say that the upper-the upper and middle-class kids who are making the New Left go are, in fact, bothered by a kind of poverty, a spiritual poverty, the spiritual poverty of middleclass America. Who could have imagined 20 years ago or 50 years ago that all this affluence would turn out not at all to have been worth it. Who could have guessed that when you get things that you don't really work for or when you•re--when you're forced into a psychology of harum-scarum acquisitiveness where you just buy, buy, buy, buywho would have guessed that that would have turned out not only to be unsatisfactory, but to be, in fact, destructive. And it seems that nobody really believes that it's a good life. Something went wrong here, you know.

STOUT. It is a revolt that is all around us. It can be read in the more than 150 socalled underground newspapers, some of them produced in high schools. And it is in the lyric.a of the young people's music.

JUDY COLLINS (singing}:

"I am trying everyone to please. Though it isn't really war, We're sending 90,000 more To help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese."

BARRY McGUIRE (singing}:

"Take a look a.round you, boy It's bound to scare you, boy And you tell me over and over and over

again My friend, I hear you don't believe We're on the eve of destruction."

STOUT: It is a revolt that reaches in many directions. From Europe, it borrows Albert Camus• conclusion that it takes courage to live in an absurd world. And from the Orient, 1·t borrows Alan Watts' studies of Zen Buddhism, questionin.g that American ideal that says work and material success are the only measures of a meaningfUl life. That part of the revolt is mirrored in cartoonist Robert Osborn's satirical commen·ts on the demands, the pressures, the anxieties, the

~ hassles of the daily rat race. Thomas Pynchon's "V", Ken Kesey•s "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" are other bitter portrayals of American life, all favorites of the New Left. And poet Allen Ginsberg, who now marches in peace demonstrations, voiced much of the discontent with middle-class values ten years ago in his poem, "Howl."

ALLEN GINSBERG:

"Moloch! Moloch I Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone I Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks!"

STOUT. Another of the New Left culture heroes, Mort Sahl. keeps sniping at the same conditions the young radicals find destructive in America.

MORT SAHL. During a briefing at the State Department, the Secretary of State pointed out that there was a civil war in China and he claimed that we-he hoped we wouldn't have to intervene. If we do intervene, there's going to be a policy conflict because we wouldn't-certainly wouldn't want to intervene on the side of a tyrant, Mao Tse-tung. But we certainly wouldn't want to be caught on the side of the people, which would set a

26078 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 precedent. (Laughter) So I-that's not the answer.

STOUT. In the theater, empty of political satire for many years, the New Left came up with "MacBird," a scathing comment on the pursuit of power.

MACBIRD. "My fellow Americans." STOUT. Again the older generation de

nounced it as sick and tasteless, as a liberal attack on a conservative, Southern Pr esident.

MAcBIRD. "And I shall be the President of all Not just the rich and not just the fortunate Not just the folks who vote for me, but all.

"I have a dream ... We have an opportunity to move Not only towards the rich society But upwards towards the Smooth Society."

STOUT. Playwright Barbara Garson's point is that MacBird is merely a cornpone version of the power-hungry Ken O'Dunc brothers with their dreams of dynasty.

JOHN KEN O'DUNc. "You, Bob, are still the second in succession And Ted is next . . • and princes yet unborn . . . And for this land, this crowned continent, This earth of Mars, this seat of majesty, This forceful breed of men, this mighty world, I see a . . • New Fronti er ... "

STOUT. To the older folks, perhaps the most startling aspect of the Movement is its rejection of the prosperous society which produced it-a favorite subject of cartoonist Jules Feiffer.

Middle-aged man: "I'll tell you what really bothers you kids today: You just don't want to grow up!"

Young man: "I once wanted to grow up! But then I took a look at the grown-ups around me--

"Complaining about the jobs they hate and dying of boredom months after they retire from them.

"Picking wives out of the girls they're not attracted to and remaining attracted to girls they think are tramps.

"Watching TV six nights a week so they don't have to talk to the family. Joining a club one night a week so they can talk to the boys.

"Preaching to their kids about their inalienable rights, and then when the kids try to exercise a few, warning them to grow up.

"Mister, to my generation, not wanting to grow up is a sign of maturity."

STOUT. This rejection of American values ls the basis of the Movement. A University of California sociologist who has studied the disenchanted young is Dr. J. L. Simmons.

Dr. SIMMONS. I think that the Movement fundamentally is a feeling in the air-a feeling that straight American society, as exemplified in "The Reader's Digest" and the Establishment just isn't making it in the modern world. The common denmninator that runs through all of these groups-the hippies, the flower people, the racial integration people, the New Left organizatlonsis this feeling of opposition to conventional America. And that this is the real political force abroad in our land today.

STOUT. To understand the New Left, it's necessary to understand their view of what's happened in the last decade. The key was the drive for civil rights and it pulled together all the loose elements of young radicalism. And if any single event marked the beginning of the Movement, it was in the summer of 1960 and it all began with an attempt to buy a cup of coffee.

Four college freshmen-all Negroes-were refused service at a Greensboro, North Carolina lunch counter and the civil rights sitin was born. Television pictures of students mauled by mobs and manhandled by police stirred campus feelings from one end of the country to the other. The Silent Generation had found a cause or, as some put it, a moral equivalent of war. Its simplicity was appealing-no politics or ideology, just a w11lingness to back a belief by offering one's self.

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, known as SNCC, was formed. A massive effort to register Negroes in Mississippi got under way, led by Robert Moses and a lesser-known volunteer, Stokely Carmichael.

STOKEL y CARMICHAEL. By definition, if you're in Mississippi working for civil rights, it's dangerous.

Delegates singing: "Go tell it on the mountain ... " (Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party Convention)'

STOUT. The Mississippi project more than doubled Negro voter registration from 25,000 to 68,000. But even with that, the Negroes had no voice; so the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party was formed. Fannie Lou Hamer, a leader in the voter project, explains.

FANNIE Lou HAMER. We didn't have no other choice except being a Freedom Democvatic Party because what had happened-we tried from the beginning, from the pre<:inct level to go into the regular party. And after we wasn't accepted, we decided to have something of our own-not just for black people in Mississippi, but for white as well.

STOUT. Bob Moses, Mrs. Hamer, and Aaron Henry led the Freedom Party delegates before the Credentials Cominittee of the Democratic National Convention, summer 1964, Atlantic City. Their demand to replace the segregated, all-white Mississippi delegation was a critical test of the values of American liberalism and it was posed, above all, in moral terms.

AARON HENRY. We don't think that there can be any compromise with what we consider a wrong position or a wrong element. We don't think that the Mississippi Democratic Party espouses the philosophy of the national Democratic Party and we think that we do. And we don't see why there should be any compromise between an issue that is involved in this much of being right or being wrong.

STOUT. The settlement worked out by Hubert Humphrey with White House approval was a political compromise offering two seats to the Freedom Party, the rest to the segregationist delegates. To party politicians, it was just one more compromise needed to hold together hostile groups making up the Democratic coalition. But to members of the Movement, it was something else.

FANNIE Lou HAMER. But I think what happened to us in Atlantic City made people really aware that the g-overnment is not really with the people, for the people, by the people but for a handful of folk. And the people don't have anything to say.

We were told there if we kept up what we was doing, that the Vice President wouldn't be nominated that night. And that's when I asked Mr. Humphrey: Was his position, one man, more important than black people's lives '1n Mississippi that was suffering through what they had gone through. And then after that, I wasn't allowed to go to no other meetings with the big, top leaders.

STOUT. In the literature of the New Left, Atlantic City is described as conclusive evidence that for the young radicals, liberalism could no longer serve as a vehicle for social reform. The New Left's opinion of liberals was reinforced nearly three years later when Hubert Humphrey publicly embraced Lester Maddox who, before becoming Governor of Georgia, had waved a pistol and prescribed axe handles as the answer to dem.ands for racial equality.

LESTER MADDOX. Say, you oustomers, go get some more axe handles.

STOUT. To the young radicals, black and white, who had been in Mississippi, Atlantic City was the turning point. It proved to them that they could trust no one over 30, certainly not on moral issues and especially not liberals.

In the fall of 1964, students of the New Left went back to the campus carrying with them some of the hard lessons on civil

rights and political reality. They claimed the right to continue their political activity on campus and the moral clash of the summer now became a battle against bureaucracy.

PETER, PAUL, and MARY (singing): "How many roads must a man walk down before they call him a man ... "

STOUT. At the University of California in Berkeley, the square in front of the Student Union was traditionally open to speeches, discussion, and debate. Then without notice, the University ordered a ban on all political recruiting and fund-raising in the square.

PETER, PAUL, and MARY (singing) : "The answer ls blowing in the wind ... "

STOUT. To students like Mario Savio, who had already been bruised in the civil rights battle, it was another move by the faceless bureaucrats to enforce their decisions without consulting those directly involved. But this time the students fought back. Their Free Speech Movement quickly evolved into a larger indictment of the university as a knowledge-factory.

JACK WEINBERG. This is mass production. No deviations from the norms are tolerated. Occasionally a few students get together and they decide that they are human beings. Some students get together and they decide that they are not willing to be products. They decide they're not willing to be another thing produced by the university.

POLICEMAN. Have you identified yourself? You would be disciplined by the Dean's Office. If you're not identifying yourself, we're arresting you because you must be an outsider.

WEINBERG. What-what section? STOUT. The university said the state's au

thority to regulate political activity on state property could not be challenged. Three months of conflict between the students and the administration finally brought an announcement of concessions by President Clark Kerr.

CLARK KERR. Prior university charges are to be allowed to lapse. The meeting is now adjourned.

STOUT. But these concessions disguised a continuing hostility which, students felt, fl.ashed forth moments later in the treatment given Mairio Savio when he tried to comment on Kerr's announcement. Two years after the first Berkeley explosion, the student demands still were being rejected and in even tougher terms by newly-elected Governor Ronald Rea.gan.

Governor RONALD REAGAN. I don't think the -administration should negotiate with the students' committee. I think they can listen to students. They can take into consideration their views and their opinions. But I think the administration gives away its authority when it Slits down and agrees to negotiate.

STOUT. Some students who tired of fighting the campus authorities simply dropped out. Others took the classroom into the open aire.n academic happening in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. Leonard Wolf is one of 40 San Francisc-o State College faculty members who are conducting classes in a free school.

LEONARD WOLF. One Of the young people said that she wants education, but she doesn't want it in a box. Now that box ts very important. We do, I'm afraid, at the college frequently treat learning as if we owned the product and we make the package and we either sell or give it to the young people in our own way. The young people in the park and 1n the Haight-Ashbury are saying to UJS: "We don't know what education is but we want it. Why are you so sure you know what it is?"

STOUT. The largest campus group in the New Left is SOS-Students for a Democratic Society. It has 30,000 members on 250 campuses. Using the methods of their Southern civil rights experience, SDS members set up slum projects in ten cities. The one in Chi-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26079 cago was called JOIN-Jobs Or Income Now- · and its prime target was the slum landlord. The ghetto projects were designed to test the SDS belief, voiced by one of that group's former presidents, writer Carl Oglesby-t he belief that the best hope of changing society is b y helping the poor to help themselves.

CARL OGLESBY. The problem with the quality of American life is that it's too much organized, that-that nobody really is m aking important decisions for himself. The decisions are in the rule book. You inherit the decisions when you move into the system. When you go to get an education, you find out when you step into the-to the ivy-colored gates, that somebody already has decided what education means, somebody has already defined what the educated man is, and nobody very much is interested in asking you what, in particular, you would like to know about yourself, your community, your history. And students just aren't involved.

STOUT. By 1965, the major issues engaging the New Left were full civil rights for Negroes, a new relationship between student and university, and social justice through organization of the poor. How the young radicals are moving toward those goals in just a moment.

(Announcement.) Announcer: CBS Reports: "The New Left"

continues. Here again is Bill Stout. STOUT. For young people who worked

through the civil rights summer of 1964, the emotional consequences were as great as the poll ti cal. The resistance of the system to orderly change deepened the radicalism of many, especially young Negroes. SNCC, oncce biracial, no longer welcomed white members. And in growing numbers, young Negroes turned to the black activism of Malcolm X.

MALCOLM X. We want one ·th1ng: we declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

STOUT. Searching for black solutions, some of the younger Negro leaders probed the experience of other colored populations seeking liberation. Frantz Fa.non, spokesman for the Algerian revolt, declared in "The Wretched of the Earth" that only through violence directed at their oppressors could black people regain self-respect. In Fanon, Stokely Carmichael, the new leader of SNCC, also found evidence the American Negro is in a colonial relationship to white America.

STOKELY CARMICHAEL. We have to move to a position where we can control the housing in our neighborhoods so that we're not exploited, so that we're not charged high rents to share apartments with rats, and so that the owners of those apartments don't live in the suburbs grabbing the profits from us-that we're able to grab it and that the money will be able to stay in our community so we can develop it. It is no different from a colony in Africa, who is supposedly free, but her resources are controlled by the mother country.

STOUT. Carmicha~l was also convinced that appeals to justice and morality are ineffectual.

CARMICHAEL. I think that this country ls run by property ownership and that black people are not only propertyless, they are viewed as property.

STOUT. This, the radicals believed, was because the black man had lost his own identity by trying to become white. Therefore, he had to acquire pride in his own traditions.

CARMICHAEL. Why don't you know about Richard Wright? Why don't you know about J. A. Rogers? Why don't you know about Lerome Bennett? Why don't you know about Leroy Jones? Why don't you know about Countee Cullen? (Cheers) You must ask yourself why don't you know about Dr. W.E.B. DuBois? (Cheers) And when you get

CXIU--1643-Part 19

the guts, you can ask your administration why don't they teach you about brother Malcolm X? (Cheers) Today we have to fight to define ourselves and our relationship as we see fit and to have white society r ecognize those definitions. (Applause) It's very simple.

STOUT. Carmichael's early definit ions of black power seemed no different t h an the calls for Irish, Polish, or Italian power that resulted in ethnic bloc voting in the cities.

CARMICHAEL. Black power is not just a mere slogan n ationally or internationally. It is real that black people can come together and start determining for their lives how they're going to live and controlling their economic and political lives.

STOUT. But the scare-headline potential of black power proved irrestistible both to Carmichael and to reporters. They prodded him re pea tedy to redefine black power closer to terms of the defensive violence he advocated to Negroes when they were attacked.

MIKE WALLACE. Then you're saying, "Fight violence with violence?"

CARMICHAEL. I am saying that we must build a movement of black people that will protect ourselves so that we are willing to stop that by any means necessary. Now I'm not concerned about the question of violence. It seems to me that that will depend upon how, in fact, white people respond.

STOUT. Carmichael has been touring Communist nations. The deepening Negro radicalism is seen also in the Black Panthers' armed march on the California Capitol as well as in RAM, the pro-Chinese Revolutionary Action Movement. The increasing identification of the U.S. Negro with the plight of colonial colored people climaxed with SNCC support of the Arabs against Israel. The most violent extremism has been urged by the new head of SNCC, Rap Brown, who has been charged with inciting to riot.

RAP BROWN. We stand on the eve of a black revolution, brothers. Masses of our people are in the streets. They're fighting tit for tat, tooth for tooth, eye for an eye, and a life for a life. The rebellions that we see are merely dress rehearsals for the revolution that's to come. We'd better get ourselves some guns and prepare ourselves.

STOUT. But many Negroes feel that Brown, Carmichael, and SNCC, are only scapegoats to absorb official anger and frustration.

FANNm Lou HAMER. Stokely's not responsible and Rap Brown is not responsible because a lot of people that's bitter don't have a television. They don't know what Stokely's saying. There's a lot of people bitter that hasn't ever-that don't have a radio. And I know this to be true in a lot of cities. But I think what should be done-that America should wake up and try to do something about the cause.

STOUT. Doing something about the cause is what Students for a Democratic Society had in mind when they set up the Community Union Project in Newark, New Jersey's Clinton Hill area in 1964. The goal: to help the poor to organize in behalf of their needs. The first aim was modest-a stoplight at a dangerous corner.

Negro woman: My son got killed last year on the 25th of December and I want a traffic light.

STOUT. At first there were requests and then protests.

Newark city official: The point is thisthat the stop sign will be put up pending the survey to be made with regard to the traffic and if a street-if traffic lights are needed. .

SrouT. That produced a stop sign and promises of a stoplight later. More demonstrations brought city officials wtih more explanations and still more promises.

Newark Human Rights Commissioner: I'll communicate with you. Now you give me the names of the people right now and I'll get back in touch with you and let you know what's going to happen. Now we can't talk

but what's happened in the past. But I'll get back in touch with you to let you know the process-what the progress is on the light.

Member of Newark Human Rights Comm ission: Please have a litt le patience. Just n ave patience. I know the city.

STOUT. Three years later, there still i.s no stoplight at the intersection. Experiences like this underlined some convictions of the Newark volunteers. Tom Hayden, one of them, was first president of SDS.

TOM HAYDEN. We have found that when push comes to shove, the society is very resistant to change-much more resistant probably than we thought seven or eight years ago. The average community l·eader in a city is a person with deep stakes in things being as they are. If he's in political office, it's doubtful that he wants m any issues raised in his constituency, in his backyard. It's doubtful that he wants to see welfare mothers organized, tenants organized, block associations organized because when people start to go on the move and they want things done for themselves, they put a pretty sharp eye on their leaders.

STOUT. The Newark Democratic city administration generally ignored the SDS organizers except to brand them troublemakers. Far bigger trouble erupted the night of July 12th of this year. We talked to Hayden three weeks before the riots. His awareness of what could happen was coupled with a sense of inevitability.

HAYDEN. If things are as bad as we think they are, if the schools in Newark where I live are, in fact, on the average 75 years old, if unemployment is 15 per cent, if all these problems exist, then you have to ask yourself the question: Why have the leaders not been able to do something about this and are the leaders the people to organize if you want to make change?

The War on Poverty may have had decent Democratic intentions at some point, but has turned out to be a very serious fraud. And it is not stopping racial violence at all, but encouraging it because it's one more promise that's not being kept by the Federal Government. So I would say it is-it is an attempt to--an artificial attempt to restore law and order to a situation that is basically unjust and until you deal with the injustice in the situation, you won't be able to have any peace.

STOUT. While civil rights and social justice for the poor had been the main causes engaging the young radicals, the steadily escalating war in Vietnam soon became the overriding issue. Indeed, it joined all the scattered elements of the New Left and it drew in from the outside many people, including some of the liberals whom the radicals blame for starting the war.

Student demonstrators. Go. Go. Go. STOUT. Again student dissent first brought

the issue to the attention of the country. Young people from the Berkeley campus tried to stop troop trains and marched on the Oakland port of embarkation to protest the war. It was the start of a series of protests culminating in New York and San Francisco last April 15th.

PHIL OCHS (singing):

"Now the labor leader's screaming When they close the Inisslle plant United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore Oall it peace or call it treason Call tt love or call it reason But I hin't a-marching any more. No, I hin't a-marching any more."

STOUT. The nation's largest peace demonstration was directed at the two principal issues Of the New Left: repressive war abroad and racist poverty a.t home. The joining of the issues was symbolized by Martin Luther King.

MARTIN LUTHER KING. The bombs in Viet-

26080 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- HOUSE September 19, 1967 nam ex.plode at home. They destroy the d!'eam and possibility for a decent America. (Applause) It ls estimated tha.t we spend $322,-000 for each enemy we kill in Vietnam, while we spend in the so-called War on Poverty in America only a.bout $53 for each person cLassified as poor.

STOUT. Another influential V'C>ice among the new radtcals, Ya-le history Professor Staughton Lynd, visited North Vietnam with Tom Hayden---a. t rip tha t deepened h is and the New Left's convtction that our foreign policy is contrary to the n ational int erest and makes more enemies than friends.

STAUGHTON LYND. There's somet h ing about this war which is different from World War II, different from other WM'S that Americans have fought, something about this war that ls, in foot, un-American. But I think we can change that trend ~ events if we change our policy-that is, if we stop supporting people llke--llke Marshal Ky and stop sending Marines into a place like the Dominican Republic, 1f we--if we try to come on as what we aire--a revolut ionary country, you know, a country that stood up for the right of a people to direct its own destinies.

STOUT. In Cleveland this June, church, student and academic delega tes met to pla.n a summer anti-wa1r campaign in neighborhoods across the country. The most radical plan of action was formulated at Ann Arbor, Michigan, where d.eLegates to the 1967 convention of SDS voted to sharpen opposition to the w.a.r by fighting the draft at every opportunity.

SDS delegate: We also urge aid to servicemen who wish to terminate their association with the Army by going underground.

Another SDS delegate: Second. (Applause) SDS convention: Hell, no, we won't go.

Hell, no, we won't go. Hell, no, we won't go. Hell, no, we won't go. Hell, no, we won't go.

STOUT. In 1965 David Mitchell, a New· Left hero, defied the draft and went to jail to uphold a principle established at Nuremberg where Germans were punished for obeying orders later declared criminal.

DAVID MITCHELL. The Nuremberg Trials established the principle that individuals must refuse to participate in such crimes, that it's up to them, no matter what their government orders them to do, to refuse. My position right now is linked immediately to what the United States 1s doing. I consider them . to be involved in unjust wars.

STOUT. Mitchell ls in jail because his moral protest has no legal standing. This moral insistence, combined with righteous anger, ls a trademark of the New Left. Dr. J. L. Simmons. _

Dr. SIMMONS. A lot of the things that the young people are saying and feeling and doing are standard-brand America. They're the kinds of things that people used to hear in graduation 'speeches and then just simply go out and forget. The young people of today are, I think, bent on reh umanizing our s~ciety. They see Am erican society as a kind of cold m arketplace where we become preoccupied with bu ying and selling goods and then buying and selling each other and then pretty soon , buying and selling ourselves.

STOUT. We'll look at som e of the ways t he New Left t hinks our society can be humanized and at some of the polit ical moves they h ave made t o achieve t h eir goals in just a moment.

(Announcement.) Announcer: CBS Reports: "The New Left"

continues. STOUT. In the New Left's first attempts to

translate discontent into direct political action, several young radicals ran for office in California. Robert Scheer, teacher and magazine editor, tried for Congress. His opponent: a liberal Democrat. ·

ROBERT SCHEER. The reason that I have tried, am trying now to run against Cohelan is I feel he ls more ·dangerous than the socalled right-wing congressmen. And if we had

a right-wing government and 1f we had a reactionary government and if the generals were in charge-because at least then you'd know where things are.

STOUT. He lost, but Scheer took enough votes to hurt the Democrats-the goal of the New Left. A Los Angeles junior college professor, Farrel Broslowsky, ran for the state legislature, also lost, also took Democratic votes. But Broslowsky denies the effect of the New Left is to help elect conservatives.

FARREL BROSLOWSKY. Well, it wasn't really us who elected Reagan. It was the failures of the preceding liberal administrations that created the hysteria, the pa nic, the unhappiness, the fear on the part of the large numbers of voters who went out and sought an alterna tive to these problems. And since Reagan presen ted such an alternative, they voted for Reagan.

The liberals are presently, very, you know, healthy, very fat. They live in nice houses. They drink lots of scotch. And every so often, they genuflect in the direction of principle by singing an old labor song. But they don't really mean it, you see. We want to create a meaningful alternative on the left so that if people are ·going to vote, let them choose between alternatives.

STOUT. One alternative, the National Conference far New Politics, met in Chicago two weeks ago to chart a course for the 1968 elections. The joint chairmen were Simon Casady and Julian Bond. Oasady was deposed from the leadership of the California Democratic Council as the result of White House displeasure over his vigorous opposition to the Vietnam war. Julian Bond was almost deposed from his seat in the Georgia legislature for the same anti-war stand.

The new politics meeting brought further evidence of the racial tensions within the New Left when the significantly outnumbered N egry delegates threatened to walk out unless they were given a greater voice. They stayed when the convention gave this Negro minority half the caucus votes and approved all their militant resolutions, one condemning the Israeli position in the Middle East war. Some delegates thought this was not so much black power as blackmail. As usual, New Left insistence on what they call "participatory democracy" dominated the meeting.

ROBERT SCHEER. And if this convention can't give people the freedom to do what they believe in, instead of trying to force them down some road they don't want to go down, it not only is not new politics, it is totalitarian politics.

STOUT. Predictably, the delegates also att acked the old leader-oriented politics.

CHARLES SHERROD. We've got to start at the grass-roots level and do that hard door-todoor, sitting down with people, talking with people, really agonizing with people, taking some t ime out because this ls how it's got to be done-for the long haul. And if we aren't t alking abou t that, then we're talking about t h e old politics, politics of the leadership, polit ics of "You big leader, I little follower, me follow you." But we've got to work with the body politic. ~at's the part of polit ics that's dying and, I daresay, dead in America today. We've got to revive it. And if· we revive · it, that will be new polit ics. (Applau se)

STOUT. Because of this rejection of leader-oriented programs, the New Left conference seemed chaotic by conventional standards. But at conference end, a program of action seemed to have emerged. Even tho-ugh the. delegates voted not to run a national ticket in the 1968 presidential election, they left the way open for local organizations, in key states such as California, to run third party tickets in the hope of denying those states to Lyndon Johnson. When the conven- . tion closed, the political future of the New Left was uncertain. Its success at the polls wm probably determine that.

The discontent of the New Left has been

noted by the politician most identified with young people.

Senator ROBERT KENNEDY. However the war may seem to us, they see it as one 1n which the largest and most powerful n ation on earth is killing children and they do not care if accidentally in a remote and insignificant land. They see us spend billions on armaments while poverty and ignorance continue at home. They see us wi111ng to fight a war for freedom in Vietnam, but unwilling to fight with one-hundredth the money or force or effort to secure freedom in Mississippi or Alabama or the ghettos of the North. And they see, perhaps most disturbing of all, that they are remote from the decisions of policy.

STOUT. But the general distrust felt b y the New Left for all shades of liberalism includes the Senator.

SDS member. Kennedys and Hatfields are not the vehicle. Now what we don't have"the ideology" yet. I think we h ave learned from experience tha t perhaps committees for new politics, perhaps third party movements are what are necessary in this country, and that if it takes us 10 to 15 years to build a constituency, perhaps it's worth it. But if we, in a sense, t ransfer our allegiances to Kennedy, as many have suggested, where are we to go from there? Once Kennedy has coopted us, in a sense, and told us about "his new Frontier," what's to prevent him from pulling off another Guatemala or another Cuba?

STOUT. Tha t kind of suspicion among the young has been fed by two exposes in the San Francisco magazine, "Ramparts"--one about Michigan State University's role in building a secret police force for the Diem regime in Vietnam, the other revealing the C.I.A.'s penetration of student organizations. "Ramparts" editor-in-chief, Warren Hinckle.

WARREN HINCKLE. The central point about the C.I.A. which its--its defenders just will not discuss, is that the C.I.A. is out of hand. It is, you know, not only the worst example of Parkinson's Law, but it's--it's t he most rambling, well-fed bureaucracy in America today. It has essentially no congressional controls on it, on how its money is spent, on what it does. Take that criticism for whatever you may-that you shouldn't expose these sort of things--but you notice tha t the President and the leaders of Congress jumped as soon as we exposed that thing and had a commission and reported three weeks later this was a bad t~ng to do and t hat they were going to stop it.

STOUT. If the young radicals are suspicious of the liberal Establishment, they are fr ankly bored by communism.

ToM HAYDEN. Communism as a force domestically in this cou ntry is vir t ually nonex.istent. The tradit ional Communist Party in this country in m y own view- and I'm speaking here primarily as an individual- h as really adjust ed it self, accomm odated it self, accommodated itself t o the-to t h A American way of life too deeply to be considered radical or revolutionary.

FARREL BROSLOWSKY. In the New Left, tha heroei; aren't people like Dimitrov and nobody quotes Trotsky and nobody makes a big thing about Lenin's pamphlets on infantile disorders. But instead, the New Left tends to draw its heroes and its analysis of--of the problems of our society from the American experience. The New Left might call upon, let's say, a Thoreau or it might call upon the ! .W.W., the old Industrial Workers of the World, the Wobblies.

STOUT. If bureaucratic communism repels the New Left as a solution for domestic problems, it is equally impatient of anti-communism as a substitute for foreign policy.

RoBER'.1' SCHEER. It's basically our feeling that the cold war should be over, that the splits that have taken place in the Communist movement have made much of the rhetoric of the '50's and late '40's irrelevant,

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26081 and that to continue with the demonology of anti-communism-the very simplistic demonology of anti-communism and the concept of the international Communist conspiracy-marks our foreign policy as being out-of-date and in some ways, a very dangerous thing.

STOUT. It is foreign policy issues which have gained for the Communists the few youthful recruits they have. Revolutionary movements like Vietnam's National Liberation Front and Castroism have followings. The Progressive Labor Party has substituted Maoism for Russian-style communism. The old Moscow-oriented party is mainly represented in the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs, which have about 1,000 members.

But what separates the New Left from communism is the same thing that separates it from the Old Left-indifference to ideology and a dislike for hierarchy and formal organization. A sociologist who described the collapse of the old radicalism in "The End of Ideology," Daniel Bell, thinks the new radicals simply are not practical.

DANIEL BELL. I think what motivates the new radicals-and to this extent, it's a positive side-is a very deep moral feeling, a sense of dismay at the-some of the values of the society, a dismay at the hierarchies of work, at the competitiveness of the society, at some of the materialism of the society. And all their criticisms are put in moral terms. The difficulty is the inability to translate a moral conception into a political conception.

ToM HAYDEN. We traced the source of many of these difficulties to the lack of what we called "participatory democracy," which meant that many of the people who were suffering or the victims of injustice in the country were really without political strength, really did not participate in the political process, and had not really stood up to fight against these injustices. The vital thing, I think, to get across to people is that they need to lead themselves and not leave things up to their representatives.

DANIEL BELL. This seems to be the fundamental problem that involves the New Left-this mystique about the people and what they call "participatory democracy." People probably feel ineffectual today because there's probably more participation in society than less. Now I can only argue this and perhaps try to give you some evidence of it in this particular way: If you go into city after city, you'll find that there are now hundreds and hundreds more organizations on 1098-l levels, on city levels than ever before. But it also has the curious problem, you see, that it checkmates each other. Forty years ·ago in New York City you could get more thingsmore things done by the fact that there was a political boss. So perhaps to argue a paradox here: that th~re's more participation, that quite often more participation leads to a sense of ineffectuality because there are more claimants in the arena.

STOUT. Today's most · effective professional radical, who has organized ghettos from Chicago to Rochester, is Saul Allnsky. He admires the young radicals but like Bell, thinks they're naive.

SAUL ALINSKY. They don't know where they're going. All they know is they don't like the-the setup we've got, which I can well understand. I've never liked it from the time I was old enough to look around, you know, and I've fought against it. But theythey don't understand the power concepts. They're allergic to it. In terms of communi'Cation with the Establishment, you've got to get away from this justice and morality. You have to communicate with them in terms of their own language, which is self-interest and power. And in order to be able to do that. you have to have the mechanisms, the media to do it with, which means pullding a mass power organization. ·

CARL OGLESBY. We don't want to substitute just a new bunch of leaders. We don't think

that a-that a new bunch of leaders would be any better than the old bunch of leaders because we think that that's not something that a social engineer can do for people. You can't give the welfare program to the poor people. The poor people have to take the welfare program over.

The crucial question, the one which the Movement is trying to put to the American people, ls very simple. It's the question of whether or not tl~ey think, the American people think they're fit to govern themselves. If the American people think they're fit to govern themselves, then they belong politically with the Movement, whether they want to call it right wing, left wing, conservative, liberal or whatever is beside the point. If you think that the people shouldn't govern themselves but rather that the decisions about their lives should be made by computers, th.en you don't have anything to do with the Movement and you belong in thein the Johnsonian liberal consensus.

STOUT. The political editor of New York's "Village Voice," once a New Left activist, now its biographer, thinks the new radicals are "a prophetic minority." Jack Newfield:

JACK NEWFIELD. I think the strength of the New Left rests on the power of its ideas and by the fact that history is made by minorities, and the New Left ls clearly a minority. For example, the abolitionists represented a minority but their ideas finally prevailed. Or the Wobblies represented a minority-a very small minority-but finally there was a labor movement built in America. Or Bob Moses going along to Mississippi in 1961 led in very indirect and diffuse ways to two civil rights acts. So the effect of the New Left rests on the power of its ideas and among these ideas are: one, that the A.D.A.New Deal-anticommunist liberalism of the '30's is absolutely finished politically; that that liberalism now stands with Lester Maddox in Georgia and Marshal Ky in Vietnam and the C.I.A. on the campus and this generation will not buy that style of liberalism. And that there is now a transition.

And I think the ideas of the New Left wm come to make up. the central body of radical thought in America in 20 years from now: the ideas of participatory democracy being the best antidote to ·bureaucracy and technology; the idea that paranoid anti.communism no longer has a place in .&merican llfe; the idea that America can no longer go around the world crushing popular revolutions in Cuba or the Dominican Republic or Vietnam.

STOUT. Many Americans will be afraid of the New Left and its harsh criticism of almost everything this country lives by, from rigid anticommunism to the conviction that law and order and a good life for the majority ought to satisfy everyone. Older Americans ma.y argue that the young always settle down with age. But these young radicals believe that as tlie first new generation to have a population majority, they will change the country before age changes them. Like them or not, these are the people and the ideas that have begun to shake America, intent to continue shaking it, and just might remake it.

For CBS News, Bill Stout. Good night. _ (Announcement.)

Delegates (singing) (Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party Convention):

"Go tell it on the mountain Over the hills and everywhere Go tell it ·on the mountain To let my people go."

PETER, PAUL, and MARY (singing): "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the

wind. The answer is blowing in the wind."

PHIL OCHS (singing) :, "Now the labor leader's screaming when they close the missile plant

United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore Call it peace or call it treason Call it love or call it reason But I ain't a-marching anymore."

BOB DYLAN (singing) :

"But something is happening here and you don't know what is, do you, Mr. Jones?"

Announcer: CBS Reports: "The New Left" was filmed and edited under the supervision and control of CBS News.

EXTENDING THE EXISTING TARIFF QUOTA ON STAINLESS STEEL FLATWARE Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BURKE] may extend his remarks ait this point in •the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to ithe request of the gentleman f<rom West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, unless action is taken to extend the existing tariff quota on stainless steel table flatware, it will suffer an ignominious death on October 10, 1967. This quota proclaimed by the President in 1959 has allowed a historic American industry to remain viable in the face of a continuing flood of low-cost Far Eastern imports, principally from Japan.

While an orderly market appeared to be developing in this product in the years 1960-65, it was disrupted again by a liberal modification in January 1966 so that in the present quota-year 2% million dozens were imported in excess of the original 1959 quota of 5% million dozens.

Stainless steel flatware is a highly intensive labor article and, as such, is ultrasensitive to low-priced imports produced with low-cost labor. If all escape clause relief is now denied this industry, a renewed onslaught reminiscent of the 1955-59 period not only can be expected but is an absolute certainty.

While imports are projected to increase over 35 percent in the next 5 years under the present tariff quota, the national interest or public purpose served by the quota is sufficiently important to outweigh any adverse effects on our economy or living standards. In other words, the minimum costs of. termination of the tariff quota far exceeds the minimum benefits of such action. The insignificant savlng for each of the U.S. families who buy imported flatware would be far outweighed by the loss of Jobs, obsolescence of sk1lls, indirect unemployment, idling of productive facilities and loss of profits. It is col1Servatively estimated that over the 5-year period 1968-72 the costs would be .$25.5 million as opposed to benefits of $7.8 million.

We have just concluded the Kennedy round of GA TT negotiations during which all existing compensations owed foi· Government actions involving ·trade were settled. Stainless steel table flatware was statutorily barred from these negotiations. The present tariff treatment could be extended for the 4-year period envisaged by the Trade Expansion Act without any compensatorY, costs to the United States and could result in pro-


found economic benefit in the producing areas of New England, New York, and New Jersey. ·

For these reasons, I and two of my colleagues in the House, Mr. PIRNIE and Mr. CONABLE, feel the necessity of introducing legislation which will extend the tariff quota treatment for a period of 4 years from October 11, 1967, to October 10, 1971. We respectfully urge the favorable consideration of this legislation.

FULL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEDERAL IMPACTED AREA PROGRAMS Mr. HEOHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thrut the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GoNZALEZ] may extend ihis remarks at this point in rthe RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is there objection to ithe request of the genrtleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, prob

ably the most important of all government efforts is the provision of education for our children. If we fail to provide education for our children, we are failing to give them opportunities which are their birthright. Fortunately, we have generally recognized our responsibilities to provide for education. The cost of education is great, and it is borne by all levels of government. Still, the basic source of school :finance is the property tax.

Congress recognized years ago that when the Federal Government has a large number of employees in an area, and their place of work-the Government--is exempt from taxes-local schools are being asked to provide services for the children of those employees but, at the same time, were losing their tax base. In short, Federal installations could and did demand more services of the schools while, at the same time, reducing their ability to pay for it. Public Laws 815 and 874 provided a remedy for this inequity by making available Federal aid to make up for the tax losses which Federal property exemptions represent.

It would be difficult to estimate how important these laws have been. In more than a few communities in this country, Federal installations are the main industry and enterprise. Like any industry, government needs and demands services of local governments, but most especially the schools. With school :finance being based on property taxes, such communities would be hard pressed to provide even basic education without the impacted area programs established by Public Laws 815 and 874. In the case of Bexar County, Tex., the schools draw as much as 8 percent of their operating budgets from the impacted area program. These schools could hardly operate without this aid. In fact, some school districts are so hard pressed for resources that they would have to reduce teacher salaries without the impacted area assistance they now receive. Typically, this situatiol\ occurs where the local tax base is already so low that anything other

than a reduction in services and salaries could solve problems that would ensue from an ending or cutting back of impacted area assistance. It is not that local schools do not try to operate on their own in such situations; it is simply that they cannot provide what is needed without assistance, or without an impossibly high tax rate.

The House has approved an appropriation measure which would not provide enough money to pay the full entitlements under Public Laws 815 and 874. As matters presently stand, there is a need for $460 million to adequately fund the impacted areas program, but we have provided only $416 million. The other body has approved $450 million which, while a better amount for these programs, would still be short of the needed amount.

I believe that we have a commitment to the States and to the local schools. I believe that we should carry it out, by providing the full appropriation necessary to pay all entitlements for assistance under the impacted areas program. Unless this is done, some school districts will find it necessary to cut back on the quality of their programs-which is in this day and age unconscionable. If we force schools to take such a step, we are penalizing entirely innocent partieslocal taxpayers, who are already doing their part--and children who in any event have no responsibility for the situation, and whose future in large part depends on their schooling. The only thing that local schools could do other than reduce services, if these programs are not adequately funded, would be to increase tax rates. But this is not a good alternative. In the first place, the tax base of these districts has been reduced by the presence of the Government's installations. In the second place, we know that property tax rates in this country h_ave already been placed under great strain, and in fact are proving inadequate to the task. State and local governments are turning to other forms of taxation because property taxes already are too high, or simply cannot produce the sums needed. In such a situation the schools simply have no place to go. Even if local taxes were increased to meet the results of cutbacks in this program we would be asking local taxpayers to assume a burden that is properly that of the Federal Government.

I believe that we have a commitment to provide the full amount of funds authorized by Public Laws 815 and 874. I ask now that we live up to that commitment.

ATTACK ON U.S.S. "LIBERTY": ANOTHER PEARL HARBOR?

Mr. HEC!ffiER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent rthat the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. RARICK] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is there objection to the request of the genrtlerruw. from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, one of the

most amazing aspects of the recent Israeli-Arab war was the unprovoked attack on June 8, 1967, in international waters of the Mediterranean by Israeli forces on the U.S.S. Liberty, as the result of which the vessel was seriously damaged, 34 of the ship's company died and another 75 were wounded.

Still more strange is the way the story of this unprecedented assault, after the initial :flurry, has been hushed up in the mass news media of the United States.

Notwithstanding the silence that has overtaken this assault, enough information about it has :filtered through smaller publications on which to form conclusions.

The incident is recognized as adding new glory to the traditions of our gallant Navy comparable to the battle between H.M.S. Shannon and the U.S.S. Chesapeake on June 1, 1813, when the immortal words of the dying Capt. Jam es Lawrence of the U.S.S. Chesapeake were uttered: "Don't give up the ship!"

The conduct of the commanding ofiicer of the Liberty during the attack, Comdr. William L. McGonagle, U.S. Navy, his officers and crew, were truly heroic, measuring up to the highest traditions of the naval service. It is, indeed, fortunate that Commander McGonagle was an able, energetic officer who had kept his crew well trained for such emergency.

The more the case is studied the more questions occur. Who planned the attack on the Liberty, and why was it made? Why has the report of the naval court of inquiry not been made public? In the event of the sinking of the Liberty, would not the blame have been placed on Egypt, just as the sinking of the Maine in 1898 in Havana Harbor was placed on Spain, which, historians tell us, did not wish war with the United States?

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the attack on the Liberty warrants a full and complete investigation by the Congress, as recommended by the American Legion at its 1967 Convention. This should be done promptly to avoid another such incident that could be made to serve as a Pearl Harbor for world war III.

Two articles bringing together many facts and the 1967 resolution of the American Legion on the Liberty incident follow:

[From the National Review, SeP't. 5, 1967) JUNE 8, AT 1400 HOURS

(By James Jackson Kilpatrick) The USS Liberty, a communications ves

sel attached to the Sixth Fleet, took on fuel and provisions at Rota, Spain, on June 2, 1967. She left that same day, under orders to proceed at top speed to an assigned position off the SLn:ai coast 800 miles to the east. She carried a crew of fifteen omcers and 279 men. Three civilians identified cryptically as "technical representatives" from the Department of Def·ense (DOD), also were aboard. She arrived on station early on the morning of Thursday, the 8th. It was the fourth day of the six-day war between Israel and the Arab nations. That afternoon the Liberty was to undergo an attack without precedent in modern naval history. Thirty-four men would die, among them one of the DOD technicians; another 75 would be wounded. Well over a third of her total company would be ca.au-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26083 alties of an unprovoked assault in Ml undeclared war, victims of an inexplicable "mistake" on the Israelis' part. Or so the incident is described.

Whiat follows he:re is neither an expose of the Liberty's clandestine role in the Med·iterranean nor an explanation of the Isriaelis' trigger-happy attack; these aspects of the affair are at present unknowable. What follows is no more than an account, drawn largely from official records, of what happened. This is, in brief, a sea story; nothing more. Yet sea stories always are worth the spinning, and the story of the Liberty, that blazing summe·r afternoon, speaks of enduring values that men too often forget: loyalty, and discipline, and courage under fire.

As she chugged eastward across the Mediterranean, the Liberty surely was no thing of remarkable beauty. She had started her maritime life as a freighter of the old Victory class, her keel laid down in Portland, Oregon, late in February 1945. These were the days of Rosie the Riveter; merchant ships were not long in gestation. This product of the assembly line was delivered to the Maritime Commission a little more than two months later. During the closing months of World War II and for some years thereafter, she plied the Pacific Far East. She saw considerable service during the Korean conflict. In 1958, an old tub, she went into the Reserve Fleet, mothballed in Puget Sound, there to slumber for nearly five years.

OUT OF MOTHBALLS

Meanwhile, the Navy embarked upon a. program of developing special communications ships. Three old Liberty freighters came out of mothballs, to emerge on the East Coast as Oxford, Georgetown and Jamestown. In the summer of 1963, two additional conversions were ordered from the aging Victories on the West Coast. The former Iran Victory returned to service in November of 1964 as the Belmont; and on December 30, 1964 the former SS Simmons Victory went back to sea as the USS Liberty. By general acknowledgment, the five vessels make up our own fleet of "Russian trawlers." In the short word, they are spy ships.

We pick her up in early June: 455 feet long, 62 feet at the beam, her topside exhibiting a puzzling collection of masts and antennae, a "Big Ear" turning inquisitively amidships, assigned to the Sixth Fleet, in the Mediterranean. Down below, in the forward compartments, walled off from the operating crew, were the communications technicians. And with them, by general report, were specialists not merely from DOD, but more precisely from the super-secret National Security Agency. Among them, it is said, were experts in code-cracking and cryptographic machinery. One can only guess at the devices the Liberty had aboard for receiving, recording, transmitting. It is known that the Big Ear could pick up messages from a hundred miles away. And now, with war briefly raging between Israel and the Arab nations, the Big Ear was ordered to listen off Sinai.

In April of 1966, Commander William Loren McGonagle, USN, had assumed command of Liberty. Born in Kansas, he had been raised in Coachella, California. He was graduated in 1947 from the University of Southern California at Los Angeles, an ensign in the V-12 program. He served for nearly three years on a radar picket destroyer, then 06 executive officer on rthe minesweeper Kite on combat patrol off Korea. Tours of duty followed at San Francisco and 'Bremerhaven and Philadelphia; he was back at sea for two years on the heavy cruiser Rochester; then came his first command on Mataco, an ocean-going tug. He returned to shore for special training at the University of Idaho; spent two more years at sea, commanding the salvage vessel Reclaimer; then put it in another two years of staff operations

in the Pacific. Finally came his assignment to Liberty.

WHERE WERE THE ORDERS?

Now, none of this experience, it will be seen, had prepared McGonagle precisely for what was to happen on the afternoon of June 8. To be sure, he had known hazardous duty on Kite, and he had put in some anxious moments picking up mines in the Baltic in 1952. On the record, however, one may surmise that he had never heard a shot in anger. We meet him, this summer day, at age 41, a professional naval officer, doing the same job he had been doing for fourteen months.

So he brought the Liberty to her assigned position early on the morning of June 8, a hot day, the sun bright, the s·ea calm. His orders were to maintain patrol from "a point thirteen nautical miles from the coast of the United Arab Republic at 31-27.2N and 34-00E (point Alpha), thence to 31-22.3N and 33-42E (point Bravo), thence to 31-31N and 33-00E (point Charlie), retracing this track until new orders might be received." As events were to turn out, some new orders were in fact dispatched that very morning, but these messages strangely were "misrouted, delayed, and not timely received."

Liberty steamed methodically along her southeastern course until she reached point Alpha at 8:49. The ship's normal American ensign, a flag 5 x 8 feet, fluttered loosely in the torpid air. Then she turned to the southwestern leg. At about that moment, an unidentified jet aircraft approached and circled the ship. This was at 8:50 by the log. Some forty minutes later, the tall minaret at El Arish became visible, thirteen miles away. McGonagle asked for a bearing on the minaret, in order to make certain of his position within the established operating area. Everything checked out nicely. An hour later, at 10:26, with the Liberty nudging along at five knots, two unidentified aircraft again orbited the ship. The presumption ls strongindeed, the presumption is inescapable--that these were Israeli reconnaissance planes. They circled the ship three times at a distance of approximately two miles. At 10:56, another aerial visitor turned up-"an aircraft similar to an American flying boxcar," which passed astern at a distance of three to five miles. "The plane circled the ship around the starboard side, proceeded forward of the ship, and headed back toward the Sinai peninsula." Vislb111ty was perfect.

THE UNMARKED PLANE

"This aircraft," McGonagle was to testify at the Navy Court of Inquiry, "continued to return in a somewhat similar fashion approximately at thirty-minute intervals. It was not possible to see any markings on the aircraft, and the identity of this aircraft remains unknown."

McGonagle was not greatly worried by the surveillance. He was clearly within international waters, by anyone's international law. At 11.32, passing point Bravo, he altered course to 283 true, and plodded along his westward leg. During the morning, he was approached by the engineering officer, Lieutenant George Golden, asking permission to let the number two boiler cool for gasket repairs. The permission was granted, and the boiler began to cool at noon.

At 1: 10, the ship went to general quarters for a routine non-competitive drill in chemical attack procedures. Just as the 38-minute drill began, a billowing cloud of black smoke arose from the Sinai beach, some fifteen to twenty miles west of El Arish. The drill went off satisfactorily, but McGonagle saw an opportunity to put in a timely word. Every naval officer knows the problem of maintaining interest in damage control drills; other shipboard exercises can be usefully simulated, but drills in damage control have a way of demanding more imagination than sailors ordinarily can muster.

From the transcript: "Before dismissing the crew from general

drills, I gave the crew a short talk on the PA system, reminding them of the importance of expeditiously responding to general quarters . . . in the event of an actual attack. So that they would be impressed, I pointed out to the crew at that time that the column of black smoke should be sufficient evidence that the ship was in a potentially dangerous location. I had no evidence or indication that an attack would actually be made on the ship."

Ordinarily, as McGonagle would recall, it was his practice after a drlll to join the officers for a cup of coffee in the wardroom, in order to go over the performance with an eye to improvement. This time, he was generally pleased with the exercise. His ship was secure; morale was high; some of his off-duty sailors were about to take sunbaths. He lingered on the bridge, chatting casually with his executive officer, Lieutenant Commander Phllip Mccutcheon Armstrong Jr. A few other officers were there--Lieutenant Maurice H. Bennett of Pittsburgh, Lieutenant James M. Ennis Jr. of Norfolk, and Lieutenant Stephen Spencer Toth, the son of retired naval Captain Joseph C. Toth of Virginia Beach. Lieutenant James G. O'Connor, who had served as officer of the deck during the general quarters drill, was ready to go off duty for lunch. Lieutenant (j.g.) Lloyd Clyde Painter climbed up the ladder to replace him.

For no particular ·reason, except that such reasons always stir in a naval captain's head, McGonagle put his own eyes to the radar screen for one more bearing on the minaret at El Arish. The landmark was then 25.5 miles distant; the bearing was 142, comfortably within the bearing he had established earlier as a danger point against shoal waters. It was 1 :55. Painter had officially relieved O'Connor as officer of the deck. Ensign Malcolm Pat O'Malley of Minneapolis had just assumed the conn. McGonagle was ready to go below. Still he lingered.

At 2 o'clock, lookouts just above the bridge reported jet aircraft approaching. McGonagle moved to the starboard wing of the bridge to have a look at them with binoculars. He was able to observe one aircraft "of similar characteristics, if not identical, to the two aircraft which were sighted earlier in the day." The plane was about five or six miles away, at an altitude of perhaps 7,000 feet. It appeared to be traveling on a parallel course with the ship. There was no evidence of a hostile attitude. McGonagle put down the binoculars and again turned away.

The first explosion came, as best he can recall, within a couple of minutes. He sounded a general alarm, and dashed to the port wing of the bridge. Two 55-gallon gasoline drums, stored amidships on the main deck, were burning furiously. The outside port ladders were blocked. He ordered Armstrong to go down the starboard side and get the drums pushed overboard. O'Connor, who also had lingered on the bridge, moved to go with him. The two men had just reached the top of the starboard ladder, when a second bomb struck, this one near a whaleboat stowed just aft of the bridge. The explosion killed Armstrong outright and flung the others back into the crowded room. Suddenly the whole of the tidy bridge was a mass of blood and debris.

"ALL AHEAD FLANK t"

McGonagle grabbed for the engine order annunciator, remembering to his dismay that the number two boiler was cooling. He desperately rang up all ahead flank. To his vast relief, smoke belched from the stack, and the wounded Liberty seemed to pick up speed. He ordered a mess·age sent by the high command radio to the Chief of Naval Operations, advising that Liberty was under attack. He glanced at the helm and saw that

26084 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 his helmsman had been seriously injured by the second bomb blast. Quartermaster Third Class Francis Brown, of Troy, N.Y., had leaped to the helm in his place. In less than half an hour, Brown himself was ·to die.

The strafing attack continued. Whether there were two planes or three, McGonagle cannot recall. They oame over the Liberty in criss-cross runs a minute or so apart, punishing the ship with machine guns, rockets, and fragmentation bombs. After the first or second run, McGonagle reached for a phone to relay some command, but the phone circuits had been destroyed. The public address system went out. Shouting through the smoke, he saw that Ensign John D. Scott of Charlotte, N.C. was rallying damage control parties to fight a raging fire in the vicinity of the whaleboat. Ensign David G. Lucas managed to make his way to the bridge, stepping over the bodies of the dead and wounded men. Together, they assigned runners to relay orders to the repair parties and to other vital stations.

It may have been on the third run that McGonagle himself was hit. He could not recall pain or even shock. He looked down, and saw his right leg turning red. At the subsequent Navy Court of Inquiry, he was asked about the wound. He testified during his first appearance on the witness stand:

"I was knocked off my feet; I was only shaken up and it made me dance around a little bit, but my injuries did not appear to me to be of any consequence. I noticed slight burns on my starboard forearm and I noticed blood oozing on my trousers right leg. Since I could walk and there was no apparent pain, I gave no further consideration to these minor injuries."

The hostile planes kept boring in. A moment or so later, Ensign Lucas staggered in painful surprise: He had taken a piece of shrapnel in his forehead. McGonagle opened the bridge safe, got out a camera, and struggled to the port wing in order to take pictures of the attackers. For the remainder of the assault, he kept the camera close at hand.

It was now about 2: 20. The Liberty was still on her course of 283 true, plodding toward point Charlie. She was still moving along at something in excess of five knots. The attacking planes abruptly wheeled off. Through the smoke, McGonagle caught a glimpse of three high-speed torpedo boats approaching from the northeast at 27 to thirty knots.

From the transcript: "It appeared that they were approaching

the ship in a torpedo launch attitude, and since I did not have direct communication with gun control or the gun mounts, I told a man from the bridge, whose identity I do not recall, to proceed to mount 51 and take the boats under fire . The boats continued to approach the ship at high speed and on a constant bearing with decreasing range.

"About this time, I noticed that our ensign had been shot away during the air attack, and ordered Signalman [Russell O'Neal] David to hoist the largest ensign we had in the locker. He ran up the holiday ensign [7 x 13 feet]. It was flying before the boats attacked."

Old menaces stormed baclt to McGonagle's mind. If he turned the Liberty to port, in order to avoid the torpedo boats, he r isked the coastal shoals. If he turned to starboard, he gave his pursuers an even better target. He stayed on course and prayed for Golden's boilers to give him maximum speed.

F!"om the transcript: "When the boats reached an approximate

range of 2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signaling to us. Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli flag. This was later verified. It was not possible to read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames. At this time I yelled to machine gun

51 to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the air attack having been conducted in error. I wanted to hold fire to see if we could read the signal from the torpedo boat and perhaps avoid additional damage and personnel injuries. The man on machine gun 51 fired a short burst at the boat before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do."

Then, to McGonagle's consternation, he saw that one of the aft machine guns, gun 53, had erupted into extremely effective action. "It's Quintero,'' he said to Ensign Lucas. "He's blanketing that boat. Go around the port skylight and tell him to hold fire." Lucas clambered off, but later would testify that it wasn't Boatswain's Mate Anthony A. Quintero at all.

From the transcript of Lucas's testimony: "The first thing I noticed was that the

mount 54 [on the port side] was vacant. Flames had reached it and chased everyone out of there. I ran toward the gun mount, and looked over the skylight from the engineering spaces. I had a clear view of mount 53 [the starboard mount, which was firing] from, say, the waist up, and there was no one on mount 53. The flames from the motor whaleboat were coming over the lip of the mount. I assume that the bullets that were in the gun, or bullets that were in the ready service ammunition box, very near there, were cooking off and firing."

At 2:34, the torpedo boats opened fire with their own guns. A cannon shot caught Quartermaster Brown. Mortally wounded, he fell from the helm. Seconds later, three torpedoes sped toward the Liberty. One passed astern by 25 yards. A second may have passed beneath the ship. The third struck the Liberty forward, on her starboard side, immediately below the waterline. In the instant of the explosion, 25 men died-most of them highly skilled technicians. The ship went dead in the water, her steering control and all power lost. But there was no additional fire, and a nine-degree list to starboard presented no immediate danger of sinking. McGonagle's weary brain began to recalculate the shoal waters, with the thought of grounding his ship if he had to.

"GO TO HELL!"

It was 2: 40. In the midst of this bizarre nightmare, it seemed not at all surprising that the commanding torpedo boat made a swift turn, stopped dead some 500 yards astern, and began signaling in English: "Do you require assistance?" McGonagle had no light left to return the signal. He ordered the flags "Lima India" hoisted, signifying that "I am not under control." (Somewhat later, an Israeli sailor was to say that "an officer appeared and shouted 'go to hell!' " After a moment or two--long enough for McGonagle to attempt a photograph of the vessel-the torpedo boat moved away from shore. Two minutes later, two helicopters, bearing Star of David markings, appeared. They hovered about the smoking ship, circled her repeatedly, flew off for about five miles, returned once more, and vanished.

McGonagle's mind turned to the dead, the wounded, the problems of regaining steerage. Scott's damage control parties were working at fever pitch, the sailors stripped to the waist, the deck a mass of twisted metal and burning gear. But the watertight bulkheads were holding, the starboard list was no worse, and Lieutenant Richard H. Klepfer of Brooklyn, a Navy doctor, had done a superb job of organizing a main battle dressing station in the mess hall. Most of the slain men were trapped in the forward compartments, but three or four mutilated bodies, streaming blood, were still on deck. They were in plain view of the inspecting helicopters. By this time, McGonagle's wounded leg was giving increasing pain. He stretched out and tried to keep the limb elevated. Then, to his horror, he looked up: The two jets were coming back from the star-

board side, "in similar fashion to that which preceded the initial attack." He called an alert to the possibility of renewed assault, but the jets disappeared.

It was 4: 15. McGonagle ordered the ship's international call sign hoisted, and turned again to the problems of getting the Liberty back under steam. Both boilers came briefly back on the line, but lost their fuel oil suction almost at once. The gyro compass was a wreck. It was impossible to learn the ship's heading. The ship's surviving communications technicians, however, were able to manage the impossible: They rigged some emergency radio-telephone circuits, and restored communications with the Sixth Fleet.

McGonagle leaned against a bulkhead. The whole bridge spun around him. He slumped to the deck, giddy from loss of blood. A communications technician, Jeffrey Robert Carpenter of Norfolk, cut away his right trousers leg and applied a tourniquet. McGonagle refused to g1 ve up the conn he had assumed at 2 o'clock; he was to retain the conn until 6: 30 the following morning.

A thousand demands cried for his attention. Some of the crew members had dropped life rafts. McGonagle sent a messenger to tell them to leave the lifeboats alone. The boats weren't needed now, but they might be needed later. He sent a message to Fleet Command, detaillng the estimated dead and casualties. Friendly fighters from the carrier America were around him. Back in Washington, President Johnson had been on the hot line to Moscow, advising Premier Kosygin of the situation. The intern.a.tional uproar was beginning. McGonagle's principal concern was to keep the Liberty moving. The engine room, thank God and George Golden's crew, managed to get the boilers going again. To his delight, the ship turned up a brisk eight knots. McGonagle ordered a course estimated at 340 magnetic, and arr·anged for emergency manual steering.

From the transcript: "The amount of rudder was given to after

steering over emergency-rigged sound-powered telephones. They would apply the rudder. When the ship had come to the approximate magnetic heading, the rudder would be shifted to attempt to maintain that heading. It was possible to maintain within plus or minus 30 degrees of the ship's heading most of the time."

The azimuth of the setting sun provided a rough guide to help the Liberty along. The fathometer was still working; it reported 26 fathoms under the keel-plenty of water for the moment, but the shoals were somewhere near at hand and it was only a guess whether the magnetic compass had been knocked awry. McGonagle toyed with the idea of dropping anchor, and even directed Lucas to get up an anchor party and go to the foreoa,stle. His thought was to wait until it got dark, then take a visual bearing on the North Star, because "once I was able to sight the North Star, I would know in which direction the ship was actually proceeding." Then another thought prevailed: He ordered the engines backed two-thirds, and for eighteen minutes the Liberty backed carefully away from the threatening shallows.

"How much water?" he kept asking. When the fathometer got to 48, he drew a long breath and ordered the rudder around to a bearing of 025 magnetic. The engineers produced power, though the lube oil pressure kept giving trouble. By 6 o'clock, Liberty was moving at a creditable ten knots , with 82 fathoms under her keel.

At 6:45 , a lookout sent word to the bridge that another Israeli helicopter was approaching.

"What do they want?" asked McGonagle. "Sir, they're trying to land a ma,n aboard." McGonagle was in no mood for social

visitors or for boarding parties . He thought of the d angerous clutter on the forecastle, and ordered a wave-off. The helicopter then dropped a message to the deck. Written on

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26085 the back of the calling card of Commander Ernest Carl Castle, Naval Attache for Air, U.S. Embassy, Tel Aviv, it read: "Have you casualties?"

From the transcript: "We attempted to advise them by flash

ing light with an Aldis lamp that "affirmative," we did have casualties. I'm not sure that wounded men were still lying around the deck, as such. By that time, most of our wounded had been taken to the casualty collection stations.

"COUNSEL FOR THE COURT. In amplification of the Admiral's question, wws there not a considerable amount of blood on the decks that would be obvious from a reasonable distance?

"The WITNESS. That is correct. There were numerous blood streams the full length from the forecastle to the main deck at machine gun mount 51, where one body was stlll lying. I do recall that now. There was also another body in the vicinity of mount 51."

After ten or fifteen minutes of unsuccessful attempts at communication, the helicopter buzzed off. And darkness fell.

In a Navy that delights in tales of seamanship, men will be talking for years of the night that McGonagle brought the Liberty back from Sinai. At the Court of Inquiry's hearings, McGonagle was recalled to the stand.

From the transcript: "COUNSEL FOR THE COURT. I have no fur

ther questions. Does any member of the Court desire to question the witness?

"The PRESIDENT. Captain McGonagle, in our previous discussion, you told me a story which I have since come to identify as remarkable humility and self-effacement on your part, '."lhich I presume had caused you not to mention in testimony the way you navigated this ship out of dangerous waters after the attack. Will you please tell the Court how, while lying on your back, with no compass except the magnetic compass, and based upon your recollection of the magnetic compass error in relation to the gyro compass book, you used the sun and subsequently the North Star to clear the area?

"The WITNESS. Admiral, after a time on the bridge, when I had received minor injuries, I lost considerable blood, and when attempts to stem the flow of blood by selfhelp were unsuccessful, I noticed myself beginning to lose consciousness. I immediately lay down fiat on my back on the port wing, and raised the bleeding leg as high as possible, resting it on my port bridge chair, and there a first class communications technician by the name of Carpenter and other perso:::is whom I don't recall at thit time, applied a tourniquet to my right leg which effectively stopped the flow of blood. I at no time lost consciousness and had my full faculties at all times.

"I realized at that time I had lost considerable amounts of blood because it was sloshing in my shoes .... But since the fiow of blood had stopped, I gave no further consideration to--I didn't consider I had any more problem in that area ....

"I conned the ship by looking aft, and by being able to see the wake of the ship I was able to tell after steering which way to apply the rudder and how long to leave it on to attempt to average out the course that I felt the ship should travel to stand clear of possible shoal areas. I remained on my back for approximately an hour and a half. I then felt that I had regained sufficient strength that I was able to get up from the deck and conn the ship from the wing of the ship and from the pilot house, . . . It seemed to me that my remaining on the ·bridge-this would be able to lessen the shock that the rest of the crew had received."

The Navy doctor, Lieutenant Klepfer, saw McGonagle during the evening but made no effort to get him below to a battle dressing station. "The Commandllng Ofilcer at that

time was like a rock upon which the rest of the men supported themselves," he told the court. "To know that he was on the bridge grievously wounded, yet having the conn and the helm through the night calling every change of co~e. was the thing that told the men 'we're going to live.' When I ca.me to the bridge and saw this, I knew that I could only insult this man by suggesting tha,t he be taken below for trea.tment of his wounds. I didn't even suggest it.''

Dr. Kiepfer's own performance was in the highest naval tradition. He performed one major operation ·immediately after the engagement. He and his two hospital oorpsmen stayed on duty for 28 hours.

From the transcript of Dr. Kiepfer's testimony:

"Any time we needed one volunteer, we'd get ten. If anything had to be done, there were hands everywhere. When asked for two pints Of blood for transfusion, we had people on the adjoining tables who were saying, 'if you need some, I have this type.' These were _people already wounded."

During the night, McGonagle ordered three musters to identify the dead. He and his remaining ofiloers bent to the task of preparing oasualty messages. He winced at the firSrt of these, to Mrs. Philip Mee. Armstrong Jr., of 433 West Main Street, Dalton, Pennsylvania. His executive officer, a 38-year-old graduate of the Naval Aca<iemy, had left a young widow and five children behind. Lieutenant James C. Pierce had died, and Lieutenant Stephen Toth. The list included Allen M. Blue, one of the DOD specialists. And the sailors: Allenbaugh, Blanchard, Brown (he would recommend Brown for · posthumous commendation), Campbell, Converse, Eisenberg, Goss, Graves, Hayden, Hersey, Higgins, Hoar, Keene, Lenau, Linn, Lupton, Marggraf, Marlborough, Mendie, Nygren, Raper, Rehmeyer, Skolak, John C. Smith and Melvin ·D. Smith, Spicher, Thompson, Thornton, Tiedtke, Walton, ... Most of them were naval communications technicians, stationed in the forward compartments, who died in the torpedo's explosion.

Early on the morning of June 9, a lookout sent word that the U.S. destroyer Davis was in sight, ready for escort duty. Helicopters arrived from the carrier America, to transfer the wounded. During the morning, the fleet tug Papago also arrived. The heavy cruiser Little Rock joined the parade. The little convoy moved slowly off to Malta, the Liberty still listing badly and 25 bodies still entombed in the fl.ooded wreckage of the communications rooms. She arrived at Veletta on the 14th. Awed workers in the shipyard counted 821 separate hits upon the hull and superstructure by bombs, rockets, and machine gun bullets. The teardrop hole left by the torpedo explosion measured 39 feet across.

II

A Navy Court of Inquiry opened its hearings in London on June 11, and continued them aboard the Liberty at Malta through June 17. Admiral I. C. Kidd served as President of the Court; other members were Captains Bernard J. Lauff and Be·rt M. Atkinson, both attached to headquarters of Admiral John S. McCain Jr., commander in chief of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe.

Almost all of the testimony taken by the court remains in classified status. Some excerpts have been released from McGonagle's transcript. A few quotations from the evidence supplied by Ensign Lucas and Dr. Klepfer also have been made public. No supporting material whatever, having to do either with Liberty's mission or with the Israeli "mistake," has been released. For the time being, there is no way for the outside observer to form an independent judgment, from the record, upon the Court's conclusions.

We are told that the Court determined that "USS Liberty was in international wa-

ters, properly marked as to her identity and nationality," at the time the attack occurred. The Court produced evidence "that the Israeli armed forces had ample opportunity to identify Liberty correctly,'' but the Court "had insufilcient information before it to· make a judgment on the reasons for the decision by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats to attack.''

These reasons must remain a matter of speculation. There is some evidence, wholly apart from consid·erations of diplomacy and logic, to sustain the position taken by the Israeli government, that the attack was a tragic mistake. On a windless day, the ensign first hoisted by Liberty may well have been drooping unrecognizably from the mast. The second, "holiday" ensign, hoisted just before the torpedo attack, may indeed have been obscured by the smoke. This was the explanation advanced by Micha Limor, an Israeli Naval reservist, in an article written for the Associated Press on July 6. Limor was aboard one of the three torpedo boats.

"About 2,000 yards from the ship," he wrote, "the high masts and many weird antennae showed that this was a warship. The side of the vessel was blotted out by smoke, and apart from three numbers along her side, we could not discern a thing. We could see no flag on the mast, nor was anyone to be seen on the decks and bridge.''

THE NAGGING QUESTION By Limor's account, the Israeli torpedo

·boats attempted repeatedly to get some identification from the Liberty, but received no response to their signals. Then "a sailor started firing at us with a heavy machine gun from the bridge," and "thus there was no doubt that we were faced by the enemy.'' It was not until after the torpedo struck home that one of the Israeli boats picked up an object from the sea and saw that is was a rubber lifeboat bearing the name of the U.S. Navy.

Another line of speculation, apart from Limor's generally corroborating statement, was advanced by the Navy Court of Inquiry in an appendix to its report. Here the Court noted that Liberty 'might have been mistaken for the· Egyptian supply ship El Quseir.'' But the Court went on to say that El Quseir bears only a "highly superficial resemblance" to Liberty. The Egyptian ship is less than half the size of the American vessel; its superstructure is entirely different; and of course it has none of the elaborate antennae and distinctive radar devices that instantly identify the Liberty.

In a statement on June 10, the Pentagon coldly rejected published reports that some unidentified Pentagon spokesmen believed that "a plausible explanation" could be found in human error. Assistant Secretary for Defense Phil G. Goulding said that "we in the department cannot accept an attack upon a clearly marked noncombatant U.S. naval ship in international waters as 'plausible' under any circumstances whatsoever. The suggestion that the United States flag was not visible and the implication that the identification markings were in any way inadequate are both unrealistic and inaccurate. The identification markings of U.S. naval vessels have proven satisfactory for international recognition for nearly 200 years."

During the past month, press service interviews with survivors of the attack have turned up a uniform conviction that the attack was deliberate. Sailors point to the morning-long aerial surveillance; the presence of the flag; the known configuration of the Liberty; her name in English on the stern (Egyptian naval ships carry their names in the cursive Arabic script); her slow progression in international waters. All these factors support the crew's conclusion that the a.ssault was no .accident.

Opposed to this argument is the line of reasoning which holds that the Israeli government was heavily dependent upon the


goodwill of the United States; that it would have been utterly irrational for the Israeli navy knowingly to have launched an attack on a U.S. ship; and that the only reasonable explanation is that the incident was a mistake arising from the natural tensions and fallible judgments of a hot war.

So, too, does the mystery of what happened to the orders sent to McG<>nagle "early on the morning of June 8." All that we are told of these messages--in the plural-is that 1) the orders came directly from the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 2) the orders were "to move farther from the coast," and 3) the orders were "misrouted, delayed, and not received until after the attack."

No communications system is infallible. Humans make errors; the ionosphere plays tricks; power goes off at critical moments; even carriers operating off Vietnam have significant blackout periods when they can neither send nor receive. Granted.

When these possibilities have been given full account, the bare statement that the orders were "misrouted and delayed" remains incredible. One would like to know a great deal more about these "misrouted and delayed" messages. Did they exist? What precisely did they say? Who saw them? When? Where? How did they go astray?

One would also like to know a great deal more, of course, about the specific purpose sought to be served by Liberty's position so close to the Sinai shore. Why thirteen miles out? Or twelve, or fifteen, or whatever it was? Again, the Pentagon's statements strain credulity. The first explanation, recalling that inspira-tion.al moment when the downed U-2 was only a missing weather plane, was that Liberty had to be close to shore in order to use the moon for message relays. The second explanation was that Liberty's only job was "to assure communication between U.S. Government posts in the Mideast and to assist in relaying information concerning the evacuation of American dependents and other American citizens." This is hardly impressive. Skeptical observers will continue to assume that Liberty was engaged upon a general mission of intelligence-gathering and codebreaking; and they will wonder what might have been received, translated, taperecorded, and fed into computers between, say, 10 o'clock and noon on June 8 that resulted in the pinpoint destruction of the very hull compartments-frame 53 to frame 66-where the electronic gear was housed.

The unanswered questions nag for answers. For the time being, one puts them to the side. On great ships of war, operating in war zones, one comes to expect death, destruction, and heroism. The fire on Oriskany last fall, the fearful inferno on Forrestal on July 29, were terrible reminders of the violence of war. Men rose to the crises superbly. They were in the true sense, heroes. It is a Ii ttle different when a virtually unarmed communications ship, navigating peacefully under a neutral flag, is taken by surprise. There too, as Admiral McCain remarked, "heroism was the order of the day." Commander McGonagle has been recommended for an appropriate award.

[From the Zarephath (N.J.) Herald of Freedom, July 28, 1967]

THE RAPE OF THE U.S.S. "LIBERTY"

When is a "war crime" not a war crime and when is an "atrocity" not an atrocity? The answer plainly is, "When the p1'0paganda apparatus Of the guilty party is able to convince the world that the act in question was an 'accident.' " However, W!I the saying goes, you can fool some of the people, etc. One not fooled is the Hon. Craig Hosmer, Republican Congrel'!sman from Oalifornia. The Congressional Record of June 29, 1967, p. 17893 .records his remarks as follows: "I can only conclude that the coordinated attack by aircraft and motor torpedo boats on the U.S.S. Liberty 15~ miles north of Sinai

on June 8 which killed 34 officers and men of the Navy and wounded another 75 was deliberate."

Rep. Hosmer continued: "The fact that the U.S.S. Liberty was a Victory hull vessel, hundreds of which were produced and used by the U.S. Navy during World War II and since, rules out the possibility of mistaken identity. Every ship recognition book in the world has, for years, identified the characteristic Victory hull and superstructure of the U.S.S. Liberty as U.S. Navy property ....

"Whatever is the reason for the attack, it was an act of high piracy. Those responsible should be court-martialed on charges of murder, amongst other counts. The Israel Government should pay full reparations to the United States and indemnities to the families of the Americans killed."

Congressman Thomas G. Abernethy, a Democrat from Mississippi, made the following remarks on the same day as reported on page 17893 of the Congressional Record: "The Liberty ship incident--and inded it was more than an incident--has been treated entirely too lightly by this Government. To say the least, too little has been said about it. This useless, unnecessary and inexcusable attack took the lives of 34 American boys, wounded 75 others, and left many others in a state of horrified shock, to say nothing of what it did to a flag-flying vessel of the U.S. Navy. How could this be treated so lightly in this the greatest Capitol in all the world?

"I have heard Members of this House, and many, many others, say that if this had been done by others, the leaders of our Government would have moved in with sterness and appropriate demands or even retaliatory action."

Rep. Abernathy continued: "These men at all times are entitled to the strong backing of every citizen of this land of every race and every creed. They are entitled to and should have the strong arm, as well as the strong voice of their Government and their people behind them. And who has spoken out in their behalf from this land since some of their number were so suddenly shot down and others so severely wounded on the Liberty ship? ...

"What complaint have we registered? What has Washington said? To tell you the truth, this great Capital as well as this great G<>vernment--if it can still be called great--was and is as quiet as the tomb regarding this horrible event .... The Pentagon stressed that the Liberty was clearly marked, that it was in international waters, that it had a right to be where it was, and that the attack was incessant, heavy and hard; that the attack came from both planes and torpedo boats, designed not simply to knock out but to destroy the ship and its men."

The Israeli Government maintains a strict press censorship so the article from which the following quotes are taken would have had to have government approval for its release. This was written for The Associated Press by Micha Limor, a member of the Israel Naval Reserve who was on duty on one of the Israeli motor torpedo boats that attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, and appeared in the N.Y. Times of July 7, 1967. The Times, which prides itself on reporting "facts,'' printed Lim.or's story which contains many contradictions to the facts as brought out by the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry.

Among these doubtful "facts," we read: "The high masts and the many weird antenna showed that this was a warship." ... "We could see no flag on the mast nor was anyone to be seen on the decks and bridge." ... "We spent several minutes trying to contact the ship and demanding identification. We tried by radio and by heliograph, in accordance with internationally accepted means." We should note here that Israeli planes had already had the U.S.S. Liberty under surveillance for many hours and had made six

separate strafing attacks on the ship which was flying the American flag and that, after the regular flag (5 feet by 8 feet) was shot down, the Captain of the Liberty had a ·special holiday flag (7 feet by 13 feet) hoisted.

Israeli Reservist Limor continues with his tall tale: "We wanted to make the ship surrender without sinking her. Once again we circled the vessel in battle formation, firing again and again. This had no effect. No one appeared. No one reacted.'' (Unfortunately it would have been difficult for the dead Americans strewn on the Liberty's deck to rise up and "react.") Not to be daunted the brave Israelis continued and, says Limor, "Dozens of shells, rockets and torpedoes were needed to drag a sign of identity from them .. .''

That the boats were in constant contact with Tel Aviv is indicated by the following statement:

"We received orders directly from the omcer commanding the navy to give all necessary help. Se we approached the Liberty and offered help, shouting through a loudspeaker,

"Then an omcer appeared for the first time on the bridge and screamed, 'Go to hell!!'

"Learning they did not need aid, we left." Time magazine of July 6, 1967 pointed out

that the Liberty had her name on the stern in English and that the Court produced evidence that the Israelis had ample opportunity to identify the Liberty correctly. On June 17, 1967, the Associated Press reported from Valetta, Malta that senior crewmen of the dam·anged U.S. Navy research and communications ship Liberty were convinced that Israel's air and torpedo boat attack that cost 34 American lives was deliberate. A survivor was quoted as stating: "We were flying the Stars and Stripes and its absolutely impossible that they shouldn't know who we were. This was a deliberate and planned attack and the rema.rkable thing about it was the accuracy of their air fire."

There have been some strange activities on the part of the Department of Defense in connection with this case. The attack occurred on June 8 yet parents of wounded sailors did not know whether their sons were alive or dead until they finally received telegrams on June 11. The wounded were taken by helicopter from the U.S.S. Liberty to the aircraft oarrier U.S.S. America, and, on arrival, were warned by a representative of the C.I.A. not to talk to anyone about what had happened. Those with head wounds were taken to a U.S. Army hospital at Landstuhl, Germany, and, while there, were kept under guard with tight seeurity. Reliable sources have advised that the many communication technicians who were aboard the Liberty have been dispersed to other assignments separately in different parts of the world. A confidential source advised that there was a deliberate jamming of radio communications being sent by the U.S.S. Liberty to the Commander of the Sixth Fleet. This jamming reportedly came from Israeli sources and necessitated changing the radio communication circuits. The Liberty for this reason was unable to call for help when the first attack came.

The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry was convened by Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., USN, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Naval Forces Europe. Classified hearings were conducted in London and aboard the U.S.S. Liberty in Malta from June 11 to 17, 1967. The Court consisted of Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, USN (r_eported selected by the Administration in Washington, D.C.) and U.S. Navy Captains Bert M. Atkinson and Bernard J. Lauff who are attached to Admiral McCain's Headquarters. The Court's findings were presented to Admiral McCain and approved by him on June 18, 1967.

Among the findings were: There was signitl.can t surve1llance of the U.S.S. Liberty on three separate occasions--five hours and

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26087 thirteen minutes before the attack, three hours and thirteen minutes before the attack and two hours and thirty-seven minutes before the attack .... There were five to six separate air attacks on the U.S.S. Liberty with at least two or more planes participating in each attack. The U.S.S. Liberty had arrived at the designated location June 8, 1967 with orders to steam in an area bounded by latitude 32 north on east and west by longitude 34 east and 33 eaat, 12.5 nautical miles from the coast. The U.S.S. Liberty steamed on June 8th south easterly 130° true until 8.49 A.M. when she reached the eastern boundary of operating area and turned to a southwest course 253° true. At 8.50 A.M. a single unidentified jet crossed her wake at an estimated 3 to 5 miles astern, then circled the ship and returned to the mainland. The Liberty was flying normal American flag, 5' by 8'. Jet and propeller aircraft circled the ship at 10.56 A.M. and at the time the Liberty was steaming at only five knots. At 2 P.M. the ship's Captain, Commander William L. McGonagle, of Norfolk, Va., fixed her position by radar as 25.5 nautical miles from the minaret of ElArish which was to the southeast bearing 142° true.

The reconstructed ship's log reads as follows:

"From the official records of the U.S. Naval Board of Inquiry.

"Requested 8 June chronology follows "l. Approaching land from the west dur

ing the early morning hours of 8 June, projected operations of Liberty for the morning and afternoon of the day was to proceed to a point 13 nautical miles from the coast of UAR (United Arab Republic) at 31-27. 2N 3~00E (Point Alpha A) thence to 31-22. 3N 33-42E (Point Bravo B) thence to 31-SlN 33-00E, (Point Charlie C) retracing this track until new orders received, ship would operate north of this track line at all times, 1f fixes could not be accurately obtained as Point Charlie was approached it was intended to head due north until the 100 fathom curve was crossed and the track moved to the north to more or less move back and forth on the general average of the 100 fathom curve. Normal steaming speed was to be five knots. Normal steaming colors were flown and normal navigational lights lighted at night. There was no intention to steam at darken ship at any time and the ship did not even exercise at da-rken-shlp drill during the deployment.

"2. All times bravo unless otherwise incllcated.

"0754 Steaming on 130 T, SPD 10 knots. "0849 Passed through Point Alpha changed

CSE (course) to 253 T. "0850 Single jet A/C (&.ircraft) (unidenti

fied) crossed astern distance 3-5 miles--circled ship from STBD to port and returned to UAR mainland.

"0905 decreased SPD (speed) to 5 knots. "1056 Another A/C circled ship-high. "1126 Another A/C circled ship. "1132 Passed through Point Bravo C/0

(changed course) to 283 T. "1310 Exercised at G.Q. (general quarters)

drill. "1348 Secured from G.Q. drill. "1351 3 small surface contacts held on ra

dar 32,000 yards bearing. "082T-Reported to bridge as 3 surface

contact. "1353 Radar reports possible A/C passing

over surface contacts. "1358 Single A/C sighted approaching ship

from 135 deg. Relative 5-6 miles distance, altitude approximately 7000 ft. A/C passed down track of ship.

"1403 Loud explosion-port side amidships.

"1405 Sounded general alarm-large fire in vicinity of frame 85, 01 level where fuel for motor driven fire pumps are located.

"1405 All ahead flank signalled by engine order telegraph.

CXIII--1644-Part 19

"1405........:1410 Ship under repeated air attack wiith two or more A/C making coordinated strafing, rocket, and incendiary runs over ship. Three major fires topside covering Large areas of ship with flames and heavy smoke a. total of eight men were killed or died as a. result of injuries received during the air attack, one killed and one mortally wounded on bridge, two killed at machine gun 51, one killed at machine gun 52, one died from wounds received on the main deck starboard side and two died of wounds received on the 01 level port side. Approximately seventy five wounded, including commanding officer, throughout topside area. from shrapnel and shock of exploding rockets.

"1410 Began making turns for 18 knots. "1424 3 MTBs (motor torpedo boats)

sighted abaft starboard-beam distance ~ 5 miles.

"1426 Noticed normal streaming ensign shot away during air attack. Holiday size ensign hoisted on port yardarm.

"1428 MTB signaling by flashing light from STBD quarter. Light obscured by dense smoke from burning motor whaleboat.

"1430 one round fired by machine gun 51, C.O. (commanding officer) ordered hold fire.

"1431 machine gun 53 opened fire. C.O. sent Ens. Lucas around port side of bridge to get machine gun 53 to cease firing.

"1431 word passed to standby for torpedo attack to starboard. MTB commenced strafing starboard side of ship.

"1434 torpedo passed 75 yards astern of ship. ·

"1435 torpedo hit starboard side amidships. Twenty-six men died as a result of the torpedo hit and MTB strafing fire.

"1435 lost electrical power throughout the ship.

"1436 lost steam pressure-secured engines and boilers-many gauges and meters in fireroom and engine room were knocked out.

"1440 MTBs standing away from the ship. One MTB has hull number 206-17.

"1503 one MTB returned to ship and signalled "do you need help" in English. C.O. signalled "negative."

"1505 MTBs retired toward shore. "1507 helicopter bearing Star of David

markings approached ship, port side, hovering at about 500 yds. distance.

"1508 second helicopter approached ship. Markings on helicopters are 04 and 08 or D4 and D8. Helicopter made repeated passes around and over ship. They were not observed to pick up any bodies, persons or debris.

"1519 power restored to bridge but rudder did not answer-continued steering from after steering.

"1536 MTBs approaching ship starboard side 7-8 miles distant. During next hour and a quarter the MTBs returned to the ship and by 1713 they had retired out of sight over the horizon.

"1615 two unidentified jet A/C approached ship from the STBD side and reconnoitered from a distance.

"1620 attempting to clear area steering northerly course at speeds varying from O to 8 knots. Personnel casualties were treated in the wardroom on a continuing basis, damage control and fire fighting controlled flooding and damage, engineering casualties were restored but steering was by hand from after steering.

"1845 Israeli helicopter approached ship-circled close aboard and attempted to signal-they appeared to desire to lower someone to the deck-C.O. considered receiving him on forecastle and ruled this out as too hazardous. Repeated attempts to communicate were unsuccessful. And at 1852 copter dropped a message packet on forecastle, the message, written on a calling card of the U.S. naval attache Tel Aviv, asked "have you casualties." Ship tried by several means to indicate, during next ten minutes that there were many casualties but there was no indi-

cation that the message was understood, the mutilated bodies of three dead crew members had not yet been removed from the forecastle and must have been observed from the helicopter. The helicopter departed the ship shortly before sunset (about 1905) ship continued steaming through night to RDVU (rendezvous) with escorts dispatched by COMSIXTHFLT (Commander Sixth Fleet) .

"3. Foregoing constitutes detailed reconstruction from QM (quartermaster) notebook, CIC Log, bell book and best recollection of CO/Chief Engr/gun and bridge personnel. All concur."

In the event it seems difficult to believe that the attack was deliberate we are outlining the story of a previous strange happening related by attorney Alfred M. Lilienthal in his book, "The Other Side of the Coln." (Devin-Adair, N.Y.C.) Mr. Lilienthal is of the Jewish faith, was formerly a State Department official, and ls considered an expert on the Middle East. After discussing the improvement in relations between the Unit,ed States and Egypt between 1952 and 1954, the author states:

"This situation was viewed in high Israeli quarters as a grave threat to the continued flow of American dollars into Israel from public, if not private, sources. A direct severance of relations between Egypit and the U.S. was d·eemed desi.rable. An Israeli espionage T•ing was sent :to Egypt to :bomb official United States offices and, if necessary, to attack American personnel working there so as to destroy Egyptian-U.S. and, eventually, Arab-U.S. relations."

" .... two young Jewish Egyptian boys carrying identical bombs were caught as they were about to enter U.S. installations. Upon their confessions, a sabotage gang was rounded up of six other Jews. The conspirators, who received sentences ranging from 15 years to life, were the objects in the U.S. of multifold sympathetic editorials and articles. Nothing appeared in print at the time to combat the image of another Nasser conspiracy to unite his country against Israel.

"In 1960 an investigation in Israel called attention to the forgery of an important document in what had been announced as a 'security mishap' that precipitated the resignation of Pinhas Lavon as Minister of Defense in 1955. Lavon had been at odds with others in the Ministry of Defense, including Deputy Minister Shimon Peres and General Moshe Dayan, who had been seeking some excuse to force his resignation. The forgery placed the legal responsibility for this unsuccessful sabotage attempt at Lavon's door, even though he, at the time, had called it 'a stupid and immoral act.'

"From the outset Lavon had denounced the document as a forgery and had pressed for an investigation. . . . . But Prime Minister Ben Gurion fought the reopening of the case .... However, late in 1000 the Cabinet ordered an investigation, which, under the dlrecition of Attorney General Gideon Hausner, revealed clearly that Lavon's signature had, in fact, been forged by a high-ranking officer· in the ministry, that Lavon had nevel" ordered this sabotage operation and that false testimony had been given in an earlier inquiry. Israel's Ministry of Defense, presided over by General Moshe Dayan and Brigadier Abraham Givli, proved to be involved."

Gen. Dayan, involved in previous skulduggery, is obviously capable of deceptive action and coverups. The Liberty could have been a menace to his secret plami and the Shreveport (La.) Times of June 18, 1967 has brought out an interesting chronology of events:

"June 7: The Liberty took up its post off the SinaJ. Peninsula. In New York, Foreign Minister Abba Eban ... was proclaiming that 'only Israel has accepted the U.N. cease fire mandate.'

"Later developments showed that even as Abba Eban spoke, Ism.el was massing columns

26088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 of tanks, sizable forces of mechanized infantry, and squadrons of jet warplanes on the Syrian border for invasdon of Syria. . . .

"There was no normal way for the U.S. or the U.N. to learn of the military buildup at the Syrian border; except that the Liberty was now only 15 miles offshore from Egypt and Israel. ...

"June 8: The Liberty was put out of action by Israel.

"June 9: Israel inv.aded Syria, an act that was almost as big a shock to the world as the war 1 ts elf." ·

When the Liberty was able to get its oalls for assistance through to the Sixth Fleet, the American Navy was prevented from going to her rescue. Counterattack of July 14, 1967 states:

"The Sixth Fleet r:esponded by or:dering two deck loads of planes to the asSlistance of the Liberty. President Johnson meanwhile had opened the hot line to Moscow rut the urging of ·advisors. Precisely what the President said to Moscow about American planes being in the air may never be recorded ....

"But it is known that Naval Operations, acting in response to high authority, ordered Admiral W111iam I. Martin, commanding the Sixth Fleet, to recall the planes forming in the air for attack. In seconds, Admiral David L.-McDonald, the Ohief of Naval Operations was on the radio telephone repeating and emphasizing the order."

A report of the Navy's invest1gB1tion of the attack on the Liberty tells of other orders: "Early on the 8th, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued order for Liberty to move farther from the coast, even though such a move would partially degrade her mission. The messages were misrouted, delayed and not received until after the attack." (Shades of Pearl Harbor!)

The U.S. News & World Report of July 10, 1967 states concerning the "mystery of what happened to the messages:"-"One reason cited for delay: The order went by normal communications instead of through emergency channels that would have reached the Liberty immediately." (This is the same reason given for official failure to warn the sitting duck fleet at Pearl Harbor.) The article states:

"Why did the Israelis attack? ... From Israel came this explanation: When the Liberty was challenged by an Israeli torpedo boat, it answered with the signal that had been used by Egyptian ·ships during the 1956 Suez war. Consequently, the Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship."

With their Government fa111ng to act, a group of America n citizens is moving against Israel, demanding justice for the killed and injured officers and men. An organization has been formed called the Committee for Immediate Action-Families and Friends of Victims of the U.S.S. Liberty, 212 Coolidge St., Linden, N.J. Two of the leaders of the organization are Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Reilly, Sr., parents of two servicemen who were aboard the U.S.S. Liberty at the time of the attack, Robert, age 18, and Thomas, Jr., · age 20, who is in St. Albans Naval Hospital with a fractured skull and a piece of shrapnel in bis brain. These parents have instituted a suit against the Government of Israel, demanding that the Government of Israel be condemned for this .action; that the captains of the torpedo gunboats and the strafing aircraft be brought before a tribunal of the United States and Israeli Governments and charged with murder and maiming innocent persons; and that the Government of Israel be compelled to pay punitive d amages of fifty million dollars.

The attack by the I9rae11s on the U.S.S. Liberty was deliberate ·and planned, the ship having been strafed and torpedoed so viciously that there were over 800 holes 1n its bull. Had the Israeli forces been successful in sinking the Liberty the atrocity would probably have been blamed on the Arabs and

Egyptians producing a Pearl Harbor reaction in the United States. Was the attack to turn the U.S. against the Arabs .or to destroy information picked up by the communications ship? Whatever devious purpose prompted the attack we may never know, but we do know that it was a war crime of the greatest magnitude.

THE 49TH ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, BOSTON, MASS., AUGUST 29, 30, 31, 1967

RESOLUTION NO. 508

Committee: Foreign Relations. Subject: U.S.S. Liberty Incident.

Whereas, on June 8, 1967, the U.S.S. Liberty-while operating in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean-was the target of an apparent de11berate attack by Israel's war planes and torpedo boats; and

Whereas, this unwarranted and unprovoked attack killed 34 members of the Liberty's crew, and wounded 75 other U.S. Navy personnel on board, 1n addition to causing extensive damage to the ship; and

Whereas, the U.S. Government's official inquiry covered the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the fact that the ship was "properly marked as to her identity and nationality, and in calm, clear weather" when atta.cked, but the published report fails to provide the American public with a satisfactory answer as to the reason for the attack; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the American Legion in National Convention assembled in Boston, Massachusetts, August 29, 30, 31, 1967, That The American Legion denounces and condemns Israel's irresponsible attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, a United States' ship and its crew; and be it

Further resolved, That The American Leg.ion insists that the United States Government conduct a complete and thorough investigation of this incident, with the result s to be made public insofar as security permits; and be it

Further resolved, Tha t The United States Government demand full payment from the Israeli Government for:

( 1). compensation to the next of kin of the deceased;

(2) compensation to the wounded for injuries and residual d isabilities; and

(3) damages to the property of the United States.

BRITAIN ENCOURAGES ARMED AGGRESSION

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from · Louisi1ana [Mr. RARICK] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous maitter.

The SPEAKER pro rtempore. Is there objection to :the request of the gentlema.n from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, on August

31, 1967, I entered remarks in the daily CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which appeared on . page A4430 regarding the invasion of Rhodesia by terrorist bands who were equipped principally by the Russian and · Chinese Communists.

As a further sequel to those remarks, I have received a copy of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith's letter to Harold Wilson of Great Britain dated August 28, 1967.

This communication gives further insight into terrorist activities in a most authoritative manner.

Mr. Speaker, with consent granted I

enter at this point the Prime Minister's letter: NOTE TO THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT

FROM THE RHODESIAN GOVERNMENT AUGUST 28, 1697.

The Rhodesia Government wishes to draw urgently to the attention of the British Government the following situation in Rhodesia.

2-Leaders of the two banned Rhodesian African Nationalist Organizations, the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) are now firmly established in Zambia and it is from Lusaka that these people plan subversive operations directed against the Government of Rhodesia, including the infiltration of armed terrorists and offensive materials into this country.

3-At one time the President of Zambia, through his security forces, tried to control the movement of terrorists and offensive materials through his country. From about the middle of 1966, however, when Rhodesian terrorist activities commenced to increase, all vestige of control appears to have vanished and the Zambian Government has since progressed from a policy of ignoring or condoning such activities to one of offering direct encouragement.

4-Rhodesian terrorists receive training in a number of communist countries, including Russia, Red China, Cuba and Algeria, and also at three or more camps in Tanzania. Irrespective of their place of training, terrorists invariably move from Tanzania to Zambia where they are billetted in specially constructed holding camps, established in the vicinity of Lusaka and within easy striking distance of Rhodesia.

5-In Zambia there are also a number of centres used by subversive organizations for the storage of arms, ammunition and other offensive materials used in the equipping of terrorist groups. At their respective holding camp ZAPU and ZANU Party officials indoctrinate the terrorists in Communist and Party Ideology, particularly in the context of the part they are t o play in creating a sense of fear and uncertainty in Rhodesia.

6-Groups for terrorist incursions into Rhodesia are issued with arms and equipment an d conveyed, quite openly, in ZAPU or ZANU vehicles along one or other of the Zambian road complexes to the Rhodesian border, where they are finally instructed on methods of infiltration and briefed on their targets in Rhodesia. During the hours of darkness they are expected to infiltrate

· across the Zambezi River into this co~try. 7-Not only does the Zambian Govern

ment condone the activities of Rhodesian t errorists in that country, but it is known t hat on occasions Zambian Government officials actually assist these people in passing through the border between Zambia and Tanzania.

8-Th e main supplier of arms and other offensive materials used by Rhodesian terrorists is the African Liberation Committee (A.L.C.) of the Organization of African Unity (0.A.U.) in Dar es Salaam. Here the m aterial is received from a number of Communist countries and is stored by the Tanzanian Government, which is responsible for the control and subsequent issue of t his material to various Nationalist movements.

9-Al though there is no proof of direct co-operartion !between the Governments of Tanzania and Zambia in respect of the movement of offensive material, it is known t h at the former Govern ment h as already suggested to the latter that it adopt some method of control. It is extremely unlikely that the Zambian Government is ignorant of the movement and storage of terrorist arm s in Zambia.

10-Sinoe .terrorist activiity against Rhodesia was mtensifi:ed about the middle of last year, an ever-increasing number of armed

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26089 men, of both the ZAPU and ZANU factions, have been infiltrated into this country from Zambia. Initially, only small groups of terrorists entered across the Zambezi River from Zambia. In recent months larger bands--comprising up to thirty or more terrorists-have crossed into Rhodesia. Little credence can therefore be given to any denial by the Zambian Government that it is unaware of the movement of such large numbers of men and quantities of material.

11-The current security operation being waged against the large band of mixed South African African National Congress (SAANC) and ZAPU terrorists in Western Matabeleland shows without any doubt that the Zambian authorities are not only prepared to condone terrorist activities directed against Rhodesia, but are also willing to allow their country to be used as a rallying point for terrorists bent on a campaign of violence againl3t South Africa.

12-The recent threat issued by the Organization of African Unity to Rhodesian nationalists that they can expect no further financial support unless they can produce proof of miUtant action against Rhodesia has had a two-fold effect. It has influenced both ZAPU and ZANU to intensify the infiltration of terrorists from Zambia across the Zambezi River, and has stimulated ZAPU to abduct over two hundred Rhodesian Africanl3, in legitimate employment in Zambia, for terrorist training in Tanzania. Thus the Zambian Government has become further impllcated by permitting these activities with Uttle or no intervention.

13--0n the 19th August in Lusaka, James Robert Chikerema, Vice President of ZAPU; and Ollver Tambo, Deputy President of the SAANC, issued a joint Press release extolling the activities of their combined terrorist groups presently operating in We13tern Matabeleland.

14-The aim of these terrorist bands ls to carry out indiscriminate killing, burning and looting in r ural and urban areas. The Rhodesian Government wm adopt the most vigorous measures to protect the people and their property and to seek out and destroy these terrorist bands and individual gunmen.

15-The British Governm ent cannot escape its share of responsibility for these developments. Th ere has been a complete absence of any protest by the British Government to the Zambian Government about the passage of arms and offensive material, the reception and harbouring of communist trained terrorists and the use of Zambia as a base for offensive operations against Rhodesia.

16-Here is a case where a Government of one Commonwealth country is lending itself to a policy of viol ence against another Commonwealt h country which has committed no aggression and desires to be friendly and co-operative. The Rhodesian Government considers t hat Britain continues to h ave obligations in Zambia to influence that Government toward a policy of moderation and the discouragement of violence against Rhodesia. The Rhodesia Government accordingly lodges a strong protest against the British Government's lack of action in this respect and against its connivance of the hostile attitude of the Zambian Government towards peace and good government in Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker, the British Government snubbed its "royal" nose at this well-documented and substantiated report. Such action by a supposedly peace-seeking nation-as Great Britain claims to beclearly emphasizes once again the Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde approach the British now follow.

It further underscores a serious lack of national principle by that Government.

Mr. Speaker, I place the Rhodesian Prime Minister's remarks to Pa.rUament on this matter a;t this point: "TERRORIST INCURSION FROM ZAMBIA"-

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN THE RHO

DESIAN· PARLIAMENT

With the leave of the House, I wish to make a statement. I lay on the Table of the House a copy of the Note of 28th August, 1967, which the Rhodesia Government hia.nded to the British Govermment yesterday in London drawing to the ruttention of :the British Gov·exnment the recent spate of terrorist incursions into Rhodesia, pointing out to them tthe encouragement and assistrun.ce given to these terrorists by the Z1mlbian Government and, more important, emphasizing the faict that the British Government cannot escape its share of responsibility for these developments.

The British Government has rejected this Note. The head of the Rhodesian Residual Mission in London was informed that the Commonwealth Office had examined the document and had declared that it could not be accepted because Her Majesty's Government do not recognize the Rhodesian Government and cannot therefore accept any diplomatic Note emanating from them in that capacity.

I think this action by the British Government clearly expresses their disregard for the well-being of Rhodesia, in spite of their protests that they are opposed to violence and disorder. This attitude is in strange contrast to the mmtary and pollce support which Rhodesia and Rhodesian forces have willingly given to the Commonwealth in the past.

I will not deal with the period of the last great war-the part played by Rhodesia throughout this epic struggle ls too well known to warrant repetition.

Confining myself to the post-war era, let me remind Britain that in 1951 Rhodesia provided two fighter squadrons as a contribution to Commonwealth defense. For a further post-war period Rhodesia became the home of a Royal Air Force training group and the Rhodesian Government contributed towards its upkeep. From 1958 to 1963, on nine different occasions, Rhodesian Vampire and Canberra squadrons were detached to Aden and Cyprus respect! vely and while there were under British command. In 1961 Rhodesian transport aircraft provided notable assistance to the Royal Air Force during the Kuwait crisis when Royal Rhodesian Air Force Canadalrs transported British troops in the Middle East. Later in the same year Rhodesian Dakotas transported and dropped food to flood-stricken tribesmen in Somalia at the request of the British Government.

As for the Rhodesian Army: in late 1950 a squadron of 100 European volunteers with regular officers and non-commissioned officers was raised as oart of the Rhodesian contribution to Commonwealth defence and went to Malaya to fight communist terrorists-the very type of trained men who are attempting to infiltrate Rhodesia today. The squadron served in Malaya from April, 1951, to March, 1953, where it operated as a separate entity-"C" Squadron of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment. In July, 1962, the present "C" Squadron of the Special Air Service went to Aden for t raining and operated against terrorists and again, as part of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment. Today this same unit is in our front lines operating against the infiltrating communist terrorists.

In 1952 the First Battalion of the Rhodesian African Rifles served in the Suez Can al zon e in t he Middle East . This was followed by a tour of duty in Malaya from April, 1956, to February, 1958, fighting communist terrorists.

The British South Africa Police have given extensive postwar assistance to the British Government in Bechuanaland, Nyasaland, Kenya and Northern Rhodesia as they were

then known, four different contingents varying from one officer and 75 members to two officers and 118 men were made available to Bechunanaland in 1950, 1951 and 1952. A large contingent of officers and members was sent to Nyasaland in 1953. Two officers and 52 men were lent to Northern Rhodesia in September/October, 1956. Northern Rhodesia, as it was then, Zambia as it is known today, · I remind hon. members, is the country which ls aiding and abetting the present terrorist incursion into Rhodesia. Finally, three officers and 250 members were sent to the assistance of British authorles in Nyasaland from February to March, 1959.

In January, 1965, I personally made representations to the British Prime Minister about the training of saboteurs and the harbouring of terrorists in Zambia and Tanzania. The British Prime Minister was unable to give me an entirely satisfactory reply. He took the opportunity of talking about the matter with the Zambrian President and accepted the latter's denial that they were allowing Zambia to become a springboard for activities against Rhodesia. President Kaunda said that although his Government could not refuse entry to other Africans, they were exercising careful control over those claiming to be refugees and that they had put restrictions on the activities of po11t-1cal groups. In the Ught of present day events the value of such assurances can be seen for what they are-a hollow and deceitfuimockery of the truth.

In June, 1965, I followed this up by sending Mr. Wilson a full account of the activities and training of Rhodesian subversive elements in Tanzania anq Ghana and again the reply we received was unsatisfactory; Mr. Wilson saying that he would study carefully the information which the Rhodesian authorities had made available to him through his intelligence channels.

However, this la:test case, which I have drawn to your attention today, is the most blatant example of Britain assisting and indeed encouraging the actions of terrorists against friendly countries. I do not wish to exaggerate the present encounter for there ls no doubt that our security forces are managing to deal with the terrorist invaders in a most adequate manner, but it ls a fact that there has been a resurgence of terrorist activity recently, and most of these people have been effectively indoctrinated with Chinese communism and are dedicated . to committing the most atrocious acts of terrorism. Moreover, I think it should be placed on record that the great majority of this gang are members of the South African National Congress, hoping to pass through Rhodesia in order to practise their deadly trade south of the Limpopo. All Governments, including the British Government, must be aware of a joint press release issued in Lusaka on the 19th of this month signed by the Deputy Presidents of the Zimbabwe African People's Union, a Rhodesian organization, and the South African African National Congress, a South African organization, in which they declared that "the fighting presently going on in t he Wankie area is indeed being carried out by a combined force of the Zimbabwe African People's Union and the South African African National Congress which is marching on a common route, each bou nd to its destination, fighting the common settlers enemy to the finish."

On p revious occasions when I have t aken up the case of the British Government condoning and even supporting the infiltration of terrorists from Zambia, Mr. Wilson did at least reply, although evading the issue. But in t h is particular case his answer is tha t he cannot even consider my representations because they come from an illegal Government. Putting it in a nutshell, Mr. Wilson is prepared to deal with me and indeed meet me and tam: to me, when it suits him per-

26090 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 19 67

sonally and when he hopes to extricate himself from the hook of sanctions on which he is so firmly entangled, but when the lives of poor, decent, innocent people are involved, both black and white, Mr. Wilson has the nerve to say that he cannot accept my communication, because it comes from an illegal Government. This must take the "Oscar" for the greatest piece of hypocrisy of all time. I repeat, that when he thought I might be able to assist him to extricate his head from the sanctions noose, he was prepared, not only to receive a communication from me, but to dine and wine me on board one of his battleships.

This story will surely fill a memorable, but nevertheless shameful page in the history of the present British Labour Party Government and if by chance some unfortunate mishap should befall any innocent Rhodesian, or, for that matter, any inhabitant of Africa south of the Zambezi, then we

· all know upon whose shoulders a large portion of this blame will fall.

SUEZ CANAL CLOSURE COSTS SET AT BILLION DOLLARS

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thiat the gentleman from Pennsylviania [Mr. FLOOD 1 may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, the Suez

Canal has been closed since the recent Israel-Arab war thereby forcing vessels on voyages between Europe and Asia to go via southern Africa-a situation comparable to that in 1453 when the Turks captured Constantinople.

In the September 15, 1967, issue of Fortune there is an extensive article on "The World Economy," which describes the current commercial slowdown in Western Europe, its problem industries and global trends.

A recent newsstory in a California newspaper, drawing upon some of the facts in the indicated article, emphasizes the effect of the Suez Canal closure on transportation costs for oil-a result that should serve as a warning as regards the Panama Canal should the proposed treaties surrendering U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama be ratified. We certainly do not wish a Suez Canal situation for the Panama Canal.

The indicated newsstory follows as a part of my remarks: [From the Santa Barbara (Calif.) News

Press, Aug. 30, 1967]

CANAL CLOSURE 0oSTS SET AT BILLION DOLLARS

Closing the Suez Canal has added about a billion dollars to the oil industry's shipping costs, reports Fortune magazine.

Tankers now routed via the Cape of Good Hope travel 5,500 more miles and take 25 extra days for the round-trip voyage between the Persian Gulf and the main ports of Europe, which depends on the Middle East for · most of its oil.

As a result, the immediate need for an additional 38 million tons of tanker capacity has raised the spot-charter rate for lifting a ton of crude between the Persian Gulf and

Rotterdam from a rock-bottom low of $2.90 just prior to the Arab-Israeli war to $18.60 only two weeks later.

MINORITY REPORT ON PANAMA CANAL COMMENDED

Mr. HEOHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the -gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FLOOD J may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include eXJtraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is there objection fo the request of the gentleman from West Virginia?

There wias no objection. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, in March of

this year the Center for Strategic Studies of Georgetown University published a report in booklet form on "Panama Canal Issues and Treaty Talks," prepared by a nine-member panel. Because of basic differences in opinions among its members, the report contains two main sections: Part 1 being the majority report; and part 2, the minority report.

The majority of the panel admittedly did not direct their attention toward the merits of the issues involved but erroneously assumed that because the proposed new policy of the executive-branch of our Government for surrender of Canal Zone sovereignty to Panama was set forth in a Presidential announcement, this position is "now established as a fait accompli." Thus, they made their observations and arrived at their conclusions within that frame of reference.

The stupidity that characterizes the proposals for the new treaties with Panama is unprecedented in diplomatic history and strikingly illustrates the incapacity and naive thinking of our negotiators. The Panamanian negotiators have bamboozled them from the start.

Though the long-range Soviet policy for wresting control of the Panama Canal from the United States is well established, recent events in the Near East supply further evidence of Communist policy because President Nasser of Egypt is a Soviet stooge. His arbitrary actions in the operation of the Suez Canal and in mining and blockading the Gulf of Aqaba is typical of ·Soviet policy and constitutes more steps in the struggle for world domination. Yet despite all this, our Panama treaty negotiators are still attempting to surrender United States control and operation of the Canal.

As to such surrender, Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that more than ever before, it is necessary for the United States to maintain and exercise its exclusive sovereignty over the Canal Zone and canal for ithe reason that Communist revolutionary power is setting up military aggressions in various parts of the world.

In contrast with the naive approach in the majority report, the minority report, prepared by Dr. Donald M. Dozer, distinguished author, former historian in the State Department, and now professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Vice Adm. T. G. W. Settle, U.S. NavY, retired, an outstanding naval officer of vast experience, repudiates the false assumption that a Presi-

dential statement is a definitive and binding guideline and approaches the problem on the basis of merits of the issues.

The minority report has received wide and quite favorable attention. Among those who have commented upon it is Vice Adm. Ruthven E. Libby, U.S. NavY, retired, an officer of high professional attainment, who is now the military analyst of the Copley News Service.

A news commentary by Vice Admiral Libby, published in a recent issue of the Panama American, the leading afternoon newspaper of Panama, is most timely, able, and pertinent.

The indicated article follows: MINORITY REPORT ON PANAMA CANAL MAKES

SENSE, U.S. WRITER CLAIMS

(A view:poin t which can be expected to receive considerable publicity in both the United States and Latin America through the Oopley News Service is expressed in the following article. As with other signed articles published in the Panama American it does not necessarily represent the policy or opinion of the management or staff but is published in the interest of freedom of speech.)

(By Ruthven E. Libby, vice admiral, USN, retired)

Until comparatively recently diploma.icy of the United States of America and the foreign policy it implemented were directed toward furthering the interests, safety, and wellbeing of this nation.

Enlightened self-interest was one of the important oonsid·eriations which influenced our decisions and actions in the international arena. An outstanding example of this is what is now known as the Monroe Doctrine, which was rooted in the general principle that Europe and the Am·ericas constitute two separate and distinct political entities and politically speaking, should have as little to do with each other as p06Sible.

George Washington stated this in his farewell address. Thomas Jefferson reiterated it in his first presidential inaugural address.

But, it was James Monroe who laid. down the edict tha.t we would regard any attempt by any European power to extend its political system to the American continents as dangerous to our peace and safety-a principle which has been maintained inviolate, for all practical purpa&es, until its abandonment by President Kennedy in connection with the Cuban debacle.

The dootrine received considerable renewed interna.tional attention when France's Ferdinand d·e Lesseps prioposed to build a canal across the Isthmus of Panama.

President Rutherford B. Hayes sa..ld merely that no European power could intervene for the prote~tion of such a can-al "without adopting measures on this oontinent which the United States would deem wholly inadmissible." Secretaries of State James G. Blaine and F. T. Frelinghuysen, and President Theodore Roosevelt, were much more definite, so much so that, as everybody knows, when the Panama Canal was built the United Sta.teis built it.

In 1903 it was generially recognized that the United States had a mandate from the maritime powers of the world to build, operate and protect a cana,l across the isthmus for the benefit of world shipping.

One of the determining factors which led to selecting the Panama site was Panama's offer to grant sovereign control over ·the requisite terriitory, .and other concessions outside of a canal zone, essential to the discharge of that mandate. These provisions were written into the Hay-Bunau-Vartlla Treaty of 1903 which granted to the United

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26091 States "in perpetuity" s.overeign control over the Canal Zone, with no ifs, and or buts.

In those days "in perpetuity" meant forever; and the absolute sovereignty granted by this article of the treaty (Article III) has been demonstrated repeatedly since to be essential to the proper discharge of U.S. responsibUiti·es to operate the canal and to guarantee its independence from foreign control.

Furthermore, the United States proceeded to reinforce the treaty provisions (the treaty having been constitutionally ratified by both governments) by buying all the land and other properties in the zone from its original owners.

One might think that inasmuch as the treaty article stlll remains legally in full force and effect and that the land and properties in question were obtained by outright purchase, there would today be no problem. Unfortunately, this not the case.

It is not the case because the Panamanian government does not accept Herbert Hoover's view that "the keeping of promises, even those you later regret or would like to avoid, is the very fabric of civllization."

It is not true because for the last 10 years the United States has responded to continuing pressure from the Panamanian government by making one concession after another, which by whatever name one calls it is simply appeasement in its most undisguised form.

And like all appeasement wherever resorted to, it simply produced new and greater demands from those whom we seek to appease.

The strategic importance of the Isthmus of Panama and the canal 1.s probably greater today than it ever has been. With this in mind the Center for Strategic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, of report on the Panama-U.S. relations to date and the present status of negotiations between the two countries.

The report reminds us that for over 60 years-from 1903 until Sept. 24, 1965, "through the aftermath of the riots of 1964 U.S. policy toward Panama and the canal was based on three major concepts; that the United States had sovereignty within the Canal Zone; that the rights obtained were held in perpetuity; and that the canal tolls if at all possible would not be increased."

This is no longer the case, because on Sept. 24, 1965, President Johnson announced jointly with the president of Panama, that the United States would abrogate the 1903 treaty, would relinquish '1lts sovereignty over the zone, would place a time limit on the existing contractual arrangements with Panama and would increase tolls.

The Georgetown report is issued in two parts: the majority report which accepts the presidential declaration as a fait accomoli, and, without reference to the merit of this abrupt policy change, makes certain recommendations within the new frame of reference; and the minority report by two members of the very high-level panel who studied the whole question. The minority report leads off with this statement:

"In our consideration of the Panama Canal problems we are unwilling to be limited by the joint announcement of President Johnson and Marco Robles on Sept. 24, 1965.

"We do not accept the view that a presidential statement that purports to abrogate a treaty which has been constitutionally ratified and to relinquish sovereign control over legally acquired t~rritory of the United States should be allowed to serve as a definite guideline for this study or block a full and open-minded consideration of canal problems".

In the view of the signers of the minority report, the isthmus remains one of the great strategic and military centers of the world, "the focus of envy of the predatory Communist nations that are working constantly to seize and control it".

They point out that the in dependence or Panama, which was protected by the United States from 1903 until 1939, has since the end of World War II been compromised by a series of crises "some fomented by Com.n1unist-oriented agita·tors and some by surrenders to Panama. by the United Staite·s of important rights, power and authority indispensable to effective mana gement of th·e canal and to safeguarding U.S. interests there .... The global implications of these mounting crises in Panama, aimed at wresting control of the canal from the United States ... (are part of a worldwide pattern) directed toward gaining (Communist) control of the strategic waterways of the world.

"The preservation of ·the sovereign control of the United States over the Canal Zone and canal is more vital to this nation than victory in Vietnam. The further forfeiture of control will constitute a major surrender by the United States and may be expected to trigger Communist takeovers of governments in Latin America".

The odds are 100 to 1 that the great majority of informed Americans will agree with this minority report.

GUARANTEED EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL AMERICANS

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRASER] may exitend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include e~raneous maJtter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is there objection to the request of 'the-gentleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, a Univer

sity of Minnesota history professor has proposed that the Federal Government "guarantee work throughout life to every person who wants it, and that we set out to teach every child who grows up in our country hoping for a job that he will get one." The professor is Timothy L. Smith. His proposal is contained in an article in the August 30 issue of the Christian Century.

Dr. Smith describes as "immoral" the system of structural unemployment in the United States because, he says, it is a "cruel denial of the worth of persons." He begins his article by stating:

Perhaps the most damaging form of personal rejection is to tell a man there is nothing in the world for him to do. For worklessness equals meaninglessness; and meaninglessness eats at the fotmdation of all law, all morality, all joy in human relationships.

Dr. Smith's article contains many sound and humane ideas. Last month I was one of nearly 80 Members who cosponsored the Guaranteed Employment Act of 1967. Our proposed program is aimed at creating 1 million job opportunities for the unemployed in attacking what the bill's chief author, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'HARA], described as "one of the major root causes of civil unrest in the United States." To all Members of the House, and to all the authors of this bill in particular, I commend the full article by Dr. Smith, as follows:

WORK AND HUMAN WORTH

(By Timothy L. Smith) Perhaps the most damaging form of per

sonal rejection is to tell a man there is nothing in the world for him to do. For

worklessness equals meaninglessness; and meaninglessness eats at the foundation of all law, all morality, all joy in human relationships. In our free and increasingly mechanized economic order, however, many able persons are out of jobs part of the time, and a growing number seem to be unemployable all of the time. The latter are said to be deficient in intelligence, training, or capacity to get along with other people; or they are personally unattractive to their fellows. Yet in our nation, at least, we cannot and will not allow people to starve. So, by unemployment insurance or by indirect and direct welfare benefits, we furnish the equivalent of a pay check to every adult who is able to function on his own, even when we cannot or will not give him a job.

This situation is immoral, not because it gives rewards without labor-most of us enjoy rewards that do not derive even remotely from our labor-but because of its cruel denial of the worth of persons. Every day we say to a million people in our country. There is nothing for you to do; and saying that is the same as wishing them dead.

I

The concept of structural unemployment contradicts the two great religious tra.ctitions of our culture. Both Judaism and Christianity have helped to shape the Western wodd's conviction that satisfaction in creative work is central to a man's sense of his worth. From the opening passage of Genesis, where Jehovah himself appears as a cosmic workman who rests from his labors only on the seventh day, to the prophecy of Malachi, who made God's tithe a testimony to the sacredness of man's labor, one theme is clear and constant: man outside of Eden must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, not simply in sorrow but in the joy of work's redeeming promise.

Christian teachings reinforce this Old Testament idea. The 12-year-old Jesus announced his eagerness to get on with his heavenly father's business; but in the carpenter's shop at Nazareth his earthly father, Joseph, had beams for him to hew, cornices to join. Eighteen years later, on his first day out of Joseph's shop, Mary set her son to work, as mothers will, making water into wine. During the following months, Jesus called Peter, James and John from their nets by Galilee, promising to make them fishers of men.

Jesus' declarations about the Kingdom of God bore the same emphasis. Laborers who joined God's grape harvest at the 11th hour, he said, would have a full day's wage. Stewards must protect their master's vineyard and invest and multiply the talents placed in their care. The apostles' commission to a serving ministry he illustrated on the eve of his crucifixion in the ceremony of washing their feet. By thus setting forth spiritual and eternal obligations in earthly images, he hallowed all our common tasks.

So through both Judaism and Christianity the notion of the moral meaning, the spiritual worth of work entered deeply into Western culture. To be sure, nearly all cultures, even very primitive ones, nurture ideas and practices which declare that each man has a place, a function, a task. But the ideas and institutions of Jewish and Christian societies have reflected most intensely the doctrine that every person's calling is sacred, and that performing it creatively is a spiritual act.

Thus the medieval social order gave each man a responsibility to carry out, from king, merchant and galley slave to mothers, manor lords and monks. The conviction was common to all that he who sought eternal llfe would find it not in leisure but in labor. When, therefore, Martin Luther and John Calvin set out to free the church from the papal autocracy which they believed was the dead hand of the past strangling men's hopes for a better future, each made the idea of

26092 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 vocation the heart of his doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Fulfilling his earthly calling, they said, pointed a man upward toward attainment of his ultimate promise in a higher and eternal world.

Max Weber, the famous German social theorist of 50 years ago, attributed to Luther and Calvin the popularization of what he called the Protestant ethic: a cluster of attitudes stressing honesty, industry and frugality. It was Weber's thesis that the Protestant ethic gave rise to capitalism-a thesis so broad that it can scarcely be formally proved.

But Weber and his students adduced much ~vidence to mustrate it. R. H. Tawney, for instance, argued that Puritan merchants in colonial Massachusetts who determined to fulfill their personal vocations for work and wealth were simply being more Protestant-that is to say, more individualistic-than their pastors and governors. The fact is, however, that their zeal for profit soon tore apart the fabric of fellowship which was indispensable in a Puritan community. A more recent Weberian sociologist explained how, within a century after George Fox's death, Quakers came to dominate London's banking business. These Friends' financial success stemmed not only from their passion to fulfill their callings well but, more important, from the mutual trust which made cooperation among them possible.

n Weber's focus. therefore, is too narrow.

For the Christian idea of vocation implies a community of work in which all men have a place, while capitalism, whenever it stands outside this Christian ideal, ignores the community and sets the individual at war with his neighbor's interests.

Imagine yourself back in 1629, standing on the deck of the Arbella in mid-Atlantic, and straining to hear John Winthrop's voice above the snapping of the canvas. He is explaining how, in God's providence, each man has a place to fill in building a godly commonwealth in New England, and how that commonwealth will be a city set on a h111, guiding all the nations toward their providential destiny. Listen carefully, and you will hear in Winthrop's words a preface to Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, as well as to John Kennedy's speech on the steps of the University of Minnesota law school, announcing to American college students his plan for the Peace Oorps. Think carefully, and you will understand how thoroughly our nation has conceived of itself as sanctifi·ed by the work God had called it to do, and how firmly each of us believes that doing this work hallows his life.

Indeed, only in the past 150 years or so have Jews and Christians been willing to accept the notion that large numbers of their fellow men might have no work at all. Originally, of course, they assumed that industrial unemployment was only temporary, the result of the malfunctioning of a system which intelligence would soon set right. But for two centuries now we have been tinkering with the system. Even in prosperous times many men are still unemployed and large numbers of them seem to be unemployable. Christians and Jews remain unwilling, however, to abandon either the system or the conviction that every man ought to have a job. For only in honest toil, we believe will the worst in each of us be restrained, the best fulfllled, and the dignity and worth of our p,ersons be assured.

In view of this long and living tradition, the widespread renunciation of the ethic of work in our own day is a challenge that

. •none of us should ignore. Work, we are told, ls old fashioned, and the compulsion to work bespeaks an outdated Puritan upbringing. To keep toil central in our culture exacerbates the emotional problems of those whom a complex technology cannot use. These days

machines can produce so much so fast, and one farmer can grow such an abundance, that we must all set about learning how to work less and enjoy life more.

One of the sources of this renunciation of work is the growing cult of leisure and pleasure, especially at the extreme ends of the social scale. In our society the very rich and the very poor have little, actually, that they have to do. In penthouses and slums alike, the search goes on for ways to spend time and energy without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile the rest of us, living between these two extremes, work short hours at low intensity, warming up on the job for the frenzied pace we expect to follow when the five o'clock whistle blows or the weekend begins. The cult of busy idleness or idle busyness is an American obsession.

The rejection of the work ethic derives also from the new computer-oriented technology. Fantastic machines, miracle substances, intricate and lightning-swift processors of data, can together perform most of the tasks men and women have customarily done, and perform them better. What is left is the custodial care of buildings, grounds and machines, and the custodial care of the men, women and children whom the machines seem somehow to have alienated from their world.

The latter task ls the big one, and the religious idea of loving one's neighbors suggests that everyone should share it. But an aristocracy of trained professionals-physicians, social workers, clergymen, lawyers, teachers, administrators, artists-take issue with Jesus and the Prophets at this point. They seem unable to grasp the idea that more than a tiny and elite minority of the human race can learn how to serve other men. So they condemn the multitudes to a ceaseless round of cookouts and bowling tournaments. What the new technology ought to mean, of course, is an enlargement of man's freedom to talk to his brothers, to join hands with others in building fellowship, and to care for the very young and the very old.

Meanwhile educators and social theorists argue that schoolchildren with intelligence quotients under 100 (that is, half of all schoolchildren) must be persuaded to bank whatever furnaces of ambition their parents and first teachers set burning, and learn to take it easy. Partly because of this argument, intelligence and aptitude tests have taken on a new and inverted function: to spot as early as possible those students whose combination of low achievement score, skewed personality profile and unfortunate racial or cultural background destines them to the status of unemployables. Teachers and social workers are being trained to prepare these youngsters to accept the truth about their future: there is going to be nothing, absolutely nothing on earth for them to do.

I think the edge of this argument is the keener because of the misconception that the work ethic is peculiarly Protestant. For Protestantism is a kind of father-symbol in American culture, the oedipal enemy, the rival and restrainer of our freedom. Doing it in is sick fun.

There is sutficient truth in the misconception, however, to give it carrying power. It points toward a deeper source of the renunciation of work; namely, the widespread loss of religious convictions about the meaning of life, the stewardship of time, and the primacy of faith. We sometimes decry the poets who sing songs of despair in the coffeehouses. But the irony and the moral frustration which cry· out of Bob Dylan's lyrics speaks to anxieties which lie deep in every one of us. Do we dare hope for creative accomplishment in a world that seems merely absurd?

It is an evil question. In its light, for instance, the story of President Kennedy's assassination has become for young people

today a kind of inverted morality play, which nurtures regressiveness and sanctions irresponsibility by affirming that madness has triumphed. We had begun to believe it possible that our young President would lead us to fulfill some part of what he hoped of us. Then, suddenly, we saw him cut down. And we were totally undone. That generation is lost indeed whose demons destroy its heroes, not out of the Evil's reasoned determination to conquer the Good, but madly, without plan or purpose.

So we are not surprised to hear men say: Since life has no meaning and history no providential purpose, work cannot really matter; its only functions are to fill our bellies and gratify our egos. What man of sensitivity can, in all good conscience, give himself away for that? Who can find heart to m ake the scene, if the script is nonsense and the director dead?

Ill

Such are the arguments and the sentiments which lie behind the modern renunciation of the worth of work. They are· not, at last, convincing. To recite them dispassionately is to assure their widespread rejection; for they are at war with the hopes and the convictions which undergird most of our lives and which support our plans for tomorrow. I need not, therefore, labor a rebuttal.

College students will refuse to accept the thesis that play, not work, is the essence of the good life, when that thesis is spun out by a professor tolling fiercely over intermtnal:>le research papers. Nor will skilled workmen yield to replacement by the machine. They will search for other and m.ore creative jobs. A guaranteed annual income is no substitute. Though money is important, it is not the measure of our worth; its value stems from the labor it represents.

And even beginning schoolteachers and social workers quickly abandon the attempt to explain the gospel of worklessness to junior high youngsters of low scholastic achievement or to unemployed Negro boys and girls who have dropped out of school. The social worker who tries it, standing in a dingy ghetto clubhouse, his car parked at the curb waiting to take him back to a neat office downtown or to a house and garden in the suburbs, cannot make the message stick. For the youngsters know that the speaker has a job and that much of life's reward for him is bound up in it.

Finally, all of us realize that the idea of an afiluent society is -a myth applicable only to the upper a.nd up.per middle classes of the United States and western Europe. We who have to decide next year between a second car and a motorboat, a color television set and a new washer-dryer combination, are but 200 million. Around us is a sea of impoverished humanity, 2 billion strong. In the shantytowns from Rio to Calcutta, they want

.food, warmth, a plaoe to call , their own, and security against the disease and death of parents that would drive the children into the streets. They dream of the day when they might have a few of the thousand things we say we could not live without.

IV

The world's work is not done; it is just begun-even in America. Could we in this country turn from manufacturing missiles and bombing bridges over the brooks of North Vietnam to building the homes, schools, parks, safe water supplies and concert halls that American citizel!s need right now, the task would take the best of our energies for two generations or more. Multiply that task a thousand times, add to it the intensely human one of devising a convincing program for planned parenthood, and you have begun to measure the work that needs to be done in the world outside our nation's boundaries. The unempfoyed, and many of the so-called - unemployables, are

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26093 fully aware of these facts. What they are not doing is a part of what the world needs done.

I propose, therefore, that the federal government guarantee work throughout life to every person who wants it, and that we set out t o t each every child who grows up in our country hoping for a job that he will get one. The following measures would, I believe, achieve t hese objectives. They have only become possible as a result of computeroriented technology and modern testing procedures.

1. To the extent that unemployed men and women are available in any community, all business and industrial establishments hiring 50 persons or more whose employees do not already reflect a balanced range of intelligence and aptitudes, shall be required by law to h ire a proportionate share of the disadvantaged people, and to knit the new employees into the total force without in any way singling out their special status to their fellows.

2 . The federal government, by deductions from corporate taxes or direct subsidy, shall bear initially that portion of the cost of employin g t hese added laborers which their product ive efforts do not yield, these deductions or subsidies to be reduced by 20 per cent of t h e original amount in each succeeding year after the first one in which a particular worker is employed.

3. Federal, state and private agencies shall join churches, synagogues and public schools in a widesp read program of moral educat ion, designed to teach both employers and those wh o m erit jobs on their own to welcome disadvantaged men and women to the community of work.

v The arguments in favor of this proposal

seem to me to be convincing. Businesses which currently employ large numbers of highly intelligent and well trained persons have already at hand the brainpower necessary to devise ways to get the maximum possible worth out of unskilled or unintelligent workers. A junior executive in a national electronics firm said recently that if his company were told that it must increase its labor force by 6 per cent next year, and draw all the new employees from the less intelligent half of the population, in six months they would be making money from the operation. The "can-do" spirit, the starry-eyed optimism which has not fared very well lately on university campuses still lives, I have found, among the young planners who are coming to prominence in American business today. The new breed of managers is unwilllng to accept limits upon what a combination of intelligence, capital and computers can come up with.

Second, the disadvantaged person would find through such employment a restored sense of pride. To come home to one's children with a pay envelope in our society is to bring home the bacon; to arrive with a welfare check is to give one's entire household a sense of dependency and, somehow, of shame. Moreover, m any of the tasks to which the newly employed persons would be assignedcustod.ial care, the cl·eaning and maintenance of grounds and buildings-have now become, thanks to the automation of much other work, some of the few remaining ones in which a m an can take real pride in his work. In cities long plagued by unkempt streets, yards and homes, ass·igning men and women to wash windows and care for lawns and flower beds around our factories, or to clean and polish floors, furniture and equipment, could be the beginning of a new life for the neighborhoods in which they live as wen.

Third, t h e plan removes the politics of employment and welfare from the arena of racial controversy to the planning rooms of work, where in a democracy it belongs. The hopes and needs of all human beings, and

not just of Negroes, are at stake here. What is wrong about Stokely Carmichael's campaign to win more jobs for his own people is not that black men now seek to exercise power for economic ends; white men have been doing that these many years. What is wrong with Mr. Carmichael's campaign is that it reinforces the discriminatory approach to empJoyment which has been the root of our problem all along. If he is successful, he must prejudice the opportunity of disadvantaged white men and boys to get a job; and if he is not, he will only further embitter Negro youth, and that is no solution at all.

A fourth argument for this plan of full employment is, I suspect, already obvious. It aims to return the government to a function more in keeping with our national traditions; namely, to spelling out and enforcing a common morality, and to promoting by general legislation the welfare of ?ll the people. Businessmen, meanwhile, would take over from the government tasks they have all along known best how to do--hiring and training workers, and assigning them to jobs in which they are most likely to help the firm make a profit. Sargent Shriver's Office of Economic Opportunity found out several years ago that many welfare tasks were best farmed out on contract to private enterprise. But programs thus farmed out remain segregated from the life of business itself and can be cut off by Congress at any time. Moreover, the clients know exactly who the welfare workers are, and how dependent they are upon continued government sponsorship.

Finally, a national policy of guaranteed employment would say something to our poor which, in God's name as wen as humanity's, an essentially religious and democratic commonwealth should be the first and not the last to say: that every person counts, every man belongs to the family of men, and every child can grow up expecting to fill a place.

The children ought especially to concern us. Vocational education teachers report that under our present system their classes become a dumping ground for students whom no one expects to have a vocation, ever. But if the youngsters knew that society had built a foundation under their timid plans for the future, these courses might well come to life. For the issue then would be not whether but how well one is to count. Poor children must have a reason for hope, a spur to ambition that they do not now have. They can have it if our society will learn to express its respect for them and for their parents in ways which Jncrease their respect for themselves.

AMBASSADOR LODGE EXPLAINS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RECENT VIETNAMESE ELECTIONS Mr. HEOHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the geilltleman from Illinois [Mr. ANNUNZIO] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, few

Americans are in a better position to understand the true importance and significance 9f the recent Vietnamese elections than is our former Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge.

In an article in Newsday, Ambassador Lodge declares:

The election of Sept. S will have a signiflcance which can be scarcely exaggerated in the building of a modern nation-state in Southeast Asia. ·

The Ambassador's article offers American readers expert guidance on understanding the cultural, political and social institutions of Vietnam. It is against this background that the American military and economic effort to help South Vietnam must be viewed.

Ambassador Lodge's article is therefore important and compelling reading for us all. I insert it into the RECORD at this point:

VIET VOTE: WHAT IT MEANS

(By Henry Cabot Lodge) We Americans can only hope to understand

Vietnamese elections and Vietnamese politics if we know something about the Vietnamese past.

To read a Saigon news story and take it at face value as though the Vietnamese had been practicing constitutional democracy since 1787 (as we have been doing) or for 300 years (as the British have been doing) is to guarantee that you will get a totally false impression. To take at face value what a campaigning Vietnamese candidate says is also guaranteed to give you a false impression. They indulge in campaign oratory just as we do.

Maybe someone will some day explain why the fine old American tradition of irreverence to.wards the claims Of candidates he.re in America is not applied to the campaigners in Vietnam. Instead, they are treated with great solemnity even when they are making verbal complaints which they seldom, if ever, back up formally and in writing.

The Vietnamese past is indeed different from ours and different from that of the transatlantic countries from which most Americans' ancestors came. For one thing, Vietnam is hot and humid. Nature thus is generous, and man can provide for his needs within a very small radius. In cold countries, he must look further out and this leads to larger units of government. A poor man living in the Mekong Delta can get everything he needs for himself and his family within a few hundred yards--rice, fresh-water fish, salt-water fish, pineapples, coconuts and ducks and pigs for his proteins. Traditionally, they have always regarded central governments as a nuisance and an expense, if not actually a source of oppression.

A Vietnamese proverb says that five evils affi.ict mankind: fire, flood, famine, armed robbery and central government. Vietnamese are thus only now coming to believe in the need for a central government, because it is indispensable to protect them against their predatory and aggressive neighbors. One thing, therefore, about the centuries of Viet· namese history is that for most of the time the rulers have been local rulers. Vietnamese have no experience of central government on the Western model. Only once, and for a comparatively brief period, 52 years, in the whole of Vietnamese history, have all of the Vietnamese people been under one ruler whose rule stretched from the Chinese frontier in the North down to the Point of Camau in the South.

Dovetailed in with these fundamental facts of physical geography is the belief in Oonfucianism as a. way of life. As a knowledgeable Vietnamese said to me: "Confucius teaches that the ruler should be courageous, unselfish, good, and intelligent and that he therefore should receive the respect of the people as long as he deserved it. For centuries, society in Vietnam was founded on the idea of respect. To make fun of a ruler was unheard of. There was no such thing a s disrespectful journalism.

"If the ruler stayed in power too long and became so old and fat and lazy that he inflicted brutal police-state methods on the people, there might be a coup. He might be assassinated. These were th_e ways of getting

26094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 a change when the ruler did not step down voluntarily. It did not occur to people that an election was a good way to decide an important question."

I can remember running into this way of thinking at the time of the big coup of Nov. 1, 1963, which overthrew President Diem. The reaction to the coup in the U.S. was one of horror. After all, we Americans never have a coup. We never change Presidents that way. In Vietnam, on the other hand, this method was looked upon as the only way they knew to get a change, a change which the overwhelming majority of the people thought was long overdue.

My Vietnamese friend also said: "There had been some democracy in the villages in which the older men in the village exercised influence and discussed local questions among themselves. But the autonomy of the villages had long since been undermined, so that by the time of the coup of Nov. 1, 1963, Vietnam had to be considered as a country in which there had never been any kind of democracy on a national scale, and democracy on a smaller, local scale had been pretty well stamped out."

Also, when they talk about democracy, Vietnamese do not use the word as we do. We mean egalitarian democracy. They, on the other hand, have an ingrained social structure, certain classes being considered definitely better qualified than others, somewhat as our social structure was 200 years ago.

The fall of President Diem was followed by an era of great turmoil. In 1964 and the first half of 1965, there was a succession of prime ministers, each succeeding the other at a rate which seemed vertiginous to the outside world. No country could possibly have functioned with governments changing every three months. No one was able to hold oftlce long enough to learn how to do his job, and the constant changes made it easier for the Viet Cong to infiltrate the government. This governmental instability, added to the increasing military success of the aggressor, made it clear in 1965 that, unless strong steps were taken, Vietnam would slip over the edge of the precipice before a few more months had elapsed. President Johnson's decision to commit American troops has prevented this from happening, and a large part of the strength and stability in all the countries along the southeast edge of Asia today can be attributed to this decision, without which the expansionism of Peking and of Hanoi would not have been denied.

The President's decision also created the opportunity to do something new and constructive in Vietnam. When I went out as ambassador for the second time, there were clearly three ways in which Vietnam could go. One was to continue the insane state of governmental instability which I have already described. Another was to turn South Vietnam over to the tender mercies of the iron-fisted police state operating in North Vietnam. The third was for South Vietnam to move towards some sort of constitutional government.

The Vietnamese decided to take the latter course. It was a bold decision. A people trained to respect rulers was suddenly to have freedom of speech and of the press and actually to choose its rulers who, instead of giving orders, would compete for the public's favor. No elections were held in England or in France during World War II. Yet, Vietnam wished to hold elections in wartime.

At the out.set Prime Minister Ky's government said that it was purely a provisional government, an interim affair to make preparations for a legitimate government operating under a constitution. The government kept its word. A preparatory commission was appointed to make plans for an election of delegates to a constitutional convention. These delegates were elected at elections held on Sept. 11, 1966. The delegates formed a constitutional convention, which adopted. a

constitution under the provisions of which a president, a vice president and a senate would be elected on Sept. 3, 1967. Members of the assembly are due to be elected on Oct. 22.

On the day on which the elections for delegates were held, a terrorist campaign was mounted in which there were 15 times the usual daily rate of terrorist incidents. Yet the protective measures were so effective and the desire of the people to vote was so great th.at more than 80 per cent of the registered voters voted. This compares with the 39 per cent who usually vote when we elect congressmen and senators in non-presidential years. On that day, U.S. and some Vietnamese troops were deployed in the thinly populated parts of Vietnam, acting as a shield so that the Vietnamese police and other Vietnamese military forces working in thickly settled areas could protect the citizen in his right to vote.

After the election, the constitutional convention was convened, and the delegates produced a constitution providing for a presidential type of government in which the legislature has more authority than it has under the U.S. Constitution since the legislative branch can pass a bill over the president's veto by a simple majority. The constitution also provides for separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, universal suffrage, religious freedom and the right to form unions and to strike. It provides that military men must leave the armed forces if elected to office.

The national assembly and senate created in the constitution have broad powers. In addition to voting legislation, ratifying treaties and declaring war, the legislative branches can overturn the executive by a three-fourths vote. They can also reject presidential decrees, choose the membership of the supreme court and amend the constitution by a two-thirds vooo. The constitution also creates a special court composed primarily of legislators. This special court is empowered to remove high government oftlcials from office, including the president and vice president.

The preamble is worth quoting: "Confident that the patriotism, indomita.:..

ble will, and unyielding traditions of the people will assure a radiant future for our country; conscious that after many years of foreign domination, followed by the division of our territory, dictatorship and war, the people of Vietnam must take responsibility before history to perpetuate those hardy traditions and at the same time to welcome progressive ideas in order to establish a republican form of government of the people, by the people and for the people whose purpose is to unite the nation, unite the territory and assure independence, freedom, and democracy with justice and altruism for the present and future generations, we, 117 deputies of the National Constituent Assembly representing the people of Vietnam, after debate, approve this constitution."

Last Sunday's elections, held pursuant to the constitution, were intensively observed by representatives of more than 20 countries, the U.S. being represented by 22 men from government, labor, business, civic organizations and clergy. There were also three leading political scientists-men who make a career out of observing elections in many countries. They saw the election as being as good, as useful, and as wholesome for Vietnam as all elections are good, useful and wholesome for us--in one way more so, since we have been having elections for some 200 years and the Vietnamese are just beginning.

There were many well thought-out devices to protect against rigging. In every polling place, for example, 20 people were directly involved in counting the ballots-20 pairs of sharp eyes. When finished, the count was immediately written out in four copies, one of which was immediately and publicly

posted. With devices like this, it was hard to see how the elections could be rigged other than at gunpoint-and security measures were too efficient to make this possible.

There were, of course, the expected allegations of fraud from some of the losers. These will be dealt with in accordance with the new constitution, which provides that the present assembly (elected a year ago) will pass on them. In this respect the Vietnamese, who have a national election law covering the entire country, have an advantage over us-we are still operating under 50 separate state election laws.

It is noteworthy that during both last Sunday's elections and the election for delegates in September, 1966, there were no signs that the Viet Cong had any sizable voluntarv popular following. The conclusion is inescapable that whatever popularity the Vietnamese Communists may have had in 1954, they have totally lost it now. The Viet Cong are a formidable force, not because people like them, but because of their ruthless and efficient exercise of terrorism; because of their professional direction by Hanoi and because of their support by Peking.

Obviously, this is a totally different thing from being a popular political party. They are not a socially conscious group of freedom fighters but a hard-core group of dedicated aggressors. Former members of the Viet Cong were individually allowed to vote although not authorized to hold office. This can be compared with our own American practices after the Civil War, when those who had sided with the Confederacy were not only not allowed to hold office but not allowed to vote at all. It can also be compared with the practice in France after World War II, when those who had sided with Marshal Petain were not allowed to vote or to hold office.

Here again the interesting question presents itself as to why, as some sugges·t, we should apply more stringent s.tandards to the Vietnamese than we did to ourselves after our own Civil War or to France after World War II. When you consider the background of Vietnrunese history, the evolution of these people toward constitutional government is little short of amazing.

Consider the following: They have lifted press censorship. The de

fense minister has publicly stated that the armed forces would not have a candidate, would stay out of the elections and that members of the armed forces would not electioneer and would vote as individuals. The minister sent written rules to all the commanders governing particdpation by military personnel. The minister of "revolutionary development," which can be defined as "nationbuilding," gave orders that none of his political and community workers should engage in the campaign and that each should vote as an individual.

The prime minister and the chief of state instructed the province and district leaders not to engage in politics and not to put pressure on the people. All candidates were given money by the government for their campaigns, with the government printing posters and leaflets free of charge. All presidential candidates were furnished transportation by the government, a benefit which was not required by law. All candidates were given free time on government radio and television.

The government invited the United Nations, foreign governments, parliamentary organizations, and the international press to send observers to the elections. Elaborate arrangements for poll watchers and for monitoring the elections were set up, some of them reportedly superior to what exists in some of our American cities.

The decision not to permit Gen. "Big" Minh to be a candidate was not taken either by Gen. Thieu or by Gen. Ky but by the elected members of the National Assembly in accordance With Vietnamese law. One Vietnamese law, for example, says that no candidate for

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26095 president or vice president can have held French citizenship. That caused the elimination of Gen. Minh's vice presidential candidate and therefore the full ticket. As it was, 11 candidates remained in the race, giving the people a wide choice.

The suggestion was made that Thieu and Ky should resign their positions, yet is there a single case of an incumbent officeholder in the U.S. resigning his position when he is running for reelection? Also, why should these two Vietnamese gentlemen do so when they have said time and again that they consider themselves to be provisional? For them to have left office at that time would have been an invitation to chaos.

The interesting question is: why did the Vietnamese do as well as they did? Why did the Vietnamese people take such a tremendous interest in both elections? Why did everything go so fairly? One reason, as I have said, was the desire of the people to protect themselves from absolutist, police-state rule in the future and to get rid of corruption. Another reason is the keen realization of those in the government of the value of a country's having a government whose legitimacy cannot be questioned.

This does not necessarily mean rthat a. legitill1ate government must 'be freely elected by the people. More than half of the governments which the U.S. recognizes are not freely elected. Therefore, while a government can be legitimate without having been duly elected, there is no doubt that a duly elected government has a legitimacy which cannot be questioned. Prime Minister Ky is so much impressed with this that he once said to me that, even if a man was elected whom he did not personally like, he would support him and serve under him so that Vietnam could speak with one voice in international affairs and couid have a legitimacy which was unassailable.

Finally, the election of Sept. 3 will have a significance which can be scarcely exaggerated in the building of a modern nationstate in South Vietnam. As we have seen many times, there is a great and painful difference between World War II, for example, and the war in Vietnam. In World War II when you defeated the German army, the war was won. In Vietnam, when you defeat the enemy's military forces, you must still go ahead with nation-building, the first element of which is local police protection after which economic, social and poll tical evolution should rapidly follow.

Thus, the election should be seen against this background. The Vietnamese have ~ strong sense of peoplehood, of having a common history, language, literature, art and race, without having the same kind of nationhood which we know in the West. Their si tua ti on is comparable to that of Germany before Bismarck or Italy before Cavour. In those days everyone knew what a German was or what an Italian was, but they had not yet become modern nation-states.

In electing a constitutional government the Vietnamese are taking the biggest single step that can be taken towards making their country, with its old civilization and old customs, into a modern nation-state which will eventually be able to protect itself against aggression. We hope that a democratic process has now begun in Vietnam and, as young men go into politics and form committees and make promises and carry those promises out, an atmosphere will be created in which the Viet Cong will suffocate.

Some observers, appalled by the difficulty of building a modern nation-state have wondered whether it was not true, after all, that only the Communists could organize the East Asian tropics, as Mao Tse-tung had organized China after 22 years of effort. Unquestionably, this ls one of the central questions raised by the Vietnam war. We who believe ·tha.t Vietnam. can become a modern nation-state, able to preserve its independence,

can take heart from the organization of society in such countries as the Philippines, Korea, Malaya, which have overcome Communist aggression, indeed, in all of the edge of free East Asia, 370,000,000 people in all, and from the great sacrifices and progress of the Vietnamese people in achieving this very thing.

CORRECTING RA TE IMBALANCES IN SAVINGS INSTRUMENTS

Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. HANNA] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to ithe request of ·the gentleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, because the

rat-control bill, H.R. 12754, passed the House today under a unanimous-consent procedure no one should be misled into believing that all current practices existing in this area are satisfactory. During the brief hearings on this important piece of legislation a record was constructed which strongly suggests serious imbalances have emerged between various savings instruments.

It must be clearly pointed out that current administrative interpretations on the permissibility and extent of certain savings instruments has brought about a set of circumstances which runs counter to the intent of the Congress.

It should be recorded as part of the legislative history of this bill that there is a marked concern over the unprecedented growth of time deposits in the bank system. According to Monetary Trends report issued by the Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis, released September 13, 1967, time deposits in commercial 'banks have girown at an 18-percent annual rate since January. This is more than 10 percent above the growth rate from mid-1960 to mid-1966, when this measure grew at an average rate of less than 8 percent. Not only does this indicate that bank time deposits are, for the first time, now going to out-strip demand deposits, but also reflects a shift in the banks promotion for deposits toward certificates of deposit and "golden passbook" which, according to some thinking, represents an easy loophole around the regulation Q. This compares dramatically to 1965 when the ratio between time and demand deposits stood at 79.9 percent, with demand deposits exceeding time deposits by some $37 billion.

For this reason we believe that the record on this bill should carry with it a strong indication to the Federal Reserve Board that they should discourage such a practice that minimizes the regulatory effects of Q, and indicates strongly to the Home Loan Bank Board that we believe they should use their present powers to allow a comparative right of the savings and loan's to accept deposits for a· fixed period of time with a guaranty of a definite rate thereon and may issue also certificates of deposit and other documents as shall be prescribed by the Board under appropriate regulations.

Both of these moves are suggested as a

way in which the regulating agencies can minimize rate wars and maximize equity among concerned financial institutions.

UNWARRANTED AND INACCURATE ATTACK UPON OUR PRESIDENT Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. GATHINGS] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extfianeous matter.

The SPEAKER pro itempore. Is. there objection to the reques·t of the gentleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Speaker, today

the House heard a learned, factual, and timely discussion of charges made by a former resident of my State that President Johnson had refused to engage in peace talks earlier this year with the North Vietnamese. I commend the Democratic whip [Mr. BoGGsJ for his splendid ~ddress as well as the concurring remarks which came from both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday the American public was treated to an outstanding example of an unwarranted and inaccurate attack upon our President.

I ref er to the charges made by Mr. Harry S. Ashmore to the effect that President Johnson had deliberately blocked or scuttled an effort to bring peace in Vietnam. If the only significance of Mr. Ashmore's statement were that it was simply one more misinformed and inaccurate attack on the President, it could perhaps be left pass without comment. For it is unfortunately the lot of any President of the United States to undergo irresponsible attacks of this kind.

But :there is a significance which goes beyond mere unfair treatment of an individual public official and an inaccurate report of his motives and actions. If Mr. Ashmore's charges are given credibility, they can only tend to undermine worldwide confidence in the effort of the Government to seek a just and peaceful solution in Vietnam. President Johnson has labored tirelessly to bring about peace with honor in Vietnam. He has enphasized time and time again his willingness to negotiate in a reciprocal manner. He has sent emissaries all over the world to try and work out a basis for negotiations so that the fighting could end.

I would have no concern on this score if Mr. Ashmore's statement was generally read in its entirety, it can be found in his own statement a refutation of his charges. The problem, of course, is that many people throughout the world will glance at the headlines only.

Mr. Ashmore's principal charge is his assertation that the letter to President Ho, written with State Department cooperation for his signature, was inconsistent with a letter of a similar period, of which he was unaware, from President Johnson to the North Vietnamese leader. Both President Johnson's letter and the Ashmore letter are now public, and it is clear that they are not inconsistent. On the contrary, they are completely con-


sistent, with the President's letter quite appropriately being more detailed. I wonder, however, how much damage has already been done around the world by Mr. Ashmore's charges, and I suspect few people will take the trouble to compare in detail the texts of the two letters.

Mr. Ashmore also seems concerned that he was not informed of the President's letter. I fail rto see what obligation our Government officials had to provide Mr. Ashmore with the most secret, sensitive and critical foreign policy discussions of the President. It is understandable that the State Department should have taken advantage of Mr. Ashmore's contacts with President Ho Chi Minh. I assume that secondary channels of communication of this kind are used whenever practicable. In such instances the Department should, as it clearly did in this case, insure that the message going through the secondary channel is consistent with what is being conveyed by other means. But certainly there is no obligation to inform a private citizen, engaged in such useful but peripheral activities, of the extent, nature and specific uses of infinitely more sensitive and critically important channels of communication.

Mr. Speaker, our President has combed the world in a search for a just peace. Any fair-minded man must recognize by the President's words and deeds that he is second to none in his desire to achieve such a peace. It is ironical indeed that this great, great quest should be jeopardized and weakened by the actions of a private American citizen who, too, desires peace, but who has by his misleading statements and his misunderstanding of the relation of his own role t.o infinitely more important undertakings thrown doubt on the President's motives.

Mr. Speaker, the following editorial from the September 19 Washingt.on Post is very much to the point. I commend it to my colleagues and only wish that as many people about the world would read this as read the previous days misleading news stories.

THE ARKANSAS TRAVELER The differences between the letter which

Harry Ashmore, with State Department advice, wrote to Hanoi on Feb. 5 and the letter which President Johnson sent on Feb. 8, do not seem to justify the harsh allegation that the Government has been guilty of "a devious course" and of "crude duplicity."

The Presidential letter is more specific than the Ashmore letter but not in basic contradiction with it. And even if a contradiction exists, there seems little reason to suppose this is a deliberate sabotage of a possible peace. North Vietnam could have availed itself of the option exercised by President Kennedy in replying to the apparently conflicting Khrushchev letters in the Cuban crisis. The White House in that situation chose to reply to the letter that seemed most hopeful. It seems likely that a government ln Hanoi really anxious for peace could have done the same thing.

It is not remarkable that the State Department and the President were pursuing peace through a Moscow channel at the sanie time that Ashmore was proceeding through his private and informal channel. There does not seem to be anything duplicitous about the failure to abandon a.II other explorations

of peace untll the Ashmore lead had been run out. Nor does there seem to be anything duplicitous about failure of the Government to take Ashmore wholly into its confidence as to alternative approaches. Events would seem to afford justification for not doing so. It is not customary or conventional for governments to yield exclusive negotiating rights to private citizens conducting unofficial and informal preliminary exploration of this kind.

Such inquiries as Ashmore and William Baggs made in Hanoi are extremely useful and helpful. While they do not often lead directly to peace or negotiations for peace, they are an alternative means of communication when formal channels of diplomacy are closed. Through such conversations ordinary private citizens often ca.n perform an important and patriotic function. The honest purpose and good motive of these two able journalists entitle them to the praise of their countrymen.

Unfortunately, the Ashmore article in Center Magazine is tendentious and querulous and obscures more than it clarifies the efforts of the Arkansas traveler and his companion. Its high tone and imperious posture conveys the somewhat embarrassing impression that the author regards the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions as a sovereign power. The article sounds like a communique from a greater to a lesser, and infinitely more stupid and worse governed, minor state.

The Ashmore article makes it clear that the word he has for the Johnson Administration is the word the Arkansas Traveler had for his critics in the 1850's: "You give me a pain." And that message has some political importance in 1967 but it probably does not much advance the prospects for peace on earth.

Mr. Speaker, I also commend to the attention of my colleagues the following factual statement made public yesterday by the Department of State. For those who wish to go into this matter thoroughly this statement gives a true background of the developments and incidents which were so inaccurately portrayed in Mr. Ashmore's allegations: STATEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

SEPTEMBER 18, 1967 We have had a number of inquiries con

cerning news stories published today, based on an article by Mr. Harry Ashmore in a publication Of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions ( CSDI) •

The facts concerning the Department's contacts with Messrs. Ashmore and Baggs are as follows:

1. During the summer of 1966, Mr. William Baggs told the Department that CDSI was planning a major conference in May of 1967 in Geneva, t<i follow up on the first Pacem In Terris meeting held in New York in February of 1965. Mr. Baggs disclosed to us efforts that the Center was making to invite North Viet-Nam to attend, and the Department responded sympathetically to the idea of the Conference and to these efforts. These initial contacts were with Mr. George Ball and Mr. William Bundy. The President and Secretary Rusk were informed, and Mr. Ball was directed to handle contacts with Mr. Baggs on behalf of the United States Government.

2. In mid-November and again in early December, Mr. Baggs was joined by Mr. Ashmore in calls at the Department. In these calls, the progress of the conference plans was reviewed, and the two visitors indicated that they had a tentative invitation to go to Hanoi, with Mr. Luis Quintanilla of Mexico. Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore also suggested that, if they were able to visit Hanoi, they

might be able to conduct useful explorations of North Vietnamese views towards peace. Mr. George Ball having then left the Department, the primary responsibility for these conversations passed to his successor, Mr. Katzenbach, who kept the President and the Secretary of State informed as a matter of course.

In these conversations, Department representatives accepted the Baggs/ Ashmore suggestion and undertook to cooperate fully. Accordingly, the position of the United States Government on key issues relating to peace was discussed at some length, so that Baggs and Ashmore could represent it accurately in Hanoi.

3. On December 23, Baggs visited the Department just prior to the departure of the three-man group on December 28. At that meeting, the basic understanding of the United States Government position was reaffirmed, and it was further agreed that Baggs and Ashmore would report confidentially what they were able to pick up in Hanoi.

4. Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore visited Hanoi from January 6 to J anuary 14. They then returned to the U.S. and on January 18 dictated for the Department a full and confidential account of their conversations. This covered in particular a conversation with President Ho on January 12. In this conversation, Ho had insisted that there could be no talks between the U.S. and Hanoi unless the bombing were stopped, and unless also the U.S. stopped all reinforcements during the period of the talks. Ho was reported to be adamant against any reciprocal military restraint by North Vietnam. The record does not show that he solicited any USG response to these remarks.

5. Concurrently, prior to January 18, on U.S. initiative and without any connection to the Baggs/ Ashmore actions, U.S. Government representatives had established a direct channel for communication with North Vietnamese representatives in Moscow. With the apparent agreement of both sides, this channel was being kept wholly confidential, and was therefore not revealed to Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore in their discussions at the Department. It is, of course, fundamental to the USG deallngs with Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore that there existed at the time this direct and secret channel. Exchanges through this direct channel continued through January and early February and culminated in President Johnson's letter to President Ho of February 8 (mistakenly stated by Mr. Ashmore as February 2). As has been stated by representatives of the Department, a wide variety of proposals was put before Hanoi in these Moscow contacts, without at any time producing any useful response.

6. Toward the end of January Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore returned to Wa.Shington and expressed to the Department the strong hope that they could be given a message for transmission to Hanoi. The Department decided that, while the direct channel in Moscow was crucial and must at all costs be preserved, it would be useful to send a more general message through Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore, which would be consistent with the important messages being exchanged in Moscow. In view of this channel (of which Baggs-Ashmore were unaware) there was some question as to the further utmty of detailed informal communications. It seemed clear from the account given by :Messrs. Baggs and Ashmore that their channel of communication had been established with the primary purpose of exchanges concerning North Vietnamese attendance at the May conference. Nevertheless, Baggs and Ashmore said they could send any messages for Hanoi through the regular mail to a. North Vietnamese representative in Phnom Penh, who in turn would relay it to a North Vietnamese official who had been the principal contact of Messrs. Baggs a.nd Ashmore ln Hanoi. Ac-

September 19, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26097 cordingly, the letter now published by Mr. Ashmore was worked out with the representatives of the Department, and authorized to be sent on February 5. We were subsequently informed by Mr. Ashmore that this letter reached Phnom Penh on February 15.

7. No useful purpose could be served by giving further details on what took place n the Moscow channel. We can say, however, that on February 7, while that channel was still open and in operation, separate discussions were initiated in London between Prime Minister Wilson and Premier Kosygin of the USSR. The combined reading of the Moscow channel and of these discussions led to the dispatch on February 8 of President Johnson's letter to President Ho. This letter was of course published unilaterally by Hanoi on March 21, and is a matter of public record. It rested on, and was of course read by Hanoi in relation to, the various proposals that had been conveyed in the Moscow channel. There was no change of basic position whatever between February 5 and February 8, but President Johnson's letter did include a specific e.ctJion proposal that speaks for itself, as does the tone of his communication.

8. As already noted, Hanoi had not responded in any useful way to the variety of suggestions conveyed in the Moscow channel. Its sole and apparently final response was reflected on February 13, in a letter by President Ho to Pope Paul VI. This letter, in the words of one press account today, "coupled and unconditional end to the bombing with the withdrawal of American forces and the recognition of the National Liberation Front." On February 15, President Ho replied formally to the President in similar terms. At the same time, Hanoi broke off the Moscow channel.

9. Hanoi's attitude remained negative throughout. The Baggs/ Ashmore efforts were necessarily handled by the Department with an eye to the direct and then-confidential channel that existed concurrently to Hanoi. The latter appeared to be by far the more reliable and secure method of ascertaining Hanoi's views.

10. Finally, we note with regret that Mr. Ashmore is apparently ignorant of the subsequently published reports of the Moscow contacts, and of their confirmation by Department representatives. We note with still greater regret that at no time since has he consulted with the Department in order to attempt to understand the interrelationship that necessarily obtained between the Moscow channel and his own efforts. As this case shows, the Administration has been prepared at all times to cooperate with private individuals who may be in contact with Hanoi in any way, and who are prepared to act responsibly and discreetly. This policy continues, although it seems clear that the present disclosure will not reassure Hanoi that such private contacts will be kept secret.

WORLD IN DANGER IF UNITED STATES RETURNS TO ISOLATIONISM, SAYS PRESIDENT BOURGUIBA OF TUNISIA. Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA] may extend his remarks at ithis poilllt in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

by unanimous consent I am extending my remarks to include excerpts from an address in late August of this year before

the Executive Committee of the Tunisian Students Association by President Bourguiba of Tunisia, as follows: PRESIDENT BOURGUIBA ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND VIETNAM

Ever since the cold war divided the world into two opposite camps, students have been the subject of a keen competition for their allegiance and support. Each of these two camps wanted to have them on their side. Being endowed with great generosity of spirit and views, the young rather than the adults can become easily stirred up by great ideas. Therefore, a certain kind of propaganda aims at sparking and exploiting this enthusiasm to a point where the students are so highly intoxicated that they lose their ab1lity to exercise their personal judgment. Thus conditioned, they become the tool of a propaganda which they have n.ot bothered in most cases to analyse.

On every issue they want to have progressive ideas, and it so happens that in their eyes, the Soviet positions bear the perfect label of progressive thinking. These students tend, therefore, to always ally their views on attitudes which they have not themselves conceived and they come to consider Marshall Sallal of Yemen as a progressive leader, but not Bourguiba whose actions aim at emancipating the women, instructing and guiding the youth, and insuring dignity and a decent standard of living for his people.

APPROACH TO WORLD PROBLEMS

I would only have to attack the Americans or "Imperialism" to be classified among the progressive and revolutionary leaders of the world. This is not serious. This attitude of proselytism flows from the very found:ati.ons of the MarxLst-Lenist philosophy, which assumes that communism will eventually triumph in the world. Since the United States is the only Power capable of barring the achievement of such a purpose, the soviet Union does everything it can to increase the number of its supporters, or at least, to decrease the number of America's friends. In this endeavor the U.S.S.R. is gu1ded by some sort of a messianic a.ttitude for it is convinced that it obeys a fundamental law of history and if the propaganda slogans sometimes happen to change according to international circumstances, the objective remains the same.

But paradoxically, while some countries of the "Third World" are using such slogans, the country where communism was first introduced ls in the process of changing the very foundations of Marxism.

It is also significant that the Soviet Union and the United States have come to a point where they can reach agreement on a certain number of issues, and they sometimes do so over the shoulders of some countries of the "Third World" whdoh believed that they could count on the revolUJtione.ry "solidarity" of Soviet Russia.

All things being what they are and especially what they become, we are determined as far as we are concerned to seek every possible assistance whether 1 t comes from the East or from the West, with a view to implementing our development programs.

We all know too well what it costs some countries which label themselves revolutionary to act like the legendary Don Quixote. While they battle against the windmUls of imperialism, the people whom they are responsible for continue to endure the worst kind of misery, and live under conditions where the most elementary liberties are denied.

ARAB POLICY TOWARD ISRAEL

The fight against "Imperialism" remains the prime concern of these regimes and in the specific case of Palestine, they have continued to pursue a policy of dropping the substance for the shadow.

The State of Israel is recognized by the United States and the Soviet Union. It is furthermore a member of the United Nations and its existence is only challenged by the Arab States. It is useless in these conditions to refuse adamantly to recognize this reality. To claim to eradicate Israel from the map of the world is to condemn oneself to virtual isolation. No matter how regrettable and unjust it is, such a situation does exist.

* * * • * After the defeat which they just endured,

the Arab States should reconsider the policy which they have stubbornly pursued for the past 20 years. Whatever it costs them, the lesser evil would be to end the state o:f belligerency in order to recover the lands which have been conquered by the Jewish State, ·and to avert greater dangers.

After that, they would have to strive and promote their people to the level of strong and highly developed nations, so that they would one day, be capable to prevent any injustice, to deter any aggression, and to wield, one day, the greater power.

I referred specifically to the case of Palestine to illustrate my thoughts and to demonstrate to _you that the young people, who would be called upon to exercise responsib111ties in their countries, must learn to reason sensibly and soundly, and not to shut their eyes on some realities, no matter how unpleasant they are.

VIETNAM AND POWER POLITICS

I read with interest the various motions which you have adopted during your recent Congress and I particularly noted your concern over the problem of Vietnam. I believe, however, that you have not analysed this issued deeply enough, for it is not as simple as one might be led to believe. It is indeed a most serious issue which 1s liable to disrupt the whole balance of power in the world.

Following the last war, the world found itself divided into two blocs: the communist countries and the others. If the requirements of the war had temporarily brought together the so called Allied Powers against Hitler's Germany, the fundamental differences of their regimes did not in anyway disappear. Once Nazism was clamped down, each of the former allies hurriedly attempted to enlarge rt.s zone of influence.

Therefore, after the Soviets and the Americans had, each for themselves, proceeded to simultaneously "liberate" some parts of the world, they established a demarcation line which corresponded to the advance of their respective armies. The grounds of such a coilfrontation were successively Germany and Austria, later Korea and later still, Vietnam.

On several occasions, the Soviet Union attempted to improve her positions, but she had to back down in the face of firm resistance. The Berlin crisis and the Korean war were the most acute developments of SovietAmerican confrontation, and !tis with a view to preserving such a balance that the Soviet Union and the United States are still maintaining their forces in both Germanies.

If sometimes the two great Powers collided in an armed conflict by proxy like in Korea, such a war nevertheless, always ended wi·th a. return to the status quo ante. It was finally realized that the division of some countries would only end when first a detente, then an understanding prevail between the two super Powers. Great progress has already been made in that direction.

THE CHALLENGE OF CHINA

But since then, China entered the scene and in pressuring Hanel to maintain lts lntranslgent stand, she seeks nothing else but to confound the Soviet Union and to prove that guerrma warfare can defeat the American armies. If such were the case, it would


demonstra.te that the United States !I.a not invincible in spite of d.ts nuclear ha.rdware.

China's hopes could then be fulfilled and nothing would prevent the outpour of its multitudes over Vietnam, Asia, and even Russia. She would furthermore be in a position to claim and indeed grab the leadership of the communist world.

It is in the light of these considerations that we ought to understand the oft repeated demand by Hanoi's leaders that: "The aggressor should leave first , then peace, freedom, and reunification would then set in by themselves". This is a precondition which has never been set forth by any people struggling for their liberation even in oolonial wars. During the Algerian war, neither did the Algerian Provisional Government, nor Ben Bella, nor Boumedienne, ever insist that the French Forces withdraw before any negotiations could begin.

A close analysis of the events leads indeed to the conclusion that the Vietnam war is being fought behind the scenes by the United States and China. Considering that the world balance of power hovers in the midst of such a conflict, it seems unlikely that the United States would give up in these conditions. Mao Tse Tung on the other hand is bent on demonstrating that the U.S. can indeed be forced to surrender.

THE DANGER OF WAR

One can imagine the kind of danger to which the world would be exposed if East Germany or the Federal Republic attempted to achieve for their own sake-like in Vietnam-the reunification of the country. A conflict between the red army and the American forces would be unavoidable.

Now everyone knows that the United states is willing to close its military bases abroad. In the case of Vietnam they simply want to make sure that once their forces are withdrawn, appropriate conventions would insure complete self determination for the Vietnamese people, that is their ability to elect the regime of their choice and the men of their choice, I fear that should the United States withdraw without prior agreement specifying such a guarantee, Vietnam might not be reunified, and neither would it become free nor independent. History and the specific weight of China somehow seem to point toward such an eventuality which would without fail bring mankind to the brink of a third World War.

China is left today to the destructive frenzy of the Red Guards who do not even respect the immunity of diplomatic missions. One could fear the worst from these unleashed hordes. The Soviet Union certainly does not wish to see a victorious China emerge, for she knows all too well the danger to which she herself would be exposed. The whole Asian part of her territory could be dangerously threatened.

Today one can· say without paradox that the Soviet Union fears China more than she would the United States. Perhaps she even does foresee that one day she would need their help just as in the darkest years of Hitler's aggression. Therefore things are far from being that simple and the so called "Imperialism" is quite often only a question of point of view.

It is only unfortunate for mankind that peace should be based upon a balance of power. At Potsdam and Yalta the world was sliced into spheres of influence and everytime one of the major Powers attempted to expand its own zone, it was generally the country situated on the threshold which paid the heavy price of such a move. This is the case of Germany, of Korea, and of Vietnam.

But while in the first two instances some sort of an agreement seems to prevail on the basis of peaceful co-existence that ts in effect the maintenance of the status quo until a more meaningful understanding could be

sought, in Vietnam, China regards "peaceful co-existence" as an act of treason in terms of revolutionary principles and she strives hard to demonstrate that her posltlon 1s the only right one.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF PEACE

I do not seek to spare or please any country when I maintain that the world would be in danger if in the event of a movement of public opinion the United States were to return to their former isolationism. One could contend that Vietnam means little to them after all, and tha t the Chinese are, at the moment, in no position to threaten them, but, granted a U.S. unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, China would most certainly submerge all the countries of the region, and pull away from Moscow the leadership of the communiS>t world, thus jeopardizing world peace. Vietnam would be the first country to be overrun, then would come the turn of India, which already experienced Chinese aggression, then Outer Mongolia, whose pos-ition is believed to be threatened. Thus determined to expand their vital space by conquest, the Chinese would m arch off to re-esta.bllsh their old empire. A Third Wo·rld War would be doomed to break out. The dimensions and the significance of the conflict being waged in Vietnam go therefore far beyond the border of this coun try and although it may seem paradoxical, one could contend that the Vietnamese are figh ting the wrong ·enemies . Those who act ually encourage them to fight the Americans are none other than the very same leaders, who behind' the scenes, await the opportunit y to enslave them and to rebuild the former Chinese Empire.

Given the facts of geography, the specific weight of China, and her insistence to cling to Stalin's ideology, one could not but conclude that Vietnam would experience a fate s1mi1ar to the one which had befallen the countries of Eastern Europe in the days of Stalin.

If communism champions democracy and independence, it certainly does so in countries other than those who were subjected to the tryranny of Stalin or who are now threatened to fall under Mao's. Even the Soviet Union has now realized that and is proceeding to change her ideological concepts. When the real image of Stalinism was finally unveiled, the iron clad unity which held the communist world together, disintegrated forever, but in the process, the Soviet Union won the confidence of a great number of democracies which did not doubt Khrushchev's sincerity when he initiated his historic tui'n-about in favour of peaceful co-existence.

PROGRESS VERS US DEMAGOGY

I am therefore surprised that some young people still continue to measure the substance of progressive leadership in terms of standards established by such and such country, and that they systematically and blindly use this arbitrary yardstick to judge the pos·ition of their own country.

Real progress amounts to raising the standards of one's people and to actively promote its evolution through an appropriate social policy, through the education of youth, the emancipation of women, and the eradication of obsolete traditions; so many endeavors, that even the Soviet Pravda acknowledges, are 1being iachieved in TuniSil.a.

It is therefore unfortunate that some rather sound-minded people who are sometimes plagued by a feeling of guilt, do not dare express their opinions freely and feel obliged to conform their views to the ideology which is "in" at the moment. If one is genuinely convinced of the righteousness of his opinion, I do not object, for there is nothing I appreciate more than a sincere action. But I cannot stand systematic alignment. One must have the courage to defend his point of view in as much as it is founded

on reason, realities, and precise facts. If such a point of view happens to be contrary to Inine, I nevertheless respect it, for no specific ties of dependence bind me either to the United States, or to Great Britian, or to any other Power.

A French official was recently quoted as saying, "Among all the countries I visited, it is Tunisia which appeared to me as being the least dependent." It is true indeed, that we hang on no one's coat t ails. Our people are relatively mature, we have a long history behind us, .and we t ry to anialyze events objecti vely. This is why we have never stooped to resort to the kind Of demagogic practices which are being followed by some so called revolutionary countries. Their setbacks are all too well known, and if the gentleman who govern these countries really wanted to serve their people, why don't they strive to help them make up for centuries of backwardness and raise their social, economic, and technological standards, instead of being reduced to begging right and left, in order to feed them.

Tunisia enjoys everybody's respect and esteem, whether it be the Soviet Union, the United States, or France, whom we fought for so long. We also never laboured under the complexes of those countries whose process of decolonization was ill started and who were never able to overcome their past bitterness.

It is essentially in this spirit that I would like to see the students fulfill their mission which is to serve their country first, instead of trying to conform themselves to uncompromising attitudes.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab

sence was granted to Mr. BRINKLEY (at the request of Mr. STUCKEY) on account of temporary incapacitation as a result of injured ankle.

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. VANIK, for 15 minutes today, and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.

Mr. BELL, for 15 minutes today, and to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

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

Mr. DoRN in two instances and :to include extraneous matter.

Mr. KING of New York. <The following Members (at the re

quest of Mr. SMITH of Oklahoma) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr.ESCH. Mr.FINO. Mr.COWGER. (The fallowing Members <at the re

quest of Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr.DIGGS. Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr.KEE. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. HENDERSON.

September 19, 196? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 26099 Mr.HANNA. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas.

SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles:

S. 828. An ,a.ct to amend section 5(!b) of the act of March 18, 1966 (Public Law 89-372), so as to make the prohibition contained therein on the filling of certain vacancies in the office of district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania inapplicable to the first vacancy occurring after the enactment of such act;

S. 1165. An act to provide for the disposition of judgment funds now on deposit to the credit of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe of Indians on behalf of the Mississippi Bands and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands of Ohippewa Indians;

S. 1465. An act to provide for holding terms of the District Court of the United States for the eastern division of the Northern Dis,trict of Missis.sippi in Ackerman, Miss.;

S. 1657. An act to extend for 1 year the authority of the secretary of Agriculture to make indemnity payments to dairy farmers who are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets because it contains residues of chemicals registered and approved for use by the Federal Government; and

S. 1972. An act to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Emigrant New York Indians in Indian Claims Commission docket No. 75, and for other purposes.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. HECHLER of West V.irginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly «at 7 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Wednesday, September 20, 1967, 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:

1082. A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize an increase in the numbers of officers of the Navy designated for engineering duty, aeronautical engineering duty, and special duty; to the Committee on Armed Services.

1083. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Properties and Installations), transmitting a notification of the location, nature, and estimated cost of an additional fac1Uty project proposed to be undertaken for the Army National Guard, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 89-188, and to the authority delegated by the Secretary of Defense; to the Committee on Armed Services.

1084. A letter from the Attorney General, transmitting a report containing the results of continuing review of the outstanding voluntary agreements and programs, pursuant io the provisions of section 708 ( e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended; to the Committee on Banking and. Currency.

1085. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting a report pertaining to wage payments to handicapped clients in sheltered workshops, pursuant to the provisions of section 605 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for print ing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. ROGERS of Oolorado: Committee on the Judiciary. R.R. 8632. A bill to amend sections 40c ( 1) and 52a of the Bankruptcy Act so as to reallocate part of the filing fee from the clerk's earnings to the referees' salary and expense fund (Rept. No. 646). Referred to t he Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. PERKINS: Committee on Education and Labor. R.R. 12120. A bill to assist courts, correctional systems, and community agencies to prevent, treat, and control juvenile delinquency, to support research and training efforts in the prevention, treatment, and control of juvenile delinquency, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 647). Referred to the Committee of the Whole !House on the State of the Union.

Mr. WILLIS : Committee on Un-American Activities. R.R. 7025. A bill to amend the Internal Security Act of 1950, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 648): Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. POAGE: Committee of conference. S. 953. An act to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 for the purpose of authorizing appropriations for fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967 (Rept. No. 649) . Ordered to be printed.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

Dy Mr. BINGHAM: H.R. 12987. A bill to provide for the prep

aration and distribution of educational materials dealing With civil disorders; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. PIRNIE, and Mr. CONABLE):

R.R. 12988. A bill to extend the tariff quota treatment for certain stainless steel table flatware; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. DOW: R.R. 12989. A bill to provide for orderly

trade in textile articles; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FINO: R.R. 12990. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to restore the provisions permitting the deduction, without regard to the 3-percent and 1-percent fioors, of medical expenses incurred for the care of individuals 65 years of age and over; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. HUNGATE: R.R. 12991. A bill to amend the Com

munications Act of 1934 to amend the renewal requirement for licenses in the safety and special radio services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

H.R. 12992. A bill relating to appointments to the Supreme Court; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LLOYD: R .R. 12993. A bill to amend title 28 of the

United States Code, "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure," and incorporate therein provisions relating to the U.S. Labor Court, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MOSS (for himself, Mr. JARMAN, and Mr. HELSTOSKI):

H.R. 12994. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish regulations prohibiting certain broadcasting of advertising of cigarettes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

H.R. 12995. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to tax cigarettes on the basis of their tar and nicotine content; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ST. ONGE: H.R. 12996. A bill to amend section 2(3)

and section 8c(6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. SANDMAN: R.R. 12997. A bill to amend title 10 of the

United States Code to provide for a visitation allowance to assist close relatives to visit servicemen hospitalized in the United States from wounds received in Vietnam; to the Comm! ttee on Armed Services.

By Mr. BETTS (for himself, Mr. WYDLER, Mrs. DWYER, Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. COWGER, and Mr. MYERS) :

H.R.12998. A bill to require disclosure by each executive agency of the status of development of its accounting system for the implementation of planning-programingbudgeting systems; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. DERWINSKI: H.R. 12999. A bill to establish a Small Tax

Division Within the Tax Court of the United States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. GUDE: R.R. 13000. A bill to require consultation

with local planning agencies with respect to proposed Federal construction projects Within their jurisdiction; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. LENNON: R.R. 13001. A blll to protect the civilian

employees of the executive branch of the U.S. Government in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and to prevent unwarranted governmental invasions of their privacy; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. MACHEN: R.R. 13002. A bill to amend title 10 of the

United States Code so as to provide that the Chief of the Medical Service Corps of the Navy shall be a rear admiral; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. QUIE: H.R. 13003. A bill to provide for orderly

trade in textile articles; to the Committee on Ways and Mea:q.s.

R.R. 13004. A bill to amend the tariff schedules of the United States With respect to the rate of duty on whole skins of mink, whether or not dressed; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ROYBAL: R .R. 13005. A bill to amend the Social Se

curity Act to provide that increases in social security benefits shall be disregarded in determining an individual's need for purposes of eligibility under any of the public assistance programs; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. SAYLOR: R .R. 13006. A b111 to require reports to

Congress of certain actions of the Federal Power Commission; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. SCHWENGEL: R.R. 13007. A bill to exempt the State of

Iowa from certain provisions of the General Bridge Act of 1946; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. SHIPLEY: R.R. 13008. A bill to amend the Tariff

Schedules of the United States with respect to the rate of duty on whole skins of mink, whether or not dressed; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

26100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1967 By Mr. BRASCO;

H.R. 13009. A bill for the relief of Francesco Polizzi; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BUTTON: H.R. 13010. A bill for the relief of Dr. So

tiris Liaricos; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CAREY: H.R. 13011. A bill for the relief of Mr. and

Mrs. Panagiotis Ypsilantis; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. COLLIER (by request) : H.R. 13012. A bill for the relief of Bartolo

meo and Giovanna Bonsignore; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HANNA: H.R. 13013. A bill for the relief of Roza Pil

sudski; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. MOLTER:

H.R. 13014. A bill for the relief of Giuseppina Marsiglia ; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

President Johnson To Be Commended on His Proposal To Use Federal Surplus Property for "New Community"

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR. OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesd~y, September 19, 1967 Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to

commend President Johnson for his recent announcement that the Federal Goverrunent will donate a 335-acre plot of Federal land to build a "new community" in the District of Columbia for families of all income levels. Present plans include 1,500 low-income units, 2,200 units for moderate-income families and 800 high-income units. Also to be included in this new community are schools, shopping and service facilities, and perhaps some industry.

As described by the President, this new venture will be ":first and foremost a partnership--a partnership between local and Federal Governments, private developers and the people of the city."

The heart of this proposal is the use of Federal surplus land to keep down the costs for the developer which, in turn, will make it possible for him to make a profit from low rentals. We have learned from experience that incentives are necessary to encourage developers to produce low-income housing. Also, this proposal offers a clear alternative to public housing because it does not propose to segregate low-income tenants in large housing complexes. Instead it will allow them to live in a community which will have a cross-section of economic levels.

Further the President's proposal does not end with this one project. He has established a special committee to study Federal surplus property across the Nation to determine if such property could be used for similar new communities. Possibly this idea could be duplicated in numerous cities.

So many of us have expressed concerti over the blight existing in our urban slums and numerous proposals have been made to alleviate these conditions. Each proposal has a common theme-the necessity of involving private enterprise in rebuilding our cities. The use of Federal surplus funds is but one technique for encouraging private enterprise to join with both Federal and local governments in providing decent housing alternatives for our low-income citizens. However, it is a practical and innovative proposal. I hope that both the legislative and execu-

tive branches will continue to provide such constructive proposals.

Since I believe that this proposal has tremendous significance in our deliberations on legislation designed to rebuild our urban areas, I would like to include in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a copy of the President's news release of August 30, 1967, and articles from the Washington Post and the New York Times describing the "new community plans."

The material ref erred to follows: The President today requested Secretary

Weaver, Administrator Lawson Knott of the General Services Administration and Walter Tobriner, Chairman of the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners to "move at once to develop a new community within the Washington city limits."

The new development, which will eventually provide modern housing and services for about 25,000 citizens, will be built on the 335 acre site in Northeast Washington formerly OGCUpied by the National Training School for Boys. The school is being relocated in Morgantown, West Virginia and the site ls surplus federal land.

The land is situated between the DistrictMaryland line, South Dakota Avenue, Bladensburg Road, and the Washington-Baltimore Parkway.

"This spacious open tract," the President said, "can become a new, attractive, and well-balanced community at a major gateway to the Nation's Capital. It can provide comfortable and urgently needed housing, built and operated under the new Turnkey concept. But it should be more tha:n a 'housing project. Washington needs and deserves the best in community planning-and this new development can be the best of communities. It should offer a full range of educational, recreation and other public services to citizens of every station."

The President recently directed Administrator Knott to "seek, find and make arvailable" surplus federal la:hd to meet critical urban needs: housing, education, park land and industry. The new community project for Washington is the result of that search.

Ultimately, the planne<l community can provide up to 1500 low income housing units, 2200 mpderate income housing units, and 800 units of high income apartments, homes and townihouses. A wide v,ariety of otiher servioes, including educational and shopping fac111ties would be developed.

"This new venture," the President said, "will be first and foremost a partnership--a partnership between local and federal governments, between public officials, private developers and the people of the city. The creative involvement of private enterprise will be a mos:t important single element in the project."

The development of the site, the President announced, will be compatible with a det ailed land-use study of the area recently completed by a m ajor consulting firm. It will also subtit antially adhere to the 1985 comprehensive plan prepared by the Nationa l Capital Planning Gorn.mission for t h e District •Of Columbia .

"But it Ls my hope," the Presid ent sa id,

"that this con.cep·t, if it can be applied successfully in the Nation's Capital, wm be useful elsewhere in the Country. This new project could be the pioneer effort of a new program involving the comprehensive development of surplus federal land.

"With this idea in mind, I have today named a special Task Force composed of Administrator Knott, Secretaries McNamara and Weaver and Attorney General Clark to survey surplus federal properties throughout the Nation, and with State and local leaders, to evaluate the prospects for transforming these lands into vital and useful community resources."

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Aug. 31, 1967.]

"CITY" FOR 25,000 ·PLANNED AT TRAINING ScHOOL SITE-JOHNSON URGES PROJECT To EASE HOUSING CRISIS

(By Robert G. Kaiser, Post Staff Writer) President Johnson announced plans yes-

terday to create a vast "new community" on the site of the Naitional Training School for Boys in Northeast Washington.

The community will be bigger than Georgetown, and wm eventually include homes and services for 25,000 people.

The President also said he hoped the "concept" of the Federal Government's making surplus land available to help ease urban problems could be repeated in many other American cities.

He named a Cabinet-level task force to study possibilities of distributing other such sites to cities.

A 335-ACRE srrE

The first step here will be to designate the 335-acre Training School site as an urban renewal project, and 15 acres will be used to build 400 low- and moderate-income housing units. Construction on these is expected to begin in 1968.

According to Federal and District officials, it will be five to seven years before homes and other facilities for all 25,000 people are completed. Preliminary plans envisage schools, private industry, Federal buildings and recreational facilities on the site, but none of these are certain.

The decision to make the huge Training School site available to Washington is the first major breakthrough in years in what many city officials feel is a crisis. .

The site is bounded by the District line, Bladensburg Road, South Dakota Avenue and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.

GOVERNMENT SURPLUS

It is currently in the hands of the General Services Administration, and is considered surplus to the Government's needs. The Training School itself is moving to Morgantown, W. Va., next year.

GSA has been reluctant to relinquish the land to the District, but President Joh nson reportedly insisted that this be done.

GSA will con vey title of parcels of the tract as they are developed for specific projects. Somo will be transferred to the city and ot her public agencies, and others will be sold to private developers.

The first step toward formally begin ning the project will be t aken Sept. 14, at the next

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - GovInfo

Documents

Transcript of HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - GovInfo