SENATE-Tuesday, July 30, 1968

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL. 'RECORD- SENATE 24109 ent in making such an .arrest, but they must increase the odds against· themselves by concentrating on an action that has been decreed by ,the highest court in our l.and: Reading a set of phrases off a printe.d card, distracting them from what could be a required reaction against physical danger.

This entire chain is pursued up through the courts if a proceeding goes that far un.:.. til, in some cases, as in the one cited l'ibove" in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, :the matter is thoroughly disposed of an~ a defendant is acquitted or convicted. Even in the latter instances where a. suspect pleads guilty. and then in the sentencing procedure attempts to change his plea; there is no guarantee that final disposition has been made.

One of these controversies recently went as far as the U.S. lOth Circuit Court of AP-peals and the ·judge delivering the court's opinion, which found against the defendant in the lower court and who has appealed his conviction, handed down a decision that should give renewed encouragement to conscientious officers of the law seeking to do their duty.

The Jurist, Circuit Judge Jean s: Breiten .. stein of De~ver, noted in the opinion that after a lone gunman robbed an elderly postmistress at a small Oklahoma town, he was subsequently ·apprehended by a Texas high-: way patrolman after a long, high-speed chase participated in by several officers. One of the pursuers immediately orally delivered to the suspect a "full warning of his constitutional rights." After the suspect was jailed, a post office inspector investigating the Oklahoma robbery also warned the defendant of his rights. Later he was taken back to Oklahoma where he was ·subsequently interviewed by the same postal inspector plus an FBI agent, both of whom again advised the defendant of his constitutional rights; later he signed a waiver of his rights. Despite all these actions, the suspect subsequently challenged in his U.S. District Court proceedings against him certain statements he made after his arrest and also to the federal agents.

The point is -that despite all of these involved actions, which suggests that today's modern policeman needs a law degree to carry out his business, they still were chal-

lenged in an appellate court, which rejected the challenge. . .

As in the case cited here, this creates much complication and delay in the administration of justice which obviously contributes ·to the burgeoning crime rate in this country because every felon becomes a jackleg lawyer able to conduct his defense from his jail or prison cell. This is what decisions like Miranda, Mallory and Escobedo have done to this country.

THE "PUEBLO": HOW LONG, MR. PRESIDENT?

HON. WILLIAM J. SCHERLE OF IOWA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .

Monday, July 29, 1968

Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, this is the 189th day the U.S.S. Pueblo and her crew have been in North Korean hands.

SENATE-Tuesday, July 30, 1968 The Senate met at 10 a.m., and was

called to order by the Acting President pro tempore.

Rev. Edward B. Lewis, D.D., pastor, Capitol Hill United Methodist Church, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:

Make us alert to Thy presence, 0 Lord, as we see our need. Let Thy voice speak to us through moments of prayer and silence. Teach us to profit by an inspired thought, a glowing word of practical expressio:Q. to the pressures of the hour. Inspire us with Thy spirit as we face the important handicaps, hindrances, and irritations so prevalent in this day of life. We present our prayer in the name of Him who was victorious in like circumstance, even Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

THE JOURNAL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, July 29, 1968, be dispensed with.

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

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DURING SENATE SESSION -

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.


ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on

behalf of the joint leadership, and in accordance with the previous announcement, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITs], the colleague of our ll:i.te beloved . colleague Senator . KENNEDY~

from the State of New York, be recognized first; that I be recognized following his remarks; that there be no yielding on the part of Senators to one another, but that each Senator, on an alternating Republican-Democrat basis, be recognized during the course of the proceedings this morning.


SENATOR ROBERT F. KENNEDYIN MEMORIAM

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, first, may I express my gratitude to the majority leader for giving me what I consider to be a great privilege in the Senate.

I felt that Senator KENNEDY was not just a colleague, although that alone would be all that would be required to make me say what I am about to say. But in the course of our association, which naturally became very much more intimate when he became a Senator, he became my friend. I should like to pay my memorial tribute to him because of the deep feelings in his heart, which to me were so very marked, and I shall enumerate them in a little detail in terms of the common experiences which we shared.

His hope and idealism made him a force for constructive change which inspired the youth of the Nation. He had, so far as I know, the deepest concern for the underdog of anyone I had ever met. To put it in very blunt terms, he had deep concern for the people whom our society-notwithstanding its many blessings, and it does have them-had disfranchised in terms of opportunity and in termc:; of the legacy to ·which we feel all Americans are entitled. He was not the only man in public life to have this feeling in hi~ heart; . but, in my judgment, it b.urned 1n him more brightly than in any other man I have ever known. - .

He had a great humor and wit. He did. not . t~ke .:hWlself all that seriously. ~ut when his mlnd directed itself to this

problem, he throbbed with its significance, like an Old Testament prophet. This was his prophecy: that the blessings of American life would be transmitted to all Americans; to the poor, the black, the Mexican-American, the Japanese-American, and other hyphenated Americans-hyphenated only because they lagged so seriously behind the condition of other Americans and because they were oppressed rather than uplifted by the society of which we are all a common part.

Senator KENNEDY had a keen understanding that 80 percent or more of American society was enjoying a way of life, a freedom, a health, an amplitude of living which had never been vouchsafed to any people in all of recorded history. His deep feeling and his burning zeal for improvement came notwithstanding the fact that the disinherited were a minority-20 percent or less--of the Nation.

It was this deep feeling which transmuted our relationship from one of colleagues working together in the interests of our State, to one of friends.

Mr. President, Senator KENNEDY's passion for the integrity and the quality of our society and for justice, especially for the oppressed, was coupled with one other deep conviction-his insistence that what was done about it should be done in such a way as to preserve--or to confer, where it did not exist-the dignity of the individual. This is where his deep heritage as a Catholic and as a religious manand he was that-became evident.

His passion for improvement and his passion of sympathy for the oppressed and the depressed was joined with the determination that every man had a spark of the divine, was king in his own right. He was determined that whatever was done about the condition of these . people, they could never be patronized, but should be given the ·opportunity to stand up and help themselves as individuals of dignity, These twin ideas so fired and infused his personality that he became a ·flaming symbol of hope and

24110 CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD·- SENATE. July· 30, 1968

of idealism· and a tremendous medium for constructive change for the people. of our Nation, particularly for the young, whose hearts went out to him almost without his uttering a . word.

I .should like to recount a few of our joint undertakings which reflected the tremendous feeling that impressed me sa very deeply. I recall, for example; that it was my colleague who, in the first months in the Senate, suggested that a number of counties in the southern tier of our State of New York-a wealthy State by general standards, but with pockets of difficulty in poverty, as we all know-be included in the program for Appalachia. He ~tarted it; he thought it up. He saw the reality, and he saw where it fitted geographically and economically. Again, this was the first expression that he was able to give vent to here of this deep sympathy for the oppressed and depressed. The citizens of that region, in my judgment, have benefited greatlY. from this association, and I hope they will always have a very dear spot in their hearts for Senator KENNEDY. I joined him in the effort, but I am the first to say that he espoused it, developed it, and ma.de it. came to fruition.

Another effort in which we both joined was to allow those persons from Puerto Rico who had graduated from Spanishlanguage schools an the island to vote without taking a literacy test in English. This provided an easier- transition and allowed them. to vote wit11lout a feeling of inhibition that their status as Americans changed because they moved from Puerto Rico to the mainland. This act is a tremendous achievement. We were again partners in this effort. This memory of his concern will live in the hearts of tens of thousands of Puerto ;Rican citizens of the United States now living on the mainland.

Mr. President, there are tw() other instances. Probably the most deeply felt for both of us occurred at Jackson, Miss .• and in the communities that surround it. Here we encountered, first in the hearings, and later physically and directly, in fact that there was starvation in our country, or such malnutrition as to be equivalent to starvation. This was a horrendous fact and the repercussions of it have not yet ended.

It will be recalled tll.at even since the tragic assassination of ·senator KENNEDY we have had debates in this Chamber dealing with the effort to make money available to· deal with emergency conditions of malnutrition amounting to starvation. But the reaction to these personal visual evidences of what it meant to be depressed in this country left Senator KENNEDY practically shaking with indignation, and he never ceased to declaim against what he considered to be one of the worst inequities that his work in the Senate had uncovered.

Together with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] and myself, he endured personal mental torture in the feeling that we were all commoru.y guilty when such conditions, could exist in our country.

Mr. President. something ef the same feeling, although not: so: great. developed

in him when we both went to Wayne wife, Ethel Kennedy, has agreed to serve County in New York and saw unbeliev- on the board of di:rectors of the Bedfordable housing and sanitation conditions in . Stuyvesant proJect. which migrant workers lived. He liter- Mr. President, I close by saying that ally shook with indignation that this much of what Senator KENNEDY believed could happen here. We are improving in, mueh of the passion that filled his and we will improve this, too, and prob- life, will survive. He was a man of action. ably more quickly than elsewhere, but And his feeling for action has been transhis passion for change and his indigna- lated not only into legislation and the tion at the condition itself, should be reality of a Bedford-Stuyvesant project, recounted today. and other projects, but also into the

He was a strong advocate of help for hearts and minds of millions of Amerihandicapped children. It was his deep cans. As I said some time ago to a grwp feeling that rehabilitation would give of young workers who were starting out them dignity and nobility ahd purpose on a school project in: New York, the way rather than purposelessness and depres- they can add 10 percent to everything sion because of their affliction. they do is to feel they are doing it in

In terms of human dignity, it is known memory of Senator RoBERT KENNEDY. that he was an ardent proponent of al- His infiuence will continue. There is lowing the poor to be relieved of the de- work to be done. We must make provimeaning means test and caseworker in- sion to provide a balanced diet to the vestigations which have so characterized many, many Americans, perhaps in the and bedeviled all welfare programs. He millions, who are suffering from malcried out against it. His indignation and nutrition in this country. the case he made will be a landmark for We must provide the opportunity for the improvements which we are now all our citizens to train for meaningful making and which we will make in the work and occupy meaningful jobs, to years ahead. revamp our welfare laws to give the

One of his most signal achievements unfortunate an opportunity to work their was. a very gifted program of his own. way out of hardship with dignity and He later called into partnership with him respect. To provide meaningful firearms the mayor of New York, John Lindsay, control laws which will enable commuand me. But on his own he went into the nities, especially slum communities, to reconstruction of the life in a slum area, live with some sense of order and tran-W the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of quility-at least to try to do so without Brooklyn. He called on the techniques the added threat which armed crime of government and business coopevation, brings. which he had the privilege to develop, and In all of these causes, Mr. President, which was probably the greatest bond in I will feel personally sustained and the cement between us. His plan had the inspired-and so will millions of Amerunderstanding of our committee chair- icans-because they were causes that man, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. ROBERT KENNEDY espoused with personal HILL], and Members such as the Senator dedication. • from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE] and the Sena- This feeling, this concept of allevitor from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and ating human distress and establishing the great leadership of the chairman of a dignity of the individual, is truly the our subcommittee~ the Senator from touchstone of RoBERT KENNEDY's life. Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK]. It should be the touchstone of our

In the Bedford-Stuyvesant effort he actions here as the greatest memorial literally created out of the ground the that we could erect for the Senator. machinery for community cooperation I still start, every once in awhile, as I and a most gifted and high-level board sit at my 'desk, and look over my shoulder of directors of some leading business- when the door opens and closes rather men bankers, and community leaders of quickly, as this was his way of entering New' York. It was said the board of di- this Chamber. I still think sometimes rectors was almost overwhelming con- that I shall hear, "Good morning, Sensidering the size of the project involved, ator. What's doing today?" For this used and with its prestige would have been an to be RoBERT KENNEDY's little charade excellent board for a countrywide effort with me, suddenly to appear behind me of the same character. I know that he and call me "Senator," although we put this plan together personally through knew each other well. ' dozens of telephone calls and visits Mr. President, I hope it may ever be which elicited help from most of the dis- so, for myself and my colleagues, and for tinguished people of our city. millions of other Americans; for that

His effort will be a landmark of self- spritely step, that quick smile, that witty help and, in my judgment, it will rebuild word, and that deep dedication and earthat entire area occupied by 600,000 peo- nest feeling of zeal for the underdog ple living in the most depressed circum- could serve no better purpose than to stances in slum conditions, as bad as animate us and animate the country and anyone could find in any big city. I am have a profound influence upon our confident the area will be reconstructed destiny. and that it will be the most noble monu- Mr. President, I again thank the mament which could be erected to his deep jority leader for the signal honor he has feeling for the depressed, to his passion accorded me in allowing me to be the for constructive change, and to the de- first to pay tribute · to Senator RoBERT termination that it. shall all be done to KENNEDY this m-orning. preserve and fortify the dignity of the · <At this point Mr. BuRDICK took the individual. chair as Presiding Officer.)

I am pleased to report to the Senate Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, when that his wendel.lflillly gracious. and heroic was it that · RoBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24111 died? On what day and in what month? Was it in the morning, afternoon, or night? Is it that grief grows over so quickly that we cannot remember clearly? Or is it that horror piled upon horror blocks the remembrance of horror?

If we would record the facts of his passing on this day of eulogy, it is to the chronicle of these depressing times that we are compelled to turn.

ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY died on Thursday, June 6, 1968, at 1:44 a.m., in Los Angeles.

The memory of the moment may falter, but not the remembrance of the man. In time's passing, moreover, it will be seen, with growing clarity, what RoBERT F. KENNEDY was and why he was.

I speak now not of his family, his wife, and his children. Theirs is the clarity of understanding which emerges from the depths of great personal grief. They know What ROBERT F. KENNEDY was and why. A son in a far-off continent looking for a hand that is not there knows what his father was and why.

Nor do I speak of those of us who were colleagues, associates, and friends. We, too, can feel what ROBERT F. KENNEDY was and why. In the Senate, we can sense it most, perhaps, in the disquiet in the Nation, in the disquiet which responds to no patent remedy, in the disquiet for which he sought personal involvement as a source of remedy.

Rather, I speak of the people, the people in the streets of America who once touched his hand. I speak of the people who touched the touch as it was carried from hand to hand. That touch reveals all that ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY was to the Nation and why. It reaches to all that is yet to be and will be before there comes again in the Nation a freedom from the shrouded fears of these times.

People Will remember ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY when the children in this land play together and grow together and then work and live together in a new national unity forged of an equal de-cency and dignity for all. ·

People will remember. ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY when there is an end of Vietnams, when nations at last put aside the ancient hates and suffocating hostilities in a new dedication to the building of a more rational and responsible world order.

Mr. KOCHEL. Mr. President, this session of the Senate is devotedly addressed to the memory of ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY, late a Senator from New York. He sped through his lamentably short span of years with a color and charisma seen but rarely in the life of our Republic. He was a truly remarkable son of a truly remarkable family. He strode onto the national stage as a very young man, intent on helping, indeed, of leading, in the resolution of those terrible issues which were literally burning their way into the Nation's soul. He was sustained by the fervor of youth, his own, and those of his followers, as well.

I was present, as Senators well know, in the city of Los Angeles on that tragic, terrible night of June 4. I saw the look of joy on the faces of his enthusiastic supporters, as he achieved a political victory among the members of his party in my State. And I saw the look of disbelief

and shock, of the most painful grief, which replaced the joy, as suddenly, without warning, as the monstrous disaster fell.

BoB KENNEDY was a leader. He fought for causes, as he saw the light, and progress marked the path he trod.

His last comments in the Senate were uttered in support of a worthy cause--the Headstart program, designed to give the disadvantaged young the fullest and best hope for educational opportunity in our country. He believed in equal opportunity, both as a matter of fundamental right and of sound national policy. I worked with him, when he was Attorney General and when he was Senator, in seeking successfully to put effective civil rights legislation on the statute books of our-land. With the aid of both political parties in our Nation, that effort has made substantial progress these last few years. It needs to make more.

Last month, I sought to pay a brief tribute to the late BoB KENNEDY in the Senate, and I should like now to repeat one thought which I then expressed.

Must not this be a time of dedication to the cause of a Nation united? The evil tendencies toward polarizing America into separate camps, which official reports and unofficial observers fear or prophesy, is to me one of the most terrifying portents of this century. I believe it was equally frightening to RoBERT KENNEDY. One of the most urgent tasks of men both in Government and out of Government is to keep the fabric of our society whole. It is a dedication, a commitment, which surely represents the best kind of memorial for a man who kept a sense of purpose to the day he lost his life.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, the death of Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY was a sbattering tragedy for each of us and for our country. Senator KENNEDY daily lived with enormous personal burdens of duty and moral commitment which caused him, with incomparable courage, to take upon himself the cloak of the alienated, the despised and dispossessed, and to become their voice.

Senator KENNEDY was driven, with a sense of great urgency, to represent frequently unpopular causes on behalf of people throughout America who could give him little in return, except their intense love and devotion. He did so because he felt deeply the necessity of doing and saying what he believed to be morally right.

Typical of the causes to which he was most passionately devoted near the end of his life was his effort to end the injustice inflicted on mothers of young children who would be forced, under a 1967 social security amendment, to accept work-training and employment in lieu of public assistance paymentswhether they wanted to or not, and regardless of the kind of care their children might be given. When Senator KENNEDY introduced, on January 31 of this year, his amendments designed to undo part of the damage done to our welfare system in the first session of this Congress, he said about that particular measure:

I believe we must ask ourselves what kind of a country we are when we enact legislation

in the last third of the 20th century which would force mothers of children who need parental care to go to work. The Congress of the United States-we who sit in this bodyhave not only acted contrary to fundamental humanitarian, and, I might add, constitutional principles, but we have ignored all of the learning and knowledge which has been brought to us by the discipline of child psychology. We have said to the poor that a Government bureaucrat can tell them whether their children will be brought up with parental care and supervision. I think that was a tragic decision on our part. We must reverse it.

If Senator KENNEDY had lived, he would have continued his fight against that measure and the other regresstve amendments which he opposed at the end of the last session of Congress and again this session. I feel very strongly that one appropriate memorial to his name would be the complete revamping of the inhumane and unjust welfare system now suffered by that terribly vulnerable group of Americans, the hundreds of thousands of families who must subsist on the meager benefits of public assistance, and to whose misery Senator KENNEDY was so deeply and personally sensitive.

Typical, also, of the character of this unique man was his deep interest in the cause of American Indians. As chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, he conducted a brilliant and highly productive series of hearings throughout the West and Southwest, seeking to understand and to find new solutions for the enormous failings not only of our educational institutions but of so many of the programs and institutions of our society with which American Indians have come into contact.

To this cause, too, he brought a rare intensity of commitment and moral indignation. As Senator KENNEDY put it when he testified this spring before the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs:

The "first American" is still the last American in terms of employment, health and education.

I think his personal sense of outrage and concern over the terrible conditions in which so many American Indians still live is best expressed in this passage from that statement:

The Subcommittee staff visited one Cherokee home-if you can call an 8 by 12 tar paper shack a home-in which lived a mother, an unemployed father and eight children. There was no insulation in the house, a pot bellied stove for heat and cooking, no running water, no electricity and one small kerosene lantern for light, no sanitation facilities and gaps between the wooden slats that constituted the floor. There was one bed in the room. The seven children ' slept on the floor and the baby between the parents. The income of this family was about $60 per month. Four children were in school. Where could they study? Where was there any privacy? Where was there enough light? How could the family afford to buy them clothes for school or pay for their school lunches? The language of the family was Cherokee-how could the children or the parents communicate with the white teacher 1n the two-room rural schoolhouse they attended? About half of the family income went to pay the rent on the house which was owned by a white man. What chance do these children have for an equal share o! the aflluence and opportunity of our nation?

24112 ·cONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 3"0, 1968

Senator KENNEDY was one of the first persons to endorse publicly the report of the President's National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Far from shying away from the hard and unpopular message that report conveyed to Americans, he welcomed it as a fresh and unequivocal statement about our present crisis and what must be done to meet it. Its message came as no surprise to him, because he had walked the streets of Bedford-Stuyvesant and he had sat in the homes of the poor of the Mississippi Delta.

Some people have called RoBERT KENNEDY a divisive force in American life. But I agree with whoever it was that said, sometime during those long, sad days of his funeral, that the very opposite was true-that ROBERT KENNEDY was becoming an important unifying force in our society, because he spoke, at the age of 42, to the young, and they believed what he told them and followed him; because he appealed, though he was a wealthy man, to the poor and the dispossessed, and they let him represent their cause; and because he communicated sometimes just by his presence, though he was a white man, with all the black and other rejected nonwhite minorities of this land, and took up their fight as his own.

Those of us who survive him will never again be the same, though we must take heart and seek renewed purpose from the passion and force with which he asserted the ideals of his life.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, for 15 of his 42 years I was privileged to know ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY as a friend, associate, and colleague.

His life was devoted to serving his country and in those few years he made an imprint on our history that will last and be remembered.

I knew ROBERT KENNEDY, almost from the beginning of his public career. In 1953 he was a young staff member of the Permanent Subcommitt.ee on Investigations and I, in my first term in the Senate, was a member of that subcommittee. It was there that I first observed the devotion and zeal for public service which characterized his life and career.

In 1955, ROBERT KENNEDY was appointed chief counsel of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I had recommended his appointment to the chairman, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN]. He served with great distinction in that position.

In 1960, he managed the successful presidential campaign of his brother John with skill and dedication. I was proud to work with him in that cause. In response to the nomination of John Kennedy, I served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. During the months of that tough campaign ROBERT KENNEDY was the indispensable driving force so crucial in achieving the narrow victory.

. He then served his country 1n the Cabinet of his brother. He, confounded his critics by the courageous and effective leadership he provided as Attorney General during a period when the burdens of that omce were unprecedented •.

He was also more than Attomey Gen- country join iii sorrow with the people eral: he was first adviser, confidante, of the State he· represented' well. and servant of the President. For BoB KENNEDY cared about people.

Despite the shattering personal blow They knew this because of his efforts to he suffered in the loss of John Kennedy, help improve their lives. ROBERT continued to serve his country He held up the wrongs of our Nation, in the C'abinet of Lyndon Johnson. and he worked to make them right.

Then he was elected by the people of He aroused men to put forth their best New York to serve again-this time as . efforts to correct the injustices of our U.S. Senator. In 4 short years as a Mem- land, and he awakened them to the inber of this body, his influence was great. finite possibilities of life for all mankind. When he spoke, we listened. What he BoB KENNEDY looked into history and said drove at the marrow of the prob- drew the important lesson that shortlems besetting the country. His legisla- sighted living brings long regrets. tive proposals were respected and many From there he set out to do what he measures which bore his mark com- thought he must to help conquer hunger, manded the support of the Senate. poverty, war, and assaults on human

That is the public record of RoBERT dignity-the enemies of men. FRANCIS KENNEDY. It reflects the man. BOB KENNEDY had a passion in life. For RoBERT KENNEDY was a man of It was to create a society where every strong determination, giant capacity, American can fulfill his potential, and and great courage. He held strong per- where no American is held back by race sonal loyalties and he inspired great or color or for want of the opportunity ·loyalty. The devotion of those around to succeed. him was genuine and lasting. His own Young people flocked to his side not loyalty was unswerving. only because he was a young, attractive,

He had personal wealth, but his great- vital man himself. They were drawn by est concern was for those who were not his youthful spirit--a remarkable blend fortunate. He spoke and acted force- of warmth, idealism, and faith. He chalfully in behalf of those who have not lenged them and they took up the chalsecured a proper share of the social or lenge. For he made them understand economic fruits of our country· that their future depends on the present

RoBERT KENNEDY loved the great nat- that all of us share. ural beauty of our country. He delighted RoBERT KENNEDY was a thoughtful, in sampling· the challenges of the out- wise, and considerate man. I came to doors and he found enjoyment and in- know him well in 1956 when we worked spiration in the mountains and streams, closely together while seeking the Vice the open spaces and beaches where he Presidency for his brother, John F. and his family spent much time to- Kennedy. Our relationship was main-gether. · f RoBERT KENNEDY was a man with tamed rom 1956 through 1960, during great love for his family. Love for each our efforts to win the presidential nom ..

ination for his brother. other is manifest in the family life of RoBERT KENNEDY was devoted to his the Kennedys. His wife, Ethel, and the brother. We came to the Cabinet tochildren were a part of all he did, and gether in 1961, and I was deeply imhe was a part of all they did. Around the country and around the world, they pressed by the dedication and distinction were constantly together. The Kennedy with which he served the President and amil b d ill be · · our country. As Attorney General, he not

f · Y has een an w · an lnsplra- only led the Department of Justice with tion to all Americans.

There is no comfort when such a man courage and conviction-he also lent his is taken from us. There is, however, the abilities and judgment to some of the knowledge that he served his country most crucial decisions this country faced. well in positions of great responsibility After the tragic death of the President, and his example has and will inspire RoBERT KENNEDY became a Senator from many others to slmllar service, now and the State of New York. In the Senate we in the future. That is a great deal for a served together on the Subcommittee on man to accomplish in 42 years. Executive Reorganization. Again we

Mr. RffiiCOFF. Mr. President, we worked closely together, this time in the mourn the loss of RoBERT P. KENNEDY, a fields of traffic safety, urban problems close colleague and warm friend. and the problems of rising health costs.

The horror of the tragedy is with us, There has always been a warm and though many weeks have gone by. special feeling between the Kennedy

The full magnitude of our loss endures, family and the people of Connecticut. despite the passage of time. We ha.ve grown to know them well. They

For a devoted family and loving have been our neighbors and our irefriends are now denied the counsel and quent guests. courag,e,. inspiTation, love, and trust that Now we share their grief, for in the filled the proud example RoBERT KEN- death of Senator RoBERT KENNEDY we NEDY set. have seen repeated the terrible tragedy

Perhaps: it is the most telling measure that took President John F. Kennedy of the man that millions in our Nation away from us. and the world feel a keen personal loss, Their leadership-their voices, vitality, like those of us who knew him well. and spirit--are sorely missed.

In the cities and villages of Latin Our loss will always be remembered America where he went, in the towns and of<ten recalled. and capitals. of both Western and East- RoBERT KENNEDY, and his brother beern Europe and South Africa, men, great fore' him-led lives. that were far too and small, are grieved. brief. But they left behind them mean-

And so it is at home-where people of ingful monuments that make ours a all ages, oolor.s,. and creeds across the better Nation and world.

July 30, 19()8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24113. It is our task to carry on. RoBERT KENNEDY often told US that

"we can do better." We have long known the truth of his words. We must act upon them now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in the weeks since the assassination of my friend and colleague, ROBERT KENNEDY, I have had many occasions to reflect upon the injury inflicted on our country by this latest cruelty.

I have concluded that popular government suffers from a paucity of strong leaders. Men who would win elections tend to be followers, not leaders. They are inclined to go along in order to get along. They are specialists in telling the people what they think the people want to hear. They are animated mirrors, styled to the fashion of the moment, bent to reflect current opinion, so that the typical voter may see himself in the candidate of his choice.

ROBERT KENNEDY was a shining exception to this rule. He was no ordinary, garden-variety politician. He .scorned conformity, insisted on being himself, as he sought to prod the conscience of Amerca.

He once wrote: Few men are willing to brave the dls.a.p

proval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer oommodity than bravery in battle or great in.telllgence. Yet it is the one essential, vitaJ. quality for those seeking to change a world that yields most painfully to change.

Whenever a public figure possessing great moral courage is struck down in our midst, each one of us should recall John Donne's wise admonition:

Never send ta know for whom the bell tolls; it tolils for thee.

As the funeral train bearing the last remains of Senator RoBERT F. KENNEDY moved slowly through the long day's journey from New York City to Washington, a multitude of mourners gave witness that the solemn bells of bereavement were tolling again for our country.

That morning, at the funeral services, I had prayed for a future day when the gravest dangers would no longer beset those leaders in our public life who stand most firmly against hate,. want, and fear in America. 1 had asked that God might deliver us a time when the men who work hardest for peace and against injustice can walk safely in our midst.

But later that day--on the train-my attention turned to the people who had come, in countless numbers, to line the tracks all the way to Washington. For 8 agonizing hours, as the train passed, I looked into their faces. I s·aw sorrow there the bewilderment. I saw fury and I saw fright.

I saw women crying, men unashamed to kneel, or· to stand at rigid attention, with hand over heart.

I saw cripples straining to pull themselves erect from their wheelchairs, troops of Boy Scout& saluting, clusters of nuns with heads bowed and' hands clasped in prayer.

The railroad tracks dO: not penetrate CXIV--1519-Part 18

the princely parts of our cities. KENNEDY's last journey was through the shabby tenement districts of Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore. There were no grand vistas to look out upon, only cluttered shopyards, grimy warehouses, dumps and slums, which uglify so much of the distance between the splendid skyscrapers of New York and the marble monuments of Washington.

But the slum dwellers did what they could to decorate the way-with flags draped from their windows, with KENNEDY posters held high, and with homemade banners expressing their sympathy:

We Love the Kennedys! Go with God! Robert Francis Kennedy-Farewell!

And in the stations, as the train passed slowly by, Negro people joined hands and sang the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

This was how they said goodby to this rich man who cared passionately about the plight of the poor. That was the way they delivered their eulogy-far more eloquent than all the words we shall utter today.

Yet, ultimately, if their tribute is really to matter, if our words of praise are to be more than pretty phrases, we must somehow summon up the resolution to serve our country with the kind of courage, candor and conviction which marked the life of RoBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY.

He would have us believe that ours is still a great country, with a future filled with promise, not despair.

Nothing could serve as better proof of this--nothing could better connote the unconquerable spirit of this gallant family-than their choice of the final musical salute to ROBERT KENNEDY. It was no melancholy dirge, but the uplifting strains of "America the Beautiful."

And as the last notes sounded across the moonlit slopes of Arlington National Cemetery, I thought that this indeed was the prayer he would have chosen: America, America, God shed His grace on

thee, And crown thy good with Brotherhood,

From sea to shining sea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD selected editorials published in Idaho newspapers, written in memory of Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY.

There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Boise (Idaho) Daily Statesman,

June 7, 1968] HE HAn A PASSION To Do Goon

What all Americans can hope will be the last tragedy in the history of the Kennedy family has been enacted with the death of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

He- might have been the nation's next president. No one can say whether he would have been as good, or better, than his late brother. But he had the same passion to do good in the world.

Senator Kennedy had demonstrated; in the primaries his power to stir the emotions and win. the support of people who saw and heard him. He had a vision o! a better America in which the presen-t divisions would be heale~~ _

The senator knew, as well as any ma.n, the risks he ran as a presidential candidate, and as an outspoken and controversial figure in American politics. He had buried his brother.

Some saw in Robert Kennedy a reflection of Jack. Part of his support undoubtedly arose from a yearning to recapture the mood and spirit of the earlier Kennedy administration. But Robert Kennedy had a charm of his own that captured the imagination of his supporters. He had dedi.oated his life to public service.

Senator Kennedy provided inspiration for the Kennedy family and for the nation when he stepped into the vacuum left by hls brother's death. Now some of those who supported his brother and who looked to him for leadership will undoubtedly turn to Sen. Edward Kennedy.

This is a time of anguish and sorrow for the American people. Our political system will not fall because of the loss of one man, but it suffers. The hope and enthusiasm that Senator Kennedy kindled in some hearts will not be stirred so well by another candidate. It is a personal loss for thousands of people.

It was in Senator Kennedy's nature to push ahead. Even after his victory in California he faced an uphill struggle for the Democratic nomination. But if he had failed, he still had before him the p:rospect of a long career in public life.

Had a writer of fiction described the events that have overtaken America in the last few years the account would have been dismissed as too grotesque. The second Kennedy assassination compounds the pain and despair of the first. Together, and with the others that have intervened, they are a monstrous chapter in our history.

Now, more than ever, the nation needs an inspiring, calming and healing leadership that will help Americans dwell more on what they have in common than what divides them. Not all people were attracted to Robert Kennedy, but all should be able to share his dedication to a better America concerned with all of its people.

[From the Lewiston (Idaho) Tribune, June 9, 1968]

THE FITTING TOUCH BY THOUSANDS The Kennedy, reflecting their Irish blood

line and the quality they possess, know how to bury their dead.

There is a certain futility in a funeral. But such ceremonies do seem to put a few things right if they are symbolic of the man and what he stood for and if they evoke those sharp pangs of remembering.

The state funeral for President John F. Kennedy would probably have been considered a bit much by him, but it was in keeping with the office and representative of the way the people felt. After all, funerals are as much to comfort the living as to salute the dead. Under the sensitive and tasteful guidance of Jacqueline Kennedy, that remarkable young woman,. the proceedings that resulted must have left most of us with the feeling that the farewell to a leader was well said.

Robert Kennedy~ both like and unlike his brother, was a different man and only a would-be president. Something different was required.

The military flourishes that characterized the funeral for John Kennedy, the commander-in-chief, would not have been in keeping with Robert's life. He was neither a. wanior nor in harmony with the. military.

Thus-, his honor guard was made up of civilians, several dozen o! them, who took turns standing fpr a few minutes on either side of the casket. They were from the senator's broad circle of friends-. There were statesmen and children, white and black, sophisticates and sophomor-es.

But perhaps the nicest touch of all was

'

24114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 3o-, 1968

supplied spontaneously by the thousands of nameless citizens who filed past through the hours of a day and night.

While he was alive, they had stood on the curbs of great cities and held out their hands as the senator rode past in a convertible, touching his own outstretched hand.

Someone in the family had the great foresight Friday and early Saturday not to fence him off with velvet ropes. The thousands walked by, and most of them reached out once again-this time to pat the mahogany casket. It was one last contact with a friend-B.H.

[From the Boise (Idaho) Intermountain Observer, June 20, 1968]

KENNEDY: A BIG MAN BY MOST MEASUREMENTS

(By Robert E. Smylie) Too much was said too soon about the

passing of Senator Kennedy. Some of what was said and written will not last beyo.nd the drying of its ink or the fading of the TV tube.

I have a notion he would not have liked much of what was done and said. He was a game guy, a gut-fighter, a tough adversary and a go-through type o.f person. He had courage, strength and endurance and a passionate capacity for being both right and wrong.

His passing brought to mind a plaque which adorns a football stadium in Iowa. A boy whose name I no longer remember had died in victory on that football ;field. He died a hero and a victor, and a bronze inscription recreates the incident. It was said of this lad that "he died doing what he did best and lo·ved most." So I think it was with Senator Kennedy.

I was not one of Robert Kennedy's most devoted admirers. It is a fact that he was one of history's great advocates of ideas in the belief that only a free exchange of ideas can set the nation free.

History may well record that he died at the zenith of his power. If this is the case the insensate act of the assassin spared him the spectacle of the erosion of the power that once was his.

He challenged the power of the Presidency in this unfo.recastable year. He had said that he must "lay hold of the power of the office" in order to do what in his judgment needed to be done. In the end he might not have made it to the pinnacle of power, but he would have profoundly influenced the course of history in any event.

He was more of a mover and shaker than his iate brother, although that measurement must now be clouded by the mists of history. This gave rise to his reputation for ruthlessness.

Robert Kennedy would not have been the Chatelaine of Camelot; he would have been the Lord of some fierce and awesome Norman Castle. He dealt his deeds with little apology, and he changed directions without notice and without public explanation. He wa.s a.~ant with the necessary arrogance of power, and I think humble with the humility of love; a rare and seldom seen combination.

There has been too much made I think of the fact that he and his brother were brothers. They were quite different. I have a suspicion that Robert would have done the things that his brother seemed unable to do, once he had laid "hold of the power of that office." Many of us would not have liked what he did, but that is not to gainsay the fact that the Senator ha.d the ability to make things happen.

It is inevitable that history will measure the two and try to make suppositions about what might have been. They were brothers and this alone is a first in the history of the Republic. Fathers and sons there have been

before. There were the Adamses and the Harrisons, and the Meuhlenbergs provided generation after generation of leadership to Pennsylvania and the nation. But never before , I recollect, has there been a family who furnished two, nay three, such able servants to the republic in one generation.

People have written of conspiracy in the passing of Robert Kennedy, and in the public anguish at this act of violence many have endowned him with virtues beyond his own . imaginings. For me, one of the best stories about him involves a newsman who shall be nameless. Kennedy was at Sun Valley for Christmas with his entire family (save one or two--but how can you miss a couple when you have five and a half-dozen.) He had been kind to the reporter and answered his questions. Then the fellow pressed his luck. He asked if he could "maybe get a picture of the family." The late Senator in an acid response said, "Look, you take that camera and go to hell and take a picture of the devil. He doesn't have a family and he'll understand better than I can at Christmastime."

Sun Valley was a challenge. He skied the slopes with dash and abandon and he wanted the youngsters to do the same.

He ran our rivers in the deep canyons of the primitive area. He knew the Lochsa and the Salmon and even there he brought his children to the exciting challenge of the unknown in the outdoors.

Somehow he found that the forgotten race in America was neither black nor brown nor yellow, but was the red man. He talked with the inheritors of this land whom history had cast in the role of the oppressed, took up their cause and made it his.

Somehow there was about Robert Kennedy a sense of mission. This was true before his brother's untimely and tragic death. He seemed to reach for the action and to be a part of it.

It will be recorded that Robert Kennedy was in at the "kill" in some of the most uptight moments in American history.

By most measurements Robert Kennedy was a big man. It is given to few men to be grea.t in their own right, but this one had the potential. Whether he was a great Senator will await the verdict of history.

He might have been a great President, with all of our misgivings; but this we shall never know.

To some men it is g·i ven to be a man of their times; to some, a man of their generation; but seldom is it given to one of us to be a man of their hour.

We shall never know. This may have been one of them. At least it can be said that it ended with the Senator doing what "he did best and loved most."

[From the Blackfoot (Idaho) News, June 10, 1968]

A WAKE FOR SENATOR KENNEDY

The concern that Senator Robert F. Kennedy felt for those Americans from whom the American dream seemed most remote was told in the days of mourning that followed his death. Even the cynical among us must be touched by the evidence he indeed achieved a rapport with the objects of his concern.

Soon after his death became known, the thought oocured that it would bring sorrow to some of the people of the Fort Hall Reservation. ~t remains strong in their minds that in January, 1968, he interrupted a Sun Valley vacation to visit them and conduct a hearing on the reservation for the United States Indian Affairs subcommittee that he headed.

An offi.cdal expression of their concern may have been sent to .Mrs. E}thel Kennedy. Lt is for these proud and sensitive but muted people to know. But the thought occured tha.t many individual Indians would feel that when Sen a tor Kennedy died they had lost a friend who cared. Would there be any expression from these people, who in the last three

centuries have become undemonstrative in the fa.ce of what they may still consider to be hos·tile power?

The answer may have been found in something that occurred in Blackfoot Friday.

Early that afternoon an Indian acquaintance who stops occassionally at the office of The Blackfoot News came in. He carried with him the smell of liquor. He spoke incoherently.

"He was our friend . Tell them he was our friend . He came to see us."

Almost fiercely he sought a listener. "They should know," he repeated to everyone who would listen. I'm afraid that ears were closed to him. Eventually he wandered out.

About an hour later he returned. This time he confronted this reporter. Tears were streaming down his face.

"I want to tell them that he wat our friend. I may be drunk, but I want you to tell them. He came to see us-he talked to my father-he was going to make things better for us. I was a Marine. I fought in many battles for this country. He was the first really big man that came to see us. He saw how we lived. He told us he would help us get new house's. Tell them the ShoshoneBannock people thought he was their friend. Promise me that you will tell them."

Wiping his tears, the first I ever saw an Indian shed, he reluctantly accepted assurances we would try to get the word to the people who should know. By tha.t time there had emerged a sense of concern for a responsibility placed upon me by anotper.

Yet a third time the petitioner came back as the afternoon drew to a close. He had regained his composure.

Steadily and with dignity he said: "I'm not drunk. I'm sorry for acting as if

I was before. But he was our friend and my friends and I want you to tell them." It had not occurred to me that he was acting as a messenger for others too.

Then I remembered a story thrut came out of World War II that I had read. It seems to me that it wat wri.tten by Ernie Pyle, but I cannot be sure.

It was a story about the hard-bitten pilots of a group of fighter planes in the Pacific theater of the war. All but one of their group had returned from a mission. Tensely they awaited the report they feared. Eventually it came. Silently they wandered away individually, then reassembled later in a secluded spot. After time passed and bottles had been pasted, soft cursing that sounded more like prayers than curses began to emerge as the men found their voices.

This is our effort to tell those who should know that a wake for Senator Robert Kennedy was held Friday in Blackfoot, Idaho, by some men of the Shoshone-Bannock nation.

-D.R.B.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, in the death Of Senator ROBERT KENNEDY, the Nation and the Senate suffered the loss of a man who might have become President of the United States.

He fought hard for the things he believed in, and this quality gained him the respect of even those with whom he disagreed.

His concern for those less fortunateespecially ·the underprivileged-will live on, because his commitment to action was strong and influential.

ROBERT KENNEDY'S devotion to his family will particularly be remembered. It was an inspiring example for others.

What John Donne said long ago well sums up the feelings of all of us:

Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.

The tragedy our beloved colleague's death has brought to his good wife, Ethel,

·.July 30, 1968 CONGRESSION~AL ··RECORD-· SEN~ TE 241l5 and the children carries over to our own wives and :families. The;y; have-olll"· most profound sympathy, love, and respect.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to mourn the tragic, violent, senseless death of Senator ROBERT KENNEDY.

His utter integrity, his search for new approaches, his belief in the promise of the future, and his ability to communicate with the young, the poor, and the black were supreme.

He was a man of courage, of emotion, of compassion, of intelligence, o:f concern and, above all, a man of action, · a man who translated ideas into action and into deeds.

Our country and our people were immeasurably blessed by having him amongst us.

I do not believe ever before have there been the lines of people waiting to pay their respects as there were in New York the night and day of his funeral-well nigh 50 blocks long.

The void left by his death remains. His murder was an awful, needless

tragedy-and one more reflection of the spots of violence and sickness that blot our Nation. It is just as much a tragedy for our country, to- which Senator KENNEDY had so much to give and to which he had already given so much, as it is to his family. The best memorial we can give him is a resolve to fully awaken to our problems and take the steps on so many fronts, at home and abroad, that must be taken to solve them.

In a more personal vein, I mourn his death, too, as I have known, liked, and admired him for more than 20 years, and was one of those few of us who publicly supported his candidacy for the Presidency.

My wife, who also loved and admired him, joins me in our grief as old friends of his family.

In fact, I remember his family before violence first struck it, before World War II. They were a happy, productive, active, competitive family. They always had a spark and a drive that was truly exceptional. I know that my wife and I have often asked ourselves how one family could have produced so much excellence. I only wish I knew the answer. But I know that I shall ever be glad they lived in my time.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, ROBERT KENNEDY and I were born 3 years apart. We entered the Senate 3 days apart, sat next to each other for a time in that back row reserved for freshmen Senators; almost always we stood together on the issues that came before us; and shared both victory and defeat in those things we both believed in.

I miss him sorely; the days that have passed since his death have n<>t lessened the shock and the sense of loss.

Words are abstractions; they cannot capture, they cannot eulogize a man in life so real, so vital, so a part of the times he lived.

He is gone now, in the words of Carl Sandburg, "to a. deep river, to a far country, to a by-and-by whence no man returns"; and he, like Lincoln, "found far lights and tall rainbows to live by."

The insane violence that took his life cost a family its father; a loving wife

her husband; parents already burden-ed with grief, another son.

The bullet that took ROBERT KENNEDY'S life took more. The web of this thing- that we term American civilization is, after all, a fragile thing, compounded of commonly shared ideals; a respect for the opinions of others; a tradition of fair play and conciliation; even of what Abraham Lincoln called "the mystic chords of memory." This web, this civilization was sorely wounded by the bullet that killed Senator KENNEDY. Only now, as vituperation, unreasoning hatred, and the politics of disruption seem increasingly to dominate- the national scene-, do we discern just how much more we have lost.

If we are to honor this man we loved in life, then all of us, in this Chamber and without, must bend our efforts toward stemming the red stain of violence and vituperation which has increasingly come to torment the Nation's conscience.

ROBERT KENNEDY'S life is gone, but the spirit that motivated that life is not. It lives on. It is now for us to continue· the work he began.

With his brother, I too, "pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world."

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, the essence of a man is difficult to sum up in words, especially men so unusual as ROBERT KENNEDY, SO far above the average in his high resolve and great capabilities. However, if I would chose one single characteristic, it would be his desire almost overwhelmingly to improve the lives of his fellow citizens.

He was impatient, as we all should be, with people who said "it can't be done." His answer was always: "Why not?" Perhai?s it was his continuous striving for a better country that caused some people to fear him. They were afraid of him as they fear all men who cannot be put aside with pious platitudes. And they were apprehensive because he represented the virtues which they desire but do not possess.

So the enemies of justice and progress tried to create a climate of public opinion which would discredit and destroy his political effectiveness. Their results may have been different from their aims. His political effectiveness grew by leaps and bounds, and the climate of public attitude they created could not discredit him, though it nurtured the misguided, the fanatic, and the zealot who in the end destroyed him.

ROBERT KENNEDY will be missed throughout the land, but he will be especially missed by those of us who worked with him when he was campaign manager for his brother John F. Kennedy; in 196.0, when he was Attorney General; when he was in Senate committees;· and when he served on the floor of the Senate. We benefited from his counsel and experience and from his impatience with those who say it cannot be done.

OUr late colleague had experience in domestic and international affairs, the breadth and depth of which made him one of our greatest national leaders. He confronted those things which cause turmoil in the world. and in our society,

so that he could understand them well enaugh to help.

He was· admi-red all over this world at the time of his death more than any other living man in public. life or office.

When ROBER'll KENNEDY fell, a victim of a cruel arid cowardly assassination, the world wept, as it had when his brother John F._ Kennedy was- likewise assassinated.

He talked to people .no other national leader was talking to and at a level where communication was nat distorted. One of his legacies is that understanding of the people and issues that are the forces of change today. That understanding was made clear on this floor and in forums around the world in speeches which are surely the most perceptive articulation now available of the new order of things which he- helped to introouce and which, for many, he symbolized.

As he developed his campaign for the Presidency, Senator ROBERT KENNEDY proposed solutions that cannot be ignored and should not be forgotten. These suggestions were based on a sensitivity to the divisioos in our society that was perhaps unique in our Nation. Those divisions-between black and white, young and old, rich and poor-are what we must face today if we are to survive as a nation. His speeches offer us hope.

ROBERT KENNEDY offered US wise counsel in meeting our foreign responsibilities. Early in his Senate career he spoke out eloquently on Vietnam,. and continued to do so, with statements so timely and criticism so responsible that one could almost feel their impact on our national course in Asia.

He visited Africa to demonstrate that this Nation has leaders who value human dignity, and would not remain blind to other peoples' fates. His travel in Latin America led to extensive and concrete proposals for renewing a good faith relationship with our hemispheric neighbors. The speeches ROBERT KENNEDY made during and after his travels demonstrate the unusual rapport with ather peoples that made him one of our most respected and credible spokesmen.

I served in World War II on the staffs of a number of generals, and I have worked with Governors, Senators university professors, and president~, authors, historians, scientists, and others. Of all the men I have met, I consider ROBERT KENNEDY one of the two or three most brilliant. We have now lost two brilliant members of this family who have given as much as any other family in American history, if not more. Certainly, the Kennedy family has sacrificed more for the public weal and the common good than any other family in public life in our generation.

It was my privilege to work with Senator ROBERT KENNEDY on the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on the Subcommittee on Education, on the Bilingual Education Subcommittee, on the Indian Education-Subcommittee, and o:n the Subcommittee on Labor.

The memory I will retain longest is that of the hearing with respect to the underprivileged Spanish-speaking people, the Puerto Ricans, in the areas of New York City, where we conducted

24116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1'96·8

hearings on the bilingual education bill. We walked the streets ·at noon in the heart of areas populated by Negroes and Puerto Ricans.

My wife and I have had the rare privilege of visiting in that sparkling home at ·HickorY Hill, Va., over which he and his ·charming wife, Ethel, presided with such informal grace and hospitality, surrounded by their cooperative children, giving a fine example of family unity.

No other Senator has ever made so ·grea-t an impact on our Nation and the world in the short but dynamic 3% years he served in the Senate.

He was cut down at the peak of his career, at the close of a day that saw double political victories for him in California and South Dakota, the breakthrough which, in my opinir11., had he lived, would have carried him on to the presidential oomination and to the Presidency.

We place this verbal wreath upon the bier of the unelected President-not yet elected at the polls but already elected in the hearts of the people.

As we rode that last funeral train from New York to Washington on June 8, we saw again that he was first in the hearts of the American people. He is now first in their memory and in their hopes for the kind of peaceful future they want for their country, at home and abroad.

The Senate was lifted by his presence -to a peak of leadership among American legislative and executive institutions in our time. As he ennobled the Senate by his presence, so may his memory continue to be an inspiration and a guiding force for us.

I shall treasure the memory of his friendship as one of the greatest and most inspirational experiences of my life. time.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, all America grieved at the senseless violence of the act which struck down Senator RoBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY as he sought the highest office of his country. With his tragic death, America has lost a dedicated public servant, and the Senate has lost one of its most articulate and concerned Members, a man who served this body not only as a Senator from the State of New York, but earlier in his career as a Senate staff member.

While we differed in our political views and our approaches to solving many national problems, I admired BoB KENNEDY for his courage and for his forthright efforts in behalf of any cause he championed. Like his brothers and the other members of his family, he had a valiant heart which sustained him through personal tragedies as well as through thE trials and challenges of high public office. He never shrank from danger, either physical or political. Pericles said:

The palm of courage will surely be ad· judged most justly to those who best know the di.tference between hardship and pleas· ure and yet are never tempted to shrink from danger.

Surely, ROBERT KENNEDY deserved that palm of courage and, in this, his family should find great comfort in the years ahead.

As a counsel to the Subcommittee on

Investigations, on ·which I served, he daily displayed a rare moral courage and determination to do the job assigned to him despite obstacles and threats which would have cowed a lesser man. This was his most characteristic trait which the country came to khow during the election campaign of 1960, later as he served as Attorney General, and throughout his Senate career.

As it is given to few men, RoBERT KENNEDY knew the joys and the trials of human existence. Iri his devotion to his family and to his church, in his youthful enthusiasm for encountering all that life had to offer, and for giving unstintingly of himself, BoB, like all of his family, represented the best qualities of American life. It was for this reason that he captured the imagination of so many young people. It would be difficult not to admire this adventurous spirit and to identify with him as he climbed mountains, shot· rapids, worked for youth programs in the cities, or played touch football with his children.

Possessed of the material blessings of life, he chose not to sit in lethargy with his wealth; rather, he chose a life of active involvement in the world about him, and it plainly was his credo until the moment of his death.

Though his time on earth was so brief, ROBERT KENNEDY found the rich rewards of self-fulfillment as a human being, and success in his public and personal life. I am convinced that the tradition of public service and achievements which is the hallmark of his remarkable family will be upheld by his children and continued by others in his family. Comfort, then, not condolence, in their bereavement, is what we must offer his wife, his children, and his family. For their memories of the honors he gained and the bravery he showed in his lifetime will keep RoBERT KENNEDY in their midst as husband, father, son, and relative. No one who has lost a loved one can ask for more.

In closing, I observe that the conduct of his wife, his mother, his brother TED, and his other relatives since his tragic death make it manifest that those he loved were like BoB KENNEDY himself, in that they have much valor in their hearts.

Mrs. Ervin joins me in extending to them our deepest sympathy.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, Justice Holmes once said:

As life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time, at peril of being j'u.dged not to have lived.

ROBERT KENNEDY lived the action and passion of our time. He died in action. He spent his life, he gave his life in highest service to his country and to his fellow man. To those ignored he gave attention; to those in despair he gave hope; to those in need he gave help. To citizens blind to the fate of their fellow man he presented the discomforting specter of the other America. He gave himself.

BOB KENNEDY, our friend, is dead. But the chailenge of a newer world he pursued so selflessly remains. Let us be equal to that challenge.

In the long roll of ,history it will ·be

marked for BoB KENNEDY, as it was ·for his brother, 'John: '·'There was a Man!" We will not soon forget these men,. or their oompassion. As Pericles said centuries ago:

Heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their ownwhere the column with its epitaph declares it--there is enshrined in every breast a rec· ord .unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart.

God have mercy upon the soul of RoBERT KENNEDY. God have mercy upon his fa.mily. God have mercy· upon us all.·

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is indeed a time of great sadness that after such a short· period of time another national tragedy has shaken our Nation to its very foundations. We respond this morning in tributes to an out'standing American and colleague RoBERT KENNEDY who was taken from us by an assassin's bullet. There is a feeling of emptiness and dismay in all of us as we think of the consequences of that horrible act on our Nation and the world.

There can be no greater eulogy to ROBERT KENNEDY than the WOrds Of his brother, Senator EDWARD KENNEDY, at St. Patrick's Cathedral on June 8, 1968, when he said:

My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, :to be remembered simply as a good and de· cent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

He attacked violence and disunity which swept across the Nation in past months, shaking the foundations of the Nation and claiming him as their victim. He called to our attention, through his investigations as a member of the Subcommittee on Poverty, the suffering of poverty and ignorance. He courageously and prophetically protested the horror of the conflict in Southeast Asia which he urged us to resolve through the peacekeeping procedures of world law.

These are goals to which we should all rededicate ourselves as our living monument of political action in his memory.

We now know that each of us is a better person because we were privileged to know ROBERT KENNEDY and share the in· fiuence of his idealism, courage, compassion, and great statesmanship. However, our words of eulogy will become but empty phrases unless we breathe his undying faith in human values into our way of life. We can best honor him by keeping his faith in our system of constitutional self -government designed to promote the general welfare of all of our people, not just some of our people.

Mrs. Morse and I extend to his wonderful wife and children, to his mother and father, to his sisters, and to our colleague, EDWARD KENNEDY, and their fam-ilieS, our thanks for their example of faith in God and their great strength in bereavement. May God comfort and bless them all.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, on behalf of all the people of Nebraska, I want to express our deep regret and sorrow that was felt by everyone at the tragic death of our colleague, Senator ROBERT KENNEDY, of the State of New York. His death was so unnecessary. It was so symbolic

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24117 of the violence that concerns : all people. Perhaps in his death the United States will move closer to a society of law and order.

Much will be said concerning the life, tne interests, the ideals, and the words Of ROBERT KENNEDY. It Will not be my purpose at this time to attempt to comment on, or even list, the many noteworthy things that mark the period that he served as counsel to the Committee on Government Operations of the Senate, later as Attorney General of the United States, and still later as a Member of the U.S. Senate. He was involved in many things, and the historians of the future will find a rich source of material connected with the life of Senator ROBERT KENNEDY.

There comes a time when politics, political solutions, and all things secular become of lesser importance. At such a time, Christian faith and the knowledge of life eternal take their rightful place as the most important of all things. So today in expressing the sorrow and the condolences of the people of Nebraska to the family of our departed colleague, we also direct not only his family, but all men everywhere, to the enduring faith of our departed colleague.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the custom of the "eulogy" of the dead comes down to us from Greek and Roman times and has produced some of the most moving prose in our heritage of western civilization. Yet I think somehow the tradition of the eulogy is out of place in our modern life in general, and I hazard the perhaps unpopular suggestion that it has become out of place on the floor of the Senate where the atmosphere has changed so much since the days of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster.

So I am reluctant to speak today of my friend ROBERT KENNEDY. Ori Thursday, June 6, shortly after his assassination, I spoke briefly respecting the impact of his death.

Today I shall merely refer to three little incidents, three vignettes, if you will, in our relationship. Each has left a picture in my mind which I think will stay with me for the rest of my life.

The first incident was in the State of Mississippi in the early spring of 1967. BoB and I went together as representatives of the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, of which I am chairman; first to Jackson, and then up through the delta counties of Mississippi, taking testimony, visiting, inspecting, and exploring the tragip conditions of poverty which we found in that State.

I was the chairman of the subcommittee but he was the leader of our group by reason of his stature, his deep dedication, his youthful energy and the interest displayed in him by the representatives of press, radio, and television.

For the first day, we were accompanied by our friends from across the aisle, the Senator from California [Mr. MuRPHY] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITSL They made a real contribution before they had to leave to attend to duties in· the Senate.

BOB KENNEDY and . I stayed. The picture in my mind is of this vital young

man with the shock of hair and the slight figure, going from broken-down shack to broken-down shack, talking with . these simple people, most of them black, some of them white, keenly interested in their problems, their tragedies, and having a difficult time fighting off the TV, radio, and photographic people swarming all over him wherever he went, making it so difficult to conduct a meaningful dialog with essentially shy people. Yet, somehow, he accomplished it.

When we came back, he and I went to see the Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman, and told him of the frightening conditions we had found and begged him to send food to the hungry. At long last, much later to some extent, that was done. ·

But the incidents of searing poverty, the cheerfulness of the poverty stricken in the midst of misery, his reaction to those fundamentally splendid people and the great work he did when he came back to assure that something would be donesome little thing-by the Federal Government to mollify their condition, the earnestness and the zeal, and the dedication which he gave to that task, will always stay with me.

The second incident was somewhat later, in the summer of 1967. I went to his office to talk with him about a problem of mutual interest-! have forgotten what it was now.

He was meeting with his brother, TEn. I did not know what they were talking about, and I did not try to find out. I just wandered around his office while they talked looking at the pictures and the scrolls on the walls.

There, in front of me, was my favorite poem, Tennyson's "Ulysses"-not all of it, but the part in which Ulysses speaks to his mariners and exhorts them to go forth on one more voyage to seek a newer world: Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.

After awhile, BoB and TED finished their talk-TED left-and before we started our discussion, I said to BoB "How do you happen to have that poem on your wall? It has always been my favorite. I learned it by heart when I was in college years ago."

He replied, "It is mine, too. I learned it by heart when I was at Harvard."

It is a great poem. Its only failing is, there is no woman in it. It exemplifies, in many ways, the strong streak of adventure, idealism, and hard, tough determination which was so much a part Of ROBERT KENNEDY'S character.

That scene is also deep in my memory. A new bond between us had been created in a moment's time.

The third incident was right here on the floor of the Senate, early this spring. I was standing about 15 feet behind and to the left of my desk, with not much of anything on my mind, and BoB came up to me, knowing that I was a candidate for reelection to the Senate and knowing that· the impact of what he might do with respect to seeking the Presidency might have some bearing on the success ·or fail-

ure of my candidacy. He said to me, "JoE, would it murder you if I got into this thing?"

I said, "I do not know what you are talking about."

He said, "Well, I am thinking of declaring my candidacy for the Presidency. Would this hurt you?"

I replied, "Of course not, and even if it did, I would urge you to do it. I am so glad that you are thinking of changing your mind."

I did not know, then, what he was going to do. I never made a commitment to support him, but I felt that this was probably the toughest decision of his life. I think he made the right decision, even though at the end it was obviously the triggering event in his assassination. It was typical of his consideration of others to think of the impact of his decision on my fortunes.

Thus I think of him, of the joy of a friend, in the light of these three little incidents which will always stay with me.

Mr. President, I do not believe in eulogies but I thought it well to say these few things for posterity as it consults the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am

pleased to join in this occasion to memorialize our late colleague Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY. I was deeply grieved when I learned of his tragic death. I was shocked not only by the fact of his death but also by the tragic circumstances both for him and his family. Death comes like a thief in the night, as the Bible tells us, but it seems more sudden and more shocking when it stops a life in full career.

Many of us did not agree with some of the views of the late Senator from New York, but that disagreement was to be expected in the nature of a deliberative body. Our differences did not go beyond the business of political inquiry. We rerespected Senator KENNEDY as a hardworking colleague who participated to the fullest in the affairs of this Senate.

Senator KENNEDY was my next-door neighbor in the New Senate Office Building, and be~ause of this propinquity, I had occasion to see his never-failing courtesy to the members of my staff, as we both went about our work in the Nation's Capital. A measure of a public man's character is his courtesy toward the "little veople" of his professional life, to those to whom he has no public obligation. We saw Senator KENNEDY's courtesy and human friendliness at close hand.

The dimensions of this tragedy extend both to his wife and children and to the entire Kennedy family. That this family has suffered yet another great tragedy touches all of us deeply. The image of the Senator's father and· mother struck once more by grief calls to us the image of Job, laden with suffering upon suffering. Seldom in the annals of political history has one family borne so great a series of personal misfortunes and sufferings inflicted in the course of public service.

Mr. President, I extend my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Kennedy and her children, and to all the Kennedy family, and

'

24118 'CONGRESSIONAl. RECORD-SENATE July 30, '1.968 especially to our esteemed colleague: Senator EDWARD KENNEDY.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, ln •the years ahead, millions of words will be written and spoken about RoBER'! KENNEDY. As the volume grows, it wlll be increasingly difficult to recognize · the man who walked and worked among us.

We each know something of the larger-than-life dimensions which are applie-d to the virtues and faults and activities of men and women in public and political life.

I think we all appr.eciated the fact that the precess had overtaken BoB KENNEDY long before he came to the Senate and to a degree none of the rest of us have ever experienced.

My instinct, therefore, Mr. President, on this occasion, is to speak of the RoBERT KENNEDY we came to know as a human being whose talents and interests and appeal prompted his constituents to send him to the Senate.

I did not know him in his childhood, or his boyhood, or his early manhood. I do not know what he was in those years, or in what ways the influences and circumstances of those years shaped the man who was our colleague. I know only that they J)roduced a man of unusual qualities of heart and mind, a man vulnerable as are other human beings in his weakness and shortcomings, a man it was a privilege to know.

I thoroughly liked the BOB KENNEDY I came to know. He was warm and considerate. He was compassionate. He cared about others. Our working and personal relationships were the relaxed and satisfying kind growing out of mutual respect.

He was shy, and his shyness has been interpreted as aloofness and coldness.

He was tough and determined about those things which mattered deeply to him.

He was a fighter-fired as he believed all Americans should be by the ·injustices of our time.

He believed it to be his duty to use his life to lmprlWe life on this earth.

I miss him, Mr. President, as a man who had much to contribute to that objective, and a-s a man whose friendship warmed 'those who were privileged to share it.

Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, we are today a little further removed in tim,e from the tragic event of June 5, which took from our midst and deprived the world of our late colleague, ROBERT F. KENNEDY. My sense of personal loss and our bereavement as a body and as a nation are no less real now than when I spoke briefly on the 6th of June.

If these :;hort 2 months have done anything, they have intensified my feeling of frustration and helplessness in the face of so senseless an act.

Mr. President, I have thought about the shortsears that ROBERT KENN!jny was among us in the Senate. I have tried, also, to compare the Senate itself during that time anu since his death. There is, indeed, a change in this body. It seems to me that the poignant touch which his very presence 'added to our a~emb1y was, if not unique, so keen and vigorous as 1io have given added H.fe:to us an. ' .

Of .course, we never have agreed and never will agree in all things. And, right -or wr.ong, once decided. our work is done, ·and we move to nther 'things. But, now -om approach is just a shade different, it seems tome.

It was 1n his approach to things that, I think, BOB KENNEDY made his mark. The urgency toward accomplishment which appeared in everything he tried to do was infectious. ·n seemed to lead us all to be about our business and the business of the Nation and to move on to other things.

"We must act," his very presence among us seemed to say. And this approach to things seemed to me to cause our step to quicken, just a little, and to move each of us, however slightly, closer to accomplishment of the goals, whatever they are, of each of us.

It seemed to me that ROBERT KENNEDY conveyed to us a sense of satisfactionnot that we have done a complete job; not that we have accomplished everything; but a sense of belonging because we are doing something; that the job is being done; that we are acting in a living, vibrant world.

It is this worthwhile motion which has been slowed down. It is in the act of accomplishing things that now we feel most strongly the absence of the junior Senator from New York.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, few sadder tasks have come to me as a Senator than to speak of the early and tragic death uf our recently departed colleague, who left an enduring mark not only in the Senate and in his State, but upon the conscience of the Nation and the world.

The words of Senator RoBERT KENNEDY's brother, EDWARD, on that sad day in New York are still in my mind, when he told the mourners present in St. Patrick's Cathedral, where I sat, that his brother was "a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

It is for these things, and more, that ROBERT KENNEDY Will be remembered. He was a fighter and not a sentimentalist. He had compassion, but it was not of the theoretical kind but rather of down-to-earth practicality. He championed the poor and the disadvantaged, the ignorant, and the deprived-all those who found in him an eloquent and vigorous advocate.

He communicated with the young people of our Nation as few men in public life have done before him. I speak of that half of Americans 25 years of age and younger with whom he shared a special kinship.

In this . age uf doubt and uncertainty of direction, he told America that -''we can do more, we can do better," and I believe he convinced millions that it -could be so.

His legacy will lie in the inspiration for public service with which he sought to infuse all those he met and talked

·with. I believe that through his .courage and the dedication of his family he wiU .continue to call America to the fulfillment of its destiny, and that in the ~roc-ess this great man will be remember~ and his leadership will ·remain 'fresh. ·

All who knew Senator · RoBERT KENNEDY Will miss him.

Mrs. Cannon and I extend to his brave widow and his wonderful children and to his parents and sisters and brothers our ·enduring !friendship and our deepest sympathy in their sorrow for his loss. I know they will be sustained in their pride in his life and accomplishments, as surely as his name will be honored by this and future generations of Americans as a good and dedicated public servaat and private citizen.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, how shall a colleague speak in eulogy of Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY? · How shall we measure the meaning of the man-the measure of how he shall be missed?

I could measure it by the loneliness of our common corridor in the Senate office building, where yesterday cl'OWds came from every corner of America in the electric excitement of meeting the junior Senator from New York.-

That corridor misses the footstep of a young man in a hurry-with not enough time in his day.

And then there were not enough days in his time.

We feel something missing from a summer of crusading ambitions-looking toward a November of choice, of challenge, of change.

It is the vacuum of a voice that yesterday had such power and today is a:t peace.

What would we add, what could we add to the poignant requiem of brother for brother we were privileged to hear that sad June Saturday in the Cathedral of his faith?

The brother borrowed the very words of ROBERT KENNEDY to fashion his benediction-the language of the living to be the litany of his loss.

Surely, we are humble in the poverty of any words that we ourselves mlght contrive. ·

So I, too, would like to borrow .some words of ROBERT KENNEDY, from a speech within a speech of his.

A little less than a year ago--on Wednesday, August 2, 1967-I was on the Senate floor to place in the RECORD some wise words on WGrld peace. They had been spoken by a .stiTI-living constituent and neighbor of m1ne.

That same day, for the RECORD, RoBERT KENNEDY spoke of another such American. He entered the eulogy of a friend for a friend-one who.se life had Just been lost in untimely tragedy.

The eulogy contained some lines from a Housman poem.

They are lines that might well ser:ve as ROBER:l' KENNEDY'S own epitaph~ And these are the lines I borrow today:

The thoughts of others Were light a11d fleeting. ~ .• Of .lovers .meeting .•• Or luck . 4 • or .!a.me.

Mine wet1e "Of trouble . . .. And mine were steady .•• So~ wasrea.dy When .trouble ca.me .

ROBERT KENNlimY VllLS, mdeed, lready for 01111' troubled times. · He lfne8illt ta meet· •trouble" Wilder .its

-July 3(), ·:!968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 24119

every guise, to challenge its despair, to change its direction.

For "trouble" wears many masks. It means poverty, hunger, disease, racism, riots. It means inequity, hate, hopelessness, injustice, indignity, indecency.

"Trouble" means underprivilege, despair, slums, ghettos, war, every woe of the world, every ache of the human heart, every ill of the human soul.

The religious faith in which RoBERT KENNEDY was born and died has a simple premise with which no faith will quarrel.

It teaches that the world about us, with all its beauties and values, is God's gift to man.

The world is meant to be perfect. Its imperfections, its flaws, its scars, are the mistakes of man. Only man can destroy paradise.

His faith teaches that man's work on earth-whatever his walk in life-is to mend the flaws of the world, soften the scars, heal the hurt of his fellowman.

Its other name is love of neighbor. Strangely enough, one hesitates to

speak these solemn words here, here where so much of the responsibility rests, here where so much of the opportunity lies.

But BOBBY KENNEDY spoke such thoughts pere and everywhere. and he had the precious power to make people see the vision beyond life's viciousness.

One might not have rapport with his ambitions--but one would surely have respect for his aims.

One would have admiration for the happy warrior, and have awe for his gift to command the utmost in allegiance and affection.

We shall be mindful, in eulogy, not to make ROBERT KENNEDY larger than he was in life.

But we shall not make him less. ROBERT KENNEDY was a man of faith,

of family, of fortune. He had everything to live for and he chose to live for others far less fortunate than himself.

We saw how he inspired people-especially the young-to a sense of involvement in Government as he invited them to a commitment to an America as good and great as our land can be.

There may be those among use who, proudly and properly, feel that they, too, have this commitment.

But each of us knows that a dynamic America is diminished and our destiny is endangered as even one of its spokesmen is silenced-stilled by the very violence he sought to contain-by the very twisted soul for whom he would make straight the way.

So a greater burden is left to be divided among those who remain.

A time of eulogy would be an exercise in mock heroics if we do not meet that test-if we do not take up the burden.

Our sympathy would be shallow indeed if we gave less than that promise to his loved ones from whom so much has been taken. And our sympathy is from the depth of our hearts-from the true heart of America for those who shall sorely miss their fond father and husband, loyal brother, devoted son-just as our times shall miss this good and decent man.

In this time of pain and trial and deso-

lation may there be comfort for them in our human esteem and humble affection as we share their sorrow just as their cry "o.ut of the depths" will be heard by One whose strength will be with them longer than forever.

The hour approaches when our great political parties will document their dedi,.. cation to America in language grander than any we use here today.

But here is where the promise to America must be kept if the promise of America is to be achieved.

This is where we must make our stand, steady, ready to meet America's troubles, and master them.

This is our task for they can trouble ROBERT KENNEDY no more.

(At this point, Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey assumed the chair.)

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, today we pause for the second time in the short space of less than 5 years to pay solemn and sorrowful tribute to one or our own cut down in his prime by the savage and senseless act of an assassin.

It is a cruel and ironic twist of fate that these men were brothers-one who had moved up from this Chamber to become President before his untimely death, the other killed while campaigning for the same high office.

Today our eulogy is for Senator RoBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY, and we feel once more that sense of loss and deprivation which marked the weeks after that tragic day in Dallas in 1963.

I did not always agree with Senator KENNEDY's views and philosophies.

Sitting beside him I frequently voted against his position.

But at the same time I respected him and admired many of his qualities.

ROBERT KENNEDY was a fighter who bebelieved implicitly in himself and the causes for which he fought. He was a man of courage, driving ambition, political skill, initiative, and single-minded dedication to the causes he espoused and to which he devoted his life.

It is as such a man that I remember and honor ROBERT KENNEDY in this memorial hour.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CANNON in the chair). The Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, once more we gather under tragic circumstances to pay tribute to a fallen friend.

Once more we weep to contain the immeasurable quantity of our grief.

Death comes, as it must, to all men, but before that end, destiny bestows upon rare individuals the privilege to make a lasting contribution to the betterment of mankind. To this man is given the rarest of all gifts, the spark of vitality that illumines and enriches our lives.

Such a man was our colleague, Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY. He was a man who, like his late brother, gave every measure of devotion in the service of his country which he loved so deeply. Like President Kennedy, he resolutely faced the future confident of the United States and its people.

I gaze back at my 8 years of associa_tion With RoBERT KENNEDY With warmth, affection, and pride. They were vibrant,

exciting years, and I shall miss him deeply. Paily I saw his boundless compassion for the poor and disadvantaged of our country and heard him speak for those who had no voice. I knew, too, of his unqualified dedication to democratic ideals and, to the belief that the bountiful riches of this land could be utilized to feed and house decently every citizen regardless of color or creed.

He was a courageous Senator, eager to protect the weak, to tell us the truth about our defects as a people, to reaffirm our inherent worthiness, and to point out the tasks left undone. His voice is stilled, and we are all the poorer for the silence.

His legacy remains untarnished for us and for the millions who share his vision of a greater America. It is for us to honor him by our fidelity to the humanitarian ideals he espoused so that in the end we may say with Donne: Death be not proud, though some have called

thee Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so, For those whom thou think'st thou dost over

throw, Die not, poor death, nor yet canst thou kill

me.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, RoBERT KENNEDY was an able and industrious citizen.

ROBERT KENNEDY was an American patriot in the finest sense. He took little and gave much.

ROBERT KENNEDY was my friend, as I was his.

ROBERT KENNEDY cut through bureaucracy and delay so as to find the truth and then he told that truth to the millions who honored him, trusted him, and loved him.

This will be a better world because he lived. No man could ask for more.

To his gracious and lovely wife, Ethel, to his parents, and to his children, my wife and I offer -our deepest sympathy.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I shall take only a few moments to pay tribute to ROBERT F. KENNEDY. It is difficult to believe that he does not exist with us any longer. Everything about him was constructive and forceful. His service to the U.S. Senate was admirably suited to his nature and his disposition.

He was persistent and aggressive in behalf of the people of his State and country. He was effective and articulate. He was compassionate, understanding, and courageous. I first knew him when he was manager of his brother's campaign for the Vice Presidency at the Chicago convention, later in his brother's campaign for President, later as Attorney General, then as Senator from the State of New York.

We are gathered in this Chamber to pay tribute to a beloved Member of the Senate who was a dear friend to so many of us. Now he is gone from our midst, but he left behind in the minds and hearts of his colleagues the glow of genuine friendship, warmth and concern for his fellow man.

I should like to make a personal reference before I close.

It was my privilege to be with RoBERT KENNEDY in the last days Of his life. He ·stopped in Fargo on April 15 and was

24120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1968

greeted 'by an outpouring of .thousands. Overflow crowds met us at the airport, with literally hundr-eds trying to shake his hand or just touch him. I recall that

· the crowd was pressing against the automobile in which we were riding, and in caution I asked the people to step back away from the vehicle lest they be injured. One young lady, who was literally pressed into the side of the -car, exclaimed, "I don't care!" This was an example of the admiration that people, particularly the young people in the Nation, held for ROBERT KENNEDY. The streets of Fargo were lined with crowds from the airport to the city auditorium, which was filled to overflowing. Here was a tribute that could not be mistaken.

The next day I flew to Eagle Butte, S. Dak., with the Senator to attend a hearing on Indian education. He revealed a deep insight into the plight of the Indians, and he expressed genuine sympathetic interest in their welfare.

After the hearing we flew to Rapid City, from there I went back to Fargo, and he flew on to the west coast. I was never to ~e him alive again; later the world was to be shocked by his untimely and tragic death.

ROBERT KENNEDY Was in tune With the needs of the poor and the underPrivileged, whether it was the poor on the Indian reservations or the poor in the ghettos. And they were in tune with him . .It is most tragic that a man who understood these problems should have been taken from us, at a time when his understanding, and his service was so badlY needed. So as we pay tribute today, let us take some inspiration and some determination, from the record of his life, in order to make our Nation a better place.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I shall not try to enlarge on the place of Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY in our memories. His much too brief life spoke volumes.

Few other men have meant so much to so many in such a short lifetim~. If there were lines around his eyes, it was because he had seen so many hungry children, and hopeless old people, and poor and minority group people who were victims of di-scrimination. If h~ seemed prematurely -aged, it was because he sought so valiantly to create a society of individual and human justice.

l shall never forget the days I spent with this vibrant man with the keen, inquisitive mind early in July a year ago. After making a speech in Salt Lake City, he :flew with me to Canyonlands National Park and then on to Lake Powell, where he rode its blue waters to see as much as he could of its spectacular scenery. We made a rendezvous with his wife and six of his children at Rainbow Bridge N ationa! Monument, where we all hiked to the great sandstone arch. He and his family went on from there to run the famous rapids of the Colorado River into the Grand Canyon.

July Fourth was a warm, uncomfortable day-a torrid day, truly-and it would have been easy for him to rest with his family in the lodge at Wahweep on Lake Pow~ll. Instead, he chose to fly with me in a small plane, through turbulent air, to the Navajo Indian reserva-

tion, to see for himself how our Indians lived, and what needed tG be done for them. It was a long, -exhausting day, but he did not spare himself for a moment. He wanted only to be sure that he was back at the lodge in time for the birthday celebration for his daughter Kathleen.

This was BOBBY KENNEDY-dedicated to the poor and the least of us, striving always to improve their lot, seeking al·ways to see and know everything he could about his beloved country, yet always a devoted husband and father.

While he stood against want and fear in America, he stood just as resolutely for peace in the world, and he offered hope to those who despaired that peace would ever come. There are many who still feel that no one else wants to speak for them, that he, above all others, understood their frustration and their yearnings. He alone held the torch.

BoBBY KENNEDY was a man of compassion, of conscience, and of commitment. He remained to the end of his life a symbol of youth and a symbol of change. His concern for and dedication to his fellowmen and his country leave the world a better place in which to live.

Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Ml'. President, I have heard most of the Senators who have spoken this morning, and I have never felt that the discussion was more profound in the understanding of OUr departed friend, ROBERT KENNEDY.

Senators have eJWl'essed fully all of the facets of his life--his concepts, his understanding, his dedication, his energy, and his devotion to life, his Nation, and his family.

We all, of course, recall our personal associations and our work contacts with ROBERT KENNEDY .in the Senate. It was my good fortune, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to have Senator ROBERT KENNEDY as a member of my subcommittee. He brought to our work an electricity that inspired more than hope-it inspired action.

We worked closely together during hearings in Washington and, more important, in California. I emphasize the field trips because it was in the fields that I saw RoBERT KENNEDY endeavor to obtain a meaningful understanding of the migrant and his family. He learned first hand of the overwhelming problems faced by migrant .families. He experienced the voices and lives of hungry, poorly educated, poorly housed, unhealthy children and parents. And he shared their interest in obtaining human dignity through meaningful collective bargaining with their employers. He unselfishly applied himself to the development of practical solutions to those problems.

What ROBERT KENNEDY did with this intimate firsthand knowledge was to represent the unrepresented. He proposed n1.eaningful change through relevant programs in an effort to engender hope in their lives. It was the combination of ROBERT KENNEDY'S intimate k:nuwledge, gained through the live encounters with the migrant, and KENNEDY's idealism, foresight, and unswerving dedication, that gave special meaning to llis own life and hope to the migrant.

As we traveled around the country, people who had never had any hope for any part of a good life saw him, heard him, and then obtained hope. With that hope, he demanded action, and action we have had. Not enough, it is true, but he helped us get on the road to bring the better life to over a million desperately poor people who harvest our food and fiber.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD some of the statements made by our late beloved Senator KENNEDY which express concern and compassion for the migrant worker.

There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 8, 1965.-How many people are going to suffer, how many children are gi>ing to die, and how m~ny other older children oare going to be uneducated while somebody is trying to find a. solution to the problem?

VISALIA, CALIF., March 15, 1966.-l think what's incumbent upon us is to come up with a. solution, and not just keep telling the poor farmwork-ers that it's too difficult .to work out the solution to it.

VISALIA, CALIF., March 15, 1966.-Maybe we ean't rectify all the things that have gone on in the past, but let's ·rem~y the situation for the :futm-e and not just let it continue.

DELANO, CALIF., March 16, 1966.-I think you've got to give people an opportunity. Maybe-they don't want to, but at least 'YOU've got to open the door to them. That's all I think members of the Committee are suggesting, not that you should recognize one union over another or -one better than another, or even that there should be a.ny unien at all.

DELANO, CALn'., March 16, 1966.-The situation has not ooen concen_trated just in this .area of California., but gen-erally .around the United States over the period of the la;st 30 years, and those people (the fa.rmworkers), whether the question is one of wages or working conditions or education, have been the ignored part of our population.

DELANO, CALD'., March 16, 1966.-It is not only our responsibllity In Government. lt is also the responsibility of people Who are in management, of those wh-o ·are growers, -and those who are emplGiyees and have some leadership ability . .All of us .must try to do somethin,g to rectify the sl tua tlon or it's never going to be changed.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the expression of 'Culogies be continued until there are no · further speakers, that the rule Df germaneness be waived, arul that the unfinished business be laid before the Senate following the period for the expression of eulogies.

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

Mr. HilL. Mr. President, I flew to New York City on the early morning of June 8 .and attended the funer.al services for genator ROBERT F. KENNEDY at St. Patlick'S Cathedral I then returned to Washington on the ·iuneral train that 'day and attended the funeral of Senator KENNEDY at Arlington NatiGnal Cemetery late that evening.

The following Monday, on the floor of 'th~ 'Senate, I spoke of Senator KENNEDY,

i

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24121 of his many great services to our country, and particularly of his outstanding work as a member of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, of which I am the chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I made on that occasion be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

It is worth noting, Mr. President, that never before in our history has one family sent three of its sons to the U.S. Senate: John, Robert, and Edward Kennedy. All three have served on the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare; all three during the time I have been privileged to be the committee's chairman; all three helping make major contributions to our country's welfare. These three brothers eagerly sought membership on the committee because it afforded them the greatest possible opportunity to search out and help enact solutions to the most pressing human problems of our time--the physical and mental health of our people; the education of our children and youth; the elimination of poverty and human misery in the cities and on the farms; rehabilitation of the handicapped; juvenile delinquency; protection of our elderly citizens; improvement of the wages and working conditions of the people employed in commerce, industry, and agriculture; fair and equitable relations between labor and management, the health, education, and adjustment to civil life of veterans of our Armed Forces, and many similar social and human problems.

During his 8 years as a Senator, John Kennedy served with grace and distinction as a member of the committee, rising to become chairman of its Subcommittee on Labor.

Edward Kennedy has served on the committee for the past 6 years and has become chairman of its Subcor.rmittee on Veterans' Affairs.

Robert Kennedy, as I have said, came to the committee immediately upon entering the Senate 3¥2 years ago.

Robert Kennedy was one of the most active and diligent members of our Labor and Public Welfare Committee. He sought to shoulder the greatest possible load of responsibilities that a junior member could undertake. He was a member of five of the seven standing subcommittees: Education, Labor, Veterans' Affairs, Migratory Labor, and Employment, Manpower, and Poverty. In addition, begin

. ning in September of last year, he became chairman of our Special Subcommittee on Indian Education in which he showed intense interest and paSsionate concern. Although he was not a member of the Subcommittee on Health, of which I am chairman, he always strongly supported any and all legislation designed to protect and improve the health of our people.

While, at times, I found myself in disagreement with some of his proposals and positions, I could not and. did not ignore the fact that he was motivated by a deep conviction that the goals he pursued were for the best interests of the Nation. He was a sincere and eloquent advocate of the causes he favored. He was genuinely moved by the evidences of misery, disease, and misfortune he observed in his extensive travels in connection with committee work. He took his membership on the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and his duties thereon with utmost seriousness.

Last year, the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, of wP.ich he was a most active member, conducted an extensive survey of poverty, hunger, and. malnutrition in America. With the subcommittee he traveled thousands o! miles from the slums of Harlem to the Watts section of Los

Angeles and the fruit fields o! central California; from the Mississippi Delta to northern Wisconsin; from Appalachia to the south side of Chicago. In all his travels, in all his subcommittee work, he was always an assiduous and devoted participant. He did his best, despite many other duties pressed upon him as a Senator representing the great State of New York, to attend every committee hearing and every executive session. His keen intellect, the absorptive power of his mind, the retentive grasp of his memory, coupled with his extraordinary energy, drive, and zest, made him in a short time one of the best informed and knowledgeable experts among us on the vast range of public questions with which our committee is concerned.

One of his principal contributions in the effort to reduce the toll of human poverty was his amendment creating the special impact program, which establisl!ed economic and business deve~opment programs in heavily populated low-income urban areas, to create job opportunities and training programs for the underemployed and the unemployed.

As a member of the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, he was a powerful ally of the distinguished Senator from Texas (Mr. Yarborough) in our successful struggle to establish a GI program for veterans of the cold war period.

On the Subcommittee on Education he worked hard and long beside the able Senator from Oregon (Mr. Morse) in broadening and improving Federal assistance to our Nation's schools and colleges and to the young people who attend them.

As a member of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, he was a strong right arm to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Williams) in helping bring about decent health, education and living conditions for hundreds of thousands of migrant workers and their families.

On the Subcommittee on Labor, he staunchly supported the efforts of the late Senator McNamara of Michigan and his successor as chairman of that subcommittee, Senator Yarborough, in bringing about major changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act, raising the minimum wage, and extending the act's protection to millions of additional workers.

Not only did he become expertly informed on all the great social problems we face, not only did he seek always to translate this knowledge into effective legislative responses, Senator Robert Kennedy likewise became a movingly expressive spokesman of the needs and aspirations of the disadvantaged, the poor, the sick, and the ill-nourished members of society .

As Solomon the Wise said: "The souls of the righteous are in the

hand of God, and there no torment shall touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die; and their going from us to be utter destruction; but they are in peace."

As we unite in prayer that the soul of Robert Kennedy may rest in peace, let us unite in determination to bring peace to the souls of those who live on.

In closing, Mr. President, may I extend to Robert Kennedy's beloved wife, Ethel, and her bereaved children, his brother, Edward, and the other members of the Kennedy family, Mrs. Hill's and my deepest sympathy at this time of sorrow.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in sorrow for the second time in less than 5 years of the death of a member of the Kennedy family. On December 11, 1963, the Senate dedicated a day in memory of John· F. Kennedy, murdered in the month before. Today, we speak of another KENNEDY' foully slain as was-his ·brother before him: "On Horror's head, horrors accumulate."

Again the Nation and the world stand with bowed heads in mourning the loss

of a gallant American. Again, a whole people are shocked over another cruel and senseless act of violence.

May I say that following Senator KENNEDY's death, from the top of the Capitol of my State of Alabama in Montgomery, the Confederate :flag :flew at half mast for him, and Gov. Albert Brewer spoke these words:

It would be my prayer that this shocking event will precipitate a return to what has been absent from this Nation for much too long-a true respect for law and order and an end to senseless violence.

Mr. President, it was as chairman of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on which ROBERT KENNEDY served since he entered the Senate in January 1965, that I had occasion to work with him day by day and to best come to know him and admire him.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in the Senate today in paying tribute to the life and service of Senator ROBERT KENNEDY of

.New York. Among those who knew him well and

outside the field of politics, he elicited a deep and continuing friendship. These friendships were marked by great warmth and loyalty which transcended differences in age and political differences. ·

It was in the field of politics that I knew him best.

His record through the years as a most loyal, ardent, and self-sacrificing aide of his brother is known to all Senators and to the American people; and also his record following the death of President Kennedy, when he assumed in a very special way the burden of carrying forward what had been started and in the same spirit moved on into new fields of need and of concern in this Nation.

He was the most worthy advocatededicated, energetic-committing all of his strength to the end of achieving the objectives which he had concluded were for the good of this country.

I shall conclude with excerpts from a column written by Mary McGrory, who knew him both as a 'friend and as a politician, and published in the Washington Evening Star:

He was a gifted person. He intensified life for those who knew him

and for those who did not. He was decent and pious. He was good to widows and orphans. He visited the sick and comforted the

dying. He was courageous and cautious. He saw life in his own terms, convinced

of what was right for others if not for himself.

He had a capacity for giving total devotion and inspiring 1 t. ·

Mr. HART. Mr. President, when the assassin's bullet brought down RoBERT KENNEDY, the first reaction was born of shock and horror.

Cries for gun regulation, for help for the mentally m, for adequate protection of our presidential candidates were the wails of shock.

Even eulogies for the man-this young, vibrant, dashing, · captivating mantended more to be the pouring out of our own personal grief than a dispassionate analysis of his contributions.


It is well, then, that the Senate waited until these weeks had passed to pay its formal tribute to Senator RoBERT F. KENNEDY; for, while horror at the manner of his death remains-and will remain with each of us until our own deaths-perspective is easier.

What, then, can we say today of RoBERT KENNEDY--of his contributions, made and anticipated?

In first recalling him, we think of the marks-rwhich singled him out: the physical attractiveness, the wit, the energy, the love of family, the keen mind, the grin.

Many are so blessed, but few capture the hearts of a nation as RoBERT KENNEDY did.

The rare quality ROBERT KENNEDY had-we were repeatedly told-was charisma. Webster defines that as a "personal magic of leadership."

Some would have you believe that charisma is a God-given gift, allotted only to the select who are to lead nations and armies out of despair. This may be. But I think not.

I would say that charisma is established between a people and a leader in the way trust is established between a mother and child--or between a father and a son. · Thousands in this Nation ldoked on

ROBERT KENNEDY and did not see a young man, richly endowed personally and financially. They saw instead a man who chose to face degradation, fatigue, ridicule-and even death-to be a champion for those who needed a champion.

In short, ROBERT KENNEDY'S charisma came because he stripped his heart and his soul open for the view of the people-and what they saw there was love, deep and real, for his fellow man.

It was the charisma of John F. Kennedy--of Martin Luther King, Jr. And it was the lesson of ROBERT KENNEDY and of another who lived 2,000 years ago: Love one another.

If we learn this from RoBERT F. KENNEDY, his brief time on earth will have been long enough.

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I delayed in arriving for the eUlogies for one reason that might seem particularly understandable on this special occasion. For several months I had agreed to participate in a . seminar of Senate interns, the youth of the land and some of the very cream of the crop. I do not know of any participation that would have been more in the exciting tradition of BoB KENNEDY than that.

History is going to say many things, I am sure, about the late Senator from New York because, indeed, he was a man of many parts. He was a .man who served responsibly and well in the thankless task of participating in the launching of an exciting new government in the Iand-a government which, as one writer described, brought a new atmosphere and a new sense of wanting to do something to the sometimes tired halls of Government. This certainly was a key role of BoB KENNEDY at the time his brother, the late John F. Kennedy, came to Wash· ington to be Preside:at.

But this memory of BoB KENNEDY does not do him justice, because it is only one

part of RoBERT KENNEDY. In his role in the Senate he went out of his way to stand, and to stand tali, on some of the most troublesome and meaningful issues of our time. If one had to capsulize those issues in general, I think it would be fair to describe them as the issues of hope, the issues that · had something to do about tomorrow.

It is not without point to mention that for many of us in this body those are not the easiest kinds of questions on which to take a strong stand far in advance of their time. But this memory seems to me to reflect BoB KENNEDY's deepest concern for where we can go from here, even more than where we have been.

Having said that about BoB KENNEDY, I think it is important to allude to that part of the man that first struck me and perhaps may even remain the longest in my memQry. I was always taken with the obvious genuineness of the joy he derived from being with kids, not only his own kids, even though he was a great one with them, but with just kids-my kids and the kids of many Members of this body. He seemed to go out of his way to indulge in those occasions that meant so much to youngsters.

I think perhaps the first time I met him was when he was Attorney General and he was devoting his Saturday to having fun with a whole assortment of kids.

Mr. President, it is not easy for most of us in a busy life to find that kind of time and it certainly is not easy to get a big kick out of it, but for BOB KENNEDY this seemed to be for real. The understanding, love, and the warmth of his concern for children, will, I think, loom as one of the largest hallmarks of his character, personality, and service when the record of our time is completed.

He visited the State of Wyoming on many occasions. He was one of those personalities who excited and inspired the people in my State. Perhaps most of all, however, in his official roles and in his wanderings around the world, I think his impact on youth of all ages-and I speak of youth as a state of mind-was epitomized in the hopeful and exciting things of tomorrow that are sometimes only dimly seen by the rest of us. It gave him a sense of rapport, a contact, a dialog, an understanding that the rest of us lack, and which we pretend to cover up with something we call the generation gap.

In my judgment, ROBERT KENNEDY Will stand tall before the bar of history, and when that record is reviewed by subsequent generations, they will find in this inspirational colleague of ours many guidelines for their own time, a man, in truth, of many parts.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in paying tribute to the memory of the late Senator ROBERT KENNEDY whose tragic death shocked the Nation.

I speak as one who did not too often agree on issues with the junior Senator from New York. But I respected his views as springing from a deep and compassionate concern for the best interests of the Nation.

I recall when Senator KENNEDY joined

me in protesting the denial of a visa to Prime Minister Smith, of Rhodesia, to speak before the student legal forum at the University of Virginia. Sen-ator KENNEDY was once president of that forum.

Although we were in disagreement on United States-Rhodesian policy, Senator KENNEDY did not hesitate to set aside those views out of concern for the larger principle of free speech.

Although Senator KENNEDY was born in Massachusetts and represented the State of New York, he had ties to Virginia. He received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School in 1951, and he lived at historic Hickory Hill, McLean, Va. He found many friends in our Commonwealth, and his death was deeply mourned.

I think I speak for all Virginians in expressing a sense of loss at the untimely death of this energetic and compassionate public official.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, when we speak with sorrow and regret of the passing of our late colleague, Senator RoBERT F. KENNEDY, our grief mirrors that of the Nation and the world. His vitality and vigor, his enthusiasm and concern, his sensitivity and compassion for the poor and underprivileged, were his most apparent public qualities. Millions loved and admired him, for in these ways he represented the best that is America.

We who were privileged to serve with him suffer his passing most keenly, for with his death, Congress was deprived of a distinguished champion in the cause of human rights. It is given to us to mourn, but also to serve. It is given to us to bear the loss, but also to share the burden. It is given to us to lead where he had led, to fulfill the promise to the underprivileged, to spur the conscience and the imagination of a people too long dormant to the feelings of their fellow men.

To his family and his muititude of friends, we extend our sympathy and our continuing support. To the millions who never knew him, but loved him for his vision and shared with him their dreams, we promise our commitment and our help. And we must dedicate ourselves anew to carry forward the ideals of brotherhood and service to man which ROBERT KENNEDY SO ably advanced.

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, it is painful to reflect on the death of RoBERT KENNEDY.

Eight weeks after the assassination in Los Angeles, this terrible event continues to evoke sadness, bitterness, and confusion.

We are sad first of all for the Kennedy family, and mindful of the terrible losses they have suffered. What comfort can there be for a family who has seen two of its own struck down at the peak of their lives by acts of sheer madness? Their strength in time of tragedy has twice brought inspiration to us all, but unhappily it is they, not we, who have been the most direct victims of national tragedy.

We are sad for the whole country as well. ROBERT KENNEDY'S assassination weighs heavily on its conscience.

We ask how we can tolerate these acts of violence. We have never tolerated them, but they have occured anYWay.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _--· SENATE 24123 . We then ask why they occur;. what is ' there in our midst that breeds hatred and killing? How could we have allowed this cancer to grow?

And when we try to answer these questions, we come face to face with the·same problems ROBERT KENNEDY desired SQ earnestly to solve.

He could have chosen an easy and unt roubled life. Instead he dedicated himself to an arduous career whose instrument was politics but whose goal was to bring justice and a fair chance to all Americans.

RoBERT KENNEDY breathed fresh air into American politics. He fused idealism and pragmatism with a creative energy that is legendary in its own time.

American politics have not been the same without ROBERT KENNEDY, just as they were changed unalterably by the death of John Kennedy. We can draw consolation, however, from the presence in the Semite of EDWARD KENNEDY, and I hope his intelligent voice will continue to be heard on the challenges we face for decades to come.

The Kennedy family has tasted the best and the worst of the American political system. The best they deserved; the worst has been cruelly inflicted upon them.

It was my pleasure and my honor to serve in the Senate with ROBERT KENNEDY. I miss his charm and his wit atrd his great idealism, and I hope that it will not be long before his vision of a more just and peaceful America comes into being.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, like all Senators, I mourn the death of RoBERT KENNEDY. Not the death~but the irrevocable absence. Like you, I knew him as a colleague. I will miss his clear and penetrating judgments. And I will also miss the friend-the gentle man who understood a loss in my own family, and who offered the comfort of his compassion and his understanding.

ROBERT KENNEDY'S absence Will be felt by those who knew him well~by those who called him friend and colleague.

· But ROBERT KENNEDY will also be missed by those who barely knew him but who sensed his spirit of hope-his commitment to his country and to all its people.

Not long ago, I visited a health clinic in Alviso, Calif., which was to have been dedicated by ROBERT KENNEDY. I went to fulfill a pledge by a Member of the Senate to visit this community of Spanishspeaking people.

They spoke to me about RoBERT KENNEDY that day in Alviso. They told me he understood them. And they sensed his concern for their problems. They believed in him-and believed he would help them.

Ralph Chaplain said: Mourn not the dead that in the cool earth lie,

dust unto dust-The calm sweet earth that mothers all who

die .As all men must;

But rather mourn the apathetic throng, The coward and the meek

Who see · the world's great anguish and its wrong,

And dare not speak.

Mr. President, perhaps the most appropriate way to honor ROBERT KENNEDY today would be to remember his concern fo.r the needy in our Nation and to recommit our labors t9 uplifting this land. · Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, it is with a feeling of sadness that I join other Senators in expressing our sorrow over the death of our colleague, Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY. Few Americans were as ·uncompromisingly concerned as he was with the struggle for justice for the hungry, the jobless, the underprivileged, and the oppressed and for the need for our Nation to make a greater effort toward ending the war in Vietnam and moving a step nearer to worldwide peace.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY lived daily with enormous personal burdens of duty and moral commitment. With great courage he assumed leadership in the cause of the alienated, the dispossessed, the underprivileged, the poor and the hopeless and in doing so he helped bring forth a creative energy latent in our society.

It can be said that the murder of Senator KENNEDY was the deed of one irrational man-a misguided extremist. The same could be said of the assassination of his brother, the late, great President John F. Kennedy, and of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That is a valid explanation insofar as it goes, but it does not absolve our society from some responsibility for these tragic events. The truth must be faced that these insane acts are in some way attributable to the dangerous tensions and the deep stresses that have afflicted our Nation in recent years.

Let us hope that the senseless assassination of Senator KENNEDY will result in a dedication by all Americans to eradicate the devisiveness that threatens to alienate one American from another, and in a renewal of the bright promise of America.

Mr. President, violence and crime are increasingly rampant throughout the Nation. We Americans need God's help. We in Congress have responsibility to enact into law more effective gun control legislation to minimize the danger of bloodshed, violence, and death contributed to by the present unrestricted and insane traffic in firearms.

In the Senate Chamber my desk was very close to that of Senator RoBERT KENNEDY. We frequently talked together, as less than 2 yards separated our chairs in the Senate Chamber. It was my privilege to speak with him very often. I came to know him as a fine, personable young man who was very witty in his conversation, very knowledgeable, and very much opposed to our Vietnam involvement. He was a truly dedicated public official, a real leader in our Nation, and was held in affectionate regard by his Senate colleagues.

I extend my sympathy to Mrs. Ethel Kennedy and her children and to all members of the Kennedy family who have known death and heartbreak as few families have. They have lost a husband, father, son, and brother. The Nation has lost one of its finest sons and a leader of great promise.

I held him in high admiration for his quick grasp of the details of a legislative proposal. ·

Mr. COTTON. ·Mr. President, I join in the tribute which is paid today to the memory of our late colleague, Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY. .

I knew Senator KENNEDY as an aggressive a.nd energetic member of the Senate's own staff. While serving on the Committee on the Judiciary, I knew him as Attorney General of the United States. I had the pleasure and privilege of serving with him in this body until his tragic and untimely death. I long have admired his ability, his personality, and his dedication to those goals in which he believed. We shall miss his counsel and his participation in the discussion of the grave problems with which we are confronted.

It is with all the sincerity at my command that I e_xpress my deep personal sorrow for his family and for our Nation which has lost his services. It is beyond human under3tanding that one who had so many years before him and so much constructive ability from which to contribute should be struck down. The Nation grieves, and justly so.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, ROBERT KENNEDY, dedicated to change, died in transit. When I met him in 1954, he was shy and groping for problems to solve. At death, he groped for solutio~s. Earlier he challenged labor racketeering, and then, with his brother, developed the New Frontier. Working for civil rights, he acted responsibly-but was chastised for being too fast and too slow. The President's assassination sped civil rights to reality and, still shy, ROBERT tried not to become a candidate. The crowds, the amenities, the tolerance of bias, and the indulgence of incompetence necessary to politics was his last desire.

Perhaps a Kennedy Foundation was the answer. But no, this would only scratch the surface. Moreover, a torch had been lit, and he was its bearer. To solve, he must involve. Against tradition that he respected, he went to New York and became its Senator. And, like the American scene, he changed. He realized the rebuff to change, the rebuff to young ideas, the rebuff to the poor. To him this was unacceptable. Having seen the goal, he raced in that direction. There was not time, as Burns wrote, "to see oursel's as ithers see us." And "ithers" saw a different goal-public office at any price. The very divisiveness he sought to heal, he irritated. As well as a solution, RoBERT became a part of the problem. And, as a man, he will remain controversial.

For me he was an understanding friend, the most moral of men, willing to change for the good, and die for the poor. He had been uncomfortable for a long time. Because of his moral courage to recognize the poor and young whom we have ignored, we shall be uncomfortable until we take heed. For, as John Kennedy is remembered for bringing class to public service, RoBERT KENNEDY will be remembered for bringing public service to the classes.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, although I did not serve on any committees with the late Senator from New York, I did have occasion to talk to him on anumber of occasions about matters of common interest; and I always found him to be friendly and helpful:

24124' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - .SENATE July 30,, .1.968 He was a man intense about his re

sponsibilities and determined to make the greatest contribution po8sible to the Senate and to his country.

Our Nation's vigor depends on the contributions of its citizens in all walks of life. A particularly valuable contribution was lost with the passing of the distinguished Senator from New York; and I join my colleagues in mourning not only the loss of his presence, but the loss of his capacity to illuminate our deliberations with his special insight into the problems of the day.

Mr. President, my special condolences are extended to his widow and children and also to our distinguished colleague, his brother, the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. MciNTYRE. Mr. President, if America is blessed, she is blessed not only with the quality of her institutions, but with the quality of the men who guide her destiny.

Such a man Was ROBERT KENNEDY. Like his brother before him, he stood

tall and gave his whole spirit and being to his fellow countrymen.

And now he has given his life. Life asked much of ROBERT KENNEDY.

It gave him a wonderful family, a keen and inquisitive mind, and an important role to play in his Nation's affairs. But it also took much. It took his brother, John; it must have sapped his energy many times when he was attacked and criticized; and, now, it has demanded the supreme sacrifice.

For RoBERT KENNEDY, the fight is now over. But the battle goes on. And if there is a single consolation in his tragic death, it is this: that the world was touched by this man while he lived.

His concern and dedication for his fellow man leaves this cold and cruel world just a little warmer. And his memory, during the dark days ahead, will provide a beacon to light the path before us.

His life as Shakespeare wrote: Was gentle, and the elements So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up And say to all the world, "This was a man!"

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I shoUld like to add my voice to those of my distinguished colleagues in paying tribute to the late RoBERT F. KENNEDY.

As that great Senator from another mighty civilization long ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero, once observed:

The life of the dead is placed in the memory of the living.

Truly the memory Of ROBERT KENNEDY and all he stood for will be with us from this time forward as we carry on the the affair~ of the Government, to which he devoted himself so completely.

Not all of us who honor his memory found ourselves completely in agreement with this remarkable young man. Yet even though our philosophy differed, each had the highest respect for his unyielding dedication to his principles and causes.

The death of ROBERT KENNEDY was a reminder to us all that no day is ever like the day before, and that life is but a stopping place on the way to eternity. During life on earth each of us is required to make his contribution accord-

ing to his abilities and position. Thus, even though Senator KENNEDY was felled far short of his expected lifespan, his role here on earth was completed, if not ·totally fulfilled by the time of. his sudden death.

May God grant eternal rest to his sow, and serenity and peace to the long suffering Kennedy family whose graceful perseverence in the face of tragedy has touched us all.

Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, while the late Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY represented the State of New York and spent much of his life as. a resident of Massachusetts, he is also identified with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Senator KENNEDY received his legal education at the University of Virginia; he resided at Hickory Hill in McLean, Va.; and in early June of this year was laid to rest in the rolling hills of Virginia at Arlington National Cemetery.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote:

As life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time, as the peril of being judged not to have lived.

ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY shared full measure the action of his time. He was a man who evoked passion and was capable of much compassion; a man some feared as a pied piper trying to lure the young otf to a newer world; a man others loved because he cared for those less fortunate and less endowed; a man who in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt "dared mighty things." He was above all a man of action.

Since his death we have had opportunity to reflect upon the shock and selfanalysis our Nation has again experienced from an assassin's bullet. There is m·ore divisiveness in America today than in most any time in our history-black against white, rich against poor, young against old, and dove against hawk. Never before have Americans appeared more intolerant of the views of others. Senator KENNEDY recognized the estrangement and divisiveness that threatens our Nation.

Many will remember the compassion he had for the unfortunate of our world, and the seriousness and determination he applied to the hope to relieve suffering and deprivation everywhere. In the months I served with him in the Senate, I found beneath the toughness that was displayed on occasion and the shyness that was so evident at other times a man with a marvelous sense of humora man who could laugh as well as cry. It is that shy humor that I shall remember.

I am pleased to join with Senators today in paying tribute to ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY and to honor his memory.

Mr. PROXMmE. Mr. President, Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY served in the U.S. Senate with dedication and humor, with passion and compassion, with imagination and intelligence, but above all with honesty.

Here was the keystone to this remarkable man's character. He was bluntly honest in a body in which honesty-at least blunt and straightforward and unremitting honesty-is not always a

virtUe. And Senator ROBERT . KEN·NEi>Y exemplified that virtue.

There . was no reason why he had to immerse himself so deeply in the struggle against poverty in this country. There are more votes against than for the poverty warrior. Every knowledgeable politician-and BoB KENNEDY was one of the most knowledgeable-knows that few of the poor are registered and tha't fewer vote.

It would have been the easy course to ignore the nuclear proliferation issue or the miserable plight of hundreds of millions in Latin America. There is no. political gold to mine in those issues.

But here are the great injustices, . the· great dangers, of our time. And Senator ROBERT KENNEDY was the greatest national voice in speaking out on these issues.

He stirred the conscience of his country. He stirred the conscien.ce of this body.

In Wisconsin, as in 49 other States, he was a figure of controversy. But we remember Senator KENNEDY in Wisconsin as the man who handled that great campaign for his brother-the President-in 1960. Wisconsin had never before seen a campaign with the verve, the drive, that the Kennedys, especially RoBERT KENNEDY, brought to it.

Mr. President one of the most fervent supporters Of ROBERT KENNEDY in our State was our former State chairman and Lieutenant Governor, Patrick Lucey. A few days ago at our Democratic State Convention, in Milwaukee, Pat Lucey delivered a beautiful and stirring eUlogy to ROBERT F. KENNEDY. .

I ask unanimous consent that that eUlogy be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the eUlogy was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows: EULOGY DELIVERED BY PATRICK J. LUCEY AT

DEMOCRATIC STATE CONVENTION, FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1968 Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates: I cannot

tell you how sorry I am that this convention could not have opened on schedule 6 weeks ago.

Had an assassin's hand been stayed, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy would have keynoted this convention. Hundreds of thousands of cheering citizens would have lined the streets from Billy Mitchell Field to this banquet hall. A surge of excitement would have passed through a cheering capacity crowd in this room as he rose to speak.

All of you would have shared a sense of participation in the making of history as you did in 1960.

Whatever your own candidate preference, you would have felt the satisfaction of involvement in the making of a president. And as we departed this convention, a scent of victory would have been in the air, and each of \l.S would have felt somehow ennobled by our commitment to a larger purpose.

The magic is gone . . . the demand that we do better 1s silenced . . . the voice of conscience is stilled.

Who is there now to remind us that · we are, 1n fact, our brother's keeper? Who 1s there to say that this sin of omission is un. acceptable, or that condition of hardship among the less fortunate is unsatisfactory?

Who will call us to account? Who will re·mind us of oUr responsib1lities, not just our advantages? ·

Who will take in his hand the black hanci of. a troubled child in a steaming ghetto, and lead that child into a decent classroom?

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24125 Who w1ll go to the original concentration

camp, the American Indian Reservation, and convince the red-skinned teenager that suicide is not the best solution to his problems?

Who now can erase the bloody nightmare of Vietnam and make us again worthy of moral leadership on this planet?

Had Robert Francis Kennedy lived, he would have been present at this convention. He would have placed before you the agenda of our nation's unfinished business. He would have insisted that we can do better.

There are those who say his campaign was an exercise in futility. that he could not have won the nomination of our party. But Andrew Jackson once said "One Man With Courage Makes a Majority." No one has ever charged that Robert Francis Kennedy lacked courage.

During the final six months of Senator Kennedy's life, I saw much of him. I stood with him in the ghetto of Indianapolis as he announced to his vast Negro audience that Martin Luther King was dead. I watched and listened as his speech became a prayer, and his audience returned quietly to their homes.

I sat before him the next day in Cleveland as he spoke to the City Club of his concern about violence in our society.

For 5 weeks I served his cause in Nebraska, and then moved on to Portland and San Francisco, and finally stood by helplessly that terrible final night in Los Angeles.

Robert Francis Kennedy was probably the most misunderstood man in our society. He was called ruthless . . . but few remember that this label was first applied by James Hoffa.

Many resented his appointment by Pres. Kennedy as Attorney General, but as he left that office, the Washington Post summed up his record as follows:

"He has guided more important legislation through Congress than did any of his predecessors in the past 30 years. He has made the Federal Government, for the first time, a vigorous enemy of organized crime. He has pushed equal rights for all Americans.

In one of Dr. King's finest sermons, he helped to explain the lack of understanding of the personality of Robert Kennedy. Dr. King suggested that "we must combine the toughness of the serpent and the softness of the dove, a tough mind and a tender heart". Robert Kennedy was of tender heart. He was a man of great compassion. He was at the same time tough minded, exacting, impatient of slothfulness.

In an introduction of Robert Kennedy in South Dakota, April 16th, Sen. George McGovern told his audience:

"You people know the affection and esteem I held for President Kennedy, but it is my carefully measured conviction that Senator Robert Kennedy, even more than our beloved President, would now bring to the Presidency a deeper measure of experience and a more profound capacity to lead our troubled land into the light of a new day."

In the same speech, Sen. McGovern said of Senator Kennedy that he would "become one of the three or four greatest Presidents in our history".

Many of us found it difficult to put aside the grief that followed the death of President Kennedy, but at least to him it was given to chart his course . . . to lay before us his clearly defined goals. Robert Kennedy's plans were just beginning to unfold. His programs were still to be outlined. His potential was just beginning to reach the people.

Perhaps the one occasi•:m when millions of Americans found it easiest to identify with Robert Kennedy was 4 years ago as he stood briefly before the delegates to the National Convention, and a national television audien~e. to introduce a film about his brother.

For that occasion he chose a passage from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:

"And, when he shall die Take him and cut him out in little stars And he will make the face of heaven so

fine That all the world will be in love with night And pay no worship to the garish sun"

As I stood at Arlington in November 1963, I stood again in June, 1968 ... to see Robert Francis Kennedy buried at his brother's side. And as we read on in Romeo and Juliet, we find these lines:

"Then, dreadful trumpet, sound the general doom!

For who is living, if those two are gone?"

It would be easy to step aside . . . to say all is lost ... to abandon hope. But such an act of cowardice would hardly be a fitting tribute to a man of compassion, conviction, and courage.

Rather, let us recall a few lines from the musical play, "The Man From La Mancha":

"To dream the impossible dream To fight the unbeatable foe

To bear the unbearable sorrow To run where the brave dare not go.

"To right the unrightable wrong To love pure and chaste from afar

To try when your arms are too weary To reach the unreachable star,

"This is my quest ... To follow that star

No matter how hopeless No matter how far.

"To fight for the right ... Without question or pause

To be willing to march into hell For a heavenly cause.

"And I know if I'll only be true To this glorious quest ...

That my heart will lie peaceful and calm When I'm laid to my rest.

"And the world will be better for this That one man, scorned and covered with

scars, Still strove with his last ounce of courage

To reach the unreachable star."

Our children can live in a better world because Robert Francis Kennedy had a · dream, and the courage to try ... but theirs will be a better world only if we accept with President John Kennedy "That here on earth, God's work must truly be our own."

Come, my friends, 'tis still not too late to seek a newer world.

Mr. KOCHEL. Mr. President, the distinguished junior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HANSEN] is necessarily absent from the Senate today. On his behalf, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement he had prepared for this occasion. -

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR HANSEN

Few young men in history have gained the attention and won the admiration and affection of more of their countrymen than did Robert Kennedy. I add my voice to the thousands who praise his devotion to country through his role in its governing bodies, and I pay tribute to another facet of his contribution to America.

As the proud father of 10 youngsters and the husband of a loving and devoted wife, Robert Kennedy demonstrated the importance of ·the family as a driving force in our society-and this at a time when the family unit seemed to be losing significance.

. The Kennedy family is known and loved

everywhere as a brilliant example of solidarity and as proof that the family unit will continue to be the determining force in instllling in Americans those attributes we most desire and admire.

While few of his friends and colleagues may have agreed with him in every area of his wide-ranging political and social interests, all of us will admit that he challenged us with his awareness and discernment of America's problems-including the obvious ones like the Vietnam war, the problems of the cities, and human rights-and some obscure problems some of us would have preferred not to face.

Typical of his probing interest in the wellbeing of his fellow Americans was his investigation and reporting of poverty among Indians. He undertook a series of visits and Committee hearings in an effort to find ways to come to grips with this problem. I applaud his conscientious and significant contributions in this area.

Robert Kennedy's astuteness in getting to the crux of a national problem was demonstrated by his understanding of the need for meaningful jobs and responsibilities for Americans now locked in the vicious cycle of welfare handouts.

He did care about his fellow human beings, and because he cared enough to take specific action-however controversial it may have been at times-his memory is and will always be a symbol of hope to Americans.

A NOBLE SPIRIT GONE TO ITS REST

Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, this Chamber has seen the progression of our land in terms of men and events. These walls have been witness to war, death, strife, triumph, and, above all, the immortality of the human spirit and our basic ideas. ROBERT F. KENNEDY was one of us. Vve all knew him. Certainly we all respected him. Some of us loved him.

From time to time unique men come among us. They give voice, these menthese few-to the noblest sentiments and motivations of humankind. They bring a message difficult for most to understand: that man is a creature of love, not hate: of compassion, not vindictiveness; of the warmth of his heart, not the cold of his selfishness.

They preach and call for brotherhood and equality and seek to elevate man to a higher plane. It is to save us from ourselves that they speak and act thusly. Pleading for man to man, they often are misunderstood by men.

It is because they give voice to the noblest expressions of human character that they engender fear in the hearts of the marginal individuals among us. They may be called Socrates or Ghandi or King.

In our time, for the second time, they have been called Kennedy. Truly, my heart is sore within me as I utter these words. For the second time I have watched a heart-rending procession of this type to Arlington. His family has lost a father and husband. The Senate has lost a unique and invaluable Member. Our country has lost an American of immense stature. The world has lost one who gave its voiceless people compassion and hope.

Yet by his life and death he has set an example, illuminated goals, and left us a most worthy heritage. His belief in our land must be ours. His warmth for the oppressed must be ours. His desire to uplift man must be ours. When these few

24126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, .196.8. men come among us, what do we do? Do we harken unto them? Do we show respect to them? Do we implement their ideas? No. We kill them. But after grief and shock comes realization arul then determination. Just as those other great human beings have been recognized for what they were, this man too will find his rightful place in our hearts, minds and heritage.

All men are equal in the eyes of God. All men -are equal in the eyes of our laws and institutions. All men must strive for the everyday realization of these dreams. The moment we deny any of these truths to any of our fellows, they become a nullity and mockery to all the rest of us.

Let us draw this example from the life and sacrifice of ROBERT F. KENNEDY. Let his passing give us renewed vigor and determination to set the wrongs of our Nation aright. Let us stretch forth hand and heart of compassion to those who have known only deprivation and want.

Let us do it in the name of this man and all the others who died not only because of their fellow men, but because of their belief in them. No more fitting monument could be created or desired by the ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY I knew.

May God grant him the peace of those who are beloved.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I join Senators in paying tribute to the memory of Senator RoBERT F. KENNEDY, so cruelly deprived of his life by an assassin's bullet less than 2 months ago.

I know I speak for the people of Hawaii when I say we mourn the untimely passing of one of America's outstanding leaders and we weep for his family burdened by this new grief so soon after the tragic death of his brother President John F. Kennedy, also struck down by an assassin.

We weep, too, for America. For our Nation has lost a voice that pricked our conscience and a force that prodded us always to do better. We who served with him in this Chamber know how deeply he held his conviction that America must always push forward on social progress and social justice. Never content with the status quo for himself, RoBERT KENNEDY was never content to let America rest on her oars.

In a day when many seek escape from the pressing problems tormenting AmerIca, RoBERT KENNEDY never waivered in his etrorts to overcome these problems, always giving an extra measure of devotion to duty.

Born to material wealth, RoBERT KENNEDY could have existed--comfortably and safely-in indolent ease. But like his brother, Jack, he chose instead to enter the controversial arena of government and to dedicate himself to serving his countrymen. He added a new dimension to modern political history.

It is a tribute to his character that he, a man who had never known poverty, was regarded by millions of poor people as their champion. His innate decency and compassion for the less fortunate endeared him to millions.

He attracted other milUons by his brilliance, vigor, courage, daring, 1nnovativeness, idealism, humanitarianism, and optimism. ROBERT KENNEDY exuded the vitality and spirit of America.

It was my privilege to know ROBERT KENNEDY . when he was Attorney General of the United States, and I worked with him here in the Senate during his all too brief tenure. I was greatly impressed with his ability and his persevex;ance in the pursuit of what he believed right. In the legislative battles that were fought in this Chamber, he proved himself an able ally and a worthy opponent.

Our hearts go out to his wife, Ethel, to his children, to his brother TED, our colleague, and to the members of his family on whom so much tragedy has been visited. We hope they can derive some measure of comfort from these expressions of esteem, respect, and affection. for their beloved BoBBY, whose memory we honor today. We hope those of his children who are too young to hold fast the memory of their father will, through these tributes, in years to come know him as we knew him.

Mrs. Fong joins me in extending our prayers and deepest gympathy to the Kennedy family.

Mr. BAYH. With the death of ROBERT F. KENNEDY, the flame that lights our lives burns a little more dimly.

The light that he gave us was a flame of passion-passion for justice, for mercy, for peace.

The all-too-brief candle of his life set for those of us who live after him a glowing challenge-the challenge to try, with every fiber of our beings, to emulate his example of willingness to serve the Nation without fear or favor; to demonstrate a manifest concern for the suffering of humanity; to maintain a deep and abiding belief that, with God's help, the United States of Amertcan can be the torch that will light the way of the world toward a just and lasting peace.

Too often when leaders of the stature Of ROBERT KENNEDY have been cut down senselessly in the prtme of life, the first reaction has been that of anger, followed by sadness and melancholy, which in turn dissolves into little more than revered memory. As time passes, even memory, while cherished, tends to become blurred and little that is positive may be accomplished in their name.

If RoBERT ~ENNEDY'S life had meaning, if he is not tO have lived nor died in vain, we must not lapse into inaction.

Some may not always have liked the things he said nor agreed with the things he believed. But, like the prophets of Israel, he summoned us to action by holding a mirror before us sa that we saw plainly the scars and imperfections on the face of America.

It is never easy to face up to one's own shortcomings, but when the pain of selfexamination passes, we are surely the better for it.

When Othello tells Desdemona of his own distress and pain, he tells of her reaction:

My story being done, she gave me for my pains a world of sighs; she swore in faith, 'twas strange, 'twas passing strange, 'twas pitiful, 'twas wondrous pitiful; she wished she had not heard it, yet she wished that h~ven ·had made her sucll. a man.

RoBERT KENNEDY'S life is done, but not his story. For his pains, we must give him more than a world of sighs. He told us of the pitiful 1n eur land and in our

world. Perhaps some wished they had not heard it. Yet all of us are thankful that heaven made us such a man. · Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join Senators in lamenting the t:ragic death of our frie_nd and fellow Senator, RoBERT KENNEDY.

In some measure, the death of any man diminishes the light of life in all of us.

But the senseless murder of RoBERT KENNEDY in Los Angeles cast a shadow. over the Nation nearly as large as on that terrible day in Dallas when his brother was cut down by the assassin's bullet.

RoBERT KENNEDY Was a good man, a warm and loving father and husband', and an outstanding public servant.

He was a man of great courage, and his tragically short but productive life will serve as a guiding light for the young of the Nation to follow. He will be remembered by most of us for his great hope for improving the lot of mankind in this country and the world and for his dedication to that great objective.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, once again sadness is our subject in the Senate of the United States and, once again, the name Kennedy is spoken.

It is fitting for that name to be sounded in this Chamber. Three young men have joined it with all that the title Senator encompasses.

It is tragic for the Senate and sorrow to be linked together again in tribute to a man named Kennedy.

I am mindful this morning of a phrase from a stirring inaugural address which challenged Amertcans saying: '

Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.

The Kennedy family has met . that challenge-laid down by one of their own-and the price they have paid weighs heavy on theheart of humanity ..

The eldest brother slain in battle defending his country. the next brother assassinated while serving as his country's leader in that position which has been described as the highest temporal o:tnce on the earth, and now we meet to mark the loss of the third brother, also cut down in the summer of his years.

Mr. President, how shall we expre~s ~I). words the depth of the sympathy which we extend to BoB KENNEDY's loved onesthe sense of loss which his passing brought to millions who admired him and followed him-the sad fact that his absence from these Halls will be felt across the years to come?

What would be a fitting final tribute to RoBERT FRANcis KENNEDY?

I think that the last brother delivered that tribute when, in moving language, Senator EDWARD KENNEDY asked that BoB be remembered as a good and decent man.

Mr. President, I suggest that when each of us present on this solemn occasion con~ludes his life's labor~as each of us must-we will have attained the great goal if we are remembered, as Senator RoBERT KENNEl}Y Will be, as good and decent men.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, the Nation and the U.S. Senate mourn the death 'Of Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY.

July 30; 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24127 His assassination was a shock felt oy all the people of the country. It was a terrible blow to the Senate, where he served for only a relatively short time, but with dist~nction. It was a personal tragedy to the Kennedy family, which has known more than its share of heartbreak and sorrow.

Senator KENNEDY was struck down in his prime. He was a young man, but in the Kennedy tradition he had long been in the mainstream of American political leadership, as counsel to Senatorial committees, as U.S. Attorney General, and as chief adviser to his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy, whose spirit he kept alive and whose work he sought to continue.

BOBBY KENNEDY, like his slain brother, reflected much of the greatness that is America-toughness, aggressiveness, and competitiveness combined with a deep personal compassion for the needs of his fellowman. We may not always have agreed with Senator KENNEDY on every issue, or he with us, but we respected his ability, his conviction, and his unflagging devotion to duty. Senator KENNEDY was a strong man and sometimes, as with all men of strength and quick mind, this rendered him the subject of criticism. But millions upon millions of people the world over--especially youth-saw in him the strength that characterizes America.

Senator KENNEDY traveled and campaigned in Georgia on several occasions, and he had many, many friends and supporters in my State. Americans and Georgians will long mourn his death, and his presence will be missed in the Senate.

ROBERT KENNEDY left a legacy Of hope that all the American people will unite in a common quest for national progress and for the well-being of all our citizens.

I share this hope, and on this day Mrs. Talmadge joins me in extending our heartfelt sympathies to Mrs. Kennedy and her children, to Senator EDWARD KENNEDY, and to all the family.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I join in these tributes to our late colleague from New York, Senator ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY, who, durmg the relatively short time he spent in this body, made his presence felt to an extent that will not be fully known for many years to come.

While I often found myself in opposition to Senator KENNEDY ir. the Senate, I was and am convinced that he was a man of unquestionable integrity . and deep conviction who, throughout his life, waged a vigorous battle against indifference and mediocrity in our society.

It has been said that life, though tragic, is still worthwhile. Certainly this is true of the life of BoB KENNEDY, a life so often touched by tragedy and yet rich, full, and productive until its untimely end.

It is hoped that history will remember him, not so much for the utter tragedy of his death, but for what he was in life-a genuine human being of high ideals and infinite compassion who did what he could for his fellowman.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the impact of a great tragedy is always a personal and· subjective one. So when I was awakened on that dark night to be informed of the death of Senator RoBERT

F. KENNEDY, after the shock and disbelief I thought of the special times that Senator KENNEDY and I had been asso ... ciated. I thought of floor debates, of committee hearings, of our visit together to the New Yonk constitutional convention, of fundraising dinners, of conversations on the floor of the Senate and in the cloak rooms-all those random reminiscences that go through one's mind on occasions such as that. But mostly I recalled when, 2 years ago during my campaign for reelection, he came to Montana to help me.

At the time he came to Montana the pollsters, the columnists, the forecasters were all predicting my defeat. But Senator KENNEDY's appearances in Great Falls, Butte, and Billings electrified the people of my State, picked up my campaign, and might well have been the decisive factor in my reelection.

Recalling that visit, I like to think that it was a microcosm of the character, the appeal, and the spell Of ROBERT KENNEDY.

He saw the Indians in Great Falls and Billings, and his heart went out to these noble people who have been so unjustly treated. Many of us feel the same way about our Indian Americans, but Senator KENNEDY's resentment of the injustice they have suffered seemed to generate a chemistry that transmitted itself to them. One could see the changes in the faces of these people when they realized that here was a man who actually cared.

This sophisticated urban individual met Montana farmers and charmed them. Again they recognized that here was a man who instinctively understood their struggle against the weather, and the insects and the hard toil, only to find themselves discriminated against in the marketplace. The children, the welfare mothers, the struggling small businessmen all detected an awareness of their problems and Senator KENNEDY's fierce desire to help them solve these problems.

The same magic was apparent when he spoke in Montana, as elsewhere. When Senator KENNEDY talked about poverty and the need for its elimination in America; when he talked about injustice and the need for more equality in America; when he talked about education and the American dream of equality of opportunity; when he talked about care of the sick and the aged and the disabled, and society's responsibilities toward all these groups, he was talking with a sincerity and a dedication of purpose that established a special rapport with his audience.

Therein lay his appeal to old and young alike, to the sick and the energetic, to the Indian on the reservation and the black mother in the ghetto. He cared about them, as individuals, he convinced them he wanted to do ·something about their plight and then he energetically and efliciently went to work to do just that.

Call it compassion; it was that and more. Call it sympathy; it was that and more. It was not pity; there was never a trace of condescension. The deprived farmer and the reservation Indian and the ghetto mother were his people and his friends. But he gave them a dedication of purpose, a goal, a hope for which

he worked and encouraged others to strive.

So, stricken down at the beginning of his career, a great and humane person, a resourceful politician in all of the good connotations of the term, an able and efficient Senator, but above all an understanding and decent and very human husband and father and brother and man, Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY is dead. But the ideals he stood for-the elimination of injustice; . of love and charity toward all people, hope for a better life for the children of today, a struggle for a world of peace ·and· good will-these ideals did not fall in Los Angeles at the assassin's attack. This martyred man who has left his lasting imprint on a world seeking progress and hope will not have died in vain if in his name we continue to work for the ideals he represented.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I join with Senators in paying tribute to our late friend ROBERT F. KENNEDY.

I first came to know ROBERT KENNEDY when he was a staff member of the Government Operations Committee and particularly of the ·Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I had occasion to observe his work in that capacity and I came to admire his industry, his thoroughness, and his dedication to the job.

In the successful campaign of his distinguished brother, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, I had occasion to talk with BoBBY from time to time as he so skillfully managed his brother's campaign for the Presidency of the United States. When President Kennedy took office, he appointed BoBBY to be Attorney General of the United States. I had occasion frequently to take up matters with him. I found him to be always courteous, straightforward and firm.

Still later, he became a U.S. Senator representing the great State of New York. I think everyone must admit that in that position he showed diligence, intelligence, and perspicacity. He had strong convictions with a persuasive presentation always as he stated his case.

From time to time he appeared before the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency in behalf of better housing for the families of America. He always showed a deep understanding of the problems not only of the urban people but of the rural people. We all must admire his efforts to build a better America in accordance ,with the convictions to which he was dedicated.

As a family man, ROBERT KENNEDY attracted the admiration of people all over the United States. Today we salute Ethel, the wonderful woman who was his companion through the years, and the great family of children that are left behind.

To BoBBY we all pay tribute. Requiescat in pace.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, June 6, 1968, was a tragic day for the family of Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY, for the U.S. Senate, and for the Nation.

A brave and dedicated young man, only 42 years old, was struck down by an assassin, as was his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy.

The horror of this new tragedy overwhelms us and renders words inadequate.

•

•

J

24128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968

<>ur D1lllds rebel at acceptUng the fact that Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY has been robbed of his life by a gunman.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, who cared SO deeply for his Nation and for his fellowman, is gone, and we who served with him in this Chamber are diminished by his loss.

<>ur hearts go out to his wife and children, and to his parents, who have borne so much tragedy.

I feel a deep sense of personal loss, for I knew BOBBY KENNEDY from the time he was a very young man until the hour of his untimely death. I saw him grow, not only as a member of a remarkable family, but as an individual in his own right.

I first met ROBERT F. KENNEDY in 1947, when his older brother, Jack, Unvited me to visit the family compound at Hyannis Port.

I saw him grow from that young man to a Senator, an individual standing in his own right and contributing much to his Nation.

But I can also recall his unselfish labor in behalf of his brother's campaign, the totality of effort, the affirmation and dedication which he brought to the causes in which he believed.

And that made an indelible impression on me, one which I will carry with me.

Perhaps as a contemporary of John F. Kennedy, I was closer in friendship and spirit to BOBBY's older brother, but BoBBY KENNEDY also had great qualities of his own, and the tragedy which has struck him down on the threshhold of what could have been his moment of greatest service is an overpowering one.

The Kennedy famlly has borne so much loss that one wonders how they can bear so much pain. However, to those who know the family and the individuals within it, it is a family that wants to live-and does live-in the forefront of life's battles.

If there has to be a single outstanding characteristic of this famlly it is this: active courage.

BOBBY KENNEDY had this family attribute in full measure. He was ready to make any sacrifice for the causes in which he believed and for his Nation.

A columnist suggested recently that it was impossible for ROBERT F. KENNEDY to ignore a dare.

It was a perceptive observation, for BoBBY KENNEDY was a person who carried within him that urge to compete, that drive to win, wherever or whatever the fray.

That spirit was not one of recklessness, it was one of courage. He had within him the passion to stand up for his beliefs, to act according to his views.

ROBERT KENNEDY was a special kind Of American, a young leader, of great promise. And he will be sorely missed.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, the assassins bullet which struck down our colleague, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, reverberated around the world. It brought great shock and sadness to millions and millions of friends and admirers. His violent and untimely death was a tragedy of international consequence and magnitude.

The horrifying spectacle of public officials being shot down in cold blood in

America staggers the imagination. That this villaUnous and treacherous crime was inflicted upon a young man who had suffered through the assassination of his brother, our former colleague and beloved President, Jack Kennedy, just a few brief years ago heightens the import and gravity of this terrible calamity.

The contributions to public service made by the members of the Joseph P. Kennedy family have been truly remarkable. Three sons have served in this body. <>ne went on to the highest office in the land, the Presidency, and Senator ROBERT KENNEDY was seeking that high office-and had just scored a major primary victory in California--when heinously felled at the senseless hands of an assassin.

I had been privileged to know ROBERT KENNEDY since 1954, when he joined the staff of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee as an assistant counsel. At that time, I was the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. The following year, when I assumed the chairmanship of the subcommittee, I appointed him as chief counsel. He likewise served as chief counsel of the Select CommitJtee on Improper Activities in the Labor and Management Field, of which I was also privileged to be the chairman. The investigations conducted by these committees were extensive, and involved long arduous hours of detailed study and preparation. As chief counsel, he served with marked distinction and ability, and I cannot pay him too high a tribute for the services he rendered to those committees.

Senator KENNEDY was then a young man, but he displayed great courage, drive, and aggressiveness Un conducting. those investigations. Mature beyond his years, he exercised a sense of judgment and discretion that permitted the committees to allow him a great deal of latitude in preparing and handling the complex and controversial inquiries we undertook.

He resigned in 1959 to put his extraordinary organizational talents and ability to work for the successful election of his brother to the Presidency. Later, in his capacity as Attorney General, I again had occasions to work with him on many matters, and, of course, this relationship continued when he became a Member of the Senate and served with me on the Committee on Government ()perations.

The Senate, America, and indeed the world have felt and will continue to feel the loss of ROBERT F. KENNEDY. His zest for life, his concern for his fellow man, and his dedication to ideals were always present. While some of us may have disagreed with him on occasion, yet his advocacy, his articulation, and his dedication to causes he sincerely believed served to remind all Americans of the diversity and elasticity of our system of government.

Senator KENNEDY served America with courage, conviction, honor, and dignity. I shall always cherish and hold dear our friendship. It was a great privilege to have been associated with him in theperformance of our respective public trusts and responsibllities.

Mrs. McClellan joins me in extending

to his wife, Ethel, and the entire Kennedy family our he~rtfelt sympathy.

Mr. NELSC>N. Mr. President, ROBERT F. KENNEDY was, as we all know, an extraordinary young man. In the com,.. paratively short lifetime which he experienced, he had a substantial career as a staff member on a U.S. Senate committee; he was a highly successful campaign manager for his brother's presidential campaign, during which he showed many more experienced politicians that he could teach them a great deal about their specialty; he was an active and aggressive Attorney General, at a time when many difficult and controversial actions and decisions had to be carried out; he was a distingu15hed and creative U.S. Senator; and he was an electrifying and exciting candidate for President of the United States when he was struck down on the night of his most significant political victory. He also was a devoted husband and father, the head of a truly exceptional family of his own.

As was the case with his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy, the tragic circumstances of his sudden death served to make us fully aware of what an exceptional, almost unique young man we had among us.

The aspect of the life of BoBBY KENNEDY which strikes me as most signifi-· cant was his remarkable appeal to young people. I think this tells us much about BOBBY KENNEDY-and also much about the young people of America and the world.

This is a time when many Americans are deeply concerned about our young people. They are sometimes described as the turned-off, dropout generation-ir-· responsi'ble, aimless, spoiled by affluence. They are pictured as living only for the selfish pleasures of the moment, and of having no regard for the future. · Yet they adored BOBBY KENNEDY. We· will never . forget those news pictures of young people running alongside his car, throwing out their hands, trying to clutch him or at least touch him.

I suspect that the reason for this remarkable reaction was that RoBERT KENNEDY reached these young people in such a way as to reveal their real nature. While they may have appeared to be aimless and turned off, they were fired up with enthusiasm for the new and better world of the future as portrayed by Senator KENNEDY.

Why? With all the effort being made these days to reach and excite the youth ~the Nation, why was ROBERT KENNEDY' so successful where many others have failed?

Certainly his own comparative youth was an advantage-but young people today have rejected many others younger than he.

I think he reached these young people because he personified something they felt within themselves.

He decried the shortcomings in our society-poverty, ignorance, and war. He expressed high hopes for the future, and lofty goals. And he conveyed the impression of having the grit and the guts and skill and know-how to achieve these goals. · I· th~k that is what caught the imagination of our young people. Here was a :

July 30, 1968 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24129 '

man who really wanted desperat~ly to . do somethfug for this country and for . the world, a man who really h&d a chance of doing what he hoped to d~. :

Politicians are traditionally noted for their soothing touch-for their ability to smooth over all differences and satisfY everyone. RoBERT KENNEDY seemed quite different. He was blunt, impatient, abrasive even-but to young America he came across as real, genuine, believable, and believed.

This was a great gift. It will be sorely mis8ed. And in understanding it I think we learn much a'bout ROBERT KENNEDY, and possibly even more about ourselves, and about the young people of this land about whom we profess to be so concerned.

In ROBERT KENNEDY, the Nation has lost one of its great leaders, one of its most eloquent spokesmen for peace, goodness and integrity in American life.

He addressed himself to the problems of America with that kind of courage and commitment necessary to make the American dream a reality for all our people.

We must all join now as a unified people to pursue the goals he sought, knowing the task will be the more difficult without his helping hand.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I speak today to honor not merely an able colleague, but also a true friend whose counsel, inspiration, and example aresorely missed. I had the privilege of knowing and working with RoBERT F. KENNEDY for many years. In fact, our association went back to our days in law school, when we were classmates together. Now, as a result of a senseless act, a part of the canvas of his life, perhaps the potentially most important part, ls left unfinished. This tragedy deeply affects us all. My own personal sense of loss is great-not really measurable. The country's loss is immense.

While we have gathered today to pay tribute to a man of extraordinary ability and purpose, let us not forget his commitment and his example. In the wake of his brutal death, many voices have been raised in alarm over the fate of this country and the supposedly stained character Of our people. ROBERT F. KENNEDY· did not share these fears, and it is wrong to use his slaying as a justification for them. Senator KENNEDY had a depth of concern for the problems and shortcomings of this country that few men in public life have exhibited. But this concern was never fear. His whole life was guided by a deep faith in the fundamental decency of this American people. Show them the need, he believed, and they will respond with compassion and dispatch.

We must not betray this faith by needless doubts. Each of us has a duty to perform and a contribution to make. ROBERT F. KENNEDY has shown US hOW much one man can do. When we remember him, let us always remember that. And let us also remember the words of the poet who said: I think continually of those who were truly

great-The names of those who in their lives fought

for life, CXIV--152Q-Part 18

Who wore at their hearts the -ftre's center. lforn of the sun they tra veiled a short while :

. towards the sun. _ And left the vivid air signed with their,

honors.

Mr. -BIBLE. Mr. President, the unhappy climate of violence in America has claimed a mounting toll of victims in the past few years. Repeatedly, the lives of innocent, law-abiding citizens · have been extinguished by senseless outbreaks of savagery.

If the crisis was dramatized by the assassination of President Kennedy in · 1963-an act of unspeakable horror that shocked all men of decency-then surely it arrived at its apex less than 5 years later when the President's younger brother joined him in a martyr's death.

In life, these vital young men were symbols of all that is right within our society. They lighted the lamps of creativity in government and ignited the spirits of millions who saw in them an uncommon measure of excellence.

In dea.th, they remind us of the imperfection of our society-the compelling . need to seek permanent solutions to the growing peril of violence in America.

If we would build a suitable and lasting memorial to John F. Kennedy and ROBERT KENNEDY, then let US build it not from blocks of granite, but in the hearts of men. Let us devote our energies to the final realization of that perfect society envisaged by the founding fathers. Let us destroy the seeds of racism that produce hatred and intolerance. Let us provide hope and opportunity to those who are mired in poverty.

Above all, let us reaffirm our belief in the supremacy of law by restoring tranquility to the streets of our cities. We cannot be ruled by the torch and the rifte. We cannot tolerate lawlessness if we are to hold any hope for our future.

Mr. President, today we pay solemn tribute to a distinguished colleague who spent the greater share of his life in service to his Nation in the highest tradition of a great American family.

ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY was a great American. He embodied the finest of human virtues. He had the pioneer's vision, the philosopher's intellect and the craftsman's eye for perfection. He was a practical man who measured success by the hard standard of achieve-. ment, but he was also an idealist. He possessed an unshakable faith in the decency of mankind. He was the kind of man who searched for beauty when confronted with ugliness.

He was a man of great warmth and compassion whose personal magnetism struck a responsive chord in the hearts of millions.

We knew him as lawmaker of consummate ability and dedication. His family knew him as a living husband and devoted father. The Nation knew him as a dynamic leader.

He freely shared his many gifts with the people of America. Ultimately, he gave everything-his imagination, his vitality, his extraordinary wit, his compassion, his strength, and finally, his life.

We shall not soon see another like him in the Senate of the United States. We shall not soon see another like him in America.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, ROBERT KENNEDY- brought to the Airierican political · scene a vitality of concern, expression, and movement that will long be remembered.

Young people in particular were attracted by the genuineness of his empathy with their concerns, and the exuberance with which they responded to his appeal was stirring to behold. There can be no finet memorial for ROBERT KENNEDY, it seems to me, than the continuing involvement of those he inspired in the great tasks of social and economic reconstruction that lie before us.

ROBERT KENNEDY LIVED NOBLY

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the philosopher Seneca said:

It is within the reach of every man to live nobly, but within no man's power to live long.

This is so true. It was a truth understood by our former colleague, ROBERT KENNEDY. He did not live long; but he lived nobly. Gone from this Chamber and this land is a man with whom we worked. And he is not forgotten.

ROBERT KENNEDY was a wealthy man. Yet he felt and shared intensely-he understood as few public servants do-' the wants and frustrations of the pooi and needy people of our Nation--eitizens who have been turned aside, often neglected, and severely ignored. RoBERT KENNEDY, a man of courage, hit the line hard as he labored in uplifting the lives of these millions. For him, there was no more noble a cause.

RoBERT KENNEDY lived with an intensity and a drive devoid in most men. For this, he was misunderstood. He was impatient. He believed that patience in our time of crisis is a luxury we could not afford. He was a crusader.

As I stated in this body on June 6, there are many people who stressed the impulsiveness of ROBERT KENNEDY, and stressed the element of apparent hurry which characterized his movements in speech and in walk and in approaeh to life itself. But this impulsiveness-which is not bad in itself-was overshadowed by the probing for answers and the perseverance to achieve results.

The headlines of Senate debate, his visits to Appalachia, to the Mississippi Delta, and the Watts area do not actually convey to me his sense of compassion. No, Mr. President, I knew his true yearnings and his humanity from our sessions on the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. He selected this assignment. I am grateful for the experience of having served with him there. He was con.: stantly questioning to determine how we can and must do better.

We remember the anguished cry on that Wednesday, June 5, 1968-"Why, why, why?" We remember those terrible moments, hours, and days to the burial when a valiant American rested in Arlington. It is important now that we remember and carry forward the spirit Which moved ROBERT KENNEDY, It iS important too that we confront foursquare the unfinished business of our Nation and "dream of things that never were and ask. 'Why not?' "

Let us not build monuments of stone

24130" CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968

or name plazas of grand design. He would ·be honored, but he would-not wish this type of remembrance. Rather, let us-as he often quoted in the words of · Abraham Lincoln-"think -anew and act anew" and "disenthrall ourselves." He would wish us to so measure our commitment.

Thomas Wolfe said: To every man his chance-to every man

the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever his manhood and vision can combine to make him. This, seeker, is the promise of America.

ROBERT KENNEDY was dedicated to the fulfillment of this promise for all Americans. We would do well to rededicate ourselves to the cause he so nobly advanced.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, as the world knows, the late RoBERT F. KENNEDY was a man who, in a sense, "overcame" the lure of personal wealth to toil in the service of his country.

As a Senate staff member; as Attorney General and adviser to his brother, the late President Kennedy; as a Senator; and finally as a candidate for the highest position of public trust his people COUld offer, ROBERT -KENNEDY Was intensely dedicated to creating a new and brighter day for America.

Like other Senators, I occasionally dissented from his approach, but I never for a moment questioned his devotion. His deeds and ideals were an enrichment of our national spirit, and we can only mourn, as we did for John Kennedy 5 years ago, that the full promise of ROBERT KENNEDY was never allowed to unfold. In our mourning, we should weep more for ourselves, for it is those of us left behind who are the poorer.

Tragic events of this sort inspire the children in a family to seek to fulfill some of the purposes their father had in mind. I would anticipate that we will see members of the next generation of the Kennedy family in this body and in other positions of governmental trust and responsibility. Such events tend to produce people dedicated to carrying forward the ideals and purposes of their lost ones.

So I look forward to the day when the Senate of the United States will welcome to this body a son of RoBERT F. KENNEDY. Many of us will not be here to see it, but it will be an inspiring moment for the Nation.

For those of us here today, the proper course · is to remember a statement closely identified with ROBERT F. KENNEDY-"! dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?' "-and to summon the daring needed for the great task before us of building the kind of America that he sought.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I join other Members of the Senate in expressing my sorrow over the death of ROBERT KENNEDY.

The Kennedy brothers brought a new image, a lightness of heart, and a firmness of purpose to American political and social life. From that cold January day _ 8 years ago until now, their ootive, dynamic personalities have contributed greatly. ROBERT KENNEDY served his

brother loyally and excellently as Attorney General of the United States. He was not only the President's right-hand man, chief adviser, and closest confidant; he was, by all reports, the best Attorney General the Nation has had in years.

He served the people of New York effectively as their Senator for 2% years, and his tragic death has deprived his constituency of a great voice in the Senate. -

He was a devoted father, husband, and brother, an effective politician, and a good man. But he was more than that. To a whole generation of young Americans, he was the personification of hope for the future. His death has filled the hearts of many young people with despair and hopelessness. Those young will recover from his loss; just as our Nation survived the loss of Lincoln J.nd Roosevelt and John Kennedy. But their lives will be marked by the remembrance of that devotion to what he was and what he stood for. Perhaps their contribution to the country will increase by nurturing the memory of what he meant to them. If so, he will have served his Nation more effectively than many men who live to twice his age, or some officeholders who serve many years longer than his brief tenure here.

ROBERT KENNEDY, like his brother the late President, was a controversial figure. Men of unusual gifts and unusual purpose always are. Some officeholders are loved by all, but their contributions are usually slight. KENNEDY' proposed what appeared to some to be radical departures from the norm, from the acceptable, and from the middle of the road. He therefore aroused the wrath of those whose estates would be disturbed. He also aroused the affection and the devoted following of millions of Americans who voted for him in the presidential primaries, and millions of New Yorkers who sent him to the Senate.

We who remain here to do the work of this Government are more beholden to do our task well and serve ,Jur people faithfully because his voice is still. We must not fail to do our duty, as we see it, as effectively as possible, just as he was doing his as he saw it until the moment his life ended.

I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his wife and children, his family, and his brother EDWARD, who have borne more sadness in their lives than any other American family I have ever known.

KENNEDY UNDERSTOOD YOUTH

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, ROBERT KENNEDY understood youth. He wrote that youth is not a time in life but instead a state of mind, a temper of the will, and a quality of the imagination.

The death, of Senator KENNEDY has left the entire Nation feeling very old. We can no longer rely upon this man's personal energy to restore our own will and to rekindle our own imagination; we can make our selves young again only by remembering his words and by dedicating ourselves to his principles.

But we who would dare to lead in his place have no other choice. Troubled times have always separated the old from the young, and the challenge to seek a newer world can be met ~nly by

the strength .of our youth. RoBERT KEN- . NEDY understood the challenge and made it his continuing inspiration, · and the youth of the world understood and were insplred by him in ttlt'n.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, RoBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY, as his brother said 2 months ago at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, "loved life completely and lived it intensely." His love of life, his great efforts to better himself and to better the world, make it even more difficult to accept the fact of his murder in June in Los Angt:les. At the time of his death, Senator ROBERT KENNEDY had just won a great victory in his pursuit of the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. It has been said that he knew he was playing Russian roulette as his day began each morning. He had endured the assassination of his brother, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He knew it could happen to him, too, yet something drove him forward and into the crowds that reached out to touch him. He responded to the smiling faces and waving hands, knowing all the time that one of those smiles could be a cynical smile, and that one of those hands might be wielding a gun. He did not withdraw from the people whose political support he sought.

ROBERT KENNEDY died a young man, a man of great promise. He had come to Washington from law school to work for the Department of Justice and later for the Senate Committee on Government Operation, on the staff of its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In his family's tradition, he pursued excellence and was never satisfied with his successes; he pushed himself hard. From 1953 to 1957, he served as assistant co'lmsel, chief counsel to the minority, and then chief majority counsel and staff director. When corruption in some labor unions was exposed by the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management, the young chief counsel for the committee gained national recognition.

He organized his brother's successful Presidential campaign in 1960 and later joined the Kennedy administration as Attorney General. In that position he effectively dealt with many timely and difficult problems in American life. His experience as chief law-enforcement officer of the land brought him face-toface with problems of civil rights, poverty, oppression, and deprivation that helped form the humanitarian philosophy that was his at death.

After the 1963 assassination of his brother, ROBERT KENNEDY campaigned for, and won, the office of U.S. Senator from the State of New York. He was with us in the Senate less than 4. years, and yet he was one of the best known of Senators. He was ever anxious to set forth his views on the difficult and controversial questions of our time. He was known for detailed and straightforward accounts of his views.

It was so hard to accept his death. We had been through it all before. We had watched him grieve four and a half years ago. We had admired his strength, his devotion to his dead brother's children his comfort to the widow. Then th~ nightmare came again. Another widow;

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24131 another Kennedy brother, the last one, comforting her. Then was laid to his final rest, our colleague, Senator RoBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY.

ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY believed in this country and its instit:utions. He so truly believed in its greatness and fn the strength of its people that he thought all the tremendous problems that face us today could be overcome. He believed· men could be brothers, that peace could be brought to the world, that the lot of the · poor could be improved. He believed the change could come through the people, through the constitutional processes of out representative system of popular government. We share that faith of his as we mourn his loss.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, our Nation has passed too many days of grief tn recent time, which like black ominous clouds have descended over men of good will everywhere in our land. Yet we must try to pick up the pieces and carry on our business, which must go on, although our deep and foreboding sense of loss will not be dissipated.

Mr. President, on that black day in June, we lost one of our own; we lost a colleague of unusual ability and extraordinary perception; a most uncommon Senator and American; a man in whom the elements were truly mixed. Our sense of loss was, and remains, great. The Senate of the United States is not the same without the junior Senator from New York, and our body politic is not the same, and may never be.

1 We in this body miss his quiet wit, his perceptive mind, and his genuine concern with the problems of America. But ours, of course, is not the only loss. We have lost a friend, a colleague, a fellow legislator, but our loss will never match the unspeakable tragedy which must be borne silently by the Kennedy family.

•. The great American family which has contributed an unmatched heritage of service to this land of ours, a family that has given our Nation a President, a wartime hero, an Ambassador, and two U.S. Senators. The grief of that family must certainly be without parallel in Amei:ican history. It is tinspeakably'outrageous that two great American men, men who were in the prime of their lives and whose service to the Natoin was in midcourse, have been brutally murdered. It is outrageous that the wives were suddenly widowed and that their children have only the memories of a father, and that for them in a very personal sense, life will never again be as rich. · But, Mr. President, may I suggest that the American people, too, have sutiered an immeasurable loss. They have lost a great and courageous natiomil leader. Perhaps most important, they have lost the man who embodied our Nation's struggle, with ignorance, intolerance, injustice, and deprivation. They have lost a man who was vitally committed to guaranteeing to all Americans the great ideal on which this Nation was founded. They have lost a man who was concerned with meeting the plight of the poor and the ignorant and the disadvantaged. A man who was alarmed that 1n a nation of unprecedented prosperity and economic growth, men, women, and

children are still hungry, homeless, job-. less. They have lost a man who was outraged by the prejudice and injustice which befalls our fellow Americans simply because their skin happens to be black. And they have lost a leader who had a vision of American cities as exciting, cosmopolitan, amenable places in which all could live in decency, prosperity, and justice. In short, Mr. President, our Nation has lost a man who had a vision of a better future and the political and moral courage to fight for a better America.

And let us not forget too that the loss of Senator Kennedy is particularly keenly felt by America's young. Those men and women who will assume the burden of leading our Nation tomorrow. Senator KENNEDY did offer a new voice. To many, he was the hope of a better future. Mr. President, although Senator KENNEDY is gone, his memory, and his · aspirations for America will live on in this Chamber. He was a good man and a great American and we would all do well to seek to pick up the burden for the future which he carried so gracefully. May God let him rest in peace.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, all eulogies, including those which were expressed shortly after the tragic event, will be printed separately at the appropriate time.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17522) making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes: agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. ROONEY of New York, Mr. SIKES, Mr. SLACK, Mr. SMITH of Iowa, Mr. FLYNT, Mr. JOELSON, Mr. MAHON, Mr. Bow, Mr. LIPSCOMB, Mr. CEDERBERG, and M'r. ,t\NDREWS of North Dakota were appointed managers on the part of the House· at the conference. · ·

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following letters, whicll were referred. as .indicated: ·

REPORTS CYr THE CoMPTROLLER GENERAL A letter from the Comptroller General of

the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a. report of b. review of reliability of the Air Force personnel data system, dated July 25, 1968 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations.

A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, tra~tting, pursuant to law, a. report of an audit of the Federal Savings and Loan· Insurance Corporation, supervised by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board for the year ended December 31, 1966, dated July 26, 1966 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations. REPORT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC

PRESERVATION A letter from the Chairman, Advisory

Council on- Historic Preservation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report on the activities of the Council dated 196'7-68 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

PETITION

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of California, which was referred to the Committee on Appro-priations, as follows: ·

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8 RELATIVE TO WILDLIFE HABU'AT RESEARCH

WHEREAS, California's population is placing unprecedented demands upon the publicly owned wildlands of this state for wildlife-associated recreation; and

WHWAS, Efforts to increase wildlife in such lands can succeed with the support of adequate wildlife habitat research; and . WHEREAS, The United States Forest Service, at its Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, is resel!rching problems confronting California, including control burni~g; aJ;J,d

WHEREAS, The current funding of wildlife investigations at the aforementioned station is inadequate to meet the national interest in the public lands of this state; and

WHEREAS, There is need, furthermore, that wildlife habitat research, including the control burning program, and findings emanating from the various state agencies within the several western states be made available; now, therefore, be it ·

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legi·slature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the President and the Congress of the United States to increase the funds available to the United States Forest Service for the enhancement of wildlife habitat and control burning research by the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, and for the establishment in the western United States of a Wildlife Habitat Information Coordinator to assist in the above described functions; and be it further '

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Secretary of Agriculture, to the Chief of the United States Forest Service, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United states. ·

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were ·submitted: By Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Ap_

propriations, 'with amendments: H.R. 18037. An · act making appropriations

for the Departments of Labor, and Health,

24132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the fiscal year· ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes (Rept~ No. 1484}.

By Mr. BREWSTER, from the Committee on Commerce, without amendment:

H.R. 18254. An act to amend further section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (Rept. No. 1485).

By Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments:

H.R. 18706. An act making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending June 30, i969, and for other purposes ,(Rept. No. 1487).

Compact, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and others to cooperate with the planning agency thereby. created, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

By Mr. HARTKE: S. 3947. A bill to assist the balance of

trade and promote the export of products, services, and processes of small business enterprises by providing tax incentives for the formation of small business export trade corporations; to the Committee on Finance.

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

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPRO-PRIATION BILL, 1969-REPORT OF S. 3946-INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO A COMMITTEE-MINORITY VIEWS GRANT THE CONSENT OF THE (S. REPT. NO. 1486) CONGRESS TO THE TAHOE RE

GIONAL PL~NING COMPACT Mr. BmLE. Mr. President, from the

Committee on Appropriations, I report favorably, with amendments, the bill (H.R. 18785) making appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, and I submit a report thereon. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed, together with· minorlty views of Senators MANSFIELD, CASE, PROXMIRE, and SYMINGTON.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be received and the bill will be placed on the calendar; and, without objection, the report will be printed, as requested by· the Senator from Nevada ..

REPORT ON DISPOSITION . OF EXECUTIVE PAPERS

Mr. MONRONEY, from the Joint Committee on the Disposition of Papers in the Executive Departments, to which was referred for examination and recommendation a list of records transmitted to the Senate, dated July 23, 1968, that appear to have no permanent value or historical interest, submitted a report thereon,pursuanttolaw.

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first

time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. HART (for Mr. KENNEDY) : S. 3939.· A bill · for the relief of Usha Kul

karni; s. 3940. A bill for the relief of Li Chik

Sang; s. 3941. A bill for the relief of Ilidia da

Ponte Sousa Pomreiro; s. 3942. A bill for the relief of Pierre-Mi-

chael Fontaine; and · s. 3943. A bill for the relief of Pacita D.

Azucena; to the Oommittee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BREWSTER:

S. 3944. A bill for the relief of Lam Yuen, Ylm Wan Tlng, and La Sin Po; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr: MAGNUSON (by request) : s. 3945. A bill to authorize the documen

tation of the vessel West Wind as a· vessel of the United States with coastwise privileges; to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. BIBLE (for himself, Mr. CANNON, Mr. KUCHEL, and Mr. MURPHY):

S. 3946. A bill to grant the consent of the . Congress to the Tahoe Regional Planning

Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleagues from both California and Nevada, Senator CANNON, Senator KUCHEL, and Senator MURPHY, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to grant the consent and approval of Congress to the States of Nevada and California to enter into a compact for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction over the planning and control of future development of what to me is the most beautiful place in the world-the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The compact already agreed to by both ·the States of California and Nevada has for its purpose the establishment of an areawide planning agency with power to adopt and enforce a regional plan of resource conservation and orderly development, to exercise effective environmental control, and to perform other essential functions for this five-county region in the two States.

It has been found that the waters of Lake Tahoe and other resources of the Lake Tahoe region are threatened with deterioration or degeneration, which 'may endanger the natural beauty and economic productivity of the region.

It has further been found that by virtue of the special conditions and circumstances of the natural ecology, developmental pattern, population distribution and human needs in the Lake Tahoe region, the region .is experiencing problems of resource use and deficiencies of environmental control.

The compact, hammered out by representatives of both States after many months of negotiation should go a long ways to preserve for posterity an area well known as the prize scenic jewel of western America.

I urge early committee consideration of the proposal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.

The bill (S. 3946) to grant the consent of the Congress to the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and others to cooperate with the planning agency thereby created, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. BIBLE, for himself and other Senators, was received, read twice by its . title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary .

S. 3947-:;--INTRODUCTION OF BILLSMALL BUSINESS EXPORT TRADE CORPORATION ACT Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, today I

introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to encourage and promote the export of products, services, and processes of American small business enterprises, through the establishment of a particularized new type of corporation devised for that purpose. During the rather lengthy time in ·which this bill has been perfected for its greater effectiveness, word of it has been reported rather extensively in both the regular press, such as the New York Times, and in business specialty magazines having particular interest in export problems.

One of the great untapped resources of this country is the export potential of the 250,000 American manufacturers, most of them in the small business category, who have no export objectives or programs for developing overseas markets. Today, when our Nation is in the throes of a balance-of-payments crisis which threatens the very structure of our ·domestic economy and our position as the dominant nation in international trade, new and novel approaches are required by our Government to insure our international trade position and our internal and international economic stability.

Our international trade surplus has traditionally been the strongest element in our overall balance of payments. This trade surplus has helped to offset outflows for travel and military investment activities. But today this favorable trade .surplus is deteriorating and is itself threatened with extinction. For example, in March of this year, for the first ·time in 5 years, our imports exceeded our exports by $157.7 million. While we recovered in April to a $248 million surplus, we again showed a trade deficit for the month of May in the amount of $32.2 million.

On an annualized basis, our trade surplus for the first 5 months of the year is less than a billion dollar&--$972 million to be exact. For the last 8 years, 1960 through 1967 inclusive, our lowest trade surplus was just under $3.5 bfiiion-in the year 1967-and the average trade surplus for that period was $4.785 billion. It therefore requires no special insight to obserVe that our favorable trade balance, once able to offset and bail out our other dollar outflows, is in jeopardy and requires bailing out itself.

The bill which I introduce today may not reverse completely the deterioration of this Nation's vital trade surplus; but, at the least, I am confident that its effect will be salutary and constitute and important and substantial contribution toward this end.

The proposed small business export trade corporations bill, which has already been widely noted in the business press, will provide essential but limited tax incentives to those who would promote and develop foreign markets in behalf of small pusinesses. Under past. and present administrations, proposals ·for export expansion have, in a practical sense, almost comiJletely ignored the vast

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 24133 potential offered by the :products and know-how of small business. The t.hinking of the policymakers has· always been big business oriented.

Two hundred and fifty thousand American manufacturers have no export objectives or programs for developing overseas markets for their products or knowhow. If just 10 percent of them-25,000-were to launch an effort that would create an average annualinfiow of $100,-000 each, a major contribution-$2.5 billion-in our balance of payments would be realized.

Today there are two methods by which a manufacturer can effectively participate in overseas trade: First, he can set up his own export department-a difficult and expensive proposition and one which few if any small business enterprises are prepared to undertake. The second alternative is to turn to a combination export management firm which undertakes the responsibilities of promotion and selling of the American manufacturer's produc·t in foreign markets.

A combination export management firm is an international sales specialist functioning as an exclusive export department for several allied but noncompeting manufacturers. The average combination export management firmCEM-while involved in a highly specialized and technical area where knowledge of foreign economies, financing, customs, and methods of doing business is of vital importance, is for the most part a oneto five-man operation or shop and only about 20 of the 500 CEM's in the United States today employ more than 20 persons. The need for the legislation that I propose today can best be demonstrated in the fact that there are only 5,000 U.S. manufacturers that are serviced by CEM's or an average of 10 manufacturers per CEM. The 500 U.S. CEM's generate an annual volume of about $500 million or approximately 4 percent of all U.S. exports. If 5,000 U.S. manufacturers can contribute this sum to our national export trade, the untapped potential of 250,000 U.S. manufacturers who do not now export represents a potential market for export trade that well merits our efforts and ingenuity to exploit.

Moreover, and possibly more signiflcant, the real potential of American small business in overseas markets may not lie merely in the physical export by American manufacturers of American manufactured products. A more meaningful contribution may lie in the transfer of American know-how-the processes, the technology, and the intangibles which in great measure underlie the success and the real sustenance of American business and industrial life. In exchange for this know-how, this technology, American business and industry would receive royalties, fees, or equities from and in foreign business enterprises. The impact on the credit side of the U.S. trade and balance-of-payments ledger could be, and I feel would be, tremendous. The 500 CEM's that we presently have are just not equipped to tackle or undertake the exploitation of this potential for exports-products, services, and technology-under present incentives. These 500 CEM's, while for the most part very sue-

cessful, deal prilriarily in product exports for manufac'turers whose produpts are firmly established in foreign markets. Incentive is needed to attract new entrants to the field of export management to do the job that can and needs to be done. The limited tax incentives of my proposed bill will provide this incentive.

In developing this legislation, I have had the help and cooperation of Mr. Eugene M. Lang, president of Resources & Facilities Corp., of New York City. The genesis of this legislation is founded in Mr. Lang's more than 15 years' experience in helping small American manufacturers establish permanent incomeproducing positions abroad. Mr. Lang has built Resources & Facilities Corp. into a $6 million-a-year business by capitalizing on the premise contained in this legislation. His experience, however, is the exception and not the rule. And it is because of this that I have been prompted to propose this legislation.

What the legislation would provide: Under this legislation the Small Business Administration--SBA-would be authorized to issue certificates of eligibility to corporations organized under State law for the primary purpose of representing and promoting interests in foreign markets of U.S. small business enterprises. The requirements for certification under the bill are: First, that the corporation have a paid-in capital and surplus equal to at least $100,000; second, that no more than 20 percent of the corporation would be owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by any .client manufacturer; and, third, the corporation must have contracts with at least five U.S. manufacturers for the promotion and development in foreign markets of their product lines. These contracts are defined in the legislation and are designated export trade contracts. When these conditions are met, the SBA is authorized to issue a certificate of eligibility to the corporation as a small business export trade corporation--SBETC.

Tax incentives: Upon certiflcation by the Small Business Administration as a Small Business Export Trade Corporation, the following tax incentives would be applicable:

First. Losses on sale or exchanges of stock of a certified Small Business Export Trade Corporation would be treated as ordinary losses. Gains on sale or exchange of such stock would continue to get capital gains treatment.

Second. The equivalent of a 14-percent tax rate reduction would be afforded Small Business Trade Corporations up to an income ceiling of $250,000; however, income earned from performance of export trade contracts with GATT countries would not be eligible for this special tax deduction, and income earned in GATT countries by SBETC's would continue to be taxed at ordinary corporate rates. In addition to the income ceiling of $250,000, the bill would not permit the 14-percent tax rate reduction to an SBETC if, for the present taxable year or either of the two preceding taxable years, 50 percent or more of the gross income of the Small Business Export Trade Corporation is attributable to the performance of a single export trade

cont~:act or to the performance of two or more export trade contracts entered into with the same person.

Third. A deferral of up to $50,000 of the tax consequences of an equity acquired in a foreign business, incident to the performance of an export trade contract, is permitted _when the equity is acquired in exchange for patent rights, processes, formulas, franchises or other like property. The bill provides that at the · time the equity is disposed of, the proceeds will be treated as ordinary income. By this provision deferral is afforded to 'both the SBETC and the small business manufacturer with whom it has the export trade contract.

Fourth. A deferral of items of income which are blocked by repatriation laws of a foreign country is permitted until such time as the income can be, or is permitted to be, repatriated. By this provision deferral is afforded to both the SBETC and the small business manufacturer with whom it has the export trade contract but no deferral is permitted to items of income derived from the sale of exported products.

Fifth. A fast write off of up to $50,000 in bad debts per export trade contract is permitted to an SBETC.

Sixth. Certified SBETC's are exempted from the personal holding company provisions of the Internal Revenue Code unless a shareholder of the SBETC owns, directly or indirectly, 10 percent or more of the outstanding stock of a corporation for which the certified SBETC is performing an export trade contract.

Seventh. Certified SBETC's are exempted from the controlled foreign corporation provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, unless during the taxable year a shareholder owning more than 20 percent of the certifled SBETC also ·owns 10 percent or more of the stock of a corporation with which the SBETC has an export trade contract.

Finally, the biil would be coordinated with existing programs and services of the Department of Commerce to foster and further the promotion of export trade of American small business enterprises.

The Small Business Export Trade Corporation bill fills a void that too long has existed in the philosophy and policies that have marked the programs of this and past administrations. The bill will provide the impetus by which small business-one of the great but oftneglected assets of this Nation-play their proper role in U.S. international trade. In addition, a meaningful contribution for the restoration of our trade surplus can be achieved.

Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the proposed bill be printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill Will be printed in the RECORD.

The bill (S. 3947) to assist the balance of trade and promote the export of products, services, and processes of small business enterprises by providing tax incentives for the formation of small business export trade corporations, introduced by Mr. HARTKE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Com-

24134 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-~ SENATE July 30, 19B8 mittee on Finance, apd ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

s. 3947 Be it enacted ,by tne Senate an4 H.ouse

of Representatives of the Unit.ed States of America in Congress assembled, That (a)

, this Act may be cited as .the "Small Business Export Trade Corporation Act".

(b) It is declared to be the policy of tbe Congress and the purpose of this Act to encourage and assist in the development ·and expansion of foreign trade opportunities for United States smaU business enterprises, and thereby ·to c<>ntribute to a favorable 'balanceof-trade position, by establishing a program to stimulate the 9rganization of .small business export trade corporations designed to represent and promote the interests in foreign markets of groups of United States -small business enterprises having ·the products, services, or .know-how suitable for sale or marketing abroad, but lacking the !.acUities, experienee, or inducement to enter or remain in the foreign market 1ield acting alone. TITLE I-CERTIFICATION OF SMALL

BUSINESS EXPORT TRADE CORPORATIONS ISSUANCE OF ·CERTIFZCA'TES OF ELIGIBILITY

SEc. 101. (a) The Small Business Adminis-tration (heree.fter in this title referred to as the "Administration") is authorized and directed to issue a certificate of eligibility for benefits under thls Act to each small buslness export trade corporation whose application therefor is approved by the Administration under subsection (b).

(b) The Administration shall appr.ove an application .for a certificate of eligibility under this -secti'On if the Administration determines that-

( 1) the applicant is a corporation which is organized and chartered under State law primarlly for the purpose of representing and promoting the interests in foreign markets of United StateR ·small business enterprises;

('2) the articles of Incorporation of the applicant specify in genera·! terms the object for which the app1icant is formed, the name assumed by the applicant, the foreign area or areas in which its operations are to be .carried on, the place where its prinCipal offi.ce is to be located, and the amount and classes of its -shares -of -capital stock;

(3) the applicant has a paid-in capital and aurplUs<equal to -at least '$100,000;

(4) not more tn·an 20 percent -of the aggregate -amount of the c~pital stock of thtl applicant is owned or controlled, directly or indir-ectly, by any -small business enterprise with w,hich the applicant has entered into .an outstanding contract or ag.~eement descl'ibed in paragraph ( 5) ;

( 5) the .applicant is authorized, under contracts or agreements enter.ed into between the applicant and :at least five United States small business enterprises~ -to perform one or more Qf the following: (A) purchase specified categories of products, merchandise .. or .commodities manufactured, assembled, produced, or distributed by such enterprises and .act as a principal in -all matters relating -to the sale, offer for sale, or distribution for sale in foreign markets of such products, merchandise, or commodities, {B) act in matters relating to the sale or offer for sale in foreign markets of specified kinds of services established or organized by such enterprises, and (C) act in matters relating to the negotiation and administration of licensing and marketing agreements concerning the use in foreign markets of the know-how of such enterprises;

(6) the application is in such form and manner as the Administration shall have prescribed; and

(7) . the applicant agrees to malte such reports as may be required by the Administration in order 'to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(c) Each corporation to which a certificate of eligibility is issued under this section shall. unless such certificate is terminated under section 102, qualify as a small business export trade corporation for purposes of ch.apter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

TERMINATION 'OF CERTIFICATES OF ELIGIBILITY

SEc. 102. The Administration shall terminate a certificate of eltgib111ty issued to any small business expor.t trade corporation under this Act whenever the Administration determines, after an opportunity !or hearing, · that the .corporation to which such certificate was issued has ceased to be in compliance, after due notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct any failure to ·comply, with any of the requirements set forth in section Wl.

COORDINATION 'WITH OTHER PROGRAMS

SEc. 103. In furtherance of 'the policy and purpose of 'this Act--

·(1) -the 'Secretary 'Of Commerce, in consultation and cooperation with the Administration, shall make maximum use of existing programs and services provided by the Department of Commerce, it.s field offi.ces in the United States, .and commerci.al attaches abroad, ln order to make available such information and assistance as he determines will be most helpful f<Or the encouragement of the .organization of smaH business .export trade oorpor.ations and the promoti'On of their activities; and

(2) the Administration -shall undertake, in consultation and -cooperation with the Secretary of Commer.ce, the Secretary of State, and the head of Q.ny other 1nterested depa.rtment or agency of the Government, to publicize and dissemina.te to United States export concerns, commercial associations, manufacturers, and businesses information 'with regard 1J9 the facilities, services, and prqgrams available through departments and agencies of the Government which would be helpful in organizing .and promoting the activities of small business export trade corpora-tions, with particular emphasis on information with regard 'to the program established under this Act and the pt:einvestment survey program and investment guaranties program established. under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. TITLE II-AMENDMENTS 'TO INTERNAL

REVENUE CODE 'MISCELLANEOUS INCOME ~AX .INCENTIVES

SEC . . 201. (a) Chapter l .of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to normal taxes .and surtaxes) is ·amended by addin:g at the end thereof the following new subchapter:

"SUBCHAPTER V-SMALL BUSINESS EXPORT TRADE CORPORATIONS

.. Sec. 1391. Definitions. "Sec. 1392. Losses on stoclt of certified small

business export trade corporations.

"Sec. 1393. Spec1al deduction for certain income.

"Sec. 1394. Treatment of certain equity investments.

"Sec. 1.395. 'Blocked .foreign income. "Sec. 1391. Definitions.

"For purposes of thi-s subchapter-",( a) CERTIFIED SMALL BUSINESS EXPORT

TRADE CoRPO.RATIONs.-The term 'certified small business export trade corporation' means a domestic corporation which holds a certificate of eligibility issued under section 101 of the SmaU Business Export Trade Corporation Act which has not been terminated under -sectian 102 of such Act.

"(b) ExPORT TRADE CONTRACTS.-The term 'export trade contract' means a contract or agreement described in section 10l(b) (5) of the Small Business Export Trade Corporation Act.

••1c) ExPORT PROPEBTY.-The term '.export

property' means -tangible personal property, or any interest in tangible personal property, manufactured, produced., grown, or extracted in the United States and acquired under the terms of an export trade contract. "Sec. 1392. Losses on stock of certified small · business export trade corpora

tions. "'If-" ( 1) a loss is on stock of a certified small

business export trade corporation, and "(2) such loss would (but for this section)

be a .loss from the sale or exchange or a capital asset, then such loss shall be treated as a loss from the .sale or exchange of property which 1s not a capital asset. For purposes of section 172 (relating to the ·net 'Operating loss deduction) , any amount of loss treated by reason of this section as a loss lrom the 'Sale or exchange nf J>roperty which is not a capital asset 'Shall be treated as attributable to a tr.ade or business of the taxpayer. "Sec. 1393. Speci-al deduction for certain in

come. "(.a) Allowance of Deduction.-ln the case

of .a certified small business export trade corporation, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount determined by multiplying the section 1393 income of such corporation by a fraction-, "(1) the numerator or which is 14 per

centum, and "(2) the denominater of whlch is the sum

of the normal tax rate and the surtax rate for the taxable year prescl'ibed by section 11.

"(b) Section 1393 Income.-For purposes of subsection (a) , the section 13'93 income· o! a certified small business export trade corporation for any taxable year is thtl sum of the following items of income attributable to the performance ~of export trade contracts, reduced by the <deductions properly ~attributable to such items, but only to the extent such sum, ·as so reduced, does not exceed $250,000: '

" ( 1) income derived fr<>m sales of export property for use, consumption, or dispositi'on outside the United States (oth'er than tn any country which is a contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) ;

•'(2) income derived from the performance of commercial, industrial, financial, technical, scientific, managerial, engineel'ing, architectural, skilled, or other services in respect of sales of ex.port property for use, consumption, or disposition outside the United States, or in respect o.f the installa-tion or maintenance of such export property;

"(3~ income derived from the use outside the United States of patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, goodwill, trademarks, trade brands, fra:n{}hises. and other like property;

"(4) income derived from tbe performance of commercial, industrbil, financial, technical, scientific, managerial, engineering, architectural, skilled, or other services in connection with the use outside the United States of property described in paragraph (3) ; and

"(5) .income derived fl¥1'm stock in a foreign corporation, or a propl'ietary interest in an unincorporated business enterprise, organized and operated under the laws of a foreign country and carrying on the active conduct of a trade or business outside the United States (other than any silch income which is gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset or of property described in section 1231).

" { c} Exeeption.-No deduction shall be .allowed under subsection (a) to .a certified small business export trade corporation for any taxable year lf, for such taxable year or either of the two preceding taxable years, 50 percent or ;more of the gross income of such corporation is ·attributable to the performance of a single export trade contract or to the performance of two or more export trade contracts entered into with the same person.

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24135 "Sec. 1394. Treatment of certain equity

investments. "(a) Qualified Equity Investments.-For

purposes of this section, the term 'qualified equity investment• means stock in a corporation or a proprietary interest in an unincorporated business enterprise, acquired incident to the performance of an export con tract by a certified small business export trade corporation, or by a person represented by such a corporation under such contract, solely in exchange for-

" ( 1) the right to use patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, goodwill, trade marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like property;

"(2) the performance of, or the furnishing of information with respect to, commercial, industrial, fin_ancial, technical, scientific, managerial, engineering, architectural, sk1lled, or other services in connection with-

" (A) the use of property described in paragraph (1),

" (B) sales of export property, or "(C) the installation or maintenance of

export property; or "(3) the right to receive income in re

spect of property described in paragraph (1) or of the performance of serV!ces described in paragraph (2) or the furnishing of informa.tion with respect to such services.

"(b) Treatment in Year of Acquisition.For purposes of this chapter, the acquisition of a qualified equity investment up to an equivalent value of $50,000 shall, at the election of the taxpayer, not constitute a receipt of income for the taxable year in which such investment is acquired. Such election shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary or his delegate shall prescribe by regulations.

"(c) Treatment in Year of Disposition.For purposes of this chapter, property which was a qualified equity investment when acquired and for which the taxpayer made an election under subsection (b) shall, upon sale, exchange, or other disposition by the taxpayer, be treated as property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231. "Sec. 1395. Blocked foreign income.

"(a) GENERAL RULE.-If-"(1) an item of income described in sub

section (b) of a certified small business export trade corporation, or of a person represented by such a corporation under an export trade contract, would (but for this section) be taken into account as an item of gross income for the taxable year, and

"(2) it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary or his delegate that, because of currency or other restrictions or limitations imposed 'Qllder the laws of a foreign country, money or other property repesenting such income cannot be removed from such country during such taxable year, then, at the election of the taxpayer, such item of income shall not be taken into account for such taxable year, and shall be taken into account, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, for one or more subsequent taxable years during which such money or property can be removed from such foreign country. An election under this subsection shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary or his delegate shall prescribe by regulations. _

"(b) INCOME TO WHICH APPLICABLE.-8Ubsection (a) shall apply only to items of income which are described in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 1393(b) and which are attributable to performance of an export trade contract.''

RESERVES FOR BAD DEBTS SEc. 202. Section 166 of the Internal Reve

nue Cotle of 1954 (relating to bad debts) Is amended by r~designatlng subsection (h) aa

(i), and by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection.

"(h) SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS EXPORT TRADE CORPORATIONS.-

" ( 1) SEPARATE RESERVES.-A taxpayer which is a certified small business export trade corporation (as defined in section 1391 (a) ) engaged in selling property under one or more export trade contracts (as defined in section 1391(b)) may, for purposes of subsection (c), maintain a separate reserve for bad debts with respect to sales under each such contract.

"(2) AMOUNT OF RESERVES.-The amount Of each reserve maintained under paragraph ( 1) shall not exceed, at the close of any taxable year, the lesser of-

" (A) $50,000, or "(B) an amount equal to 50 percent of

the outstanding debts chargeable to such reserve." EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY

PROVISIONS SEc. 203. Section 542(c) of the Internal

Revenue Code of '1954 (relating to exceptions to definition of personal holding company) is amended by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon, and by adding after paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:

"(9) a corporation which for more than half of the taxable year is a certified small business export trade corporation (as defined in section 1391(a)). This paragraph shall not apply if, at any time during the taxable year, any shareholder of the certified small business export trade corporation who owns directly or indirectly more than 20 percent of the outstanding stock of such corporation also owns directly or indirectly 10 percent or more in value of the outstanding stock of a corporation (or of the proprietary interest in an unincorporated business enterprise) for which the certified export trade corporation is performing an export trade contract (as defined in section 1391(b)). For purposes of the preceding sentence, tpe ownership of stoek or a proprietary interest shall be determined, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, by applying the rules of section 544." EXEMPTION FROM CONTROLLED FOREIGN COR-

PORATION PROVISIONS SEc. 204. (a) Subpart F of part III of sub

chapter N of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to controlled foreign corporations) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "Sec. 965. Certified small business export

trade corporations. " (a) GENERAL RULE.-Under regulations

prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, in the case of a corporation which for more than half of its taxable year is a certified small business export trade corporation (as defined in section 1391(a)), no amount shall be included in the gross income of such corporation under section 951 for such year.

"(b) EXCEPTION.-8Ubsection (a) shall not apply if, at any time during the taxable year, any shareholder of the small business export trade corporation who owns directly or indirectly more than 20 percent of the outstanding stock of such corporation also owns directly or indirectly 10 percent or more in value of the outstanding stock of a corporation (or of the proprietary interest in an unincorporated business enterprise) for which the certified small business export trade corporation is performing an export trade contract (as defined in section 1391 (b) ) . F_or purposes of this subsection, the ownership. of stock or a proprietary interest shall be determined, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, by applying the rules of section 544."

(b) The tal?le of sections for such subpart F is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

"Sec. 965. Certified small business export trade corporationS."

EFFECTIVE DATE SEc. 205. The amendments made by this

title shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

MORE EQUITABLE TAX TREATMENT ·ON FORCED LAND SALES-AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 917

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, in order that the Senate Finance Committee may have an opportunity to consider the merits of this proposal, I submit at this time an amendment intended to be proposed by me to H.R. 6097, a bill approved by the House respecting tax aspects of casualty losses arising from designated major disasters.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide more equitable tax treatment for landowners forced to sell their property for public works. I ask that the amendment be printed.

Under current law, capital gains tax may be deferred on the proceeds of involuntary sales, provided the landowner reinvests in property of like kind real property.

The amendment offered would permit the taxpayer to defer capital gains taxation of condemnation awards when he reinvests in securities or a business if he establishes that to require him to reinvest in only comparable real property would work undue hardship on him. The burden of proof would be pl&ced on the taxpayer.

The situation that exists in my State for fanners forced to sell their property is not uncommon throughout the country.

In large reservoir takings, as example the Kaysinger Reservoir area in Missouri, comparable replacement property often is not available in the general vicinity, and landowners would be required to move considerable distance in order to reinvest in similar farm property.

There is additionally the further consideration that a landowner, forced to sell a going farm operation, has reached an age when he does not believe it physically possible to start a new fanning or ranching life. He is being pushed into an early retiren]ent.

This amendment would provide needed assistance to persons across the country whose property is taken for public works programs such as reservoirs or highways.

These people have no choice, no real alternative to selling their land. In order to avoid undue hardship, tax concepts should be made to conform with current needs and the increasing scarcity of land.

Those forced to give up land that may have been built up over many years, even generations, and then taxed because they are unable to find replacement property, deserve fairer consideration than now given them under the tax laws.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The . amendment will be received, printed, and appropriately referred.

The amendmen-t <No. 917) was referred to the Committee on Finance.


NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULE-AMENDMENT TO DEPARTM.El'~S OF LABOR, AND HEALTH, EDUCA'TION, AND WELFARE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1'969

AMENDMENT NO. 9'18

Mr. HILL submitted the following notice in writing:

In accordance with rule XL, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill ·(H.R. 18037) making :appropriations for the Departments Df Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfue, a.nd related agencies, for the 1iscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, the following amendment, namely, page 57, after line 5, insert the following:

"SEc. 207. The limitations in section 201 of the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 vn the number of civilian employees in the Executive Branch shall not apply to the Social Security Administration and direct medical care activities of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and employees in such Administration and such activities 'Shall not be counted in applying such limitations to the rest of the Executive Branch."

Mr. HILL also submitted an amendment, intended to be proposed by him, to House bill 18037, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor~ and Health, Education, and Welfare, andrelated agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969. and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

<For text of amendment referred to, see the foregDing notice.)

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961-AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT NO. 919

Mr. JAVITS (for himself, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MILLER, Mr. PELL, and Mr. PERCY), submitted amendments, intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to the bill <H.R. 15263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1.961, as amended. and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

AMENDMENT NO. 920

Mr. JAVITS (for himself, Mr. KUCHEL, Mr. COOPER, Mr. MUNDT, Mr. HATFIELD, and Mr. BROOKE) submitted an amendment, intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to House billl5263, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

AMENDMENT NO. 921

Mr. JAVITS (for himself and Mr. BROOKE) submitted an amendment, intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to House bill 15263, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and ·to be printed.

AMENDMENTS NOS. 922 AND 923

Mr. DOMINICK submitted two amendments, intended to be proposed by him, to House bill 15263, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

AMENDMENT N.O. 92ol

Mr. MONDALE proposed an amendment to House 'bill 15263, suPra, which was ordered to be _printed.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF AMENDMENT

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I a.Sk unanimous consent that the names of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] and the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss] be added as cosponsors of my amendment <No. 908) to H.R. 7735, a bill relating to the dutiable status of aluminum hydroxide for the deletion of section 4 relating to copper.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is -SO ordered.

LAUNCHING OF THE "INDIAN MAIL''

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], who is necessarily absent, is ·chairman of the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. As such he has a long and continuing interest in the welfare of the American merchant marine. He was greatly impressed by a speech .on this subject delivered by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the senior Senator irom Washington [Mr. MA-cNusoNl, at the launching of the Indian Mail"<>n Satur-day, June 27, 1968. Because of the significance of this speech, Senator BARTLETT has asked that I bring it to the attention of the Senate, and this I now do. I ask u.ninimous consent that the .speech of the Senator from Washington be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: REMARKS OF SENATOR WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

OF WASHINGTON, AT LAUNCHING OF "INDIAN MAIL," NEWP.ORT NEWS, VA. .

It is surely a pleasure for me and Mrs. Magnuson to participate in the launching of the Indian Mail. I love <& ship launching. I have had the good fortune to witness a considerable number of ship launchings, and on each such occasion there is something always thrilling.

There is the acute awareness of courage a.nd accomplishment. The courage to under· take a bold and costlr venture that is of immense benefit to the public at large and the accomplishment of making that bold and courageous dream a reality.

'l1oday, the bold and creative undertakin_g of the American Mail Line to build the Indian .Mail, and her four sister ships, has reached t:he stage of considerable fruition. In a moment, the .second of those five vessels will slide down the ways, and begin a service of immense importance to the nation, and particularly to the State of Washington-whieh has the great fortune to serve as the home of the .American Mail Line.

1 am sure that Worth 'Fowler knows how very proUd W.ashington State 1s of his company. And if the launching of the Indian Mail is an occasion for compliments and recognition of accompllslunenir-then Donald Ho1den and the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company must receive their share.

A few m.ont-hs ago I had the pleasure of pret5enting Mr. Holden with the Maritime Man of the Year awa.Nl. The aceomplishments of this fine shipyard under his ilmd'el'-

ship are legion, .and enhanced even more with the launching of the Indian Mail.

It is 'this courage a.nd foresight and great Uill which has .given the United States' Flag Fleet the mOISt modern and efficient general -cargo and container ships in the world. And ln a period when. 'our merchant fleet .has been the sub]ect of neglect and disregard by some, it 1s this skill and foresight which have kept us upon the seas with the finest ships the w.orld has k:nown.

Some now seek to destroy this great tradition, skill and attribute. There bas been proposed to the Congress a plan to export the buHding of United States ships to foreign shipyards. That is a polite way of saying that the government wants to back out of the partnership established by law in 1936 between the merchant marine and the citizens .of the United States.

I am not about Teady to dissolve that partnership. We are ready to enhance our commitment. As you may know, there is a counter proposal to that of the Administration. rt is a specific proposal that I and others in Congress-including Virginia's outstanding Congressman Tom Downing, who bas taken a leading role in this effort a.s a Member of the House Merchant Marine CommUtee-have sponsored to put the United States back in its rightful place upon the high .seas.

Ar.d not just because we love a launcbing, but because a strong merchant marine is essential to the economy and defense of tbe United .States.

It is absolutely essential that this nation expand its trade and commerce throughout the free world. There is upon this earth a bitter and deadly serious -eontroversy as to how men should govern themselves. It is a battle of ideas even mo11e than of violence. And knowledge and communication are far more the ultimate enemy of a dangerous and ill-founded idea than are bullets.

Expanding trade and showing the w.orld the wondrous productivity of democratic processes is essential to the future of oor nation and the major hope of the emerging nations of the world. It is the merchant marine that carries America to _the rest <>f the world. It is the merchant marine that makes American products available to people subjected to un-truths and distortions as to our role in the world.

Surely it is one of , the great and tr.agic paradoxes or our history that tbe very existence of our merchant marine is threatened at the time our need to communicate effectively with the nations of the world is at a most critical stage.

The Indian Mail and her sister ships will, Jn every sense, be .modern and .effective additions to the United States Flag Fleet. These beautiful vessels, designed by J. .J. Henry, Naval .Architects, wlll have a utility that is almost staggering in comparison to the level or technology utilized only a few short years ago.

The Indian Mail with its great speed and rapid turn-around time Will have a cargo handli-ng capacity with 13 units of heavylift gear, one of which can handle up to '70 tons. And the versatmty .of this ship is tremendous. It <:an carry more than 400 '20 ton containers u well as bulk grains and .other dry, and refrigerated, cargoes.

We bave come a long way ince 1917 when the first American Mail Line "t'essel ventur.ed 1nto the 'Par East tr.ade. At that early time a 750 tan sidewheeler-named interestingly enough, The Sen.atm'-was the pride of American MaiL .How do we account for the almost overwhelmdng advance in maritime technology since that early date?

To me, the answer is clear • .It is good old yankee know-now and the coura,ge and toresight to 'risk immense sums ol capital on the strength of that attribute.

The importance of the U.S. Merchant Ma-

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24137 rine to the economic health of the nation cannot be over estimated. A little over two years ago, President Johnson noted that even at its current level of operation the United states .Merchant Marine earned or conserved over one blllion dollars in our balance of payments .annually.

Now we are car~ying only 5.6% of our total water-borne exports and imports. If we increased that figure to only 20% we would have no balance of payments deficit and would pel'form great service to our international objectives as well.

I believe it is a matter of special pride to American Mail Line, and the State of washington, that our current. balance of payments deficit is in spite of the great trade flourishing 1n the Pacific Northwest. In fact, the State of Washington has done much to correct that deficit, through its favorable trade balance.

The Indian MaiZ will be serving one of the most vital and fastest-growing trade areas in the United States. Last year, the State of Washington realized a trade surplus of over half-a-billion-dollars--or one-sixth of the total national surplus.

Washington accounted for 30% of the total Pacific Coast exports by exporting $2,580 worth of products every minute I

The fact that our state is now one of the three fastest growing exporting states in the nation is a matter of pride-not only to the state, but unmistakable evidence of the great service and commitment of American Mail Line.

With the addition of the Indian MaiZ and her four sister ships we shall reach even greater heights as a trading nation, and I pledge for my part to continue to do all in my power to see that the federal commitment to a strong and modern United States' citizen-owner, built and operated fleet is re-newed, and enhanced. , ·

There is just one further comment I would like to make before we reach that great moment of the launch. When the first of these five new vessels, the Alaskan Mail, was launched Aprll 16th of this year, you had the good fortune to hear the remarks of an outstanding Senator, and a most beloved, and respected colleague, and friend of mine. I feel deeply the loss to this day that Senator Bob Bartlett is unable to be with us on the occasion of the launching of the Indian Mail. As you know, Bob has been 111, but is now recuperating and coming along fine.

· I hope the two of us can attend the launchIng of the next American Mall Line ship together. I am sure Bob wm be present at that next launching, for no man has a greater interest, or deeper concern for the merchant marine. As Chairman of the Merchant Marine Subcommittee, he has been a most effective and respected leader, and will most assuredly return with new vigor and great hope for the American Merchant Marine.

POULTRY INSPECTION Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, yes

terday, the Senate helped to make consumer protection history. By deleting potentially harmful amendments and passing the poultry inspection bill, the Senate went on record again in favor of who,lesome protein products.

I think that we Members of Congress have rea.son to be proud of our actions in the 90th Congress both on poultry and on meat. I am glad to have been an active participant ln .shaping both pieces of legislation.

Yet much remains to be done before the consumer can feel herself fully protected.

LMt winter, it was my privilege to introduce S. 3383, the Wholesome Poul-.

try, Egg, and Fish Inspection Act of 1968. I introduced this measure in recognition of the fact that poultry was an important potential consumer hazard; and that eggs and fish also were often · not the products consumers thought they were.

An editorial published in today's New York Times highlights the remaining protein products agenda. The editorial points out, "Federal inspection has not kept up with the miracles of food technology," with respect to eggs and fish.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.

I pledge myself to work toward strong egg and fish inspection measures in the next Congress.

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

BON A.PPETIT

In this modern age of clear plasticwrapped, frozen and processed foods, it rarely occurs to most Americans that some of the food they buy may" not be safe to eat. But adulterated and diseased food does find its way to the table.

The familiar and indispensable chicken provides an example. Four-fifths of all poultry is sold across state lines, is Federally inspected and is therefore safe to eat. But one chicken in every five is raised and sold locally and is subject only to state inspection. Since state inspection systems vary widely in effectiveness, a risk exists.

Under the leadership of Senators Mondale of Minnesota and Montoya of New Mexico, the Senate yesterday approved a b111 requiring the states to tighten their inspection systems within two years or else accept Federal inspection. This bill is modeled on last year's Wholesome Meat Act which gave states the same choice in the inspection of locally sold beef and pork.

Two other threats to the safety of the dinner table still remain. Congress this year has taken no action on the Administra-tion blll to overhaul the seriously inadequate inspection of fish. There is also need to inspect egg-processing plants. The eggs which the housewife uses in her own kitchen are all right, but the same cannot always be said for the <:racked and broken eggs which manufacturers use in cake mixes and many other processed foods. Federal inspection has not kept up with the miracles of food technology.

IMPACTED AID FUNDS SHOULD BE RELEASED NOW

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, it is reported that in spite of the wishes of Congress, the Bureau of the Budget is seriously contemplating withholding $91 million which Congress approved earlier this year to fund the aid to impacted school districts program, meeting a commitment we made to these school superintendents whose districts include large numbers of Federal dependents. The Bureau of the Budget will be stabbing Congress in the back if it freezes funds for federally impacted school districts around the Nation.

I put forth a great deal of effort to .see that these funds were made available under the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act which we passed last month, because the funds are necessary to the operation of these school districts. This latest effort by the Bureau of the Budget to hold back this .school money is nothing less than obstructionism.

·According to the u.s. Offi.ce ·of Education, some 4,300 districts serving about 17 million children benefit from impacted aid money. Those .districts serve roughly 40 percent of the schoolchildren attending public schools in the Nation. In Texas about 285 5chool districts with 114 million children are affected by the impacted aid program.

The Senate voted 87 to 2 on June 26 to support the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act including the $91 million. The House also demonstrated broad support for the program.

Again on July 2. after Senate and House conferees had agreed to hold the $91 million in their compromise version of the bill, this body voted 6-.:: to i to support it.

Now, against the wishes of an ov-erwhelming majority in Congress, the Bureau of the Budget is threatening to withhold the funds. These are funds which Congress has already promised the school districts. These are funds which school superintendenU. rightly courited on in their budget planning. Now, the Bureau of the Budget capriciously threatens to hold back the funds.

Freezing these funds would mock Congress and its intention, stated quite clearly during debate on the bill, of meeting our commitment to these schools and schoolchildren. In my own State of Texas some $5.1 million is at stake. Many school superintendents have told me they cannot sustain the loss which the budget freeze would bring them.

I have sent the following telegram to Charles J. Zwick, Director of the Bureau of the Budget: Hon. CHARLES J. ZWICK, Director, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office Building, Wash.ington, D.C.:

I am sure you are aware of the crisis currently faced by schools across the country presented by your failure thus far to release funds to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, providing for $91 million for PL 874, the impacted school aid law. I urge you to take positive action to avert the drastic consequences which will result from you.r continued refusal to comply with the overwhelming mandate of Congress.

RALPH W. YARBOROUGH, U.S. Senate.

VIEWS OF FARMERS ON EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, just a few

days ago, on June 11, I placed in the RECORD the responses to a number of questionnaires pertaining to S. 8 which were given to me by the Hood River County Farm Bureau and the Hood River

· Chamber of Commerce, Oregon. The questionnaires were also germane, of course, to H.R. 16014.

The insertions in the REcoRD have elicited an illuminating response from the Reverend Eugene L. Boutilier, the Washington, D.~.. director of the National Campaign for Agriculture Democracy. In his response he makes some cogent observations about some per8ons whose responses to the questionnaires were included in the REco.BD, the most salient of which is that a number of peo-

"24138 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 pie who answered the questionnaire would not be covered by the provision of H.R.16014.

Reverend Boutilier makes some other observations in his letter, to which I invite the attention of Senators. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD.

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

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR AGRICULTURAL DEMOCRACY,

Washington, D.C., July 16, 1968. Hon, WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: On July 11th you

graciously inserted in the Congressional Becord (cf. 88481-8497) at their request a series of questionnaires submitted by the Hood River County Farm Bureau and the Hood River County Chamber of Commerce, Hood River, Oregon.

The Chamber of Commerce in its cover letter says: "Referring again to our sample, in an area of predominantly family farms, better than half would come under the Bill as proposed!" " ... you will have legislated the small family farm completely out of existence!"

In order to prove it, the Chamber of Commerce submitted 106 questionnaires in which 83 growers admitted that they would not be covered under 10014; 11 growers stated that they would be covered under 16014 but in fact presented information in their statement on total payroll which indicated less than the total yearly wage figure provided for under 10014 and which would in fact exclude them from coverage under the bill; 12 did not fill in the questionnaire although the form was printed. Not a single grower covered in their survey . would be covered under 16014 although everyone of them, at the urging of the Chamber of Commerce, emphasized that they have several neighbors who would be covered. I repeat, not a single grower included in the questionnaires submitted by the Chamber of Commerce would be covered under the provisions of the House bill. I guess they must all have the same neighbors and that the neighbors weren't among the farmers questioned.

Now in the list of questionnaires submitted by the Farm Bureau, there are in fact some farmers who would possibly be covered under the provisions of 16014 although I suspect that they are few in number. Specifically, 29 of the questionnaires in which the growers stated that they would be covered by the proposed act would not according to the information which they themselves enclosed in the questionnaire. Furthermore some of the Hood Valley farmers who would have a payroll exceeding $10,000 and a minimum number of workers on any one day above 10 would still not be covered. This is because their infiow and outfiow across state lines would be less than the $50,000 standard which is normative for the Board's asserting jurisdiction or because a percentage of their payroll total was paid to members of their family or to managers or supervisors who under normal Board procedures would not be included either in a bargaining unit or in computing whether a bargaining unit exists for coverage under the act.

As I am sure you recognize these family farmers have been unnecessarily panicked by the organizations to which they belong into fearing a piece of legislation which would not affect them.

I sympathize very sincerely with the problems of small orchardists in your state. Not only would very few, if any, of them be covered under the Ia w according to their own statements of fact, but more than that their very limited use of agricultural labor would

be unlikely to sustain a farm labor organizing drive even if the protections and benefits of the act were extended.

There is far more that could be said to placate the fears of these constituents. I believe that the act is their best protection against recognition strikes, boycotts and other activities, which could in fact hurt their profits. Should unionization ever come it would protect them against the vicious excesses of the crew boss-labor contractor system which siphons off so much money and victimizes both grower and worker alike.

We are very grateful for your continued support in the face of this effort to mislead and confuse your constituents.

Sincerely yours, Rev. EuGENE L. BouTILIER.

BOB KENNEDY AND HUMAN RIGHTS Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on

this day of solemn eulogies of BoB KENNEDY, we shoulc not overlook the ideals for which he stood. He fought bravely on behalf of the poor and the underprivileged, the weak and the disenfranchised, so that all could enjoy and exercise their fundamental rights as human beings.

I can think of no better way to eulogize this fallen warrior than to ratify the Human Rights Convention. These conventions, which we have delayed ratifying for so long, embody the high principles for which BOB :KENNEDY fought and died.

The Convention on Genocide serves notice that the civilized nations of the world will not tolerate, in any way, shape, or form, the attempted extermination of an entire people. The Convention on Forced Labor guarantees that no one will be compelled to engage in labor against his will, or be forced to work for another without just compensation for his toils. The Convention on Political Rights for Women assures all women, of whatever nationality, the right to vote, and the right to participate fully in the political processes of their government.

Mr. President, I do not deny for a moment that these are lofty goals. But BoB KENNEDY would not have shrunk from them. He would have met the challenge head on; he would have striven with all his might to achieve these goals. The Senate should do no less.

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the Chris

tian Science Monitor recenty placed its influence behind the endangered species bill-S. 2984-a.sking for its passage by the current session of Congress and observing:

For the price of one Somali leopard coat we could send a trained man into the field for a year to learn enough to save hundreds of spotted cats from extinction.

The responsibility of the United States, the Monitor points out, arises from the fact that this co'.mtry is the biggest market for exotic species in danger of extinction. I ask unanimous consent that the Monitor's editorial be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, M follows:

[From the Christian Science Monitor, July 19, 1968]

SAVE THE ENDANGERED SPECIES Among the important bills which Congress

should certainly pass before adjournment is the Endangered Species bill, S. 2984 in the Senate and H.R. 11618 in the House.

For each year Of this century, a species or subspecies Of mammals has vanished, as well as a number of birds and fish. Conservationists are now deeply concerned for the large spotted cats, such as the cheetah and the Somali leopard, for whose skins there is what the Smithsonian's Dr. S. Dillon Ripley calls an "almost insatiable market." World wildlife authority Dr. Lee Talbot, also of the Smithsonian, says that "for the price of one SOmali leopard coat we could send a trained man into the field for a year to learn enough to save hundreds of spotted cats from extinction." The "exotic pet" trade is stripping the jungle of birds, and scientists demand hundreds of thousands of monkeys and apes for laboratory use. The United States furnishes the biggest market for these and other creatures, many of which are in danger of extinction.

The provisions of the Endangered Species bill, curtailing this destructive traffic, are sound, reasonable, and crucially needed. H.R. 11618 has already been cleared for a full vote in the House. Hearings on S. 2984 are scheduled for July 24. Members of Congress, and their constituents back home, should get behind these bills and see that they go through in this session.

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION PAYMENTS TO COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, it

might well be said that H.R. 7481, authorizing higher payment by the Veterans' Administration to community nursing homes, signed by the President on July 26, is a twin to H.R. ·16902, providing for increased VA payments to State homes.

Certainly, the reasons which prompted favorable congressional action on the latter measure apply with equal force and logic to the community nursing homes measure.

Only the statistics are different. As Senators know well, the Veterans'

Administration was first authorized in 1965 by the Congress to enter into agreements with community nursing homes to provide care for veterans. Since April 1965, more than 23,600 veterans have been allowed to receive care in community nursing home facilities.

Currently, the VA has agreements with more than 2,350 community nursing homes in 48 States and Puerto Rico. Some 3,162 veterans now remain in about 900 of these nursing homes.

It is estimated that in fiscal year 1968 the VA will have paid approximately $11.6 million to . community nursing homes for treatment of about 11,000 veterans.

H.R. 7481 said in effoot to these homes that because your costs are increasing you will now be paid 40 percent instead of 33% percent of the cost of hospital care in a VA hospital.

This reasonable and realistic adjustment will increase the cost of this program an estimated $3.5 million in the first year.

Again, the wisdom of sustaining the community nursing· home program can

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24139 be justi:tied fully, on many grounds-from the number of more exPensive-tooperate VA hospital beds it frees, to the humanitarian and therapeutic considerations involved.

To me, however, and I am sure to each Senator, this legislation was merited if for no other reason than that it redeems the Nation's pledge, expressed so simply but eloquently by Abraham Lincoln more than a century ago, "to care for him who shall have borne the battle."

SANDERS ASSOCIATES, INC., COOPERATES WITH JOB CORPS IN MAINE Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, from the

very beginning of the Nation, men who have gone to the sea have depended upon the ingenuity of the State of Maine craftsmen to provide them with the tools to tame the oceans.

And so it was logical that Sanders Associates, Inc., the electronics and data management systems designers and manufacturers, should have chosen. a site in Maine for the manufacturing facility of its Ocean Systems Division.

Just a little over a year ago, Sanders Associates opened its 44,000 square feet manufacturing plant at South Portland, Maine. More than 240 people are already employed there in the manufacture of antisubmarine warfare equipment for the U.S. Navy. ' Sanders Associates is active in both fundamental res-earch and application in the :field of oceanography. Many of the company's programs s'upport Navy programs; others promise better living through harvesting the riches contained in our oceans.

Mr. President, sophisticated electronic and oceanographic devices could be produced almost anywhere where there are people and resources and good transportation.

Wfiy did Sanders Associates choose South Portland?

At the opening of the plan just over a year ago. the president of the company, Mr. Royden C. Sanders, Jr., explained that after all possible sites had been investigated, South Portland was chosen because "this area, which is easily accessible to major forms of transportation, is also knawn for its skilled and. semiskilled workers who take pride in their performance and Yankee craftsmanship."

i Sanders' emphasis upon the importance of people extends beyond the wise decision to enlist Maine's skilled craftsmen to work in its South Portland plant.

The Job Corps Center at Poland Spting, Maine, helps young women from disadvantaged areas throughout the country translate their ambition to better themselves into a variety of skills needed by industry.

When the Poland Spring Center opened 2 years ago, Sanders Associates quickly realized the opportunities it presented as a sow·ce of trained employees and as a means of providing opportunity to young people.

· Sanders has already hired 19 graduates ot Poland Spring courses at its plants in South Portland, Maine; Nashua and Manchester, N.H.; ·and Bedford,

Mass. Supervisors have been enthusiastic about the attitudes and training of the graduates. The company offers continued opportunity to Poland Spring graduates and is working closely with Job Corps Center officials to offer jobs to some of the young women who will be the :first to comp1ete longer, more advanced courses.

Mr. President, any State is proud to have a growing forward-looking industry like Sanders Associates decide to establish a thriving plant in it. But Maine is especially pleased to be the home of the cooperation between progressive industry and vital government action.

The most powerful combination for promoting a growing economy and the general welfare is civic-minded industry, and communities which offer skilled, conscientious employees and a hospitable atmosphere.

South Por·tland, Maine, the Sanders Associates oCean Systems manufacturing plant, and the Poland Spring Job Corps Center are just such a combination; a combination which will help insure the continued stable growth of Maine's economy.

PEACE IN VIETNAM Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, during the

last several months, many members of the business community have determined to express their own views and sentiments about the need for peace in Vietnam. These men have combined to form a group known as the Business Executives Move for Peace in Vietnam.

Recently, one of its members, Mr. Marriner S. Eccles, spoke on several occasions before different meetings of some of the men comprising the Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace.

Mr. Eccles is a distinguished American whom many Senators know. He was formerly both a member and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He understands as well as any American the considerations and 1mplications of our continued involvement in Vietnam.

I am pleased to invite the attention of Senators to his cogent remarks about the situation in Vietnam, I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD.

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

'VIETNAM .: POLITICS AND HYPOCRISY-A TRAGEDY OF ERRoBS

(By Marriner S. Eccles-before Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace)

A great sense of relief swept the country when President Johnson announced that the United States would reduce the bombing of North Vietnam and increase efforts to end the war, in response to communications with Hanol. But when he ann6unced that he would not be a candidate In this year•s political battle, many felt an even greater relief because it added assurances that the peace movement in this country had won out, and sooner or later this country would extricate itself from a war that it cannot win, that has been from the beginning a senseless, tragic and massive blunder.

I believe that the President has withdrawn to avoid a. defeat. The tide has been running heavily against him and his administration as it has become increasingly apparent that

the tolls of the war were getting beyond our willingness and ability to endure.

Look at the record: As of June 8, 24,744 young Americans dead, approximately 153,000 wounded, and more than eleven hundred missing ln action or captured, and even more South Vietnamese casualties.

During the four years of the Johnson Administration ending this year, a.t our present rate of expenditures, this country will have squandered on the Vietnam War the unbelievable sum of approximately $100 billion-$40 billion more than the government deficit for the past seven years.

The costs of war d'O not end with the cessation of hostilities. There are approximately twenty-two million veterans. Veterans' benefits paid to the end of 1967 were estimated to be $147 billion. We are spending approximately $7.5 billion per year for veterans' benefits. And the Korean War alone is still costing more than $700 million a year. In the financial sense, a. war ls never over.

The real tragedy is not financial, it is the useless suffering of the millions of our people whose sons, husbands and brothers are drawn into this conflict unwillingly and are killed and maimed for life--not 1n defense of their country-but because of our Incompetent and lll-advised leadership.

The Vietnam War is responsible for the most serious economic, financial and polltt'.: cal problems this country has ever faced. It has caused a huge Federal deficit and even with the surtax Increase and the $6 b11llon reduction in expenditures, there will continue to be a large deficit. This creates a serious inflationary situation: the cost of living going up 4% to 5% a year, a great shortage of skilled workers, increasing strikes and exorbitant wage demands, and a shortage of credit with record high interest rates in all categories.

The labor union leaders who are strong supporters of the Vietnam war are losing for their members all the gains they have won in their collective bargaining as a result of war inflation. People living on fixed incomes, from pensions or investments, are the real losers.

.The world needs a smoothly operating monetary system to support a growing world trade, which would result in a world at peace. The basis for such a system is gold and the dollar, plus drawing rights from the international monetary fund. The gold supply is limited so an acceptable dollar is of paramount importance. The dollar 1s needed as the connecting link between all other currencies, so the threat to our world leadership caused by our involvement in Vietnam is serious. . It is dtrectly causing an explosive increase

1n the deficiency in our in terna tiona! balance of payments, which is already very critical, as we are by far the world's largest short term debtor, now owing about $34 billion. Since last October, when the British pound devalued, until March 20 we lost $2.6 blllion in gold. The international monetary crisis at that time was brought to a head by these developments, resulting in the closing of the London gold market and a. disbandment of the gold pool which resulted in the new financial arrangements of a. two-price gold system. This action, and that taken by our own country to curb foreign investments and foreign loans and to discourage foreign travel, is only a stopgap solution to the run on the dollar, giving us time to eliminate the deficiency in our international balance of payments and further reduce the federal deficit. This cannot be accomplished so long as we continue to waste $2Y:z b1llion a month on a. futile war tn Vietnam. It is very apparent we cannot be both the world's policeman and the world's banker.

America has become great in world affairs because of its economlc power and not because of its m111tary strength. The military has proved to be a burden and is sapping ·our

24140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 strength. Military muscles have never been able to preserve any world power. and they never will. If we have to depend on killing and the waste of war to maintain prosperity it is an indictment of our capitalistic system.

While we've been spending tens of billions on Vietnam, our cities are exploding in violent protest as a result of our injustice, and neglect, and failure to fulfill promises. The Vietnam debacle, tragic as it is, may yet be a blessing in disguise if it forces us to recognize our staggering failures at home. Runaway crime, delinquency, the riots in our cities, loss of respect for law and order and the rebellion of frustrated youth-all spring in part from this.

How can we reconcile what we are doing to the South Vietnamese under the guise of saving them from communism? We have destroyed vast areas of their country-the very country we profess to save. We have killed, wounded or burned tens of thousands of children, as well as countless parents, brothers, husbands and sons.

Our leaders want the public to believe that our destruction of Vietnam is lofty in purpose, and that our motive is to bring democracy and freedom to that tiny nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that this whole involvement is a result of our conviction that it is up to us to control the development of Asia and contain China.

We have not only ignored the charter of the International Military Tribunal which conducted the Nuremburg Trials, but we are in Vietnam as an aggressor in violation of our treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter. This is the first time that we have been the aggressor before we have been aggressed against.

China and Russia have publicly announced they would give all the mi~itary and economic aid necessary to North Vietnam in order to defeat the U.S. aggressors. As a r¢sult, we have continued to. have aligned against us these two powerful countries as well as the rest of the communist world. ·

Early this year, in a private interview with Editors of LIFE Magazine, Premier Kosygin said: "The U.S. wants to dictate its terms to Vietnam, but Vietnam is not a defeated country, and it will never be defeated. The U.S. cannot defeat Vietnam, and we, for our part, will do all we can so that the u.s. does not defeat Vietnam." · In a recent address at Glassboro, Johnson

appealed for Soviet-U.S. cooperation. In response, the Soviet Union said that its relations with the U.S. were frozen until the Vietnam War was settled.

I believe our critical situations in the Middle East, Berlin and Korea which have been encouraged by Russia would not have developed if we were not at war in Vietnam.

It is quite apparent that neither Russia nor China are willing for the United States to achieve a victory over the communists and to establish a powerful military base on the mainland of Asia.

A recent statement by Senate Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield, indicates we cannot win when he says: "We are in the wrong place, a.nd we .are fighting the wrong kind of war ... I happen to feel that our policy represents the most unfortunate miscalculation in our national history . . ."

George Kennan, our distinguished fonner Ambassador to Russia, said: "Vietnam is a massive miscalculation and an error for which it is hard to find any parallel in our history."

June 10, on leaving Saigon, General Westmoreland said:

"A military victory in the classic sense is impossible in Vietnam because of our nat 'onal policy of not expanding the war."

. . . "The only real military hope is to wear the enemy down through attrition." This means ~'it is ururealistic to expect a quick and early defeat" of the enemy.

It is reported that the North Vietnamese have committed less than 100 thousand troops out of 474 thousand at their disposal.

Under these circumstances, how could we expect a military victory? ·

The alternatives is to make the best terms we can, and get out, or we will be forced to greatly increase our military forces and expenditures. This could entail price controls, wage controls, rationing and greatly increased taxes, with the prospect of no victory and a more catastrophic ending.

The Wall Street Journal says: "The whole Vietnam effort may be doomed ... No mat-ter what the government does ... . The gov-ernment should recognize that no battle and no war is worth any price."

I regret to say the peace conference in Paris offers no early hope of peace. Our intention may be to use it to justify escalating the war. We went to the conference knowing and accepting the basic proviso that first the bombing and all warlike activity must stop before negotiations would begin. Not only did we not stop the bombing, but we took the occasion to call up 24,500 additional troops and conduct the heaviest bombing and fighting of the war.

The United States, which is doing the only aerial bombing and also uses mortars, and rockets, has not hesitated during the past three years to kill and wound tens of thousands of civilians and destroy the 'villages in both North and South Vietnam by such bombing. We have dropped more tons of bombs on the little country .of Vietnam than we dropped during all World War II. Now that the Viet Cong with the help of the North Vietnamese are effectively attacking Saigon and other South Vietnam cities with mortars and rockets, we are adopting a threatening and belligerent tone toward Hanoi at the peace conference.

We are also requesting that the North Vietnamese agree to stop sending troops into South Vietnam to aid the Viet Cong as a condition to our stopping the bombing of the North. For Hanoi to comply would mean surrender of the Viet Cong, as they have less than one-fourth as many troops as the United States and South Vietnam. However, we are not proposing to stop sending U.S. troops to help the South Vietnamese.

The duplicity of our behavior at the conference leads me to believe that our presence there is a deception.

Every effort should be made to hasten the conclusion of negotiations and bring the war to an end. We should not rely entirely on the hard liners, Messrs. Rusk and Rostow, General Taylor and their team-there should be a!dded to the negotiators military and Asian experts such as General Gavin and fonner Ambassadors Kennan and Reischauer to make it representative.

As a matter of protection of our own troops, pending a conclusion of the negotiations, we should take immediate steps to reduce the killing by stopping our aggressive policy of search and destroy. We should further protect our troops by withdrawing them from exposed positions and consolidating them in coastal centers we can defend and supply.

The United States cannot through negotiations create strength for any future segment of government in South Vietnam. The presence of the United States can only distort the true balance of forces, and only settlement of forces, and only a settlement which represents this balance can bring about a stable government.

It is hopeless to try to force upon Asians-as we are now trying to do--a way of life and a government which do not conform to their beliefs and customs.

For the past twenty years our government has believed that communism intends to conquer the world-by force, if . persuasion does not succeed-and th~t it ':a the duty of

the United States to save the world from that fate. The American picture of 'aggressive communism is unreal because communism is not a monolithic world power. Communist countries are as intensely nationalistic as others, they crave independence and resent interference. They will fight against domination by foreigners--whether they be capitalist or communist.

The administration sees every rebell1on as the result of a deep plot out of Moscow or Peking, when it usually is the result of crushing poverty, hunger, intolerable living conditions, and domination by a small ruling class. The aim of revolution, no matter what its ideology, is to achieve self-determination, economic security, racial equality and freedom.

We might as well face it: there may be more communist countries in the world. But why should we panic at this? Communist nations vary widely; each has a different version of communist theory to fit its own problems. The more of these countries there are, the greater their diversity. Our hostility helped solidify the Soviet Union and build it into a world power. We're now doing the same for China.

Getting out of Vietnam will enable us to re-establish a friendly relationship with Russia and thereby bring about a balance of power in the world-which would tend to deter any aggressive policy on the part of China.

We should also recognize China diplomatically, open our doors to trade and travel, and bring them into the United Nations. We should no longer ignore one-fourth of the world's population as though it did not exist.

Our foreign policy, including economic and military, is unrealistic and obsolete. It -is geared largely to fight communism and resist the recognition of China, a game in which we cannot succeed. . Democracy demands a high degree of literacy and takes generations to develop. Only in a small part of the world is there any present capacity for democracy.

Why should we undertake the impossible task of trying to quarantine the communist world? Should the blood of American youth be shed in efforts to preserve the status quo throughout the world? To what extent should we maintain military dictatorship or governments of privileged cliques in the various nations of the world? By what right do we take it upon ourselves to act as the world's policeman?

We, especially, constituting an island of abundance in a sea of poverty, cannot hope to maintain our position alone. This great disparity tends to turn much of the . world against us.

I believe that Russia is prepared to make every effort to get along with the West when we get out of Vietnam. Together we can end the cold war, discontinue further testing and work effectively toward a world-wide disarmament. Only in this way can we release the vast and ever increasing human energies and material resources that are engaged in war and a world-wide armaments race. These wasted resources and energies can then be channelled toward the education and the development of the backward countries of the world, as well as helping us to meet the tragic and deplorable situation in our own cities-which will take a generation, increased taxes and hundreds of bill1ons of dollars.

Our country is the most powerful nation in the world. Its responsibilities, both for the present, and future, are vast. They are far greater than those of any other nation, especially in this nuclear age. We must provide a leadership the world can trust .

Such is not the case today. The hypocrisy of our leaders, especially those in politics, is perhaps the ·deepest corroding infiuence in

. ... . . ..

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24141 our society today. As evidence of· this hypocrisy, only recently, consider the nationwide climax of grief over the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Walking with · bowed heads in the vast funeral procession were state and national dignitaries and public officials-who just the day before his death, had considered Dr. King a revolutionary, a troublemaker, a communist and a traitor.

And now the nation is rocked by the shockIng assassination of Robert Kennedy. The loss of this young leader is a tragedy too monumental to now fully comprehend.

Many felt he was too young; too arrogant; too privileged; too ambitious and too sure of hir .self. But all knew that he held high the light of promise-the promise of change. His enormous influence was not a matter of youth and good looks. It was the force of courage, energy and purpose directed with clarity at the problems of our time. No wonder the established order feared him. His threat was to the status quo. And the status quo is the victory of yesterday. His was the voice of tomorrow, and tomorrow is change.

We are asked to look at dishonesty, misrepresentation, stupidity and greed-and to see goodness, generosity and wisdom. And if we cannot accept this we are often considered disloyal and unpatriotic. How can inte111gent and inquiring youth see in the carnage in Vietnam an undertaking of lofty purpose, as the administration claims? How can young Americans consider the povertystricken, uneducated and underprivileged Vietnamese as the enemy? Why should they, in the name of patriotism, be w111ing to go 10,000 miles away to k111 and be kllled?

How can our President justify calling upon us to remove violence from our hearts and minds when our hearts and minds are soaked in it daily? Violence is a way of life in the United States. K1llings in its most revolting forms is nightly fare on television. It is totally unrealistic to rise up in wrath at a single shooting when we remain relatively unshaken at mass k1lling. In the week of Senator Kennedy's assassination, 430 Americans died in Vietnam (less than in some previous weeks). Why is the nation not in mourning over this?

We have handed over our youth to the milltary to be dehumanized--and to be turned into killers. By what process, then, can we expect them to become rehumanized and to forget their familiarity, with violent death and their casualness towards it.

OUr national policy of relying on military power primarily to solve political problems, breeds violence everywhere, and if long continued, wm destroy the foundations of our republic. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to us that individuals and groups at home and abroad attempt to solve political problems by violence.

And finally, the most startling of all challenges to credib11lty has been asked of us. We are expected to regard the withdrawal of the President from the coming race as the noble gesture of a selfless leader-when, 1n :taot, it is the logical political move, in lieu of probable defeat. Nor does this step change a man from a war-maker into a peace leader.

It would be most unfortunate if a candidate of either party feels obligated to defend the record of the past, which, in every particular, cries for rejection. Politically speaking-! wou:c: hope that the electorate would support those candidates who recognize the crises this country faces, both domestically and internationally, and who have the integrity, ablllty and courage to act promptly.

If lt ls true that the younger generation will soon control elections, it may well be that that eventuality will be our salvation. They could hardly create a more staggering, tragic, blundering mess than the older generation is making of this great country.

Youth is not ·a matter of years; it is a quality of mind. It is energy, imagination and readiness to leave the familiar past and strike out into the unknown future. Youth is an absolutely irresistible force-and it cannot be denied. It must have confidence in and be satisfied with our leadership or the country may see turmoil such as it has not known.

Let us not overlook the fact that the combined vote, as indicated by the polls, given to McCarthy and Kennedy would determine the Presidency. And this vote-this demand for change-must be accommodated.

The core of the problem is Vietnam. We must get out--making the best arrangement we can. Kennedy preached this and McCarthy still does. Rebellious students demand this. The plight of the underprivileged masses cries for it. Our rapidly worsening financial situation requires it. Our plummetting image in the world makes it essential.

We must prepare for change, change at a more rapid rate than this country has ever before experienced. This is not as simple as another President or another party. It must be a total change of concept: a world concept is a must today I This requires: a change of goals; a change in temper; a reeducation of our people.

Let us hope to again demonstrate what a wise, great, and good nation can do for its own people and its neighbors in the world. And let us dose the door forever on this black chapter in which we used our tremendous wealth and power to shatter, crush and destroy, and with humility and energy turn our gaze in new directions, putting our vast resources to work in the world to house, educate, build, create, heal and inspire.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-PRTIME URBAN PROBLEM WORSENED BY SURTAX

Mr. PROXMmE. Mr. President, those of us in the Senate who opposed the $10 billion surtax increase warned that one virtually certain consequence of this tax increase would be a slowdown in the economy that would eliminate jobs.

Indeed, I secured from the then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers an admission that the surtax would in his judgment increase unemployment by 300,000 per year. I think his judgment was much too modest.

It is clear, at any rate, that as time goes on this tax increase is bound to increase unemployment well above what it would have been otherwise.

Yesterday the Associated Press reported the following from New York:

YOUTH E~OYMENT

NEw YoaK.-Thousands of youths who are willing and able to work have no summer Jobs and probably won't get any this summer, the National Committee on Employment on Youth said today.

After a survey of 18 major cities, the committee concluded that the Nation's summer job program was a failure and would have been a failure even it if had filled its goal.

The committee, in a preliminary report released prior to a news conference today, said both Negro and white youths are unable to find work because there are not enough jobs to go around.

Newspaper reporters conducted the 18-city survey under a grant from the Stern family fund.

Mr. President, every responsible study of our cities has emphasized that the No. 1 problem is jobs. This report of the AP makes it clear that even before the

surtax has its depressing effect on the ¢conomy, we are failing to solve the crux of tlie problem in our cities because of an absence of jobs. The surtax is going to make this problem progressively worse.

HEALTH SERVICI!i AMENDMENTS OF 1968

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. ·President, I was necessarily absent from the :floor last Saturday, July 27, when H.R. 15758, the Health Service Amendments of 1968, was approved by the Senate.

As ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, I have followed this legislation closely and with the support of the leadership of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], who has done more for improving health services in America than any other individual, am proud to have cosponsored this forward-looking legislation.

Title I will extend for 3 additional years the authorizations for appropriations to assist in financing the regional medical program to combat heart disease, cancer, and stroke, and related diseases.

Title II will extend for 3 additional years the authorization for appropriations to assist in financing the health services for migratory agricultural workers.

Title IV will extend for 2 additional years the authorization for grants under the Hill-Burton Act for the construction and modernization of hospitals and other medical care facilities. This temporary extension will provide for continuity pending completion of the study of the National Advisory Commission on Health Facilities.

I am particularly pleased that the · Senate accepted the new part C of title m which provides for the rehabilitation of alcoholics and narcotic addicts. There is no doubt in my mind that the problem of alcoholism which directly affects some 5 million Americans, requires the broad-based frontal attack that this bill will provide. The Public Health Service and the President's Crime Commission agree that alcoholism is one of the most serious health problems in the Nation, ranking behind only mental Ulness, heart disease, and cancer. Aside from the serious effects that alcohol and narcotics addiction have on the individual, their impact is also felt by society as a whole. The families of individuals so addicted bear an intolerable burden, both financial and social; and as the Crime Commission Report makes clear, the correlation between affliction with these diseases-for that is what they are-and crime is alarmingly high.

With these amendments, we can begin what will be a long and difficult struggle to eliminate this most serious health problem. I am proud to have been associated with this venture.

EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS TO WIDOWS OF VETERANS

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I believe there is unanimous agreement among all Senators and Representatives that the original and principal purpO.se

24142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE July 30, 1-968

of H.R. 16025-to grant educational benefits to the widow of any veteran who dies of a service-connected disability or the wife of a veteran who 1s totally disabled-can and should be approved by the 90th Congress.

I hope that the amendments to this bill which will be worked out by the distinguished leaders and Members of the Senate and House most responsible for and familiar with veteran legislation will represent principles and practical programs we can all accept.

For now, I would address myself primarily to our concern that the widows of veterans who died in service or as the result of service-connected disabilities, and the wives of veterans totally disabled, be given every possible assistance to improve their ability to help care for their families.

The Veterans' Administration estimates that perhaps as many as 16,000 widows and wives will take advantage of this program in its first year of operation, and that a peak participation of 40,000 widows and wives will be reached in the second year of the program.

· In dollars, It 1s estimated that this needed and enlightened benefit will cost about $8 million in the first year, and approximately $23 million in the second year, leveling off and declining after that.

I would not suggest, although events may well prove it true, that such an education and training program pays rather than costs our Nation. Even if it cannot be shown right now, however, to what extent this will be .true, it has long been known that the more trained and better able a widow or wife is to help support her family in times of stress and adversity, the greater the chances that her family can be kept together.

And who can put a price tag on this accomplishment?

I hope that in the hectic last days of this 90th Congress, and in the confusion and pressure of adding and accepting amendments to otherwise clear and clean legislation, we will not lose sight of the high purpose, the commendable value, and the simple justice of H.R. 16025-to provide educational assistance to certain widows and wives of veterans on the same basis and in the same amount as are now granted their children.

HIJACKED ISRAEL AIRPLANE Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, the hi

jacked Israel airplane, together with the Israel crew and passengers, must be returned to Israel immediately. Their return is already long overdue.

Palestinian terrorists forced down the El AI jetliner in Algiers last week.

But let there be no mistake. The Algerian Government will be considered a partner in this act of piracy if all of the Israelis and their plane are not freed with the greatest possible haste.

This would be another example of complicity by an Arab government in the treacherous deeds of Palestinian terrorists, who not only touched off the 6-day war last year, but are also determined to start another con:flict.

This act of piracy adds even greater tensions to the already explosive situation in the Middle East.

While Arab States support terrorist acts against Israel, Arab avowals to work through the United Nations for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East can hardly be taken seriously.

It is imperative that leaders of good sense in the Middle East work together in good faith for a peaceful settlement. The alternative may be another war that threatens not only the future of the Middle East, but the future of all mankind.

MORE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there is a growing national debate about the need to strengthen the Office of the President for more effective management of the executive branch of the Government.

President Johnson took note of this recently when he announced that he would form a group of White House Fellows and experienced executives of this and former administrations to study the Presidency, "to see how we can improve it, how we can strengthen it."

Vice President HuMPHREY, in his address at Town Hall in Los Angeles on July 11, called for what he described as an "open Presidency," in which there would be a National Domestic Policy Council to help set priorities and integrate Federal domestic policies.

The former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, John W. Gardner, now chairman of the Urban Coalition, has made some constructive observations and suggestions on this same subject. In an interview with editors of the New York Times, published on July 17, he said the Federal Government cannot function much longer with its present organization of domestic agencies~ He proposed that the President appoint an "executive officer" to direct a coordinating mechanism for more effective management of domestic programs.

There is a striking similarity between these proposals and the National Intergovernmental Affairs Council whi_ch would be authorized by S. 671, which I introduced last year with other Senators. The NIAC, established in the Executive Office and drawing directly on the authority of the President, would be responsible for identifying ·domestic needs and problems, coordinating Federal programs, and serving as a point of referral for the information and guidance of State and local governments in making use of available Federal aids.

I am most encouraged that this dialog on the institution of the Presidency is going forward, and that Mr. Gardner has made a most useful contribution to it.

MORE SUPPORT FOR THE BIG THICKET NATIONAL PARK

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, Secretary Udall's support for the creation of a Big Thicket National Park of 75,000 to 100,000 acres has elat~d all of us who have beeen working so hard to

!Preserve this remarkable area of Texas. The Interior Department's commitment to a park that would protect the Big Thicket's unique nature is particularly pleasing because of the determined opposition of some of the commercial interests in the area. Recognizing the boost Udall's support will mean for us and the need to act as soon as possible on my bill, S. 4, to create the park is an editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise for July 14, 1968. I ask unanimous consent that this editoral be printed in the RECORD.


BIG VOICE FOR BIG THICKET

When your cause 1s conservation, get Stewart Udall on your side.

That is the good fortune of those pushing for a large national park in the Big Thicket.

Ruling out hearsay business, the secretary of the Interior voiced his support of the preservation movement a-t a news co.n!erence, revealing that he equates the East Texas wilderness, with its abundance of wildlife and virgin forest, with the California redwoods section as "one of the remarkable natural areas of the country."

Udall made plain his agreement with Sen. Ralph Yarborough that a park of 75,000 to 100,000 acres would be preferable to one of 35,000 acres, as some National Park Service persons have proposed.

Because the Interior secretary is the first high government official to endorse a fullsized national park-the first, that is, in a position to do something about lt-Yarborough is elated, calling Udall's endorsement of his viewpoint "the most encouraging thing that has happened to the Big Thicket." The senator calls it "a tremendous breakthrough."

It's not surprising that the Interior head's becoming personally interested in the Big Thicket has brought a review of field studies, and that a final proposal for a major national park is predicted within a matter of months.

The problem here, as with congressional authorization of a Redwoods National Park, has centered around the question of how much land should be taken from private owners, mostly lumber companies.

But as Udall points out--and as this newspaper has pointed out many times before him-"time is working against us" in the fight for a meaningful preservation project in this fantastic East Texas wilderness.

THE 160-ACRE LAW Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in the past

66 years, ever since the enactment of the Reclamation Act of 1902, efforts have been made to ravage, to undermine, and to circumvent the 160-acre limitation in one fashion or another.

About 10 years ago, in this Chamber, I raised serious questions about what was happening with the 160-acre limitation in the State of California. At that time, however, Congress agreed with the State of California and adopted its proposal to have the State undertake certain programs embodied in its California State Water Plan project.

Now the next step in the plan to circumvent the 160-acre limitation and to get a handout is being taken. This step will bring nothing but tremendous windfalls of money to the big landowners of California. The history of this action and the probable steps which are involved

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24143 are set forth in two statements which Prof. Paul Taylor of the Berkeley campus of the University of California, has made over station KPFA-FM in Berkeley, Calif. I invite these statements to the attention of Senators, so they may be made well aware of what is happening.

Two overriding problems disturb me: The first is the handout which will be provided to large landowners if the plan of the Governor of California is adopted. The second is that the handout will be made at the expense of the great educational system of the State of California.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that these documents be printed in the RECORD.

I also want to note my own conviction that Professor Taylor is owed our great appreciation for maintaining a constant vigil over the 20th century pirate landowners.

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

THE 160-ACRE LAW (By Pauls. Taylor)

INTRODUCTION In Sacramento, perhaps next week, the

State Senate will vote on Senate Joint Resolution No. 5, spoiU~ored by Senator Gordon Cologne and others. The resolution approves the recommendations of Governor Reagan's Task Force on the Acreage Limitation Problem, i.e., the 160-acre limitation on delivery of publicly-subsidized water to an individual private landowner. The Task Force recommendations go as far as its members dare, or think they can get away with, toward removing the limitation altogether. The latter is what they say the majority of the Task Force really wanted to do.

It is sad that most Californians, along with other citizens, receive so little dependable information revealing the injury that acceptance of the Task Force's recommendations would do to themselves and the future that concerns them. For the truth is that they would destroy the last best hope and opportunity for public planning for a decent physical, economic and cultural environment in their State.

When Senator Cologne tried last year to pass a similar resolution, it never got out of Committee; there were strong citizens' and organizations' protests against it. Apparently this year information of the holding of the hearings did not spread very far. ~ong the citizens' protests last year was one by Allan Temko, distinguished environmental critic whose influence frequently has saved the San Francisco Bay community from devastating effects of bad planning, public or private. In a telegram read to Senator Cologne's Committee by Senator Nick Petris, Temko said: "Removal of 160-acre law threatens irreparable damage to California's future. This forward-looking law coupled with government purchase of excess lands as proposed by Secretary Udall, and urged by National AFL-CIO, provi~s truly effective instrument for rational planning of California in an age of rapid urban growth, and for promoting conservation of open spaces, thus protecting not only agricultural lands but also our expanding cities and new communities. Do not kill California's future by passing [the) Senate Joint Resolution ... "

Of course Senator Cologne's resolution carefully mentions almost anything except Conservation and Public Planning, because it would destroy them both. Nothing illustrates this coilWct better than a resolution passed recently by the leading Conservation organization of the country, the Sierra Club, with which Senator Cologne's resolution

-clashes head-on. On March 17 of this year the executive committee of the Sierra Club adopted this declaration: "The Sierra Club supports the federal purchase of excess lands (over 160-acre limitation) under the 1902 Reclamation Act with the understanding that lands so purchased would be sold or leased under open space regulations." Senator Cologne and Governor Reagan's Task Force, on the contrary, want to let the giant corporations that own the lands now-but not the water-buy their way out of the 160-acre provision cheaply, for a song. The public's stakes are publicly planned beauty, pure air, control of urban sprawl and the preservation of agriculture.

Then there is Educ-ation-public support for public education. S.J. Res. No. 5 does not mention Education. When this nation was giving away public lands a centuiy ago under Abrah·am Lincoln, Congress earmarked large Land Grants for Education. That was the purpose of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. A chain of great State Universities across the nation stands as a monument to the foresight and public spirit of 1862.

Today we are giving away public water, and giving away public money besides, to pay the cost of getting the public water to the private lands. Why do we not follow the example of Abraham. Lincoln and create today a program of Water Grants for Education? Why should we a.ccept Senator Cologne's proposal to hand over the public's · water and the public's money, instead, to make a handful of rich corporations richer?

Senator Cologne's resolution does not mention the conditions of farm la.borers in California that reflect the land and water ownership pattern of the State's agriculture. But Senator Paul Douglas, of Illlnois, successfully defending the 160-acre limitation against an earlier attack in the United States Senate, told CongresS of the close relation between our patterns of ownership and patterns of farm labor, patterns that acute observers have remarked for at least 80 years. "We do not want the Spanish system," he said. "We do not want the hacienda system, or the system of Mexico, which California had when it joined the Union. We do not want a system with a big manor house on the hlll and farm laborers living in hovels. We want a system in which the owner is the cultivator. That is the basis of American agrarian democracy." {CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOl. 105, pt. 6, p. 7497.) He told Congress also that he would "fight on the beaches, in the fields, on the streets, and from house to house ... to protect the people of the United States from one of the greatest land &teals tha.t has ever been attempted in the history of this Nation." (105 Congressional Record 7850) Congress stood with senator Douglas then. Senate Joint Resolution No. 5 seeks to undo what Congress did then. ·

Senator Cologne's resolution, in contrast with its omission of Conservation, Planning, Education, Farm Labor, land and wa.ter monopoly and speculation in the benefits from public investment, stresses the burden of "mechanization and rising land ... costs" on farmers with no more than 160 acres. The resolution falls to tell the fact tha.t nothing in the 160-acre law forbids use of as large machinery as anyone finds it economical to use on acreages as large as they want. The implied plea of the resolution is that to raise the 160-acre limitation would save agriculture. The fact is that the resolution of the Sierra Club favoring government purchase of excess lands to assure open spaces is the only effective way to pr.:eserve greenoelts of agriculture in California against the rising land costs and the devastating encroachments of the rapid urbanization we see all about us. Senator Cologne's resolution to undermine th·e 160-acre law is pointed in the direction of the not-so-slow death of agriculture at the hands of these encroachments.

These are days when statesmanship must take precedence over grasping by special in:

terests. Long ago Theodore Roosevelt told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco what the 160-acre law really is all about. In these days of uncertainty and instab111ty, let us remind ourselves of the counsel given us by the President who inspired ;the 160-acre law because he understood its deeper meanings. Speaking of this law, he said: "Now I have come to the crux of my appeal. I wish to save the very wealthy men of this country and their advocates and upholders from the ruin that they would bring upon themselves if they were to have their way." Their way, you understand, was the way of Senator Cologne's Joint Resolution No.5 and of Governor Reagan's Task Force. Roosevelt continued: "It is because I am against revolution; it is because I am against tJ:le doctrines of the Extremists, of the Socialists; it is because I wish to see this country continued as a genuine democracy; it is because I distrust violence and disbelieve in it; it is because I wish to secure this country against ever seeing a time when the 'have-nots' shall rise against the 'haves'; it is because I wish to secure for our children and our grandchildren and for their children's children the same freedom of opportunity, the same peace and order and justice that we have had in the past."

Which is the better guide: Senator Cologne, or Theodore Roosevelt? The question answers itself.

These introductory remarks were spoken after the remainder of my talk was taped. At the earlier time the news had not reached me that Senator Cologne was seeking to breathe life into the recommendations of Governor Reagan's Task Force that the 160-acre law be undermined and brought to destruction. But I more than suspected even then that if he did not make the effort, then someone else would. Now let us continue. GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S TASK FORCE OF THE

ACREAGE LIMITATION PROBLEM In southern California, in the Central Val

ley of California, in Arizona and in other western states, are great private concentrations of arid lands whose owners clamor for public water. Why Congress should jump to open the public purse so readily to these particular owners of private property is an interesting question, one asked all too seldom. Recently Major General Jackson Graham, Chief of the Corps of Engineers, asked it in these arresting words: "Is a man entitled to buy up, settle, or promote a chunk of desert and then demand that his government bring water to him from the general direction of the North Pole?" 1 Perhaps here is a clue to the answer: in the southern and western San Joaquin Valley of California, to choose a striking example of the concentration of landownership, 36 owners, mostly corporate, own three-quarters of a mlllion irrigable acres, ari area about the size of the State of Rhode Island. These owners, like other large owners in the arid west, want public water and public money to bring the water to them, and they are getting them both.

Congress has consented. Congress has added, however, that when the public puts up the money to water private lands, the limit allowed to an individual landowner is water enough for 160 acres. In dollars, depending upon the cost of watering a particular project, this is to say that an individual landowner may receive a public subsidy of between $96,000 and $320,000, but no more than this. The complaint against the 160-acre law by those, I.e., the giant landowners, who welcome the water and the subsidy but object that these dollar ce111ngs are too low, is easier to understand than to agree with.

It is more ditficult to understand why it is so easy to fool so many citizens-city folk and

1 Quoted in Wildlife Management Institute, Outdoor News Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 10. May 24, 1968, p. 2.

24144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1968 easte:rnel'S especially-who have failed to see any connection between themselves and the 160-acre law. Under the spell of "public relations" propaganda serving the interests of giant landowners, they have tended to accept the notion that the 160-acre issue is local, rural, and tied to a myth of old-fashioned but outmoded farming. They have tended to forget that the entire nation puts up the cash for water in some of the most rapidly urbanizing sections of the United States where, with water, the future fast obliterates agriculture along with the rest of the past.

Even in California, where people have ringside seats to watch the unfolding urbanization of their own State, most people still fail to see how the pressures exerted through the California State Water Project--a device for circumventing the Federal 160-acre law, as I shall explain-raise their State taxes, cut the budgets for mental health, for medical care for the aged and poor, and for the institutions of higher education. They fail to see that these budgetary pressures to help large landowners escape the 160-acre law encourage the Legislature to transfer many millions of dollars of annual oil revenues now earmarked for higher education, to construction of the circumventing State Water Project, and invite proposals to charge student tuition in public university and college systems; and to limit enrollment. They also have yet to recognize in the 160-acre law a final opportunity, if properly implemented, to preserve agricul- · tural greenbelts and open spaces, and so to assure for future generations a physical, economic and cultural environment of quality and beauty.

But if most Californians and other westerners have yet to see that the 160-acre law faces, not backwards as Governor Ronald Reagon says, but forwards, there are many who do. Among these are organized labor and the Sierra Club. In March, 1968, the conservation-minded Sierra Club declared itself in favor of government purchase of "excess lands" above the 160-acre limit as an instrumentality for preserving open spaces. Organized labor declared for government purchase long ago and for many reasons, including a belief in more respectful observance of law by large landowners and by public administrators of reclamation law in the Department of the Interior.

With these thoughts as background, let us examine one of the most recent attacks upon the 160-acre law, the one launched in January, 1968, by Governor Reagan's Task Force on the Acreage Limitation Problem.

In his inaugural address on February 5, 1967, Governor Reagan outlined his prime targets. These reveal the man and what he stands for politically. High on his list is removal of the 160-acre provision of Federal reclamation law. This law, sponsored by the great Conservationist and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, stands guard against private monopoly of water and land. It says that when a reclamation project brings water to privately-owned land, no individual may receive more than enough water to irrigate 160-acres, a provision to assure that public water, moved by public money to private land, shall not be grabbed by the few, but shall be distributed equitably among the many.

At his inauguration the Governor called this 66-year old law "archaic," and offered to support efforts to "lift" it. Losing no time, he sent a special message a few days later to the Legislature, asking it to memorialize Congress to "remove" the 160-acre provision. Then in April he appointed a 5-man Task Force on the Acreage Limitation Problem, which reported nine months later in January; 1968.

There need be no mystery about whobesides Governor Reagan-wants the 160-acre limitation removed, or why they want it removed. That is to say, the ~ystery can be cleared up simply by going to the public

record. The large ·landowners with more than 160-acres want the limitation · removed, especially the giant landowners with many thousands and 'tens of thousands of acres.

Long ago Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes told the American people why the giant landowners want the 160-acre law "removed." Writing to the editor of the San Francisco News in 1945, the Secretary said: "It is the age-old battle over who is to cash in on the unearned increment in land values created by a public investment. . • • Their principal objective is to avoid application ... of the long-established reclamation policy of the Congress which provides for the distribution of the benefits of great irrigation projects among the many and which prevents speculation in lands by the few." 2

For a century the arid West has been the scene of giant speculative landholdings, mostly acquired dry and in anticipation of public help to bring the public's water to the private lands. Speaking of California, British Ambassador James Bryce wrote in the 1880's in his classic "American Commonwealth": "When California was ceded to the United States, land speculators bought up large tracts under Spanish titles, and others, foreseeing the coming prosperity, subsequently acquired great domains by purchase, either from the railways which had received land grants, or directly from the government. Some of these speculators, by holding their lands for a rise, made it difficult for immigrants to acquire small freeholds, and in some cases checked the growth of farms. Others let their land on short leases to farmers, who thus came into a comparatively precarious and often necessitous condition; others established enormous farms, in which the soil is cultivated by hired labourers, many of whom are discharged after the harvest--a phenomenon rare in the United States, which is elsewhere a country of moderately sized farms, owned by persons who do most of their labour by their own and their children's hands. Thus the land system of California presents features both peculiar and dangerous, a contrast between great properties, often appearing to conflict with the general weal, and the sometimes hard pressed small farmer, together with a mass of unsettled labour, thrown without work into the towns at certain times of the year."

When reclamation law was adopted in 1902, an avowed public purpose was to break up this inherited pattern of concentrated speculative landownersip and to remold it to conform with the national ideal of the Homestead Act of Abraham Lincoln-to the tiller should belong the soil. The instrument chosen to accomplish this was the 160-acre limitation on deliveries of public water to private land. Naturally, it is the owners of giant speculative landholdings who oppose this public policy of spreading equitably among the many the benefits of public investment and of public water. If they can remove the acreage limitation, or even substantially undermine it, they stand to win prizes of finance and of power reaching sweepstake dimensions. Figure it out for yourself: if they can persuade the public to pay the cost of developing water supplies for their benefit, subsidizing i·t to the tune o!, say, $1,000 an acre, an owner of 150,000 acres stands to gain a subsidy o! $149,840,000 i! he can remove the 160-acre limitation. According to budget bureau studies the amount ot public subsidy in bringing water to western private lands varies between $600 and $2,000 an acre.3 If large landholders can remove or substantially undermine, the 160-acre limita;. tion, the only limit on their grasp of publlc subsidy will be the size of their landholdings.

'Harold L. Ickes to Frank Clarvoe, Editor, San Francisco Ne'lj)s, Oct. 31, 1945.

a Joseph. Alsop, "And The Rich Get Richer." San Francisco Examiner, Nov. 20, .1964. ·

But is there any good reason why Congress should not say, as it does: a subsidy o!, say, $160,000 is plenty large enough for any individual? Would you settle for a subsidy of $160,000 from the public treasury to enhance the value of your private property, i! you could get Congress to vote you that much money? Probably you would think you had found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But the giant landowners chase even larger pots of gold at the end of even more expensive rainbows. What they seek to overturn in their scramble is the 160-acre law which, in words of the United States Supreme Court, requires the distribution o! public water "in accordance with the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals. The limitation insures that this enormous expenditure will not go in disproportionate spare to a few individuals with large land holdings. Moreover, it prevents the use of the federal reclamation service for speculative purposes." 4

Unfortunately, the many who stand to lose most to the few if Governor Reagan has his way in getting the 160-acre limitation "removed," are a poor match politically for the closely-knit, well-informed, legally advised and economically established corporate landowners. The many are sea ttered, unorganized and uninformed of the loss of opportunity and substance that they face. Unfortunately the mass media of communication in California no longer sustain their own best record in decades past of informing the many. On the contrary, frequently they actively help the few large landowners with the waterless land already in their possession, as they strive with singleness of purpose for their own enrichment, and as they scheme to persuade the public to give them both the water for their private lands and the money to get it to them.

A question has been both asked and answered frequently in Congress: if the 160.acre limitation is removed, who will get the benefit? It appears easier for some Californians to speak out more clearly in answer when the locale is, say, Arizona, than when it is in their own State. On July 29, 1949, fo.r example, California Republican Congress-. man Donald Jackson, who neglected to raise his voice in support of application of the 160-acre law within his own State, nevertheless marshalled the following telling argument for applying it to Arizona; his immediate motive was to defeat a proposal for construction of a Central Arizona Project. In words that might have been applied to rec:lamation in his own State of California. he told Congress that, "The most gigantic bubble ever to develop within the continental limits of the United States appears now to be taking shape here in Congress in the form of the proposed Central Arizona Project ... In every financial transaction there is a beneficiary . . . There are some 400 large landholders in the project area who would be likely to receive individual benefits averaging more than $500,000 apiece ... AbOut 30,-000 men, women, and children in the project area would stand to receive benefits o! $50,-000 each, all as a gift from the people of the other States ... If the ... project is authorized ... the idle land will immediately increase in value 6 to 10 times ...• " 5

More recently, answers to the same ques:tlon: "Who would benefit from removal of the 160-acre limitation?" were given again to Congress, this time in respect to California's San Joaquin Valley. The answers are spread upon the pages of the Congressional Record of Senate debates that took on May 5, 7, 11, and 12, 1959.

Congress was debating then-and l'eject-: ing-an earlier attempt to do what Governor Reagan and his Task Force want done no-w, viz., to remove the 160-acre law. Read the Congressional Record for May 7, 1959, for

4 Ivanhoe v. :McCracken, 357 U.S. at a.97. 15 95 Congressional Record 101261f.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24145 eKample. On that day Senator Wayne Morse, on pages 7669 and 7670, was calling _the effort to remove the acreage limitation a "water steal" by "large landowners" reminiscent of the "oil scandals and the oil 'steals' of which the powerful economic vested interests have been guilty throughout our history ... let the Record show," said Senator Morse, "that I think that if our amendment (to deny removal of the acreage limitation) is not adopted, the bill wlll be a water 'steal' by the various large _landowners the Senator from Illinois (Senator Paul Douglas) has just now listed in the Record."

Senator Douglas had just placed in the Record several official tables prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation showing that a handful of landowners, each owning 1,000 acres or more, own 923,000 acres, or 62 percent of the 1,430,000 acres where irrigation was then in immediate prospect on the San Joaquin Valley's west side. As few as four groups among these large owners, viz., Southern Pacific with 149,000 acres, Standard Oil with 105,000 acres, other oil companies with 53,000 acres, and Boston Ranch Company with 38,000 acres, own 21 percent of the entire area about to be irrigated at public expense.

It is regrettable that few newspapers, if any, even in Oalifornia, brought this story to the attention of their readers at the time. On May 11, 1959, Senator Douglas, of Illinois, told the senate: "I shall be glad to go to California and debate this issue up and down the Central Valley and up and down the coast with the two Senators from California ... I am ready to hold joint debates in Sacramento, Bakersfield, Fresno, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. In fact I am tempted to issue a challenge now to the Senators to debate this issue." 6 To the best of my knowledge no California newspaper carried word of this extraordinary challenge to joint debates with California's two Senators in their own State on the 160-acre law. Unfortunately for the education of the people of California, the debates were not held. Of course anyone with sufficient .interest can consult the Congressional Record for those May days in 1959 at the nearest public library.

The Senate debate in Washington lasted four days. In face of the facts placed .in the record by Senators Douglas and Morse, the Senate rejected the effort to remove the 160-acre law. The following yea.r the House did likewise, under the leadership of Congressman Jeffery Cohelan, of California, and Congressman AI Ullman, of Oregon.

In my present commentary on the revival of the attack on the 160-acre law by Governor Reagan, I shall establish three main points:

First, the Governor placed the Acreage Limitation Problem in the hands of committed and experienced opponents of acreage limitation, apparently to assure that his Task Force's recommendations would be harmonious with his own avowed purpose of removing the law. He might have placed the Problem in the hand of a broadly-based body of impartial, public-spirited, conservation-minded citizens seeking to define the problems related to acreage limitation and to offer solutions in the public interest. He did not do so.

Second, except for its high sponsorship by the Governor of a great State, it is difficult to take the report of the Task Force seriously, because it contains so many untruths, halftruths and distorting silences that as a citizen's guide to an understanding of the acreage limitation problem it is wholly unreliable. The Task Force report, unfortunately, is properly to be viewed as special pleading for giant landholding interests that seek, by circumventing if not removing the law, to

6 105 Congressional Record 7678. CXIV--1521-Part 18

capture for the f.ew the benefits o! a natural resource intended :to reach the many.

Third, the Task Force, admitting that the true desire of its members is in fact to repeal the acreage limitation law outright, offers to settle for a little less than outright repeal now-as little less as possible to get by with. In deference to political realities---,in deference, that is, to the strength of public support for true Conservation of natural resources and for their use in accordance with the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals-the Task Force plans carefully veiled maneuvers. On the chance that an uninformed public will not realize the threat to the public interest, the Task Force tries to creep up on the public's blind side, then stealthily to remove the inner substance o! the acreage limitation law, leaving only its outward form and empty shell. I shall explain this technique in a moment.

Now I turn to my first point. Governor Reagan, as I said, took no chances

that members of his Task Force might sympathize with the principle stated by the Supreme Court in describing the 160-acre law, of distributing the benefits of public water development "in accordance with the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals." The Task Force itself makes this crystal clear in its report, by saying, "A majority of the members . . . believe these provisions are wrong in principle, and should be removed." The minority-whether of one or two members--cannot be far behind the majority, for all members of the Task Force join equally in recommending the undermining of the law.

It need surprise no one that the majority of the Task Force takes the position that the principle of the "greatest good to the greatest number of individuals" is "wrong" as applied by the 160-acre limitation. The Chairman of the Task Force is experienced as attorney in water matters for the interests of the Kern County Land Company, one of the nation's largest land owners. The Company owns 1,835,000 acres, or 2,850 square miles, i.e., more than twice the area of the State of Rhode Island. This Company has been as diligent in opposing acreage limitation on wateT deliveries to its lands through investment of public funds, as it has been in seeking public funds to bring the water when and where wanted.

A second and a third member of the Task Force have similar professional legal experience representing _ organizations in which large landholding interests predominate, or representing large landowners directly. A fourth member, President of the National Reclamation Association which opposes the 160-acre limitation, had publicly expressed his personal opposition to acreage limitation prior to his appointment to the Task Force, so his hostile attitude hardly could have been unknown to the Governor when appointing him. Clearly, when selecting members for the Task Force, the Governor gave high priority to actual experience in opposing acreage limitation. Consequently the "problem" that the Task Force chose to face was not to weigh and decide for or against the acreage limitation. Rather, its self-defined problem was to select tactics designed for its destruction, and to guess how far to dare to go in that direction.

So much for the first point. The Governor's Task Force was better qualified by inclination and experience to guide the efforts of giant landowners to remove the 160-acre limitation than it was to evaluate the law itself in the light of broad public interest.

Now for the second point: The report of the Task Force is undependable as a source of "facts" claimed in support of its position that the 160-acre law ought to be, if not removed. then at least weakened.

Unreliability example · No. 1: Opposed as it iS to land reform, the Task Force report

states that "land reform" was not a purpose of the 160-acre llmitation. The truth is precisely the opposite. Let me . be specific, by quoting first from pages 13 and 14 of the Task Force report: "Because o! its latter-day impact upon private landholdings, some supporters of acreage limitation have sought to justify it as a 'land reform• measure. Certainly that was no part of the purpose of the original limitation provision of the 1902 Act, for that statute was aimed primarily at the developing and settling of the public lands ... "

To find out that the truth is the reverse of what the Task Force says, it is unnecessary to go beyond the words of the 160-acre law in the 1902 Act-the very law assigned to the Task Force to report upon. The 160-acre law states: "No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one landowner . . ." 7 In other words, Congress offered generously to water private as well as public lands, but only on condition that the private ownership pattern be reformed to eliminate large holdings.

The Congressional debates of 1902 were explicit that the 160-acre law is a "land reform" law, intended to change the landowners-hip pattern. Why does the Task Force fail to tell the readers of its report that Congressman Fran~ W. Mondell, of Wyoming, in charge of the original 1902 bill, told the House that "It is a step in advance of any legislation we have ever had in guarding against the possibility of speculative landholdings . . . on the public land, while it will also compel the division into small holdings of any large areas ... in private ownership which may be irrigated under its provisions"? The bill was drawn, he emphasized, "with a view to breaking up any large land holdings which might exist in the vicinity of government works ... " s

The Task Force, in other words, tells the public that reform of the monopolistic pattern of private landownership of irrigable western lands was "no part of the original limitation provisions of the 1902 Act ... ," when the truth is exactly the reverse.

Unreliability example No. 2: The Task Force states on page 6 of its report that "Interest-free financing is the only true subsidy which is recognizable as a purported justification for the acreage limitation provisions of Reclamation Law." This claim by the Task Force is crucial to its plea that large landowners should be permitted, at their option, to "buy their way out" from the public policy that opposes monopoly and speculation. But in fact the claim is insupportable and invalid. The Task Force suggests, with an air of liberality, that if landowners with less than 160 acres are asked to pay, say, $3.50 per acre-foot for water from a reclamation project, then large landowners should be permitted to escape policy by paying $7 per acre-foot, or double. Whether public policy to protect the many from the few should be placed on sale on any financial terms at all is highly questionable, to say the least. However, assuming that it should be, Governor Rea.gan,s Task Force conceals from its readers that the price of escape, if it is to cover public subsidies to private landowners, ought to be, not twice the rate charged smaller landowners, but more than /O'Uf' times that rate!

On this point the public .record is explicit, and fully available to anyone, including the members of the Task Force. Published figures of the Bureau of Reclammation show that while $3.50 per acre-foot is charged tor water from the Friant-Kern Canal of Central Valley Project, even $14 per acre-foot, or four times that amount, is insuJiiCilent to cover the cost "if subsidies and special bene-

7 Sec. 5, Act of June 17, 1902; 43 U.S.C. 431. 8 35 CongresslonaJ. Record 6677, 6678. Em

phasis supplied.

24146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 196$ fits under reclamation law were eliminated. "Flood control" and perhaps still other subsidies are also a part of the cost shouldered by the pubUc to bring public water to private lands, but the Task Force ignores these. The Task Force readily could have consulted the statistical table from which I have taken the figures quoted. It was prepared officially by the Bureau and published on page 869 of hearings on S. 912 before the Senate Public Lands Subcommittee of the · 80th Congress. That was in 1947 when California Senators Sheridan Downey and William F. Knowland were making an earlier futile effort to remove acreage limitation from California's Central Valley Project.

Naturally the Task Force, in its effort to enable large landowners to escape the 160-acre law cheaply, conceals the true magnitude of the financial burden borne by the public in subsidizing the bringing of public water to their private lands.

But this provides only one further example of the second point, viz., that the report of Governor Reagan's Task Force is untrustworthy as a source of facts, as well as partisan in its conclusions.

Now for the third point, viz., that the report seeks to destroy acreage limitation by stealth. The Task Force, not daring to ask for total repeal of the 160-acre law, pleads for concessions that would remove its substance. Its first demand is to raise the limit from 160 acres to 640 acres. The second is to extend the so-called "Engle Formula," i.e., to allow large landowners to exchange money for public policy, as little money as the public can be induced to accept in return for its abandonment.

The Task Force supports its first demandthat the lim1t be ra.ised from 160 to 640 aores, by pleading that operation of 160 acres is uneconomic. "In truth," states the report on page 18, "the 160-acre farmer is in many cases prevented by the limitation from making any profit at all, because his costs exceed hls gross revenue . . . . The 'family-size farm' of 160 acres is a snare and a delusion."

This is the voice of large-scale, corporate agriculture. It may sound plausible, especially to city dwellers with limited knowledge of farming, or perhaps to middle western and eastern people who may not realize that in productivity one irrigated acre in California equals 4 to 10 acres in the humid belt. Stated in humid belt equivalent-acre terms, Governor Reagan's Task Force wants to raise the limitation to somewhere between 640 and 1,600 acres, on the alleged ground that a family cannot make a profit on less.

Of course the organizations of family farmers in California and the nation do not swallow these words that someone else tries to put in their mouths. Both National Grange and National Farmers Union oppose lifting the acreage limitation. Go into the San Joaquin Valley, as I have done, and speak with smaller farmers making a living on from 60 to 80 acres and sending their children to college and university for an education. They do not join with the large landowners in demanding that the limit be raised; on the contrary, they ask that it be sustained and enforced.

The Task Force arguments prove too much. It is almost incredible. On the one hand, the large landowners of California want eastern money from eastern taxpayers to subsidize western irrigation to the tune of, say $160,000 per family. On the other hand, the Regan Task Force now says that this much subsidy is not enough to set up a farm family so it can make a "profit". If true, would it not be a good idea for eastern and middle western taxpayers to search for other, less wasteful and more efficient, ways to conduct a war on poverty than by subsidizing irrigation in the West?

That, for n,ow, should be enough to expose the falsity of the grounds on which the Task

Force seeks to weaken the 160-acre limit by raising it. The other Task Force device for undercutting the law is worse than the first, because it is stealthier and would allow vastly greater acreages to escape the 160-acre limit. It asks Congress to adopt the "Engle Formula" to let large landowners, at their own option, "buy their way out" of public policy by paying a few dollars--or rather by accepting just a little less public subsidy than smaller landowners.

Earlier I pointed out that the Task Force proposal allowing large landowners to escape acreage limitation by paying double what smaller landowners pay for water, e.g., $7 instead of $3.50 per acre-foot, means simply that large land owners will escape by refunding less than half the public subsidy/

No one has described the stealthy nature of this Engle Formula, so cherished by the Reagan Task Force, better than its author, Congressman and later Senator Clair Engle. In 1955 Engle told Congress: "I grant you, you start kicking the 160-acre limitation and it is like inspecting the rear end of a mule: You want to do it from a safe distance because you might get kicked through the side of the barn. But it can be done with circumspection, and I hope we can exercise circumspection." 8 The Task Force grasps at "circumspection" hoping that an unsuspecting public will not kick it through the side of the barn.

Perhaps the public has already done so. Until these remarks of mine, had you heard of the Task Force recently? But if not, do not rest easily even so. Those who work unceasingly to remove the 160-acre limitation find silence perhaps the best cover for their work.

CONSERVATION, EDUCATION, WAR ON POVERTY AND THE 160-ACRE LIMITATION

(By PaulS. Taylor) I give to this second section of my remarks

on the Acreage Limitation Problem the title: Conservation, .Education, War on Poverty and the 160-acre Limitation. These words represent the public purposes and stirring potentials of a law that is unfairly p1lloried and throttled in the interest of giant land speculators. These seek to give the 160-a.cre law an image as something archaic, outmoded, and best removed from the statute books.

The truth, plain if we but see it, is that the 160-acre limitation, far from being an archaic relic of a by-gone age, as ~ascribed by Governor Reagan and his Task Force, is far sighted. It marked the beginning of the Conservation movement at the opening of the 20th Century, and can be made readily into an efficient instrument for modern Conservation, for Education and for a war on poverty in ' this age of rapid urbanization and of industrializing agriculture. Like the 179-year old United States Constitution, the basic principles of the 160-acre limitation need only modernization of their appllcation to bring this law creatively into play for the rational shaping of our physical, economic and cultural environment. The 160-acre law faces not backward to a by-gone past, but forward toward our own futureprovided only that we have the wit to put this law to its fullest and most intell1gent use.

In my previous commentary I expla.ined that the report of Governor Reagan's Task Force is not a disinterested, publlc-spirited document seeking to discover why it is so difficult to get effective enforcement of a. public policy described by the United States Supreme Court as distribution of the benefits of public investment "in accordance with the greateSit good to the greatest number of individuals." This report is, rather, special pleading by persons experienced in helping large landowners to escape that policy. The Governor's Task Force report not only is opposed to public pollcy, but grounds

its conclusions on so many untruths, halftruths and distorting silences that it is wholly undependable as a citizen's gqide to an understanding of the problem.

Finally I showed that the recommendations of the Task Force are no more than a. refurbished effort to undermine the 160-acre law by stealth, and precisely in the slick manner of the notorious "Engle Formula.." The Task Force, to put it plainly, wants to hang a "For Sale" sign on publtc poltcy and knock it down to low but affiuent bidders.

It stretches no facts of history to see the 160-acre law as a :first move in the 20th Century toward what today we call a War on Poverty. Listen to these words of George H. Maxwell, who earned the title "Father of Reclamation"-words spoken at the 1896 convention of the National Irrigation Congress: "If we have reached a condition in less than half a century, when in case of riot and disorder, the national government must be called upon to suppress riot and disturbances in Chicago, to keep the peace and preserve property, how is it to be done in years to come, when these great cities have grown to such a size that no other power can control them, and when the very elements of disorder which control those cities will likewise control, too, the nation and elect the men who administer the Federal Government? Now, where is the remedy for this?" Do those words sound out-of-date today? Maxwell's answer was to assure widespread ownership of property, notably in land and water, as Congress shortly provided for by enacting the 160-acre provisions of reclamation law.1 Barely six years later, in 1902, Congressman Oscar Underwood, later Speaker of the House, gave similar counsel to Congress. The reclamation law, he said, would give farm boys "a place where they can go and build homes without being driven into the already over-crowded cities to seek employment . . . I believe the passage of this bill is in the interest of the man who earns his bread by his da.ily toil . . ." 2

If reclamation law today has done less than hoped for to achieve the purposes stated by Maxwell, Underwood and others of its original sponsors, the fault is in no small part because enforcement of the 160-acre law has been so largely thwarted by the power of giant landowners, not because the law points in the wrong direction. It is not without significance and understanding that as recently as September 1967 the White House Task Force on Rural Poverty recommended "that the Department of the Interior enforce the 160-acre limitation." a

The large landholding interests in the West from the beginning have been more interested in monopolizing the benefits of public water development for themselves than in conducting a "War on Poverty." Let us turn now to their century-long efforts to atta.tn their end. At this point I invite the attention of easterners especially to what is happening to their heritage of water and land at the hands of western special interests.

These interests have been farsighted and tenacious. Long, long ago, as far back as the eighteen seventies at least, when they heard from the national government a glowing prospect of the coming of water at public expense to waterless lands of the west, they immediately grabbed all the waterless public land they could lay their hands on and labelled it "Private, Keep Off." Using Ca11-fornia as an example, a team of engineers and scientists sent there by the national government had proclaimed that "The Great Central Valley of California is admirably

1 Proceedings of fifth National Irrigation Congress, 42. (1896)

2 June 12, 1902. S. Doc. 446, 376. a White House Commission on Rural Pov

erty, The People Left Behind, 138, 139.

July 30, 1968 ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 24147 adapted for irrigation." As a ''general conclusion" the report stated that where the effect of irrigation is "to increase in so striking a manner the value of the lands, the government feels obliged to aid works of this kind by subsidy • • ." •

Western response to the prospect of an open door to the national Treasury was immediate. In barely three years, on May 31, 1877, the San Francisco Chronicle, at that time alert and opposed to monopoly of natural resources, warned: "If those who call themselves sta.tesmen and lawmakers continue much longer to disregard the rights and interests of the great body of the citizen class-to promote the absorption of the land of the nation by a few wealthy and unscrupulous capitalists, aided by corrupt officials and perjured locators at the Government Land Office, depriving the poor man of small means of the opportunity of obtaining homes, and white laborers generally (the reference is to Chinese commonly employed by large landowners as cheap labor to farm their lands) of all chance of securing work at fair wages the oppressed millions will be impelled to the last resort of revolution to redress their wrongs." 15

The Visalia Delta foresaw at once what the large landowners would do next. Having grabbed the public's land, their next move would be to grab the public's water with one hand, and get the public to pay for delivering it to them, with the other hand. In that same year of 1877 the Delta prophesied that the monopolists of "an already extensive dry domain" would soon attempt "by an array of force and talent to secure to capital the ownership of the water as well as of the land, and the people will at last have it to pay for . . ." e To attain this goal-that the public will have it to pay for-has been the light guiding the tactics of large landowning interests in the West from the 1870's to this very day. Having grabbed the land, they now grab the water and the money, and today the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation helps them to dolt.

But all this takes time-lots of time. Back in those nineteenth century days, Congress was slower about opening the door of the national Treasury to the West. Not until 1902 did it do so, and then it made the West promise that when the nation puts up the money, no land monopolist will be allowed to monopolize the water, too. Congress wrote this promise into the National Reclamation Act of 1902, using these words: "No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding one hundred sixty acres to any one landowner . . !' 1

Some easterners were skeptical at the time; unfortunately their gloomy prophecies are coming true today. Congressman George W. Ray, of New York, for example, warned that the promise would not be kept. It is as if he could foresee the Westlands Project today on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in California. There the United States Bureau of Reclamation goes right on building a half-billion dollar project to serve 400,000 acres disqualified from receiving its benefits because the owners fail to comply with the 160-acre law. Congressman Ray said in 1902: ". . . and so we find behind this scheme, egging it on, encouraging it, the great railroad interests of the West, who own millions of acres of these arid lands, now useless, and the very moment that we, at the public expense, establish or construct these irrigation works and reservoirs, you will find multiplied by 10, and in some instances by 20, the value of now worthless land owned by those railroad companies." s At Westlands,

• Irrigation of the San Joaquin, Tulare, and Sacramento Valleys, California. House Exec. Doc. No. 290, 43 Cong., 1st sess., 70.

5 San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 1877. • Visalia Delta, May 5, 1877. 7 Sec. 5, 32 Stat. 389 (1902). • 35 Cong. Rec. 6685 (1902).

the Southern Pacific owns 120,000 or more of the 400,000 ineligible acres. The Congress of 1902, however, trusting in the promise of the 160-acre provision, and relying on the power of respect for law, rejected the New York Congressman's warning and opened the door of the Treasury to the West.

Since the requirements of the 160-acre law were the only terms on which they could ge1; Congress to give the money to get the water, large western landholders accepted themfor the time being, and on paper. Ever since, they have been engaged, on the one hand, in opening the Treasury door wider, and on the other hand, in choking off enforcement of the 160-acre law when they could not get it removed altogether. These efforts began in 1905, barely three years after Congress passed the National Reclamation Act, and they have been unremitting ever since.9

First, the money. The national Treasury, through the Bureau of Reclamation, provides water to irrigate lands free of any charge for interest to the landowners. This subsidy equals 57 percent over a 40-year repayment period, assuming a 3 percent interest rate, or 74 percent subsidy assuming a 5 percent interest rate. This is only the beginning of the subsidies; as described recently in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the Bureau of Reclamation has become a "subsidy machine" 1o for the benefit of speculating private landowners. Federal taxpayers are only one source of subsidy to private landowners, known as the "irrigators." On the Central Valley Project in California, for example, California users of power and municipal and industrial water are allocated only 36 percent of project costs reimbursable to the federal treasury, but they repay 82 per<:ent; irrigators-private landowner~are allocated 63 percent of costs but are asked to repay only 17 percent. In these and other ways the door of the Treasury and other public sources of money is pushed further and further ajar.11

Next, the 160-acre anti-monopoly policy. Western large private landowning interests are as assiduous in choking ~ff the public policy embedded in the 160-acre law as they have been in widening the opening in the Treasury doorway. Let California be the example again. In the 1940's the large landowning interests tried their level best to get Congress to remove the 160-acre law from the Central Valley Project. They failed. Those who spoke for them in House and Senate, viz., Democrats Congressman Alfred Elliott and Senator Sheridan Downey, were forced out of public life for their pains. Republican Governor Ronald Reagan apparently is taking up where they left off.

The United States Constitution, as every citizen knows, has created a national Government composed of three branches-Legislative, Judicial and Executive. The large landowning interests have explored them all. Failing to remove the acreage limitation by Act of Congress, they turned to the Supreme Court. In 1958 the Court rejected their appeal unanimously. Then they went to work on the Executive Branch, seeking from the Department of the Interior what they were denied by Congress and Court. They went to work, too, on the Administration and Legislature of the State of California.

Does the story begin to sound complex and hard to follow? Are the details becoming confusing? Do not be surprised, for this planned complexity is the chief reason why

o Secretary of the Interior J. A. Krug, Hearings before sub-committee of Senate public lands committee, 80th Cong., 1st sess., on S. 912, 991, 992. ( 1947).

10 Laurence I. Moss, In search of a subsidy machine: or Why the Grand Canyon must be dammed. Bul. Atomic Scientists, XXIII, No.6, 25. (June, 1967)

11 Douglas R. Page, Acreage Limitation: Policy considerations. 38 California Law Rev. 730, n. 13.

large landowning interests have been able with one hand to throw dusst in the ey~ of the public, while with the other they grab first the land, then the money and the water. If he public policy of distributing the benefits of reclamation "in accordance with the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals" is to be preserved, it is necessary for the public to get the main outlines sufficiently clearly to undertltand why and how it is being outwitted and outmaneuvered. Let me try to put the pieces in place, using the California State Water Plan as an example.

First, the public "image" of the California State Water Plan. On May 4, 1968, Governor Ronald Reagan dedicated the key unit of the State Water Plan, Oroville Dam on the Feather River. He hailed it, according to the San Francisco Chronicle the next day, as a "massive monument to the • • • civic and political leaders whose perserverance converted an idea into a life-saving and lifesustaining reality." In elaboration, the Chronicle added in its report of the dedication that "While only partially complete, the dam was credited with averting a 1964 Sacramento Valley :flood exceeding the severity of the December, 1955, Yuba City disaster which killed 36 people and destroyed 400 homes."

To be sure, there was an undertone of anxiety over how to meet the cost of completing the State Water Plan. Would the Legislature transfer millions of dollars of tidelands oil revenues now earmarked for higher education construction, away from education and give them to the State Water Plan? Also, said the Chronicle soberly, "It is conceded, additionally, that a bond issue ranging in size from $1 b1lllon to $3 billion must be forthcoming before supplemental water can be developed on the Bel River, and such units as a peripheral delta canal and a master San Joaquin Valley drain constructed." But these doubts were overshadowed by Governor Reagan's laudatory words: "We are here to dedicate more than a dam and a lake. We are here to dedicate what it:~, in truth, a memorial to the vision, the dedication and the hard work of many, many Californians-Californians whose love of their state has overcome any sectionalism they may have felt." u

That is the contrived ·"image" of the State Water Plan. What is the true image? To whom and to what is Oroville Dam a "massive monument?" A good way to begin is to ask questions and find the ant:~wers.

First, why was the damming of Feather River able to avert a 1964 :flood, but unable to avert the "severity of the December, 1955, Yuba City disaster ... "? No less an authority than Senator Thomas H. Kuchel has given us the answer: removing the damming of Feather River from the Federal Central Valley Project plan in order to include it in the State Water Plan, prevented construction of a Federal dam that would have prevented the 1955 "Yuba City disaster which killed 36 people and destroyed 400 homes." Senator Kuchel said to Congress the next year, in 1956, "I would venture the guess that if the state had not indicated its interest in Oroville, we would have had long before last year's :flood a federal dam at Oroville." 1a

More questions. Why did the State indicate its wish to include Oroville Dam in a State Water Plan? Why did the State want to remove it from the plann,pd Federal con·struction at the ocist, as it turned out, not only of such delay and disaster as at Yuba

12 San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, May 5, 1968, Sec. A, 4.

13 Senator Thomas H. Kuchel, Hearings on S. 178 before subcommittee on irrigatJ.on and reclamation of Senate committee on interior and insular affairs, 84 Cong., 2nd Sess., 179. (1956)

'24148 CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD- SENATE City, but also at a price to Californians that is beginning to hurt, a price that runs already around $2.8 b111ion loaded onto their backs that the Federal Gov.ernment · was ready itself to carry, but was dissuaded from carrying by the State? Why was the Federal Government willing to defer to those who wanted the State to pick up the tab? .

The answers unfold slowly but clarify surely. The idea of a State Water Project dates from at least as early as 1944. On May 13 of that year, when large landowners' hopes were high that Congress would remove the 160-acre limit from California's Central Valley Project, the magazine Business Week tells what they had up their sleeves if Congressional "removal" should fail, as it did. "If the big landowners should lose out in this particular fight," said Business Week, "they have several other proposals to accomplish their .end. One of them . . . said to have originated among the big landowners of ·Fresno County, is for the State of California to take over the Central Valley project, paying the entire bill. This . . . would sidestep the 160-acre limitation." u

The mms of large speculative landowners, like the mms of the gods, grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. Seven years later the State Legislature moved in the direction forecast by the "big landowners of Fresno county:" it authorized a State Water Project. But there was still hesitation to act on the authorization, because to do so meant shifting what the Federal Government was prepared to pay, onto the backs of taxpayers of the State of California. No one was more conscious of this burden to taxpayers of his State than Congressman, later Senator Clair Engle. In a speech delivered on September 24, 1952 he opposed buying the Central Valley Project from the Federal Government because-although it would remove Federal acreage limitation (and a comparable Federal public power preference policy-he doubted "it 1s necessary or wise to cut our state completely off from interest-free federal financing . . . " 16

Did California have the capacity to carry the financial burden of a State Water Plan? Engle was asked the question from the floor, and he gave a straight answer: yes, but at the sacrifice of other things such as education. The Sacramento Bee reported the dialogue: "When asked if there is a possibtuty California would be able to complete the Feather River Project, Engle declared, 'I think the State of California can do as much as she wants to do, if she wants to give the height of priority she would have to give it, at the sacrifice of other items, such cu schools .•. " 16

There you have it: a State Water Project to help speculating landowners escape a law designed to restrain speculation and to bring "the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals," on the one hand, Versus schools, on the other hand!

In 1952 this prospect of contUct for funds between a State Water Project and Education apparently was enough to make even the speculating interests opposed to the 160-acre limitation recoil, if only for the time being. Within a half dozen years the outline of a State Water Project was placed before Congress. The strategy was to offer a State financial contribution toward the construction of a joint Federal-State San Luis Project. The hope was that Congress would join with the State in construction and in putting up money, and in return for the State's contributions would exempt the area to be served by the State Project from the Federal 160-acre law. Sponsors of the State Water Project were disappointed. The Senate de-

14 Valley divided, Business Week, No. 767, May 13, 1944, 24.

u Central Valley Project: Federal or State? California Assembly interim committee reports, 1953-1955, Vol. 13, no. 5, 142.

1• Sacramento Bee, September 25, 1952, 8.

bated the proposed exemption four days, and the House two days; both agreed to authorize funds and construction but only on condition of denial of the exemption sought. The position of Congress was the same as in 1902: money for reclamation, yes, but only on the condition that the 160-acre law to prevent monopoly and curb speculation should apply. Congress saw the State Water Project through the eyes of Senator Wayne Morse, who called it "This evanescent project .. . . this alleged State project ... is merely a vision created in the hope that it can somehow transform everybody's water to water reserved only for a few people." 11

So once again large landed interests found themselves facing their perennial problem, how to get the money and at the same time avoid the condition attached to the money, viz., observance of the 160-acre law. The sequence of the steps to circumvent the law runs like this:

First, on the eve of voting on a $1.75 billion bond issue to finance the State Water Project, barely one month before the November 1960 election, Chas. T. Main, Inc., rendered to the State of California a lengthy report evaluating the proposed State water development system. The report cost the people of California several hundred thousand dollars. The report had an appendix, written by one of California's attorneys most experienced in opposing the 160-acre limitation. Facing the fact that Congress had refused to exempt the State Water Project from the 160-acre law, he stated as his premise, notwithstanding, that "neither the Bureau of Reclamation nor the State Administration desires to apply the Federal excess land provisions to the State service area." His task, as he saw it, in other words, was to help an arm of the Executive Branch of the National Government and the State of california to circumvent the decision of the Legislative Branch of the National Government that the State service area was not to be exempt from the 160-acre law.

The Appendix to the Chas. T. Main, Inc., report was equal to the task, and what followed fitted its guiding precepts. The Solicitor of the Interior supported the Bureau of Reclamation within his Department, in its opposition to the 160-acre, or excess land law. Congress had decided negatively, the Solicitor said in effect, that the State service area should not be exempt from the 160-acre law, but it had not said positively that the 160-acre law should apply.a Therefore he approved the draft contract between the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California minus acreage limitation.

The Interior Committees of House and Senate had 90 days to review the contract. Previously, in 1959 and 1960, both Committees had approved the exemption from acreage limitation that both House and Senate soon debated and rejected. But now, in 1962, the balance politically , was reversed. Then, in 1959 and 1960, the Committeesand large landowning interests behind Them-could not obtain Congressional approval for authorization to spend federal funds so long as an exemption was attached. Now, in 1962, they had a chance to gain approval to spend federal funds and the exemption, too. All they hac.. to do was to remain silent for 90 days, and let the administrator's omission of acreage limitation from the contract stand. The House Interior Committee approved the contract and the Senate Interior Committee remained silent. The opponents of acreage limitation at last had both the money that Congress had voted, and the exemption that Congress had denied/

This outcome was the forecast of the Appendix to the Chas. T. Main, Inc. report, offering skllled legal guidance down a path to-

l T 105 Cong. Rec. 7992. 1s 108 Cong. Rec. 5716.

ward circumvention of the 160-acre law. The attorney in charge had prophesied that "The reaction of Congress and its relevant committees . is more a political than a legal problem." 1D His prophecy had come true. It was planned that Law was to be the victim of Politics. Politics was to rise above Law, and Law was to sink below Politics, in order to circumvent the 160-acre law. This has come to pass.

In their train the 1952 prediction by Clair Engle is coming true today: the outlines of the conflict, State Water Project VERSUS schools are now visible. The 1944 plan attributed to "big landowners of Fresno County" comes crashing down upon education within the State. Lifting the Feather River Project from th~ Federal Central Valley Project and loading it onto California taxpayers is having its predicted effect. Governor Reagan raised the annual budget of the State Water Project by $100 million in 1967-68 above Governor Brown's already high recommendation. At the same time he lowered the Regents' budget for the University of California-all items considered-by $46 million. Under pressure the Regents adopt student tuition fees that wlll rise to $100 per quarter, perhaps only an augury of more to come. For 1968-69 the Governor seeks to cut the University operating budget by $31 million, and the capital outlay budget by $34.8 million, a total cut of nearly $66 million.

Pressures from the State Water Project upon the budget of the State College system are similar.

These cuts probe deeply into the value systems of our society. The question of student tuition, for example, brings out sharp differences over the ' role of higher education. On the one hand are those who favor encouraging universal higher education and so object to abandoning the California tradition of tuition-free higher education. On the other hand is a view expressed by the President of the Southern Pacific Company to the Bay Area Council: . "In any event, it's high time we did something to knock the absurd notion that every young American who is worth his salt must get at least a f9ur-year college degree. As a result of this kind of thinking our colleges are being over-crowded with many people who are not college material and some of our finest vocational opportunities are going begging." 20

One wonders, are education and water to be locked into irreconclllable and increasing conflict? If State Water Development continues on its present course, conflict is inevitable. Read the oold, precise language of California's Legisaltive Analyst, A. Alan Post. The sale of water bonds, he reported to the State Legislature on the 1967-68 budget, "may increasingly intrude on the sale of other general obligation bonds . . . To the extent that this occurs ... the effect will be either higher interest rates for all state bonds, whether water bonds or school bond·.s, greater financing of other (than water) programs from increased taxes, or the curtailment of expenditures in either the water program or other programs." 21 So one

to Chas. T. Main', Inc., Appendix to ftnal report (by Alvin J. Rothwell) general evaluation of the proposed program for financing and constructing the State water resources development system of the State of California Department of Water Resources. Boston, Massachusetts, 2229-1-2A. October, 1960, 29 .

20 B. F. Biaggini, in Trends, Vol. 20, no. 9, December 1965. Pub. by Bay Area Council, San Francisco.

21 Report of the legislative analyst to the joint legislative budget committee, analysis of the budget bill of the state of California for the fiscal year July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968, 760.

July 3,0, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24149 sees today both increase in taxes and curtailment of expenditures, not in the State Water program, but in "other programs" such as education, · mental health, medical care, etc.

How far will the conflict between water and education go? How much will the State Water Project cost the people of California before we are through? Have those who back the State Water Project been entirely frank with the people? The voters in 1960 were "sold" a bond issue of $1.75 billion to do the job. Now the coot figure is placed around $2.8 billion, and maybe more. There is already talk within the State of another bond issue of from $1 billion to $3 billion.22 But apparently nobody within the State--except a young independent newspaper like the San Francisco Bay Guardian-reminds people that in 1958 Senators William F. Knowland and Thomas H. Kuchel told Congress that "The State Water Project will coot the people of California $11 billion when completed.23 Apparently the 1958 Congress took California's Senators seriously, believed their $11 billion cost figure, and was pleased with their generooity in the name of the people of California. At any rate Senator Arthur V. Watkins, of Utah, rose to his feet on the floor of the Senate "to congratulate the State of California and California's representatives in the Sehate, Senator Knowland and Senator Kuchel, on the fact that the great State of California will build the project, and a still greater project which cost in the neighborhood of $11 billion, and do it on its own." 2'

Apparently there was no mistake about the anticipated cost of the · State Water Project to the people of California. The very next year California's Senators, Clair Engle and Thomas Kuchel, and California Governor Edmund S. Brown-Republican and Democrat· alike-repeated the promise to Congress. In Governor Brown's words, "I hope and

. expect that the State of California will commit itself to invest more than $11 billion in the next 25 years over and above the Federal program to insure adequate statewide water development." 25

The 160-acre question had been at issue . between the political parties for a long time, the Democrats in favor and the Republicans opposed. Now this issue has become transmuted into an "Establishment" position, with spokesmen of both parties opposed. As Earl C. Behrens, political editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, soon was to point out, support for acreage limitation had been "a part of both the State and National Democratic platforms." But it became different when Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Lowrey tried in 1959 to win approval for a State acreage limitation law; he found himself opposed by Democratic Assemblyman Jesse M. Unruh. Unruh confessed to the Legislature that "At times we have to rise above pinciple." 26

The cost of rising "above principle" comes· high to those-for example in educationwho must pay it. This was all a part of the maneuvering that threw water into opposition to education.

So today, especially in California, we give away public water to speculators and deflate public education to insure the gift. It was not always so, nor need it be so now. Under President Abraham Lincoln the Federal Government gave away public land and enriched education at the same time. Today the Nation's land grant colleges and universities stand as monuments to the foresight of the

22 San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, May 5, 1968, Sec. A, 4.

23 104 Cong. Rec. 17730. 2< 104 Cong. Rec. 17730. 25 Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Hearing before

subcommittee on irrigation and reclamation of Senate committee on interior and insular affairs, 86 Cong., 1st sess., on S. 44, 12 (1959).

26 Earl c. Behrens, San Francisco Chronicle, June 18, 1959, 15.

Morrill Land Grant to Education Act of 1862. Why have we no comparable Water Grant to Education Act of the nineteen sixties?

We can have it if we want it, and will do what it takes to get it. The means of turning an orgy of private speculation in public water to the account of publicly-planned education and a publicly-planned environment of beauty are ready at hand. Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall has pointed to the first step. He has proposed that the government purchase "excess lands," lands above 160-acres per individual owner. Existing law already establishes the price to be paid-the value of the land prior to the coming of publicly-subsidized water.~ In the face of rapidly increasing land values, time will return the investment to the Treasury several fold. What a magnificent opportunity to replenish the National Treasury! And Congress can assign revenues from the watered lands to public education as it assigned public lands to education one hundred years ago under Abraham Lincoln. Congress, in cooperation with States, can regulate the use of the excess lands so purchased to assure preservation of agricultural greenbelts and open spaces, to check urban sprawl, to create an environment of beauty for generations to come. In California alone among the western states, according to an estimate by the National AFL-CIO, there are 900,000 acres that can be devoted thus to the enrichment of education and to conservation of the environment.

Why not take the simple, but necessary steps to achieve these purposes? Why not abide by the pinciples of Lincoln? Why not put an end to this present era of unrestrained private speculation in public water and public money?

Why perpetuate longer in the West the "peculiar and dangerous" agricultural pattern that Ambassador James Bryce desert~ in ·the 1880's a.S a "contrast of great properties," on the one hand, with a "mass of unsettled labour," on the other hand. Seventy years later Senator Paul Douglas, of lilinois, repeated Bryce's description in successful defense of the 160-acre limitation against attack. He said "There are strong forces in California which own enormous amounts of land, and they do not want to aocept the 160-acre limitation. The Southern Pacific does not want to accept it. The big estates do not want to accept it. The Boston Ranch does not want to accept ..• If we have that kind of concentration of ownership growing high value crops, such as lettuce, oranges and citrus fruits, I will tell the Senate what kind of ·agricultural system we will have. We will have an agricultural system with a few owners and a great mass of Mexican-American laborers living in hovels, receiving low wages, and with a life of feudalism in the Central Valley of California, as indeed we now have in part." 28

In 1911 Theodore Roosevelt, who as President had personally inspired the 160-acre law and signed the National Reclamation Act of 1902, had spoken even more ominous words before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. Reminiscent of the warning of the San Franc-isco Chronicle of May 31, 1877, he said: "Now I have struck the crux of my appeal (for the excess land law). I wish to save the very wealthy men of this country and their advocates and upholders from the ruin that they would bring upon themselves if they were permitted to have their way. It is because I am against re~olution; it is because I am ·against the doctrines of the Extremists, of the Socialists; it is because I wish to see this coun-try of ours continued as a geniune democracy; it is because I distrust violence and disbe-

:n 43 U.S.C. 423e. JB 105 Cong. Rec. 7667.

lieve in it; it- is because I wish to secure this country against ever seeing a time when the 'have-nots' shall rise against the 'haves'; it is because I wish to secure for our children and our grandchildren and for their childrens children the same freedom of opportunity, the same peace and order and justice that we have had in the past." 20

Should we not give heed to these counsels of Theodore Roosevelt to sustain the 160-acre law, es·pecially in these days when we are so concerned with the problems of violence, and of maintaining law and order?

Let us infp.se into the reclamation program of the 1960s the appreciation of the human spirit that pervaded the 1860s. This can be done, but it will not be done ,unless the public insists that the circumvention of the 160-acre limitation shall cease, and the attacks upon it end. This can be done if the public will insist that Congress provide for purchase of excess lands receiving publicly-subsidized water, and that the use of these lands be turned away from private speculation and monopoly toward the truly public purposes of Education and Conservation.

MINORITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, recently

I joined other Senators to introduce S. 3875, the Community Self-Determination Act of 1968. Under this act indigenous community development corporations would be created through which the people of an area could achieve economic development and the ownership of their own business enterprises.

On July 20, Vice President HUMPHREY issued a statement on the importance of programs to promote minority entrepreneurship. In this statement, the Vice President proposed the development of a program for inner city entrepreneurship which would provide the three basic ele·ments of capital, training, and markets. A national urban development bank, operating through regional affiliates, would finance minority ownership of business enterprises.

The Vice President's statement, witb an appended review of current government and private programs in this area, is most relevant to the consideration of the legislation that was introduced in the Senate yesterday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Vice President's statement be printed in the RECORD.

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

THE RIGHT To SUCCEED: MINORITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP

(Statement by Vice President HUBERT H. HuMPHREY, Washington, D.C., July 20, 1968) Twen-ty years ago, the measure of a belief

in "civil rights" was whether you stood up for "fair employment preotices.''

I led that fight. We won it. An American born black has an equal right now, under the law, to work for an American born white.

But to say it that way-plainly-is to realize that the right to work for somebody else isn't enough. · It isn't equal opportunity just to let everybody into the cellar-if the door going upstairs is open to some, not to others.

Equal employment opportunity-to work for somebody else-is only part of it.

The rest of it is equal opportunity to own your own business.

• 7 Tra.n.sactions of the Commonwealth Club 108.

24150 CONGRESSIONAL R·ECORD- SEN-ATE July 30, 1968 I want to lead this fight, too. And it can

be won. With greater intensity each year, the black

American, the Spanish-speaking American, the Indian American, have been demanding a chance to help themselves. They have increasingly rejected hand-outs and help which did not involve their own initiative, responsibility and power.

Whatever phrases are used to characterize this demand, it is fully in accord with established American traditions of self-reliance and self-help. American society must now summon the courage--and common sense-to give minority Americans this chance to succeed within the system.

On January 29 of this year, I asked, as Vice President, that representatives of five Federal agencies meet with me to consider the subject of "minority entrepreneurship."

I said in my Memorandum: "I ain convinced that there is a great eco

nomic and social potential, often not recognized, in enlarging opportunities for members of minority groups as entrepreneurs. At present, Negroes and Spanish-speaking groups own or control only a minute portion of the business in this country. The businesses they do operate are usually small and uneconomic. The urgent need is to have minority groups own and run more substantial businesses which are fully competitive in the American economy." -

A series of meetings followed. There was active participation by top officials of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Small Business Administration. I have received the report of this working group. It provides the basis for this statement and its recommendations.

The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, issued on March 1, included this statement on "Encouragelug Business Ownership in the Ghetto": ) . "We believe it is important to give special encouragement to Negro ownership of business in ghetto areas. The disadvantaged need help in obtaining managerial experience and in creating for themselves a stake in the economic community. The advantages of Negro entrepreneurship also include self-employment and jobs for others."

One of Senator Robert F. Kennedy's most eloquent statements-at Portland, Oregon, on May 23rd-included this: I "We must ei:cotirage the development of businesseS owned by residents of poverty areas, providing loans and guarantees as needed, to bring the dignity and fulfillment of ownership to that person. This national rebuilding, I believe, should begin immediately with a national impact project: supported by federal grants to local communities, to hire the unemployed and begin the work. This would be the first step toward a community of purpose for all of us."

He spoke feelingly of the need to build, in the poverty areas, "a community of freedom ·of private initiative . : . a new community of self-pride and self-determination."

Everything we are trying to do to eliminate inequality is incomplete as long as it depends on somebody doing something tor somebody else--for equality means equality of self-respect---Of pride.

Participation-self-help-economic power-these are essential elements in any process of deprived inner-city residents becoming productive, self-sustaining and involved members of society-and af bringing new economic vitality to inner-city neighborhoods. Business entrepreneurship offers exceptional opportunities to achieve these critical objectives.

The details of the present picture of restricted business opportunity-so far as Americans who are black are concerned-are set out in the attached statement.

One in a thousand is a proprietor. (The figure for whites is one in 40.)

The situation is the same--in some respects worse-for Mexican-Americans, Spanish-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Indians and others.

I have received, with the assistance of the inter-agency working group, the ·scope and operation of present programs for providing business opportunities for minority group mem-bers.

The conclusions to be drawn from such a review are clear:

The present demands on these programs jar exceed the capacity-ana the funds-to meet them. Black America's most insistent demand today is "Let us do it ourselves."

The experience with the minority entrepreneurship projects which have been authorized and funded is by no means consistent, nor uniformly successful. But it is evident beyond any question that there is more reason tor encouragement in these projectsmore promise-a higher success rate-than in the case of any other type of minority group assistance program. Every agency has stressed one crucial element in achieving success: full participation and involvement.

These are improvements that can and should be made in the administration of the present programs.

But the full exploitation of the possibilities of equality by common enterprise--by shared responsibility-depends unquestio;nably on enlarged Congressional authorization cind appropriation, as well as on greatly expanded participation by the private sector itself.

A candidate for the Presidency has spoken recently-in headline terms--of the need to develop "black capitalism" and "black enterprise" and "free enterprise" in the ghettoes-and then has added, in fine print, that "it costs little or no government money" to do this, that "the Federal budget must be cut"-and that we must stop trying to "buy off the Negro."

This is double-talk. Of course it will take money. Talking about black capitalism without cap!JtaJ. is just kiting political checks.

But a country that subsidizes multi-million dollar corporations to explore outerspace won't be "buying off the Negro" if it contributes to his setting up a business in the inner-city. If it makes sense to pay a farmer to stop farming his land, it isn't "buying somebody off" to help start a business that will employ the people who used to work on that farm.

I will propose, if I am elected President, the legislation and appropriations necessary to permit the maximum practicable publtc investment in private "minority" enterprisebut in ways which rely on self-help and self-reliance.

More specifically, I propose the development of an integrated program for innercity entrepreneurship which makes provision for the three basic elements of business success: capital, training, and markets.

I. With regard to working capital: I have proposed, as part of a "Marshall

Plan for the Cities," the establishment of a National Urban Development Bank-to operate through aftiliated regional banks in the various metropolitan areas.

Without repeating the details of that previous propqsa.l, I note for its relevance here the rec.:>mmendation that provision be made for the National Urban Development Banks to finance a wide variety oj business enterprises owned ana operated by residents ·of the inner city. These banks would, more specifically: ·

O.fl'er loans to inner-city small businessmen whose contribution to the economy of their communities is now limited by lack of financing; ·

Guarantee loans, made through conventional private lenders, for inner-city business activities:

Fund non-profit neighbOrhood development ·corporations which, in turn, could pur-

chase and operate inner-city business enterprises;

Offer loans to inner-city business cooperatives established to strengthen purchasing power and to provide more effective distribution of products.

To make sure that the money is invested in the places where it is needed most and be used best, national and regional bank boards would include representatives of the inner-city community. Further community participation would be encouraged through direct equity investment in the regional banks by the people themselves.

In more immediate terms, and on the basis of my review of present administrative programs, I recommend a significant liberalization of current agency policies regarding loans and allocations for inner-city entrepreneurs.

There is unquestionably a special risk factor involved here-for there is typically much less than usual experience and proven ability on the part of the private contracting party.

This means that there is special reason for administrative care in evaluating these commitments. But this should include a full consideration of the alternative risks-to the community and the country--of not making the investments. ·

I recommend specifically that the .Small Business Administration liberalize its regulations in order to proVide loans for a larger number of inner-city projects.

I recommend that the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Economic Opportunity expand their present commitments to assist private companies to create inner-city subsidiaries that wm be managed by local residents-especially those companies that provide for the gracl.ual acquisition of the subsidiary by the employees or by a neighborhood corporation.

In the final analysis, however, the private sector must generate the bulk of investment capital for inner-city business development. We must, therefore, also consider a system of tax incentives that will generate the maximum degree of private investment. at ac-. celerated pace.

II. With regard to training: The Manpower Development and Training

Act program now concentrates particularly on teaching job skills to the unemployed or retraining persons with obsolete job skills. I recommend that the MDT A program be expanded to provide management training where this will lead to the establishment of new businesses which will be in a position to hire the hard-core unemployed.

The Defense Department's "Project Transition" prepares men for civilian jobs shortly before discharge from the armed services. I recommend that this program be broadened to include training in the techniques of business entrepreneurship ana managership.

I recommend that the G.I. Bill be amended to include rpay for in-the-shop training in entrepreneurship and managership, in addition to the in-the-school training in academic subjects. This will more fully meet the great debt the nation has to its veterans.

I recomm'end that programs be developed jor assisting private b'll-siness organizations, such as the National Alliance oj Businessmen, to expand their programs in m·der to provide managerial training to residents of the inner-city.

III. With regard to markets: The Small BUsiness Administration's

"Section SA" program provides for the assigning of Federal Government contracts and sub-contracts to businesses owned and operated by ininority groups or businesses that hire the hard-core unezn.ployed. I recommend the substantial enlargement oj this program.

I recommend that the procurement officers in the Federal agencies be instructed

July 30, 1968' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24151 to take the necessary steps to assure that minority firms which bid. competitively be guaranteed. full and. equal consideration in the awarding of government contracts.

rv. With regard. to administration: My review of this situation discloses an

extensive overlapping of the present authority of several federal agencies in this area.

I recommend. the designation of a lead. agency--either the Department of Commerce or the Small Business Administration-to exercise principal authority in promoting minority entrepreneurship. This agency should also function as the single place in the Federal GoveTnment where the prospective mino.rity entrepreneur could obtain information about the available sources of assistance. It could disseminate information about the kinds of projects that are proving successful.

The lead agency should also develop working relationships with the private foundati.ons which are now entering this area of experimental entrepreneurial development. It is an increasingly common situation that an inner-city enterprise is funded partly by Government, partly by private business, and partly by private foundation funds.

This lead agency can be designated immediately. In the l<mger-term, however, and as part of America's total offensive to rescue our cities, new administrative mechanisms and technique must be developed to deliver the full resources of society in the mos·t efficient and effective way possible. These mechanisms for techniques should draw from our growing capability for systems analysis and they must necessarily move beyond traditional categories of government, business, or foundati<ms. As President,. I would. give priority attention to developing these mechanisms with ' the full participation of the people and. institutions involved..

There is also need for the kind of joint public and private participation in this program which the National Alliance of Businessmen provides in the JOBS program.

Here, however, there must be full and effective-and probably controlling-participation by representatives of the minority groups. For the expressed concern about "industrial colonialism" is a very real one.

I recommend., therefore, the establishment of a National Committee on Minority Business. There is a rapidly growing "know-how" in this virtually new area of private-and human-enterprise. It is the kind of knowhow that develops in the nation's inner cities before it does in Washington. The National Committee on Minority Business would be responsible for bringing these ideas and concepts to the Federal Government's attention-so that the Government can tailor its assistance to the real-not imagined-needs of minority businessmen.

The National Committee on Minority Business should also encourage members to participate in starting new inner-city businesses-often in partnership with neighborhood development corpora tiona--and in providing technical assistance and managerial training for minority-owned businesses.

We are beginning to realize that the basic answer to the problem we created for ourselves and each other over the centuries lies in the simple idea of self-help-self-responsibility.

This does not mean any lessening of the common obligation--our obligation as a people, as a country, as a government--to join in doing what needs to be done, and to share the cost.

It does mean that we ought to seize every opportunity to promote full participation by those most directly involved-those wtih the most immediate stake-in working things out right.

It means respecting a way of doing things that makes sense to those participants ... inste~d of insisting always on the majority's norms.

Finally, we must recognize that the growth of black and. other minority businesses will proceed. apace with the rebirth of metropolitan areas generally. As suburbs continue to grow economic,:ally-particularly as mar• kets for inner-city businesses-such factors as transportation become crucial. Education and housing opportunities likewise can affect in great degree the long-term outlook for inner-city business establishments. No one can seriously believe that black development corporations, cooperatives or businesses can flourish in a racially divided societyone which is separate and. unequal. Our efforts to promote the healthy expansion of black entrepreneurship must be seen as part of a larger strategy to rescue the American city-part of a larger "Marshall Plan for the Cities."

THE SITUATION AS IT STANDS TODAY

Most black-owned businesses are small and marginal, providing a meager income for the owners and few jobs for others. Typically, these businesses are barber shops, beauty parlors, funeral parlors, grocery stores, and other small retail or service businesses. There are also a few-very few-banks, insurance companies and manufacturing firms that are owned and operated by Negroes.

Negroes constitute 12% of the population, but-

Less than 1% of the nearly five million private businesses in the United States are owned and operated by non-whites.

Less than 3% of the 1.5 million Americans who classify themselves as self-employed are non-white.

Only 3.5% of the non-white men in the United States labor force are managers, officials or proprietors-compared to 14.2% of the white men in the labor force.

In the Watts area of Los Angeles, only 2% of all businesses are owned by non-whites. In Harlem, about 10% to 15% of the businesses are owned by non-whites.

Negro-owned businesses contribute less than 2% to the United States gross national product.

Of the 31,000 auto dealerships in the United States, six are owned by Negroes. Until recently, there was only one Negro auto dealer.

Typically, one major United States manufacturing company has 8,000 sub-Contractors--not one of them black-owned.

As I said in my speech in Philadelphia on May 2 to the African Methodist Episcopal Church Conference:

"Count 40 white Americans. One is a proprietor. To find one black proprietor, oount one thousand. And with rare exceptions, he is in a marginal business ... " THE ROADBLOCKS TO BLACK ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The Negro who aspires to entrepreneurship often faces all the predictable handicaps: poverty, poor education, defeatism, prejudice.

But in addition he specifically lacks the three major resources that are needed to become an entrepreneur in Twentieth Century America. They are: (1) Capital, (2) Training and technical know-how, (3) Mark_ets.

Obviously, these are the three things that any program must help provide in order to promote successful black ownership of business.

The inner-city Negro has a particularly difficult time obtaining capital. Money begets money, but he seldom has the collateral to secure a loan. Negro-owned banks are few in number and relatively small in size and, as Federal Reserve Board Governor Andrew Brimmer points ~ut, they tend to be conservative, concentrating on well-secure loans. The big, white-owned banks have few branches in Negro neighborhoods and, in these days of tight and costly money, all bankers are reluctant to risk funds on untried, untested, unsponsored borrowers.

The businessman in the slums also has difficulty · in buying insurance. The National

Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders surveyed about 1,500 businessmen in the poverty areas of Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Newark, Oakland, and St. Louis; more than 40 % of them complained about serious problems with insurance-it was either unavailable or available only at prohibitive cost--and more than 20% of them did not have basic fire insurance coverage. Without such coverage, it is virtually impossible to obtain credit of any kind.

WHAT IS BEING DONE

The picture today is more one of promise than performance.

There is no shortage of programs-public, private and combination public-private.

But it appears that the achievements do not measure up to the challenge. That is partly because the challenge is so large anc;i partly because the programs are so new, but mostly because the people who could benefit most from the programs know so little about them. It cannot be emphasized. enough that these programs have to be more widely and. vigorously publicized. and. promoted..

There is so little black-owned business today that any real improvement in the picture would be significant. The existing programs have the potential for fostering such improvement--if Government officials, eoncerned corporate executives and leaders of the inner-city community join to coordinate, publicize and exploit them properly.

A brief review of the major Government and ·private programs:

A. Government programs The SBA's Economic Opportunity Loan

Program. Under this program, started early in 1965, the SBA can make direct loans up to $25,000 or, as an incentive for private leaders, guarantee up to 100% of such loans made by banks for up to 15 years.

The great majority of loans go to borrowers who are poor, many of whom come from minority groups. Through May 31, 1968, the SBA had made loans totalling $75,314,000 to 6,397 borrowers.

The SBA's Small Business Investment Corporation Program. While the SBICs grant credit to small entrepreneurs of all kinds, there is a new interest in helping Negroes and other minority groups. License applications are pending for five SBICs that will ·be oriented particularly toward Negroes. Of the applicants, two are in Chicago, two in Los Angeles, and one in Philadelphia.

The SBA's . Section SA Program. To help provide markets, the SBA can assign Government contracts to needy small businesses, provided that those enterprises are owned and operated by members of minority groups or, if not, hire the hard-core unemployed. Since January, the SBA has let six prime contracts and nine sub-contracts with a total value of about $10,000,000 under Section 8A of the Small Business Act.

The SBA's Lease Guarantee Program. I first proposed this program early in the 1950's. It was finally approved in 1966 and put into operation in 1967. So far, it has guaranteed approximately 50 leases for business tenants who otherwise would have been turned down because they lacked a suffi-ciently high credit rating. ·

The experience of this program in Miami shows the potential of Government programs that are publicized vigorously and managed creatively.

More than 60% of the 50 leases guaranteed so far have been in Miami, because the local administrator got the word around, and developers took advantage of the program. The developer of a shopping center learned about the lease guarantee program, spread the· news to members of the Cuban refugee community, and these refugees, in turn, ·applied for and received lease guarantees for 26 stores that they will operate in the shopping center. ·

Also in Miami, the developer of children's day care centers propagated the lease guaran-

24152 ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 tee program. Result: lease guarantees have been secured for five operators of day care centers-three Cuban refugees, one Negro, one white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. The centers will cater primarily (at $3 a day) to lower-income mothers, who will be able to deposit their children and go to work.

The SBA's Procurement & Management Assistance Program. This offers, among other services, management consulting by SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives), which has about 3,200 consultants in some 200 chapters.

The SBA's Franchise Opportunities Program. Through newsletters and public speeches by the agency's officials, the SBA tries to publicize franchise opportunities to Negroes.

The Office of Economic Opportunity's Small Business Training & Technical Assistance Program. In this program, the OEO has contracted with the National Business League (which is a Negro Chamber of Commerce) and the Interracial Council for Business Opportunities to provide training to small businessmen.

In sum, the existing Government programs provide opportunities for loans, loan guarantees, lease guarantees, markets, management assistance and management training.

B. The private sector Private businessmen are carrying out sev

eral programs on their own. Usually, these programs are cooperative

efforts involving businessmen, inner-city community groups, and the Government. But they tend to fall into certain categories, depending on who is the prime mover.

Examples: Groups of Negro businessmen and profes

sional men, who band together to sponsor black-run companies.

One such group is the Green Power Foundation, Inc., in Watts.

It was founded by 153 Negroes, many of them aerospace engineers, who raised $75 each for initial capital. The Foundation then (1) leased 1,000,000 square feet of plant space from the Pacific Telephone Company for $1 a year; (2) negotiated a 60-day, $50,000 loan from the United. California Bank, with 30 blue-ribbon companies acting as loan guarantors, (3) started manufacturing "Watts Walloper" baseball bats, mounted. the bats on presentation plaques and sold the plaques to supporters for $10 apiece, ( 4) used the proceeds to pay off the $50,000 loan; (5) applied for-and I expect will receive-a $280,000 SBA loan for plant expansion.

Altogether, 72,000 Watts Wallopers have been sold so far. The company has recently secured two major contracts, and intends to diversify soon; it plans to start a bicycle plant, a trucking company and some aerospace sub-contracting companies.

So far, Green Power has 60 employees, pays them a minimum of $2 an hour, and has a waiting list of 600 job appllcants. It has perhaps the world's most unusual work force: Green Power hires only people with arrest records.

The National Economic Growth and Reconstruction Organization (NEGRO), headed by Dr. Thomas W. Matthew of New York, is another example of black-controlled business corporations. Chartered in 1964 as a non-profit corporation to promote "the self-help concept among the Negro people," NEGRO now owns and operates The Interfaith Hospital in Queen, N.Y., a Chemical company, a textile company, two bus lines, a paint manufacturing company, a clothes manufacturing company and two 100-famlly apartJ;D._e~ts.

NEGRO's business ventures are financed. by the sale of Economic Liberty bonds sold to the general public--denominations range from $.25 to $10,00D-and the bonds are backed. by NEGRO's $3 million in assets.

NEGRQ now employs about 600 people and has an annual payroll of more than $1 mUll on.

White-run companies that give financial and/ or management help to start black-managed enterprises.

A partial listing includes Fairchild-Hiller's "Fair-Micco" Project in the Shaw area of Washington, D.C.; Eastern Gas & Fuel Co.'s real estate development project in the Roxbury section of Boston, and the E.G. & G. Company's light-metal fabrication subsidiary, also in Roxbury.

Many are small, rather experimental projects. EGG-Roxbury, for example, has employed 64 workers, also has a Negro training manager and a Negro production manager; E.G. & G. Co. holds 100% ownership of the subsidiary now, expects steadily to reduce that share to 50% in five years, then to 25% in 20 years-by awarding the stock as options.

Another outstanding example is the newly formed company named FIGHTON, in Rochester, N.Y. It will manufacture light transformers and metal stampings at a plant in the inner city and will employ inner-city residents.

This project is unique and promising for several reasons:

It is a product of a close degree of co-operation among a local Negro community organization, a local major company, and the Federal Government.

It will be wholly owned and operated by Negroes.

The company's birth was recently announced by its three patrons: Xerox, the Department of Labor and the city's Negro community organization, FIGHT.

FIGHT will play two roles: (1) it will own and operate the plant, and (2) it wlll provide life-skills training and other pre-employment training for men and women to enter the labor force.

Xerox will serve two functions: (1) it will provide job training for everyone in the work force-general managers, sales personnel, administrative personnel, production workers, and (2) it will guarantee a market for the company's products for the next four years-the tough-to-get-over years for any new business. The plant will manufacture parts for such Xerox products as the new 3600 copier-duplicator.

The Labor Department will help to finance some of the training services conducted by FIGHT and Xerox.

Planners from FIGHT and Xerox believe that FIGHTON will not remain a one-market company, but will develop regional and perhaps national markets with other firms, then will be able to expand to a double-shift production, with about 100 people, by mid-1970.

The extent to which such a company can develop is shown by the success of a similar firm, the Watts Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Aerojet General in Watts.

In the aftermath of the Watts riots in August, 1965, I met with industrial leaders in Los Angeles to explore ways to combat severe unemployment. The Aerojet General Corporation decided to attack the problem by establishing a firm ln the heart of Watts, a. firm that would hire residents and train them on the job.

When the subsidary started two years ago, its founders set as their goal for mid-1968 a work force of 100 employees and sales of $2,500,000. Watts Manufacturing has far exceeded those goals. It has 500 employees and expects by this year's end to achieve sales of $4,500,000 to $5,000,000.

The company manufactures in four product lines-textile, wood, electrical and metal products. Its business 1a 65% m111tary and 35% civil1an, and it .is working to reverse those proportions.

COMMUNITY-SPONSORED DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES

The prime example of this is Baltimore's Council for Equal Business Opportunity, funded partly by the Ford Foundation, and directed by several dozen local bankers, busi-

nessmen and profesional men-Negro and white.

These men: 1) help to identify areas of business opportunity; 2) offer how-to-do-it training and management advice; 3) have helped form an investment company to provide risk capital. The council has started, or is in the process of putting together, 50 small, Negro-managed business enterprisestire dealer, general contractor, shoe store, clinical laboratory, shopping center, electronic component producer, investment company, photo shop, fuel oil company, and the like.

Similar development organizations exist in New York City (Interracial Council on Business Opportunity); in Rochester, N.Y. (Rochester Business Development, Inc.); and Columbus Ohio (East Central Citizens Organization).

BOTH LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE PRESS ASKS THAT HEADSTART BE KEPT IN OEO Mr. CLARK. Mr." President, a consid

erable number of Representatives and a surprising number of American newspapers are beginning to have very serious doubts about the wisdom of the Senate's action on July 17 approving the transfer of Head.start from the om.ce of Economic Opportunity to the Ofilce of Education.

This reversal of the Senate's action last year could be a calamity not only for the Headstart program itself but for the future of the entire war on poverty. During floor discussion, I pointed out that we were handing over one of the OEO's most successful programs "·to the tender mercies of States that do not want it," and exactly the same lll-considered transfer could happen to other programs. The result would be a gradual disintegra;tion of the war on poverty and the fragmentation and .scattering of its individual programs among old-line Federal agencies.

Among the many Members of Congress who see this transfer as the camel's nose under the tent has been Representative LESTER L. WOLFF, of New York, who has warned thalt "if this transfer does happen, it is the death knell of the poverty program. If you take the moneymaker out of the corporation, the corporation dies."

There is still time to save Headstart, to keep it within the organization where it originated, flourished, and matured. If the voice of the American people is heard, clear and strong, by the Senate and House conferees, perhaps we can undo the mistake we have made and give Headstart a new lease on life.

Meanwhile, farsighted and influential sections of the American press are beginning to express alarm at the incalculable damage that can be inflicted on this splendid program should it be tom out of OEO and thrown to an agency that will not welcome it under the conditions of the Senate amendment. These publications, it should be noted, range from the more conservative newspapers to outstanding liberal dailies. Therefore, their viewpoint on Headstart represents the broadest possible speotru.m of American opinion and sentiment.

That being so, I am sure that senators and Representatives will :find most illuminating four editorials whicll I ask unanimous consent to have printed in

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24153

the RECORD. They are taken I rom: First, the Washington Daily News, the Cincinnati Times Star, and other Scripps Howar.d newspapers; second, the Philadelphia Bulletin; third, the New York Post; and fourth, the Providence, R.I., Jour~al.

There being no ubjection, the editorials wer-e ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follOWS: IFrom the Washington Daily News and the

Cincinnati Times Star] LEAVE HEADSTART ALONE

Of all the War on Poverty programs, perhaps none has been so demonstrabl~ successful or popular as Head Start. That s the project that gives special help to pre-schoolers in poverty a~reas..

While there has been reason to question the effectiveness and cost of other poverty w.ar programs Head Start seldom has come in for anything but praise.

For this reason, it is distressing to note that -:there is a move afoot to shift Head Start from the Office of Economic Opportunity and throw it into the lap of the Federal Office of Education.

Head St.art is more than an educational project. Young-sters also receive health and social services. Whether these "-extras" would continue under the Office of Education is open to question.

Some far-out reasons have been given for transferring Head Start. Ohio's Sen. Frank .Lausche support-ed the shift because OEO has been getting unsavory publicity out of its Chicago street gang project. What tieup there is between Head Start and a Chicago street gang is not apparent.

The best reason for leaving Head Start with OEO is because it has flourished there. Why tinker with a good thing?

Now that the Senate has voted to move Head Start, the only hope left is that a conference committe-e will put it back where it belongs as the White House is asking key congressmen to do.

[From the Philadelphia Bulletin] .HEADSTART SWITCH

Project Head Start, which has earned a reputation of being the War on Poverty's most successful program, is being jeopardized by an amendment to a vocational education bill just passed by the Senate.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Peter H. Dominick {R-Colo), has a certain surface plausibility. First, it would transfer the project from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Office of Education. Second, it would transfer supervision of it from the Federal Government to the states without many strings alttached.

In his haste, however, Sen. Dominick apparently fa-i:led to consult HEW. Now, both Harold Howe, commissioner of Education, and HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen have declared that they don't want Head Start.

Secretary Cohen stated the case succinctly: the pr.ogram has functioned well under OEO, ~d it properly belongs there because it is a comprehensive ..attack on poverty involving medical, nutritional, psychological :and socia-l factors, and not stri-ctly limited to the educational.

Tunning oontrol over to the states may sound like creative federalism but, as Sen. Clark pointed out, the program has enemies (Mississippi, for example) and such a transfer would deliver 1t "to the tender mercies of states1:hat don't 'Want it." Part of its effectiveness, moreover, has been the federal standards.

The nation's impoverished pre-school children deserv.e better treatment. Last yea.r's appropr.lations eut for Head Start was damaging eno~h. The amendment might be the beginning of the end.

[From the New York Post·] SUFFER LTrTLE CHILDREN

If you can ,get to the children early enough you can save them; that's what Head Start is all about. "The project has been the one substantial triumph of the troubled, strangled War on Poverty. When, three months ago, it w.as hinted that Head Start might be taken out of the Office of Economic Opportunity and given over to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for parceling out to tbe states, Rep. Wolff (DN.Y.) remarked in consternation:

"If it does happen, it's the death 'knell of the poverty program. If you take the moneymaker out of the corporation, the corporation dies."

Get the bells ready to toll. The Senate has just voted to take Head Start out of OEO and give It over to HEW-strictly speaking, its Office of Education-for parceling out to the states. Backing the measure were such disparate pallbearers as John Stennis of Mississippi, who was doing what comes naturally, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, reportedly out of pique at the shutdown of a Job Corps center in his state.

Nor did the White House intervene to stop the action, though it was begged to do so. The President's silence has been construed as attempted pacification of right wing Republicans and Southern Democrats who were out to scuttle the entire OEO.

It is a dubious strategy. This is not a year when the . House may

be expected to be any more enlightened than the Senate. If the bill .goes through it will also enable the states to eliminate the community and parental involvement vital to the program, particularly in the South. There's nothing like trampling on your most precious commodity-the brains of 5-year-old children.

[From the Providence Journal] DEATH KNELL

Efforts last year to divide and conquer the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and thereby the antipoverty program were successfully resisted by the former OEO director, Sargent Shriver, and his supporters in Congress. However, Mr. Shriver is now ambassador to France and a new drive to dismantle the agency, it is sad to say, is meeting with success.

The Senate voted last Wednesday to make block grants -to the states for the Head Start program and to place it under the supervision of the Office of Education. Earlier, the House approved transfer of the Upward Bound program to OE and indica ted a desire to have that agency study the possib111ty of taking over the Job Corps. Most manpower training programs already have been moved to the Department of Labor.

If these efforts ·succeed, if the central divection of the war on poverty is parceled out to a variety of old line agencies whose concerns and methods of operation are not well atuned to the llOClological problems of the day, -the death knell of the poverty program may well be sounded.

The White House delayed four months before naming Mr. Shriver's successo~. Bertrand M. Harding, and temporary title within OEO .ar.e said to be increasing. Uncertainty so permeates the agency, it would be surprising if most members of the staff were not now exploring the job market.

Sen. Peter DDminick, R-Colo., who engineered the Head Start measur~. said he favors the program but he thinks the Office of Education can handle it better, but no hearings were .held to determine the pros and cons. It ls well known that Republicans would like to re,place the Democratic administration's War on Poverty with their own "Opportunity Crusade" and shift emphasis away from innovative programs back .to conventional vocational training With more ~-

volvement by state and local government and private industry.

Opponents of this plan have simple logic on their side when they point out that many of the states with the gTeatest need for antipoverty programs are those 1east likely to take the initiative if ·relied upon to d0 so. As Sen. Joseph S. Clark, -D-Pa., put it, transfer of Head Start would commit the program .,to the tender mercies of states that don't want it."

Commendable is Mr. Harding's pledge to fight the transfer "with all the means available to us," but the Senate's reversal of its stand last year is anything by encouraging. Mr. Harding is not Mr. Shriver, and the mood of Congress is not what it was a year ago. If OEO and the entire antipoverty program are to be saved, it will require strong leadership from the President, congressional leaders, announced candidates for the presidential nomination, and the public at large.

The brightest hope, perhaps, is that time is running out for the 90th Congress. It may be that not enough days remain, even with a short post-convention session in September, to strike the killing blow. But that's a pretty slim straw to gTasp at when a program as vital to the nation's interests as this one is at stake.

SENATOR ROBERT F~ KENNEDY

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, Miss Marguerite Mitchell Marshall, of Pitts·burg, Kansas, visited my office today and submitted a tribute to the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Miss Marshall expresses the feeling of many of the citizens of the State of Kansas, therefore ·1 ask unanimous consent that her tribute be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the tribute was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows: A TRIBUTE TO SENATOR ROBERT F. KENNEDY

ON THE OCCASION OF HIS DEATH BY AN ASSASSIN, JUNE 5, 1968

(By Marguerite Mitchell Marshall, Pittsburg, Kans.)

This Righteous young man, during .his lifetime, maintained

Open-minded views of world alfairs. His benevolent and charitable disposition

toward humanity, Enthusiastic pursuit of .improving our demo

cratic system of government. and Reliable facts on oppression, depredation, and

injustice, attest to Truthful way of living. He was faithful.to his Country, to God, and

to Man. He did bequeath: Kindness to our fellowman. Energy to sustain our way of life. National unity to build a solid world. Nobleness of purposes. Ethical values at all times. Dignity of actions and deeds, and a Yearning for a great nation.

CHEMICAL HERBICIDES FOR DEFOLIATION

Mr.. CLARK. Mr. President, on July 15, 1968, I commented on certain Defense Department ,programs which might be decreased in order to comply with the legal obligation to reduce Federal expenditures by $6 billion. Among those was the chemical and biolog~cal warfare pro-gram which now involves an estimated $350 million per ,year. For its part the Air Force has requested .$70.;s million for

24154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 chemical herbicides to carry out its defoliation program in Vietnam.

An article written by John Maffre and published in the Washington Post of July 18, 1968; indicates that the increased demands for herbicides will require the reopening of certain industrial plants which produce the necessary agents. Thus, it seems clear that the military expects to expand their efforts in this area of warfare in the near future. Whether such activities are useful or appropriate is not at all clear. Recently the distinguished board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science approved a resolution expressing its concern regarding the long-range consequences of the use of biological and chemical agents which modify the environment. Because of the deep concern by this group and others, such as the Federation of American Scientists, I recommend to Senators that a thorough examination of the chemical and biological program be made before any appropriations are approved.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the articles "Pentagon Drafts Plants To Make Viet Defoliant" and "On the Use of Herbicides in Vietnam," the latter published in Science magazine of July 19, 1968.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1968) PENTAGON DRAFTS PLANT TO MAKE VIET

DEFOLIANT

(By John Maffre) The Pentagon has called up a World War

II TNT plant to produce 8 million gallons a year of defoliant to strip the jungle cover from the Communist forces in South Vietnam.

By this time next year, the Weldon Springs Army Chemical Plant near St. Louis will be producing huge quantities of "Orange," a herbicide the Army and Air Force need in increasing amounts for the expanding defoliation program.

Last November's high-level decision to reactivate the plant reflected not only urgent requests from saigon, but also the need to head ofl' a growing shortage of chemicals used for herbicides in the U.S. economy.

It cost the Defense Department over $31 m.illlon of last year's funds to provide for plant reactivation and the first 8 million gallons, and in the fiscal year just begun $70.8 million has been budgeted for herbicides.

In fact, the herbicide budget has been a mirror of the war in Vietnam: $12.5 million in fiscal 1966, $38.8 million in fiscal 1967, $45.9 million in flscal1968.

Military men grumble that Americans regard defoliation in Vietnam as a dirty word even if they don't mind defoliating on a smaller scale-and often with less discrimination-to keep airports and driveways tidy.

Over the past six years, the demand for the chemical compounds 2, 4-D and 2,4 5-T that go into Orange has grown so great that the civ11lan supply threatened to dry up. The Department of Commerce had to work out special quotas with Defense. This led to a decision last fall by former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara to reactivate the Weldon Springs plant. It was always Army property although the most recent user was the Atomic Energy Commission.

Overseas, the· problems have been even greater. Despite the high priority that Gen. W11liam C. Westmoreland placed on the defoliation program, every area or change. of mission has to be plotted out with the gov.ernment of South Vietnam and doublechecked by the U.S. Embassy.

The Air Force handles the program through Operation Ranch Hand, an unglamorous and dangerous affair that makes use of one of the noisiest, most uncomfortable and yet most indestructible planes in Vietnam, the C-123.

There are more than 30 of them in the augmented squadron that spreads Orange over jungle areas from the DMZ to the Camau Peninsula in the south.

Some are such hairy missions that the lumbering C-123s are accompanied by F-4 Phantoms, the fastest planes in Vietnam, that do what they can to keep Communist heads down. Despite the fighter cover, several C-123s have been lost.

There is one major reason why the Army and Air Force need more defoliant. The tropical rate of growth is so fast that the same area must be sprayed again and again. The C-123s, with spray pipes dangling from each wing and another from their tails, drone less than 200 feet above the treetops.

Besides the heavily used Orange, Operation Ranch Hand spreads a defoliant known as White, a low-volatile formulation that tackles lower shrubbery or foliage. Then· there is Blue, a herbicide for grass control and the destruction of rice crops. This is used least of all, largely because it is hard to pinpoint sheltered crop areas and even harder to fly through a hail of automatic weapons fire that grows with the rice.

If defoliation is effective to some extent in pulling the covers ofl' the Ho Chi Minh Trail, it is even more helpful in maintaining security around large base camps and communication lines. Westmoreland pushed the program as a means of helping to save GI lives.

The Air Force wishes it had another plane for Ranch Hand, one that could carry more defoliant and spread it more efficiently than the C-123. Besides, the 0-123 is no longer in production, and the Air Force wants every one it can muster for the transport role it should fill.

But there is no better plane in the Air Force inventory at the moment, so the aged C-123s will presumably keep on flying the defoliant as they have since the program began in 1962.

[From ,Science magazine, July 19, 1968] ON THE USE OF HERBICIDES IN VIETNAM

(A statement by the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) The serious concern of the scientific com

munity about the consequences and implications of the use of herbicidal chemicals to destroy crops and forest vegetation in Vietnam was reflected in a resolution passed by the Council of the AAAS on 30 December 1966. This resolution stated, in part:

Whereas the full impact of the use of biological and chemical agentl3 to modify the environment, whether for peaceful or mllitary purposes, is not fully known;

Be it resolved that the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

(1) expresses its concern regarding the longrange consequences of the use of biological and chemical agents which modify the environment;

Pursuant to this retolution, we, the Board of Directors of the AAAS, initiated discussions with representatives of the Department of Defense regarding the use of herbicides by U.S. military forces in Vietnam. In reply to our inquiry, the Department of Defense, in a letter (29 September 1967) from John S. Foster, Jr., Director of Defense Ret;earch and Engineering, stated that:

"As you know, we have considered the possibility that the use of herbicides and defoliants might cause short or long-term ecological impacts in the areas concerned. The questions of whether isuch impacts exist, and, if they do, whether they are detrimental or advantageous, have not yet been answered definitively, even though these chemicals have been used commercially in large quan-

titles for many years. Qualified scientists, both inside and outside our government, and in the governments of other nations, have judged that seriously adverse consequences will not occur. Unless we had confidence in these judgments, we would not continue to employ these materials."

We note with satisfaction Dr. Foster's statement that our government would not sanction use of these agents in Vietnam were it not confident that they have no serious long-term adverse consequences for the environment.

We have reviewed the Midwest Research Institute report entitled "Assessment of Ecological Effects of Extensive or Repeated Use of Herbicides" sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense through Contract No. DAHC 15-68-C-0119, and wish to thank the Department of Defense for providing this useful compilation of the literature. We have also reviewed the commentary on the Midwest Research Institute report by a committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences (transmitted by letter of 31 January 1968 from the president of the National Academy of Sciences to the director of Defense Research and Engineering) and the comments of a number of individual scientists whose judgments concerning this report we requested.

Our review of these documents leaves us with the conviction that many questions concerning the long-range ecological influences of chemical herbicides remain unanswered. The extent of long-term deleterious effects of the forest defoliation in Vietnam is one of these unanswered questions (1, 2) •. We do agree that the use of arsenicals on crops may have serious hazards, and we are concerned with the ultimate route taken by arsenical compounds in plants, soil, and animals. Therefore, on the basis of the information available to us, we do not share the confidence expressed by the Department of Defense (in the letter of 29 September 1967 quoted above) that seriously adverse consequences will not occur as a result of the use of herbicidal chemicals in Vietnam, insofar as arsenical compounds are concerned.

In the course of our study, we became aware of the serious concern expressed by scientists in Vietnam over long-term environmental consequences of the military use of herbicides. Extensive claims of environmental poisoning through use of these agents have been made. Because of uncertainties in available evidence on the long-term effects of such materials, such charges cannot now be answered unequivocally.

Because large-scale employment of herbicides has taken place in Vietnam, and because questions of the long-term welfare of all the people of Vietnam are of great importance to the United States and other countries, we urge that steps be promptly undertaken to initiate detailed, long-term, on-thespot studies of the regions of Vietnam affected by the use of herbicides. If rehabilitation of lands adversely affected by these agents is required, ecological studies initiated now will be of substantial value in defining the required programs. If defoliation has produced or can produce beneficial influences on the food-producing capacity of the affected regions, these possibilities should be evaluated fully so that they can be most effectively exploited for the benefit of the Vietnamese people.

Accordingly, we urge that a field study be undertaken under the auspices and direction of the United Nations (3), with the participation of Vietnamese scientists and scientists from other countries, and with cooperation, support, and protection provided by the contending forces in the area. The study, which could well be supplemented by experimental work elsewhere, should provide a de-

•Supplementary statements, indicated by numbers, appear at the end of this statement.

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 24155 trulec:i environmental analysis ·of the longrange effects of the agents used and ot the steps necessary to assure .optimum .future productivity of the environment for the welfare of its inhabitants.

Further, we urge that tb.e maximum possible amount of relevant data be released from military security~ so that the scienttsts conducting the study may know the areas affected, the agents used, the dates applied, and the dosages employed.

We express especial concern about the use of arsenical herbicides in Vietnam, and urge that their use be suspended, if it has not already been stopped, until the ultimate fate of the degraded arsenical compounds can be more reliably determined.

We recognize the difficulties involved in the proposed field study; however, it is our hope that the feasibility of such a study may be increased as a result of the current peace talks in Paris.

Finally, we hope the recommended study can be initiated promptly and we proffer the good ofllces of the Association in helping to plan it and publicize its findings.

Don K. Price, Retiring President and Chairman, Board of Directors,· Walter Orr Eoberts, President,· H. Bentley Glass, President-~lect; Paul E. Klopsteg, Treasurer,· Barry Commoner, Hudson Hoa;gland, ·Gerald Holton, Mina S. Rees, Leonard M. Rieser, H. B. Steinba.ch, .Kenneth V. Thimann, Dael Wol1le.

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS "BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

( 1) ~he confidence of the Department of Defense that 1;eriously adverse consequences will not occur as a result of the dissemination of herbicides by military operations in Vietnam is unwarranted, we believe, not only With respect to arsenical materials, but also With respect to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. According to the Midwest Research Institute repor~, the latter are being .sprayed in Vietnam at dosage levels about ten times greater than the levels used in domestic applications. Therefore the estimates regarding possible long-term etlects that are derived from domestic experience are not applicable in V~etnam. Since, to our knowledge, there are no releva-nt observations in Vietnam itself, it is not possible at this time to make a reasonably ·accurate prediction of the long-term effects of dissemination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. However, there a-re specific reasons to anticipate certain important hazards from the use of these herbicides in Vietnam. According to the MRI report (pages 198-200), 2,4-D inhibits the formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules in leguminous plants; plants of -this type are particularly important in tropical vegetation. In addition, according to the MRI report (pages 201-203), 2,4-D and related herbicides induce serious chromosomal abnormalities in various higher plants by interfering with the mitotic apparatus that governs the behavior of chromosomes during cell division. Evidence advanced by the MRI report that these herbicides do not cause mutations in bacteria is irrelevant since bacteria lack the chomosomal apparatus which is affected by the herbicides. Hence, intensive use of 2,4-D and "2,4,5-T in Vietnam may cause widespread chromesomal damage among plants, with effects--on the genetic characteristics of the affected plants and therefore on their ecological behaviorthat cannot · be foreseen at this time. For these reasons, we believe that the scientific grounds for the use of herbicidal chemical weapons in Vietnam-that is, Department of Defense confidence in the judgment that they will cause no long-term effects-are not valid. Accordb:~gly, in keeping with the precept stated in the Department's letter of 29 September 1967, -the herbicide program should be stopped. Apart from the morality of the war itself, which is not at issue here,

continued used of a weapon with effects that are so poorly understood raises serious mor.al -and political questions for · the U.S. government and for the American people. These ought to be carefully considered in the present nationa~ debate on the mora1ity and political wisdom .of the war in Vietnam.

BARRY COMMONER. GERALD HOiiTON. H. BURR STEINBACH.

(2) We consider that the use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T for defoliation of forest cover probably ·represents a military device for saving lives that has an unprecedented degree of harmlessness to the en:vlronment. We consider that the material in the Midwest Research Institute report in general supports this view.

WALTER ORR ROBERTS. KENNETH V. THIMANN.

(3) We do not agree that the .Board of Directors should recommend that the United Nations assume responsibility -directly for making the proposed study. While we would agree that the u.s. ,government should propose that the United Nations sponsor the study, we believe that in case such a course of action is not politically feasible for the United Nations, the U.S. government should reserve the option of initiating and supporting ·such a study through some private institution or special panel of independent observers.

H. Bentley Glass, Hudson Hoagland, Gerald Holton, Paul E. Klopsteg, Don K. Price, Mina S. Rees, Leonard M. Riesler, Walter Orr Roberts, H. Burr Steinbach, Dael Wol:fte.

ELECTORAL DEADLOCK Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, any

reader of the latest polls, be he Republican, Democrat, or Independent, cannot fail to be concerned over the very real possibility of a deadlock in the electoral college this November., one that could leave the Nation rudderless at a time of peril at home and abroad.

The pernicious effects of such a deadlock are discussed in detail this week in two very fine editoria-ls, one published in the Wheaton, Minn., Gazette; the other in the Richfield, Minn., Sun. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the .RECORD.

There being no objecton, the editortals were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Richfield (Minn.) Sun] SENATORIAL CONCERN

Sen. Walter Mondale this week warns of the posslbllity of a bizarre sequence of events possible under the electoral college system which could install a president who would not be the choice of the majority. Sen. Byrd added his weight last week, also, to the growing number of Americans concerned lest circumstance make a travesty of what we proudly point to as a democracy.

These columns on June 27 noted the advantages voters would gain through -a system of national presidential prb:naries. Certainly before the 1972 elections action should be taken to amend the Constitution both to abolish the electorial college and institute national primaries.

[From the Wheaton Gazette) How ABOUT ONE MAN, ONE VOTE?

The Democratic way is one man, one vote! This, at least, is wh-at the rural segment of America has been tossed to refute its objections to a continued loss of repre·sentation over the past several years because of realignment.

But the logie doesn't qulte stand up under close .study 1! you care to consider so inconsequential a matter as the election of a President of these United States.

Lawmakers are r.ather concerned today because of the gain in strength being shown by George Wallace .as a third party candidate for President. As one senator pointed out this week, the Electoral College ·system of choosing a President could break down this year simply because of Wallace. If this were to happen, It would be the first time since 1824.

Before .going into the matter, it may be well to explain just how the Electoral College functions, in the event that _you've forgotten your textbook explanation. Each state gets one "elector" .for each Senator and Congressman from that state. The electors are required to cast their ba:Ilots for the presidential candidate who ·received the most votes in their respective states. Thus, whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in Minnesota, that candidate gets all ten Minnesota Electoral College Votes.

The winning candidate is that one who gains a 270 vote or more majority of the 538 ~lectoral :v.otes.

In a letter this week, Senator Walter Mandale points out that ·wauace could possibly carry a number of states in the November election, and if he were to do so, be could toss tb.e Electoral ·college into ·a deadlock in that ·no ·candidate could receive the required 270 vote majority. Senator M<>ndale points .out that Wallace has already made the statement that should this occur, he would try to swap his electoral votes to one of the major party candidates in exchange for a voic·e in policy-and as the 'Senator puts it, ~'If he succeeded, we would face the unhappy situation of George Wallace choosing our next President.

If this situation arose, but with both major party leaders refusing to deal with Wallace, the Presidential election would go to the newly elected House of Representatives-and this would create more problems.

The biggest roadblock would be that no President could be named until Congress reconvened, ·and this would not come until at least January 3. In addition, the Constitution provides that each state would get one vote-which would mean that 'Delaware's one Congressman would have as much to say a:bout naming the President as Minnesota's eight.

And finally, it is even possible that no man {)()Uld be named President. This could oocur because the Constitution states that a candidate must get a majority of the House votes-which is 26. Now under . present Bouse rules, a state can lose its vote if the representatives from that state fail to reach a majority decision. In Minnesota, for instance, with eight Congressmen, if they split Your and four, Minnesota would lose its vote. If this happened in enough states, it is even possible that no candidate would gain the necessary 26 votes.

The Senate would select the Vice President, and this would be no major problem, but if a new President were not named by January 20, the Vice President would then take over as acting President. And he would hold that office until the House did pick a President.

This could reall_y result in a lulu ·of a situation. As Senator Mondale points out, it is even possible for a Vice President named by the Senate to go into the White House as acting President, later to be replaced by a House-elected President--and the net result could well be that the tw.o men, President and Vice President, could be from different political parties.

Th-at such a sequence of events could take place is highly unlikely, but not entirely impossible.

And in an:Y event, the Electoral College today is not a true representation of the

24156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 voice of the people. Twice already a man has won the popular vote of the nation, but has lost the Presidency in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College system of naming a President is a horse and buggy structure which served its purpose in days of relatively small population, and slow communication. It is not a useful tool in the space age.

Senator Mondale suggests that ·well before 1972 Congress should initiate a Constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and providing for election of our President by nationwide popular vote. And we wholeheartedly agree!

THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION-A Mll.JESTONE FOR FREE ENTERPRISE Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this year

will be marked by two anniversaries: today, July 30, is the 15th anniversary of the Small Business Administration, and August 21 will be the lOth anniversary of the Small Business Investment Company Act. These dates deserve to be celebrated by businessmen and small communities from coast to coast, and to be recognized here in the Senate as milestones in the development of the free enterprise system.

By way of history, small business institutions had their beginnings in an effort to utilize the capacity of small factories during World War II. This resulted in the establishment of the Smaller War Plants Corporation in mid-1942. By the time the SWPC was abolished in 1946, its 3% years of activity helped small firms obtain about 54,000 prime Government contracts valued at over $6 billion, and made loans and leases of approximately $% billion.

During the fighting in Korea, Congress again created a similar organization called the Small Defense Plants Administration, which provided some threequarters of a million dollars in assistance in the form of contracts, loans, and a limited amount of technical assistance.

These experiences made it increasingly clear that small firms were making a vital contribution, not only to the defense effort, but to the basic economy as well.

Today there are about 5 million small businesses across this country. They provide fully half of all the jobs in our economy and produce 40 percent of the Gross National Product.

CHANGES IN THE U.S. ECONOMY

It seems to me also that these businesses on Main Street felt, before the general public realized, that the nature of our economy was changing. With a population approaching 200 million, separated by great distances and susceptible to national advertising, and with the onset of the new technology, the American economy, especially since World Warn, has been putting a premium on king-sized business. Through a combination of these and other factors, many industries were coming to be overshadowed by a few giant firms. The automobile, locomotive, and turbine industries, where two or three companies account for about 97 percent or· more of

the output, are the most · salient examples.

Between World War II and 1958, the gross national product doubled, and in the past 10 years it has doubled again.

The figures developed by the Census Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission indicate that, between 1950 and 1965, the 200 largest corporations increased their share of productive assets from 46.7 to 55.4 percent. The 100 largest corporations increased their share of assets from 38.6 to 45.4 percent. Furthermore, the 10 largest corporations possessed a greater total of productive property than did the 400,000 smallest.

IMPACT ON THE AVERAGE BUSINESSMAN

As a result of this increasing scale of our financial affairs, as well as the increasing concent:..·ation, the ordinary businessman felt that it was becoming progessively r.1ore difficult to achieve success with a small business at any stage. Whether the problems involved the establishment of a <.:ompany, or its early expansion, or later growth, or transition to permanent health and independence, ordinary owners of firms felt the increasing complexities and pressures of the modem era. The needs for capital, management, and every kind of expertise continued to grow in proportion to the numerical indicators.

Against the current of these trends, it was impressed upon the Congress over and over again that the contributions of our small businesses were invaluable in keeping American industry dynamic, competitive, and attuned to the desires of the .:::onsuming public, as well as the needs of national security.

SMALL BUSINESS AS A SOURCE OF PROGRESS

In 'jhe field of innovation, for example, the following are some of the contributions of independent inventors and very small companies in recent years:

The helicopter, by Igor Sikorsky, Heinrich Focke, and Juan de la Cierva;

Titanium metal, used in high performance aircraft, developed by W. J. Kroll;

Jet engines by Frank Whittle and Hans VonOhain;

Automatic transmissions, by H. F. Hobbs; and

Catalytic cracking of petroleum, by Eugene Houdry.

In the field of health, we live longer because of the following ~iscoveries:

Insulin, by Frederick Banting; Streptomycin, by Selman Waksman;

and Penicillin, by Alexander Fleming. Polio vaccine, by Jonas Salk. And we live life more comfortably be-

cause of these others: Air conditioning, by Willis Carrier; Polaroid cameras, by Edwin Land; The Xerox process, invented by Ches-

ter Carlson; Self-winding wristwatch, invented by

John Harwood; FM radio, invented by Edwin Arm

strong; Dacron polyester fiber, invented by

J. R. Whinfield and J. T. Dickson; and The zipper, invented sometime ear

lier by Whitcomb Judson and Gideon Sundback.

An intensive study by the U.S. Department of Commerce published in ··1967

indicated that; despite the approximately $100 b11lion spent on research and development in this country in the past two decades, much of it by big business with advanced facilities and organized teams of professionals, more than half of the technical and business innovations in our country are still coming from individual inventors and very small companies.

AS A SOURCE OF GROWTH

The innovative companies have, of course, been growth companies. Such companies as Polaroid, Xerox, and the Tektronix Co., of Oregon, which are based on inventions such as I have described, grew at a rate of five to 10 times that of the GNP over the last 20 years. Thus, starting as relatively small businesses, these companies have come of age and have contributed widely to employment and economic opportunities throughout this country, and even overseas.

There is another, and geographic, factor of importance. In these days of increasing emphasis on the need for rural-urban balance, it is well to recall that 95 percent of all businesses in the United States are small business. They are the nucleus of small- and mediumsized communities in every part of the country. Their success is transmitted through the banks, the utilities, and all of the other institutions in an area in a relationship of mutual benefit. AS AN OUTLET FOR THE ENTERPRISING SPIRIT

Last, and probably most significant, the independent company provides an outlet for the vision, hopes, and energies of 1 out of every 10 families. A recent nationwide survey conducted by the Bank of America indicated that more than half of the owners of small businesses rated job satisfaction as the prime factor in their vocation, with money being mentioned first by only 27 percent. If these individuals did not have a small business environment available to them, their choices would be limited to working for a big corporation, a big government organization, or some other large and highly structured institution where their freedom of action and opportunities for advancement would be correspondingly reduced.

The smaller business community has thus traditionally been a source of selfreliant, venturesome, and independent citizens. It is a resource that our country could neglect only at great peril, not only to our economic system, but eventually to our political liberties.

THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE

It is in this context that the founding on July 30, 1953, of the Small Business Administration as a spokesman and a guardian for the Nation's small business firms and entrepreneurs takes on its true significance. The language of the Small Business Act of 1953 is as follows:

It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Government should aid, counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small-business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise ... and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation.

It was created as an independent administrative body, with its chief execu-

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24157 tive officer reporting directly to the President. Fortunately, SBA became an instant success. To a considerable extent this was because of Wendell Barnes, now of Portland, Oreg., who brought outstanding qualifications and abilities to his positions, first as General Counsel, then Acting Administrator and finally as Administrator. Mr. Barnes headed the Agency for longer than any other man, from October 31, 1953, until November 1, 1959, and layed a sound foundation for further development. Others who have served with distinction in this position have been: Phillip McCallum, 1959 to 1961; John Horne, 1961 to 1963; Eugene Foley, 1963 to 1965; Bernard Boutin, 1965 to 1966; and Robert C. Moot, 1966 to August 1968.

The present Administrator-designate, Mr. Howard Samuels, has already completed one distinguished career-in business--and shown a lively dedication to another-in the public interest. I am confident that he will carry these traditions into the future.

The experience of the early 1950's led Congress to consider and enact the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, which again pioneered in the field of businessGovernment cooperation in furnishing equity and venture capital funds which banks cannot supply to financial markets. Under this legislation, more than 500 SBIC's have made some 28,000 investments in and loans to companies with unusual promise and unproven earning capacity. Their borrowers have responded by growing many times more rapidly than the overall economy, providing nearly 12,000 jobs, generating additional taxes, and quickening the entire pulse of our business and financial communities. .

THE "FOUNDING FATHERS" In my judgment, the list of far-sighted

Senators responsible for putting these 2 pieces of legislation on the statute books should be read as an honor role of the free enterprise system: the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], who assumed the chairmanship and leadership of the Senate Select Committee on Small Business in 1950, is probably the man who has had most to do with SBA's founding and progress over the years. Other prin-

the Senate" in the mid-1940's, and as a member of the Select Committee on Small Business since 1955.

THE SBA RECORD These years have been years of un

usual effort, alert action, and of continued success for SBA. In the 1960's, they have been years of ever-increasing activity as the Small Business Administration has grown in stature and the tempo of its work has been speeded up to match the growth of our economy and the needs of our people.

During the past 15 years, SBA has made a total of 85,285 business loans totaling $3.8 billion to small firms, about 48,000 of them in the last 5 years.

In times of trouble, it has been on hand to make 74,102 disaster loans for $648.4 million, with 70 percent of these being in the past 5 years.

Where small communities needed to bring in industry, the Small Business Administration has made 1,805 local company development loans totaling $375.5 million, with 82 percent coming in the past 5 years.

To assure a fair share of Government contracts to small companies, the "setaside program" operated to bring an aggregate of $19.2 billion in procurement awards to small businesses that mean a great deal to the individual small companies which obtain these awards.

In order to give small businessmen the advice and special information that must be coupled with loans, and is often even more vital than financial assistance, over 41 million management publications have been distributed. More than 11,000 courses, conferences, and workshops have been conducted, with 452,500 attending these sessions. To bring even more of SBA's advice down to the level of the individual factory or store, a total of 565,184 small businessmen received individual management counseling from SBA since 1960.

VALUE TO OREGON Shortly after the act was passed I

worked to give unrestricted loan and other authority to the Portland office of SBA. Some of the figures for loans in my home State of Oregon from that office over the years are as follows: Regular business

loans ------------Community develop-

ment loans --------

Number Amount 10,033 $56,176,000

18 2,904,000

Loans of other types have amounted to almost 600, including disaster loans of almost $7% million. This level of activity is a good indication of the consistently fine work done by Albert Lofstrand, the regional administrator in Portland, and has been of direct assistance not only to businesses receiving this aid bUJt to their towns and cities all across the State.

. cipal supporters included: the thenSenator from Minnesota, Vice President HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, the present hardworking chairman of the select committee, the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG], as well as the Senators from Massachusetts and New York [Mr. Saltonstall and Mr. JAVITS], who have been the longtime ranking minority members of the select commit-tee, and who have been responsible in ADAPTING To cHANGE the Senate · for a completely bipartisan The national Small Business Admin-and constructive approach to small busi- istration, during its first 15. years, has ness problems. Special mention should demonstrated capacity to develop and also be made to the then-Senator and ad~pt to changing conditions. In 1963, majority leader, President Lyndon B. under the guidanc~ of the CongresS, it Johnson, who played a key role in en- . developed a program for encouraging couraging and guiding the SBA and SBIC subcontracting by the majo'r GovernActs through the Congress. ment prime contractors. Wor~ing under

I have been privileged to be associated this program with 39 prime contractors, with these efforts since my early days in some $4.1 billion was subcontracted -to

small companies in fiscal year 1967. The program is now being practically doubled to include the top 75 prime contractors.

In 1964, SBA undertook the development of the Economic Opportunity Loan program for disadvantaged businessmen who could not qualify under the Agency's regular loan standards. In 1965, the Agenc:y developed the SCORE program to mobilize the services of retired executives to bring their accumulated wisdom home to small businessmen in counseling sessions. In 1967, SBA, in cooperation with the Commerce Department, reentered the field of export assistance in response to the Nation's serious balance-of-payments difficulties.

This is good and ample evidence that the Small Business Administration will continue to grow and change in the future as social, economic, and technical conditions change, while reaffirming its basic purposes and commitments to the free enterprise system.

WHAT SBA HAS MEANT In return, we in the Congress have

nurtured the SBA, supported its initiatives, and fought for its independence when it has been threatened. We have done so because the small business community, and the entrepreneurial impulse, is the heart of the free enterprise system. Its preservation and expansion thus do credit to the precepts that we as a nation value most highly.

Some years ago, the U.S. Information Agency set up an exhibit on the Small Business Administration program which was shown in many Embassies and information centers around the world as a re:ftection of these values. I feel that the story told by this display must have struck a sympathetic chord, particularly in nations which are struggling to develop business and industry from small beginnings.

Mr. President, the Small Business ~dministration and its related institutions, such as Small Business Investment Companies, provide an anchor for an open economy in this country and even beyond this country. It is not only a tangible helping hand, but a visible symbol of the determination of the United States Government--both the executive branch and the Congress--to resist the drift toward corporate giantism and to keep the channels of business open to enterprising and independent men who will continue to be the backbone of our communities across the country and of our free enterprise and democratic systems.

The development of American business, within these institutions, has sustained our economy in good times and bad and has given our citizens living standards and economic opportunities probably unmatched at any time in any other place. '

Mr. President, on its 15th birthday, I salute the Small Business Administration for its ·historic contributions to this process, and wish SBA many more deccades of high endeavor and enduring achievement.

FOUR MILLION HUNGRY U.S . . CHTI..:DR~

Mr. CLARK. Mr .. President, the American people are perhaps the most altru-


istic and generous people knovvn to history. The record shows that for 100 years or more Americans have responded with quick and magnanimous sharing whenever the peoples of other lands have been victimized by such calamaties as famine, floods and fire. The hungry, the homeless ~d the destitute-countless million:s of them-of Europe, Asia, and Africa have been the beneficiaries of our heartfelt assistance.

We have helped these millions of unfortunates from our own pockets as individuals and we have aided them through our Government as taxpayers. Over these many decades of succor to our fellow humans in need, the American people have proved time and time again that they are indeed their brother's keeper.

We are now engaged in a great war to abolish poverty for once and for all from the face of our most affluent and abundant of all lands. If we succeed our achievement could be an inspiration and an example for the rest of the world.

Moreover, if we do succeed, it will mean that America will be in a far more favored position than ever before to help our less fortunate global neighbors and assist in many ways the millions of people who, throughout their entire lives, wake up hungry in the morning, remain hungry during the day and go to bed hungry each rught.

But there is so very much to be done before we eradicate poverty and hunger and malnutrition in the United States. There are at least 28,000,000 or more impoverished Americans still living among us today.

The-re are, I am saddened to say, 4,-000,000 or more hungry American children. This shocking figure, an appalling picture of millions of American tots and youngsters waking up and going to bed hungry each day like the other millions in Asia and Africa, becomes even more shocking and appalling in view of our action in the U.S. Senate in slashing in half-from $100,000,000 to $50,000,000-the amount authorized by the House of Representatives for free or very inexpensive meals for needy schoolchildren.

Because there is still time to undo the damage this action can wreak on 4,000,-000 innocent and defenseless children, I wish to bring to the attention of Senators a trenchant and meaningful editorial on this subject published in the New York Times on July 26. I ask consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York Times, July 26, 1968]

HALFALC!AF

A couple of months ago when his department was under intense fire for failing to provide more food for the hungry, Secretary of Agriculture Freeman complained that he was hamstrung by a shortage of funds.

"Tilne and time again when the poor cried for a full loaf of bread they were forced to settle for a half because the public support to fund anti-hunger campaigns was weak or nonexistent," Mr. Freeman told the House Labor and Education Committee.

Last week, the poor were handed half a loaf again when the Senate cut to ~0 million a $100 million House authorization to provide

free or reduced-price meals for needy school children. One argument used to support the Senate reduction was a letter from Secretary Freeman saying his department could spend no more than $50 million on expanding the program this year.

Surely, the United States can do better to help an estimated four million hungry children whose needs are not now being met. Surely, House conferees will fight for the higher sum-and they should do it soon so there will be as much time as possible for Secretary Freeman and local school authorities to prepare the necessary programs.

BIAFRA Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, al

though Biafra is one of the richest areas in all of Africa, 2 million of its citizens are suffering from hunger. Food is stockpiled nearby, but satisfactory political arrangements for its delivery have not been reached. Meanwhile, 1 million children face death by starvation before the end of August.

The risky nighttime airlift from Lisbon brings in only a trickle of food and medicine. The Red Cross has halted its mercy flights because of technical difficulties. The Biafrans, who fear poisoning, refuse to accept food brought through unprotected land corridors, and the Nigerians refuse to allow food to be flown to Biafra, even if given the opportunity to inspect the cargo before delivery.

There is no longer time to argue about the means of inspection and transportation. Food must now be taken into the area by a massive air and sea lift and by overland relief columns. The death of thousands, most of them protein-starved children, will continue each day until the United States abandons its cautious approach based on the niceties of political nonintervention. ·

I urge the Nigerian and Biafran Governments to accept the establishment -of demilitarized land, sea, and air corridors for the shipment of food both to Biafra and to the neighboring territories under Federal control.

I believe that the United States can assist by endorsing and seeking the immediate implementation of an internationally policed demilitarized zone.

The United States can offer food, withsuitable guarantee to the Nigerian Government that no arms will be included in the shipments and to Biafra that food shipments will be internationally supervised.

The United States can make available both food and transportation facilities to neutral, international agencies and charitable relief organizations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled "In Biafra, Death by Famine Strikes Everywhere," published in today's New York Times, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: IN BIAFRA, DEATH BY FAMINE STRIKES EVERY

WHERE-RELIEF AmES INSIST MASSIVE FOOD AmLIFT Is THE ONLY HOPE FOR SALVATION

0BINZE, NIGERIA, July 29.-8tatlstics on the food crisis here in the secessionist republic · of Biafra pall before the onscene, everyday reality of death.

Death strikes everywhere--in hospitals, in mission stations, even by · the roadside. At

the Okp~l~ Mission 80 miles west of here, the Rev. Ken Doheny is close to weeping as 7,000 children assemble at dusk, their bony hands outstretched.

"They used to c.ome here every night for a little soup-milk or beans," he reports . "Now .we have nothing left. This is a children's war. They're all doomed, the lot of them."

Relief workers here believe that only a massive airlift of food, so far blocked by politics and pride can save the people of Biafra from the starvation that now appears rampant.

JUST A TRICKLE SO FAR

Just a trickle of food and medicine has reached this breakaway region of Nigeria aboard blockade-running planes landing at night. It has been a drop in the bucket.

So far, the Nigerian Government in Lagos has refused to authorize planes to fly direct to Biafra by day, but has said that it wants a land corridor into Biafra from Enugu, north of the front line.

Asked about the death toll, Dr. Herman Middlekoop, an official of the World Council of Churches, say: "This week I just can't give a figure. It's accelerating every hour. It's a desperate situation. That's all I can say."

On the roadside near this muddy little junotion town in southern Biafra, eight old women sit motionless in the rain, too weak to walk. A ninth woman, who is cradled on the arms of her friend, is dead. But her friend keeps talking to her as if she were still alive.

Nearby, a man buries his three-year-old daughter in a drainage ditch, using his hands as a shovel to scoop out a grave in the m,ud. They are all refugees along this road. Most are on foot. A few are on bicycles. Some push handcarts piled high with furniture and bedding. There are more than 10,000 on this road alone, fleeing before Nigerian troops slicing north in an attempt to seize Biafra's last airfield near Owerri.

The same refugee exodus can be witnessed in almost every sector near Biafra's front line, where ~ghting continues unabated despite forth<;:omirig peace talks in Addis Ababa a week from now.

Biafra's nearly one million refugees are not the only ones dying from lack of nutrition. Death. is also . stalking settled villagers and townspeople. For many of them cannot a:fl'ord the high price of what little proteinproducing food is still available. In the village market here a goat's leg sells for $12. A scrawny dog can be bought whole for $35 and rats brt:p.g 35 ce:q.ts a po~nd.

Relief agencies here believe the Biafrans need a bare minimum of 200 tons of foOd a day to survive. The job could be done, experts say, with two American Air Force c-130 transports, flying daylight shuttles from the offshore islands of Fernando Po and Sao Tome, where more than 2,000 tons of food have stacked up. And more is on its way.

The Lockheed c-130, specially designed to land heavy loads on short trips, has already proved itself in flying relief to remote strips in the Congo and has become the main cargo plane in Vietnam.

But Nigeria and Biafra are stlll stalemated over which shall control the tlow of relief. Biafrans have rejected the land corridor on the ground that it would be taking foOd directly from the hands of the enemy.

Instead, the Government here has suggested that planes land in Enugu, where the Nigerians could inspect the cargo. The planes would then fiy on to Biafra. But late yesterday, a federal Goyernment spokesman dismissed this proposaL

RED CROSS FLIGHTS HALTED

GENEVA, July 29.-The International Committee of the Red Cross ann.ounced today that its mercy filghts of medical and food

·July 30, 196B CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~ SENATE -24159

supplies to Biafra had been halted by technical difficulties.

Top officials of the all-Swiss committee declined to expand on the announcement at a news conference except to say that the difficulties concerned arrangements for landing in the territory of the rebel region of Nigeria.

Only last week the committee dispatched a chartered four-engine plane from Geneva to continue the shuttle from Fernando Po, a Spanish island off the Nigerian coast, to the encircled Biafrans, who have been at war with the federal Government for over a year.

A total of 16 flights were :flown since the start of the aid operations last April, but Roger Gallopin, an executive director of the humanitarian agency, stressed that the air transport of emergency relief supplies from Fernando Po had always been considered to be "only a temporary and precarious arrangement."

Only the opening of a land corridor through the fighting lines would permit food supplied to reach the famine-stricken Biafrans "in sufficient quantities to meet the needs," Mr. Gallopin said.

ISSUE LEFT OVER

The Red Cross official declined to attempt to estimate the number of deaths resulting from starvation in Biafra. But he said that of the eight million people . in the cut-off Biafran territory about two mUllion were known to be-suffering from hunger.

Samuel A. Gonard, the committee president, said that the failure to reach agreement on the opening of a relief corridor at last week's preliminary peace talks between Biafra and Nigeria in Niamey, Niger, was very regrettable. More people will die from starvation because the issue was left over for

· the full-scale peace conference that is to ·open in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by Aug. 3, he said.

The red cross officials said that three advanced depots near the Biafran-held territory were being stocked with 3,400 tons of emergency supplies for transport into Biafra whenever a mercy corridor is opened.

A further 12,000 tons of relief supplies are en route for Nigeria, with 7,500 tons earmarked-for Biafra, they said.

The Nigerian relief action was described by the Red Cross officials as their most important undertaking since World War II. An appeal by the committee last week for Swiss .truck drivers and mechanics, radio operators and medical workers to volunteer for duty in Nigeria had already brought 1,000 offers, they said.

REPEAL OF SECTION 315(a) OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, the

editorial section of yesterday's Washington Post contained a well reasoned statement entitled "Preconvention TV Debates." I quote from the first paragraph of that editorial:

This would be a good year to inaugurate television debates between the leading contenders for the presidential nominations of the two parties.

Let me say in response to that editorial that any year would be a good year to inaugurate such debates. Back in 1959, I introduced legislation to temporarily suspend section 315 (a) of the 1934 Communications Act, and it was passage of that bill which made possible the historic Kennedy-Nixon television debates. I had said at the time and I still believe that any law which has to be temporarily suspended is a poor law and should be stricken from the books. However, many

Members of Congress and the majority of the FCC were not ready to _ take that complete action, and as a consequence, section 315(a) was only temporarily suspended with the understanding that further action would be taken if debates were found to serve a valuable public purpose.

Those who remember the 1960 debates will agree that the candidate exposure which television affords is of genuine service to the electoral process. Accord-

. ingly, I have reintroduced this session two bills regarding section 315(a); one which would repeal altogether this bothersome law, and one which would again temporarily suspend section 315 (a) for the 1968 general election. Once again, Members of the Senate and a majority of the Senate Committee on Commerce opted to suspend section 315 (a), rather than to repeal it altogether. The measure passed both the Commerce Committee and the full Senate, and was referred to the House of Representatives. Regrettably, progress in the House is at best uncertain; action does not appear to be forthcoming at the present time.

Mr. President, the airwaves are public property, and I do not feel that Members of Congress should prohibit the use of those airwaves when obvious public benefits are forfeited as a consequence. The health of our electoral system rests in large measure on the quantity and the quality of public information which can be made available to the average voter. There is no better way to generate this information than through free and open debate between the candidates, and there is no better way to bring these debates to wide public attention than through the medium of television.

Eventually, I would hope that party nominations as well as the final presidential election could be preceded by open TV debates between active candidates. For the present, however, debates between the respective party nominees will represent a significant achievement. Accordingly, I am hopeful that the House will take affirmative action on the suspension of section 315(a) so that the upcoming campaign can be conducted under the best possible circumstances.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.


PRECONVENTION TV DEBATES

This would be a good year to inaugurate television debates between the leading contenders for the presidential nom.inations of the two parties. Since the Republican National Convention will be held first, the process ought to begin with a confrontation 'between Richard Nixon and Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Both have been invited to appear on "Meet the Press" next Sunday just before the Convention opens at Miami, but this will not be equivalent to a full-fiedged debate.

Some kind of verbal bout between Vice President Humphrey and Senator McCarthy, before a nationwide television audience, now seems to be assured before the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. This fact should weigh heavily in favor of a similar contest between the lead·ing Republican candidates. Governor Rockefeller is willing be-

cause suoh public exposure would be a distinct advantage to himself as well as to his party. Mr. Nixon has declined because he does not wiS!h to share with pis opponent the stronger limelight beating upon his frontrunning position. But if he is as far ahead as his spokesmen claim this appears to be an especially ungenerous pooture that will work to the disadvantage of his party in November.

On the Democratic side, Senator McCarthy seems to be getting some advantage out of his strong TV-debate position. The Senator from Minnesota accepted the proposal of the networks for a series of debates with the Vice President beginning on July 27 or 28. His preference is for one session on foredgn policy, one on economic problems featuring infiation and one on governmental processes and the function o.f the Presidency. Certainly this would not be too much if the two leading Democratic candidates are to explore their differences in any depth for the benefit of the electorate.

Although the Vice President is willing to debate, he is said to prefer only one faceto-face contest with Mr. McCarthy in the week before the Democratic convention. The reason for this reluctance is as obvious in his case as in Mr. Nixon's, but it is nevertheless awkward for a great exponent of free public expression and a highly skilled practitioner of the art to take so restrictive an attitude when his own bid fo;r the Presidency is at stake. This newspaper would like to see a full exploration of the issues within both the major parties before nationwide TV audiences.

THE IMPENDING RETIREMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HORACE R. KORNEGAY, OF NORTH CAROL_INA Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.

President, when the 91st Congress convenes next January, familiar faces will be missing both in this Chamber and in the House.

One of them will be that of Representative HORACE R. KORNEGAY, who is returning to private life at the end of this year, after serving four terms from North Carolina's Sixth District.

His ·departure will have a special significance for me because he has been not only a helpful and valued colleague of mine here for the past 8 years, but actually my own Representative because he represents my own home district.

There is abundant record that he has represented it ably and well and with complete dedication to the interests not only of his own people but of those of the State and country as well.

He has served with unique distinction as a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and has displayed a legislative talent reflecting credit to the entire North Carolina delegation in Congress and to the State.

There is ample evidence of the high regard in which he is held by his colleagues. A few days ago, more than 70 of them joined in a formal tribute to him on the House ftoor. Rece~tly, in Burlington, the residents

of Alamance County demonstrated their respect and affection for him with a special gift and salute in which his predecessor, former Representative Carl Durham, had a part.

Congress, his State and, his district will sorely miss the services of HoRACE KoRNEGAY. So Will I.

24160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July {10, -1968 FOR~GN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1968

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the unfinished business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. HART 1n the chair). The bill will be stated by title.

The BILL CLERK. calendar No. 1463, H.R. 15263, a bill to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE POSTAL FIELD SERVICE Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I

ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 15387.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives announcing its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15387) to amend title 39, United States Code, to provide for disciplinary action against employees in the postal field service who assault other employees in such service in the performance of official duties, and for other purposes, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. MONRONEY. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendments and agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Chair appointed Mr. MONRONEY, Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. FONG, and Mr. BoGGs conferees on the part of the Senate.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND HUMAN NEEDS

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may need to the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK].

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania will state it.

Mr. CLARK. Is there pending business before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The unfinished business is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968.

Mr. CLARK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con

sent that the pending business may be temporarily set aside in order that the Senate may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1394, Senate Resolution 281, to establish a Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the resolution will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Senate Resolution 281, to establish a Select Com_mittee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the -request of the Senaor from Pennsylvania?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution which had been reported from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, with amendments, on page 2, line 5, after the word "under" insert "the following" in line 6, after the word "laws," strike out "including"; in line 8, after the word "the" where it appears the first time, strike out "Tariff" and insert "Agricultural"; in the same line after "1935" strike out "the Office of" and insert "the Agricultural Act of 1949, Emergency Food and Medical Services Amendment to the"; in line 10, after the word "Opportunity" strike out "Food Assistance"; in line 11, after the word "Act" strike out "the school lunch" and insert "the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the National School Lunch Act of 1946"; in line 13, after the word "child" insert "aid, medical assistance," in the same line after the word "relief" strike out, "commodity"; in line 14, after the word "food," strike_ out "fiber,", and insert "medical"; in line 15, after the word "other" insert "related"; on page 3, line 1, after the word "and" where it appears the second time, strike out "three" and insert "two"; in the same line after the word "and" where it appears the third time, strike out "two" and insert "one"; in line 3, after the word "Senate" strike out "without regard to committee assignments," and insert, "from other committees,"; in line 4, after the word "the" strike out "unmet" and insert "food, medical, and other related"; in line 6, after the word "Senate" insert "and terminate its activities"; in line 10, after the word "food," strike out "clothing," and insert "medical assistance," and in the same line, after the word "other," insert "related"; so as to make the resolution read:

Resolved,, Tha;t the Presid·ent, the Department of Heailth, Eduoa.tion, and Welfare, the Otfice of Economic Opportunity, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and any and all other agencies with applica-ble authorities shall u.se to the fullest possible their authorities under the following existing laws, the Elementary a~d Secondary Education Act, the Johnson-O'Malley Act, section 32 of the Agricultural Act of 1935, the Agricultural Act of 1949, Emergency Food and Medical Services Amendment to the Economic Opportunity ,Act, the Food Stamp Act of 1004, the National School Lunch Act of 1946, and all other authorities for child aid, medical assistance, and relief progr:a.ms, to meet immediately the food, medical, and other related basic needs of the Nation's poor to the fullest extent possible; and be it further

Resolved,, That there is established a select committee of the Senate composed of three majority and two minority members of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfa.re, three majority and two minority members of the Committee on Agriculture and Fmestry, and two majority and one minority Members or the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate, from other committees, to study the food, medical, and other related basic needs among the people of the United States and to report back to the Senate and terminate its activities not later than the opening of the 91st Congress legislation necessary to establish a coordinated program or programs which will assure every United States resident adequate fOOd, medicail assistance, and other related basic necessities of life and

health: Provided further, Th&t the seleet committee shall recommend to the Senate appropriate procedures for congressional consideration and oversight of such coordinated programs.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, 1 year ago the Senate Subcommittee on Employment Manpower and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare conducted 2 days of hearings in response to a growing body of evidence that hunger and severe malnutrition existed in certain parts of the United States. Those hearings documented that hunger did in fact exist, although the geographical focus of the problem was blurred when one looked beyond the delta area of Mississippi.

Recognizing the need for congressional response to such a national issue, 39 Senators of both parties cosponsored Senate Resolution 281, introduced by Senator .GEORGE S. McGoVERN, calling for the establishment of a select committee of the Senate to report back to the Senate not later than the opening of the 91st Congress the "legislation necessary to establish a coordinated program or programs which will assure every U.S. resident adequate food, medical assistance, and other related basic necessities of life and health."

Forty-three witnesses were invited to testify or submit testimony. They included representatives from the following categories-some witnesses fall into more than one category and are so listed: Medical and nutritional authorities__ 8 Educators, teachers, and school ad-

ministrators ---------------------- 12 Nationally known private citizens____ 4 The hungry poor-------------------- 15 Welfare officials_____________________ 1

Government officials_________________ 6

USDA ---------------------------- 2 OEO ---------------------------.-- 2 HEW ----------------------------"'- ·1 Civil Rights Commission___________ 1

Elected public officials _______ : _______ ~ Private food sector__________________ 1 Other interested citizens_____________ 1

The committee is convinced after hear:. ing from these witnesses that chronic hunger and malnutrition do exist extensively in the United States. In some areas and among some people it is an all too familiar way of life. Many of those who are chronically hungry seem also to want for essential clothing, shoes, soaps, medical care, and education. There is an identifiable geographical nature to some of the pockets of hunger; there are so~e identifiable dietary deficiencies among low economic groups in some of these areas. The majority of those who are chronically hungry in the United States come from low-income families with the incidence increasing as income level declines. Over 20 milllon of the Nation's 27 million poor are under 16, over 60, or crippled physically or mentally, At the same time only 6 million persons-poor and near poor-participate in family

· food programs. The committee also found that, if re

medial action is to be taken, it must jointly stem from the Congress and from the administration, for many of the problems identified require a wholly new at-

July· 30i 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24161 titude and approach by those who seek to eliminate a chronic hunger in America. If chronic hunger is to be eliminated, minimum Federal standards of food program performance must be established at the State and coUnty level. Any such standards must endorse imaginative outreach. Any such standards must have as their primary goal the feeding of the .POOr, and not be diverted by other preoccupations.

Witnesses declare that the Federal Government has not approached the problem of meeting basic human needs for food and other necessities of life from the standpoint of human welfare; that our food programs for the poor are byproducts of farm policy. Secretary Freeman pointed out that the dir~t distribution program, is in the process of being replaced by the food stamp program.

However, families with incomes from $500 to $2,000 per year seemed to be adversely affected by the food stamp formulas; both as to percentage of income required to be allocated to the food budget-37 to 50 percent-and to volume of food that was purchasable under the ·monthly budget. Repeated reference was made to the unrealistic assumption that ·a family living at these destitute levels could save a sufficient proportion of their income for a once-per-month food stamp purchase. Many families testified that they had no income at all and could not pay the minimum amounts for food stamps.

The committee heard from witnesses who contended that while the national school lunch program helps feed 18 million children, only 2 million poor children get substantially free lunches under this program. Secretary Freeman admitted that another 2 to 4 million poor children should get this assistance. The absence of school lunch programs in many of the Nation's slum schools was particularly deplored.

TeStimony showed that the direct distribution program was, in fact, being phased out where communities accepted the food stamp program. But testimony also proved that a large number of counties had neither program, and that there was a noticeable drop in participation by the poor when a county switched from commodities to food stamps because of a lack of income to buy stamps.

Senate Resolution 281 calls upon the executive branch to immediately meet the food, medical, and related basic needs of the Nation's poor to the fullest extent. Testimony demonstrated that the executive branch, were it to use its existing powers in an imaginative and bold manner, could accomplish much of this goal. Since executive restraints are inferred from past congressional actions and testimony, the House and the Senate need to clarify the determination of this country to eliminate widespread and chronic hunger and malnutrition.

Therefore the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare recommends that the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Need be established and given the power to subpena, hold hearings, and employ staff, and to report back to the Senate legislative recommendations to assure ·a coordinated program or pro-

cxiV--1522-Pa.rt 18

granis which will assure every American adequate food, medical assistance, and other related basic neCessities of life a.nd health.

In this respect, I would hope that the select committee would include in its studies and deliberations:

The effectiveness and delivery of existing Government food programs, and their costs to the Government anc1 to the poor;

Educational aspects of malnutritionthe need for nutrition education and the possible use of vocational education and new careers programs for this purpose; also changes needed in medical curriculu..~ to advance knowledge of malnutrition and its effects and relevance to other medical problems;

Delivery of health nervices to the poor -and the attention given to aspects of ·malnutrition by the Public Health Servi~e. the OEO neighborhood health cen·ters, and other health programs; _ SuFVeys of hunger and malnutritionhow well are present and on-going sur_veys . covering the issues and what is needed in addition;

Standardization of eligibility for needed food assistance to the poor. How can this be accomplished given the problems of different intergovernmental eligibility standards between Federal; State and county units; . Streamlining the legislative process so that comprehensive consideration of nutritional needs and congressional oversight on a coordinated basiB can become a reality.

The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare recommends that the select committee itself, after organizing, electing a chairman, and reviewing the task assigned to It, should determine the extent of staff, budget, and committee powers it will require and then present 1ts own request to the Senate for funds and authorities.

Mr. President, the resolution as re·ported from the committee calls for the select committee to report back to the Senate and terminate its activities not later than the opening of the 91st Congress. Faced with the realities of our heavy Senate schedules, I do not believe that this target date will give the select committee time for adequate implementation of its task. · Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended by striking out, on page 3, line 7, the words "the opening of the 91st Congress" and substituting therefor "not later than June 30, 1969." The purpose of this amendment 1s to give the committee created by the resolution appropriate time to prepare its report andreport back to the legislative committees of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, now I yield to the Senator from Arizona [Mr. FANNIN].

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, first, I commend the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership in this field and for his work on this resolution.

Mr. President, on behalf of the senior

Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSE.N]~ I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be printed in the RECORD.


The amendment is as follows: On page 3, strike everything after "the"

in line 6 through line 14 and · insert in lieu thereof the following: "appropriate committees of the Senate and terminate its activities not later than June 30, 1969. Such reJ>Qrt may contain such recommendations as the Committee finds necessary to establish a coordinated program or programs which .will assure every United States resident adequate food, medical assistance, and other related basic necessities of life and. health .and shall in addition contain appropriate procedures for congressional consid.era.tion and oversight of such coordinated prograJilS.''

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, the resolution in its present form directs the select committee to report back to the :floor of the Senate legislation necessary to establish a coordinated program. This amendment provides for orderly procedure. It directs the select committee to make its report to the appropriate committees of the Senate rather than to the ·senate. In addition, this amendment specifies that the report contain "such recommendations as the committee finds necessary to establish a program." The original text required that legislation be reported.

It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the managers of the b111.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to accept the amendment. It was always our thoughtperhaps the language is inartistic-that the committee would not make recommendations directly to the Senate, but, on the contrary, would report to the regularly constituted committees of the Senate, so that those recommendations could be considered by them.

Mr. FANNIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. CLARK. I am prepared to accept

the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amend.:. ment.

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the committee amendments, as amended.

The amendments, as amended, were agreed to.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.


The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

24162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE ·July 30, 1968

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask that there be a vote on adoption ~f the resolution.

The · PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, as amended. · ,

The resolution <S. Res. 281), as amended, was agreed to, as follows:

S. RES. 281 Whereas it has been demonstrated tha-t

every American does not have the food, medical assistance, and other related necessities essential to life and health; and

Whereas surveys conducted by Government agencies and responsible groups of citizens show that, in spite of America's abundance of food, fiber, and other resources, our Federal food programs fail to rea-ch many of the citizens lacking adequate quantities and/or quality of food, which may result in the lifetime impairment of children mentally and physically, and in unnecessary disease, su1fering,.and premature deaths among both young and adults; and

Whereas restricted use of programs authorized by Congress, reversion of funds, divisions of responsibility and authority within Congress and administrative agencies, unwise regulations and other obstacles impede and frustrate efforts to banish starvation and want for necessities among desperately disadvantaged poor within our Nation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the President, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and any and all other agencies with applicable authorities shall use to the fullest possible their authorities under the following existing laws, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Johnson-O'Malley Act, section 32 of the Agricultural Act of 1935, the Agricultural Act of 1949, Emergency Food and Medical Services Amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act, the ·Food Stamp Act of 1964, the National School Lunch Act of 1946, and all other authorities for child aid, medical assistance, and relief programs, to nieet immediately the food, medical, and other related basic needs of the Nation's poor to the fullest extent poSsible; and be it further ·

Resolved, That there is established a select committee of the Senate composed of three majority and two minority members of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, three majority and two minority members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and two majority and one minority Members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate from other committees, to study the food, medical, and other related basic needs among the people of the United States and to report back to the appropriate committees of the Senate and terminate its activities not later than June 30, 1969. Such report may contain such recommendations as the Committee finds necessary to establish a coordinated program or programs which will assure every United States resident adequate food, medical assistance, and other related basic necessities of life and health and shall in addition contain appropriate procedures for congressional consideration and oversight of such coordinated programs.

The preamble was amended, so as to read:

Whereas it has been demonstrated that every American does not have the food, medical assistance, and other related necessities essential to life and health; and

Whereas slirveys conducted by Government agencies and responsible groups of citizens show that, in spite of America's abundance of food, fiber, and other resources, our Federal food programs fail to reach many .of the· citizens lacking adequate quantities

and/or quality of food, which may result in the lifetime impairment of children mentally and physically, and in unnecessary disease, suffering, and premature deaths among both young and adults; and

Whereas restricted use of programs authorized by Congress, reversion of funds, divisions of responsibility and authority within Congress and administrative agencies, unwise regulations and other obstacles impede and frustrate efforts to banish starvation and want for necessities among desperately disadvantaged poor within our Nation: Now, therefore, be it

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the resolution was adopted be reconsidered.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.



Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY CERTAIN LANDS IN SALINE COUNTY, ARK., TO THE DIERKS FORESTS, INC.-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 10864) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands in Saline County, Ark., to the Dierks Forests, Inc., and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The bill clerk read the report, as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 10864), to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands in Saline County, Arkansas, to the Dierks Forests, Incorporated, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to . recomm.end and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following:

"SEc. 4. Section 347(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of · 1938, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"'(b) (1) The Secretary shall, not later than October 15 of each calendar year, proclaim the amount of the national marketing quota for the crop of cotton described in subsection (a) produced in the next succeeding calendar year in terms of the quantity of such cotton equal to the estimated domestic consumption plus exports for the marketing year which begins in such sue-

ceeding calendar year, less the estimated imports, plus such additional number of bales, if any, as the Secretary determines is necessary to assure adequate working stocks in trade channels until cotton from the next crop becomes readily available without resort to Commodity Credit Corporation stocks: Provided, That the Secretary may reduce the national marketing quota so determined for any crop for the purpose of reducing surplus stocks, but not below the minimum quota prescribed under paragraph (2) of this subsection.

"'(2) The national marketing quota for any crop shall not be less than the amount of the import quota in effect on August 1, 1967, for the year beginning on such date for extra long staple cotton (one and threeeighths inches or more) in pounds converted to standard bales of five hundred pounds gross weight, established pursuant to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (of 1933) , as amended.

"'(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph ( 1) of this subsection, the national marketing quota shall be the minimum quota under paragraph (2) of this subsection for each crop of such cotton for which the Secretary estimates that the carryover of American grown extra long staple cotton at the beginning of the marketing year for the crop for which the quota is proclaimed (excluding any such cotton in the stockpile established pursuant to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, as amended) will be more than 50 per centum of the estimated domestic consumption and exports of American grown extra long staple cotton for such marketing year: Provided, That the foregoing provisions of this sentence shall not apply for any crop for .which the carryover so estimated is an amount equal to 50 per centum or less of the estimated domestic consumption and exports of American grown extra long staple ~tton for the marketing year for such crop, and such provisions shall not apply to any crop following the first crop for which this proviso comes into operation.

"'(4) The provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection shall apply to the 1969 and each succeeding crop of cotton . described in subsection (a) of this section.'

"SEc. 5. Section 101 (f) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by striking out all of the first sentence following the words 'except that', and substituting in lieu thereof the following: 'notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, price support shall .be made available to cooperators for the 1968 and each subsequent crop of extra long staple cotton, if producers have not disapproved marketing quotas therefor, through loans at a level which is not less than 50 per centum or more than 100 per centum in excess of the loan level established for Middling one-inch upland cotton of such crop at average location in the United States (except that such loan level for extra long staple cotton shall in no event be less than 35 cents per pound) and,' in addition, through price-support pay-:ments at a rate which, together with the loan level established for such crop, shall be not less than 65 per centum or more than 90 per centum of the parity price for extra long staple cotton as of the month in which the payment rate provided for by this subsection is announced. Such payment with respect to any farm shall be made on the quantity of extra long staple cotton, determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, equal to either ( 1) for a farm on which the acreage planted to such cotton does not exceed an acreage determined by multiplying the farm acreage allotment by the price-support payment factor established by the Secretary for each crop, the actual production of such . {)Otton on the farm, or (2) for a farm on which the .acreage planted

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 241l>3 ' to such cotton exceeds an acreage determined by multiplying the farm acreage allotment by the price-support payment factor but does not exceed the farm acreage allotment, the actual production of such cotton on the farm attributable to the number of acres determined by multiplying the farm acreage allotment by such price-support payment factor. The Secretary shall establish the pricesupport payment factor for each such crop of extra long staple cotton by dividing the 1966 national acreage allotment for such cotton by the national acreage allotment proclaimed for such crop, except that such factor shall not be more than one. The Secretary shall provide for the sharing of pricesupport payments under this subsection among producers on a farm on the basis of their respective shares in the crop of extra long staple cotton produced on the farm, or the proceeds therefrom. The provisions of subsection 8(g) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended. (relating to assignment of pajments), shall also apply to payments under this subsection. The Commodity Credit Corporation is authorized to utilize its capital funds and other assets for the purpose of making the payments authorized in this subsection and to pay administrative expenses necessary in carrying out this subsection.'

"SEC. 6. Section 347 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding the following new subsections at the end thereof to read as follows:

" • (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning with the 1968 crop of extra long staple cotton, the Secretary, if he determines that it will not impair the effective operation of the program involved, (1) may permit the owner and operator of any farm for which an extra long staple cotton acreage allotment is established to sell or lease all or any part or the right to all or any part of such allotment to any other owner or operator of a farm for transfer to such farm; (2) may permit the owner of a farm to transfer all or any part of t:~uch allotment to any other farm owned or controlled by him. No allotment shall be transferred under this subsection to a farm in another State or to a person for use in another State. The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this subsection and may prescribe such ter~ and conditions as he deems necessary.

" • (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the extra long staple cotton acreage allotment established for any farm for the 1968 and subsequent crops 1s greater than such allotment for the preceding crop, because of transfers under subsection (f) of this !:!action or for any other reason, the soil conserving base established for the farm shall be reduced by the same number of acres that the allotment is increased for that year.'

"SEc. 7. Section 407 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, a.s amended, 1s amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of thUI section, effective August 1, 1968, the Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available during each marketing year for sale for unrestricted use a.t market prices at the time of sale, a quantity of American grown extra long staple cotton equal to the amount by which the production of such cotton in the calendar year in which such marketing year begins is lest~ than the estimated requirements of American grown extra long staple cotton for domestic use and for export for such marketing year: Provided, That no sales shall be ma.de at less than 115 per centum of the loan rate for extra long staple cotton under section 101 {f) of this Act beginning with the marketing year for the ftrtt crop for which the national marketing quota for extra long staple cotton is not established under paragraph {3) of section 347(b) of the

-Agricultural Adjustment Act . of 1938, a.s amended. The Secretary may make such estimates and adjustments therein at such times as he determines will betrt effectuate the provisions of the foregoing sentence and such quantities of cotton as are required to be sold .under such sentence shall be offered for sale in an orderly manner and so as not to affect market prices unduly.'

"SEc. 8. Section 3 of Public Law 88-638 (78 Stat. 1038) i!:l hereby repealed effective August 1, 1968.''

And the Senate agree to the same. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, SPESSARD L. HoLLAND, B. EvER:E"rr JORDAN, GEORGE D. AIKEN, MILTON R. YOUNG,

Managers on the Part of the Senate. w. R. POAGE, E. C. GATHINGS, JoHN L. McMn.LAN, PAGE BELCHER, CHARLES M. TEAGUE,

Managers on the Part of the HO'U8e.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, this· is a conference report which all the conferees signed.

As passed by the House of Representatives, the bill authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands in Saline County, Ark., to the Dierks Forest, Inc. The Senate amendment to this bill added p'rovisions amending the extralong-staple cotton program. The Senate amendment provided for lower price-support loans, supplemented by price-support payments, so that the price of this kind of cotton would be more in line with the price of upland cotton, and would move into the market instead of into the hands of Commodity Credit Corporation. The Senate amendment also provided for a method of disposing of surplus stocks and increasing acreage allotments.

The conference substitute adopts all of the provisions of the Senate amendment except one, which would have increased the national acreage allotment for the 1968 crop by 6,800 acres. Because the crop has been planted since the Senate adopted this amendment and is now almost ready for harvest, this provision is no longer appropriate and the substitute properly strikes it out.

As I have stateQ, the conferees of both Houses were unanimous in their agreement . . I move the adoption of the conference report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

U.S. GRAIN STANDARDS ACTCONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on th o: amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15794> to provide for U.S. standards and a national inspection system for grain, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be .read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report, as follows~

CONFERENCE REPO~T The committee of conference on the dis

agreeing v,otes of the two H;ouses on the amendments of the Senate to the b111 (H.R. 15794), to provide for United States standards and a national inspection system for grain, and for other purposes, having met after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered ( 15) .

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), {22), and (23); and agree to the same.

ALLEN J. ELLENDER, SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, B. EVERETT JORDAN, JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, GEORGE D. AIKEN, MILTON R. YOUNG, J. CALEB BoGGs,

Managers on the Part of the Senate. GRAHAM PURCELL, THOMAS 8. FOLEY, FRANK A. STuBBLEFIELD, PAGE BELCHER, CHARLES M. TEAGUE,

Managers on the Part of the House.



Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, this bill generally revises the U.S. Grain Standards Act. The Senate made 23 amendments to the House bill, mostly of a minor nature. They are really only technical amendments. The conference report adopts all of the Senate amendments, except one.

The Senate amendment not agreed to would have permitted the Secretary of AgriCulture to withdraw inspection service for oo~ion of repeated or flagrant violations of section 13 of the act. The House bill permitted such withdrawal for conviction of any violation of section 13. The Senate conferees agreed

-to the House language with the understanding that the statement of manageers on the part of the House would make it clear that withdrawai of serVice could follow upon conviction without awaiting the conclusion of appeals from such conviction, and could be e1l'ective so long as the conviction stood.

I move the adoption of the conference report.


The report was agreed to.

WHY BE A CHRISTIAN?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, at a recent meeting of the Senate Breakfast Group in the Senate restaurant, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. FANNIN], a member of our group, presented a most timely . and inspiring message entitled "Why Be a Christian?" Senator FANNIN's :fine character and deep spiritual insight


lends added value to his words; that this message may be shared with the general public, I ask unanimous consent that Senator FANNIN's remarks on that occasion be printed in the RECORD:

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WHY BE A CHRISTIAN?

There was a time in America when discussion entitled, "Why be a Christian," would have been inappropriate and irrelevant. Not too long ago no one asked that question.

We were born into homes that assumed the Christian way was the way, the only way. People who lived as our neighbors who didn't go to church were considered out of step. It was shocking to hear a person ask the question, "Why be a Christian?" We weren't shocked often-because the question was ·asked so seldom.

That day has passed. Although we here this morning may not agree, high school, college and young adults show us "Why be a Christian?" is a very "alive" question.

There are some cynical persons of all ages who quite frankly say the whole business of believing in God and trying to follow a Man · who lived 2000 years ago is .a . combination of absurdity and superstition. They never askwhat is life? Is there a Supreme Being?

Even in churches where people are concerned rather than cynical, the question is being faced· as never before--"Why be a Christian? Aren't there other ways that are just as sensible:-perhaps even superior to · Christianity?"

We should not be afraid of the question. Perhaps we should encourage it in church and in our everyday discussions. Isn't our

. Christian faith strong enough to stand close scrutiny and probing inquiry? I think it is.

There are many ways one could approach the question, but since we are all persons

• who -want practical answers 'to problems of · living, I want, today, to present what seems to me to be some practical reasons for being a Christian. For easy remembrance we will · call the answers the four H's.

The Christian life is: Happier. Harder. Holier. And more hopeful than any other life. In the first place the Christian .life is a ·

happy way of living. "Well, now,'' some say skeptically, "I find it hard to believe. Indeed, I might as well be frank and say that I don't believe it is necessarily so. To me the Christian life is demanding, restricting and forbidding. You may think of some particular individual who is a worthy Christian. But he may have other characteristics that preclude happiness."

Well, it is true that some people who call themselves Christians are not happy people. Their religion is a dreary affair-no joyno spirit of radiancy.

What would you consider to be the greatest enem.ies of happiness? Are they not these: worry, boredom and self-centeredness?

Worry-think of the multitudes who are laden by worry, overwhelmed and overburdened with a vague kind of gloom, looking for the worst to happen, no reserves of inner peace, half hypnotized by anxiety.

Christianity gives hope and understanding to many_. People who worry, worry sometimes about things that have already happened. That's really rather foolish when you think of it. For good or ill, yesterday's decisions and actions are past and we cannot recall them.

We can learn from mistakes; we sometimes are better equipped because of mistakes. There are lots of things that can be done with the past, but it certainly does no good to worry about it.

Then there are those who worry about things which will never happen. You re-

member the story of the old maid, who, llving for thirty years in solitary bliss, always ceremoniously looked under her bed before she retired to see if a burglar were lurking in the dark. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale suggests that had she found one, she would have fainted, not from fright but from surprise.

How does the Christian consider worry? It's foolish to worry. God is with you-it is His world. We are in His hands-in this world and in any other that is to come. Even though the worst should happen, even though our whole scheme of things colla,pse, God's scheme does not collapse, and nothing, literally and absolutely nothing, can remove us or our loved ones from His keeping.

There is self-centeredness-another enemy of inner happiness. Christiani-ty again can give you a better perspective so tha,t you are no longer the slave of self. We have all heard it said-no one is perfect. It is also true that people can experience .a growth out of selfcenteredness as more and more they find the power to live for something and someone higher and deeper and more important than one's self. Becoming Christian is a matter of making a decision--committing one's lUe to Christ-believing what Jesus Christ says-standing up for Him and relying upon and obeying God. ·

While no man has ever measured up to the stature of Jesus, many a man and woman over the centuries has been able to say because of Him ... "Whereas once I was blind, now I see; whereas I was a slave, I now am free." Freedom from self comes from losing oneself to Christ. That is Christianity.

If we stopped there, however, that could be a very selfish reason for being a Christianmerely for the happiness it g-ives. Consider a second point of a totally different kind. The Christian life is harder than any other.

Some may say, "But I always thought Christianity was easy-just sign your name, accept a creed, join the church, go now and _ then, an occasional prayer."

The truth is that modern Christianity doesn't cost some pe<>.ple anything. It is possible to turn to spiritual things for shelter and comfort, but for nothing else. This is what Christianity means to multitudes--a peace of mind cult, an insurance policy. Many such people do what ·is very possible to do-worship ~esus, but not obey Him. Like the person who attends dozens of rel.igious meetings but who is impossible to live with; or the one who loves to go to church because it makes him feel better, but who does nothing creative to make this world a better place in which to live in between church times.

Some types of religion can be easy; but not the real Christianity. It can and always is desperately difficult to do the genuinely Christian thing. Think how Jesus tightened up the ethical standard. The world used to say, "If you don't kill, steal, nor break the social code, that is all that is required of you." Then Jesus came. "I say no," declared Jesus. "If you have an angry thought, one hidden, lurking resentment against your' brother, you need to confess it, for to hate . your brother is to sin against God."

The world said, if you don't break the seventh commandment, your character will stand. Jesus came. "I say no. For your im·pure thoughts--even if they are never more than thoughts--are sins against God." . The world said, if you do just what you are paid for in this life, if you go the mile that duty demands, you can feel content. The Pharisees were very content. But Jesus said, "My way begins on the other side of duty. Go the extra mile."

I know of myself that there is a part of everyone that wa~ts the easiest way possible. But I know, also, that the deeper part, the better part of men and women and children wants something more. We are bigger than that. We admire adventure in others; at our -deepest we want adventure.

Each of us wants a life that will keep us on the stretch. We admire men who stand for things worth standing for. We want our lives to count for something.

Difficulties have been described as "God's errands" and being sent upon them is proof of God's confidence. Being a Christian, because it is harder than not being a Christian, rewards us in proportion to the "overcoming" we do along the way.

In addition to being happier, and harder than any other, the Christian life is holier than any other. This word holy, Bidmittedly, is a word for which many people today have little liking. Ask the average young man it he would care to be known as a holy person and probably his reaction will be one of two things-he will either laugh or be horrified. Holy? No thank you. Anything but that.

Granted, the word may have fallen into bBid company and come out with a reputation that is less than clear. The original meaning is worth reviewing.

The word holy is derived from the old English word for the idea of being made whole. So when we are made holy we become the complete person God originally intended. This "wholesomeness," or holiness, the psychologists sometimes call an "integrated personality."

Theologians describe holiness as being set apart for the work of God, and holiness is the one attribute of God by which He most desires to be known. It is His trademark, so to speak. When we are joined to God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, then we take on those identifying characteristics-the "family likeness" if you will. The essence of this "wholeness" is the bringing into balance and conformity of every aspect of our lives so that it glorifies God.

No more than we labored for our natural family likeness can we labor for our spiritual family likeness. As we are born into one, so must we be born into the other. But being in the family does not erase the individual. It helps him. Can you think of any greater need of any greater number of people today than that-something to pull life together and integrate it-to deal with the inward conflicts that damage spiritual health so seriously; something to eliminate the discords and repressions and inferior:ities -and complexes, and to bring everything into harmony and unity of strong, clean, vigorous healthemotional and moral. If every other generation needed holiness, we need it too. This· is one of the reasons why Jesus has been called the great physician. He alone can produce this kinq of health. He gives life a new purpose. He fills life with a new power.

A new purpose; that is to glorify God. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God." That's something worth living for. Many people have no purpose in living. They grow up, get educated, get married, have children; the children grow up and if they live through all that, then they begin to ponder, "What ain I living for?"

A new power; a vitalizing, supernatural strength that can flood a man's being and send him out like a conqueror to smash his most stub''?orn besetting sin with the cry upon his_ lips, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

-The trouble with us in our depressing, and discordant hours is that we are divided. We can't decide what we want most; we are on and off; one day this way, the next, that.

Finally, one last attribute of the Christian life. His way is hopeful. The reason that, we can be hopeful about life is that we have the faith to believe in what we cannot see. There is a visible wol'ld, the apostle Paul said, and there is an invisible world. We believe in the invisible world, the spiritual, the supernatural.

Thomas Edison when he was but a boy appeared to some people to be a dull and uninteresting young boy. His teachers suggested that his mother take him out of school-

July 30, · 1968 ·coNGREssioNAL R.Ecoilo- sENATE 24165 according to their way of looking at things, he didn't have it. But Tom's mother saw something in him that no one else saw. She saw the invisible; she believed Jn . him; she had hope, and we all know the result of her hope. _ . _

We can overdo the business of being, hopeful but it does take imagination for worthwhile living-and real Christians have never been found to be lacking imagination.

Our Christian hope is not alone for this life. Paul said we believe most of all in t be unseen world, for everything that can b.e seen is temporal but the unseen is eternal. The Christian life is the most hopeful because every other life is bounded by this world. Christianity has. all the windows open and looks out toward immortality_:_life after death-happier, we believe, more exciting, greater than this life. We see things now, the apostle Paul said, very vaguelyas through a smoked glass-but the truth is it has not yet revealed what God has in store for those who love Christ.

Many of us have so grown up with Christianity that we've taken it for granted. Like a good home, we don't appreciate it deeply until we get away and look at it objectively. Well, when we look o1>jectively at the Christian faith hopefully, we discover that it deserves commending to every man. We should be grateful for it. We should feel concerned that we have rebelled against it; ashamed that we have taken it so lightlythat we have viewed Christianity as a keeper or jailer, rather than as a liberator:

The new life in Christ is deep enough to produce the deepest kind of happtness; hard enough to bring out the best that 1s in us; a holy life that can make us wholesome and hopeful enough to command our highest loyalty and our every effort.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. ·


Item

TITLE I-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE- CIVIL

Department of the Army Cemeterial Expenses

Appropriations,l

1968

' . .. . The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask

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


PVBLIC BILL, PORT

WORKS APPROPRIATION 1969-CONFERENCE RE-

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I sub-mit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 17903) making appropriations for public works for water and power resources development, including certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the AtlanticPacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Water Resources Council, and the Atomic Energy Commission, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report. (For conference report, see House

proceedings of July 26, 1968, pages 23601-23608, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

Budget estimate,

1969

SUMMARY TABLE, JULY 24, 1968

House allowance

Senate allowance

Conference allowance

objection ·to the present consideration of the report? . .

Th~:r~ being no objectipn, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I am sorcy .that the ·seriate could. no_t hav~ retained more of its increases; however, I realize that all legislation is the result of compromise. Under the circumstances, I believe the Senate conferees did the best they coUld, and I am pleased that the report was signed by all of the Senate conferees. ·

The conference bill provides $4,608,-421,000, which is $119,201,500 below the amount approved by the Senate; $109,-198,000 above the House; $300,236,000 below the budget; and $85,082,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 19~8.

In other words, Mr. President, what the Senate did was restore the 5-percent cut that was made by the House of Representatives on all, or practically all, projects. The conferees agreed to make a 3-percent cut instead of 5 percent. On slippages, we reduced the House amount approximately $30 million, for an increase of about $20 million over the budget amount instead of the $50 million that was provided for by the House of

· Representatives, so that, in effect, the amounts involved were really split about 50-50.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a sum.mary table explaining the action of the conferees on the various items in the bill.

There being no objection, the tabulation was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

1968

Conference allowance compared with

Budget 1969 House allowance

Senate allowance

Salaries and expenses_____________________ $21, 200,000 $15,652,000 $15, 000, 000 $15,000, 000 $15,000,000 -$6,200,000 - $652, 000 ------------------------------

Corps of Engineers- Civil

General investigations________________ ____ _ 34, 445, 000 Construction, general__ ___________________ 967,599,000 Operation and maintenance, generaL_ ______ 193,000,000 Flood control and coastal emergencies __ __________________ _ Flood control, Mississippi River and tribu·

taries___ __________ ____________________ 87,135,000 General expenses_________________________ 19, 515,000

237,075, 000 3 918, 412, 000 223, 700, 000

5,000, 000

69,600,000 21,200,000

29, 600,000 812, 329, 000 215,000,000

5,000,000

69,600,000 20,650,000

37,470,000 917,393,000 223, 700, 000

5, 000,000

69,610,000 21,200, 000

30 015 000 -4, 430,000 -7,060,000 +$415, 000 -$7,455,000 865:682: 500 -101,916, 500 - 52, 729, 500 +53, 353, 500 -51, 710, 500 223,700,000 +30; 700,000 ----------- ---- + 8, 700,000 ---------------

5,000, 000 +5, 000, 000 ------------------------------ -- -- --- --------

69,600, 000 -17, 535, 000 ------------ - --------- - -------20,775,000 +1,260, 000 -425,000 +125, 000

-10,000 -425,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total, Corps of Engineers-CiviL •••• 1, 301,694,000 1, 274,987,000 1, 152,179,000 1, 274,373, 000 1, 214, 772,500 -86,921,500 -60,214,500 +62, 593,500 -59,600,-500

The Panama Canal

Canal Zone Government: Operating expenses ____________ ------- 36,000,000 37, 869,000 37, 100, 000 37,869,000

37, ~g~:Z88 + I, 484,500 -384, 500 + 384, 500 - 384,500 Capital outlay _______ ------ __________ :_ 4,500, 000 - 1, 061, 000 200,000 1, 061,000 -4, 300,000 -861,000 -- ---- --------- -861,000

Panama Canal Company: Limitation on gen· (13, 000, 000) (13, 691, 000) (13, 600, 000) (13, 691, 000) (13, 600, 000) (+600, 000) ( ---:91, 000) . -------------- (-91,000) eral and administrative expenses _________

Total, the Panama Canal_ __________ _ 40,500,000 38,930,000 37,300,000 38,930,000 37,684, 500 -2,815,500 -1,245,500 +384, 500 -1, 245,500

Total, title I new budget(obligational) authority, Department of Defense-CiviL_ .. ----- - - --- --- · ---~----- - 1, 363, 394, 000 1, 329, 56.9, 000 1, 204, 479, 000 1, 328, 303, 000 1, 267, 457, 000 - 95, 937, 000 - 62, 112, 000 + 62, 978, 000 · - 60, 846, 000

TITLE II- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

g~~~[;~dn~~s!~:t:~~~i>iiitatioii::::::::::::: 'tAY· ug. ggg ~}~: M~: ggg ~~: ~88: 888 ~~~: ~:~: ggg ~~~: ~:~: ggg -~4.~~~: ggg -1i:'f~: ggg t~:~: ggg -----::ga:ooa· Operation and maintenance______________ __ a 47; 364:000 51, 230, 000 50,000,000 49

2, 996

oo5• o00

oo0

49,900,000 +2, 536,000 -1,330,000 -100,000 -------------·-Loan program_______ ______ _______________ 15,000,000 4, 500,000 2, 965,000 , , 2, 965,000 -12,035, 000 -1,535,000 -------- ---- -- - ----------- - ---

¥~fne;fEfro:~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~d~~o!~~::::::: .••• ~~~~~~~~- • ~~: gb~: ggg> ~~: ~~: ggg> ~~: gb~: ggg> ~~: g~: ggg> <~t.~~~; ggg>:::::~. =r~g;aaa=.:. ::::::::::::. :::.:::::::::::::: General administrative expenses •••• ------·....;...· _1_1,_68_3_, o_oo ____ I_2_, 1_3_5,_oo_o ____ u_, 9_s_o,_ooo_. ____ 1_1,_9s_o_, oo __ o ___ 1_1_. 9_50_, _oo_o ___ -'------------"'----:----'--------

Total, Bureau of Reclamation._------ 313, 195, 000 288,480, 000 272, 588, 000 274, 101, 500 273, 351, 500 -39, 843, 500 -15,128, 500 +763, 500 .:...750, 000 ====================================================================

See footnotes at end of table.

24f6& CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-= SENATE 'July 30, 1968 . SUMMARY TABLE, JULY 24, 19.68-CoaUnued

TLTLE 1-DEPABTMENt Of lli.E INTERlORContinued

Alaska Powes Administratioa

General investiaations. ___ ------ - --- ______ _ OpetatiOG and: maintenance.. _____________ _

Budget estimate,

1969

fiOUS8' alltwi11C8l

Senate allowa.:e·

Contlmce• aHowaru:e compared with

B~e.tl969 House allowance

Senate allowance

------------------------------------------------------------------------------l'otal, AlasRa Power Administratioft. __ _ Bonneviila Power Admiaistration ===~===~:::;:;=========:;;~~===~~===~=:;;=====~=;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,

Construetion, ____ __ _________ ---- ___ _____ _ Operation and maintenance ________ _______ _

------------------------------------------------------------------------------loW,. B'omlevilre Power Admjnistra-tiorn. ___ ________ --- _ -------------

Sovtlteastern Power Administration =======~~==~::::=:============~==~~=========~~~

Operation and maintenance ________________ ===~===~======~====~====~==========:;;~========;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;; Southwestern Power Administratiolt

Ctmstrucfion ______________________ ______ _ OperatiOn aod maintenance _ ____________ _

co~:~r~rs~-~u-~~-~~~~~t~-~-P_P_'~~~~~~-~~---------------------------------------------------------------------~--------Total, Southwestern Power Ad'mini~ tration ____________________ _

federafWater Pollutioa:C'ontrol =======~~======'==='========~===~============ Administration

Wafer supp~ aiJdl water poltotion controL __ Construction grants. for waste treatment

works ______ ------_----------------------------------------------------------------------------~----~--~----~~--

Total, Federal Water Pollution C'oo-ttof Administration ____________ _

================================================~====~~====~~== Total. title II new budget (pbliga

tional) authority, Department of tfle Interior ____________________ _:_

TITLES Ill-INDEPENDENT OFFICES =~=~==~=::,======"====::,======"========~=====~=~~:=::===~~= (EXCLUD'ING AEC)

Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study. Commission: Salaries and expenses ___ __ _

==================~~==========~====~~==================== Delaware River Basin Commission:

Salaries and expenses ______________ _ _ Contribution to the Delaware River

Basin Commission ___________ ______ _

------------------------------------------------~------~--------~----------Total', Delaware RiVer Basin Commis-sion _______ _____________ _______ _

====~============================================================== Interstate Commission on the Potomac River

basin: Contribution to Interstate Com-mission on the Potomac River Basin ____ _ _

=========================='==================================== Tennessee Valley Authority: Payment to

Tennessee Valley Authority fund ________ _ Water Resources Council:

Wafer resources pfanning ___ ___ __ ___ __ _ Financial assistance to States ______ __ _ _

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total. Water R'esou,ces CounciL __ ___ ==~========~========:::=~===~======:::=====~===~~====::;:;== Total, title n I' new budget (obliga-

tional) authority, Independent Offices __ _ - - -- ___ __ ______ ____ ----==70~, =82=4::,0=0();==5=9~, 4=6,;9,~00=0==5,;8,=7=96~, =00=0==62~, =06=1;,, O=Oa==5=8;,, 9=1,;8,=50=0==-=1,;1,=84=5~, =50=0'==-=49=0,;,5=00==~+=1=82,;'=50=0'==-~3,=0=82=5=0=0·

Total, new budget (obligational) authority, titles I, II, and Ill (ex-cluding AEC)_ ______ ______ ________ 2,184,370, 000 2, 154,057,000 1, 962,623,000 2, 125,822,500 2, 037,547,000 -146,823,000 -116,510,000 +74, 924,000 -88,275,500

TITLE IV-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Operating expenses __ ______ __ __ __ ____ _____ 2, 140,000,000 2, 225,600, OOOi Z, 080,000, 000 2, 132,300, 000' Z, 109,300,000. -30,700,000 -116,300,006 +29, 300,000 -23. 000,000 Plant and capital equipment____________ ___ 369,133,000 529,000,000 456,600,000 469,500,000 461,574, OOIJ +92, 441,000 -67,426,000 +4:, 974,000 -7,926,000

Total, title LV new budget (obligational) authority, Atomic Energy Commission __ ____ ____ ______ _____ 2,509,133,000 2,754,600,000 2,536,6011,000 2,601,800,000 2,570,874,000 +61,741.000 -183,726,000 +!4,274,000' -30,926,000

Gra~~.~~~~Y~:rr .~~~[(!~~~~~~~t~~~~>of "appropriations")-- ---- ---------- 4,693,503,000 4,908,657,000 4,499,223,000 4,727,622,500 4,608,421,000 -85,082,000 -300,236,000 +109",198,000 -119,201,500

t Amounts have not been reduced to reflect reserves established pursuant to Public Law 9Q-218 (H.J. Res. 888).

2 Reflects decrease of $25,000 submitted; in H. Doc. 318. 3 Refteets increase of $14,412,000 submitted in H. Doc. 318. 4 Reflects transfer in the estimates ot $450,000 to Alaska Power Administration (generaL investr

gations).

o Reflects transfer in the estimates of $402,000 to Alaska Powet AdministFation (o.peration. and maintenance).

o Submitted in H. Doc. 318. 7 Refleets transfer in the estimates ot $4~000 from Bureau of Rec~mation (generar investiga-~~ ' '

• Reflects transfer i111 th.e estimates ol $402,000 from Bureau of Reclamation (operation and maintenance).

July · 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24167 Mr. EI.J...ENDER. Mr. President, inti

tle I, for general investigations of the Corps of Engineers, the bill provides $30,-015,000, which is $7,455,000 below the amount approved by the Senate; $415,000

above the amount allowed by the House; $7,060,000 below the budget; and $4,430,-000 below the appropriation for 1968.

tabulation showing the details of the amount allowed for this item.

I ask . unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a

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

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1969

Item Approved

budget estimate House allowance Senate allowance Conference allowance for ft~:~ year

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 1. Surveys:

m ~7~i~~~~~~~;:~~~=-~~==_:_:_:_:_:_=_~=-=_:_:_=_:_:_==-~=-~=_::_=_: ::_:_=_= = ~~= = =: ==-~= =-~== :_== :_ =-~=-==_=_ ~=-= $3,677,000 $3,677, 000 8, 772,000 8, 747,000

368 000 368, 000 -465,000 -- ----------------

$3, 851, 000 $3, 751, 000 8, 983, 000 8, 883, 000

378, 000 378, 000 - 465,0000 ------------ - -----

Subtotal, navigation, flood control, and beach erosion studies ___ _____ _____ ____________________ ___ _ 12,352,000 12,792,000 12,747,000 13,002,000 =====================================

(d) Comprehensive basin tudies :

g~1~:::~i~ N~~~~ni>acificregiori::::: ========== ====== == = = ================ ~= ======== ==== ======= ~~~: ~ Connecticut River Basin, Conn., Mass., Vt., and N.H.------------------------------------------ 134, 000 Grand River Basin, Mich ••• ----------------------------------------------------------------

17060

., 000000 Great Basin region.--- ------- __ ----- --------------------- ______ ------ __ ------------------_

~~~~\vLhaak~~::t~~-va.~ -arid Va.~ -a-riti -N'.c·:::: = :: == :: =: :::: =: = = =: == = =:: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~: ~~ ~0i~seciu~r~i~~~o ~:~~-~:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2~~: ~~~ North Atlantic region._ ----------- _______________________________ ____ ____ _ ----------------- 530, 000

~iat-I~{ff~f:~~l~~~;;;~~,=~ia;+~~ =~~ ~ ~: ~- ~ ~~ ~- ~~ ~~~= ~~ ~-= ~~~ :~ =~ =~~~~~ =~ == ~ = ~~ ~ !~t m Wabash River, Ind. and IlL.-------------- --- ------------- -- -- ---------- -------- -- -- --- ----- 215,000 Willamette River Basin, Oreg ___ --------------------------- ________ ---- -- ----- -- ------------ 160,000

530,000 530,000 530,000 287,000 287,000 287,000 134,000 134,000 134,000 76,000 76,000 76,000

100,000 100,000 100,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 73,000 73,000 73,000

291,000 291,000 291.000 530,000 530,000 530,000 131,000 131,000 131,000 212,000 212,000 212,000 359,000 359,000 359,000

52,000 52,000 52, 000 354,000 354,000 354,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 ----------------------------------------------Subtotal, comprehensive basin studies ____ ---- -- -----·---- ___ ______ _____ --------------_____ 4,100, 000 4,100, 000 4,100, 000 4,100, 000

========================================== (e) Special studies:

~~~~rne:t~:n ~~~dTe~d!1it~~~~er-aiericies-(r>urific-caw-56s; riiiiliciaw984)::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~. ~~ Great Lakes-Hudson River Waterway, N.Y.- - ---- ----------------- ------- --------------------- 135,000

{.~rk:YE~;_a~~~~loNw:ie~~t~~v :.::::::::::: =~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1~~: ggg Northeastern United States water studY------------------------------------------------------ 1, 000,000 Texas coast_ _______ ------ __ ______ ------ ______ ------ __________________ ---------- __ --------- 500, 000

~~~:~ ~~~j~ ~~~r:~~u~~okne~~~~!:::::::: :::: ::::·:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: === ~~~: ~

300,000 300,000 305,000 600,000 600,000 605,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

100,000 100,000 100,000 1, 000,000 1, 000,000 1, 000,000

500,000 500,000 500,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 220,000 220,000 220,000

----------------------------------r---~--~~ 3, 430, oori 3, 430,000 Subtotal, special studies _______________ -------------- ________________ ---~_______ ____ _ _____ 3, 430, 000 3, 430,000

========================================== Subtotal, surveys__ _______________ _________ __________________ _________________ ___________ 19, 882,000 20,322,000 20,532,000 20,277, ~00 ==========================================

2. Collection and study of basic data : r

~g~ ~~~~~t:fi~~n~t~~-i~s ~5~~~g::!t~~~v~~reau)~~ = == == ==== == == == = = = = = = ==== == == = = == =:: = ==== == == == == =:: ~~~: ~ t> Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act studies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)_________ _______ __ ____ _____ 582,000

<~~ ~~~~~n~}~~~a~~~!:~~~~;~~-rviCe-5_::: : == ===== = ==== ==== ==== == == ==== == == == = === == = = == = = == == == == == = = = 6, M8: ~

334, 000 334,000 334,000 590,000 590,000 590,000 582,000 582,000 582,000 120,000 120,000 120,000

5, 500,000 6, 000,000 5, 500,000 -----------------------------------------------

7,126, 000 7, 626,000 Subtotal, collection and study of basic data ___ ---- ---- -------- ---------------- - ---- -- _ _ __ __ 7, 62-6,000 ================================~===

7,126, 000

3. Research and development: (a) Coastal engineering research and development.. ____ ----- ____ ____ ___ __ __ _____ ___ - --- - __ __ ______ __ _

~~~ ~rv~~~~~~s s:~~~~figiitions:: ~ = = = = = = = = == =: == = = = = = = = = =: == = = == = = == == == = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =: =:: = =: = = = =

3, 030,000 230,000

3, 517,000

2, 620,000 230,000

3, 030,000 2, 825,000 230,000

3, 377, 000 3, 517, 000 230,000

3, 377,000 (d) Mississippi Basin model :

(1) Mississippi River comprehensive study __________________________ ________________ __ _____ _ _ 175,000 160,000

2,265, 000 490,000

175,000 160,000

175,000 175,000 160,000 (2) Maintenance. ________________________ _________________________________________ _______ _

(e) Nuclear explsovies studies for civil construction·--------------------------------------------------(f) International hydrological decade program __ ____________ ------------ ______ ------ __________ ____ ____ _

160,000 2, 265, 000 2, 265, 000 2, 265,000

90,000 490,000 90,000 -----------------------------------------------

Subtotal, research and development. _________ ------ ____ -------- ____ --------------_____________ 9, 867, 000 1968 reserve applied in 1969 _____ _________ -- --- -- __ ------ __ ---------------------- ____ ----------- -300, 000

8, 917,000 -300,000

9, 867,000 -300,000

9, 122,000 -300,000

Undistributed reduction ___________ ______ ______ -------- ________ ------- --------------- ____ ------ ______ ---------- -- - - 6,465,000 ------------------ -6,465,000

Total, general investigations. _________ ___ ___ _____________ ---------------------- ________ ------- 37,075,000 29,600,000 37,470,000 30,015,000

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, for construction, general, the conference agreement provided $865,682,500, which is $51,710,500 below the amount approved by the Senate; $53,353,500 above the House; $52,729,500 below the budget estimate; and $101,916,500 below the 1968 appropriation.

The construction items approved by the House were 5 percent below the budget estimate; and the House increased the reduction for savings and slippage from $50,752,000 recommended in the budget

to $102,588,800. The Senate restored the budget estimates on individual projects as well as the reduction for slippage. The conferees agreed on a 3-percent reduction on the individual projects, and a slippage figure of $71,796,700. The House agreed to the Senate amounts for Rahway, N.J., Missouri River bank stabilization, Garrison Dam to Oahe Reservoir, N. Dak.; and Crutcho Creek, Okla. They allowed $50,000 in lieu of the $100,000 for Clift' Walk, R.I. Unfortu-

nately, they would not agree to the planning funds for the Dickey-Lincoln project or for the Illinois Waterway, Calumet-Sag modification, part II, in Indiana.

I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD the tabulation showing the details of the amount allowed under construction, general.

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

24168 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- SENATE July 30, .1968-

(N) (N) (R) (N) (MP) (MP) (N) (N)

(MP) (N) (MP)

(FC) (FC)

(N)

(FC)

(MP) (MP) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (N} (MP) (FC)

(FC)

(FC:)

(FC.) · (FC)

~:~) (F&) (FC} (fC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(MP) (FC) (FC) (fC) (FC) (FC) (MP) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (I'+) (N} (FC) (FC) (BE) (BE) (FC)

(FC)

(FC) (FC)

(fC) (FC) (F'C) (fC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

( N)

( N) (N) ( FC) (N) . ( N) (FC)

..AIIbelu::

. COHSTRU&TIOt+, GENERAl. FIS£AL YEAR 196!1

(Key to.symbels: (N) navigation; (FC}ftood control; (BE) beaclt erosiotr; (R) rehabilitation; (MP) multiple p11rpose, including power(

(1)

, . 'Approved b•dlet'estimate fet' fiscal- year 1959 ·

Construction Planning

(2) (3)

tiMse alfewance '· J Senate alowaace , .

Construction Planning Construction Planning

(4) (5) (6) (7)

rtont.rence allowan£e.


(8) (9)

Alabama River channel improvement. • •• ________ ___ : ____ $1:, 261, 000 -- -- --- -- ----- $1 , 200,000 -- -- ---- ------ $1, 261, 000 -------------- $1,223, 000 ---- -- - -- -----Claiborne lock and dam·---------------------- --------- . 4, 900,000 - --- - - - ------- 4, 655, 000 - - - ------ ----- 4, 900,000 --- -- ----- - --- 4, 753,000 - ----- -- - -----John Hollis Bankhead lock and dam (spillway)____________ 900, 000 - -- -- --------- 855, 000 ---- - - ------- - 900, 000 ----- ---- ----- 873, 000 - -- --- ---- - - --John Hollis Bankhead lock and dam •• • ------------ ------- - - - ---------- $350,000 - ------- ----- - $335,000 - - - ------ ----- $350,000 - - - ---- ------- $340,000 Jones Bluff Lock and dam_________________ ___________ __ 9, 600,000 - ----------- - - 9,120, 000 -- ---- - ---- --- 9, 600, 000 - ---- - - -- ---- - 9, 312. 000 - - - ------- -- --Millers Ferry lock and dam________ _____ __ __ ___ _________ 8, 900,000 -- -- - - - ---- - -- 8, 455,000 --- - ----- --- -- 8, 900, 000 - ------ - ------ 8, 633, 000 -- - ------ - ----Perdido Pass--------------------------- --- - - ---- ---- - - 402, ooo -------------- 380, ooo -------------- 402, ooo ___ __ _

50 .•

0 •• _

000 __ ____ _____ 39 __ o_. _ooo ___ -_---;-·m·ru;n.-

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Ala., and Miss_-------- --- ------ - ----- 500 000 ---------- ---- 475, 000 - ------ --- -- - - .... ..,vvu. • ' . lombigbee Rive1 and tributaries, Alabama and Mississippi.

(See Mississippi.) · . West Point Dam, AJa. and Ga. (See Georgia.)

Alaska: Bradley Lake power project___ ______________________ ___ ______________ _ 50,000 -------------- 48,000 - -- ------ - - --- 50,000 -- - ------- - --- 49,000 Myers Chuck Harbor (Restudy>--------------------- ------------------- 10,000 -------------- 9, 500 ----------- ___ 10,000 ____ --------- - 9, 700 Snettisham power project __ • ________ -- -----____________ 5, 000, 000 ____ ---------- 4, 750, 000 ______ ___ ---- - 5, 000, 000 _____ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 4, 850, 000 _____________ _

Arizona : Santa Rosa Wash (Tat Momolikot Dam) __ --- -------- ---- -- - - - ---------- 625,000 ___ _____ .___ ___ 595, OQO. ____ _ ______ ___ 625, 000 --- ----- -- ---- 606,000 Winslow__ __ __ ______ _______ ________ ______________ __ __ _ 500,000 ___ -------- __ _ 415,000 ___ - - -- ------ - 500,000 __ _____ ------ - 485,000 _________ ___ _ _

Arkansas: Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas and Oklahoma:

(a) Banfl stabilization and channel rectification________ 3, 500,000 ------- - ------ 3, 325, 000 ------------ -- 3, 500,000 -------- - ---- - 3, 395, ooo· -- -- ---- ----- -(b) Navt,ation locks and dams_------------ - - - ---___ 80, 879, 000 _____ ------ __ _ :Z6, 835, 000 _ ------ __ ---- - 80, 879, 000 ____ -------- -- 78, 453, 000 - ----- ----- __ _

Bayou Bartholomew (1950 and 1966 acts), Arkansas and Lousiana __ _ - - --- - ----- - -- ----- ---- - ----- -- --- - ---- _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ 310, 000 _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ __ _ 295, 000 --- - -- _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 310, 000 ___________ __ • 301,000

Dardanelle lock and dam _____________ __ _______ ______ ___ 8, 600,000 - - - --- - ------ - 8, 170, 000 ------- - --- --- 8, 600,000 ----------- - - - 8, 342,000 - -- - - - --- - --- -De Gray Reservoir___ ____ ______________________________ 7, 000,000 - - - --- -------- 6

2:635705

,, ~O -_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_ ~·. ggg., ~~~ - :-_-_-_·-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_ !•, ~9025., ~ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_ D.eQueen Reservoir___ ___ _____ __________________ ____ ___ 2, 500, 000 - ------------- • _ , """'

g~~r~~l~f~~~~~--~~~========= = ====================~=== 1• m: :rog ============== ~~~: ~ == ===== ======= ~: m:E· : : : : :::======= 2.nt· •• 5 ===== =========

~i~~:'Ro~~s~~':~~--~~~ === ==~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~===~==~- _ -- ~~ ~~~~~---- ----3i;ooo-____ ~~~~~·-~~ ------ --29~ooi) _____ _____ ___ _ 31, ooo _ _____________ 30, ooo Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La ._________________ 8, 300,000 -------------- 1,885,000 ----- - - - - - -- -- 8,300, 000 ------·------- 8,051,000 -- ------- - ----Ozark lock and dam __ _ - -------------------------- - ---- 10,500,000 ___ ___ - - - --- -- 9, 975,000 _ -------- ---- - 10,500,000 _ - - -- --------- 10,185,000 __________ ___ _ Pine-Mountaifl Dam ___________ ------------------------_______________ 225, 000 __ ___ -- - - ----- 215,000 ______ _____ ___ 225,000 ------ ---- ---- 218,000 Red River below Denison Dam, 111viga&ion and bank stabiri-

zation (not authorized) Arkansas, louisiana, Oklahoma-, and Texas (see Louisiana).

Red River levees and bank stabilization below Denison Dam, Ark., La., and Tex ___ --------------------------- 600, 000 _ ------------ _ 570,000 -- -- --- - - ---- - 600, 000 ------------ - - 582, 000 ----------- __ _

Village Creek White River and Mayberry levee distrief______ 646,000 --··----------- 615,000 ------------- - 646,000 ----- --- - -- - - - ti27,000 ---- - ---------California: '

Alameda Creek, Del Valle Dam ___ _________ _ ------------- 3, 300,000 ---------- --- - 3, 135,000 -------- - ---- - 31

,, ~goo', 000000

-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ 3, 201 , 000 ---------- -- --Corte Madera Creek__ ____________________________ _____ 1, 250,000 _ ------------- 1,

419205,,000

000 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_ -_ ••.

7, 000

_____ --------- 1, 24H·, ~ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ --__ --_-_ --

Dana Point Harbor____ ______________________________ ___ 447,000 -------------- ._ ~ uuv Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Resetvoir _______ ------------- - 2, 500, 000 ___ - --------- - 2, 375,000 ------------- - 2, 500,000 ___ ----------- 2, 425,000 ___ ------ ____ _ Eel River(Delta acea) 1965 act·-- ----------------------"-------------- . 200,. 000 -------------- 190,000 ---- -- - --- - --- 200,000 ______ __ ; _____ , 194,000 Hidden Reservoir (land acquisition>---------------------- 400,000 -------------- 380,000 ------- - ----- -

1' 450000,, 0

00000 -_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_ 1 .~~·. 0000

00 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_ -_ Klamath River________ ________ ___ ______ ______ _____ ___ _ 1,500,000 - - ------------ 1,425,000 ------------ -- .... "' Lakeport Reservoir, Scotts Creek_------ --- ---- - ---------- ----- ---- ---- 300,000 • ------ __ ___ __ 285, 000 _____ ------ ___ 300, 000 --------- _____ 291,000 Los Angeles County drainage area___ _____ _______________ 4, 500,000 ___ __ __ _______ 4, 275,000 _____ . -------- 4, 500, 000 --- - ------- __ _ 4, 36S., 000 ----------- __ _ Lytle and Warm Creeks (1965 act) _______ ------ - ----------- - --_________ 425, 000 --- - - ---- ----- 405,000 _____ --------- 425, 000 _____ ______ ___ 412, 000 Martis Creek Reservoir, Calif. and Nev. (See Nevada.) . Marysville Reservoir_ ________ ___________________________________ _____ BOO, 000 ______

9_5_0_,_

00 __

0_ - - _____ 7_60 __ ,_ooo_ - - _ --- .

1. _-

0_00_ -,-OOO-- - - - _____ s_oo __ ,_ ooo_ - - -- ---- .

9.7•0.,_

000_-- -- ______ 11 __ 6_ ,_ o_ oo __

Mojave River Reservoir (Wet Fork)______________________ 1, 000,000 ------------- - •

~~~~~~v~~0(1g~6-s-actL=============== ============== = ==---- ~ ~~~~~~~-- -- ---37s;ooo· ___ - ~~~~·-~------ -3ss;iiiiii-___ - ~~~~·-~---- ---37s;ooo· ---- ~~~~~~---- ----364;iiiiii New Bullards Bar Reservoir (reimbursement)___ _____ ____ _ 4, 060,000 --- ----------- 3, 855, 000 -------------- 4, 060, 000 --------- - -- -- 3, 938,000 - -- - -- -- - --- - -New Don Pedro Reservoir (reimbursement)~- - -- -- - - - - --- - 1, 000; 000 ------- - - ----- 950,000 -- ---- -- --- - -- 1, 000,000 - - - ----- - -- --- 970,000 - ----- -- -- - -- -New Melones Reservoir __ • ____ __ -- ---- - --~ - ----- - - - ---- 2, 800, 000 _ ------ __ ----- 2, 660, 000 ------- - --- - -- 2, 800, 000 ----- -- ---- - - - 2, 11&, 000 - - - - ----------Oroville Reservoir (reimbursement>-- - ----- - --- - -- --- -- -- ll, 061,000 -------------- 10, 510,000 ------- - - -- - -- 11,061,000 - - ----------- -· 10,729. 000 -- -- - ------- - -

~!~~~~y~~=t~~~~~t;============================ === = =--- - i :~gfggg· === ===~~~=~~~= ----- -~~;g~-=== ===~~~= ~~= ---- i :~:~~-======~~= ~~~= :-----~!f~f ======= ;~;= ~ Russian Rive.r Basin(Coyote Valley Dam)_________________ 120, 000 -------------- 115, 000 -------------- 120, 000 - ------------ - 116,000 ------------- -Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries • •• • ____ 400, 000 ----- - -------- 380, 000 ___ __ __ __ __ __ _ 400, 000 _ ---~- _ _ ___ __ _ 388, 000 __ _________ ~ __ Sacramento River bank protection·- -------------- - ------- 1,400,000 -- --- - - - ----- - 1,330,000 ---------- - -- - 1,400,000 --- ----------- 1,358,000 ---- - ---------Sacramento River deep water ship channel__ __________ ___ 100, 000 ------------- - 95,000 ------------- - 100, 000 --- - ---------- 97,000 ____________ _ _ San Diego Rivellnd Mission Bay___________ ________ _____ 150,000 ------------- - 145,000 ------------- - 150,000 ---- ---- ------ 146, 000 _____ _____ __ _ _ San Diego River and Mission ValleY---------- - -- -- -- ----------- - ------ - 300, 000 ----------- - - - 285,000 _____ --------- 300, 000 _____ -------- - 291 , 000 Sonoma Creek ____ _________ _______________________ __________________ 100, 000 _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 95, 000 _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100, 000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 97, 000 Surfside Sunset and Newport Beach (reimbursement)______ 285,000 -------------- 270,000 -- - ----------- 285,000 -------------- 276; 000 ---- · - ---- --- -

~~~~~rtaC~~~r~~==~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ =~ ~= ~ ~ ~ ==~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~==~ ~ ~ ~ 2, f~~: gg~ ==~ == ~~ == =~ === 1, ~~~: ggg = ~ = ~~ = ~ == ~= ~= = z_fgg: ggg = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ = == ~ ~ ~ 2, ~~~·: gg& · ~ ~ ~ = ~ = = = =· = = = =: Canada:

Arrow Lakes Reservoir, British Columbia (reimbursement) __ 52, 100,000 _ ------------- 52, 100, 000 .• ------------ - 52, 100, 000 ______ _ • _ __ ___ 52, IOO, 000 ____ ______ __ . _ Colorado:

Chatfield Reservoir___ _________________________ ________ 12, 700, 000 ___ ___ ____ _ ___ 12,065, 000 ___ __ __ ___ _ ___ 12, 700,000 _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ __ _ 12, 319, 000 _______ ___ __ . _ Trinidad Reservoir __ _________ __ ______________ ---------- 1, 700, 000 _ ----- ------ __ 1, 615,000 ----------- ___ 1, 701), 000 ___ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ t , 649, 00(} __ ______ ____ . _

Connecticut ~

ir~si~,~~~:f5If~v~~~i~i;=~==~===========~======~===== f: ~:5 ============== t ~~~: ~ ============== ~: ~~: ~~· ========= ===·== },· j~i: ~ ========~~=~= =

~:~i'~:ii~:~;,~;:::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::------li&iM-::::: :~~~~~:--- _•: j~~;-;;::: : ~ ~~~; ---_': :::-::::: ~~; ~: ---_': :;: :-::::::: i~; ~ ~~~~g~11F>CiiiCI- ReseiVofr==::::::=:::::::::::::::: : : : : :::::::==== = ==:: ~~: ggg ::::=::::::=:: ~:g: ggg : :== = =~~~~~~~ : -- - ---~~;ggg· :=:=:: ~~~~~: ------ - ~~f888

Delaware: Delaware River, Philadelphia to sea, anchorages, Delaware,

In I~:: ~~~~~!:a~~~~~~~ife"'r:~:,: g>~~:~:ia~!eJa~ (Ches-apeake and Delaware Canal). pl II, Delaware and Mary-rand .. ------- -- -- - --------- -------------- - ------- --

Florida: Apalachicola River channel improvement_ __ ___ _______ ___ _ Canaveral Harbor ____ ____________________ __________ ___ _ Central and southern Florida ________ ____ ___ ____________ _ Cross Florida Barge CanaL--- ---- - --- --- - -- - ------------EastPass Channel at Destin _______ ; ____ ____ _______ ____ _ Four. Rive(s Basins ___ ________________________ ---- - - __ _

1 'i , t•

4, 050,000 ------------- -

575,000 - - - --------- --4-ID, 000 ----- - -- -- ----

11,500,000 -------- - - --- -4,600,000 --------------

328, 000 --------------3,500,000 --------------

3, 850,000 -- - ---- ------ -

550. 000 ----- - - -- -- - - -42()-, 000 ----- -- -- -- ---

10,925,000 --- -- --- -- - ---4,370,000 ----- - --- - ----

310, 000 --- ---------- -3,325,000 --------------

4, ll5tr, 000· - - ----------- -

575,000 ___________ , __ .

4'40, 000 -- -----------~ 11, 500,000 - - -- ---~-- - ----4, 600,000 -- -- - ~- -- --- --

328, 000 --------------3,500,000 -- ------------

3, ~29-, 01)0 ---- - - - -------

558,000 --- ------ -- - --42:7,000 - --- - ---------

11,155,000 - --- - --- - -- - -•4, 462,000 -~ --- ---- -----318, 000 ______ ____ :~- -

3, 395; 000 ------------,--

·. July so, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24169.

(N) (N) (BE) (BE) :

(BE) (N)

{MP) MP) N)

(N) ·1 (MP) . (MP)

(N)

(FC) (MP) (FC) (FC) (FC)

.;EFC)· (FC) (N)

(FC) (N)

(N)

(N) (FC) (N) (FC) (FC)

(N)

(N) (FC) (FC) (FC)

~~gl> (FC (FC

·(FC

, (FC) (FC)

~~~ (FC) (FC)

.(FC) (FC) (R)

~~~) (N)

(FC) (FC) (FC)

(FC) (FC)

(N)

(FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(FC)

, !' FC) FC) FC) FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL, FISCAL YEAR 1969-Continued

!Key to symbols: (N) navigation; (FC) flood control; (BE) beach erosion; (R) rehabilitation; (MP) multiple· purpose, including jXIwerl

Construction, general, State and project

(1)

Approved ·budget estimate for fiscal year 1969


(2) (3)

Florida-Continued Gulf County Canal (1966 act>---------------------------- $387 .. 000 --------------Jacksonville Harbor (1965 act>- ------------------------- 2, 000,000 --------------

~aul~~~=~h('i~~~t~:sc~~n~orthiniettoS-ouih-Lake-Worth- 129'

000 --------------

Inlet (reimbursement)_--------- __ ----------------___ 9, 000 --------- ____ _ Pinellas County, Treasure Island (1966 act)______________ _ 258, 000 --------------Ponce de leon lnleL------------ ---------------------- 740,000 --------------

House all.owance


(4) (5)

$370,000 --------------1,900,000 --------------

125,000 ------ - ----- - -

8,000 --------------245,000 --------------705, 000 --------------

Senate allowance


(6) (7)

$387,000 --------------2,000,000 --------------

129,000 -----------.---

9, 000 --------------258, 000 --------------· 740, 000 --------------



(8) (9)

$375,000 --------------1,940, 000 --------------

125,000 --------·· ; ··-

8, 700 --------------250,000 --------------718,000 -------- ------

Georgia: Carters Dam·----------------------------------------- 3, 400,000 -------------- 3, 230,000 -------------- 3, 400,000 -------------- 3, 298,000 -------------lazer Creek Dam---------------------------------------------------- $260,000 -------------- $250,000 -------------- $260,000 -------------- $252,000 Savannah Harbor, 40ft. (1965 act>----------- ------------ 900,000 -------------- 855,000 -------------- 900,000 -------------- 873,000 --------------Savannah Harbor (sediment basin>---------------------- 1, 700,000 -------------- 1,615, 000 -------------- 1, 700,000 -------------- 1, 649,000 --------------Trotters Shoals Reservoir, Ga. and S.C·-------------------------------- 500,000 -------------- 475,000 -------------- 500,000 -------------- 485,000 West Point Reservoir, Ala. and Ga.-- ----------~--------- 7, 800, 000 -------------- 7, 410, 000 -------------- 7, 800, 000 -------------- 7, 566, 000 ------------ __

Hawaii: · Honokahau Harbor_____ ____ ________ ________________ ___ _ 531,000 ------ -------- 505,000 --------- _____ 531,000 _____ . ________ 515,000 ________ . ___ . _

Idaho: Cottonwood Creek Reservoir_--- ---------------- - -- --------- -__ _______ 90,000 __ ___ _________ 85,000 ___ ----------- 90,000 ___ ----------- 87, 000 Dworshak (Bruces Eddy) Reservoir.______________ ____ __ _ 45, 500, 000 ______ ------- _ 43,225, 000 _____ --------- 45, 500, 000 __ . _ ... _____ . _ 44, 135, 000 _ ...... _ ..... _ Portneuf River and Marsh Creek_ _____________________ __ 1, 142,000 -------------- 1, 085,000 ------ -------- 1, 142,000 -------------- 1, 108,000 -- ------------

::~~J~~~~0[eservoir:::::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: _____ -~~~~~-- ------ss; iioo-_____ -~~~~~~--------so;ooo· _____ -~~~~~--------ss;ooo· _____ -~~~:~-- ------- 63~iiiiii Illinois:

East St. louis and vicinitY------------------- ------------------------- 50,000 -------------- 45,000 -------------- 50,000 -------------- 49,000 Freeport·---------------------- ----------------------- 430,000 -------------- 410, ooo -------------- 430,000 -------------- 417,000 --------------Horse Island and Crescent Bridge(Mississippi River), Illinois

and Iowa.------------------------------------------ 575,000 -------------- 545,000 --------------Hunt dr.ainage district and Lima Lake drainage district.... 395,000 -------------- 375,000 -------------- ~~~: ~ ==============

558,000 --------------383,000 --------------

Illinois Waterway Calumet-Sag modification, pt. I, Illinois . and Indiana·--------------------------------------- 5, 350,000 -------------- 5, 085,000 -------------- 5, 350,000 -------------- 5,190, 000 --------- ~ ----

Illinois Waterway Calumet-Sag modification, pt. II, Illinois and Indiana ____ ----- __ -------------------- __ ------ ____________________ ----- - __ ---- ________ -------- __ ----------___________ 60, 000 ______________________ _____ _

Illinois Water duplicate locks ... -------------------------------------- 500,000 -------------- 475,000 -------------- 500,000 -------------- 485,000 Indian Grave drainage district. _____ -----------------___ 1, 200, 000 _____ --------- 1, 140, 000 ___ ----------- 1, 200, 000 ______ -------- 1, 164, 000 _ -------- ____ _ Kaskaskia River (navigation) ____ ------------------------ 12, 300, 000 -------------- 11, 685, 000 ___ __ ____ _____ 12, 300, 000 ___ __ ____ _____ 11, 931, 000 ___ . ___ . _. ___ _ Levee district21 (Vandalia), Kaskaskia River ••. ------------------------ 150,000 -------------- 145,000 -------------- 150,000 -------------- 146,000 Levee district 23 (Divety), Kaskaskia River ..•. ~------------------------ 30,000 -------------- 28,000 -- - --- -------- 30,000 -------------- 29,.000 lock and dam 52, Illinois and Kentucky. (See Kentucky.) Mississippi River between Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Ill. and ·

Mo.:

~g~ ~~=~~a~fn~0~~~ks:::=========================== 1, ~ag: ~~~ ============== ~~~: ~~~ ============== 1, ~~g; ~~~ ============== ~~6; &88 ============== Mound City lock and dam, Illinois and Kentucky___ __ __ __ _______________ 395,000 -------------- 375,000 -------------- 395,000 ---------- ·--~- 383,000 Oakley Reservoir (land acquisition>-- ------- - ---------___ 2, 000, 000 _. ___________ . 1, 900, 000 _______ ------- 2, 000, 000 _________ ----- 1, 940, 000 ___ .. ________ _

t.1~~~~];,;~[~fttt~::ttt:~::tttttttttttttttr::~~i;:;;;i:}~i5;:::::,~;f;:;;:;;}~!5;::::~;ii:;;_:;::~5; ::::::m~;:;;;;;;;f~S Jndia~~~d River drainage and Levee district (1965 act>------ ---------------- 30,000 -------------- 28,000 -------------- 30,000 -------------- 29,000

~~~:~~~~:~:::~~~ii:: ::=== ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::----3~iioo~ooa· _____ -~~~~~-----2~sso~ooo-____ --~~~: ~-----3~ ooo~ooo-_____ -~~~:~~-----2~ sio~ ooo· __ -~~~:~ Burns Waterway Harbor (reimbursement)________________ 9, 500,000 45,000 9, 025,000 40,000 9, 500,000 45,000 9, 215,000 44,000 Cannelton locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky__________ 6, 300,000 -------------- 5, 985,000 -------------- 6, 300,000 -------------- 6, 111,000 --------------Clifty Creek Reservoir___________________________________ _____________ 243,000 -------------- 230,000 ------··------ 243,000 -------------- 236,000 Huntington Reservoir------- ------------------------- __ 3, 110, 000 -------------- 2, 955, 000 -------------- 3, 110, 000 ------------~- 3, 017, 000 -------------Illinois Waterway, Calumet-Sag modification, pt. I, and II,

Illinois and Indiana. (See Illinois.) Island levee. __ ---------------------------------------Levee unit 5, Wabash River-----------------------------Michigan City Harbor ___ -------------------------------Newbur~h locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky _________ _ Patoka eservoir (land acquisition>----------------------Uniontown locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky _________ _

Iowa:

200, 000 --------------1,267,000 --------------

470, 000 --------------10, 800, 000 --------------

4, ~gg: ggg ::::::::::::::

8ae~~~~y=v=o~~ == == == == == = = = = == = = == == = = == == == == == == == =----E ~~~;ggg-: == == =~~~=~~~ = Horse Island and Crescent Bridge, Mississippi River, Ill. and Iowa. (See Illinois.)

Marshalltown. _____ • _____ ... ___ ._ .. _. ___ . __ .. ________ • 400,000 --------------

190, 000 --------------1,205, 000 --------------

445, 000 --------------10,260, 000 --------------

855, 000 --------------4, 085, 000 --------------

200, 000 --------------1, 267, 000 --------------

470, 000 --------------10, 800, 000 --------------

900, 000 --------------4, 300, 000 -------------

194, 000 --------------1,229, 000 --------------

456, 000 --------------10, 476, 000 --------------

4,8lltm ==============

·-c2so~ooo· ------~~~~~~~---- T32s~ooo· ____ }~~~~~~-----i:2ss;ooo· -------~~~~~ 1, 520,000 -------------- 1, 600,000 -------------- 1, 552,000 --------------

380,000 -------------- 400,000 -------------- 388,000 --------------Missouri River levee system, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and

Nebraska .• ----------------------------------------- 2, 100,000 -------------- 1, 995,000 -------------- Z, 100,000 -------------- 2, 037,000 --------------Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

and Nebraska·--------------- -------- --------------- 5, 000,000 -------------- 4, 750,000 -------------- 5, 000,000 -------------- 4, 850,000 --------------Muscatine Island levee district and Muscatine-Louisa

County drainage district No.l3__________ ___ ___________ 569,000 -------------- 540,000 -------------- 569,000 -------------- 552,000 --------------

~b~i\:~~~~~=~~==~~~~=~~===~~===~~=~~ ~ ~=~=~~~=:. ___ !:. ~. ~ _ = ::=: =~~~~: ___ H~-~ _ ==:==:i;;;~; = ____ !: ~: ~-= =::: =~~~~: ___ . !:_ ~:_ ~ _ :=.::i::i;i~ ~ Kansas:

Arkansas-Red River chloride control, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (see Texas).

Atchison. ____ __ --------- ________ --------------_______ 1, 811, 000 _____ __ ____ __ _ 1, 720, 000 __________ . ___ 1, 811, 000 _______ • ___ • __ 1, 757, 000 _. __ •.. _____ . _ Clinton Reservoir (land acquisition>---- ------------------ 1, 000,000 -------------- 950,000 -------------- 1, 000,000 -------------- 970,000 --------------

H~j~~~~~~~?::~~~:~ :~::~::::: ::~~:~~~~::~~:~~::~:: :: i~~~;: :;-;_:~~~~; :: ::i~i;: ill::::; __ i;~~;:: ::i: ill~~::::-;;~~>::: i~~;~;: ;:: -; }~: ~ Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and

Nebraska. (See Iowa.) Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

and Nebraska. (See Iowa.)

~¥f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~~t~~-~~~~~~~~~~~- --- ~~t~~m-~~=~===~~~~~~~- --- ~~t&rm·======~~~~~=-- -~~~m~ror===~====~~~~

24170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE July 30, 1968

(MP)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (R)

. (MP) (N) (FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(FC)

(FC) (N) (FC) (FC) (N)

(FC) (N) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(N)

(N)

(MP) (N)

(N) (FC)

(N)

(FC) (FC) (N} (N) (N) (FC)

(R) (FC) (FC) (N) (FC) (FC) (N) (R) (R)

(FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (N)

(N)

(FC)

(FC) (MP) (FC) (MP) (FC) (FC)

(FC) fFC) ( F~) ~FC) (10 ) (FC)

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL, FISCAL YEAR 1969- Continued

[Key to symbols : (N) navigation; (FC) flood control ; (BE) beach erosion; (R).rehabilitation; (MP) multiple purpose, including power)

Construction. general, State and project Approved budget estimate

for fiscal year 1969 House allowance Senate allowance Conference allowance

Construction Planning Construction Planning Construction Planning Construction Planning

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Kentucky : Barkley Dam, Ky. and Tenn _________________ ____ ------- $1,650,000 ----- -- ------- $1, 570, 000 -------------- $1 , 650, 000 ___ __________ _ $1 601 000 Cannelton locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. (See ' ' ··----- .......

Indiana.) Carr Fork Reservoi r______________________ __ ____________ 3, 100, 000 -------------- 2, 945,000 -------------- 3, 100, 000 -------------- 3

3, 8oo810, o0o0o0

_-_-_--_-_-_-__ ·-__ --_-_-__ • g~~~o~~~- ~~~~~~~i_r:== ============== == =============== = = ___ - ~~ ~~~~ ~~~- ______ $80.000 _____ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ 4, ooo, ooo ___ __ __ __ __ __ _ • , Frankfort, North Frankfort area. __________ ---------_ ____ 1, ooo, ooo __ ___ ------ __ _ 950, ooo ______ !~~~ ~~-- --Tooo; ooo-_ -----~~~ ~~~-- -- · · · 97o; ooo-_______ !~~~ ~~~

~~E,t:tfJ;~:~~;~~=~~~~=~~==~~==~~~~~=~=~=~~~~~=~~----~~~ ;,-;:;;;;;;;:~;----;·.- iii:.- iii-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ---;·.-iii .. ~ iii-~~~~;;~~~~~~~----- ~~ :;~: ~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ d K k 6 150 000 5

2, 425, 000 ---------- --- -lock and dam 52, Illinois an entuc Y------------------ , , --------- ----- , 845,000 -------- - _____ 6,150, 000 ___ __ ________ _ 5, 966,000 __ ___________ _ Martin ________ ----------------------------------------------------- 95, 000 ------------- - 90,000 ----------- ___ 95, 000 _____ __ ...... _ 92, 000 Mound City lock and dam, Illinois and Kentucky. (See

Illinois.) Newburgh locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. (See

Indiana.)

i~i~;,~~~:~~~= =: ~ ~= ~~~ :~:: ~~ ~~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=~~ =~: ~ :: _:_: :iri: ~: = == = = =i::: =:::: :-~g; ~: = :::: =i::: =:::::: ~:~:=:= :: :;ii~:: _-:: ~ ~: =:::: = = i:=: Uniontown locks and dam, Indiana and Kentucky. (See

Indiana.) loui~=~~s:ville Reservoir. ..... ----- ------ -------------------------- .. - - -- - 202,000 .............. 190,000 -- ------------ 202, 000 ------- .. ~ ---- 196, 000

Bayou Bartholomew, Ark. and La. (See Arkansas.) Bayou Badeau and tributaries __________ .. __________________ .. _________ 40, 000 -------------- 38,000 -------------- 40,000 _ ----------- ~ _ 39, 000 Bayou LaFourche and laFourche-Jump Waterway____ ___ __ 500,000 -------------- 475, 000 -------------- 500, 000 -------------- 485,000 ............ ..

g~~~3 ~~~!"ariii -vicinity=================================--- ---~~~~~~~-------·so:ooo· ------~~~~~~~------ -- 57;ooo· ------~~~~~~~------ ··so:ooo· _ ----- ~~~~ ~~~ _- ...... ·5s;ooo Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 16-foot channel, Louisiana and ·

Texas. (See Texas.) Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity_______________ ___________ 7, 800, 000 ___________ :_ _ 7, :J8· ggg -------------- 7, 800, 000 - ---- ------ ___ 7, 566,000 ...... __ ..... . Mississippi River, Gulf outlet.._________ __ _______________ 550, ooo -------------- , .•• . ••

1.9•0 •••

0•0•0 ________ 5_5_o_,_ o_o_o ________

2.0.0 .•.

0.00 _________ 5_3_4_,_o_o_o __ - ........... ..

Monroe floodwall (1965 and 1966 acts)_________________________________ 200,000 -------------- 194, 000 Morgan City and vicinity_____________________ ________________________ 110,000 -------------- 105,000 -------------~ 110, 000 _ ...... ____ ... 107, 000 New Orleans to Venice hurricane protection_______________ 1, 000,000 -------------- 950, 000 -------- -- --- - 1, 000, 000 _______ .. _____ 970, 000 _. _ .......... _ Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La. (See Arkansas.) __ _ Overton-Red River Waterway (lower 31 miles only)________ 1, 800,000 -------------- 1, 710,000 -------- -- ---- 1, 800,000 .............. 1, 746, 000 ......... . : ... Red River levees and bank stabilization below Denison Dam,

Ark., La., and Tex. (See Arkansas.) Main~~rmilion lock (replacement). ___ ... --------- ...... ____ -- __ --- ••• ----- 25, 000 .. . ________ ... 24, 000 _____ .... __ .. _ _ _ 25, 000 _ ......... _ _ _ _ 24, 000

MarJ=~~~~i;~~(~~~~~~01~7~~-~ -~~~ -~~~~~~~i~~~= =~ == == == =====- ----(i3ii;iiooj ____ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~- ====·= == == ==== ====== ==== ==:== - -· .. (i3ii; iiiiii). ~ - _ ~ ~~~~·-~~~ _-.. · · (i36~ iiiiii) ::::: :_:::::::: Baltimore Harbor and channels ........... ______ ----- - --- 1, 060,000 - ------------ - 1, 000,000 -------------- 1, os

80o0,, o0o0o0

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ._ 1, 130,000 .... ... ...... _ BloomingtonReservoir, Md. andW.Va.(landacquisition)__ 800,000 -------------- 760,000 --- - ------ - - - - 776,000 ............. . Inland waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Del.

and Md. (C. & D. Canal), pt. II. (See Delaware.) Pocomoke River, Md. and Va. (restudy)______ ________ ______________ ___ 8, 000 -------------- 7, 600 -------------. 8, 000 . . ........... _ 7, [;({)

Massachusetts :

~~~;f~~t::~~~~~~= ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~~~ :~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ =~ ~ ~ ~::: ;: ~~ ~:: :: ::::1&:~:: ::: ; ~ ~i~~:: :::::: ~: ~::::: ; ~ ~i~ iii::::::::~:~::::: ;i ~:::::: :} ~ Weymouth Fore and Towne Rivers .. ____ _____________ ____ 1, 300, 000 -------------- 1, 235,000 -------------- 1, 300,000 .............. 1, 261, 000 .......... : .. ~ Whitmanville Reservoir.. .. ____ "· ______________________________ ------- 170, 000 ____ __ _____ ___ 160, 000 ___ __ ____ __ ___ 170, 000 __ _ _ __ __ ___ __ _ 165, 000

Michigan :

~:!~~~~~-a~~~~~~~~~~~~~r;~=== == == == === === == ==== == == == =~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~=- - - -- - ~ti;ggg· ==: == =~ ~~~~~~=- -- --- ~~g;g~- ~===~ =~~~·=~~~ :---- --;ti: ggg· ~: = ~: ~ ~~~~~~~:- ------ ~~~: ~~~ Point Lookout Harbor, Au Gres River_______ ___ ___________ 225, 000 _ ______ ____ __ _ 215, 000 _ __ ____ __ __ ___ 225, 000 ____________ . _ 220. 000 ______ . _____ . _

:~~~~a~uR~~er (flood -corlfroi)_-:: = ======= = == == = = = ~ == = = = = = 3' ~~~: ~~~ === ======== == =

2• ~:g: ~~~ ======= == == ==~ 3

• ~~~: ~~~ === == = = = = == = = = 3• ~~~: ~~~ ::: =: =:-::::::

Saginaw River (navigation). __ -------------------------- 2, 500, 000 -- ----- -- ----- 2, 375, 000 - - ----- --- - - -- 2, 500, 000 ----- - - -- - --- - 2, 425, 000 ----------- __ _

~~~~tj~i~~~ ~=~~~~= = ============ =================== == ~~g·, ~~~ ============== ~~~·. ~~~ =============-- ~~g·, ~~~ ------------= ---_-_ -_-_-__ - 470, 000 --------------485, 000 --------------Minnesota :

Big Stone lake-Whetstone River, Minn. and S. Oak. (land M:~~~~~~~~n~II'Mankato_-:.-============================ ~~~: ~~~ ==== ========== s7o, ooo __ __ ______ ___ _ soo, ooo __________ ____ ss2, ooo _____ ___ _____ _

~~~~~~r:~~~r _____ ~ ~ = === = == = == = = = = = == === = ==== == = = ==== = = ==------]is; iiiiii--------~~: ~~-------~;~~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~----- -7~0~4~,;o~o~o~ --~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~_:_~-~-~-~ - --- - -s~98~3~.~o~o~o~ - -_- -_- -~ -~ ~- ~- -~ -~ ~- 3_~ ~- ~-0_~ ~-Stone Arch Bridge (reimbu;sement)___ ________ ___ _______ 704,000 - - --------- - - - 670; 000 ---- -- --- - - - --

Mississippi: Biloxi Harbor. ________________________________________ 730, 000 ___ ______ __ __ _ 695, 000 _ __ ____ ____ __ _ 730, 000 _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 708, 000 ________ ... __ _ Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Ala. and Miss. (See

Alabama.) Tombigbee River and tributaries, Alabama and Mississippi.. 640, 000 _____ . c ...... _ 610, 000 _ __ __ _ _ __ _____ 640, 000 _ ______ _ __ _ __ _ 621, 000 ______ . __ .. __ ~

Mi~souri : Chariton River (1944 act)_______ ________________________ 550, 000 ___ .. ___ ___ __ _ 520, 000 _________ .... _ 550, 000 ___ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ 534, 000 _____________ • Glare nee Cannon (Joanna) Reservoir.. ____________ ------- 2, 400, 000 _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2, 280, 000 _ __ __ __ ____ __ _ 2, 400, 000 _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ 2, 328, 000 ___ .. ______ .. _ Gregory Drainage District.. _____________________________ 850, 000 -------------- 810, 000 - ------ --- - --- 850, 000 -------------- 825, 000 ------------- -Kaysinger Bluft Reservoir________________ ______ ________ 7, 000,000 ------------ - - 6, 650,000 ------------- - 7, 000, 000 -------------- 6, 790, 000 --------------Long Branch Reservoir_ ........ ____________ ---- ---- ____ ...... _________ 150, 000 _ .. _ _ _ _____ ___ 140, 000 _ _ __ __ __ _____ _ 150, 000 __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ 146, 000 Meramec Park Reservoir(land acquisition)_______________ 1,000,000 -------------- 950, 000 ------------- - 1,000,000 ------ ------ -- 970,000 ---·----------Mississippi River between Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Ill.

and Mo. (See Illinois.) IV.issou ri River levee system, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and

Nebraska. (See Iowa.) Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

and Nebraska. (See Iowa.) Pattonsburg Reservoir(Highway 1- 35 crossing)______ _____ _ 1,000, 000 -------------- 950, 000 - --- ---------- 1, 000,000 ______________ 970, 000 --------- -----

. t~~~~~~~~~~~:~=~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~== = ==~ ~~=~-==~~==~~: _: ~:~:::~:;::::::: s:: ::-;:;;;;:: ::::: :::~ :::::: - 1~ ; ; :::::::::: :m:,::: 1: ; ;~;: :::,::: ~:~ s

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 2417{ CONSTRUCTWN, GEN.ERAL, . FISCAL YEAR 1969-Continued.

(Key ~o symbols: (N) navigation; (FC) flood control; (BE). beach erosion; (R) rehabilitation; (MP) multiple .purpose, including power!


(1)

Montana:

. Approved budget estimate for fiscal year 1969

Construction . Planning

(2) (3)

House allowance Senate allowance


(4) (5) (6) (7)



(8) (9)

~~c~> ~r~~: ~~~:riiiiir:====================================== 65~~88: ~gg ============== 61~~~~;~~~ ============== 6s~~gg; :0 ============== 63~o&& ~ ===~========== Nebraska:

Missouri River levee system, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska •. (See Iowa.)

Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and NQbraska. (See Iowa.) .

(FC) Norfolk •••• ------------------------------------------Nevada: .

450,000 -------------- 430,000 ~------------- 450, OOQ -------------- 437,000 --------------(FC) Martis Creek Reservoir, Calif. and N'ev __________________ _ 1, 230,000 -------------- 1, 170, 000 ---------- =.--- 1, 230,000 -------------- 1, 193,000 ------------- -

New Jersey:_ (N) Delaware River, Philadelphia to sea (anchorages), Delaware,

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania________________________ 50,000 -------------- 47, 500 -------------- 50,000 -------------- 49,000 ---------~----SFC) Elizabeth River.·------------------ ------------------- 300, 000 -------------- 285, 000 -------------- 300, 000 -------------- 291, 000 --------------(N) Newark Bay, Hackensack, and Passaic Rivers (1966 act)____ 2, 000,000 -------------- 1, 900,000 -------------- 2, 000,000 -------------- 1, 940,000 --------------

~~~~ ~~r~{b{~f~~~l!~~~~~!~~==========================~~~~~~~~~~~~=====iiaa;~a=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~======i~;afifi=--- --~~~~~~~~~=====ii~;~=-----~~~~~~======i§;~~ (MP) locks Island Reservoir, Pa., tU., and N. Y, (land acquisition). 4, 000, 000 -------------- 3, 800, 000 -------------- 4, 000, 000 -------------- 3, 880, 000 ------------ __

New Mexico: . (FC) Albuquerque diversion channels________________________ 2,600,000 -------------- 2,470,000 -------------- 2,600,000 -------------- 2,522,000 --------------(FC) Cochiti Reservoir.------------------------------------- 5, 000, 000 ----------- __ • 4, 750, 000 -------------- 5, 000, 000 ----------- ~-- 4, 850, 000 ----- ________ • (FC) Galisteo Reservoir __ ----------~--- ____ ------------_____ 2, 800, 000 -------------- 2, 660, 000 ________ ------ 2, 800, 000 -------------- 2, 716, 000 _____________ _ (FC) Los Esteros Reservoir and modification of Alamogordo Dam________________ 300,.000 .-------------- 285,000 -------------- 300,000 -------------- 290,000

(FC) (FC) (N) (FC) (N) (N) (N) (N) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(N) (BE) (FC) (FC) (N)

New York: East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay _______ --------___ 300,000 _____ --------- 285,000 ___ ------ ----- 300,000 -------------- 290,000 Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point_______________________ 2, 000,000 -------------- 1, 900,000 -------------- 2, 000,000 -------------- 1, 940,000 ---- ----------Great Lakes to Hudson River Waterway (reimbursement)___ 1, 885,000 -------------- 1, 790,000 -------------- 1, 885,000 -------------- 1, 830,000 --------------

ttir~~~!a1~Y~~~~~~=~===~~~~~~~====~~~~~~~~~===~==== 1

• ~~l g~ ~=~~=~~~~~~~~~ 1

• ~~g: ggg ==:::::::::::: 1

• :~l ggg :::::::::::::: 1

• ~~: ~ :::::::::::::: Moriches lnlet

1Long Island______________________________ ______ _______ 140,000 -------------- 133,000 -------------- 140,000 -------------- · 136,000

New Vorl< Haroor (anchorages) _________ ----------------- 1, 500, 000 -------------- 1, 425, 000 -------------- 1, 500, 000 -------------- 1, 455,000 ------ ____ ----

~~k*~l~~~; m~-~~=~~;-m;~=;=~~==~=;~;~~~~~~==~---1m~;-~~;~~-m~~~-- -;: t~~~-;;;;=~;~~~;----Em~;-~~-~~;'~=~~~- --;: m!m-~~~~=~~~ ~~ :~ locks Island Reservoir, Pa., N.J., and N.Y. (See New Jersey.) · · ·

North Carolina: Cape Fear River above Wilmington_______________________ 1, 149,000 -------------- 1, 090,000 -------------- 1, 149,000 -------------- 1, 115,000 --------------Fort Macon State Park (Reimbursement)----------------- 258,000 -------------- 245,000 -------------- 258,000 -------------- 250,000 --------------~~~~'m:e~s~~~~;-yoir(restudy):: ~~ ~:~=~~:=~:::::::~==- __ -~~~~~~~- ----- --sii;iioo· ____ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ _ ----- --57;iiiiii-____ ~~~~~~~~------ --sii;ooo-___ -~~~~~ ~ ~---------58; ooo W1lmmgton Harbor, 38- and 40-foot depth (1962 act)______ _ 1, 080,000 -------------- 1, 025,000 -------------- 1, 080,000 -------------- 1, 048,000 -------------

North Dakota: (R) · Garrison Reservoir (embankment repair>-·- ---~--- ---·--- 1, 200,000 -------------- 1, 140,000 -------------

Oahe Reservoir, S. Oak. and N. Oak. (See South Dakota.) (FC) Missouri River, Garrison Dam to Oahe Reservoir..·-------- -------------------------------- ----- -------------------

1, 200,000 --------------

1, l~; ~~~ ==============

1,164,000 ---.-----------

1, 100,000 ---------- --- -437,000 --------------(FC) Pipestem Reservoir (land acquisition>------------ --- ----- 450,000 ----------J--- 430,000 --------------

Ohio: (FC) Alum Creek Reservoir (land acquisition) _____ -------------

~FC) Athens __________ --- __________ --- ____ ---_----- __ -----. FC) Big Darby Creek Reservoir·------ -- ----- --- -------------FC) Caesar Creek. Reservoir·-------------·-----------------(FC) Clarence.J. Brown Dam and Reservoir__ _________________ _

(N) Cleveland Harbor: Bridge replacement, widening Cuyahoga and Old Rivers (1958 act)----------- -----------------

East Fork Reservoir--------- ---------------------------

~FC) fC) N)

~~g~

~FC) N) N)

(FC)

Fremont_ ___ _-. ________________________ ________ ------ __ Hannibal locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia _________ _ Mill Creek Reservoir (relocation of U.S. Highway 36) ______ _ North Branch Kokosing River Reservoir. ______________ __ _ Paint Creek Reservoir __________ _______________________ _ Racine locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia ___________ _ Willow Island lock and dam, Ohio and West Virginia ___ ___ _ Youngstown, Crab Creek-------------------------------

Oklahoma: Arkansas Red River chloride control, Texas, Oklahoma,

and Kansas. (See Texas.) Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas· and Oklahoma.

500,000 -------------- 475,000 ---------- ----1,000,000 -------------- 950,000 --------------

t; !~: ~ ====:::=:=====----E~~fg~-=====::::::::: 800,000 --------------

1, ~gg: ggg ============== 13,000,000 --------------

415,000 --------------900,000 --------------

3, 500, QOO ---------- ----10, 000, 000 --------------5,223,000 --------------

400,000 --------------

760,000 --------------1, 570, 000 ------------

570, 000 ------------12, 350, 000 ------------

395,000 -------------855, 000 --------------

3,325,000 --------------9,500,000 -------------4,960,000 --------------

380,000 --------------

800,000 --------------1,650, 000 --------------

600, 000 ------------13, 000, 000 -------------

415,000 --------------900, 000 --------------

3, 500, 000 --------------10,000, 000 --------------5,223,000 ------------ --

400,000 --------------

776,000 ---- ------- ---1, ~~: ~ ::::::::::::::

12,610,000 ----------- ---403,000 --------------873,000 --------------

3,395,000 --- -----------9,700,000 --------------5,066,000 --------------

388,000 --------- -----

(MP) (See Arkansas.)

Broken Bow Reservoir______ ___________________________ 3, 500,.000 -------- ------ 3, 325,000 -------------- 3, 500,000 -------------- 3, 400,000 ------------- -

iii~;,; __ ::::::::;;;::-:::::::_::::::::;====i~;,;:;-;: __ l~~~~:=::~ii;:~:;;:='~~~;:=:-1ti~~: -;; ;;:l~·~c-ti~~·;<;;:= ~:~ j ~~g~

!FC) FC) FC) FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (MP) RobertS. Kerr (Short Mountain) lock and dam____________ 14,200, 000 -------------- 13, 490, 000 _ ------------- 14, 200, 000 _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ 13, 774, 000 ____ ___ ______ _

Red River below Denison Dam, Ark., La., Okla., and Tex. (see Louisiana).

(FC) Shidler Reservoir.. •• -------------------------------------------,---- 175,000 -------------- . 170,000 ------------ - - 175,000 -------------- 170,000 (FC) Waurika Reservoir (land acquisition>--------- ---- -------- 900, ooo ------ -------- 855, ooo --------------

15,95oo00

•• o0o0o0

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ 15

,807335,,000000

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ --__ --_-_-_ (MP) Webbers Falls lock and dam_______________________ _____ 15,500,000 -------------- 14,725,000 ------ ------- -

Oregon: (FC) Blue River Reservoir__ _________________________ -------- 3, 100, 000 _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ 2, 945, 000 _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ __ _ 3, 100, 000 _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 3, 007, 000 _____________ _ (MP) Bonneville lock and dam (2d power unit), Oregon and

~~Ji~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~::: ~~~~~~ =~=~~~~~~~=~~~ ~::=:::~~ ~=- ---- _l~: ~-::: ::: ;;~~~~:---.- 11i:~_: :::: =~~~= ------~t.-~-:::: ::;;~~=-.-. ---:~; ~ (FC) -(FC) (N) (N)

(f.C) (FC)

Columbia River and lower Willamette River, 35- and · ·

~~~n~~k~~~~~~~i;;~~~~ =~:= ~~~~i;;;~~==================~=~·=~=- ---- -~~:888~ ====~=~~=~=- ---- -1~8:- ggg-= == =~=~~~=~~~=- ---- -!~fggg· ====~=~~=~~ =- -- _----~~~: ggg


(MP) (FC) ( MP) (FC)

(MP) ( N) (FC) (N) (MP)

(N) (FC) (N)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC)

(BE) (N)

(MP)

(FC) (MP)

(MP) {MP)

(FC)

(FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (R)

~~6) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC) (FC)

(N)

(FC) (FC) (FC) ·(N) (FC) (N)

(FC)

(FC) (N) (FC)

(BE)

(MP)

(MP)

(MP)

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL, FISCAL YEAR 1969-Continued

[Key to symbols: (N) naviga~ion ; (FC) flood control; (BE) beach erosion ; (R) rehabilitation ; (MP) multiple purpose, including power)


(1)

Oregon-Continued John Day lock and dam, Oregon and Washington ____ ___ __ _ John Day River_ ____ ___ •......•• __ .•.•• __ • ______ _____ _ . Lost Creek Reservoir__ ___ _ •..••. __ . ___ ...•.• ______ ___ _ • Lower Columbia River bank protection, Oregon and Wash-

Approved budget estimate for fiscal year 1969


(2) (3)

House allowance


(4) (5)

Senate allowance Conference allowance


(6) (7) (8) (9)

$26, 300, 000 ----------- - -- $24, 985, 000 ----- - -- ---- -- $26, 300, 000 ----- --------- $25,511, 000 ------- - ----- -

2.~~ •• ggg ============== 1,i38.·888 =------------=------------ 570, 000 --- -------- --- 553,000 ------ -- ---- - -2,000,000 -- -------- - --- 1, 940,000 -------- - -- ---

McinNgatryon_lo_c_k_a_n_d __ d_a_m_ •• ·o· r·e·g·o·n- ·a·n·d- ·w·a· s·h-·,·n·g·t-o·n·_-_-_-_-_--__ --__ - -_ -- 1, 4o0o0o', o00o0o _- -_ -__ -_-_-_-_- _-_-_--__ -_- 93s80o', o0o00o -_ -__ - -__ --__ - _- -__ --_ • __ - -_ 400• 000 388 000

1, ~~g. g~ ~==~========== ~~~: ggg ============== if~1~~~~:~~a£i~i~~;~s~~~~~~ ~ = = == == = = :·=== ==== ==== =====------~:~; ~~~- ~ ~~ ~~ ~ !~~~~~~~ ... -- -~~~;~~~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~!~~~~~~~ _ .. ___ __ _._ _ _ _ _ $30, ooo _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ $29, ooo The Dalles lock and dam, Oregon and Washington (addi-

793•

000 -- ---- -------- 770• 000 ----- - -- - ---- -

tional power units) ___ _____ ____ • ____ .___ ____ _________ 7, 500, 000 • ____ ___ _____ • 7, 125, 000 _ ______ ____ __ _ 7, 57oo50

, o0o00o ------ --~ ~--~ --~---_-_-_ 7, 275, 000 _____ ••• ____ _ _

Tillamook Bay and Bar (south jetty)___ _________ __ ___ __ __ 7505

000 --- - --------- - 71~ 000 - ------------ - ;J -~ ~ ~ · 728, 000 __ _____ _____ : _ Willamette River Basin bank protection__ ___ _____________ 37 , 000 ------------ - - 35:>, 000 ------------ - - 37:>, 000 -------------- 3

29651

,. o0o0o0

-_-_-_-_-_-__ ~-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_ Yaquina Bay and Harbor __ ---------- - ----------- - --- - -- 300,000 - ----------- - - 285, 000 ---------- - -- - 300, 000 ---- - --- - - - ---

Pennsylvania: · Aylesworth Creek Reservoir_______ __________ __ ____ ______ 520, 000 --- - -- - ------- 495, 000 --- - -------- -- 520,000 --------- - ---- 504,000 -------- - -- -- -Beltzville Reservoir___ ________ _____ _______ _____________ 5, 700, 000 - -- ----------- 5, 415,000 -------- - - - --- 5, 700,000 -------------- 5, 529,000 ----------- - - -Blue Marsh Reservoir (land acquisition)_ ___ ___ ___ ________ 1, 650, 000 - ------------- 1, 570, 000 --------- - - - -- 1, 650,000 -- - -- --------- 1, 601,000 ------------- -Chartiers Creek____________________________ ___________ 2, 500,000 - ------- - - -- -- 2, 375,000 - - ---- - - - ----- 2, 500,000 ------- -- --- - - 2, 425,000 --- - ----------Cowanesque Reservoir_ __ __ __________ ______ __ _______ ______ ____ ____ ___ 400,000 -------------- 380,000 -------- - - - --- 400, 000 -- - ----- - ----- 388,000 Delaware River, Philadelphia to sea, anchorages, Delaware, .

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. (See New Jersey.) Foster Joseph Sayers Dam (Blanchard)__ ______ ___________ 2, 600,000 -------------- 2, 470, 000 --- ---- --- - --- 2, 600, 000 -- " ·--- ------ - 2, 522,000 ------ - --- - - - -Raystown Reservoir _____ -- ------ -- .. ----- - --------- - --- 4, 500, 000 - ---- - -------- 4, 275,000 - -- ----------- 4, 500, 000 - ------- - ----- 4, 365,000 __ ____ ----- -- _ Tioga-Hammond Reservoir(land acquisition>- ---- - ----~--- 1,000,000 ---- - -- ------- 950,000 -------- -- ---- 1, 000, 000 - --------- - -- - _970,000 ---------- - -.-- · locks Island Reservoir, Pa., N.J., and N.Y. (See New

Jersey.) Tyrone------------------------------------------------ -- --- - -- - - - -- 75,000 --- - ---------- 70,000 -------- --- -- - 75,000 --------- -- - -- 73, 000 Union City Reservoir---- - ---- - ---------- __ ____ --- - ----_ 2, 500, 000 ___ ---------- - 2, 375, 000 ______ _ -- -- -- - 2, 500, 000 _____ --------- 2, 425, 000 ___ •• ______ __ _ Woodcock Creek Reservoir________ _______________ _______ 1, 200,000 - - - -- --------- 1, 140,000 ----------- -- - 1, 200, 000 ------- - ----- - 1, 164,000 --------------

Rhode Island : Cliff Walk, NewporL. ---- --- - -- - --- --- - - - --- - - - ----------- - ------------------------------------------- - ----- --

4, ~g&; ggg ============== 50,000 - - - -----------

Sout~r8~:~~~~~ River and Harbor__ _____ __________ ___ ________ 4, 000,000 --------- _____ 3, 800, 000 -------- - ---- - 3, 880,000 - - --------- : --

Trotters Shoals Reservoir, Ga. and S.C. (See Georgia.) South Dakota: Big Bend Dam-Lake Sharpe ____ _______________________ _

Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River, Minn., and S. Oak. (land acquisition). (See Minnesota.)

Cottonwood Springs Reservoir__ _______ __ _____ __________ _ Oahe Reservoir, S. Oak. and N. Oak __ _ - - ----- ---- - - -----

Tennessee:

1, 000,000 - -- - - -- - -- -- --

800, 000 ------- --- ----1, 550,000 --------------

950,000 ----------- -- -

760, 000 --- - -------- --1,475,000 ----- --- - - -- - -

1, 000,000 --- ----- - - - ---

800, 000 ---------- - - - -1,550,000 -- - ------- - - --

970,000 ----------- -- -

776, 000 --------------1, 504,000 --------------

Barkley Dam, Ky. and Tenn. (See Kentucky.) Cordell Hull lock and dam__________ ___ ___ ________ ______ 9, 200, 000 - - ------·------ . 8

4,, 764505

,, 000000

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ - -_-_-_ 9, 200, 000 --------.- ---- 8, 924, 000 _________ .: ___ _ J. Percy Priest Reservoir_ _________ __ __ __ ______________ 4, 900, 000 ----~- - ------- 4, 900,000 ------------ -- 4, 753,000 ----- - - -- ---- -

Texas: Arkansas-Red R!ver chloride control (pt. I), Texas, Okla-

homa, and Kansas _________ ------------------ ____ ------ ________ ___ _ Arkansas-Red River chloride control (supplementa I stud-

400,000 -------------- 380,000 - - ----- - --- - -- 400, 000 -- -- - ----- --- - 388,000

ies), Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas_ ___ ____ ____________________ _____ _ 1, 000, 000 - - ------------ 950,000 -------------- 1, 000, 000 -- - ---- - ------ 970, 000 Belton Reservoir (raise water level) __ -- -- - -- - --- - - - -- -- ---- - ---------- 85, 000 -------------- 80, 000 -------- - --- __ 85, 000 - - ------------ 82, 000 Buffalo. Bayou a11d tributaries___ _________ ____________ ___ 2, 500,000 ~ - ~ - ---------- 2, 375,000 - --- - - - -- - -- - - 2, 500, 000 -------- - - - - -- 2, 425,000 - -·-------- - --

~r~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~a~~~~~~~~t~==~~=====~= == ~ ===== = ====== ==~~~= ~~~= --- -- -;~& ggg- ==== ==~~~=~=- ---- -;~~:~gg- = =====~~~=~~~= ----- - ;~g; ggg-=== == =~~~= ~~~=- --- ---;~i;g~ Fort Worth Floodway, Clear Fork extension_- ------- -- - --- 1, 400,000 - ---- - -------- 1, 330,000 -- --- - - - -~ ---- 1, 400, 000 ------------- - · 1, 358,000 ----- - ----- - - -Freeport and vicinitY~ - - -------------------- - - - - -------- 3, 000,000 ----- - -------- 2, 850,000 --- - - - - - -- - -- - 3, 000, 000 -- - -- - -------- : 2, 9

48105

,, 0oo0o0

-_ ·_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-Galveston Harbor and Channel (groins)_________________ _ 500,000 - - - - - ---- -- --- 475, 000 -------- - -- - -- 500, 000 ------ --- -----Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Chocolate Bayou ___ __________ 1, 300, 000 -------------- 1, 235,000 ------------ - - 1, 300,000 -- - ------- - --- 1, 26k 000 --------------

t:~:l!e:~:~:~~~j~~================ = ===== ============- - - -~~~~~~~~-======iijfi;ijijij: - - --~~~~~~~~-======j~ij;fi~=---- ~ ~~~~~~~~-::::::i~ij;ijijij: - - - -~ ~~~~~~~~- = = =====j~~;fifiij Lavon Reservoir modification and channel improvement____ 4, 200,000 ------ -- ---- -- 3, 990,000 ---- - - -- ---- -- 4, 200,000 -- -- ----- - ---- 4, 074,000 -- - ------- - --Liberty, Trinity River____________ ______________ __ ____ ____ _______ _____ 50, 000 - ------------- 47,500 - ------------- 50,000 - --- -- - --- - -- - 49,000 Port Arthur and vicinity (hurricane flood protection)___ ___ _ 4, 600,000 - ----- - -- -- - -- 4, 370, 000 - ----- -- - ----- 4, 600, 000 ---- ----- - ---- 4, 462,000 ---- - ----- - --Red River below Denison Dam, navigation and bank stabili-

zation (not authorized), Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. (See Louisiana.)

Red River levees and bank stabilization, below Denison Dam, Ark., La., and Tex. (See Arkansas.)

Sabine-Neches Waterway, 40-foot project and channel to Echo __ __________ _____ ---------- - -- -- - -- - ---________ 6, 730, ooo --- - - --------- 6, 395, 000 - ----- --- -- - --

San Antonio ChanneL.---- - ------- -------- - -- - - - - ----- 1, 500,000 -- -·- - - ------ -- 1, 42~ 000 --- ----- ------San Gabriel River tributary to Brazos River (land acquisition)_ 1, 500, 000 --- - ---- ---- -- 1, 42:>, 000 - - ------------Texas City, hurricane protection__ ________________ ______ _ 2, 300, 000 ---- - --------- 2,185, 000 ----------- - --

~j~~~ya~~vnJr~it~~~~!Bayoils~~= = == = ~ == == =~== ==·== == ==== = 31 •• g2~o~o:, ~o~~ =_=-_- =_=_== =_= =_=_=_=_=_- - - --3.-8054-~·.- oooo· oo -=-============= Wallisville ~eservoir, Trinity River___ _______ ________ __ ___ ~ ~~ ~ ~

Vermont:

6, 730,000 -------------- 6, 528 000 ----------- - --1,500, 000 -------- --- --- 1, 455, 000 ---- - - - - - - - -- -1, 500, 000 -- -- ---------- 1, 455, 000 -- --- - - -- ---- -2,300,000 ----- --------- 2, 231,000 ·-------- -----

1, g~: ~~~ ============== ~~~: ~~g === ======= ==- -3, 200,000 -------------- 3,104, 000 ----------- - --

Gaysville Reservoir_ ~ ___ __ ..... _. ___ : ___ .. ______ __ : _-- -------- .. --- - - 100, 000 -- - .... . . - ----Virginia :

95,000 ----------- - -- 100,000 _____ : _______ _ 97,~0

Gathright Reservoir_ ________ ______________________ ___ __ 3, 000, 000 -------------- 2, 850,000 ------------- -Hampton Roads ___ ___ __ ______ ___ __ ____ • ______ ------_ __ 3, 000, 000 ___ .• ------ - -- 2,

487so5,, 000000

-_ -_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_ Norfolk __ ___ ___ ____ __ ____ ____ . • ______ _ •• __ .• ____ ___ __ 500, 000 _ .. __________ _ Pocomoke River, Md. and Va., restudy. (See Maryland.) Virginia Beach (reimbursement) __ ___ _ : ___________ ____ __ _ 125,000 ---- - ------- --130, 000 - - ~ - : __ -- - ----

Washington: Bonneville lock and dam (2d power unit), Oregon and

3,000,000 - ---- - - - - - -- --3, 000, 000 ------------- -

500, 000 -------- - ---- -130,000 ____ : ____ ____ _

2, 910,000 -- ------------2,910,000 --------·-----

485,000 - -- ---------- -

126, 000 - -----.---- - · -

Washington. (See Oregon.) Chief Joseph Dam (additional power units>--- --- ---------------------- 200,000 -- ---- --- -- - -- 190,000 - - - -- - ----- --- 200,000 -- -- --- - --- - -- 194,000 Columbia River and Lower Willamette River, 35- and 40-foot

projects, Oregon and Washington. (See Oregon.) John Day lock and dam, Oregon and Washington. (See

Oregon.) little Goose lock and dam_________ ___ __ ___________ ____ _ 24, 000,000 --- -- --- -- ~ --- 22,800,000 ----- - --- -- - -- 24,000,000 - --- - -- - - --- -- 23,280,000 - --- ---------· Lower Columbia River bank protection, Oregon and Wash-

ington. (See Oregon.) Lower Granite lock and dam_ --------- -------- -- - - - ---- - 19, 000, 000 - ------ -- --- -- 18, 050, 000 --- ------- ---- 19, 000, 000 - - - ---- -- - ---- 18,430, 000 --------------

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL .. RECORD--SENATE 24173 CONSTRUCTiON, GENERAL, FISCAL YEAR . l969~Continued

(Key to symbols: (N) "navigati~n; (FC) flood control; (BE) beach erosion; (R) rehabilitation; (MP) multiple purpose, incl~ding power)

Construction, general, State and project Approved budget estimate

for fiscal year 1969 House allowance Senate allowance Conference allowance

Construction Planning Construction Planning Construction Planning Construction Planning

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Washington-Continued -Lower Monumental lock and dam........................ $16, 500, 000 ---- ---------- $15, 675, 000 ---- - ------- __ $16, 500, 000 -------- -- - __ • $16, 005, 000 • __ _____ -----~ McNary lock and dam, Oregon and Washington. (See

(MP)

Oregon.)

(FC)

(FC)

(FC) (FC)

The Dalles lock and dam, Oregon and Washington. (See Oregon.)

w.;;noochee River Reservoir---------------·-------------- 2, 500, 000 -------------- 2, 375, 000 --------- ----- 2, 500, 000 --------- __ --· 2, 425, 000 • - ••• -------- -WestBe~~~nro~k Lake.------------------------------------- 800, ooo _____ ______ ___ 760, ooo _______ __ __ __ _ 800, ooo ___ __ _____ ___ _ 776, ooo _______ __ .. __ ·_·

Bloomington Reservoir, Md. and W. Va. (See Maryland.) Burnsville Lake (land acquisition>----------------------- 700,000 --- ----------- 665,000 ----- --------- 700,000 -------- ------· ·679,000 ··------ ---- -· East Lynn Lake .. ________ ------------ ____ ----------- -- 3, 900, 000 _______ ____ --_ 3, 705, 000 - ------ ______ . 3, 900, 000 _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3, 783,·000 _____________ • Gallipolis lock and dam (not authorized), Ohio and West

Virginia. (See Ohio.) Hannibal locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia. (See

(FC)

(FC) (FC) (FC)

R. ~~i~~iley (Justice) Lake ________ --------------------- 11,670,000 __ _____ ------ - 11,090, 000 ______ ___ ----- 11,670, 000 _ __ _ ___ __ ___ __ 11,320,000 __________ __ _ Racine locks and dam, Ohio and West Virginia. (See Ohio.) Rowlesburg Lake.·----- --------------------------------------------- $133,000 -------------~ $127,000 -------------- $133,000 ----------- ---Stonewall Jackson Lake •• -------------------------------------------- 250,000 -------------- 238,000 -------------- 250,000 --------------

$129,000 243,000 146,000 West Fork Lake. __ --------------------------------------- ____ ------- 150, 000 -------------- 143, 000 --- •• --------. 150, 000 --------------

Willow Island lock and dam, Ohio and West Virginia. (See Ohio).

(FC) (N) (R) (FC)

Wisconsin: Eau Galle River, Spring Valley ________ ------------------- 1, 122, 000 --------- ----· 1, 065, 000 - -- ------ ----- 1, 122, 000 -------------· 1, 088, 000 ___ __________ •

~~~~~h~ak~t~~~~5~~~~-~~~=::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~&: ggg :::::::::::::: 3~~: ggg :::::::::::::: ~~&: ggg :::::::::::::: 3~~: ggg :::::::::::::: La Farge Reservoir, Kickapoo River(land acquisition)____ ___ 700, 000 ------------- - 665, 000 -------------- 700, 000 -------------- 679, 000 • __________ __ _

Miscellaneous: Emergency bank protection •• __ ••• _---- •••••••••. ______ _ 300,000 -------------- 285,000 ------- ------- 300,000 ------------ -- 291,000 --- -- ---- - -- - -(FC)

(FC)

(FC) (N)

Small proJects for flood control and related purposes not requiring specific legislation (sec. 205)------------ ----- 7,

2oo5o0

,. 000000

_-_-_--__ --__ -_--_-_-_-_-_-_ 6, 650, 000 • ------------- 7, 429, 000 _ ------ __ ___ __ 7, 219, 000 ________ _____ _ Snagging and clearin~------ ---------------------------- 240, 000 ------- ------- 250, 000 ------- -, ----- 243, 000 ----- ________ _ Small navigation projects not requiring specific legislation

costing up to $500,000 (sec. 107)_________ _____________ 2, 000,000 -------------- 1, 900,000 -------------- 2, 000,000 -------------- 1, 940,000 ---- --- -------Recreation facilities, completed projects__________________ 9, 000,000 ------------- 8, 550,000 -------------- 9, 000,000 -------------- 8, 730,000 ------------ --Fish and wildlife studies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)-... 580,000 -------------- 550,000 -------------- 580,000 -------------- 563,000 ------------ --Aquatic plant control (1965 act>------------------------- 900,000 -------------- 855,000 -------------- 900,000 -------------- 873,000 --------------Employees compensation_______________________________ 656,000 -------------- 656,000 -------------- 656,000 -------------- 656,000 --------------Reduction for anticipated savings and slippages ___________ -50,752,000 ---------------102,588,800 -------------- -50,752,000 -------------- -71,796,700 ----------- ---1968 reserve applied in fiscal year 1969.----------------- -61,700,000 -------------- -61,700,000 -------------- -61,700,000 -------------- -61,700,000 --------------

Grand total, construction, generaL-------------------- 897,982,000 20,430,000 794,273,700 18,055,300 897,053,000 20,340,000 847,245,000 18, 437,500

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I hope very much that part 2 of the CalumetSag modification in Indiana that was omitted, can be funded soon. The engineers have almost completed part I, which is in the State of Illinois. It was my hope that by the time they concluded the Calumet-Sag Channel in· Dlinois, they could continue the work through Indiana.

This is a very worthy project in that the benefit-cost ratio is in excess of 2.2 to 1. It is a very good project. I am very hopeful, as I said, that we will be able to include this project in next year's bill.

The same thing is true with respect to the Dickey-Lincoln project. I am very hopeful that next year we will be able to convince the House that it is a worthy project and should be included and retained in the budget.

Mr. President, for Mississippi River and tributaries, the conference bill provides $69,600,000, the budget estimate and the amount allowed by the House. This is $10,000 less than the amount approved by the Senate, and $17,535,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1968. The Senate bill allowed $10,000 for the initiation of a survey of the Old River control structure. The conferees agreed that this investigation could be initiated within available funds.

Mr. President, for title n, the conference bill provides $711,111,500, which 1s $24,347,000 below the amount approved by the Senate; $11,763,500 above the

($918, 412, 000) ($812, 329, 000) ($917, 393, 000) ($865, 682, 500)

House allowance; $53,907,500 below the budget; and $39,040,500 below the appropriation for 1968.

With respect to power service to the Southwestern Power Administration area, the Senate concurred with the House of Representatives in urging continued serious negotiations between the Department of the Interior and eight private power companies to reach a wheeling agreement to make unnecessary about $11 million of powerline construction.

One of the points of disagreement is provision for standby power to an association of electric cooperatives in Louisiana. Both bodies agreed that if this matter cannot be worked out 'in the negotiations, consideration could be given to construction of necessary power facUlties to be financed by the United States and the cooperative.

It is hoped that the companies and the Department can agree; but if they cannot, then the Department would have to come back to the Congress to secure approval and funds to plan and construct any facilities deemed necessary.

With respect to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, for construction grants for waste treatment works, the conference bill allows $214,ooo,ooo, which is $11,000,000 below the amount approved by the Senate; $11,-000,000 above the amount allowed by the House; $11,000,000 below the budget estimate; and $11,000,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 1968.

Mr. President, I regret very much that we were unable to obtain consent from the House to at least provide funds in the amount of the budget estimate for this program. The budget estimate itself is far below the authorization. I hate to see this fine work deiayed.

For title III, the conference bill was $58,978,500, which is $3,082,500 below the Senate approved bill; $182,500 above the House; $490,500 below the budget; and $11,845,500 below the appropriations for fiscal year 1968. The principal decrease was a reduction of $2,950,000 for the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Senate bill provided funds for the modernization of the ammonia plant. The · conferees agreed on the restoration of the budget estimate amounting to $50,000 and agreed that this increase together with not to exceed $450,000 of available funds may be used for engineering and design of the modernization of the fertilizer production facilities.

The $450,000 is to be taken out of available funds. This is a very important plant. It has been producing ammonia and other material for the production of ammunition. The project is.run down. As a matter of fact, it has been in operation since World War I. The committee felt that is · was time to do some work toward restoring this facility and thereby save the Government much money in the future.

The plant is now so old that it requires many repairs. I am hopeful that next

24l74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 3 0,. 1.9-6 8

year we will be able to obtain sufficient funds to put the plant in tip-top shape.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. - Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, is it

not-true that there is considerable development in the :field of manufacturing richer fertilizer? I am referring particularly to urea. And is it not true that in overhauling the plant, it is possible to get it into shape so that the research can be carried on and production on an experimental basis of urea can be brought about?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, that is true. As the Senator knows, that work is carried on under the same roof with the production of other materials used in manufacturing ammunition. It is true that this plant has been very important in the past in doing what the Senator has just said, in providing different mixtures of fertilizer.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Which fl,re usee experimentally.

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. Mr. SPARKMAN. And which, over the

years, have had a very great inftuence in bringing about a more universal usage of commercial fertilizers to aid in greater production of food and :fiber.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is corred.

Although this fertilizer is used for experimental purposes, the TV A at least obtains the cost of its production. So we are getting different kinds of fertilizer, and they are used to show how much more of a crop can be grown by the use of different fertilizers.

Mr. SPARKMAN. And the results and the formulas they derive are made available to private producers of commercial fertilizers.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is corred.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, for

title IV, Atomic Energy Commission, the conference bill is $2,570,874,000, which is $30,926,000 below the amount approved by the Senate; $34,274,000 above the amount allowed by the House; $183,-726,000 below the budget; and $61,741,000 above the appropriations for 1968.

Mr. President, I ask that the conference report be agreed to, and that all data submitted be printed in the RECORD.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, before that is done, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. Mr. SPARKMAN. I have knowledge

of the tremendous job the subcommittee has done throughout the years, under the leadership of the able Senator from Louisiana, and the useful results that have evolved. I should like to call the attention of the Senator to one item that will be of interest because of the projects with which his subcommittee deals.

Hearings commenced this morning before the Joint Economic Committee with respect to certain Government operations, and the subject particularly considered this morning deals with using the interest rate on Government money for evaluating the benefit to cost ratio in public work l>rojects. It seems to me

that this is something that has been required for some time. As interest rates go up, those things that are taken into consideration in evaluating the return should reflect the increased interest rates and should be beneficial to our public projects.

Mr. ELLENDER. That is true as to any project. But there has been a good deal of complaint about the use of the proper interest rate to evaluate the benefit-cost ratio in navigation.

I have found over the years that the Department of the Interior has a different formula from that of public works, and we should unify that. I am hopeful that something can be done about that.

With respect to TV A, that Government corporation has done a great job in the past. It has been permitted to use some of its profits to bond itself for the purpose of constructing additional facilities to generate electricity from steam.

As the Senator knows, we have gone far in that field. I sort of objected to it in the beginning, but I believe the testimony will show that approximately 80 percent of all the electricity sold by TV A is generated through steam and only 20 percent is generated by the hydroelectric method.

I express the hope that some study will be given so that more and more of the profits of TVA can be made to op- . erate, and they will not have to come to the Treasury for funds as they do each year. I believe that can be done, and in the long run it might save the Government at least $50 million to $55 million per year. I believe there would be sufficient funds to generate this money, even though they had to borrow it.

Whether or not that can be worked out remains to be seen, but I express the hope that, since the TV A has the legal right at this time to bond itself for the construction of additional plants to generate electricity, that authority should be expanded so as to operate all facilities there. I believe it is possible, and it should be done.

Mr. SPARKMAN. It may be well to note that the TVA, under the law, is required to turn into the Treasury its profits. First, a certain portion is taken to pay what was agreed several years ~go to be a proper return on the money that the Government had invested in power activities, and any excess is turned in to the Treasury of the United States. And there have been substantial sums each year.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In conn'eCtion with steam generation, the Senator knows that one of the greatest nuclear power generating plants in the country, or in the world, is being built as part of the TVA system at Brown's Ferry, in Limestone County, Ala.

Mr. ELLENDER. · In other words, atomic energy is being used to produce power.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senatoc is correct.

Mr. ELLENDER. That means, of course, more power for sale. It will also mean, I hope, more profit for TVA. ·

That is an additional reason why I believe this Government-owned corpora- · tion should continue to pay into the Treasury until the money is paid ·out, and then I believe that sufficient funds can be realized, particularly when the debt is being reduced as we go along, so that any improvements can be paid for out of funds from the TV A, as well as the $50 million we now appropriate each year to operate it. I am very hopeful that something like that could be done, and it would show better in our debt as a whole.

The same principle, I hope, can be worked out with respect to many of the projects in the Northwest, because we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to construct facilities to generate electricity. Of course, the money goes into the Treasury, but those projects could be made more or less self-sustaining, and it would wipe out a good deal of our overall debt-tha1t is, it would transfer it to where it belongs.

Whenever a facility of this kind is built in the Northwest-in fact, any kind of dam-it is chaa-ged as an expense to the Government, when as a matter of fact, it is an investment.

In any event, I believe that something could be worked out particularly with the TV A since it is a-Government corporation with authority to borrow. I am sorry that the Senate could not have retained more of the increases I have just indicated.

The conference report provides $4,608,-421,000, which is $119,201,500 below the amount approved by the Senate and $109,198,000 above the House, and $300,-236,000 below the budget.

The committee made an effort to curtail expenses in the best possible way, and I am very hopeful that next year we may be able to place into the bill more money than has been appropriated this year so we can continue construction of many worthwhile projects that are now awaiting funds.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, having

served on the conference, I recall that the Senate conferees were able to retain 2 percent of the 5-percent cut imposed by the other body, and also a portion of the slippage, which amounts to an additional $30 million a year.

Am I correct in my understanding that the total increase over the House amount accompanied by the conference bill is about 5 percent?

Mr. ELLENDER. That is just about the figure. The cuts a.greed upon, and also the slippage. It was really and truly a 50-50 split.

Mr. HOLLAND. In other words, the improvement in the funds that will be available for each project, and some of them were very badly . affected by ' the cuts in the other body, have been cut down about 50 percent, and the total increase accomplished by reason of the Senate action here and in conference was about a 5-percent increase over the House amount.

.Mr! ELLENDER . . The Senator 1s correc!i.

July· 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 24175 Mr. HOLLAND. I thank -the Sen

ator; · Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? M11. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, although

my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER] was in the Senate Chamber yesterday and took part in the debate on the conference report on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, he has returned to Walter Reed Hospital for further tests today.

Before leaving, the Senator from Kentucky asked that I direct three questions to the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], who is the manager of the conference report.

As members of the committee and the chairman know, the Senator from Kentucky had offered an amendment in committee respecting the Red River Reservoir in Kentucky, which was adopted by the committee and included in the Senate bill. While the House conferees did not accept the Senate amendment, the conference report does include language respecting the ·Red River Reservoir.

I invite the Senator from Louisiana to tum to page 29 of the conference report.

Mr. ELLENDER. I have it. Mr. MILLER. The first point the Sena

tor from Kentucky wished to emphasize is that it is correct, is it not, that the language of the conference report directs the Chief of Engineers "to review the plans-for the Red River Reservoir-so as to preserve to the maximum extent feasible, the Red River Gorge."

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, that was a portion of the language in the conference report.

Mr. MILLER. The second question of the Senator from Kentucky is: In the next paragraph on page 29 the report states:

The conferees request the Chief of Engineers to report his findings to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as soon as possible.

The question is: Is it intended that the report of the Corps of Engineers be made prior to the time the committees act next year on the fiscal1970 appropriations?

Mr. ELLENDER. It is, but I doubt that the language in the report would prevent the expenditure of funds provided in the bill. We are trying to get the report as soon as we can, and I am very hopeful it can be obtained in time so as to find out whether or not it is feasible to reduce the size of the dam that has been actually chosen by the Engineers.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Louisiana. "As soon as possible" can mean many things. This colloquy pinpoints it to a hoped-for report before the time the committees act next year on the 1970 appropriations.

Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to make plain that this language does not in any way change the site.

Mr. MILLER. I understand. Mr. ELLENDER. But it would be pos

sible, if the Engineers can find some ways and means of constructing the dam at a lower level and obtain the same results so as to save this gorge, perhaps they can

do it; but it by no means changes the situation from what it is now.

Mr. MILLER. The third question is: In the same paragraph the conference report states:

Until he receives the concurrence of the Committees, the Chief of Engineers should proceed with land acquisition.

And, further: Construction shall be limited to such work

as wm not be affected by any changes in the reservoir size.

Is it correct, then, that the Corps of Engineers cannot proceed beyond land acquisition, and beyond such work as will not be affected by any change in the reservoir size, until it receives the concurrence of the two committees-both the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is correct in expressing it in that way. But as I said, there is no language that was agreed upon which would cause the site to be changed. That was the main issue, but efforts are being made by the Engineers to the end that a portion of this gorge may be saved and they may be able to find ways &.nd means to build this dam to retain the water, sufficient to satisfy the needs of several cities around there. I am very hopeful it can be worked out because, according to the testimony of the witnesses, this is ~:.. beautiful gorge, and, if possible, it should be saved.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator. Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,

the public works appropriations bill as agreed upon by House and Senate conferees is an acceptable compromise between the Bureau of the Budget recommendations which we in the Senate endorsed, and the considerably low Houseapproved sums. I urge the Senate to approve the conference report.

One Texas project that is of tremendous importance to my State was left out of the House bill. Fortunately, the esteemed Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] saw the importance of construction of bridges along the Trinity River in Texas to speed along the longrange development of that river for both navigational and other purposes. At my urging and with Senator ELLENDER's generous support, the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $1 million to build those bridges. This is the real beginning of the great Trinity River project.

In conference committee, while some differences were being settled in a splitthe-difference manner, Senate conferees held firm for a larger sum. Thus, the report before us today includes $850,-000 for the Trinity bridges-an adequate sum to begin that very important project, though House of Representative objections to any moves for the Trinity River project resulted in the cut of $1 million allowed by the Senate, to the conference amount of $850,000.

I put my fellow Senators on notice that they will be hearing more about the Trinity River development project in the next few months. The Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget have recently given a go-ahead to this needed development of the Trinity River for

·multiple purposes of flood control, water utilization, and watershed developments.

·nme does· not penhit me to mention each of the Texas projects in this bill. but in view of the tight economic situation facing us, the 25 Texas projects fared fairly well. These are all important flood control and navigational programs that represent a sound investment in our State. Money we spend now preparing for weather disasters and attempting to prevent floods and damage can save great sums of money, and more importantly, lives, in the future. I urge adoption of the conference report on H.R.17903.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I move that the conference report be agreed to.

The conference report was agreed to. Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I sug

gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BYRD

of Virginia in the chair) . The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO TOMORROW AT 10 A.M.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.


ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to be recognized for a period not to exceed 5 minutes.


AID TO IMPACTED SCHOOL AREAS Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the second

supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal 1968, H.R. 17734, provided an additional $90,965,000 for the maintenance and operation of schools in areas impacted by large numbers of Federal employees. The bill specified that funds were "to remain available until July 31. 1968." Today is July 30, 1968, and tomorrow night at midnight that appropriation will lapse. As of this time, however, the Bureau of the Budget has not released the appropriation to the Office of Education for distri'bution to eligible school districts.

I question, first, the right of the Bureau of the Budget to withhold funds -appropriated by Congress, and, secondly, the basis the Bureau is giving for the withholding of these particular funds. The Bureau has said that since the second supplemental appropriations bill was not actually signed into law until July 9, 1968; that is, fiscal 1969, it is subject to the spending reductions provided for in the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act. I reject that argument. This appropriation was a fiscal 1968 appropriation to cover the operation of the impacted

' \

24176 CONG~SSIONAL' RECORD-· SENATE July 30; 1968

areas program during the fiscal 1968 period. And, on future audits of the Federal Government, this appropriation will !how up on.the 1isca11968 accounts.

Since the impacted aTeas program :was initiated in 1951, school distri~ts have always received almost 100 percent entitlement for this program. Without this appropriation, the eligible districts will receive only SO-percent entitlement for the 1967-68 school year. Yet many school districts planned last year's budget and operated during the school year which just passed in . anticipation of these funds .. Now, after the school year is over, the school districts. are being told that the funds will not be available. On February 20, when Senator FuLBRIGHT introduced an amendment which I cosponsored to provide the supplemental appropriation, he inserted into the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD a chart showing hOW much the supplemental would mean to various States.

I ask unanimous consent that the chart be reprinted at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the chart was ordered to ·be printed in the REcORD, as follows: SUMMARY OF ALLOCATION AND ESTIMATED NEED, PUBLIC

LAW 874 AS AMENDED, FISCAL YEAR 1968

State or territory 1968 1968 Difference appropriation entitlement

TotaL.... $395, 390, 000 $486, 355, 000 $90, 965, 000

Alabama ........ . Alaska . . _______ . Arizona .... ..... . Arkansas. _ .. . _._ California .... ___ _ Colorado _____ ___ _ Connecticut_ __ __ _ Delaware ____ ... _ District of Colum-bia _________ __ _ Florida . ________ _

~:~::r.-.-:======= Idaho. ___ ...... _ Illinois __ . ____ .. . Indiana __ _____ __ . Iowa ________ _ ---Kansas_. __ ..... _ Kentucky _______ _ louisiana. ______ . Maine ..... J ••••• Maryland _______ _ Massachusetts ...• Michigan _______ _ Minnesota ___ . __ _ Mississippi_ _____ _ Missouri.. __ -----Montana __ ______ _ Nebraska ___ ____ _ Nevada _____ . ___ _

- New Hampshire._ New Jersey _____ _ New Mexico _____ _ New York _______ _ North Carolina ... North Dakota ....• Ohio ___________ _ Oklahoma ___ ___ _ Oregon _________ _ Pennsylvania .... . Rhode Island .... . South Carolina ___ _ South Dakota ____ _ Tennessee ...... . Texas .. ---------Utah ___________ _ Vermont. ....... .

. Virginia ........ . Washington _____ _ West Virginia .... . Wisconsin ....... . Wyoming _______ _ Guam ___ _______ _ Puerto Rico __ . __ _ Virgin Islands .. __ Wake Island ____ _

8, 955, 406 9, 762,046 6, 285, 722 1, 953, 560

60,978,019 10, 290,723 2, 616, 498 2, 350, 131

4,618, 402 12, 953,787 12,330, 086 6, 857, 193 2, 418, 106 9, 983,678 3, 039,259 1, 787,388 6, 196, 140 6, 040, 371 3, 001 , 338 2, 661,479

18, 746, 284 10,412, 223 4, 981 , 623 1, 706, 172 2, 478, 037 5, 221,005 3,228,800 3, 802,700 2, 719,033 1, 859,828 7, 904, 435 7, 912,906

21,055,954 9, 344, 737 2, 359, 730 9, 660, 120 8, 932,441 1, 945,923 7, 313, 773 2, 638, 017 6,682, 898 3, 446,992 4, 915, 534

20,904, 631 4, 505, 686

122, 508 24,455,489 10, 549, 718

465,327 1, 669,789 1, 304, 017 1, 307, 307 5, 429,002

104,419 223, 610

10,888,075 12, 172, 490 7, 837, 792 2, 435, 933

76, 034,711 12, 831 , 708 3, 262,564 2, 671 , 001

1, 932,669 2, 410, 444 1, 552, 070

482, 373 15, 056, 692 2, 540,985

646, 066 320, 870

5, 758, 437 1, 140, 035 16, 030, 492 3, 076, 705 14, 496, 199 2, 166, 113 8, 550, 371 1, 693, 178 3, 015, 185 597' 079

12, 448, 848 2, 465, 170 3, 789, 713 750, 454 2, 228, 730 441' 342 7, 726, 091 1, 529, 951 6, 413, 502 373, 131 3, 713, 288 - 711, 950 3, 318, 651 657' 172

23, 377, 258 4, 630,974 12, 812, 595 2, 400, 372 6, 211 , 685 1, 230,062 2, 127,460 421,288 3, 089, 914 611, 877 6, 510, 176 1, 289, 171 4, 026, 055 797' 255 4, 741, 663 938, 963 3, 390, 417 671 , 384 2, 319, 057 459, 229 9, 856, 198 1, 951 , 763 9, 866, 761 1, 953, 855

26, 039, 763 4, 983, 809 10, 516, 563 1, 171, 826 2, 942, 395 582, 665

12, 045, 397 2, 385, 277 11, 138, 039 2, 205, 598 2, 419, 913 473, 990 9, 018, 024 1, 704, 251 3, 289, 396 651, 379 8, 041,698 1, 358, 800 4, 296, 706 849, 714 6, 129, 278 1, 213, 744

26, 066, 402 5, 161, 771 5, 618, 230 1, 112, 544

152,758 30, 250 29, 794, 811 5, 339, 322 13, 154, 654 2, 604, 936

580, 226 114, 899 2, 082, 093 412, 304 1, 626, 005 321, 988 1, 630, 107 322, 800 5, 465, 710 36,708

130, 202 25, 783 223,610 ------------

Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, as _the chart indicates, every State would be affected. I would now only point out that

the supplemental appropriation would mean $15 million to California, $5.4 million to Virginia, $5.1 million to Texas, $4.9 million for New York, $4.6 million for Maryland. It would mean $1.1 hlillio~ for the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I would like to repeat: Since 1951 States have almost always received almost 100-percent entitlement fo:r: this program. Both Hou8es of Congress are now on record as supporting fUll · entitlement for the school year which has now passed. Many school districts operated this past school year on budgets which anticipated these funds and will face serious financial problems if this supplemental is not released. In addition, the manner of payment for fiscal 1968 has produced a situation in which some districts will either have to return money already awarded them or have an amount subtracted from· next year's entitlement.

I wish today, to alert my colleagues to this situation and urge them to look into this matter of vital concern to public education.

ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is

the will of the Senate? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President,

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to call the roll. Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask

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


FOREIGN ASSIST~CE ACT, 1968 The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill (H.R. 15263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, the foreign authorization as passed by the House and subsequently reported to the Senate, contains a number of necessary recommendations and improvements. As a matter of personal preference, I would not choose to support reductions in the requested levels of expenditures. But I recognize the depth of the economic crisis which presently imperils our land. We are in a period of inflation. We do have a serious balance-of-payments problem. We have expended large ·amounts of scarce capital on the war in Vietnam. And we are faced with a domestic crisis which demands an increasing share of our national resources. For all these reasons, I can appreciate the fact that some reductions are necessary; and I commend the committee for its recognition of the need for continued aid, and for its endorsement of the program in these troubled times.

Foreign aid is the most concrete means we have to show that we share the

·aspirations of the less-developed lands. The United States has had its revolution. We developed our own form of government--and it was a very revolutionary

form of government at · the time. We criticized the old world and shut it · out of our councilS-but we took its money to build our roads and our railroads, to. develop our portis'aildbuild up our manufacturing. we-benefited greatly from the foreign aid which :flowed from Europe until less than a century ago, and we are now bound in formal alliance with the ver.y countries· we. ~once ~ condemned as corrupt colonial powers. What might have been the history of the world if we had not developed as rapidly as we did, or if we ·had concentrated on economic relations with-. Asia instead of with the West? we -should bear -these factors in mind -when . we consider the relative importance of the developing nations today.

It was only a few months ago that I rose to report to my colleagues on a lengthy tour of Africa. I was impressed then, and I am still impressed, with the economic potential of that vast Continent. An area containing 65 percent of the world's gold, 96 percent of its dia.:. monds, nearly one-half its hydroelectric i>ower, as well as vast reserves of copper: aluminum, oil, and foodstuffs, is im~ portant, to the United States and to the world. Yet Africa is only one of many areas of the developing world. When the resources, the land, and the population of Asia and Latin America are added i~ as well, we find tbat the West could conceivably be overshadowed in the world economy of the future. We must acknowledge that purely on the basis of "power" considerations, we cannot afford to risk the alienation from the West of this growing and signiftca,.nt force. ·

But foreign aid is also important on the basis of humanitarian consiqerations. I have seen the potential wealth of the developing world. But I have also ·seen its hungar, its disease, its illiteracy; and deprivation. I have seen the difference which a highway can make in a region, the jobs which a small assembly plant can provide, the hope which a new school supplies. I am not one of thos~ who scoff at the humanitarian impulse in foreign affairs, who deride it as softheaded and irrelevant to the hard calculations of geopolitics.

The disease and despair which sap the strength of millions of Asians and Africans also saps the strength of the world at large. When one great mind is lost because nobody cares or contributes to its growth, the loss is borne by us all. When a democratic government is over .. thrown because it was incapable of keeping even its minimal promises to its people, we share in its failure. When a people turn to totalitarianism because ~pitr..lism and free enterprise have only increased its debt, the blame often rests as much on the West as well as it does on them.

Mr. President, I know that some of the developing nations of the world have been guilty of gross mistakes: their .corruption is not our fault; their impatience is often unwise and -unproductive; their criticism sometimes has been intemperate and unfounded. But the errors are not all theirs, and .we who are more experienced and more highly developed

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 24177 bear a major responsibility for the wel.fare of the whole.

Looking over the bill as passed by the House and reported by. the . .Poreign Re:'latians. Committee ... this year, _ I · ...... was .tempted to .introduce an .amendment ~e.,. storing the :full amonnt, $765 million, requested for the Development Loan Fund. 1 would like to see us allocate $235 million for technical .·cooperation, rather than :the $200 milliox: presently contained in the bill. Though I have never been to Latin America, I have an appreciation for the distance these countries must tr:avel ~d !or their imP.:Qrtance to 4roerica and to the world: I would like to see u8 grant ·the adminis.tration's full request for the shaky Alliance for Progress. Our contributions to international organizations are of critical importance not only in maintaining these bodies but in maintaining their credibility and effectiveness; I believe these should receive full funding as well. Finally, I would like to see the :full amount restored for surveys of investment opportunities abroad, for it is only through private in-: vestment, through capital accumulation and domestic savings, that the developing nations of. the world will be able to attain a level of even moderate economic viability. . All of these programs are important to us. and criti<:al to the well-being of the recipients. But if there is one provision in the bill which will hurt the developing oountrl..es the most while helping our economy the least, it is the provision in<ireasing the· interest r~te on development loans.

In talking with the leaders of a number. of African states. I was startled to learn that many of these countries-PQOr and struggling as they are---are on the verge of becoming capital-exporting states. In" practical terms, this means that the total reven'Jes they receive from selling their raw materials abroad, from private investment, from intergovernmental and international loans. and even from tourism and other sources, does not equal the iimount of hard currency they must pay out ~in interest and amortization on development loans.

In Liberia, for example, which has benefited the longest from American largesse, the largest single item in the national budget is service charges on international debts. Such charges are expected to reach a peak in 1969 of onethird of tht} total national budget. Yet Liberia is a wealthy country by African standards, and enjoys liberal shares of American and European private investment.

Other countries, such as Ghana and · the Congo--Kinshasa-have not been so fortunate; they have been unable to meet their international obligations and have found it necessary to call in international assistance to reschedule their loans, devalue their currency, and extend sl:lpporting loans to keep their economy going.

Sustained and reasonably rapid development of the newer nations of the world is . in our . national interest as we.ll as theirs. But acceleration of this process is predicated upon increased internal capital formation, aided and ofteD! supported by continued net capital inflow from the industrialized co\mtries.

CXIV--1523-Part 18

The new nations need, first of all, . to develop their infrastructure. To do this, they need to import substantial quantities of capital goods; they need to expand :production; they must .educate their .people, .employ them, and tax them in order to create domestic savings which can be returned to the economy in the form of investment. Every dollar which they., save, .and can put back into their economy in the form · of an investment in roads or schools or processing plants, may reap returns of tenfold or fiftyfold or a hundredfold in the future. But if that dollar is paid to Britain or France or the United States in the form of interest on an intema.tional debt, it will be of no value to them. while representing a minimal gain-if tha1r-to the richer industrialized states.

A study conducted by the World Bank in 1964 showed that the external debt of developing. countries rose from $8 billion in 1956 to $27.5 billion in 1962. By the end of 1964, that figure stood at $38 billion. Today it is $44 billion. The annual cost of servicing this debt is $4.1 billion. As a percentage of GNP, the debt increased fr-om 5.9 percent in 1956, to 17.8 percentJn 1964.

Under these circumstancesr it appears to be exceedingly counter-productive to increase the interest rate on our development loans. Our aim should be to make it easier, not harder, for the new nations to meet their international obligations. It stands to their credit that so far the developing nations have taken great pains, even foregoing projects which would spur. their own development and greatly improve the lives of their people. in order .to repay their debts to the West. No poor nation should be required to expend one-third or one-half--or even onetenth--of its hard-earned national income on repayment of loans to the rich.

The terms of international loans should be extended and made softer, not harder, so that repayment will come at a time when the debtor country is more economically advanced and the servicing charges and amortization .will represent a less drastic proportion of the total national income. Terms of 40 or 50 years, with interest rates of 1 percent or less, would not be unreasonable if our objective is truly-as I believe it is-to enable the new nations of the world to become economically viable and politically stable. Surely if we could extend Lend-Lease and Marshall Plan aid to the industrialized countries of Europe at no interest whatsoever, and in the case of Lend-Lease, with no real expectation of repayment, we can extend loans of lesser amounts to poorer countries at terms which are better than those recommended in the present legislation.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which would restore the rate to its present level of 2 and 2% percent. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as

follows: On page 17, strike out lines 4 to 15, in

clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEc. 101. Section 202(a) of title I of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which relates to author-

izatlon !or the Development Loan Pund, is amended as follows:". · Mr~ MUNDT. Mr. President, for the

record, I want . to give my reasons for having . supported the !Committee inter.; est-rate , amendment-having authored it, in fact-and my reasons for feeling that the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. wen intentioned though it is, wonld, in my opinion, be a backward step in the whole program of America's trying to be of assistance to other areas of the world. We now have a foreign-aid measure before us which is the lowest since the beginning of the- program in·· authorizations-less .th~ $a billion. . ·

Most of those cuts emanated from the House. where we hear reports now that this is just a beginning, that this is just the authorization bill, and that when the appropriation bill comes before the: House lt is going to get substantially additional cuts.

I also know of some Senators with amendments in their pocket.s to reduce substantially the amount authorized in the bill. - One of the reasons for the sharp at

tacks on the foreign-aid program is the fact that for far too long we bave not dealt candidly with the American public in distinguishing between what is a development loan and what is a grant. There have in the main been two different. names for very similar program~ because when we started this business of trying to divide up and divorce loans from grants, the loan prog,ram carried the ridiculously low and unrealistic rate of one-fourth of 1 percent interest. -

Mr. President, in company primarily with the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] and with Senator SYMINGTON missing, who are not present at the time I am speaking, we began offering amendments and working the futerest rate up from one-fourth of 1 percent to one-half of 1 percent, to 1 percent, and finally last year to 2 percent.

Since then, we are well aware of what is happening to interest rates around the world and at home. The farmers represented by the Members of the Senate are paying the highest interest rates in the memory of anybody currently engaged in farming and ranching in this country. The householders are confronted with high interest. mo:r;tgages and are, con- . fronted with the same problem in their personal borrowings. American interest rates have skyrocketed to new and dangerous heights.

High interest rates are reducing sharply the program for new home con- . struction which is so highly important in this country. Small businessmen and individual entrepreneurs are faced with high interest rates which are fantastic in terms of the normal interest they ·used to pay.

For us to fail to recognize this significant economic fact and to revert now back to 2 percent, would be to drive a knife directly at the heart of the whole foreign aid program, because both in the House and in the ·Senate there would understandably and properly be efforts made to reduce substantially the amount of money included in the bill-$1.9 bil-


lion-b-y perhaps another $500 mtllion or more.

We do have a foreign grant program to meet the kind of problems discussed by the Senator from Massachusetts. Where there is some urgent need in dire, calamitous circumstances, we not only have a grant program, but we also provide a contingency fund for the President that he can make available on any terms he chooses-usually no interest at all-to help meet such problems.

Confronted with the challenging problems in Africa to which the distinguished Senator has addressed some of his remarks, the pending bill contains funds in a very limited degree for a markedly small percentage of the problem countries in Africa. And one reason that it has not been expanded to include other countries in Africa where conditions are analogous, where the problems are equally prodigious, is that first we wanted to figure out if we could work out a viable, economically sound, justifiable program of development loans and grants as a mixture for the struggling new countries of Africa.

If we were now to eliminate the sound, economic concept of a fairly legitimate interest rate, we might well be putting an end to an African program which may become increasingly significant to this country and to that continent in the years to come. We have to mix our humanitarianism with a sense of reality.

Mr. President, this country is on the verge of financial disaster. And if we collapse, it certainly is not going to be of any benefit to countries in Africa or anyplace else in the world if the one strong, friendly power to which they come seeking assistance is unable even to meet its own obligations.

This is the Congress 'which passed the 10-percent surtax on the incomes of Americans and corporations because of the dangerous fires of inflation. One of the great signals suggesting t!le need for this surtax was the astronomical interest rates being paid at home by Americans.

At the same time, we included in the package a provision that we would cut back expenditures by $6 billion, and we put limitations on the Federal payroll.

We did this not because a single Senator or Representative who voted for the package had a desire to do it, but because we were compelled to do it out of a sense of responsibility to meet our fiscal problems.

Surely one of the concomitants has to be that we have to consider with equal prudence our spending abroad as we do at home. We must come clean with the American public and maintain a substantial difference between a grant and a loan.

What are the rates that are incorpo-rated in the committee bill? Mr. President, it is 3 percent for the next 10 years. That is less than one-half of what an American farmer pays. This is less than half of what a great many borrowers in America pay for their interest rates. We did not say we wanted to get back all that it costs America to borrow the money to loan to these other countries.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MUNDT. Yes. Mr. BROOKE. Can we really compare

the purpose and philosophy of foreign assistance with the problem of the American farmer?

When we give foreign assistance, it is not our purpose mainly-or our purpose at all-to make money on our loans. We are not in the foreign assistance program for any gains that we can make or derive from money we give to those countries for foreign assistance. And it is not a grant. They are paying these sums back to the American Government.

The question here is, can they afford large interest rates? Is it self-defeating to fncrease the interest rates at a time when the servicing charges are already rising to one-third of their national income? How can they afford to pay back such large interest rates on the money we give them?

Mr. MUNDT. I quite agree that it is not the purpose of the foreign aid program to make profits for America. At the time the Senator asked me to yield, I was pointing out that, in the main, we were granting foreign aid borrowers an interest rate less than half of what we charge ourselves-almost, and in many instances less than, half what it costs Uncle Sam to borrow the money.

The Senator must keep in mind that the loans we are making are not made from the abundance of this country, not from our surplus. We go out in America and borrow the money, frequently paying more than 6 percent, for the purpose of loaning it abroad at 3 percent. There is no effort to make a profit on it.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUNDT. Permit me to answer the second point. The Senator's second point was that some countries would find it difficult to pay 3 percent interest.

First of all, that is the best bargain counter in the world to which they can come. No place else in the world can they get money at 3 percent interest. In many of these countries, especially in Latin America, the prevailing rate of interest is 10 percent, 12 percent, 25 percent, and as high as 30 percent. No place else in all the world can they get a 3-percent interest rate.

Now, if they are in such dire circumstances that they cannot pay a 3-percent interest rate <.'n the loan, it seems to me that we should call it a grant; because it is obvious, then, that they cannot pay the principal and they cannot amortize the loan, and they can never square that account.

There may be places where we should help in that way. I have voted for that kind of assistance. We have a grant fund for that purpose. The President has a fund for that purpose. But there is no reason to deceive the public by giving these· countries what is called a loan, and then have the interest rates so ridiculously low that, in addition to the problematical question of whether they will repay the principal, you subsidize their interest payments at over 3 percent per year per loan.

Mr. BROOKE. These countries want to help themselves. They do not want grants, in the main.

Mr. MUNDT. There are not very_many of those; but, if there are any, I would be happy to have them come here in greater numbers.

Mr. BROOKE. They are asking for loans, not for grants, and they are asking for them at a low interest rate, which is understandable. It is certainly better for us to give them a loan than to give them a grant or a handout.

Mr. MUNDT. It is not very much better, if it is cut down to 2 percent. It does not make it much different. If the interest rate is that low, you are practically subsidizing the whole thing, anyway.

May I point out that long before the distinguished Senator came to the Senate, Senator LAuscHE and I began to explore this matter. Not only was the interest rate one-quarter percent, but, also, we gave them a 10-year grace period in which they paid no interest and no principal. And we found out that in many cases, after 10 years, the fellow who made_ the bargain and signed the loan had been shot out of the saddle or had died or had been defeated in an election. He was not around, and his successor was not going to assume those responsibilities. So we decided that we had better institute some bookkeeping procedures, and that they should start to make some payments immediately.

If I had my way, in addition to the 3 percent, I would have them pay at least some fractional percent on the principal, and begin the amortization procedure without the 10-year grace period, so that they would get good- bookkeeping habits and have the sound fiscal experience of realizing that a loan must be repaid and that they must start budgeting procedures in their own country, in order to make some repayment.

However, because I, like the Senator from Massachusetts, am kindhearted and want to help them as much as possible, we are not insisting on their repaying the loans at once. We are giving them a 10-year grace period during which the interest rate is only 3 percent with no repayments on the principal. That is all they pay. The remainder is from Uncle Sam.

Mr. BROOKE. Certainly, the Senator is aware that the profit to the United States and to the world is the economic viability and political stability of these developing nations. Although we do not expect to derive any financial profits from our loans, it is a great profit tc the United States that these countries have political stability, and so it is a sound investment to lend them this money.

Mr. MUNDT. That is why I voted for the foreign aid program.

Mr. BROOKE. It is a sound investment to lend them this money at an interest rate they can afford to pay and not compel them to use up one-third of their national income to service the debt.

Mr. MUNDT. If they will start spending a little less money on super jets and all kinds of modern military establishments in all these infant countries, where they have no possibility of ever building an army big enough to defend them against a great attacker, and get rid of some of the corruption and have a reasonable tax rate, it would help. Three

July 30, J968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24179 percent is a very small interest rate for them to pay.

Mr. BROOKEt I am not talking about the building of armies b'Qt the building of roads and schools and hospitals.

Mr. MUNDT. In many Instances ·we give them grants for that.

Mr. BROOKE. The U.S. Government has recognized the value of low interest rates in its own domestic policies. In the housing bill which passed the Congress recently, we recognized that many of the people living in poverty in the United States today cannot afford to pay the normal interest rates in this country. So we have a sliding scale providing for a minimum interest rate of 1 percent contained in that bill. Thus low interest rates are not unusual for our Govemmen.t.

Our Government is not acting solely from humanitarian motivations; it is also acting from a very pragmatic point of view. It understands that there is no point in charging interest rates to people who cannot afford to pay those interest rates. The developing countries are 1n the same dire circumstances in which we find people who are living in poverty in this country.

I agree with the distinguished Senator that we are in a financial crisis at borne:. and I believe this has been reflected in the cutback in foreign assistance, in the first instance. I would much rather give these countries X number Of dollars in foreign assistance at an interest rate they will be able to pay, than to give them that amount of money at an interest rate they cannot afford.

Mr. MUNDT. I am sure if the Senator could have his way, he would push these interest rates down now, in an era when they are climbing all over the world,· including our own country, and compelling us to subsidize by 4 or 4¥2 percent. But the committee is willing to subsidize it up to 3 percent. There would be many hundreds of millions of dollars less in this particular aid bill were it not for the fact that we did put in some hone~ty in the fiscal requirements. we· did not raise the interest rates to what we have to pay for borrowing the money, but moved a little in that direction and increased it by 1 percent; and we made a better distinction between what is a grant and what is a loan. This is important. And we will have to keep that distinction.

We do give some grants to build a hospital or a school. We do not expect to get that money back. When it is a loan, certainly it is not too much to ask the foreign country to pay back half the interest rate that we must pay and thus we arrived at the 3-percent rate.

It is not done to make a profit. It still manifests a great deal of good will on our part and a desire to create whatever political stability and economic viability these grants provide.

If the Senator will take a look at the $125-odd billion we have spent so far in the foreign aid program and if he will examine the 104 countries to which that money has gone, he will be terribly disappointed when he calls the roll of the countries that have attained economic viability and political stability 'as a con-sequence. ·

· Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUNDT .. I yield. Mr. CASE. I believe this has been a

very useful exchange, on a level that does the Senate credit.

The Senator from South Dakota knows this · subject from long experience; and the Senator from Massachusetts knows it from a shorter experience but from a deep study of it. There is right on both sides.

The difference between 2 percent and 3 percent is not very large. The question is: Where do we put it? My own consideration of this matter has led me to the view that until we have had the kind of deep study of this foreign aid program that I hope is going to be instituted under the guidance of our Committee on Foreign Relations--the chairman, as the Senator knows, has been considering plans for this for some time-it might be well to leave the situation in its present state so far as the interest rate on development loans is concerned. That is where I come to rest on this question.

I think the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Ohio, and othel'8, have done a real service in, as the Senator said, requiring that we make a real distinction between loans and grants in this entire business of foreign aid. I think we have done that. An interest rate of 2 percent is not high. It involves a subsidy; so does 3 percent. There is involved only the question of how much.

It seems to me we have established that we are making loans and not grants under the development loan program. It might be well to hold the 2 percent rate for another year or so until we have done what I think w~ must do, which is to make a very, very careful study as to whether our program is sound in all of its aspects, if it is sound in any event, indeed.

Recently many people have studied this mat.ter. Gunnar Myrdal has studied the matter very deeply, and he has come up with the conclusion that for the most part foreign aid has not been very helpful; that there is not very much a country can do for another country if the recipient country is not going to make the effort itself; and that much of our foreign aid program :Q.as been wasted money and has gone the wrong way.

Such conclusions are shocking to liberal groups, to which Gunar Myrdal has a right to belong and does belong. All of this indicates we should have a basic look at this matter. I suggest that in considering this question no real harm can be done in the distinction between loans and grants by leaving the interest rate at 2 percent for the next year.

I think I find quite persuasive the general proposition that "You do not give or lend money to anybody for anything that is not worthwhile." Once it is decided to do this then it is done on the basis that would be most helpful to the country to which the money is given.

Mr. MUNDT. And that is the point. The loans define themselves as to develop some kind of viable economic interest, or enterprise, or activity over there; and they should be able to pay legitimate interest.

Mr. CASE. The bulk of this has to be done by recipient countries themselves.

Mr. MUNDT. The Senator 15 correct. Mr. CASE. All grant and aid programs

are going to do very little except make a marginal difference.

Mr. MUNDT. A development loan is a sort of extended technical assistance to supplement technical training with a little seed money, but if that is to be done, certainly they can pay 3 percent a year, which is a nominal interest rate. Primarily we are talking about a 1 percent di:fference. It is 2 percent now. The question is: Is 1 percent additional going to bankrupt the foreign country? If so, its enterprise is not working and the program is not properly planned if it cannot make that kind of payment.

Mr. President, I speak as one who supported and voted for this foreign aid program in committee and on the floor of the Senate. This whole aid concept, h(}wever, is going to be driven into the ground by hollering too long, too loud, for too much. It is a little like complaining about the goose that laid. the golden egg because you did not find a 14-carat diamond in the yoke of the egg,

I have served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the other body. I also know the sentiment of Sena.tors who serve on our Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. This is an authorization bill and it is still subject to major cuts. In my opinion major proposals to cut will be offered, and in my opinion they will be valid if we are going to shovel this money out at such cheap interest rates when American citizens are paying over twice the rate being asked abroad and when every taxpayer is being asked to subsidize at 3 percent every dollar we make available.

It is fruitless and futile to debate this matter further among ourselves. I ask that the yeas and nays be ordered if the Senator determines to press his amendment. We can debate it later in the afternoon when we have a larger at-tendance to hear our views. ·

Mr. CASE. It would be a shame to have any more pearls drop on the barren soil.

Mr. MUNDT. They may all be read in the RECORD tomorrow, but that does not help much if we are to vote today.

Ml'. CASE. Two percent is not too bad. There was a time when the farmers of this country and those in rural areas paid 2 percent to bring in electricity. It did not mean that those people were no good, but they could not afford more. By giving them electricity~ it brought them in in a way that has been enormously helpful in raising the standard of living in our rural areas and in our city areas, because the market is improved by prosperous farmers. So it is not strange to have a subsidy for this kind of thing.

Mr. MUNDT. I am willing to let the subsidy continue up to the extent of the 3-percent level.

Mr. BROOKE. This 1-percent increase in the interest rate is quite sizable. The Senator says it is insignificant, but everything is relevant.

Mr. MUNDT. Not sizable in view of the amount of the loan. I am convinced many recipient ·countries would be cut out of an loans if the rate is going to be chiseled down to 2 percent.

;

24180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 3o, 1968 Mr. BROOKE. I would like 'to add.that

default in these intema.tiori.al 'loans has not gone above 5 percent. I thililt that is significant. I think it is a statistic that should be included in th~ RECORD.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senator from Massachusetts. We had a vote on this matter in committee. The vote was 10 to 6 in favor of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. I do not mind saying that personally I voted against. it because I felt very much as the Senator from Massachusetts has brought out ·here. After all, these loans are for the purpose of helping emerging nations to develop an economy of their own and to help them get on their . feet so they can buy products. In other words, this is not wholly charitable on our part. There is a great degree of charity in it, but we are trying to get it established to the point they can buy products we manufacture in this country that we do not sell to more advanced nations and industrial nations, but that we can sell to them. If we develop those markets, the bread cast upon the waters is going to return with great benefits to us.

Therefore, I felt we . could very well afford the low rate of illlterest. To us, the rate is low. To many of them it is not low because it is dimcult to raise the money to make the interest payment and to make their payments on the loans.

One thing for us . to remember--and I am afraid many of our people overlook the fact-is that these are not giveaways. We have gotten away from the giveaway programs long ago. These are loans, payable in hard money. The interest is also payable in hard money. There is no soft currency, no local currency involved in this at all. Not only that, but the countries to which over the past decade, even over the past two decades, we have made loans have a very fine record of repayment, as well as payment of the interest. When we take those things into consideration and take all the benefits that have come to us in the nature of payments on interest and principal, and make the reductions, we find that this figure, instead of being $122 billion, $142 billion, $170 billion-1 have seen all those figures used at different times-and actually I tried to bring out some of those points in the talk I made yesterday afternoon initiating this debate-it comes down to considerably lower than that.

I am in complete sympathy with the Senator's amendment. I voted for it in committee. I said what I could for it. But the vote in committee was 10 to 6 against it, and that is the reason that it was not written into the bill.

Of course another thing for us to remember is that this legislation will be in conference between the Senate and the House, because the House bill retains the old rate of interest.

That is all I care to say at this time. Mr. BROOKE. I thank the distin-

. guished Senator from . Alabama and would point out that I was aware of the committee vote of 10 to 6. Judging from the statements of the Senator from New Jersey .[Mr. CASE] onthe floor this after-

noon it . seems clear that" had he been present and voting, he · would have oppoSed the increase in the iriterest rate. That would have made the vote 10 to 7 in committee.

Mr. MUNDT. ,That is still a majority, however.

Mr. BROOKE. Of course-yes, but it would have been a closer vote if the Senator from New Jersey had been voting.

Mr. President; I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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


Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, in view of the vote of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in view of the discussion on the floor of this matter today, and in view of the position of the House on the 2-percent rate, I would hope that in conference the House version of a 2-percent interest rate would be followed and adhered to.

Falling short of that, I would hope that our conferees would take into consideration the points made in debate here this afternoon. and that they will come to some agreement, if not to the 2 percent, then certainly no more than 2% percent.

In accordance with that, Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

The Chair now recognizes the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MoNDALE].

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The amendment offered by Mr. MoNDALE, is as follows:

On page 17, lines 18 and 19, strike all of subsection (2), and insert the following in lieu thereof: ·

"(2) After 'year 1968,' insert 'and $550,-000,000 for the fiscal year 1969, of which $200,000,000 shall be .expended solely for purchase by recipient countries of fert111zer, seed, pesticides, farm equipment and supplies, and other goods directly used in agricultural development. Priority shall be given to those recipient countries devoting substantial resources to agricultural self-help and development'."

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, reductions thus far made in the development loan authorization in the foreign aid bill are extremely severe. They will seriously cripple and retard the beginning of the agricultural revolution in the starving

· areas of the world. The specter of famine still hangs over

much of the population of the world, particularly over the peoples of Asia. Development loan funds are central to the effort to dispel this specter, and are used to finance imports by the United States to the less-developed nations, such as fertilizer, seed, pesticides, and needed modern farm equipment.

There' is now underway in Asia an agricultural revolution, extending 'from Turkey to the Philippines; and encompassing countries coniaining well over 1 billion people. '

This agricultural revolution ·in Asia may be the most significant, worldwide, economic development since the reconstruction of Europe following World War II. .

I think this is a fact of which Congress and the Senate in particular is not fully aware.

In the July 1968, issue of Foreign Affairs, there is a remarkable article written by Mr. Lester Brown, one of the foremost experts on the world food problem and now serving with the Department of · Agriculture. The article is entitled, "Agricultural Revolution in Asia." · He states, on page 698, that as a result of certain changes that I am discussing particularly:

It is conceivable that the 2 percent rate of increase· in foOd production prevalllng during the early. and mid-1960s could accelerate

· to 4 or 5 percent yearly over the next few years, provided markets can absorb the additional output. The additional purchasing power thus generated for both prOduction and consumer goods will stimulate a more rapid rate of groWth in the non-farm' se'ctor. The net effect should be a much more· rapid rate of overall economic growth than would otherwise have prevailed. If the Asian agricultural revolution continues, it could well become the most significant world economic development since the economic rebirth of Europe following .world War II.

. Let me j.ust indicate the magnitude of some of the. agricultural advances in several key counties. India's feed grain harvest is up 32 percent over last year's drought-depressed levels and, more importantly, 12 percent above the previous record. Pakistan's wheat harvest is .up 40 percent over the previous record. Ceylon's rice crop is up 13 percent~ The Philippines is self-suftlcient in . rice ,fo.r the first time since 1903, and · may eVt;d be an exporter this year. .

The most significant aspect . of this . revolution from our point of view is the extent to which it is U.S . . inspired and generated. The U.S. involvement, both public and private, is in evidence· in every important area.. AID and USDA have contributed to the formulation of needed agricultural policies. Our landgrant colleges and universities have tr~:tined the . Asian agriculturalists who are leading this revolution. AID funds h~ve financed much of the rural infrastructure and the import of fertiliZer. Agricultural research programs of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have developed the exciting new high-yield varieties of wheat and rice. And u.s. firms are building a majority · of the fertilizer plants in these countries.

We have triggered a revolution in food production in the rural economitis 'of Asia, and can take a great deal of pride in this national achievement.

The article to which I earlier referred, by Mr. Brown, points out the revolutionary character of the high-yielding varieties of cereal seeds now being used in Asia. These seed· varieties were developed at the International Rice Institute in the Philippines; funded jointly by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. bther simi-

July f!O, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24181 lar creative work has developed new seed varieties elsewhere.

Mr. Brown points out that areas planted to the new varieties went from a few hundred acres in 1964-65, to 23,000 acres in 1965-66, nearly 4 million acres in 1966-67, and 20 .million acres in 1967-68, the crop year just ended. Plans and expectations for next year indicate an expansion of up to nearly 40 mtllion acres.

These new seed varieties often double the yields of traditional varieties. Their superiority, according to Mr. Brown, is so obvious that farmers are quickly persuaded of their merits. This contrasts sharply . with improved varieties made available in the past, which were only marginally superior to the varieties being used.

These new seeds have enabled Asian countries to shorten materially the agricultural development process.

There are many, many other features of these new seed varieties, such as their short-stem characteristics, which prevent lodging, which means becoming topheavy and falling down. They are more responsive to fertilizers at all levels of application.

These seeds are adaptable to a much broader range of latitudes.

Mr. Brown states that the new varieties ripen in 120 to 125 days, contrasted with 150 to 180 days in older varieties. They are not as sensitive to varying lengths of daylight. Because of the shorter growing period, with adequate water some farmers in the Philippines and India are harvesting two, and even three, crops a year.

To show the revolutionary nature of these new seed varieties, there has been production in some areas of 8 tons per acre per year, contrasted with average earlier rice yields in Japan of 2 tons or wheat yields in Europe of less than 2 tons per acre.

Th.ere is no question that this new re. markable development is in fact creating an agriqultural revolution in Asia.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MONDALE. I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLARK. As I understand the Senator's amendment, it would increase the authorization in the bill by approximately $200 million. Is that correct?

Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is cor. rect.

Mr. CLARK. And the increase would go to supply countries which are endeavoring to raise enough food to supply their populations, many of which are now sUtl'ering from malnutrition; enough food to maintain a decent standard of life.

Mr. MONDALE. That is correct. The additional authorization I have requested would be tied to the agricultural problem and the food problem.

Mr. CLARK. The net result would be · to help feed the hungry with new and . extraordinarily splendid research and development in agriculture which has enabled us to obtain greater nutrition at really less cost.

Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is cor·. rect. · .

Mr. CLARK. I am happy indeed to support the Senator.

In my individual views, which I filed with the report of the committee, on which I have the honor to serve, I stated:

I regret the cutbacks in the foreign aid program which are made in this bill. These cutbacks are not justified either on grounds of economy or of performance py the Agency for International Development.

The bill as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations involves a reduction of almost $1 billion from the administration request. The saving thereby effected is substantially less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, but it will be made at great cost to our foreign policy.

The bill as reported is almost $400 million below the total amount of economic assistance approved by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. I would have supported the President's original recommendations. At the least, I supported the levels of the House Committee's bill as a bare minimum, but when I moved to restore those figures in the Foreign Relations Committee, the motion was rejected by a vote of 3 to 15.

I am happy to see that the Senator from Minnesota is, in this amendment, at least restoring some part of the funds the President requested, · arid which I thought were justified. I think the area in which he moves to help the peoples of underdeveloped areas of the world is praiseworthy. I am happy indeed to support his amendment.

Mr. MONDALE. I thank the Senator. I agree with him that the President's total proposed authorization should be

.approved. I think it is unlikely at this time that Congress will do so. There are other areas that need additional funding from our own standpoint and in terms of our need to help develop a stable world; but it seemed . to me particularly ironic that side by side with this agricultural revolution, which is full of so

·much potential for peaceful development . in the world, we should be cutting the assistance · necessary to promote that development practically down to nothing at this time. I think we are doing a terribly unwise thing.

Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I concur entirely in what he has just said. I fear that some of us in this body are losing our sense of reality and our sense of priorities, and indeed our sense of compassion, in what seems to me to be a headlong effort to cut off programs which have been of so much help to the world and of great credit to the United States.

Mr. MONDALE. I thank the Senator. As the Senator knows, one of the most extensive programs and one of the most exciting humanitarian : programs ever undertaken by the Congress is the foodfor-peace program, which has essentially been a program of food assistance for the starving peoples of the world.

Now, for the first time, because of these exciting new seed varieties and other developments in food-deficient countries, we have an opportunity to start prodding them toward food independence, to the point where not only will their people be fed, but their economies will have a chance to take off in other ways and be more self-su11icient. The chances for direct savings in the

. American budget in the not too distant future are obvious. But even more importantly, we have a chance here to con-

tribute to this peaceful revolutionary development, to the point where these countries can be more independent and more self-sufficient, and, because of that, in a position to contribute to stability and peaceful works in this troubled world.

Mr. CLARK. I believe the Senator is quite correct. I think it is somewhat ironic that in all likelihood-though I hope I am wrong-some time next month we will vote, after very brief debate, without much consideration, on a total military budget of $82 billion to destroy wealth and kill people; but when it comes to a compassionate act such as is represented by this bill, we hesitate; and I fear that the Senator's amendment may not prevail.

Mr. MONDALE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MONDALE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. MOSS. First, I wish to commend the Senator for his thoughtfulness and courage in offering this amendment to increase the appropriation for foreign assistance, directing his discussion, at least, toward the phase of foreign assistance which consists in helping other countries become more self-sufficient in food, and pointing to the increased yield of new seed varieties, classification of lands, applicatidn of fertilizers fitted to the particular soil and climatic conditions, and these other matters.

I have at the desk, and hope to offer later, an amendment which has much the same objectives as that of the Senator from Minnesota.

Did I understand the Senator to say that the Philippines, this year, would be self-sufficient in the production of rice?

Mr. MONDALE. Yes. This is the first year since 1903 that the Philippines have been self-sufficient. Indeed, this year they are an exporting coontcy for the first time since 1903.

Mr. MOSS. And that both India and Pakistan have made phenomenal increases, percentagewise, in the amounts of grains that are produced in those two nutrition-deficient countries?

Mr. MONDALE. Yes. As a matter of fact, Pakistan's wheat harvest this year is 40 percent over their previous record year. Ceylon's rice crop is up 13 percent, and India's feed grain harvest is 12 percent above its highest previous level .

Mr. MOSS. And those are but examples, I take it, of the beginnings of this agricultural revolution that we have helped to spark, and have been pressing so far, but which we are now retreating from precipitously, at the very tinie when it begins to bear the marks of success, when it begins to appear we are, indeed, moving the food-deficient countries of the world into a position where they can begin to feed themselves?

Mr. MONDALE. That is correct; at the very time when limited but wisely used American assistance could prod them along and assist them in reaching selfsufficiency in agricultural production. At that very point, we seem to be cutting back on the effort.' It seems, in my opinion, to be a very unwise policy, for which I fear we may pay dearly.

Mr. MOSS. It has been our experience,

24182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE July 30) 1998 I think, as a nation-and I ask the Senator's opinion on this point-that when countries are starving and hungry, there is no possibility of stability;• there is always unrest, with a likelihood of some kind of conflict coming out of it, at which point we seem to become involved one way or the other, and usually expend a lot of money either trying to give military assistance to neighbors who may be set upon, or, in some cases, even becoming directly involved with our own personnel. Is that not correet?

Mr. MONDALE. I would certainly agree with the Senator's observation on that point.

Mr. MOSS. The Senator's amendment would increase the appropriated figure by $200 million, is that correct?

Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is correct. Mr. MOSS. Would that make the total

any l:ligher than it was last year? Mr. MONDALE. I am advised by the

staff that it would not. Mr. MOSS. It would not be higher

than last year? Mr. MONDALE. No. Mr. MOSS. And, of course, would not

even approach the request of the administration for this year, is that correct?

Mr. MONDALE. The administration requested $765 million for development loans. If my amendment were agreed to, we would still be approximately $215 million below the request of the administration.

If I may correct the answer to the previous question, we would be above last year's appropnation of $435 million.

Mr. MOSS. I commend the Senator, and intend to vote for his amendment. I think it is time we opened our eyes to the problem that confronts us. If assisting other co11Iltries to get on their feet was a good policy following World War II, when we first got into this program with the Marshall plan, I think it is still a good policy. Even though the type of assistance shifts and the type of country aided shifts, it still pays rich dividends to have countries that are self-su:tncient in food, and that possess economic viability, so they can exist and have a degree of independence, and help to build a world community in which we can all hope to live on this globe. I believe that is the long-range objective of AID.

Obviously, we have to have priorities, and we have to measure the results against our ability as a nation to furnish the assistance. Does the Senator have any figure as to approximately how much of our gross national product we devote to all foreign assistance?

Mr. MONDALE. I do not have a figure. It is less than 1 percent; and the current authorization would be the lowest dollar amount in 20 years. As a percentage of our ability, that is, as related to the gross national product of this country, I am sure it is the least we have done in the history of the foreign aid program.

Mr. MOSS. In other words, our participation is going down precipitously, both in absolute dollars and in percentage of our ability to pay, based on our gross national product?

Mr. MONDALE. Yes. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President-, will the

Senator yield at that point?

Mr. MOSS. Let me .finish this statement.

The Senator's reply that it ·is less than 1 percent would make it far below the amount recommended by the United Na>tions?

Mr.MONDALE. Yes. Mr. MOSS. That the developed coun

tries devote at least 1 percent of their gross national product to the assistance of underdeveloped and poverty-stricken nations; so we are not measuring up on any of those tests, is that correct?

Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is correct. The 1960's, as the Senator knows, was to be the decade of development. This was to be the decade in which the developed nations of the world were going to take seriously and jointly the responsibility of assisting and urging the underdeveloped countries of the world to seek programs of political and economic development that would make themselves self-sufHcient and independent.

We recognized that in order to do that, essential capital contribution would be required from the developed and wealthy nations of the world. A target of 1 percent was set as an appropriate contribution that would be required.

Instead of that, we have, I think, converted the decade of the sixties into the decade of disappointment and despair.

The developed countries have consistently reduced the percentage of contribution of capital we are making. We have consistently raised the interest rates we are charging. We have created a credit explosion by which much of the capital contribution is being offset by repayments of principal and interest. And I think the most ironic thing of all is that after more than 15 years of· assistance in the food field, at the very time when the possibilities exist for the solution of the food-deficit problems, in the countries of Asia particularly, seem to be at hand, we seem to be reducing and eliminating our assistance in this field.

Mr. MOSS. I thank the Senator. Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I thank

the Senator for his leadership in this field. As he knows, I intend to support the Senator on his very important amendment in the same area.

Mr. President, I made extended reference to the remarkable article written by Mr. Lester Brown appearing in the July 1968 issue of Foreign Affairs. The article is entitled "The Agricultural Revolution in Asia."

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at th1s point an article by Mr. Lester R. Brown, Administrator of USDA's International Agricultural Development Service, who is internationally recognized as an authority on the world food problem and agricultural development. I think every Member of the Senate ought to read this article, because it details the new food revolution in the world.

However, the success of this revolution in agriculture will not be achieved if we now cut off tne foreign exchange so badly needed by the developing nations for the purchase of fertilizer, seed, pesticides, and farm equipment. Passage of

this bill in its- present form . will nearly cut o:lf that assistance.

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

THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION IN ASIA . (By Lester R. Brown)

For those whose thinking of Asia is conditioned by the food crises of 1965 and 1966, the news of an agricultural revolution may come as a surprise. But the change and ferment now evident in the Asian country;side stretching from Turkey to the Philippines, and including the pi•·otal countries of India and Pakistan, cannot be described as anything less. This rural revolution, large- · ly obscured in its early years by the two consecutive failures of the monsoon, is further advanced in some countries-.-Paklstan, the Philippines and India-:-than . in others, but there is little prospect that it will abort, so powerful and pervasive are the forces behind it.

That the agricultural revolution of the less developed world began in Asia is fortunate, since it is both densely populated and has a rapid rate of population growth. In this respect, Asia is unique among the world's major geographic regions . . Western Europe is heavily populated but its population grows slowly; Latin America's population is expanding rapidly but as yet most of the region is sparsely populated. Fiftysix percent of the world's 3.3 billion people live in Asia; one-third of the world's population, an estimated 1.1 billion, live in Asia outside China. It is this part of the worl~ and this third of mankind that this article deals with. ·

Historically, as Asia's population increased., it was supported by traditional agriculture on an ev~r-expanding area of cropland. As the postwar population explosion gained momentum in the late 1950s and early 1960s~ the supply of new land was used up, but the productivity of land under cultivation in-. creased little. The result was a slowdown in the rate of gain in food produ<:tion and a growing concern that population growt~ and food production were on a collision course.

The gravity of the situation came intO focus as the monsoon on the Indian subcontinent failed two years running, in 1965 and 1966. The United States responded. by shipping the equivalent bf nearly one-fifth o{ its wheat harvest, feeding sixty m~llion In- . dians for nearly two year~. This record ship~ ment, the l~gest ever between two countries, was sufficient to stave off famine.

As of mid-1968, both the food situatiOJ.'!. and food production prospects in Asia have changed. almost beyond belief. The Philip· pines is self-sufficient in its staple food, rice, for the first time since 1903. Iran, with a substantial expansion in wheat acreage, is actually a net exporter of wheat this year. Ceylon's rice harvest climbed 13. percent above the previous record, as it both .expanded the area under cultivation and raised . yields.

Pakistan's wheat crop, harvested in April and May, is estimated to be 30 percent above the previous record. So is India's. The total Indian foodgrain crop, officially estimated at 100 million tons, is up 32 perq_ent :from last year's drought-depressed levels and, more importantly, up 12 percent from the previous record. Good weather has helped b9ost the harvest on the Indian subcontinent this year, but increases al;>ove the previous record are . largely the results of solid ·technological progress-more et!lcient varieties, more fertilizer and better farm practices.

What has caused. this remarkable turnabout? One factor is new political commitments at the top in several countries. Shortchanging agriculture is no longer either feasible or fashionable. This new political climate :has led to firm allocations of budgetary and foreign-exchange resources. India,


for· example increased its budget for agricultural devel~pment by one-third in 1966-67; it is now using the equivalent of nearly onefifth of its foreign-exchange earnings to import fertilizer and raw materials for manufacturing fertilizer. Turkey's i~port~ of fertilizer may make up the largest smgle Item in overall imports this year, exceeding for the first time petroleum and pe~roleum products. The availability of fertiliZer in Pakistan is twice that of two years ago and several times that of 1960; it is expected at least to double again by 1970.

Many governments which heretofore neglected agriculture have been encouraged to give agriculture a higher priority by the "short-tether" policy of the United States, whereby food-aid agreements are of short duration and renewal depends on local effort and performance. The overall scarcity of foodgrains, particularly rice, in many Asian countries increased prices to the point where it suddenly became very profitable for large numbers of farmers to use fertilizer and other modern inputs.

While some factors contributing to the takeoff in agriculture are of recen~ origin, others have been long in the makmg. The agricultural infrastructure is capable of supporting current advances because of sever.al years of AID investment in farm-to-market roads, in irrigation projects and in agricultural research and training. Investment in irrigation systems over the years provides a vast acreage of well-watered land, much of it well suited to the intensive use of modern farm technology. Adequate supplies of water and fertilizer are needed to attain high yields. The training of some 4,000 Asian agriculturists over the past decade, sponsored jointly by AID, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Land Grant Universities, contributes to a corps of trained professionals capable of adapting and disseminat-ing new techpology. .

The availability of fertilizer has increased severalfold over the past decade, partly ~ a result of expanding indigenous productiOn and partly because of steadily rising imports. The financing of fertilizer imports is now a major AID activity, requiring a sizable por-

. tion of the agency's budget. Investment by · fertilizer manufacturers and other support

ing industries has helped to fuel the takeoff in agricultural production. Countries in w'hich U.S. firms have built or are building fertilizer plants include South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, India, Iran and Malaysia. Fertilizer produced in these plants co~ld increase the region's annual food-producmg capability by an estimated 25 million tons of grain. Other agrobusiness activities such as the manufacture of pesticides and farm equipment are also contributing to the rapid growth in food production.

Perhaps the most exciting development is the rapid spread of new, high-yielding varieties of cereals. The Mexican wheats now proving so adaptable throughout Asia are the product of more than twenty years of work by the Rockefeller Foundation. Efficient new rice varieties are coming principally from the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, an institution founded _Jointly by the Rockefeller and Ford FoundatiOns in 1962 and devoted solely to the improvement of rice production in the tropics and subtropics. Work on high-yielding varieties of corn sorghum and millet is concentrated in Indi~. where the Rockefeller Foundation is providing leadership for the program. Areas planted to the new varieties went from a few hundred acres in 1964-65 to about 23,000 acres in 1965-66, nearly four million acres in 1966-67 and over twenty million acres during 1967-68, the crop year just ended. Plans and expectations indicate a further expansion. of up to forty million acres in the coming year. ·

Several factors are responsible for this rapid gain in acreage. The new varieties. often

double yields of · traditional varieties; their superiority is so obvious that farmers are quickly persuaded of their merits. This contrasts sharply with improved varieties made available in the past, which were only marginally superior to varieties being used. ~other reason is the degree to which the high yields attained on the experimental plots are transferable to field conditions. There are reports of instances in which farmers actua~ly attained higher yields under field conditions with large acreages than researchers did on experimental plots.

The availability of these new seeds bas enabled many Asian countries to shorten materially the agricultural development process. The importing of numerous varieties in ~mall quantities for testing purposes WQ.S in Itself an effort to achieve a shortcut; food-deficit countries availed themselves of the results of plant-breeding work undertaken elsewhere. But they did not stop there. Once it was demonstrated that a given high-yielding variety was adapted to local growing conditions, large tonnages of seed were impor~d, thus eliminating the several years reqmred to multiply and accumulate sufficient sup-plies of seed locally. · ·

Pakistan 'imported 42,000 tons of seed wheat from Mexico during 1967, e;nough to plant 1.5 million acres. As a result, Pakistan now has enough seed to plant its entire wheat acreage to Mexican wheats. Indian imported 18,000 tons of Mexican wheats in 1966. This, coupled with indigenous multiplication of seed from the initial introduction of the same varieties, enabled Indian farmers to plant 8 million acres this yearthe target acreage for 1970-71, and more than double the target of 3.5 million acres for the current year. Turkey, starting later than India or Pakistan but determined to ca.tch up, imported 21,000 tons of high-yielding wheat, including some U.S. varieties, for use on a much smaller acreage. Both the import of samples ·of the new varieties initially, and the larger shipments later, represent a massive infusion of a new technology at a nominal cost, with potentially widespre~d _application. They constitute a windfall gam in food production for many of the less developed countries. .

The new varieties possess several distmctive characteristics. They are almost ·all short-stemmed, so they can absorb large quantities of fertilizer without lodging (becoming top-heavy and falling down); they are much more responsive to fertilizer at all levels of application. A given amount of fertilizer produces a much greater increase in yield than with the older varieties of grain. And unlike high-yielding varieties of cereals developed in the United States or Japan for rather specific growing conditions, these varieties are adapted to a much broader range of latitudes.

The new varieties of rice are early maturing, ripening in 120 to 125 days compared with 150 to 180 days for the older varieties. They are also rather insensitive to the length of daylight and thus can be planted at any time of the year. if the prevailing temperature and water supply permit. With adequate water, some farmers in the Philippines and India are harvesting two or even three crops each year. Where water supplies are not sufficient to grow rice during the dry season, farmers grow high-yielding hybrid grain sorghums or hybrid corn. Triple-cropping of rice, or rice in combination with sorghum or corn, is resulting in yields under field conditions as high as 8 tons of grain per acre per calendar year. This contrasts with average yearly rice yields in Japan of just over 2 tons per acre and wheat yields in Europe of less than 2 tons per acre. The introduction of the early-maturing Mexican wheats in northern India and Pakistan is permitting the doublecropping of wheat and corn, with wheat grown during the rabi (winter) season and corn during the kharij (summer) season.

rx Introduction of the new varieties is chang

ing not only the technology of production but also the economics. The potentially farreaching economic implications of the a~rlcultural revolution are only now beconnng clear. Projected demand for agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, water and irrigation equipment must be recalculated. Many of the assumptions underlying current strategies of agricultural development must also be reexamined. For example, in the short run, the profitabHity of using fertilizer will increase demand above what it would otherwise have been. Over the longer run, however, the demand for fertilizer may be lower than would otherwise be the case since a smaller amount of fertilizer will be required on the more responsive varieties to reach a given level of production. ·

High rates of return on investments in production inputs, reflecting a more favorable economic climate due to better prices for farm products and more efficient new technologies, are mobilizing n1:ra1 savings not previously available for production purposes. Investment is on the rise not only in those things which increase output in the short run, such as fertilizer, but also in those which boost food-producing capability over the long run, such as tubewells and irrigation pumps. Over the course of five years, Pakistani farmers in the cotton and ricegrowing areas of the former Punjab, where the water table is quite near the surface, have installed some 32,000 private tubewells, costing from $1,000 to $2,500 each. The value of the supplementary irrigation made possible by these wells is such that farmers characteristically have paid for them in two years. A large proportion were installed without government assistance or subsidy of any kind. The number of low-lift pumps installed in East Pakistan, totaling 2,200 in .1965, is expected to increase to 14,000 by 19f?9, greatly increasing the potential for double-cropping rice during the dry season. Similar high rates of return on small-scale irrigation investments are reported in India, where the number of wells is also climbing at an astronomical rate.

Early-maturing varieties of rice which ripen during the monsoon require mechanical drying before storage, since the timehonored method of spreading rice in the roadside to dry is not feasible. The demand for grain-drying equipment, now climbing rapidly, was not anticipated. Similarly, the use of pesticides, often uneconomic when average rice yields were 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of milled rice per acre, is suddenly very profitable on the new varieties, averaging 3,000 to 4,000 pounds. Growth in demand for both pesticides and application equipment such as knapsack sprayers and dusters will be closely associated with the spread of the improved seed.

The new varieties, with their potential for multiple-cropping, place a premium on fast preparation of the seedbed. Farmers planning to double-c~op or triple-crop their land may no longer have several weeks to prepare the ground with bullocks or water buffalo; they may have to use power-driven farm equipment to prepare the seedbed quickly and plant the next crop. Even in some countries where new varieties are not yet widely spread, the profitability and feasibility of farm mechanization are being increasingly recognized. In Thailand, where the movement of goods from farm to market is largely by canal or river, rice fields are prepared principally by wa-ter buffalo. Under these circumstances, farmers are discovering it is more economical to hire someone with a tractor to plow the rice fields for a few dollars per acre than to feed and care for a team of water bu1Ialo all year just to use them during a few weeks at plowing time. Some 20,000 to 25,000 imported tractors plowed an estimated one-fourth of the rice

24184 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 acreage this past year, mostly on a customhire basis-not unlike the way in which wheat 1s harvested in the Great Plains of the Un1 ted States. .

The more intensive farming methods asso.ciated with the new technology require more farm labor. The new varieties will not respond to the traditional practice of planting the crop and then virtually forgetting it until harvest time. Substantial amounts of additional labor must be invested in applying fertillzer, weeding and the like. Expansion of the area that can· be multiple-cropped is also resulting in a more effective use of the rural labor supply, particularly during the dry season. In Asia, where underemployed labor constitutes one of the world's largest underutillzed resources, this promises a major economic gain. For the first time, tl)ere is the possibility of. significant labor scarcities in localized. rural areas.

m Changes associated with the new farm

technology have a social as well as an economic impact. The exciting new cereal varieties are so superior to the traditional varieties and so dramatic in their impact that they are becoming "engines of change" wherever used. They may be to the agricultural revolution in Asia what the steam engine was

·to the industrial revolution in Europe. Successful adoption of the new seed re

quires the simultaneous adoption of new cultural practices and the use of mOdern inputs. The seasonal rhythm of rural activity, once determined largely by the monsoon, is changing as fanners begin to double-crop and to introduce new combinations of crops. Farmers taking advantage of the new technology must enter the market; they cannot remain subsistence farmers. Rural Asians will change and innovate-when it is to their advantage to do so. Sign1ficantly, there may be some spin-off from this breakthrough in agriculture; this initial break with tradition. Family planners should take heart. As farmers leam that they can indeed infiuence their destiny, they may become much more susceptible to family planning and other equally "radical" departures.

Not all changes wrought by the new technology are desirable. In some areas, tenants are being reduced to farm laborers as landowners discover the profitability of the new technology in the current economic setting. Even though income to the landless may rise, the socioeconomic gap between the landowners and the landless may widen. Dissidents among the landless group in some states in India now form the nucleus of the opposition parties. Among those who own land, the income gap between those owning fertile, wellwatered land and those with marginal land is also likely to· widen. While many of the former may easily triple or quadruple output, the latter -may not be able to employ the new technology at all. Those who can, and are thus permitted to enter the market, are likely to become more vocal and more interested in infiuencing the economic policies affec-ting their fortunes in the marketplace. Political activization of rural populations is an expected concomitant of the agricultural revolution now under way.

The leadership in most Asian countries is not unaware of the political implications of recent changes in rural areas. Prime Minister Demirel of Turkey feels strongly enough about the crash program in wheat production, initiated at his behest less than two years ago, to have it directed and monitored from his office. Some observers think President Marcos of the Ph111ppines, who has brought his country to self-sufficiency in rice

. by e~ph~1zlng rural development, may be the first President of the Ph111ppines ever to be reelected to office. Former Prime Minister Maiw.andwal of Afghanistan was so impressed with the production potential of the Mexican wheats and with the urgent need to arrest Afghanistan's growing dependence on

imported wheat that he assessed each of the Ministries 2.5 percent of its current year's development budget to create a fund to launch an accelerated wheat-production program. Two years later, the Afghans appear to be progressing toward their goal of self-sufficiency in wheat. President Ayub of Pakistan shows a deep personal interest in the agricultural programs under way in his country and follows their progress on an almost daily basis. India's progressive C. Subramaniam, former Food and Agriculture Minister, took advantage of the food crisis to mobilize support for and launch the accelerated food-production effort responsible for much of India's gains.

Recent agricultural progress should not give cause for complacency. Many difficult problems lie ahead, especially in the fields of farm credit, water development, plant disease, foreign-exchange availability, marketing and price incentives.

Purchases of farm inputs are often concentrated initially among the larger farmers who are able to finance their own purchases. The rate at which small farmers adopt new technologies is frequently determined by the availability of farm credit on reasonable terms. If, like the great majority of Asian farmers, they are dependent on the local moneylender for credit, often at interest rates ranging from 20 to 100 percent per year, they may not find it profitable to use modern inputs such as fertilizer. Available evidence indicates that fertilizer distribution in some parts of India and West Pakistan is beginning to slow because of a lack of credit.

Intensive cultivation of the new highyielding varieties requires, in addition to an adequate supply of water, a far more sophisticated system of water control and management. At present not more than onethird of Asia's rice land is considered suitable for the new, short-stemmed rice vari.;. eties. Excessive and erratic :Hooding during ·the moonsoon or rainy season Is not conducive to the intensive cultiv.ation of rice, which requires hand-weeding and the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Either too little or too much water can be damaging.

Associated with the massive Introduction of exogenous varieties is the risk that some local Insect or disease could suddenly wipe out the entire acreage, thus creating possible famine not unlike that occurring in Ireland more than a century ago. The worst of this threat may have passed, however, for the number of new varieties has already reduced dependence on any single one. Each year that passes should make the threat less dangerous.

Rice production during the dry season, -once limited by the lack of varieties adapted to the off season, is now limited by a lack of water. This can be remedied either by developing underground water resources, which are quite abundant in some areas, or by using pumps to lift water from the numerous rivers and canals that fiow through many of the rice-growing areas during the dry season. The exploitation of unused water resources will expand the acreage suitable for planting the high-yielding rices. Few, if any, developing countries are endowed with all the raw materials needed for manufacture of chemical fert111zers-phosphate rock, potash, sulfur and natural gas or naphtha. As the use of fertilizer expands, many countries, chronically faced with a scarcity of foreign ex-change, are hard pressed to find enough hard currency for the required imports. For some individual countries, such as India, this scarcity of foreign exchange could effectively reduce the rate of agricultural progress.

Frustrating though these problems may be, the dominant co~straint on agricultural growth is likely to be Inadequate marketing systems and an overall lack of markets. The recent emphasis on agricultural development has been concentrated on the expansion ot

production; marketing has been -largely neglected, with the result that some of the promising gains made in production may be negated. Over the past decade many of Asia's large coastal cities-Karachi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Colombo and Djakarta-have .become increasingly dependent on imported :toodgrains. To become self-sufficient requires not only producing a surplus in the countryside sufficient to feed these cities, but also having a marketing system capable of moving rural surpluses to the cities when needed. This means farm-to-market roads, storage facilities and a market-intelligence system to rationalize the movement of commodities.

Several Asian countries, such as Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey, could produce exportable surpluses of grain within the next few years, joining Thailand and Burma. If they do, they must develop the transport and storage facilities needed to move potentially large surpluses of grain from often remote rural areas into world markets. It exportable surpluses deveiop, there will be mounting pressure on Japan and the EEC countries-where cereal production is often subsidized at prices double the world market price-to reduce subsidies and permit imports.

Problem areas notwithstanding, an agricultural revolution is under way in Asia. The new cereal varieties provides a means for tapping some of the vast, but as yet largely unrealized, food-producing potential of the tropics and subtropics, putting them on a more competitive footing with the temperate-zone cereal producers. The agricultural breakthrough occurring in several major .Asian countries can be repeated in Latin .America and Africa. Mexico, which once depended on imports for nearly halt its wheat needs, is now exporting small quantities of both wheat and corn. Kenya, until recently a food-aid recipient, has produced an exportable surplus of corn, its food staple. Tunisia and Morocco are introducing the Mexican wheats. Much of the technology now being applied in Asia will also be applied in both La tin America and Africa, if the necessary top-level political support and proper combination of economic policie!s are forthcoming.

The farm sector now constitutes from onethird to one-half of most Asian economies. It is conceivable that the 2 percent rate of increase in food production prevailing during the early and mid-1960s could accelerate to 4 or 5 percent yearly over the next few years, provided markets can absorb the additional output. The additional purchasing power thus generated for both production and consumer goods will ~imulate a more rapid rate of growth in the non-farm sector. The net effect should be a much more rapid rate of overall economic growth than would otherwise have prevailed. If the Asian agricultural revolution continues, lt could well become the most significant world economic development since the economic rebirth of Europe following World War II.

This agricultural revolution is not the ultimate solution to the food-population problem, but it does buy some much needed additional time in which to mount effective family-planning programs. If food !scarcity lessens as anticipated in some of the major food-_de:ficit countries,_ governments recently preoccupied with real or impending food crises can again turn their J~.ttention to the business of development. Although the need !or food aid is likely to lessen tharply within the next few years, capital needed for investment in the agricultural infrastructure is certaln to Increase. The need for technical assistance seems likely to rise as the problems generated by · ~ynamic movement in agriculture lncre~me. The need tor foreign private investment in ~grobusiness will also rise sharply as farmers clamor for the inputs they need to take-full advantage of the new genetic potentials available to them.

July 30, 1-'968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24185 The positive economic etrects of a.n agri-

. cultural takeoff in Asian countries a.re quite evident. What 1s not 13o readily realized is that it will bolster the confidence of national leaders ih their ablltty to handle other seemingly insoluble problems. It may also 'Strengthen their faith in modern technology a.nd' its. potential for improving the wellbeing, of their people.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MOSS. I yield. Mr. Mn...LER. Mr. Presid~nt, I wanted

to make a point fn connection with the question of the Senator from Utah and the response of the Senator from Minnesota about the proportion of the. gross national product and the possibility that our proportion is going down rather than up.

I do not have the precise percentage, but I think that where we may be delinquent in analyzing the answer to the qu~tion is that we are talking only about the foreign aid bill. However, this is only a part of our foreign aid program.

The ~nator from Utah should take into account the fact that in addition to what is contained in the pending bill, the taxpayers of our country are putting up $1 billion in foreign aid for South Vietnam and almost $2 billion in the food-for-peace program, neither-of which programs were in existence 10 or 20 years ago. So, if we take into account the total package of foreign aid that th~· taxpayers of our· country are· putting up-what 1s in the foreign aid bin and what is in foreign aid in a separate bill to Vietnam

. and what is in a separate bill for the foodfor-peace program-then I do not think that we should be too apologetic, especially at a time when we have a war on our hands.

I have fallen into this error myself on previous occasions. And I know of so many others who do the same thing. Wh~n a foreign-aid bill is being considered, they think, then, in terms of it alone, but we must also take into aecount all of the other things that the taxpayers of oul" country are putting up. And that comes close to $3 billion a year at this time.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, if I may respond, I appreciate the comments of the ~nator from Iowa. And, of course,, what he states is a fact, that there are other areas where we are utilizing tax funds in foreign assistance. However, I point out that food for peace is a humanitarian stop-gap type of assistance to prevent hunger and starvation and to enable us to get through the current crisis, whereas what the Senator from Minnesota is talking about is assistance to countries so that they can produce their own food and then we will not be called upon to come to their aid with food for peace.

We· are generally a humanitarian country. And if We find people' that are

. hungry, we usually try to get food to, them. This is a commendable thing. r:owever~ how much better than trying

' to rush food to them it would be if we could bring those cot4ntries to a position in which they eeuld produce their own food. · This ·il5 what is. coming about~ as the

Senator from M'mnes'ota has said, .from the development of these new seeds. new

strains, disease resistant, fertilizer, and the other many improvements, so that we ha.ve made some very dramatic advances in the last few days.

At this time,- it would seem to be .fool- . hardy to turn back rather than to con- _ tinue with our advance.

Mr. Mn.LER. Mr. President, the Senator's point is well taken about the nature of the foreign aid program. However, it should be brought out that when we start talking about assistance to other nations of the world in terms of our gross national product, we had better take into account all .of the money that the taxpayers of our country are putting out. And 8 or 10 years ago, nothing was going to Vietnam to speak of and nothing was going into the food-for-peace program to speak of.

We now have about a $3-billion-a-year package in those two items alone.

I concur on the point that it is much better to help them with the necessary food production so that we do not have to send them food for peace. And that has been the policy of Congress for quite some time.

I do not hear any aTgument about that. Certainly I am not going to differ with my colleague, the Senator from Utah, on that point. That is just common horsesense.

I want to put the reeord in perspective because the ~nator from Utah asked a question which is on the minds of a lot of people today.

I make the further observation that we have a $25-billion-a-year war burden on our back. And at this time, I do not think the American taxpayers can properly-be expected to put UP· as much foreign assistance as they would otherwise be able and willing and happy to do so.

I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, we are not talking here about idealistic, humanitarian aid programs. We are talking about our own national security, and the extent to which a starving worldfamine and strife-ridden-threatens the peace of all mankind.

We are not talking, either, about vast giveaway programs, or about U.S. funds being squandered for frivolous pFojects of national self-glorification. We are talking here about funds which are used by developing nations to buy fertilizer and seed and farm equipment in the United States.

The present authorization level in the bill is $350 million. I think we ought to look at a few examples of the agricultural needs which will not be met at this low level.

India alone is scheduled to receive $408 million of development loans in fiscal year 1969. Two hundred million dollars of this wm be used to import fertilizer from the United States. Twenty million dollars will l!>e used to import better seed varieties and pesticides from the United States. Fifteen million dollars will be used to help finance a new cooperative fertilizer plant in India.

Pakistan would have been able to use $.177 million for development loans in fiscal year 19,69, ·a substantial portion of which would go- for U.S.-purchased fer-tilizer imports.

Turkey and other nations will alsa suffer Feductions in funds for agricultural 'self-help and development,.

It seems to me that.. this reduction is. .shortsighted and ;]lllnece.ssary. It seems to me that one of the beSt investments. we can make in foreign aid is one which will help food-deficit nations reaeb agricultural self-sufficiency, eliminatmg the cost and expense of. huge ..shipments o! fOOd to alleviate ..the inevitable starva- . tion that will result if the agriculturaL revolution fails.

Therefore, Mr. President, I o.ffer an amendment which will provide. an addi-. tional $200 million authorization to ,the development loan .fund specifically tied, to agricultural development policies and programs. It would provide the additional money only for financing the import by the United States into less-developed nations of fertilizer, seed, pesticides, and farm equipment a:nd supplies-particularly those countries which have shown such promising agricultural gains in the past few years. Many of these countries have devoted increased portions of their national resources to agriculture, and we simply ought to encourage them to continu~ to do this.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another part of the pending bill.

The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota requires considerable debate on the floor of the Senate and a large attendance in the Senate. I shall speak

· about it at a later time. Mr. President, we need a substantial

consideration of this amendment. l have to go to conference on the· education legislation. I have agreed with the leadership that I would make my speech in behalf of another section of the bill. Tbe:re.fore, I shall proceed to do that at this time.

Mr. President, the log export amendment added to this bill upon my motion in committee is not, contrary to pre~ re'ports, a protectionist rider; no:r is it: extraneous to the foreign aid bill.

The amendment is cosponsored · by Senators MANSFIELD, METCAI.F, JIORIIAN of Idaho, CHURCH, Moss, and HATFDlLD·, in addition to my authorship of the amendment.

It is certainly unfortunate that management of the public. lands has .beeome the business of the State and Comme:ree Departments, the TreasUTY, and the :Bu- · reau of the Budget. But it was these; agencies that made this a foreign poliCYI issue, not I.

Even more do I regret that the Devartments of Agriculture. and Interior allowed these. other departments to make deci- · sions: that Congress vested solely. in the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. Members of Congress and their staffswere told by the Secretary of Agriculture on July 11 that it. did not matter what

-statute hi:s determination concerning log exports was based upon, because the authority given him was all discretienary, anyway, and the decision weuld be made in concert with the entire administration and not upon his judgment alone. - I cannot believe that any of these ex

ecutive officials haS :r:ead the law. The statute of 1926 calls upon onJy one person to judge only one thing: ·lt cal'ls upon


the Secretary of Agriculture to judge whether the supply of timber for local use will be endangered if some ·of the timber is exported. That is the only one and only judgment the Secretary has to make. That is the mandate of Congress.

No discretion is called for concerning the relationship of log exports to balance of payments; nor how to offset the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of U.S. military procurement in Japan; nor what the reaction of Japan may be if the laws governing the publicly owned American timber are enforced. Neither is any judgment upon these matters vested in some other department or executive official. I quote the act of Aprill2, 1926:

That timber lawfully cut on any national forest, or on the public lands in Alaska, may be exported from the state or territory where grown if, in the judgment of the Secretary of the department administering the national forests, or the public lands in Alaska, the supply of timber for local use will not be endangered thereby . ...

But since public land management has been construed as an instrument of foreign policy by this administration, Congress must deal with it in those terms, too. The Committee on Foreign Relations has wisely done so with this amendment to the foreign aid bill.

I may say again that this is not my amendment alone. It is cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], by the Senators from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD and Mr. METCALF], by the senators from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH and Mr. JORDAN], and by the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss]. AMENDMENT EXPANDS RATHER THAN CONSTRICTS

EXPORTS

started of making our national forests into tree farms of Japan. Those forests are not maintained for the benefit of the Japanese people. They are maintained for the benefit of the American people. As has been brought out in our hearings before the Subcommittee on Small Business, those forests are not negotiable with any foreign government. Those forests belong to the people, to be preserved and managed in the interests of the American people, not in the interests of people of foreign lands. But since public land has been made an instrument of foreign policy, it must be dealt with in this bill.

Prior to 1926, a law of 1897 forbade the export of any timber from .the national forests. In 1926, a permanent statute allowed such export where surplus was shown. It was in that law of 1897 that the national forests of the Nation were created, to maintain a perpetual supply of timber for the people of the United States. Least of all do these statutes leave any impression that national forests should be managed as a commodity to be sold off to the highest foreign bidder for balance-of-payment considerations. If this were to be their greatest use and value, then by all means the national forests should be abolished and sold to private enterprise. Private companies could undoubtedly sell it off abroad faster and at higher prices than can the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.

Because lack of enforcement has permitted foreign purchase of public timber in the approximate amount of 350 million board feet annually, my amendment would make that figure an exclusion

Far from being a protectionist meas- from the requirements of the 1926 act. ' ure, it permits an exclusion of 350 mil- For 5 years, 350 million board feet could lion board feet per year from the 1926 be sold for export from public lands, in law that now forbids the export of any addition to the amount and species found national forest timber unless and until it to be surplus to local needs. is shown to be surplus to local needs. In Senators should bear in mind that cerour hearings, the testimony of the repre- · tain species of timber have little or no sentatives of this Government is that marketable value in the United States this timber is not in surplus. but are desirable in foreign markets.

It should be remembered that under Among those I can mention is Port Orthis same statute, our Government, ford cedar. It has practica1ly no marketthrough the Department of Agriculture able value in the United States, and and the Department of the Interior, has therefore it is surplus to our needs. Conlong forbidden the export of any logs sequently, it should be considered exfrom Alaska. It should be remembered portable, and it has been exported for that our neighbor to the north, Canada, many years. There are other species. has for years prohibited the export of Within the family of hemlock are species logs from that country. It recognized that that have no marketable value in 'the the logs are harvested on the people's United States, but there is a demand for forests. them elsewhere, and therefore it is ex-

These forests do not belong to this portable. administration. They do not belong to For these reasons, I do not believe any the people of the State in which they are case· can or should be made that the located. They belong to the people of all amendment would damage our present the States. They are a treasure house of balance-of-payments position with Jaa great natural resource, and each gen- pan, the chief purchaser of these logs. To eration has a trusteeship obligation to see the contrary, once we make it eminently to it that those forests are so scientifically clear with this language that we mean managed under a sustained yield pro- to process our own public timber, I think gram that they will guarantee in per- Japan will come to see that her growing petuity to the American people an ade- need for wood fiber can be met by buyquate supply of wood products. ing American lumber products, just as

That is our national forest system in Japan now buys Canadian and Alaskan this.country. lumber products because she can buy few

One of the great founders of our con- of their logs. s-crvation program, the former Governor In this connection, there has been some of Pennsylvania, now long dead, the discussion in the lumber industry in the great Gifford Pinchot, must have re- Northwest of whether U.S. mills are acvolved in his grave when the policy was tually prepared to go into export trade

in finished lumber. In the past, we have not' sought the export trade, nor have we entered the Japanese market to any extent because Japanese trading companies limit foreign competition in finished wood products.

If anyone thinks there is an open-door lumber and log trade policy between the United States and Japan, he could not be more wrong. When you seek to ship wood products into Japan, you have to go through a tightly controlled domestic market, sometimes labeled a cartel system. I call it a controlled market system. Trading companies determine what goods in Japan, usually at a great markup for themselves. The actual price competition is not great.

But the question has arisen of whether we could furnish wood products to Japan.

The Caffall Brothers Forest Products Co. of Portland, Oreg., has written to me about this very matter. Its president complained that he was unable to fill an order sought by Japan for half a million board feet of 4 by 4's. On July 24, Ireceived another letter from Mr. Caffall, which I quote in full:

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: On July 18, 1968, we sent you a copy of a letter which we transmitted to the Mitsui Co., documenting the results of a recent inquiry from Japan for lumber. The letter quite clearly demonstrated the unwilllngness of many local mill operators to try to find an equitable solution to this log-lumber export problem.

We now feel in all fairness that we must inform you that subsequent to the first writing we have been able to effect a firm contract on 500,000 feet of 4 x 4's with the Portland Lumber Mill division of the Brand S Corporation. Mr. Brandis is a long-time associate of our company and is probably better informed on the export problem than most operators. The price which we were able to offer Mitsui was not as low as some of the Canadian offers but it was substantially under the quotations received from most other mills.

Mr. Brandis, I am sure, does not intend to lose money on the long term. He has, however, demonstrated that he is not willing to sit complacently by and watch Canada absorb this market. This type of mutual cooperation and knowledge of world markets is absolutely necessary if the American wood products industry is to survive in international commerce.

Very truly yours, CAFFALL BROS. FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. C. C. CAFFALL.

Certainly the lumber industry of the Northwest is on the right track when it meets the demands for export, and I salute Mr. Jack Brandis for his foresight and economic statesmanship.

It will take some time for U.S. mills to change their dimensions and other production practices. But it is also true that so long as Japan can obtain logs, she will buy the logs and not the lumber. Firm and substantial orders for finished lumber will make it possible and prac-tical for U.S. mills to fill the orders, once they can get the logs. And there is considerably more balance-of-payment advantage to us from the sale of lumber than from the sale of raw logs. DOMESTIC SUPPLY OF LUMBER ALSO AFFECTED

A curb on log exports will also have a beneficial effect upon the supply of lumber for domestic consumption. The constricted supply of logs due to exports is

Juty 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24187 JYI,lShing lumbe:r priees for domestic homebuilding· to' levels far above normal price ine:reases. Tesl!imony taken at our July 19 hearing shows tha.t the wholesale :softwood lumber. price index has shot up. far in excess Qf the increase. of housing :starts~

The reason is the tight supply of timber in the Northwest due to exports, and the high prices of timber due to Japanes.e bidding. Our January hearing record is replete with statistics of mills. closed down in the Pacific Northwest for lack of logs, :mills that ca11not be brought baek ililto J)rnduction quickly,. i:f at all, for they could not process the logs at a p:rofit and -pay the price the Japanese were willing to pay for those logs-.

The sad fa.ct is that this public timber so urgently needed to build homes for Americans has been put up for foreign sale for balance-of-payments reasons. In April, the Department of Agriculture took steps to limit that sale on forests west of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. The 350 million board feet exclusion was. applied there for 1 year. That action w:as welcome, for it provided temporary relief for the mills dependent upon public timber for their operation. But it was not a long-range solution, and it did not cover enough geographically.

It is a long-range solution that the amendment now proposes to solve. Keep. 1n mind that the Federal Government. owns 63 percent of the commercial forest land in the 12 Western States. Keep in mind that the Federal Government owns 50 percent of the land area of my; State. Many people in the Midwest and in the East do not know what it means to live in a State where the Federal Government has ownership of more than 50 percent of the land area of the State. The implications of that situation press down upon us on one issue after another that come before the Congress. We have to hav,e,· a considerable amount of Federal activity, · and' in a variety of legislative forms, to meet the deep problems that confront Oregon and other Western States.

·Mr. President, that is why you find me seeking ro make this record as to the purposes, objectives, and results of this section of the foreign aid bill.

Keep in mind tha.t there will be an estimated demand for 2 million new homes: a yeaF' in 1970, and 2.5 million by 1980. That means a demand for lumber of 16.8 billion· board feet in 1970 and 21.6-billion by 1980.

Under present management practices on the public lands, there simply will not be logs available to local mills in the Northwest to meet that demand, if log exports continue to be unlimited.

As to the foreign policy implications, I appreciate that the State Department is always concerned when trade changes are involved. Japan has a great need for housing. She has put great amounts of capital into constructing new sawmills. They are based upon water transportation, and are highly efficient. But to the extent that this investment was predicated upon the assumption that Japan could ,buy· unlimited quantities of logs fro:rn the, publicly owned forests of the Northwestern ·. United States, the S~te

Department ·has no one 'to blame but itself. ·

In fact, we ll(1)inte.d oat in our hearings :some montha ago and again the other day, that it would be ve:ry wise in the inte-rest; of fo-reign trade if Japan would turn to other countries to get their logs, if they have them in surplus, instead of threatening us, as some do, that if we do. not sell them· logs, they will buy from Russia. As I said 1n the hearings, ''Godspeed, buy them from Russia." I am not sure that wot:ld not be a ve:ry desirable thing in helping the economy of bOth Japan and Russia. But I do not intend to stand by and have Japan do irreparable' damage to the economy of my State, as her lag purchasing practices have done.

Thousands of jobs· have been lost and great productive wealth destroyed. As far as the balance-of-payments problem is concerned, those in the Bureau of the Budget, the Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department, and the State Department need to do a little simple arithmetic. If they would do that, it should not. take them very long to come to the obvious understanding that if you take Ariierican logs and process them in American mills and turn them into more valuable products, such as finished lumber, and sell the finished product, you have increased manifold the benefit to us in balance of payments. Selling the raw logs compared to the value of finished lumber shows the damage being done in connection with the balance-of-pay-ments problem. ·

Let Japan buy from us finished lumber as she buys from Canada and Alaska. The only reason she buys it there is she cannot buy logs in Canada and Alaska. It is that simple.

Japan, too, has great need for housing, and I recognize tha,t. But she can get the lumber for the housing if she wants to buy it from us or she can go elsewhere and get the logs.

Our Government's representatives in Japan knew--or should have knownwhat the statute said. They have no right to let Japan go on believing she could take all the timber she wanted off the American national forests.

FUTURE SUPPLY NEEDS TO BE STUDIED

The great paradox in this picture is the fact that there is, indeed, a tremendous supply of timber in the Pacific Northwest. There is an even greater potential for increased production in the future, if we farm these forests scientifically. Do nat forge~ Mr. President, when you look on forests you look on tree farms. When you look on national forests you look upon great preserves of forests to be haFVested when they are right for harvest, and that is what we mean by sustained yield program. But the harvest should be for the benefit of the economy of the United States and not the economy of Japan or any·other foreign power.

The same Budget Bureau that pushes the sale of these logs for balance-ofpayments reasons also presides over a cut of $21 million in the budget of the Forest Service for fiscal year 196&. That cut means that timber that oould be cut will remain inaccessible.

For the local mill operator who must

have a. :raw matelrial on hand this week, this month, and this year, tho.se trees m~ as well not be there if he cannot get. t0. them to cut. The same is true of the: logger who might. wish to e"Ut logs for expo:ut. to .Japan.

That is why I, for many, many reasons, voted against the tax increase. It was coupled with a $6 billion budget cut, much of it to come out of resource management to the detriment of the economic welfare of the American taxpayer.

So, when we had the Director o:f the Forest Service, Mr. Cliff, on the witness stand, I asked him about the $21 million cut from the 1968 appropl'iated funds. We are talking now about the :funds that were appropriated by Co:ngress alild the ~dministration impounded a substantial percentage of those funds. It impounded $21 million. out of the Forest Service. Read the testimony of the Director of the Forest Service, under my examination, and that af other members of the eommittee. He pointed out that some Qf the cuts would come out of access roads.

The record will show that I said to him, "I realize you are on the team and you are going to have to carry out the orders of the White House, but I want to point out that for every dollar the administration thinks it is saving on access roads, it will be a loss to the American people of $10 for every alleged dollar saved."

Here is an investment in access roads for production. Without those access roads, we cannot get the timber out. Without those access roads, we ~a.nnot get the timber out that 1s ripe and which should be cut now in the best ·interests of a healthy forest.

Thus, I want to point out that we not only do not have any surplus of logs but we have a shortage of logs because the mills in the West are not getting from the public forest the supply of timber they need in order to meet their full o:Perational capacity, or to supply the timber needed · for domestic supply.

The meaningful timber supply we aFe talking about now is what is put up for bid. With Japanese bidding for their sheltered market, and American mills bidding to meet the demand for lumber here at home, prices are booming en public timber sales--far above the appraised value. Do not. forget how the bids work. The Forest Service Qr the Bureau of Land Management appraises the timber and places an appraised price on the timber. They testify that that appraised value is the value of the timber, but because there is such need for timber, the lumber companies find it necessary to bid high above the appraised value of the timber. That is one o.f the reasons why our lumber prices are so high. The cost of construction of houses is therefore higher than it should be Gr need be.

We havE: the Japanese coming in-and the record of the hearings is very clea:r, in many instances-and they will bid $125 to $150 for a. thousand board feet of timber when the regular market price· would be from $60 to $85 for that timber. That is the kind of · competitio~this economic invasion. by Japan of the pea-· pie's forest--our mills have to contend with in the nationar forest areas.

24188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30~ 1968 That is why the evidence shows they

are shutting down, men are, being thrown out of work, or have been thrown out of work for the past several years; as · this problem has accumulated. ~nd acCumulated until it has reached this crisis condition. · ·

But the amount of timber for sale on the open market remains relatively fixed, due in large part to shortsighted Budget Bureau practices. I say shortsighted Budget Bureau practices, because the allowable cuts cannot be expanded without access roads, without cruisers, or appraisers, or personnel. The situation is made much worse when, in addition to this, the Government violates the law of 1926, as I have explained earlier in the speech, by selling logs that are not surplus.

It is my conviction that a major task for the 91st Congress is a total reevaluation of the management and development of the public timber resource, with a view to increasing its yield. The 5-year application of my amendment will give us time to make such a study. It will keep American lumber mills in production in the meantime.

TERMS OF AMENDMENT Turning to the language of the

amendment which was adopted by the Committee on Foreign Rehttions by a vote of 11 to 4 the first sentence provides an exclusion of 350 million board feet that may be sold for export each year, without regard for the requirements of the 1926 act. This will permit approximately the present level of export to continue.

Paragraph (b) is intended to restate and make more specific the requirement of the 1926 act that unprocessed timber above and beyond 350 million board feet must be found to be surplus beforP. it may be offered for export. The 1926 act supposedly requires this finding. But whereas the regulation under which sales have been made appeared in the Federal Register in 1948, I am unable to find that any subsequent determination has been made. The general counsel to the Department of Agriculture has said that this regulation constitutes · a "continuing judgment" that logs are in surplus. But upon what evidence or what record that finding and judgment are based are totally unknown to me, to the industry, and I suspect to the officials who administer the law.

Certainly that judgment does not conform with conditions that have prevailed in the industry for some time. No evidence or record that could be made today would reveal the kind of surplus involved here. To the contrary, all the evidence compiled by the Small Business Committee shows that there is a shortage of unprocessed Federal timber in the Pacific Northwest, and to a large degree the shortage is attributable to exports.

I believe that paragraph (b) makes it clear that Congress expects the Secretary hereafter to hold a public hearing when he wishes to declare a local specie surplus, or to sell for export ·a specified quantity from a specified region of anational forest. The language of the amendment anticipates that the public hearing record will show whether that specie or quantity is in fact surplus to local need,

and that the .judgment of the Secretary will be guided by that record ..

The language also makes clear that the needs of domestic processors are among the primary needs to be taken into account in arriving at such a judgment. Where a mill markets its lumber is not at issue here. Its consumption of timber makes it a domestic user and processor, not the place where its product is eventually retailed.

Finally, paragraph (c) is designed to enable the appropriate secretaries to develop administrative regulations to prevent the substitution of public timber for exported non-Federal timber. There lurks in the minds of some the idea that processors owning their own timber supply will sell it for export, and replace it by bidding for public timber. Those of us who have been following this whole issue for many months have been alert tc that possibility. We have been watching for it. We have let the industry know that such a practice would defeat the whole objective of the April order of the Department and the amendment to the pending bill. In connection with the April "determination," the large private timber owners voluntarily assured Members of Congress and the Department of Agriculture that they would not engage in this practice. I have not seen any indication that private timber .owners are curtailing their own production in order to sell their timber holdings for export. Most of them are large, integrated industries. They have nothing to gain from abandoning their domestic markets. ' It does not appear that they are doing so, or are planning to do so.

Nonetheless, I think it is essential that public confidence in the use of Federal timber be maintained by taking all possible steps to assure that this substitution does not occur. That is why ·the appropriate secretaries are specifically authorized to prevent it.

Today I received a telegram from one of the witnesses in our July 19 hearing that bears directly on this problem. It reads as follows:

Hon. WAYNE MORSE: Please include the following additional statement in the record of the Senate Small Business Subcommittee hearing held in Washingto·n, D.C. on July 19, 1968:

Senator MoRSE, during the hearing on extension of the boundaries of primary manufacturing requirements, segregated the log export problem into three main categories. I agree with the Senator that log exports do fall into several general categorieS and should be regulated accordingly. At this time, our comments will be directed to either exporting Federal logs or the substitution of public logs for exported private logs.

I. Exporting Federal logs. This category has already been well documented at the hearing. However, it should be emphasized that continued control within the existing boundaries as well as extension of these boundaries is paramount to the local dependent mllls regardless of the action taken on private timber.

III. Exporting private logs and replacing the exported private logs with public timber. This replacement could be either simultaneous substitution or a rapid depletion of private timber by accelerating the cut for export purposes. Upon completion of the accelerated depletion ·of private tfmber, the operators could then purchase publlc timber to operate their m11ls left destitute for logs because of the log export program.

This group of private timber· holders should not be eligible to purchase public timber to replace their depleted supply. In addition, other qualified purchasers of public timber should be prohibited from sell1ng logs to the above operators as a substitute for their exported non-federallogs.-

The amendment to sixteen U.S.C. 616 adopted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee appears to provi~e for this type of control.

We certainly support the appr6val of the restrictions of substitution and feel it is needed now. At present, the primary manufacturing regulation ls relatively new so it would be difficult to cite instances where private timber holders are exporting their own timber and running up the sales on public timber. It does pose a real potential problem and industry should face up to it now and request 'means to prevent this, such as Senator Morse's amendment to the foreign aid bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to include this additional statement.

ARNOLD EWING, . , Northwest Timber Association.

I want to thank Mr. Ewing for making it clear that the industry is aware of this problem, and that it supports the type of regulation to , prevent it authorized by the amendment. His statement is supported by other expressions of industry support compiled by the National Forest Products Association.

I al5o want the legislative history of this provision to make clear that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior· have the administrative authority to impose such rules and 'regulations and restrictions as may be necessary to prevent any such potentlal-but at · the present time hypothetical-abuse that Mr. Ewing and the senior Senator from Oregon have been discussing.

I want the RECORD to make perfectly clear that the Senator from Oregon will not only support the exercise of such administrative power on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary · of the Interior, but, if this problem arises, I shall be insisting that they act under this authority, because it would .be their clear duty to do it under a showing of such facts. · Finally, I would appeal to all factions,

in Government and out, who are involved in this issue to understand that there is nothing to be gained by letting this controversy continue to build up. Everyone knows that is all it can do, in the absence of the solution the Foreign Relations Committee has offered. Far from "going away," the conflicting economic pressures can only grow. That means that the political pressures can only grow, too.

The pending amendment is a fair compromise. It is only an extension of the directive of tho Secretary of Agriculture of April 16, 1968. It comes to grips with the issue, and it affords the means of getting it behind us. ·

It is fair to eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, Utah, Montana, and to all the States in which these great national forests are located, where the danger is and where the, Japanese are already showing an intention to go into the national forests in those States and ·continue the · malpractice that charac·terized their buying in wes'tern Oregon and western· Washington' on which the Secretary of Agriculture put a ceiling

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24189 by his directive of April 16 in that limited area. This is a matter in whic:P. there should be a uniformity of policy, covering all national forests, and it is also a matter which calls for such uniformity in carrying out the legal intent of the law of 1926.

I say it is a fair compromise. That is why I believe the amendment deserves the support of every Federal agency, and the economic interests involved, as well. I recommend it to the Senate, and to the Congress.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment,

·the bill (S. 3679) to. amend the act of June 19, 1968 (Public Law 351, 9oth Cong.).

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 16363) to clarify and othe~i~e amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, to provide for cooperation with appropriate State agencies with respect to State poultry products inspection programs, and for other purposes; agreed to the confere1_1ce asked by the Senate on the disagreemg votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. PURCELL, Mr. STUBBLEFIELD, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. BELCHER, and Mrs. MAY were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

· The message further announced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the concurrent

-resolution <H. Con. Res. 705), to assist veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States who have served in Vietnam or elsewhere in obtaining suitable employment.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNEP,

The message also announced that the : Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills:

S. 222. An act to insure that certain buildings financed with Federal funds are so designed aJld constructed as to be accessible to the physically handicapped;

H.R. 11026. An act to amend. the act of ·September 15, 1960, for the purpose of developing and enhancing recreational opportunities and improving the fish and wildlife programs at reservations covered by said act, and for other purposes; and

H.R. 17903. An act making appropriations for public works for water and power resources development, including certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study

·Commission, the Delaware River Basin Com. mission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the , Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Water Resources Council, and the Atomic Energy Commission, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes.

TRANSFER OF HEADSTART TO THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I turn to ~another. subject, which I must make a ·matter of r-ecord before I leave the floor

to go to a conference with the House on the education bill, because I want to be able to show, Mr. President, that the analysis of the majority of the Senate, as far as concerns the reason for the 60 to 29 vote that seeks to transfer Headstart from OEO to HEW, has been put in the REcoRD by the chairman of the Senate conferees.

Mr. President, in the July 22, 1968, issue of the Washington Post, on page 1, there appears a story written by Miss Eve Edstrom under the caption, "Johnson Moves To Rescue Headstart." I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I have alluded be printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SENATE SETBACK LAID TO WHITE HOUSE LAG

JoHNSON MOVES To RESCUE HEADSTART

(By Eve Edstrom) The Senate last week crippled the poverty

war's most popular child-Head start--while the White House reportedly stood still.

If the Senate . a~tion stands, Head Start would be turned over to the states. Its most innovative ingredients would almost surely be wiped out. Its neediest beneficiaries-the children of the poorest Southern Negroes, Indians and migrants-would be all but shut out. .

Yet Head Start supporters say their appeal for White House aid early last week was brushed aside on the grounds that the Senate amendment didn't have a chance of

~:;e~fter it was adopted by a whopping 60 to 29, the White House actively began trying to undo the damage. Visits were paid to key Congressional leaders in an effort to overturn the Senate action when it goes to conference.

Actually, if there had been a~y coordinated Administration strategy during last Wednesday's hasty Senate debate, an accept

. able compromise might have been worked out. But the issues were so obscured that

. ev~:p. sensational charges against a Chicago street gang were used to hamstring Head Start. '· ·

At first glance; the Senate amendment to the Vocational Education Bill would appear to result in nothing more than a long-expected bureaucratic shift.

The popular Head Start program for preschoolers would be taken away from the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) and given to the Office of Education, effective next July.

But neither the Office of Education nor its parent, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), wants Head Start under the conditions which the Senate imposed.

This is because Head Start money would be channeled through state school a~encies and the Office of Education would not even have the final power to disapprove a state

·plan for Head Start fUnding. · ' · As explained by the chief mover of the

Senate amendment, Sen. Peter H. Dominick (R-Colo.), school officials "would, therefore, state by state, be in charge of this program."

Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.) immediately applauded the move to give Head Start to state educators. He long has fought OEOsupported Head Start projects in Mississippi which operated outside of the schools to get innovative programs to the poorest Negro children.

An end to such projects is almost certain if the Senate amendment passes. Similarly, it is doubtful that states will give up funds for Head Start projects on ·Federal Indian reservations or for children of migrants.

Furthermore, the argument that Sen. Wayne ·Morse (D-Ore.) made in support of the amendment is strongly contested by both OEO and HEW officials. Unlike Morse, they do not believe Head Start is strictly an educational program and should therefore be in the Office of Education.

i:n a letter that was made part of the Senate debate, HEW Secretary Wilbur J . Cohen said:

"Head Start was imaginatively developed by the Office of Economic Opportunity as part of a broad-scale and coordinated attack on the many social problems-nutritional, medical, psychological as well as educationalwhich contribute to the cycle of poverty.

"In this comprehensive format, Head Start has functioned exceedingly wen under the Office of Economic Opportunity and, consequently, we believe that its assignment there should be continued.''

This should not be interpreted to mean that Cohen does not want Head Start within HEW if it could be operated under the same flexible guidelines that exist at OEO.

In fact, both OEO and HEW are in general agreement . that Head Start should be transferred, either as an independent agency directly under the HEW Secretary's super-

. vision or as a component of the Children's Burea~ · '

This was a principal reason why Jule M. Sugarman, the creator and developer of Head Start, left OEO in April to become associate chief of the Children's Bureau. His job is to weld together all health, educational and welfare services for pre-school children.

Such a coordinated attack on the problems of preschoolers, along with the continuing involvement of parents that has characterized Head Start programs, has been a chief aim of Secretary Cohen. But the Senate debate did not focus on these aspects of Head Start. Instead, Morse in becoming a strong ally of Republican proponents of the amendment, 13mphasized how OEO programs in his state have been beset by "inefficiency, by waste and by maladministration." OEO sources say Morse is piqued because Congressional fund cutbacks forced the closing of a Job Corps center in Oregon.

Sen. Frank J. Lausche (D-Ohio) said he would vote for the transfer because he had read how OEO had supported a Chicago street

·gang project that was controlled by "thugs, thieves, hippies, drug addicts."

Southern Democrats, angered because OEO used discretionary powers to fund projects in their states, found themselves in the unusual position of giving Head Start to one of their chief whipping boys, Education Commissioner Harold Howe II, former enforcer of HEW school desegregation policies.

Thus, the Senate vote can be interpreted as stemming from broad anti-OEO feeling, rather than any considered judgment of how Head Start can best be operated.

The Head Start transfer has not been the subject of hearings, and did not come up in the House when the Vocational Education Bill passed.

Senate conferees, who have been appointed to resolve the matter, are split right down the middle--five voted for the trasfer and five voted against it.

They will meet with yet-to-be-selected House conferees. However, a majority of the House conferees will reflect the senti

.ments of House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, Carl D. Perkins (D-Ky.).

Perkins is dead set against the transfer, but no one is predicting how the battle will come out.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to preface my remarks about the material contained in the story with a tribute to Miss Edstrom, who I know to be a responsible and thoroughly competent journalist. What I have to say about the statements in the article-and

24190 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD - SENATE July · 30, 1968'

there are many of them I' believe to be quite misleading-! would wish: attributed to the sources who provided Miss Edstrom with the materials she used.

I suspect that those sources can be found not too far from the omces of the Acting Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Mr. Harding. I base this upon an episode which occurred on July 17 and about which I spoke on the Senate :floor on July 18. Interested Senators may :find my comments on that occasion on page 22030 Of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of July 18.

But whatever the source, it is necessary, I think, to set the record straight.

The first paragraph of the story, which states, "The Senate last week crippled the poverty war's most popular childHeadstart," is an assertion which, in my judgment, has no foundation in fact even though it may be sincerely held by some of those working within the Office of Economic Opportunity in this program.

Why do I say this? Because the physical transfer of the Washington authorities from OEO to the Office of Education need not disturb in the slightest the interaction among the child, his parents, the preschool teacher, the doctor, and the volunteer worker who locates the child's clothing. Together this group can continue to bring into focus the combined goods and services whose end is to enable the youngster to start the first grade on an equal basis with his more fortunate classmates from a middle-income home. I am not wedded to the detail of the State plan as set forth in the amendment. I am perfectly willing to weigh arguments for the addition or subtraction of elements and provisions if the case can be made on the merits. Without presuming to speak for Senator DoMINICK on this matter-he can speak, and eloquently, for himself-! know from experience he is a reasonable man.

Let those in conference on the House side show us in which way there is justification for modification of the amendment, and we will consider it.

Let us look, however, at the actual provisions of the amendment.

In section 802(a) (2)' there appear the following provisions:

Under which funds paid to the State from its allotment under section 801 will be used to make grants to community action agencies (established pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964), and public agencies or private nonprofit agencies or organizations, including local educational agencies, to assist them in carrying on preschool programs, which, under subsection (b), are eligible for assistance under this title;.

And, in section 802(a) (6): The State plan provides a balanced pro

gram to meet the educational, nutritional, health, clothing, and other unique needs of children from im.poverlshed. backgrounds in order for them to function at optimum levels in relationship to other children:

And, in (7): It fUrther provides a standard of poverty

for individuals and families in the State that takes lnrto account· the number of chJJ.dren, dependents, and other special circumstances substantially affecting the ability of ind!viduals and families to be self~sustaintng;.

Section 802(b) states: A preschool program shall be eligible for

assistance under this title if ( 1) tt is designed to prepare . educationall; . deprived children in areas having high proportions of children from low-income families to. suooess:fully undertake the regular elementary school program, (2) it is carried on by, or under contracts or arrangements with, a community action agency or a public agency or private nonprofit agency or oganization, including a local educational agency, and (3) it is limited to participation by children from families meeting the poverty standards established under section 802(a) {7).

Listening to some of the critics one would think that these so-called local action agencies are being abolished by the Dominick amendment. Quite the contrary, Mr. President. Let me say to those who have been stirred up by the propaganda that has come out of OEO, that the Senator from Oregon charges here on the floor of the Senate that Mr. Harding and his associates down at OEO have been sending out letters, telegrams, and propaganda fighting this amendment that was passed by the Senate br a vote of 60-to-29. That is why I said on July 18 that the President should re- , member-and I defended his power to nominate-where Senate confirmations are necessary, not only that he has the power to nominate, but that he has the power to fire, and Mr. Harding should take note of it, as well as those others in the Ofiice of Economic Opportunity who, in my judgment, have been misusing and abusing their om.ces by seeking to direct the legislative process of Congress.

As I said on July 18, I repeat on the :floor of the Senate this afternoon, Mr. Harding and his group need to remember that the power and the authority to declare where Government functions shall be vested in the executive branch of this Government rests in Congress, not in the executive branch. .

I think, Mr. President, it is still truesometimes I doubt it, or am tempted to doubt it, but I think it is still true-that we are not a government of executive supremacy yet. I think it is still true that thus far we have not delegated all of our legislative functions to the White House.

As the Senate knows, i have pleaded here for years against this trend of Congress walking out on its legislative responsibilities under the Constitution, which Congress has done time and time again, to the point that we now do have a threat of developing a government by executive supremacy instead of a government such as the constitutional fathers envisaged and set forth, of three coordinate and coequal branches of government, a judiciary, a legislative branch, and an executive branch.

Mr. President, I wouid that it were not necessary for me to speak so critically on the floor of the Senate about any agency of the Government, but the Office of Economic Opportunity asked for it. I did not. They have drawn the issue, and I want to say that all this is is a transfer of a program from one agency of the Government to another agency of the Government.

Not only, Mr. President, is it just a transfer, but every phase of the program

will continue. This is in line with a policy that Congress has adopted in regard to · other educational programs that .. originally were vested in the OEO. Mr. President, :we have transferred Upward Bound. We have transferred the college work-study program. We have transferred other programs of the Office of Economic Opportunity that are related to educational programs, such as adult basic education.

The original action was to place authority for such programs in the enabling legislation establishing the Office , of Economic Opportunity. But it was never intended that they should be re-· tained in the Office of Economic Opportunity on some perpetuity basis, or that there was some vested right of jurisdiction that was not subject to reverse and change. Quite the contrary.

We debated the issue and proceeded to the vote in the Senate that resulted in the Headstart transfer, by the vote of 60-to-29. The debate showed that from the standpoint of efficiency, economy, and appropriateness of jurisdiction, all the programs should be vested in that department of the Government which has jurisdiction over educational matters. That agency in HEW is the Office of Education not the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. In a moment. Mr; President, I wish Senators could

see . the telegrams I am receivingst~Ula.tea; ·may I say; by the propagandists down in the Office of ·Economic Opportunity. Furthermore, I want ·the Vice President of the United States to take note of what I say, for he is reported in the press as saying that he wants Headstart put back, or retained in the Office of Economic . Opportunity:

I ask him, "Mr. Vice President, will you please read the RECORD first? For your public statements do not give me the slightest indication that you have ever read the debate on the Headstart program.."

Then, I say to the Vice President if he wants to join issue with me, I shall welcome that fight, because I am perfectly willing to take him on. Let him go to the country, seeking the Democratic n~mination for the presidency, and seemmg to want to whittle away at the constitutional right of Congress to determine where these functions shall be located. I say to the Vice President of the United States, that is a legislative power, not the power of the Vice President or the President, under our Constitution. ~utI also want to say that I have con

fidence in the Vice President, that if he gets the facts, I would be perfectly willing to put him on a jury to cast a juror's vote as to where Headstart should be located. · ··

I yield to the Senator from Colorad~. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I was

very much interested in listening to the senator's speech. I, too, am receiving, as I am sure many otper Senators are letters, editorials, clippings, and newspaper ar~icles, generated by the omce of. Economiq Opportunity. 1\{y own comments

July 30, 196B. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~ SENATE 24191 on· the errors and innuendos of the Washington · Post article appear in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of Wednesday, July 24.

Last Saturday I met in Colorado with the heads of four Headstart programs. They had requested the meeting fearing that I was trying to kill Headstart. As the RECORD shows, this is completely farfetched and directly the opposite of the truth, for what I am attempting to do and what the Senator from Oregon is attempting to do is strengthen the program.

Not one of them had read my amendment. When I got through explaining it, they said, "We still disagree with you, because in our opinion the educational institutions of this country are bureaucratic, and are no good."

As more educational institutions hear about this, I think they might become alive to the fact that they are the ones really under attack by the Office of Economic Opportunity. I think they might come in and say to OEO, "Look, you may not want to transfer the program over to our jurisdiction, but we do not think it is accurate for you to say it is not appropriate for us to run Headstart when history and experience amply demonstrate that that is where it is best to administer that type of program.''

So I am delighted to hear the Senator from Oregon speak on the subject. Editorial writers in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News also criticized me for offering this amendment. The factual errors again made it clear the authors had not read the amendment or the senate debate.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, Harding warned the Senator from Colorado and all the rest of us. The very afternoon we agreed to the amendment, that letter went to all OEO employees. It made it perfectly clear that they were going to make this fight against the action we took.

That is why I made my helpful suggestion to the President that he had not only the power to nominate, but also the power to fire. Of course, that is where it is coming from. However, let me say to Mr. ·Harding, and his group, that I have stood up against lobbying for 24 years in the Senate. I do not bend my knees under the type of tactics he is using. I am ready to take on his lobbying. I do not intend to surrender to implied promises or threats of pressure being put upon us because we are seeking to do what we are satisfied is in the best interest of the little boys and girls of the country-to come under the Headstart program.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I am sincerely grateful to the Senator from Oregon for the support he has given.

I point out that the vote was very interesting. There were 30 Republicans and 30 Democrats who voted in support of the measure. It was a completely bipartisan ·vote.

Mr. MORSE. The Senator is correct. Mr. CURTIS~ Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. CURTIS. ~r. President, I make

the observation that officials of the OEO have some other matters they could well

turn their attention to rather than the stirring up of criticism against the Senate.

The Committee on Government Operations has requested seven official documents that are needed in an investigation. Up to date, the OEO has refused to give them to us. I am sure that the day will arrive when we can get them. However, they can enhance their prestige in aJl quarters if they comply at this time.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the sections which I have quoted from 'the amendment afford ample evidence, in my judgment, that consideration was given by the author of the amendment to carrying on the program objectives which we all believe to be desirable.

Furthermore, in section 804, which is concerned with the administration of State plans, there is the highly significant subsection (c) which states:

In the event a State shall, within a reasonable time fail to submit a State plan, or shall fail to submit an acceptable State plan under circumstances that the Commissioner believes indicate a desire on the part of State officials to prevent operation of any acceptable program under this title within the State, the Commissioner is authorized to

, contract directly with qualified community action agencies or private nonprofit agencies or organizations, including local educational agencies, to implement programs under this title within such State.

I find it difficult in the face of the language of the amendment, to find substantiation of the charge that Headstart is to be crippled. Certainly, the direct administration of the program by the Commissioner of Education if the State fails to act or if State plans do not meet the criterion set forth in the section, provides a safeguard to insure that the program can be carried on effectively.

At this point I would also note that the effective date of the transfer of functions is the beginning of fiscal year 1970, next July 1, thus permitting an orderly transition between the agencies.

I stress that, may I say to the Senator from Colorado, because some of the wires seem to indicate that we are transferring it tomorrow. They have a year in which to make an orderly transfer.

Let us face up to it. Does the Senator know what is going to happen? It will happen here as it has happened in the other programs we transfer. The key personnel slots will be transferred to continue the administration under the direction of the HEW. The idea that this is some kind of unwise program envisioned by the Senator from Colorado, supported by the Senator from Oregon, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, is not borne out by the facts.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, part of

the wires we are receiving say: "Don't kill Headstart by cutting off its funds."

Last year there were no specific funds for Headstart because OEO opposed earmarking. The Dominick-Murphy amend-ment earmarks $375 million for Headstart. So, instead of cutting them off, we are helping them and giving them a specific program that can be retained.

Mr. MORSE. We are giving them a specific guarantee.

Mr. DOMINICK. I am happy. that the Senator from Oregon has pointed out that the transfer would be next July 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Hopefully, the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Colorado will both be here next year. Alld, if we are not, someone else will take up the struggle.

Mr. MORSE. If we are here, we will stay free from lobbyirig, I cim tell the Senator.

Mr. DOMINICK. We can get it straightened out then.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, may I also point out, as I am sure Senators are aware, that language which . goes into conference and is subject to conference scrutiny can be perfected. This is one of the functions of conference. If our colleagues in the other body can point out defects or omissions such as a reservation of a portion of funds for use of Indian children, or the children whose parents are migrants, this is an area which I feel sure would be given most careful consideration by the Senate conferees.

Certainly, our past recommendations to the Senate as in title III ESEA, and in title I ESEA, have shown that our positions are not uniformly inflexible and rigid when the facts substantiate the case being made.

I shall not dignify by comment the allegations made in the third and fourth paragraphs except to say that the record is clear on the bill, as in all bills which I have had the honor to manage in the Senate, that the senior Senator from Oregon and his colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle, have at all times striven to accord a fafr hearing to administration viewpoints presented by responsible public officials.

The facts speak for themselves. The amendment of the distinguished junior Senators from Colorado and California was laid down at the close of debate on Monday, July 17. It was printed in the RECORD and available to all Senators on Tuesday, July 18, and it was not called up until the following day, Wednesday, July 19.

The proposal to transfer this program was one with which we have been concerned for over 2 years.

It is in line with the policy adopted by the Subcommittee on Education more than 2 years ago.

It is one of a sequences of such transfers of programs which have a dominant

. educational component. Senators will recall that as vehicle of

convenience at the inception of the war on poverty there were included a number of educationally based programs. One by one, year by year, such programs have been brought within the administrative scope of the Department of Health, Edu~ cation, and Welfare and placed under the Office of Education.

College work-study was the first, adult basic education the second, Upward Bound in the higher education amendments just passed, and now in the voca-tional education amendments bill, H.R. 18366, the Senate has added Headstart.

We have taken these actions because we can recall the testimony given at the


inception of the Office of Economic Oppo~unlty. . .

That testimony was to the effect that · OEO would innovate and develop prOgrams to be sure, but that when these programs were established as sucCessful they would be placed under the ap-

. propriate age;ncy authority, thus freeing OEO resources to develop new areas and new ideas.

Mr. Presid,ent, I cannot press that point too much. That is the legislative hearing on the OEO act, the act that brought OEO into being. It was never contended by Congress that these programs should be vested in OEO, to stay there permanently. They were to be experimented with. They were to be tried out in OEO. When· they proved to be worthy of consideration, then they were to be transferred to appropriate divisions of the Federal Government.

In all fairness and intellectual honesty, those in the OEO that are carrying on this propaganda drive to prevent the transfer of Headstart to the HEW owe it to the American people to speak the truth about the legislative origin and the history and congressional intent with respect to the legislation that brought OEO into being in the first place.

At least that was the philosophy of the program as I understood it from the lips of Sargent Shriver who repeatedly disclaimed any desire to establish a bureaucratic apparatus with proprietary and vested rights in programs. Unfortunately, perhaps the philosophy of its founder no longer permeates the agency. If so, it is a sign of hardening of the bureaucratic arteries which bodes ill for the health of the agency.

I do not know upon whom Miss Edstrom was relying with regard to her statement:

Neither the Office of Education nor its parent, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, HEW, wants Headstart under the conditions which the Senate impose.

I have always found that the officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, were cooperative in carrying out the intent of Congress when that intent was made clear to them; because they realize, as I am sure Sen~tors realize, that the role of the executive is to execute the will of the people as ex'pressed by Congress.

They are hardworking and dedicated public servants who work at the departmental and the bureau level, and, as good and conscientious men, must nece~sarily bring to our attention those points which they feel would improve the proposals we consider. We give weight to their recommendations, but in the policy matter I must respectfully state that I would not be serving the people of Oregon nor the people of the United States, were I to acquiesce in an abrogation of the legitimate function of the Senate and the House to establish the ground rules under which the executive agencies must, should, and shall, I hope, continue to operate so long as I am privileged to serve in this body.

Mr. President, permit me for a moment to revert to the article where it is stated·:

But neit~er the Oftlce of Education nor its parent, the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare (HEW), wants Heads'tart under the conditions which the Senate imposed.

This is because Headstart money would be channeled through State school agencies and the Office of Education would not even have the final power to disapprove a State plan 'for Headstart funding.

Here I fear that Miss Edstrom has unwittingly been misled, since the amend

·ment sets forth quite clearly the criteria the State plan must meet before it is approved by the Commissioner. Provision

. further is made in section 804: The Commissioner shall not ·finally dis

. approve any State plan submitted under this title or any modification thereof with

. out first affording the State educational agency administering the plan reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing.

The plain words of the amendment, I . submit, do give to the Commissioner power to disapprove a State plan which does not meet the congressional guide-

. lines. It does not, I agree, empower the Commissioner with arbitrary authority upon his sole determination to disapprove a plan. If this is what the source used by Miss Edstrom would wish, then for my part I would find this kind of statement an excellent reason for removing from the purview of that individual the exercise of the congressionally · given authority.

We must live under a rule of law where decisions are made in accordance with

. the statutes enacted by representatives of the people. We ought not to entrust the people of the Nation to rule by men who in the name of flexibility -seek to have the exercise of unreviewable power.

We must address ourselves to this question: What is the purpose of Headstart? If it is to bring to bear the combination of skills and resources in the community which will aid the educationally deprived child to start on an even basis with the youngster across the tracks, then the thrust of the program is directed toward the goal of equal educational opportunity.

The fact that this will have as a beneficial effect the lessening of poverty- for the future, is a good, but it is not the prime end. The prime end is the child,

·not the artificial abstraction. In all the legislation with which I have

·worked -as chairman of the Education Subcommittee this has been my primary

. aim: To keep my eye on the child, on the student) and to weigh and judge and evaluate proposals in terms of the impact upon the child, I do not deny that there are areas of importance with respect to the family, of which the child is a member, which are related to the educational achievement of the child.

The solutions to problems in these areas should be funded, and I have no

·great opposition to funding them under Headstart provided that they are recognized as secondary and tertiary in the total program, with primacy being given to the development in the child of his _own potentialities. - If the thrust of Headstart is to cure the defects of our public welfare system

·and to provide additional funds because Congress, the States, and the counties are unable or unwilling to . adequately fund aid-for-dependent-children programs, then I feel thast this f~t should

be facoo frankly and we should meet that problem on the merits, in the appropri·ate proposed legislation which would come befoce the Senate Committee on FinanCe. But if we are sincerely concerned about the educational sector, which is what the name of the program implies, then we should give the teacher and those who work with the teacher the major role in developing the kinds of programs which will prepare the child for the educational experience.

That is why I said in the debate. on the bill that adequate nutrition for th'e child is important, because a hungry child cannot learn as well as one who comes to school having had a decent breakfast.

That is why I agree that the child should have adequate clothing, so that he is not ashamed or made to feel different because of accidents which have afflicted his family by giving it an inadequate income.

That is why I applaud the efforts of the volunteers who work with the mothers so that the resources available to the family can be expended wisely for the benefit of the child.

But I see nothing wrong with assuring that the school systems throughout the Nation are brought into the picture, because that is what the whole program is about. If it is not, then I respectfully submit that the program ought to be renamed and not sold to the public on the basis of the child's educational needs. ·

I was somewhat amused by the state-ments in the article that the Headstart money would be channeled through the mechanism of the State plan and thus become tainted, when I recall the reasons given by the early administrators of the Office of Economic Opportunity why they had in many of the programs adopted the State plan as a proven ana tested method of administering FederaJ programs in the educational area. ·

State plans are not perfect. The Education Subcommittee has addressed itself with great interest and vigor to im·proving in program after program the mechanisms of the State plan-most recently, in title m ESEA and in the basic amendments to the Vocational Education Act ~hich were oyerwhelmingly approved on Wednesday, July 17, when the Senate, by a vote of 88 to 0, gave final approval to the passage of H.R. 18366.

I can appreciate the problems that Secretary Cohen has in administerin~ the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I can appreciate his desire to keep the programs in the Various agencies in balance. Were I in his· place, I would be, I am sure, as he is, greatly 'impressed by the talents of Mr. Jule Sugarman, who recently joined the Children's Bureau and I would wish to · use those talents .constructively. He was transferred from OEO. But I submit that the form of the agencies of the Govemment ought not to be tortured in order to accommodate the personalities of even the most brilliant ·Federal employees. Rather, -organizational structure within the Department should follow and be based upon· sound divisions of function. It is for. this. reason that ·I ·have suggeste·d and encouraged the lo-...

July 30, 1-968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24193' cation of educational programs or programs having primary educational content within the Office of Education. It is more emcient, more economical. and will save a great deal of money. It wlll· give a coordinated and integrated direction to our educational programs in this· country.

The point is an important one. It is not necessarily an ultimately controlling point, however, if in the wisdom of a majority of the conferees on both sides of the table agreement on a differing solution is reached; but I shall, as a conferee, urge my colleagues to consider carefully the longrange consequence of the actions we take.

I shall do this because of my belief we will be serving the young children who are and should be the chief objectives of our concern.

In testimony on the vocational education bill in a somewhat different area, Mr. Secretary Wirtz made a comment to which I fully subscribe. His statement in colloquy with the senior Senator from Oregon appears on page 2568, part 6, of our education legislation 1968 hearings:

There has emerged with the introduction ln the House now of new legislation which has been set aside the Administr~tion proposal, this question of whether we should depart from the traditional vocational education pattern as we have·known it. I should lllte to make lt perfectly clear that I think it will be the worst mistake in this country if this .Congress yields to the pressure of the past and the pressures of the present lobbyists to perpetuate a distinction betwee~ institutions, a distinction which grinds up the individual in its pettiness. I am talking about the relationships that at the Federal level are between the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor, but I have no concern about that working. I am talking more specifically about the· relationships between the State boards of education, the State vocational education departments, and the State employment services. If there are those who, for 'purposes of bureaucratic aggrandizement will continue to insist on a separate and unequal identity of those State institutions, they ~11 do so a.t the price of grinding up the present generation of youngsters. But they wlll not do it any ·Ionger because this generation of youngsters is. tired of an institutionalism that involves among other things an inab111ty of the institutions even to work together.

Then, Secretary Wirtz went on to say: . This is not said in criticism of any par- .

ticular set of institutions. I know something · of the estrangement that has developed over the years between the employment services 1n the States, which are part of the structure and the ·administration in which we participate in, and the vocational education agencies and the basic education agencies in the States. I think it behooves this Congress and this country to say we want no more of that. It is three sets of State institutions, but it is one boy or one girl that is involved and we had better start from the latter fact instead of from the former. If I understand what is important to young Americans today, ·it is that they are sick .and tired of institutions which have become ends in themselves instead of m~ans to a human end and they are not going to have any more of it.

It is a strong-statement and an honest statement. SecretarY Wirtz says; and I ·

· agree with him, that we should consider the needs of the children, not the needs

CXIV--1524--Part 18

or the-philosophy of the agency except as they promote the welfare of the youngster and if the aim of the program is to prepare and fit the child to compete successfully in the educational system, we cannot afford, in my judgment, to place the teacher, the school in the tail end position.

It may be fashionable to decry the efforts o-f the dedicated men and women who man our classrooms and to say that we should scrap and replace with something different the free public education institution which has contributed so greatly to the strength and capabilities of our Nation. I cannot accept the premises of those who hold to this view. We can and should improve the quality of American education by providing the adequate funding necessary to do the job we all want done by the men and women of America who have chosen the vocation of serving the Nation's children and who are, in my judgment, to be commended for their dedication and aided and sustained in their endeavors to bring forth from the child to the optimum extent possible the talents and abilities with which he was endowed by the Creator.

Mr. President, I wanted to make this statement on the Headstart program before we go into conference. I am glad that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINICK] and the Senator from California [Mr. MuRPHY] have been here during my statement because I shall be referring to it in conference, for in my judgment the issue has been drawn now by the administration; although, let me say without violating any confidence, that I happen to know that the admlnistration has had under consideration for more than a year the transfer of Headstart by administrative order.

When the debate was held on the :floor of the Senate they produced a letter from Mr. Howe, the Commissioner of Education, saying they did not want a transfer. I am used to these differences between verbalism and practice down in the executive branch.

What we are fighting for here is an improvement of Headstart, and the best way to improve it and perpetuate it is to transfer it from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Educauon. ·

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I apolo

gize to the Senator for interrupting him. Mr. MORSE. I have completed my re

marks. Mr. MURPHY. Then I apologize for

presuming that I had interrupted the Senator. I tried to get the attention of the Senator and his permission to interrupt some time ago. Unfortunately, I guess my speaking device was not turned up so the Senator could not hear me.

Mr. MORSE. I am sorry. Mr. MURPHY. That is all right. It is

an impediment I have to live with. Mr. President, I wish to enthusiastical

ly join in the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Oregon. I think he knows that over the years it has been the strong feeling of the Senator

from California that the Department of Education should deal with matters of education so that when some Member of the Senate wants to find out exactly what is going on, whether there is or is not progress, how it is being handled, that we know exactly where to go. If, in our judgment, it is not being handled properly, we know what to do legislatively to correct it.

It has been my strong feeling, and I am glad to see it is also the strong feeling of the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Colorado, that Headstart properly should be in the Department of Education.

I shall be glad to join my distinguished colleague today in the conference, of which I am a member, to do everything possible to make this transfer and make it quickly and as practically as it can be done because I agree that this is a great necessity and it is a matter of great importance to the general welfare of our young people and the young people of future generations.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator. The Senator has restated the position he has qonsistently taken in the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I yield to the Senator from Colorado, unless he wants the floor in his own right.

Mr. DOMINICK. In a moment I shall request the floor in my own right. First, I wish to express again my gratitude for the support of the Senator from Oregon, and the Senator from California, who is the cosponsor of this amendment.

I believe the colloquy we had and the . speech made by the Senator from Oregon should clear up, at least in the mindS of the public and many Senators, questions . which must have occurred by reason of this propaganda effort by the Office of Economic Opportunity.

It is amazing to me that we had editorials, newspaper columns, and newspaper articles in my State by people who apparently had never read the amendment and did not know what was in it. It is a little discouraging to have this. happen and to find oneself faced with a barrage of opposition, all of which is in . the nature of a strawman, because the amendment never gave rise to the questions that are being raised.

I hope the colloquy and the effective 1

comments made by the Senator from ' Oregon will clear up these points and : reduce some of this opposition.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I am about to yield the

floor but I would like to have· the attention of the acting chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], so I will learn from him the planned procedure for the remainder of the afternoon.

There is pending before the Senate an amendment which seeks to increase the foreign aid bill by $200 million. I am sure no more than eight Senators have heard the discussion. I think it is a bad amendment for reasons I wish to express at some length when the matter is brought up again on the floor of the Senate.

My understanding is, acd the acting

24194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, '1968 chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations can put me right, that the plan is to try to work out a unanimous-consent agreement for a limitation of time on amendments and on the bill for tomorrow, which will have my hearty cooperation.

However, what I am concerned about, because I have seen it happen too many times when people were off the :floor, is that there is a danger that this amendment will slip through here this afternoon with practically no debate on its merits.

I do have to go to a conference on the education bill, but, if necessary, I will stay here because I do not intend to let the amendment pass today, for I think we should have time to study the amendment and the Senate should be apprised of its contents. It is an amendment which was never submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and we never had hearings on it. There are many reasons why it should not be adopted. I shall mention one or two of those reasons at the present time.

I am for more fertilizer in foreign countries, and I am for better seed in foreign countries, but I am not for the giveaway programs. I am for helping those countries build their fertilizer plants, and I am for those countries developing seed programs; and not keeping this foreign aid program, which is just a drain on the American taxpayers, by giving away more and more.

We have in this program, as the record shows, nearly $122 billion, but better than $120 billion, in foreign aid since 1946.

We are at war and in a serious financial crisis. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] talked about the $3 billion foreign assistance program but that was limited to the items he particularized. Let me say that the foreign assistance program as of now is better than $7 billion, if we bring in all the foreign assistance programs over and above the limited foreign aid programs. This is not the time to be adding $200 million to the bill. We should be cutting it.

As the acting chairman knows, I have sought to be cooperative. We have made some improvements, in my judgment, on the last day of the markup. As I have said on this :floor, I am willing to go to a vote on the bill and enter into a Unanimousconsent agreement to limit debate, so far as I am concerned. I cannot speak for anyone else but myself.

What I should like to know, and my specific question to the Senator from Alabama is: Is it his intention to proceed with consideration and a vote on the Mondale amendment this afternoon, or is he willing to lay it over until tomorrow?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Let me say to the Senator from Oregon, first, that he has truly represented the situation in the Committee on Foreign Relations. There was a remarkable degree of cooperation even when some of us felt ourselves differing with each other. The Senator knows that I voted against some of the amendments which were introduced, and that I voted for some of them. But we worked the will of the majority of the committee and brought the bill to the

:floor of the Sena~e. I consider it my duty to support the committee bill, and that I intend to do.

With reference to the Mondale amendment, I can assure the Senator that neither this amendment nor any other will slip through. We will watch them all carefully. There will be no action on the Mondale amendment this afternoon. In fact, as soon as the Senator has completed his ,remarks, I intend to ask that the Senate go into executive session to consider the nomiriation of Mr. Sprague to be a member of the Board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Mr. MORSE. I want to thank the acting chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. SPARKMAN] most sincerely. Through all the markup on the bill, I have received his complete cooperation. As he knows, it was a difficult markup. Many amendments were adopted by close votes, but we resolved the differences and brought this bill to the :floor of the Senate.

All I needed to know was that there would not be action taken on the Mondale amendment this afternoon which gives us adequate time to debate it tomorrow.

I thank the Senator very much. Now I should like to say to my col

leagues on the education conference, the Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY] and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINICK] that I am now going over to the conference room.

Mr. President, I yield the :floor. Mr. DOMINICK. Prior to the motion

of the Senator from Alabama to place the Senate in executive session, I should like to send three amendments to the desk and ask that they be printed.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is recognized to send to the desk the first amendment which the clerk will report. There is, however, a pending amendment. The Senator from Colorado can send the amendments to the desk and have them printed and 11e on the table.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado will state it.

Mr. DOMINICK. Do I correctly understand that the pending amendment at the moment is the Mondale amendment?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DOMINICK. Do I also correctly understand the parliamentary procedure, that another amendment which may lie at the desk at the moment cannot be called up to supplant that, so that we can go forward on a vote this afternoon?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Unless the Senator wants to submit an amendment which is a substitute for the Mondale amendment.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry-! wonder whether I could ask the Senator in charge of the bill--

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, is this a. substitute amendment? I could not hear the discussion by the Senator in charge of the bill, when the question was asked by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE] as to whether we would

proceed and vote on this amendment today. I have a reason for asking.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I said that--Mr. MURPHY. Let me finish. Along

with several of my colleagues, unfortunately, I must be absent tomorrow and I would like to have the privilege of voting, if it is possible.

Mr. SPARKMAN. On the Mondale amendment?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. SPARKMAN. I stated to the Sena

tor from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE] that we would not take up the Mondale amendment. I indicated that he wanted to speak against it and that we would not take it up this afternoon; that we would, possibly, instead, go into executive session for the consideration of the Sprague nomination, and that is about all I am going to ask now.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, would the Senator from Alabama yield so that I may ask, is it the plan to come in early tomorrow? We have quite a few Senators who will be missing. . Mr. SPARKMAN. At 10 o'clock, I be

heve. Mr. DOMINICK. Do we plan on head

ing right into debate on this and taking up the amendments?

Mr. SPARKMAN. We hope to, shortly thereafter.

The majority leader has just come into the Chamber. Let us ask him.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator would be willing, we can enter into a unanimous-consent agreement--

Mr. DOMINICK. What I want to ask is whether it will be possible to substitute one of my amendments for the Mondale amendment and get a vote on it tonight?

Mr. SPARKMAN. A voice vote? Mr. DOMINICK. Yes; if the Senator is

willing to accept it, which is possible. Mr. MANSFIELD. It is possible that

we could do it on a time-limitation basis. Mr. SPARKMAN. Not to accept .it, be

cause I have read the amendments and I do not think any one of them would be acceptable. I do not think they belong in this bill, if I have read them right.

Mr. DOMINICK. Then, of course, we would have to have some debate and a yea-and-nay vote. I am just trying to find out the procedure. I do not like to be stymied by the Mondale amendment.

Mr. SPARKMAN. We can go ahead with the executive session and when that is over, we can resume debate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Would the Senator from California give us some idea of how much time he would take?

Mr. MURPHY. I have already discussed it, 20 minutes, perhaps 25 minutes--certainly no more than that. I should like to point out that the executive session is not coming at my insistence or request at this time. It was suggested that I should ask whether I would be prepared, and I said that I would be prepared at any time, starting this morning, and I do not insist that this take place at this time. I would be glad to defer to the business of the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINICK], and get on with the order of business as it has been laid down.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I should like very much to get this settled. It was reported

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24195 about a week ago. We have worked out the time when the Senator would be here and I should like the Senate to proceed. I am perfectly willing to have a limitation of time.

Mr. MURPHY. I simply say that I will arrange to be here. I do not want the RECORD to appear that this is being done as a convenience to me.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Not at all. Mr. SPARKMAN, No, no. Mr. MURPHY. I will be here any time. Mr. MANSFIELD. Would the Senator

agree to a half-hour time limitation, with 20 minutes for him and 10 minutes for the distinguished chairman of the committee?

Mr. MURPHY. I have already done that about 15 minutes ago. There is no problem there.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I make that Wlanimous-consent request, not to exceed 20 minutes to be used by the distinguished Senator from California [Mr. MuRPHY], and 10 minutes to be used by- the distinguished Senator from Alabama, the chairman of the committee.


Mr. DOMINICK. May I ask the- majority leader a question, then: What are we going to do when we finish the executive session?

Mr. MANSFIELD. We will go on to the Mondale amendment--

Mr. SPARKMAN. May I say to the Senator from Montana that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE] wants to speak on the Mondale amendment. He is now 1n conference. He asked me about it and I told him that we would not dispose of the Mondale amendment tonight.

Mr. MURPHY. I also am a member of the same conference· with the Senator from Oregon. I have an interest in the conference, as well as getting on with the order of business. It seems to me we have so much to do that should be done before the recess, that this is my reason-and, I assume, also the Senator from Colorado-for urging that we get on with it and do all we can today.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The leadership's hands and the manager's hands are tied. It would appear, therefore, that there would be no further debate on the pending amendment.

This time, Mr. President, incidentally, comes out apart from the time agreed to. I would hope that the Senator from Colorado would endeavor, with his colleagues, to arrive at a time limitation for tonight or ea.rly tomorrow.

Mr. DOMINICK. I do not plan to speak at length on the amendment.

I was wondering if we could set asfde the Mondale amendment and go on with one of my amendments. I am also a member of the education conference, but would hope to have the Senate consider one of my amendments tonight.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President. 1f that is what the Senator from Colorado wants, I am certain we can do that.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Lay aside. the Mon- . dale amendment and then have an agreement on an amendment the Senator from Colorado will offer?

Mr. DOMINICK. On the first amendment, which is all I would offer tonight. I would be happy to agree to a time limitation.

Mr. MANSFIELD. How much time would the Senator want?

Mr. DOMINICK. It has to do with the U.S.S. Pueblo, so other Senators will want to talk about it. I would think we would need 1 hour for each side.


Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. CLARK. I stopped in on the way

to the education bill conference, to which I am already half an hour late. I do not see how we can be expected to be in two places at the same time. I Wlderstand that that conference is expected to last all night.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to see the first Dominick amendment considered and disposed of tonight.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the period allocated to the Senator from California and the Senator from Alabama, and the vote, there be a 2-hour limitation on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DollliNICK], the time to be equally divided between the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], the. manager of the bill, and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINicK}, sponsor of the amendment.

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. Is there objection?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I shall not object-do I understand from the Senator from California that he proposes to bring up tonight an amendment dealing with the sale of aircraft to the State of Israel?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No; he has reference to the Sprague nomination.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent agreement proposed by the Senator from Montana? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate go into executive session for consideration of a nomination.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider executive business.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION The ACTING PRESIDENT . pro tem

pore. The clerk will state the nomination on the Executive Calendar~

The bill clerk read the nomination of Irvine H. Sprague, of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- . pore. The question before the Senate is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Irvine H. Sprague, of California? Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the Senator from California is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, r suggest the al:sence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time not be taken out of the. time of the Senator from California, in order to notify the cloakrooms. I think this matter is of importance and that as many as possible of our colleagues should be p;resent to hear what is said.

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll. The time will not be taken out of the time of the Senator from California.


Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the .order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING. PRESIDENT pro tem- . pore. Without objection, it is so ordered

Mr. MURPHY. Although this matter may not be of too much interest to persons who are not from California., I believe what I have to say is of utmost importance as it pertains to the appoint .. ment of a Director of the FDIC.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- . pore. The Senator from California is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Chair. I rise today with the unhappy duty

of expressing my objection to the appointment of Mr. Irvine Sprague as a . Director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

At the outset, let me say that I have absolutely no personal feelings or animosities toward Mr. Sprague. As far as · I can recall I have never met him, but he is certainly by reputation a nice man, well liked by those who are acquainted with him, and one having a fine family.

Unfortunately, I feel I must oppose this appointment simply on the grounds · that the nominee is not qualified for the job. I would like the RECORD to show that insofar as I am able, I intend 1n the future to pursue this course with respect to all nominations I cannot approve.

I may be particularly sensitive to the requirements for this position, and to the responsibilities of the FDIC, because of events which surrounded the failure of a bank in my State, the San Francisco National Bank, soon after I joined the Senate. At that time it became very evident to me how important is the FDIC's roll in protecting the millions of American citizens who entrust their savings to our banks. I also saw the difticult decisions which must be made by the leadership of the FDIC-technical decisions which require a great deal of knowledge and skill concerning banking practices. In the San Francisco case, a particularly serious problem was whether or not the funds advanced to that institution by a group of people seeking a high profit on a very quick turnover, what we might call "fast money boys," were deposits, which would be insured by the FDIC, or were in effect an investment in the institution.

One of the principal duties of the Director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is to investigate and ascertain the advisability and desirability of granting Federal deposit insurance -:;a banks. While for many banks there are

24196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE July 30, 1968 other investigations by Federal Government agencies into the soundness of applicant banks, for State banks which are not members of the Federal Reserve System this check by the FDIC is the only Federal investigation into the reliability of the institution. The duties of the Director of the FDIC, therefore, become extremely important in protecting the deposits of American citizens and in assuring the soundness of the American banking system.

I must object to Mr. Sprague's appointment because I do not believe his background supplies him with the qualifications neeessary for the technical decisions required of the FDIC.

Mr. Sprague has been a news reporter, administrative assistant to a Congressman, the political representative of California's Governor in Washington, and most recently a White House congressional liaison. Obviously, this background provides him with a broad general experience in politics and the National Government, but in the parlance of my former business, I must say in all candor that for the position to which he has been named he is miscast.

I should clear up a misapprehension which may have arisen from the title Mr. Sprague held as the California Governor's representative in Washington.

He was "Deputy Director of Finance," a title given to fit him in the State government framework, but one which ac-

. tually involved· no finance experience that I can find, and as Mr. Sprague stated in his testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee.

The position to which Mr. Sprague has been named was -last held by .a gentleman with a banking background, one who left that post to become a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In my opinion, that gentleman was properly and completely qualified.

The directorship of the FDIC, to which Mr. Sprague has been named, has been vacant now for 15 months. Why, in the waning months of his administration, has the President suddenly decided to fill this post which is a 6-year term? I am afraid this raises the same questions which I have raised with respect to other recent appointments by the President.

As my colleagues well know, another appointment is pending before the Senate, a so-called lame duck appointment. It has already received a lot of attention and, I presume, it will get a lot more before it is finally concluded one way or the other. I object to that appointment, too. However, on the basis that I now refer to, the matter of the timing, I think that since the position has been left vacant for 15 months, it could be left to the determination of the new government which will be selected very shortly by the voters of this country. This is the same argument I have raised with respect to the other appointment.

The White House itself must have realized the possible questions which would arise with respect to this appointment, because they certainly did not announce it in a manner to give it frontpage billing. The announcement was made from Honolulu upon a Saturday

afternoon, when I do not believe the Senate was in session.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I regrettably must vote against this appointment and urge my colleagues to vote against it because of the technical reSponsibilities which will fall upon the new Director of the FDIC and because I believe the gentleman whom we are considering has not had the requisite background to meet those responsibilities.

Mr. President, again I say that I have no personal objection to the gentleman. The research that I hav:e done shows him to be an outstanding citizen, well liked, and well respected. In my opinion, however, he is not qualified for this job, and, in my opinion, if we continue to make appointments-political appointments, if you will, or appointments based on the basis of friendship--to these important positions, we are going to erode the strength and the service of this Government.

I believe the constitutional responsibility of Members of the Senate to advise and consent to these appointments is a substantive responsibllity which we cannot exercise in a pro forma manner. I would happily concur in Mr. Sprague's appointment to many Government positions, but for the one to which the President has named him, I cannot.

Mr. President, I have asked that copies of the hearings be made available to Members of the Senate so that they might read Mr. Sprague's own testimony on his lack of financial experience. I have found, however, that the hearing record has not been printed.

The chairman of the committee in the opening remarks said that Mr. Sprague has a distinguished career in government and finance. That statement was not quite in keeping with all of the facts as I could find them.

He was a deputy director of finance for the State of California, but he had very little experience in finance.

His title was a complete misnomer. It is still being used, and the present incumbent in that office for the State of California has nothing whatsoever to do with finance, any more than did Mr. Sprague.

In the statement of the Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Joseph Barr, at the same hearings, he said:

I would put down one major qual11icatlon for any man serving ln this distinguished body. It would be good commonsense and awareness of the problems of the United States.

I submit that in all cases commonsense is most commendable, as is honesty and decency and all of the other qualifications, as well as awareness of the problems of the United States. However, in this specific job as Director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a most important organization charged with safeguarding the deposits of millions of Americans, I think that something more than just commonsense and an awareness of the problems of the United States are necessary. ·

I read further. He said : He possesses a good commonsense and

broad general knowledge of the country. This I think is essential to this position.

It would be presumptuous, I guess, to criticize the Under Secretary of the Treasury, but on this occasion I must. I think that more qualifications are needed for this job.

I quote now from the statement of Representative JoHN J. McFALL. I point out that Mr. Sprague worked for Representative JoHN J. McFALL for a period of 6 years as his administrative assistant. This, alone, certainly does not qualify one for a job as important as that of Director of the FDIC.

Representative · McFALL said: He was my assistant for 6 years before he

went to work for the Governor of California as the Deputy Director of Finance in my State. I can testify before you with great partisan feeling because of my feelings for Mr. Sprague.

Mr. President, I would like the RECORD to show that my testimony in opposition now is not partisan in any way. And I assure the Senate that, regardless of party, I intend to oppose any nominations in the future when I do not think the nominee is properly prepared and properly equipped to do the job.

Representative McFALL further said: He has an understanding of Washington

and the government in Washington. . . . I know he would do an enormously good job as Director of the FDIC.

Again, I say that there are other qualifications needed for such an important and highly sensitive position .

Mr. Sprague was then asked by the committee if he had checked to determine whether there would be any problems of conflict of interest, whether he had made a list of his holdings, his investments, and his other personal matters, and whether he had checked with the attorneys for the FDIC.

Mr. Sprague's answer was: I have checked with the attorneys at the

White House.

Mr. Sprague goes on to say: With the attorneys at the White House,

not with the FDIC. I have no holdings that, in any way, would conflict.

That, again, is good. But lately we seem to have had too many dealings and too much seeking of advice at the White House where it would seem to me proper that the advice and counsel might come from the attorneys directly involved with the position to which the nominee is aspiring. . Senator PROXMIRE said: I notice, Mr. Sprague, your principal oc

cupation for 17 years was as a reporter for the Stockton Daily Record.

Senator PROXMIRE went on to ask if he had any relationship to financial matters and Mr. Sprague said that he had some vague relationship to financial matters. Mr. Sprague answered a further question as to his duties as deputy director of finance for the State of California as follows:

I guess I would best be described as a trouble shooter for the State ... We had something over 500 agencies . . . and oftentimes tl,l.ey would have confiicting ideas on what posture the State should have in Wash-. ington.

, ..

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24197 This is a sensitive area. It calls for

knowledge and experiEmce. And it also calls for some sort of statement, so far as this Senator is concerned, as to exactly how the new Director would interpret the legislative intent of this extremely important job.

Senator PROXMIRE, who was very complimentary, said:

I think you have a fine background and I look forward to supporting your nomination with enthusiasm.

I am amazed, because I have heard Senator PROXMIRE be most meticulous in finding out whether or not appointees have proper qualifications, knowledge, and expertise.

Senator BENNETT, however, said: So you had nothing to do with the actual

operation of the omce of Director of Finance in California.

The answer by Mr. Sprague: That is correct.

Senator BENNETT continued: You had no responsibUity in handling their

financial problems.

Mr. Sprague answered: That 1s correct.

I think this dialog 1s self -explanatory as to Mr. Sprague's financial experience.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HoLLINGS in the chair). The 20 minutes of the Senator have expired.

Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 3 minutes.

Mr. MURPHY. I read further from the testimony:

Senator BENNE'rl'. Did you handle problems for the Governor that were not directly related to finance?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. I appeared before this committee .••

Then Mr. Sprague goes on to enumerate many committees before which he appeared with regard to housing legislation, Redwood Parks legislation, Colorado River legislation; however, he gave no evidence whatever of anything havIng to do with finance.

Senator McGEE said, after listening to this testimony:

I have no additional questions, except to state tha.t Mr. Sprague's credentials satisfy me readily.

I find it most embarrassing to have to disagree with my distinguished colleague, Senator McGEE.

I do not believe that passing. on this sort of credentials is in keeping with the \nt~nt of the basic principle of our forefathers of advising and consenting in this distinguished body.

I could read further, Mr. President, and the record would bear out exactly the reasons for the objection on the part of the Senator from California.

Mr. Sprague, I repeat, by reputation is a ftrie gentleman, an honest, discreet fine family man. My objection, and I say it most enthusiastically and firmly, is on the point that he is not qualified for the job and for the reason that this position has been vacant for 15 months, and I see no reason why the President of

the United States cannot permit the position to be filled at the wish and by the desire of the new Government to be selected by the people of this great country next November.

I should like to read one more statement if I have the time, Mr. President. This is a statement by Mr. Sprague:

When John Macy first approached me with an outline of the kind of person they were looking for for the position, the requirements, I looked at it and I said: "Well, that's me."

So, from this I may guess that possibly Mr. Sprague himself, made the decision that he was the man for the job. I think that is admirable. But once again I say that I must object to the appointment on the ground that this gentleman, in my humble opinion, is not qualified to be a Director of the FDIC. · Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, hearings were held on this nomination on July 23 by the Committee on Banking and CUrrency.

Mr. Sprague has had a long and distinguished career in public service. He served for 17 years as a reporter on the Stockton Daily Record. In 1957 he e&me to Washington as the administrative assistant to Representative JoHN McFALL. From 1963 through 1966 he served as the deputy director of finance for the State of California. In that capacity he represented the State of California before Federal agencies and Congress. For the last 2 years, he has been an Assistant for Congressional Relations in the White House.

Mr. Sprague has also served his country well in wartime. During World War II, he led an infantry rifie platoon in the southern Philippines, winning two Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart.

I am confident that Mr. Sprague will do an outstanding job as a member of the Board of Directors of the FDIC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a biographical sketch of Mr. Sprague be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the biographical sketch was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

IRVINE H. SPRAGUE Aide for Congressional Relations, Presi

dent Johnson, White House, February 1, 1967, to date.

Deputy Director of Finance, State of California, March 1, 1963, through December 81, 1966.

Administrative Assistant to Congressman John J. McFall, January 1, 1957, through February 28, 1963.

Newspaper reporter, Stockton Daily Record, 1939 through 1956. (Except for war years.)

Education: BA, University of the Pacific, 1948. Also attended Indiana University and George Washington Law School.

Military: Army private. Infantry Rifie Platoon leader, Sou them Phllippines. General MacArthur Sta1f, Japan Occupation. Combat Infantry Badge, Bronze Star With Cluster, Purple Heart, California Medal of Merit. Currently Lt. Col. Army Reserve.

Family: Wife, former Marjorie Craw. Children: Michael, 25; Terry, 21; Kristine, 17. Grandchildren: Nicky and Jennefer.

Age: 47. Native of Cal1!orn1a (San Franclsoo). July 4, 1921.

Residence: 7514 Wellesley Drive, College Park, Maryland.

Mr. SPARKMAN . . Mr. President, the FDIC is operated by a three-man Board of Directors. The Comptroller of the CUrrency, Bill Camp;· the Chairman, K. A. Randall, Utah Republican banker; and Irvine Sprague nominated for the Democratic vacancy.

The FDIC has a large well-qualified technical staff. Historically, the Board has had one -member chosen for his knowledge and background on the workings of Washington and the Congress.

In 1957 President Eisenhower named Jesse P. Wolcott, Republican Congressman from Michigan. In 1964 President Johnson named Joe Barr, Democratic Congressman from Indiana.

In filling the current vacancy, John Macy ,looked for someone in the Wolcott-Barr tradition. Mr. Sprague exactly matched the specifications. It is not a question of whether the appointment goes to a non banker; it 1s which nonbanker.

Kay Randall, present Chairman of the FDIC, has unqualifiedly urged the appointment.

Joe Barr, former Chairman of the FDIC, said at the nomination hearing:

1 believe I have an idea as to the type of man the institution needs, and if I would put down one major qualification for any man serving on this distinguished body, it would be good, common sense and an awareness of the problems of the United States.

I worked with Mr. Sprague closely for the past four years in my capacity as Undersecretary of the Treasury and I am delighted to inform the committee that, in my oplnion, he possesses the good, common sense and broad general knowledge of the country that I think is essential to this position.

Mr. Sprague has a work history that shows him quickly grasping the heart of the problem and fast becoming the best in his field.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a 'question?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield briefly. Mr. MURPHY. AB I mentioned in my

remarks, when I first came here there was a problem with the bank in San Francisco.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I remember. Mr. MURPHY. Many of us thought

that bank should have been closed some time before it was closed. There were some circumstances surrounding the actual time of closing of the bank which has caused many of us to wonder how well the FDIC was operating at that time.

I believe this evidences the extreme importance of choosing directors with more than an awareness of government. I have had an awareness of government for 30 years but I would not be qualified for that specific position.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I appreciate the Senator's position. He has discussed his position with me. He has been very cooperative in this matter. However, I wish to make a few comments at this point from the hearings. Some comments from the hearing record are as follows:

Senator PROXMIRE. I think you have a fine bac~ground and I look forward to supporting your nomination with enthusiasm.

Senator McGEE. Mr. Sprague's credentials satisfy me very readily. I am sure he will serve well.

Senator PERCY .... Some of the best people

24198 CONGRESSIONAL ' RECORrr-· SENATE July 30, 1968 I have seen come into banking have come out of other fields to put a whole, fresh, new approach to it. It will be your task to prove your general background and experience can relate itself now to the public responsib111ty you have. You certainly have had a world of experience in government and I would hope you fulfill those functions and responsibllities.

... I intend to confirm your appointment.

Mr. President, I could go on and give other incidents, but I submit that this man is qualified for the position, that he has had an honorable record, and I submit that he will make a good director of the FDIC.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the entire testimony from which I read, which includes remarks of other distinguished Senators, as well as my own, be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the transcript was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: NoMINATION OF MR. IRVINE H. SPRAGUE FOR

MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD OF DmECTORS OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORA-TION

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING

AND CURRENCY, Washington, D.C., July 23, 19.68.

The Committee met at 10:10 a.m. in Room 5302 New Senate Office Building, the Honorable John Sparkman, presiding. Present were: Senators William Proxmire, Gale W. McGee, Wallace F. Bennett and Charles H. Percy.

The CHAmMAN. Let the Committee come to order, please.

Today the Committee will consider the nomination of Mr. Irvine H. Sprague for 'membership on the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Mr. Sprague has had a distinguished career in government and finance, having served for a number of years as Deputy Director of Finance for the State of California. We are very glad to have Mr. Sprague w1 th us this morning.

We invite you to come around, Mr. Sprague, and we are very glad to hear from you.

Mr. SPRAGUE. Senator, I have asked Congressman John McFall and Joe Barr of the Treasury to come up with me.

The CHAmMAN. Fine. Mr. Barr, do you have anything to say in

this connection? STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BARR, UNDERSECRETARY

OF THE TREASURY Mr. BARR. With your permission, Mr. Chair

man, I would like to make just a brief comment.

I consider it a great honor to have served as Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for one year. I have watched its operations closely in the intervening years. I came to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that this institution was really a keystone in the financial progress we made in this great country. It reconciled our desire as a nation to have a highly competitive, diverse banking system with the obvious needs of the country for some kind of a better system of financial stab111ty.

I believe I have an idea as to the type of man the institution needs, and if I would put down one major qualification for any man serving on this distinguished body it would be good, common sense and an awareness of the problems of the United States.

I worked with Mr. Sprague closely for the past four years in my capacity as Undersecretary of the Treasury and I am delighted to inform the Committee that, in my opinion, he possesses the good, common sense and

broad general knowledge of the country that I think is essential to this position.

Thank you. The CHAmMAN. Thank you very much. That,

was a very fine statement. Are there any questions? Congressman, we are glad to have you and

to hear anything you may wish to say. STATEMENT 0:1' CONGRESSMAN JOHN J. M'FALL

Mr. McFALL. Thank you. It is a real privilege to appear before your

Committee this morning on behalf of my friend and close associate, Irvine Sprague, who you are considering for this directOrship on the FDIC.

I worked very closely with Mr. Sprague in the last ten years. I have known him twenty years. He was my assistant for six years before he went to work for the Governor of California as the Deputy Director of Finance in my state. I can testify before you with great partisan feeling because of my feeling for Mr. Sprague.

ms integrity is of the highest. His intelligence is of the highest. He has an understanding of Washington and the Government in Washington. For the last ten years he has been here and he knows really-! would not say all there is to know-but he has a fine awareness of Government and how it should operate and I know he would do an enormously good job as a Director of the FDIC.

All these things, I know, will come out in the confirmation hearing but I have seen them in the last ten years and I am certain you would make no mistake in confirming his appointment.

The CHAmMAN. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Senator BENNETT. Not now. I just want to

make a statement when you are through. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sprague, we are very

glad to have you with u.s. We have your biographical sketch.

As an army private, I salute you as an army private. However, I am afraid my war was one war earlier than yours. I was in World War I.

Do you have something to add to your biographical sketch, which will be made a part of the record?

(Cominittee lay-in.) STATEMENT 0:1' MR. IRVINE H. SPRAGUE

Mr. SPRAGUE. I believe the summary gives a good capsule of my history.

I would like to add that I discussed this opportunity in some depth with people who are famil1ar with the operation; with Joe Barr of the Treasury and at more considerable length with Mr. K. Randall, who is currently Chairman of the agency. It is a challenge and an opportunity, and, with your support. I am looking very much forward to this new assignment.

One additional thing, Senator. If I may, I would like the record to show, 1f I could, that my family is here. My grandchildren are at their first Senate hearing, and if you see· a little one running around--

Senator McGEE. Grandchildren? You are not old enough.

Mr. SPRAGUE. They are certified. [Laughter.] Nicky was three years old yesterday. Jen

nefer is an undetermined age, but young. [Laughter.]

My daughter, Kristine-would you stand? The CHAIRMAN. Let them all stand. Mr. ~PRAGUE. And my wife, Margie. Mrs. SPRAGUE. Your grandchildren went to

the restroom. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Is that your daughter who

just stood? Mrs. SPRAGUE. Why, thank you. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Let me ask you,

Mr. Sprague, do you have ownership in any stock or in any business that would constitute or might constitute a conflict of interest in this office.

Mr. SPRAGUE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. -Have you filed a financial statement with the Committee?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes, I have. The CHAIRMAN. Have you checked with

counsel of the FDIC to make certain of your status with reference to conflict of interest?

Mr. SPRAGUE. I have checked with the attorneys at the White House.

The CHAIRMAN. With who? Mr. SPRAGUE. With the attorneys at the

White House; not with the FDIC. I have no holdings that, in any way, would conflict.

The CHAmMAN. I would suggest that you check with the attorney of the FDIC, also, just as a matter of making a complete record.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I will do that today, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Fine. Any questions, Senator Proxmire? Senator PROXMIRE. I notice, Mr. Sprague,

that your principal occupation for some seventeen years was as a reporter with the Stockton Daily Record. What kind of work did you do with the Stockton paper?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, it varied over the years, Senator. It ranged from sports editor to city editor to general assignments. For nine years I handled the business and development page-Chamber of Commerce, Developmental Board.

Senator PaoxMmE. So you had nine years related to this business-development kind of thing that had some relationship, at least, to your later assignment as Deputy Director of Finance for the State of california.

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is right. The newspaper by which I was employed felt a responsibility to promote the community and my assignment was to work with the business groups in terms of--

Senator PRoxMmE. What were your duties as Deputy Director of Finance for the State of california?

Mr. SPRAGUE. I was stationed in Washington, representing the State of California before the Congress and before the agencies. I had the pleasure of· appearing before your Committee on several occasions. On the Hou.sing Blll, for example.

I guess I would best describe this a.s trouble-shooter for the State.

Senator PRoxMmE. Describe this as what? Mr. SPRAGUE. Trouble-shooter. Senator PROXMmE. I see. Mr. SPRAGUE. For example--Mr. McGEE. California; thAt · represents a

major assignment. Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. We had something over

five hundred agencies in the state and each of them had a great feeling that their problem at a given moment wa.s the one that required the Governor's attention and the state's attention, and oftentimes they would have conflicting ideas of what posture the state should have in Washington.

Senator PROXMmE. You worked with the Congressional delegation?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. Senator PRoxMmE. Senators and Congress

men. Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. Very closely. I had break

fast with the Congressmen every Wednesday morning, for example.

Senator PRoxMm:&. Were you the principal representative of the Governor here in Washington?

Mr. SPRAGUE. I was the only representative. We had a rule in the state that no one in state government could come to Washington without prior approval, because we found it was a nice junket to Washington and oftentimes we would have two or three agencie&-

I remember one case-the reason we put in the rule-where we had three agencies before the Interior Committee with different ideas about what the state wanted. It was quite embarrassing.

Senator PRoxMmE. One of the very important problems this Committee had-K. Randall testified on this before the Jotnt Economic Committee a few days ago, and

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24199 you may have a few ideas-is: How can we expand the market for state and local bonds?

We are concerned about it on several counts. Its tax exempt status and the fact it is limited primarily now to commercial banks. I wondered if you had any feeling about what we could possibly do to broaden the market and conceivably narrow the tax avoidance opportunities. · Mr. SPRAGUE. I am aware you have legislation on this subject, Senator, and in reading your statement I was quite surprised to find that something like only twenty percent of the municipalities have a rating for the sale of . their bonds. To me, that was an astounding figure and it pointed up the need of something to be done.

I do not think it would be appropriate, at this point in time, for me to expound--

Senator PROXMIRE. The reason I thought it might be especially interesting for you to keep in mind is that the FDIC performs such a very decisive function in insuring deposits and we felt a guaranty of municipal bond issues might have a very constructive effect and also might enable us to provide lower cost money for municipalities while, at the same time, we feel, narrowing the tax avoidance opportunities that are now so great and are scheduled to be much greater as municipalities expand their borrowing, as we know they will.

Thank you very much. I think you have a fine background and I look forward to supporting your nomination with enthusiasm.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett? Senator BENNET!'. Mr. Chairman, I am

sorry I was called out briefly. Do I understand that your service as

Deputy Director of Finance did not take place in Californi"H.?

Mr. SPRAGUE. It did not. It was in Washington.

Senator BENNETT. So you had nothing to do with the actual operation of the office of Director of Finance in California.

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct. Senator BENNETT. You had no responsibil

ity in handling their financial problems. You were a liason man between the Governor's office and varioUs federal offices in Washington.

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct. Senator BENNETT. Was that liaison service

limited entirely to financial problems or did it cover other problems that the Governor had?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, all problems really relate to finance, Senator. The problems would be in terms of the wording of legislation so that it would be to the advantage of the state in support o!--

Senator BENNETT. Did you handle problems for the Governor that were not directly related to finance? Related to legislation outside of the financial field? Did you ever appear before this Committee?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes, I appeared before this Committee on two occasions, Senator, in terms of--

Senator BENNETT. Can you remember the bills we were dealing with?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Housing legislation. Senator BENNETT. Housing legislation? Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. Senator BENNETT. Did you appear before

other committees? Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes, sir, I did. I appeared in

support of the Colorado River legislation, Redwood legislation.

Senator BENNETT. That was not related directly to finance.

Mr. SPRAGUE. No, sir. Senator BENNETT. No further questions,

Mr. Chainnan. The CHAIRMAN. Senator McGee? Senator McGEE. I have no additional ques

tion except to state that Mr. Sprague's credentials satisfy me very readily. I am sure

· he will serve well. Mr. SPRAGUE. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Percy?

Senator PERcY. Mr. Sprague, 1f this has already been asked, I will look at the record, but I would be interested in a statement from you as to what you feel 1s the major contribution that you can make in this appointment and what you look upon as the most responsible thing that the organization you would be associating yourself with can do in the next few years, which you can adapt yourself to?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Thank you, Senator. I look on this as a new opportunity to me.

When John Macy first approached me with an outline of the kind of person they were seeking for the position, the requirements, I look at it and said: "Well, that's me." The requirements he outlined were for somebody who had a rather detailed knowledge and experience in Washington who could bring a broadening of the base of the corporation, which now is highly concentrated in a technical area, and someone with experience and an awareness and appreciation of the fact that this is a public corporation and that it was created by the Congress and that lt is not a narrow technical assignment.

I f~lt that it was an area which had much interest and promise to the country and importance to the country in th~ coming years.

Senator PERCY. I did have a chance to talk with Mr· Sprague at great length yesterdayas I am sure other Committee members didand he was most candid in his statement as to his lack of experience in the banking field. Some of the best people I have seen come into banking have come out of other fields to put a whole, fresh, new approach to it. It will be your task to prove your general background and experience can relate itself now to the public responsib111ty that you have. You certainly have had a world of experience in government and I would hope you fulfill those functions and responsib111ties.

I am mainly influenced by your candor and also by the very high praise that Tom Kuchel has had for you in what he has related to me from his knowledge of your experiences 1n California and I intend to confirm your appointment.

Mr. SPRAGUE. Thank you, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The Committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Committee

was adjourned.)

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I yield

back the remainder of my time. Mr. MURPHY. I yield back any time

I have remaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Irvine H. Sprague, of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENINGl, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscHE], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LoNG], the Senator from Minne-

sota [Mr. McCARTHY], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGovERN], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. MONTOYA], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MciNTYRE], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. ScoTT] is absent by leave of the Senate.

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLsoN], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MoRTON], the Senators from illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN and Mr. PERCY], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HANSEN], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], the Senator from New York [Mr. JAvITsJ, and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER] is absent because of illness.

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] is detained on official business.

If present and voting, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], would vote "nay," and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. ScoTT], would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY] is paired with the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER]. If present and voting, the Senator from Tilinois would vote "yea" and the Senator from Texas would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 53, nays 20, as follows:

Aiken Anderson Bayh Bible Brooke Burdick Byrd, Va~ Byrd, w. va. Cannon Case Church Clark Eastland Ervin Harris Hart Hartke Hayden

All ott Baker Bennett

.Boggs Cotton Curtis Dodd

(No. 251 Ex.) YEAs-53

Hill Holland Hol11ngs Inouye Jackson Jordan, N.C. Kuchel Long, La. Magnuson Mansfteld McClellan McGee Metcalf Mondale Monroney Morse Moss Muskie

NAY8-20 Dominick Fannin Fong Griffin Hatfield Jordan, Idaho M1ller

Nelson Pastore Pell Prouty Proxmire Randolph Ribicotr Russell Smith Sparkman Spong Stennis Symington Talmadge W1lliams, N.J. Yarborough Young, Ohio

Mundt Murphy Pearson Thurmond Williams, Del. Young, N. Dal{.

NOT VOTING-26 Bartlett Hansen Brewster Hickenlooper Carlson Hruska Cooper Javits Dirksen Kennedy Ellender Lausche Fulbright Long, Mo. Gore McCarthy Gruening McGovern

Mcintyre Montoya Morton Percy Scott Smathers Tower Tydings

So the nomination was confirmed. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the Presi-


dent be immediately notified of the confirmation of this nomination.


LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

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

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT, 1968 The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill <H.R. 15263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINICK] wm send his amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, have we laid aside temporarily the other amendment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. It was asked for.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado will state it.

Mr. DOMINICK. Are we operating, or will we be operating, on limited time as soon as my amendment is called up?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Except on the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1 and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendment offered by Mr. DoMINICK is as follows:

On page 26, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

" (d) Section 620 (f) , which relates to prohibition against furnishing aid to communist countries, is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the second sentence thereof a comma and the following: •and this restriction shall not be waived in any case until the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo shall have been released by the Government of the North Korean Peoples Republic'."

DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE POSTAL FIELD SERVICE-CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I

submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15387) to amend title 39, United States Code, to provide for disciplinary action against employees in the postal field service who assault other employees in such service in the performance of official duties, and for

other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of

· the Senate. The assistant legislative clerk read

the report, as follows: CONFERENCE REPORT

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the following numbered amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15387), to amend title 39, United States Code, to provide for disciplinary action against employees in the postal field service who assault 'other employees in such service in the performance of official duties, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

Amendment numbered (1): That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered (1) and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In the matter proposed to be stricken out by the Senate amendment insert the word "with" immediately after the word "interferes".

And the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered (2) : That the

House recede from its disagreement to the amendment o! the Senate numbered (2) and agree to the same.

MIKE MONRONEY, RALPH W. YARBOROUGH, JENNINGS RANDOLPH, HmAM L. FoNa, J. CALEB BOGGS,

Managers on the Part of the Senate. THADDEUS J. DULSKI, DAVID N. HENDERSON, ARNOLD OLSEN, RoBERT J. CoRBET!',

Managers on the Part of the House.



Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the conference report was signed by all conferees except one. The bill is identical to the one passed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate, continuing the postal service without making the necessary reduction provided by the conference report on the revenue bill of 1968.

I move that the conference report be adopted.


The report was agreed to. POST OFFICE SERVICES MUST BE PRESERVED

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senate and House conferees have agreed on H.R. 15387 which will make possible a preservation of our postal services.

In an attempt to meet the financial crisis forced on us by the increasing costs of the Vietnam war, the Senate recently passed the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968. I thought that bill had many unwise features and I voted against cuts in spending that would be false economy and would curtail essential domestic services.

One of the first agencies that would feel the impact of this cut ~ is the Post Office. As the ranking majority member of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee I know that. that Department is

faced with a need ·not just to continue its present level of services but to expand .them. It is the greatest service institution in the world. It daily affects every individual in the United States and serves every economic, industrial and social institution.

Those of us on the Post Office Committee fought hard last fall to raise the revenue necessary to make possible the modernization required to handle the 84 billion pieces of mail we have each year. I certainly oppose, and will always oppose, any irrational action that could wreck the most crucial communications media in America.

We were recently faced with the possibility of such an irrational action. I took part in the hearings before our Post Office and Civil Service Committee when Postmaster General Marvin Watson reported the effect his Department would feel from the employee limitations imposed under the recent Revenue and Expenditure Control Act.

Reductions in postal positions would total 83,238. With fewer employees, the Post Office would have to curtail services. The 7,000 fourth-class post offices would be closed, ending a way of life for those in rural America.

The 5,000 third-class post offices would be closed also. All window services at first-class and second-class post offices would be closed 1 day each week. All postal work on Saturday and Sunday would be eliminated without regard to delay in mail.

Such reductions would injure the most vital lifeline in our society, a lifeline which has functioned since before our Government was founded. A burden would be placed on every individual as he saw his postal rates go up and' his postal service become erratic. It would destroy much of what we have worked for these past years.

I supported the Postmaster General in asking relief from these employee cuts. He did not ask for more money; he took required budget cuts along with other agencies. I supported that position in committee, on the :floor, and in conference with the House and I am glad the House agreed to restore to the American people the first-class services they have come to expect from the best postal system in the world.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I

yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I present

to the Senate a status report on the higher education conference and a request for Senate action. I know that many of my colleagues are anxious to reassure parents, students, and the financial community who have made inquiries regarding the insured loan program under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

The student aid financial provisions are contained in the Senate and House

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSION~ RECORD- SENATE 24201

versions of S. 3769 now in conference. The two versions are quite similar in a number of respects but there are also policy questions such as those relating to the degree to which the forgiveness principle of NDEA loans should be added to the insured program which need to be analyzed on the merits in order that a sound public policy may be evolved.

When we looked at the task set before us, we realized that if we were to do justice to our respective obligations as conferees on this bill to our parent bodies, it would be necessary for more time to be allocated than was available during this week.

Therefore, at an afternoon session of the conference committee, it was agreed that we should, in order to meet the needs of students, take a step which would insure that the continuity of the insured loan program could be main-tained. ·

By agreement, a bill mutually acceptable to the conferees in both House and Senate is being presented which will continue the insured loan program until October 31, 1968. It was agreed that this bill should contain only those absolutely necessary provisions which would allow the financial community to make these insured loans to enable students to attend the universities and colleges of their choice.

Senators are aware, I am confident, that this program depends to a great extent for its effectiveness upon the willingness of the financial community to provide the necessary capital. Evidence before both committees has indicated that the minimum rate of return which would permit the financial community to participate in tht- cooperative endeavor is at an interest rate of 7 percent. It is for this reason that the emergency program empowers agreements to be entered into by the Commissioner guaranteeing the 7-percent interest factor.

There is also a savings provision which permits an equivalent of the 7 percent to be incorporated into the agreements with those States which have legal impediments to a 7-percent interest factor.

My request, to which the senate conferees unanimously agreed, which has been joined in by the House conferees, 1s as follows: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 16729 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill <H.R. 16729) to extend for 2 years certain programs providing assistance to students at institutions of higher education, to modify such programs, and to provide for planning, evaluation, and adequate leadtime in such programs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the senator from Oregon?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. MORSE. Mr.·President, I move to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following amendment therefor, which I now send to the desk and ask to have reported.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that it be printed in the RECORD at this point.


The amendment is as follows: EXTENSION OF STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE

PROGRAMS

SEcTioN 1. (a) (1) Section 424(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (A) in the first sentence by striking out "fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "period thereafter ending October 31, 1968", and (B) in the second sentence by striking out "June 30, 1972" and inserting "October 31, 1968".

(2) Section 428(a) (1) of such Act is amended by striking out "June 30, 1968" and all that follows down through the period and inserting in lieu thereof "October 31, 1968."

(b) (1) Section 5(a) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended (A) in the first sentence by striking out "and in each of the two succ~eding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and in the period thereafter ending October 31, 1968", and (B) in the second sentence by striking out "June 30, 1972" and inserting in lieu thereof "October 31, 1968".

( 2) Section 9 (a) ( 4) of such Act is amended by striking out "June 30, 1968" and all that follows down through the period and inserting in lieu thereof "October 31, 1968."

(3) Section 10(b) of such Act is amended by adding a.t the end thereof the following new sentence: "No loan may be made under this section after October 31, 1969." INCREASE OF MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE UNDER

STUDENT..LOAN INSURANCB PROGRAMS; ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

SEC. 2. {a) ( 1) Section 427 (b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "6 per c;entum." and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof "7 per centum per annum on the unpaid principal balance of the loan."

(2) Section 428{b) {1) (E) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "6 per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "7 per centum".

(b) (1) Paragraph (2) of section 428(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting " (A) " after " ( 2) " and by adding at the end of that subparagraph the following new subparagraph:

"(B) When, due to State laws which do not permit an interest rate of 7 per centum per annum, and when the Commissioner determines that such statutory limitations threaten to impede the carrying out of the purposes of this part, he may authorize an administrative cost allowance, not to exceed 1 per centum per annum of the unpaid prfil.cipal balance, for the term of any loan insured by the Commissioner under this part or under a State or private nonprofit student loan insurance program covered by an agreement under subsection (b) . Such an administrative cost allowance may be paid on loans made during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this subparagraph and ending on October 31, 1968."

(2) (A) Section 428(a) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting after the first sentence the fo-llowing new sentence: "In addition, the Commissioner shall pay an administrative cost allowance in the amount established by paragraph (2) (B) of this subsection with respect to loans to any such student but without regard to the student's adjusted family income."

(B) Section 428(a) (2) (A) (a.s so designated by this section) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the :following: "For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 'interest' includes any administrative cost allowance paid pursuant to subparagraph (B)."

(C) The second sentence of section 428 (a) (2) (A) of such Act is amended by inserting "and the administrative cost allowance payable under this subsection" aft,er "determined".

(D) Section 428(a) (3) of such Act is amended by inserting "or of administrative cost allowances" after "interest".

(3) Section 421(b) (2) of such Act is amended by inserting "and administrative cost allowances" after "interest".

(c) (1) Section 8(b) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "6 per centum" and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof "7 per centum per annum on the unpaid principal balance of the loan."

(2) Section 9(b) (1) (E) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "6 per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "7 per centum".

(d) (1) Paragraph (2) o:f section 9(a) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended by inserting "(A)" after "(2)" and by adding at the end of that subparagraph the following new subparagraph:

"(B) When, due to State laws which do not permit an interest rate of 7 per centum per annum, and when the Commissioner determines that such statutory limitations threaten to impede the carrying out of the purposes of this Act, he may authorize an administrative cost allowance, not to exceed 1 per centum per annum of the unpaid principal balance, for the term of any loan insured by the Commissioner under this part or under a State or private nonprofit student loan insurance program covered by an agreement under subsection (b). Such a.n administrative cost allowance may be paid on loans made during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this subparagraph and ending on October 31, 1968."

(2) (A) Section 9(a) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence: "In addition, the Commissioner shall pay an administrative cost allowance in the amount established by paragraph (2) (B) of this subsection with respect to loans to any such student but without regard to the student's adjusted family income."

(B) Section 9(a) (2) (A) of such Act (a.s so designated by this section) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: "For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 'interest' includes any administrative cost allowance paid pursuant to subparagraph (B) ."

(C) The second sentence of section 9(a) (2) (A) of such Act is amended by inserting "and the administrative cost allowance payable under this subsection" after "determined."

(D) Section 9(a) (3) of such Act is amended by inserting uor of administrative cost allowances" after «interest."

(3) Section 2(b) (2) of such Act is amended by inserting "and administrative cost allowances" after "interest." FEDERAL GUARANTY OF STUDENT LOANS INSURED

UNDER NON-FEDERAL PROGRAMS

SEc. 3. (a) Section 421 (a) of the Higher Education Act of 19651s amended by striking out "and" before "(3)", and by inserting before the period at the end of that subsection the following: ", and (4) to guarantee a portion of each loan insured under a program of a State or of a nonprofit private institution or organization which meets the requirements of section 428(a) (1) (C)".

(b) Section 428 of such Act is amended

24202 ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 by adding after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

"(c) (1) The Commissioner may enter into a guaranty agreement with any State or any nonprofit private institution or organization with which he has an agreement pursuant to subsection (b) , whereby the Commissioner shall undertake to reimburse it, under such terms and conditions as he may establish, in an amount equal to 80 per centum of the amount expended by it in discharge of its insurance obligation, incurred under its loan insurance program, with respec•t to losses (resulting from the default, death, or permanent and total disability of the student borrower) on the unpaid balance of the principal (other than interest added to principal) of any insured loan with respect to which a portion of the interest (A) is payable by the Commissioner under subsection (a), or (B) would be payable under such subsection but for the adjusted family income of the borrower.

"(2) The guaranty agreementr-"(A) shall set forth such administrative

and fiscal procedures as may be necessary to protect the United States from the risk of unreasonable loss thereunder, to insure proper and effi.cien t administration of the loan insurance program, and to assure that due dlUgence will be exercised in the collection of loans insured under the program;

"(B) shall provide for making such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Commissioner may reasonably require to carry out his functions under this subsection, and for keeping such records and for affording such access thereto as the Commissioner may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports;

"(C) shall set forth adequate assurance that, with respect to so much of any loan insured under the loan in~urance program as may be guaranteed by the Commissioner pursuant to this subsection, the undertaking of the Commissioner under the guaranty agreement is acceptable in full satisfaction of State law or regulation requiring the maintenance of a reserve;

"(D} shall provide that if, after the Commissioner has made payment under the guaraDJty agreement pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection with respect to any loan, any payments are made in discharge of the obligation incurred by the borrower with respect to such loan (including any pay-

. ments of interest accruing on such loan after such payment by the Commis~ioner), there shall be paid over to the Commissioner (for deposit in the fund established by section 431) such proportion of the amounts of such payments as is determined (in accordance with regulations preMribed by the Commissioner) to represent his equitable share thereof, but shall not otherwise provide for subrogation of the United States to the rights of any insurance beneficiary: Provided, That, except as the qommissioner may otherwise by or pur'Suant to regulation provide, amounts so paid by a borrower on such a loan shall be first applied in reduction of principal owing on such loan; and

"(E) may include such other provisions as may be necessary to promote the purposes of this part.

"(3) To the extent provided in regulationtl of the Commissioner, a guaranty agreement under this subsection may contain provisions which permit such forbearance for the benefit of the student borrower as may be agreed upon by the parties to an insured loan and approved by the insurer. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require collection of the amount of any loan by the in~urance beneficiary or its insurer from the estate of a deceased borrower or from a borrower found by the insurance beneficiary or its insurer to have become permanently and totally disabled.

" ( 4) For purposes of this subsection-

. " (A) the terms 'insurance beneficiary'

and 'default' shall have the meanings assigned to them by section 430 (e) , and

"(B) permanent and total disability shall be determined in accordance with regulations of the Commissioner.

"(5) In the case of any guaranty agreement entered into prior to October 31, 1968, with a State or nonprofit private institution or organization with which the Commissioner has in effect on that date an agreement pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or section 9 (b) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, made prior to the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commissioner may, in accordance with the terms of this subsection, undertake to guarantee loans descriped in paragraph (1) which are insured by such State, institution, or organization and are outstanding on the date of execution of the guaranty agreement, but only with respect to defaults occurring after the execution of such guaranty agreement or, if later, after its effective date."

(c) Section 431 of such Act is amended (A) by inserting in the first sentence of subsection (a) ", or in connection with payments under a guaranty agreement under section 428 (c) , " after "insured by him under this part"; (B) by inserting in the third sentence of subsection (a) ", or in connection with such guaranty agreements," after "insured by the Commissioner under this part"; and (C) by inserting in the first sentence of subsection (b) ", or in connection with any guaranty agreement made under section 428 (c) " after "insured by the Commissioner under this part".

(d) Section 432(a) (5) of such Act is amended by inserting "or any guaranty agreement under section -til8 (c) '' after "such insurance".

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, let me tell the Senate very quickly what the situation is. We have a student loan program which, in both bills, calls for 7 percent. The present rate is 6 percent. Therefore, no loans can be made to students until we can get the 7-percent rate adopted. In all probability, we are not going to be able to get to the education conference report until after the conventions. We will have to come back in September to do it. School will have started, and therefore many students will not have been able to start school. We thought we ought to adopt the bill, which action was agreed to unanimously in conference, which, in effect, authorizes the 7-percent rate, and that takes care of the insurance problem.

I give Senators my word that we are agreed this is a "must" if we are going to meet the loan problem that confronts an unnumbered number of students in this country. I urge the Senate, on my word, to adopt it so it will be passed. It goes to the House. The Parliamentarian says it will be ready for adoption in the House tomorrow. The House probably will not have a quorum Thursday, and it must be done tomorrow. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute of the Senator from Oregon.

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.

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

The bill <H.R. 16729) was read the third time, and passed.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT, 1968

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill <H.R. 15263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK].

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I call up my first amendment and yield myself 5 minutes. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, this

is a short amendment. It comes about in this way, if I may have the attention of my colleagues. Yesterday I received a briefing to try to find out what was going to happen in the way of a program to further expedite the release of the members of the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo.

Senators will recall the Pueblo was captured in January of this year. Since that time-and I can tell my colleagues this, because it is unclassified materialwe have made representations to the Government of North Korea, and sought the release of the men. We have asked for help from certain other countries, but the degree of pressure has not been very great.

Up to date the people of North Korea have not seen fit to do anything which would lead us to believe they will release our men. Furthermore, I think it was apparent in the process of the hearings that those men had been illegally captured while engaged on duty at the orders of the President; and that they are being held under what, to us, at least, are somewhat brutal conditions. There seems to be no program to exercise any more pressure than is presently going on in order to provide for their return.

I have three amendments at hand. 'rwo regard the Pueblo, the third regards gold. I am bringing up only the first Pueblo amendment tonight. It is the least effective of the two, but it is at least a

_step. . This amendment provides the present

restriction which we have on foreign aid to Communist-controlled countries shall not be waived by the President under the provisions which are presently in the law until the crew has been released. It is an expression of congressional .intent that no Communist-controlled countries shall receive any American foreign aid or assistance until these men are released.

The President has used this waiver provision in the past to aid such a country. While apparently none of these countries are receiving assistance today, and do not think the power to waive these restrictions should be continued.

The President's authority to bypass these restrtctions was added to existing law in 1962. It appears as subsection (f) of section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act and reads as follows: ·

No assistance shall be furnished under this Act, as amended (except section 214(b) ), to any Communist country.aos This restriction may not be waived pursuant to any authority contained in this Act unless the President finds and promptly reports to Congress that: (1) such assistance is vital to the security of the United States; (2) the recipient coun-

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE .24203 try is not controlled by the international Communist conspiracy;, and (3) such assiatan{)e wm further promote the independence of the recipient country from international communism.309 For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase "Communist country" shall include specifically, but not be limited to, the following countries:

Peoples Republic of Albania, Peoples Republic of Bulgaria, Peoples Republic of China, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, German Democratic Republic (East Ger-

many), Estonia, Hungarian Peoples Republic, Latvia, Lithuania; North Korean Peoples Republic, North Vietnam, • Outer Mongolia-Mongolian Peoples Re-

public, Polish Peoples Republic, Rumanian Peoples Republic. 'nbet, Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, CUba, and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (in

cluding its captive constituent republtcs).

Section 214(b) pertains to &-n AmerlC!ln hospital in Poland.

My amendment would modify this language by adding at the end of the second sentence the following:

And this. restriction shall not be waived in any case until the crew of the U.S.S. PUEBLO shall ha.ve been released by the government of the North Korean People's Republic.

The amendment makes no changes in the list of Communist countries in the existing law. That list includes 17 countries out of the 20 countries which I

· understand now recognize North Korea. It seems to me that by adopting this

amendment we will have exhibited two things: First, the concern of Congress in general for the plight of the crew of the Pueblo; and, second, the initial effort by congress to try to put some pressure on North Korea, indirect economic pressure, one might say, through the other countries which are controlled by Communist governments. This would put them in the position of saying: "If we need any aid from the United States, which from time to time we do, you are going to have to release these men; otherwise, we are not going to be able to get it.''

The pending amendment has nothing to do with trade. Trade I shall take up tomorrow 1n a stronger but · companion amendment regarding the Pueblo. The pending amendment deals only with foreign assistance. As I say, it is my hope that we will adopt this amendment overwhelmingly, to indicate our adherence to the belief that these men are American citizens for whom our Government is responsible, and for whom the Congress must take some action to get them out of the Korean prison.

I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will · the

Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMINICK. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Did I understand the

Senator to say that we are now extending aid to 17 Communist countries?

Mr. DOMINICK. No, I did not. I said nothing of the kind. I said there are 17 Communist countries listed as ·to which the President may waive these restrictions, and they have been waived before.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield myself 1 more minute.

We are not furnishing aid to any of them at the present time, but there is a provision in the law at the moment which says that the President may waive that restriction. My amendment would say he cannot waive it as long as the crew of the Pueblo is held in captivity.

Mr. AIKEN. But it would not change the present status?

Mr. DOMINICK. It does not change the present status.

Mr. AIKEN. Nor would it affect the importation of strategic materials from Russia in any way?

Mr. DOMINICK. No. That will come up tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield myself 2 more minutes.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. Does the Senator

from Colorado believe that if these other Communist countries which have close liaison with North Korea would actually suggest seriously that something had better be done to effect the release of these prisoners, it would happen at once?

Mr. DOMINICK. I believe so. Mr. MAGNUSON. I agree with the

Senator. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Mr. DOMINICK. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. That is the purpose the

Senator is trying to accomplish, and the purpose of his amendment?

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Both of my Pueblo amendments are designed to persuade these countries to be really effective and a little hard-nosed with Korea, to try to persuade them to release these men.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I believe I am correct that the State Department, in the beginning, did ask the Soviet Union to participate, in the hopes that we could arrive at some agreement for their release, but apparently their efforts were not, as the Senator says, hard-nosed, or very strong at all; the reason was given at the time that the Russians also have these intelligence ships,. that they were participating in the same kind of enterprise we were in gathering intelligence, and that therefore they would probably understand the situation better; but too much time has gone by, nothing has happened, and it seems to me-as I think we all agree-that if they were really serious about helping in this matter, or would get right at it, it could happen almost overnight.

Mr. DOMINICK. I agree with the Senator completely, and it is just that effort that I am trying to make with this amendment.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I join the Senator in his effort.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield. Mr. MURPHY. I should like to associ

ate myself with the effort of the Senator from Colorado. As he has pointed out, the officers and crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo

were under orders. Their safety, to every extent possible, should be guaranteed now by this Government. Unfortunately, little has been done. Russia was interested enough to suppl:Y North Korea with a great number of Mig-21's. Certainly, it 1s time now for us to become interested enough to put pressure on North Korea. At this point, I think we would be delinquent if we did not do anything-and I mean anything-within honor and reason that can be done to see that these men are released. I congratulate the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator from California. I yield the Senator from Nebraska 5 minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I sba.ll. support the amendments offered by the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK]. I believe that the Government of the United states has a responsibility to miss no opportunity in any area of endeavor to press for the safe return of the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo.

The cause of liberty and ultimate peace were served many years ago because we remembered the Maine and not because we forgot it. I say that the cause of hwnan Uberty and ultimate peace on earth will be advanced by remembering the Pueblo and not forgetting it.

The seizure of the U.S.S. Pueblo was the first time since the War of 1812 that a foreign power has seized an American ship on the high seas: We must not lose the sense of how serious this is because of the multitude of other problems facing the country. The principle that the American :flag follows the men who wear our nniform any place in the world has never been repealed. If that sad day would come that it were to be repealed, our :flag will have lost some of its glory.

Nebraskans have a particular interest in the crew. The U.S.S. Pueblo was commanded by Cmdr. Lloyd M. Bucher of 3120 R Street, Lincoln, Nebr. Commander Bucher is a graduate of the University of Nebraska and he is also a graduate of Father Flanagan's Boys Town of Nebraska. It was but a few days ago that Mrs. Lloyd M. Bucher visited

· Washington to express her cvncern and to press for the taking of whatever steps would hasten the return of this crew. This is a grave matter for her and her sons, Mark and Michael. I am advised that two other members of the crew are Nebraskans-Alvin Henry Plucker of Trenton, Nebr., and Charles Ray Sterling of Omaha, Nebr.

Existing law prohibits the extending of foreign assistance to any Communist country. The present law, however, gives authority to the President to waive that prohibition. The amendment offered by Senator DoMINICK would add these words:

And this restriction shall not be waived in any case untn the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo shall have been released by the government of the North Korean Peoples Republic. ·

Another amendment to be offered by Senator DoMINICK to this foreign aid bill would add the following language to the present law:

The President is authorized and requested to establish and maintain, until the crew

' 24204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 of the U.S.S. Pueblo shall have been released by the North K;orean Peoples Republic, a total embargo on trade between the United States and all Communist countries, as defined in subsection (f).

Both of these amendments should be enacted. Let us send the word out to the entire world that the U.S.S. Pueblo has not been forgotten. These steps are not all that 1s necessary to be done. These steps are before us. We can take them. They do constitute a positive expression of the intent of our Government.

Every day the Omaha World-Herald published at Omaha, Nebr., carries an editorial entitled "How Long?" It is my understanding they expect to keep up these editorials until the U.S.S. Pueblo and her crew have been returned to the United States. It has been a long time. Unless this ship and her crew are returned 1n the next few days, the Omaha World-Herald will on August 9, 1968, publish its editorial which will read:

How LoNG? This is the two hundredth day the U.S.S.

Pueblo and her crew have been in North Korean hands.

Mr. President, let us pass the Dominick amendments. Let us remember the U.S.S. Pueblo and her crew of brave men.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska. On July 10 I introduced S. 3750 to provide for additional pay-hostile-fire pay-for the members of the crew of the Pueblo. That bill has already passed the House. It will come up for consideration as soon as we can have a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It will be one more effort to do something for the families of the crew members.

However, the two amendments which I offer to the foreign aid bUI represent the first time, at least as far as I know, that we have tried to put some specific language in legislative form to do something meaningful in order to get these negotiations underway and see if we cannot secure the early return of our men.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

· Mr. DOMINICK. I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President,

would not this statement be true: Suppose there is some kind of argument about whether the ship was inside or outside of the territorial limits. We do not know all of the facts. I do not suppose that we ever will know them until they come back. However, the matter could be turned over to an international board of arbitration which could get the facts.

Mr. DOMINICK. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MAGNUSON. In the meantime, we ought to insist that the Communist countries be fair and decent and honest about this matter.

Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator from Washington, and I agree with him.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I am sure that if Moscow were to say tonight to North Korea: "We think you ought to start negotiations and get this matter over,'' it would be done overnight.

Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator. I am sure he is correct.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I

·~·

yield to the Senator from Montana such time as he needs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, this is an easy issue to vote for because in reality it does not mean a thing. One can be patriotic on an amendment of this nature and go home and tell his folks he did everything he possibly could to bring about the freeing of the 82 members of the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo.

What does the amendment say? It refers to the furnishing of aid to Communist countries by inserting before the period at the end of the second sentence thereof a comma and the following:

And this restriction shall not be waived in any way until the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo shall have been released by the government of the North Korean People's Republic.

To what Communist countries are we giving aid today? I ask the question. To what Communist countries are we giving aid today? We are not giving aid to any Communist countries. Therefore, this does not mean a thing,

I think we ought to recognize that we are, all of us, emotionally involved-we are all worried about the crew of the Pueblo. But what we need to keep in mind is that we ought to do less talking about "pressure on North Korea,'' unless we are told how to apply that pressure in a way as to bring about the release of those men.

Some say, "We should take some ac-tion against North Korea." How?

Others say, "They must be released." Again, I ask the question, How? I wonder how many Members of the

Senate and how many people in this Republic are aware of the fact that if we adopt some of the actions proposed by some people, we could very easily become involved in a second land war in Asia. We are engaged in one now which, in my opinion, is more than enough. It is a war in which we should not have become engaged. It is a 'barbaric war, without the end in sight.

It is a war in which our opponents hold all or almost all of the cards in the deck. It is a war that we are not winning and have not been winning. Before we begin another ought we not to realize that in 1960 a mutual security pact was entered into between North Korea and the Soviet Union, and between North Korea and the Chinese People's Republic. The Soviet Union abuts on North Korea and China abuts on North Korea.

If we want to take any kind of overt, drastic action in Korea, then I think we had better be prepared to enter into a second land war on the Asian mainland, because an overt act, any overt act, would automatically bring those mutual security treaties into operation, and the Soviet Union and mainland China are pledged to come to the aid of North Korea.

Do we have enough sons, enough resources to carry on two land wars, in Asia or anywhere else? If we want to bring about the doom of the 82 crew members of the Pueblo, we should just undertake some drastic action of the kind some have advocated and they will be killed quickly enough. And who will be responsible for their deaths? Those

who said we ought to go into Wonsan Harbor, tie a rope around the Pueblo and pull her out.

The Pueblo has been stripped now. It is of little or no use, Whatever technical machinery it had, whatever super-secret machinery it had, the North Koreans, the Chinese, and the Russians know about it now.

The important thing is, has been, and will be the getting out of the 82 crew members of the Pueblo alive. I repeat that word "alive."

It does not do any of us any good and it does not do the crew members . any good if we say we want to do this, that, or the other thing and fool them and their families into thinking because we make speeches or pass resolutions, that on that basis these men are going to be kept safe and sound and released.

Again, I say on the basis of this particular amendment, what Communist countries are we giving any aid to at this time? How will this amendment bring about the release of the crew of the Pueblo? Do we expect to force the Communist countries to help the crew of the Pueblo by slapping them in the face? Are we trying to force them with a means we do not have to compel what we say we want done.

I think we had better forget this folderol we are talking about, all of this emotion we are displaying. If we want to get the 82 crew ·members of the Pueblo out alive, we had better continue on the same basis. We had better con:. tinue trying to work through quiet diplomacy and otherwise, and .that we had better seek to enlist the concern of any and all nations, Communist and nonCommunist who might help.

I am not interested in amendments which mean nothing. I am not interested in speeches made for the RECORD. I am interested in the 82 crew members of the Pueblo. And I want to do, and I will do, everything I can do honestly, and legitimately, but not emotionally or politically, to get these men released, and return them . to their parents and their friends and their wives and other relatives.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I listended to the, as always, very forceful speech of the distinguished majority leader. I have always been very fond of him. I appreciate his thoughtfulness and depth of feeling.

I do not, however, intend to take second place to him or to anyone else. on the question of the members of the crew of the Pueblo.

I have not mentioned the ship. I have not asked for any overt action. I have not asked that we blockade North Korea. I have not asked for anything except to have this Government stand on record that we are not going to use any taxpayers' funds, and they have been used before, for any Communist country as long as our crew is in North Korea. I have as much right to feel strong about this matter as does anyone else.

I have not advocated any invasion of Wonsan. As a matter of fact, as the distinguished majority leader knows, the Pueblo is not even there any longer. I have not asked that we go in and sink it or pull it out or anything of the kind.

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24205 All I have asked is for a legitimate determination on a question for which this Senate and this Congress is responsible; that is, whether any taxpayers' funds are going to be used for Communist countries while those men are being held in prison illegally by a Communist-controlled government.

I reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I can

add little to what the distinguished majority leader has said, but I believe there is something we should say to ourselves over and over-that this amendment accomplishes nothing, nothing positive. It does, I am afraid, accomplish something negative. It may build up in the minds of the people of this country, particularly in the minds of the relatives of the men on the Pueblo, the expectation that this amendment is going to get them out. Mr. President, this is a cruel hoax, because it will not do any such thing.

The amendment would seek to get them released by a complicated device of prohibiting a Presidential waiver of the restrictions that already are written into the law, by prohibiting assistance under the act to any Communist country. The section that is amended provides for a waiver of this restriction in any case in which the President finds and promptly reports to Congress the following:

First, that such assistance is vital to the security of the United States,

Second, that the recipient country is not controlled by international Communist conspiracy;

Third, that such assistance w111 further promote the independence of the recipient country from international communism.

The Dominick amendment would provide that this restriction shall not be waived in any case until th~ crew of the Pueblo has been released.

The amendment would be ineffective and disruptive. It would be ineffective on two counts: First, as has been stated here even by the Senator from Colorado himself, no assistance is being given under this act to any Communist country, and none is contemplated. Second, even if assistance were being furnished, and contemplated, to a Communist country other than North Korea, the withholding of such assistance would hardly be persuasive to the government of North Korea.

The amendment would be disruptive because it would inject a new and totally extraneous issue into the Pueblo negotiations, which are best left to negotiation by the executive branch of Government and not by legislative enactment in Congress.

The amendment would also inject a new and totally extraneous issue into our relations with the states of Eastern Europe. These states, of course, are utterly without influence on the government of North Korea. The Senate need not be reminded of the extremely delicate situation which now prevails in Eastern Europe.

I hope very much the amendment wU1 be rejected.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, wlll ·the Senator yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I have lis

tened with interest to the closing comments of the Senator from Alabama, and I ask the Senator this question: Is this not a sort of silly amendment, which does not make much sense? We are not now giving any help to any Communist country. Therefore, if we pass the amendment, we will not be doing anything we are not doing now. The Senator from Alabama has pointed out that the Government of North Korea is not going to be very much affected by this kind of gesture.

To me, this amendment seems completely silly. Of course, this is an election year, and some people are up for election, and there may be a few people around who might be, shall we say, not fooled but misled innocently into thinking that those who sponsored this amendment are valiant fighters against communism and are doing something very strong in defense of the Government of the United States.

But if the amendment is as silly as it seems to me to be, why do we get so excited about it? The Senator from Colorado will get some pleasure out of having it adopted, and he will be able to raise his fist and say, "Look how hard I fought against communism." Why not let him have his fun?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I am not going to designate any amendment offered by any Member of this body as being silly.

Mr. CLARK; The Senator has a higher sense of courtesy than I have.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I said it was ineffective, and it ·is. I said that insofar as it makes the wives, the children, and the relatives of the men on the Pueblo believe that it is going to get those men back, it is a cruel hoax.

Mr. CLARK. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Let me say one other thing. There has been talk about pressure about the Communist countries, to which we are giving assistance, putting pressure on North Korea just because the Senate passes an amendment. How is any pressure going to be created? If any pressure is to be successful, it must be directed toward North Korea, not toward other Communist countries.

In the first place, hardly any of those countries have any dealings with North Korea, and we do not have any dealings with them. How is the pressure going to be generated? It simply cannot be done. The effect of this amendment is to build up in the minds of the people of this country a belief that we are doing something for the men of the Pueblo, when we are doing nothing.


Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. CLARK. I like to support my

chairman in a situation of this sort, but I also feel kind of ridiculous when I vote for a silly and meaningless amendment. Nevertheless, I shall support the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I cer

tainly would not question the motives of any Senator, and any amendment offered I accept in good faith as indicating a desire on the part of the sponsor to make a contribution.

We are all concerned about the Pueblo and its crew. But I do think that this is not the way to face up to a situation which is delicate in the extreme. There is no useful way we can exert either eco·nomic or military pressure or any other kind of pressure on North Korea. There again, as in Vietnam, in my opinion, the cards are not stacked in our favor.

I believe it would be unfortunate. for example, if Mr. Bucher and the others who have been in Washington lately, who have been carrying their cause to the country and to the administration as well as to Congress, were to have .iheir hopes lifted and then suddenly dashed, because nothing in the way of a tangible result was forthcoming from the adoption of an amendment by this body.

The stakes are pretty high. As I have said, we are engaged in one war in Southeast Asia. It is more than enough. As I also have said, if we adopt certain practices--and my remarks were not directed toward the distinguished Senator from Colorado, because I had no one in the Chamber in mind at that timethere are those possibilities which must be faced up to and there are those consequences, based on mutual security

· treaties which could occur. I, for one, think that we have shed

enough blood and spent enough money in Asia. I do not care about the return of a vessel. My chief interest, my consuming interest, my only interest is to bring about in any way possible, the return of the 82 remaining crewmen of the U.S.S. Pueblo. I intend to work for that.

I do not think this amendment, unfortunately, will help in that direction. But certainly any Member of this body has the right to offer an amendment and I think any Member who does, does so in good faith.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Montana. I share with him the sentiment he expressed regarding the men of the U.S.S. Pueblo. I yield to no man in my interest in seeing those men returned to their homes and loved ones safe, sound, and free.

However, that is one reason that this amendment offends me. It would not do that; and I am afraid it makes those loved ones back here feel the amendment will bring their men back. It cannot do so as has been stated heretofore.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I would vote for the amendment without any reservation whatsoever if I thought it would be effective in promoting the release of the 82men.

Mr. SPARKMAN. So would I. Mr. AIKEN. I am afraid it would have

the OPPOSite effect at this time when the Communist ties are becoming very loose, and several Communist countries are threatening to break away from the rule of Moscow or Peking. I do not know why we should slap them in the face now. I think we should give them encourage-


ment in breaking away, particularly in vtew of the fact that they cannot do any":' thing about the matter of the U.S.S. Pueblo anyway.

I am afraid Moscow would profit most 1f we threaten these Communist countries of the world, some of which do not want to be Communist.

One night I had an official of one of those countries say to me, "I hope you do not· think we are Communists because we want to be."

If we say to all 21 countries, "We hate you all; you are all just alike," then we are not contributing to the breakup of the Comm-unist organization of the world.

I believe we should give encouragement to those countries trying to break away from the Communist group and to break away from the domination of Moscow or Peking. I believe these states have the right to set up their own organization, even if it is democratic, if that is what they are trying to do, and we should not slap them in the face and say, "You are all just alike. We hate every one of you. Now, get together and we will hate every one of you together."

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This has been, I hope, a fruitful debate. The Senator from Alabama says the amendment -is not very effective because no aid is now being given to these countries. I say, most respectfully, the waiver authority has been used and aid has been given in the past. It may in the future. None is being given now. Under these circumstances, it seems proper to say we will maintain that position until the men are released. I see no reason to do otherwise.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from Nevada £Mr. BIBLE], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator from Arkansas £Mr. FuLBRIGHT], the Senator from Tennessee £Mr. GoRE], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], the Senator from Michigan £Mr. HARTl, the Senator from Arizona £Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LoNG], the Senator from Minnesota [McCARTHY], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN], the Senator from New Mexico £Mr. MoNTOYA], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Nevada

[Mr. BIBLE], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENINGJ, and the Senator· from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], would each vote "yea!'

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania £Mr. ScoTT] is absent by leave of the Senate.

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MoRTON], the Senators from Dlinois [Mr. DIRKSEN and Mr. PERCY], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HANSEN], the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] is detained on official business.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER] is absent because of mness.

If present and voting, the Senator from illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Senator from Nebraska £Mr. HRUSKA], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. ScOTT], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER] would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 43, nays 29, as follows:

All ott Baker Bayh Bennett Byrd, Va. Byrd, W. Va; Cannon Church Cotton Curtis Dodd Dominick Eastland Ellender Ervin

Aiken Anderson Boggs Brooke Burdick Case Clark Harris Hatfield Holland

Bartlett Bible Brewster Carlson Cooper Dirksen Fulbright Gore Gruening

[No. 252 Leg.] YEA8-43

Fannin Forig Griffin Hartke Hill Hollings Jordan, N.C. Jordan, Idaho Long, La. Magnuson McClellan Mcintyre Miller Monroney Mundt

NAY&-29 Inouye Jackson Kuchel Mansfield McGee Metcalf Mondale Morse Moss Muskie

Murphy Pastore Pearson Randolph Ribicofi Russell Smith Stennis Symington Talmadge Thurmond· Williams, Del. Young, N.Dak.

Nelson Pell Prouty Proxmtre Sparkman Spong Williams, N.J. Yarborough Young, Ohio

NOT VOTING-27 Hansen Hart Hayden Hickenlooper Hruska Javits Kennedy L'a.usche Long, Mo.

McCarthy McGovern Montoya Morton Percy Scott Smathers Tower Tydings

So Mr. DoMINICK's amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the ta.ble.


Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, with the foreign aid bill before us, I would like to turn some attention to the Partners of the Alliance program-the people-topeople, self -help effort which joins citizens of our country with those of Latin America.

Wyoming's partner State in the alliance is the State of Goias in Brazil, Mr. President, and one of its needs is rural

electric power. Wyoming Rural Electric Cooperatives, then, have become involved 1n the close cooperation between the two States and are today hosting Rene de Pina and Antonio Cardosa, both electrical engineers who are studying the various cooperatives in Wyoming.

Mr. President, the Wyoming Rural Electric News, in its July issue, carries both a story about this "No Nonsense Foreign Aid" program, as it calls the Alliance, and an editorial. I ask unanimous consent that ·they appear in the RECORD.


[From the Wyoming Rural Electric News, July 1968]

How Do You CRACK THE NUT?-No NONSENSE FOREIGN Am

(By S. J. Crawshaw, Wheatland, Wyo.) "How do you crack the nut?" This popular

Brazilian figure of speech refers to the fact that no one has yet devised a means for cracking the tough-shelled Braztl nut and extracting the meat in one piece. It is applied to any difficult problem and is a signal for starting work toward a solution.

Finding a practical means toward helping our neighbors in South America to achieve a higher standard. of living and establishing an effective line of communication through which a self-help program can be put into operation is a tough problem indeed; but it is closer now to being solved than ever before, and the Wyoming Rural Electric co-Ops are helping to "crack the nut."

Working through the PartnerS of the Alliance programs, Wyoming Co-Ops are becoming deeply involved in one of the most unique methods ever invented for putting foreign aid in a truly sensible light. Unique not only in its low cost to the taxpayer (major expenses are paid by private sources in industry), the Partnership of the Alliance idea provides for self-help, and is most unusual in that it involves a people-to-people relationship between the participants rather than the impersonal government-to-government approach which seems to have gained us few friends 1n other countries.

Conceived by a State Department official who saw little benefit in the red-tape and lack of human contact 1n the Federal foreign aid programs, the Partners of the Alliance has gained tremendous support everywhere .•. from Congress to private business. It is based mainly upon an exchange of ideas and information between people here in the United States and citizens in various Latin American countries, with the intention of provid.tng them with the technical knowledge necessary to develop their backward areas.

It is hoped that eventually each State in this country will be teamed up in "partnership" with one or more states in a South American nation. Wyoming's "partner" is the state of Golas in Brazil where 85% of the population is involved in agriculture. Lacking the means of communication and modern storage and production facilities which are commonplace on Wyoming farms and ranches, the people of Golas have been able to do little more than merely subsist on their primitive farms. The prolonged rainy season isolates the maJority of the fanners and prevents them from marketing their goods, as well as eliminating any opportunities for socialtzing and mutual help. Without progressing to more modern methods of production and storage, the farmers of Golas will never tap their huge potential.

Seeing rural electrification as a basic need for Golas, the Wyoming co-Ops, individually and through the State Association, have undertaken the job of helping develop a rural electrification program along much the same lines as it has been built in

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 24207 Wyoming. As a start in this direction, Wyoming's REA's are hosting a three month visit for two engineers from the state-owned power company of Golas, who, together with the wife of one of them, are learning all phases of the rural electrification set-up.

In addition to the technical knowledge they will gain during their stay, Bene's de Pina and Antonio Cardosa will make valuable contacts as they travel from one Co-Op to another. This has already proven true in their visit to the Wheatland REA where tentative plans have been made to send now obsolete power equipment such as meters and transformers to them in Brazil. This equipment, still in good shape, will be sufficient for the beginning needs of the new Braz111an CoOps as it was sufficient for Wyoming's REA's in their early stage of growth.

A well organized rural electrification program is expected to have at least as much impact upon the general welfare and progress of the 2,600,000 people of Golas as it has had in Wyoming. It will reach into all areas of their lives, giving them a freedom ·from the daily struggle for existence upon which mostly all of their energies are presently spent . . . taking them beyond that to a level of living where they can build for the fut:ure of their children and plan for such things as college educations.

The Brazillans have much to otfer us in return for our help. In spite of the huge population with a wide variety of races, creeds, and colors, Brazil has had virtually no racial problems. Their predominantly Portuguese heritage has brought to them a great distaste for violence and discord, and they have developed into a fine art the ability for solving their difference peacefully. Never has a Braz111an government been overthrown or disturbed by revolution, and their political life shows a remarkable degree of stability. They have exhibited an appreciation for art in the building of their cities and a great sensitivity for the individual man. There is little doubt that we in this country could benefit from a cultural exchange with such people.

Also, it is obvious that the time and etforts to train these industrious people of Brazil are well spent. As evidenced by the serious and businesslike attitudes of de Pina and cardos.a, they are eager to learn and determined to help themselves if only given the opportunity. It is clear that we in Wyoming are building a feeling of friendship for the United States . . . the kind of feeling that can't be bought with money.

The Rural Wyomingite can be proud of his part in this project . . . wherein, working through his local REA, he is "cracking the nut" and helping to make this a better world.

[From the Wyoming Rural Electric News, July 1968]

AN EDITORIAL

(By Henry Jensen) The end of May saw the beginning of

another type of international cooperation when two young men, both electrical engineers arrived in Wyoming as a part of a program of exchanges between the countries of South America and the United States.

The program called Partners of the Alliance, is a privately funded etfort to increase understanding between our southern neighbors and ourselves.

One of the projects of the Alliance pairs states in the United States with states, or in some cases nations, of all of Latin America.

In the case of the visitors to Wyoming these young men come from the state of Golas in Brazil, which is the partner of Wyoming in the program.

Rural Golas, as was the case in Rural Wyoming thirty years ago, has no electric po~er. It is h:oped that, by studying the organization and operation of the Rural E~ectric Cooperatives in Wyoming these young men can upon their .return. to their

homeland apply the knowledge and bring the blessings of plentiful electricity to its rural citizens.

The Wyoming Rural Electrics have volunt,eered to host the visitors so that they may get as diversified a picture as possible on the way in which varying problems have been met.

With little or no fan-fare developing nations all over the world, but more especially in South and Central America have established Electric Cooperatives, and are at the beginning of a cultural revolution as profound as that which has occurred in Rural America in the past three decades:

This is international cooperation at its very best. A real person-to-person program which does not fall back on the taxpayer, and which can yield tremendous dividends in understanding. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

GRANTs--TITLE II, SECTION 212 OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

Mr. NEI.SON. Mr. President, the Congress is considering a critical piece of legisla~ion-the continuation for another year of the foreign aid program. One provision of the Foreign Assistance Act 1s of particular. importance. Accordingly, I would like to address a few remarks to title II, regarding technical cooperation and development grants.

This portion of the bill is significant because it authorizes the deployment of programs conducted by our colleges and universities in underdeveloped nations. I think it 1s important that we support American universities in their programs overseas. The technical assistance program that has been created under the aegis of the Agency for International Development has furnished increasing knowledge to us about the problems and needs of the poorer nations of the world. The programs in operation are helping to meet today's crises while also providing the know-how to anticipate and eliminate the future problems of the underdeveloped nations of the world.

Funds for technical cooperation and development grants are used to pay for sending U.S. technicians, primarily in agriculture, education and public health, to the less developed countries; to bring selected individuals from such countries to the United States for technical and other development related training; and to provide certain amounts of equipment and supplies for the implementation of programs of assistance. Briefly, its purpose is to help the less developed countries overcome their deficiencies in technically qualified manpower.

But all I have just said describes what the program is designed to do. Now, Mr. President, I would like to tell you about some of the programs that in fact have been initiated. I draw upon the experience of the University of Wisconsin to illustrate the good work that has been accomplished in conjunction with AID grants. The Wisconsin experience has convinced me how important it is for AID to give greater financial support for a stronger and more integrated research program.

At the outset, may I say that the Wisconsin idea is that "the campus knows no boundaries."

One highly successful program of the University of Wisconsin is its Land Tenure Center. This Center was established in 1962 and has been financed

largely by the Agency for International Development. It has a program of research that includes training of students, both United States and foreign, throuch research participation. Cooperative research is conducted with universities, government agencies, and AID missions in Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, Central America, and Venezuela.

The kind of research done in each country depends on its own problems and circumstances. The Land Tenure Center focuses on land ownership, operating arrangements and their effect on agriculture.

Through this plan, AID generates ideas and facts not previously available. For example, methods are researched for expediting land title procedures and distributing farm information to new landowners. The role of farmer organizations and the impact of new land taxes are also studied. Ways to increase farm production are explored and water law questions are resolved. In addition, publications, documentary film footage, and other means distribute this knowledge to policymakers all over Latin America.

The highly successful Chilean land reform program has gained much from the research carried out by the Center's United States and Chilean researchers. When Prof. Peter Dorenr completed 2 years as director of the Center's program in Chile, President of the Republic Eduardo Frei said:

Please accept my sincere appreciation for this very real contribution which you have made to the agricultural development of Chile through your clear interpretation which has been very much applauded in Government circles.

In Bolivia, Prof. Ronald Clark has worked closely with the Inter-American Committee for Agricultural Deve:i.opment, Bolivian ministries, and the AID mission to speed up the processing of clear land titles to the 50 percent of farmers who are still without them. This will greatly increase the stability of production in Bolivian agriculture.

These are but a few of the many in-. stances in which the Center's work has led to improved and accelerated action programs in agricultural development.

Such programs strengthen and build on a university's previous involvement in an area of research. The Land Tenure Center has assembled a highly competent staff that is frequently called upon by country agencies and AID missions to give technical advice and short-term assistance. The Center's research publications are in great demand and many are available in two or three languages.

Latin American participants in the Center's program have gained a great deal of firsthand knowledge about rural people and their problems. In the United States we take for granted the social scientists' close contact with rural questions. But social scientists in Latin America frequently have little · experience with rural life. The Center's program has given a large number of potential researchers firsthand knowledge of the agricultural conditions in their countries.

Let me make it clear that our own universities benefit, also. Returning pro-


fessors and researchers are able to give more meaningful classroom instruction. This is of great significance when we consider the large number of foreign students studying at U.S. ij.niversitiesand the equally large group of our own students learning about the social and economic organization of agriculture abroad.

The U.S. contribution will always be a small part of total development expenditures of any country. The direct and immediate results of U.S. university research programs, plus the increasing number of competent local social scientists can geometrically multiply the value of our aid. This case is well illustrated. by the e:ffective programs at the University of Wisconsin.

Establishing centers of professional competence cannot be achieved in a year or two, nor can it be done by any university from its own resources. Universities need long-range support from the Federal Government if they are to build staff to· develop the expertise needed by AID missd.ons and foreign governments. The money we invest in research in AID's technical assistance program is the kind which makes possible these programs. What we· invest here now will bring us untold returns in many years to come.

:.·

It is for these reasons I urge the Senate to appropriate the full amount of money requested for 1969 for title II, section 212.

AID AND THE POPULATION CHALLENGE

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the world today faces a relatively new and awesome problem. It took from the beginning of time until 1830 to reach the first billion of world population. Thirty years ago, we reached 2 billion. Eight years ago we reached 3 billion. Toward the turn of the century, at current rates, the population of the world will double.

This is escalation which we cannot afford. This is why President Johnson has said:

Next to the pursuit of peace, the ... greatest challenge to the human family is the race between food supply and population in-crease.

The population explosion is most severe in the countries that can afford it least-in the less developed countries of Asia Africa, and Latin America. If firm me~ures of control are not immediately instituted on the national and individual levels, life in these countries will soon be a perpetual rush-hour traffic jam, immobilized by crowds-the only difference between these 24-hour traffic jams and the one we know will be that those to come will be traffic jams for food, for jobs, for survival-not just crowds of people trying to get home before dark.

This is why family planning help for the developing nations, toge·ther with aid to agriculture, should have the highest priority in our foreign assistance program. The family planning policy of the Agency for International Development is based on four -principles: That overpopulation and underdevelopment are interrelated."That every country with an overpopulation problem should do its utmost to promote family planning; we, in turn, must help to the best of our

ability. Third, we must support and assist-not start or impose-family planning programs in the developing nations. Finally each country must be free to choose its own type of family planning techniques; and we will assist only programs in which individual citizens are free to participate or not.

As a result of amendments to the aid bill last year, one of which I sponsored, proposed family planning funds in the current fiscal year assistance are expected to total $35 million or more. This will enable a significant attack on the problem to be mounted. Naturally, the host countries will contribute much more in funds, time, labor, and promotion. U.S. dollars are by no means the key to the program; the important factors are new attitudes on the part of governments and people, and making sure that the developing nations make maximum use of their own resources.

But vigorous and unrelenting efforts are vital to family planning. This means continued budgetary support. Family planning aid requires a relatively modest portion of the foreign assistance program, but failure to spend the money today will cost far more tomorrow-far more than either we or our children will want to pay.

FOREIGN AID HELPS PEOPLE

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, one of the frequent criticisms which we hear of the foreign assistance program is that our aid enriches governments, and that i·t helps only the wealthy few. Many of us know of isolated in·stances in which this is so. But as a general proposition, it is not the case. The AID program helps not the opulent and powerful minority, but the nearly 2 billion people in the developing nations who are hungry and illiterate and tragically vulnerable to disease and despair.

AID development loans do this: development loans put fertilizer on the small farms of millions of people in India, pesticides on the wheat farms of Turkey, irrigation which within 7 years will boost food production for millions of poor people in North Africa by 30 percent.

Technical assistance also helps people. American doctors are helping the local authorities of 19 West African countries vaccinate 110 million people against smallpox. Our medical experts have already helped protect 100 million people in Pakistan against mal·aria. They, too, are helping people, not governments.

Last year, fertilizer demonstrations conducted by AID specialists and consultants in El Salvador increased com production more than one-fifth in a single year. The cost to all American taxpayers was a few thousand dollars. This helped poor people-farmers and consumers-not the wealthy few.

Under AID contracts, Amerioa.ri trade unions are helping people in the developing nations to acquire new skills and learn about labor organization and collective bargaining. This helps the popr maJority in these countries, not the rich minority.

Why should we bother, why should we care about these problems? First, because they need our help, and it is incumbent upon us to do at least our mini-

mum share. SecOnd, as President Johnson reminded us earlier this year:

If most men can look forward to nothing more than a lifetime 01! ••• misery, violence will always beckon, freedom will ever be under siege.

Helping the wealthy few would accomplish nothing beyond supporting tradition-bound social and economic injustices. By helping the people of the disadvantaged nations, we help ourselves.

AID AND AMERICAN PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, one of the essential-but insufficiently under'"' stood-aspects of the foreign aid program today is that it is no longer exclusively a government-to-government program. It is a program conducted 1n large measure by the private sector: the American business and financial community. We saw one sign of this at recent committee hearings on the foreign assistance program, when the National Chamber of Commerce expressed its strong support of the foreign aid bill.

The business community and AID work together in two ways. One involves straightforward exports of U.S. goods and services. Last year, more than 4,000 American companies produced $1.35 billion in American products for export under foreign aid financing. Among the exports AID financed were fertilizers chemicals, iron and steel, and machinery. These exports create hundreds of thousands of American jobs and build permanent markets for future cash exports.

Second, AID incentives are encourag;.. ing American firms to finance business enterprise in the developing countries. This is profitable to the American concerns, and it stimulates economic growth in the developing world. We hear a great deal about American interests in · petroleum, but not so much about other fields, in which American business has expanded its annual investment in the lessdeveloped countries from about $180 million in 1960 to about $380 million in 1966. A few examples will represent the diversity of Amet:ican private industry involved in the U.S. foreign aid program:

In the Philippines, private representatives of the Esso Fertilizer Co., the Agricultural Chemical Co., and the Atlas Fertilizer Co. have sold more than 11,000 "miracle rice" kits. These kits were originally financed and developed by the AID mission in Manila. They provide farmers with the ingredients needed to grow the new high-yielding strains of rice.

In Brazil, Ultrafertil S.A., 60 percent of which is owned by Phillips Petroleum, is bullding a major fertilizer plant. Six American insurance companies joined AID in putting up the necessary capital, all of which is being used to buy U.S. goods.

Alpine Marine Protein Industries, Inc., of Massachusetts, recently entered a $9 mlliion AID contract to produce more than two million tons of high-protein fish concentrate. This is the first contract to a private firm to produce :fish concentrate for tlie food-or-freedom t>rogram. . . · Foreign assistan~ today engages the American private sector to the utmost degree. The efforts and resources of

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 24209 American private enterprise are an integral and crucial element in the aid program. There are very good business reasons why American industry supports this bill, and equally good domestic economic reasons for the Congress to do likewise.

PRIVATE NONPROFIT AGENCIES AND FOREIGN AID

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the United States has progressed a long way from the days of horse-and-buggy isolationism. Private American citizens are still breaking through the limits of old parochial attitudes and interests. Organized into dozens of voluntary, nonprofit agencies, they are demonstrating their understanding that the world is small and that all nations depend on each other for survival. They are doing something about it, not leaving the responsibility to the diplomats and .strategists. With the support of the Agency for International Development these citizens are doing much of the work of the Nation's foreign economic assistance program.

The Ameriean Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the ,Catholic Relief Services, the Congregational Christian Service Committee, the Lutherans, the Mennonites, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Friends and the Unitarians, the trade unions and the medical groups, the League of Women Voters, CARE, the Salvation Army, the Thomas A. Dooley Foundation, and many others: all are working closely with AID on emergency as well as longer range projects, helping the needy and helping to speed up progress in the developing nations.

Tents, blankets, and cots are airlifted to earthquake victims in Peru; medical supplies and food-for-freedom commodities go to flood victims in Brazil; youngsters ar~ receiving regular meals for the first time in a Vietnam child-care center; U.S. excess property-tractors, vocational equipment, and medical, dental, and veterinary equipment-make a reality of development plans and of ambitions to grow more food in the hungry countries; and leadership training courses for men and women help develop strong looalleadership.

Today there are 73 voluntary agencies registered with the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. AID reimburses these agencies for the costs of transporting donated goods to the developing nations: medicine, drugs, hospital equipment, agricultural tools and machinery, clothing, and food. Registered agencies are eligible to obtain surplus U.S. Government property through AID as well as agricultural commodities under the food-for-freedom program.

Over the last 20 years, the voluntary agencies have contributed over a billion dollars in cash to needy people in other countries. They have distributed U.S. foods valued at more than $2 Y2 billion, clothing valued at $663 million, $158 million worth of educational supplies and vocational training equipment; also $14 million for other self-help activities in a wide range of development programs. Thei:· contributions have totaled over $5 billion. All will agree with me that this ~ an impressive record.

CXIV--1525-Part 18

The work of these groups helps make us proud to be Americans. These people are doing the work of the United States in the world, Mr. President, and their work depends directly on the foreign assistance program. Their efforts are one very good reason for this Congress to approve the modest AID request for fiscal1969.

AID AND U.S. LEADERSHIP

. Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, when I think that the United States is looked upon for leadership by the free world, I am alarmed by what we here in the Congress of the United States have done to the foreign aid bill. Every move we make has repercussions abroad.

Let us see where we do stand in terms of leadershiP-what we have called upon others to do, and what our own performance will look like.

Sixteen nations of the free world-:-16 industrially advanced nations-make up the member nations of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. The Development Assistance Committee exists primarily because we in the United States helped call it into existence. Because we felt that if the "have" nations of this world wanted to live in peace and stability, it was in.cumbent upon them to lend a hand to their "have-not" neighbors. We Americans saw it as a duty, a duty we accepted honorably, to help eliminate debilitating disease in parts of the world just shaking off colonial chains. A duty to bring hungry, under.nourished people the technical assistance and the encouragement with which they could raise their own food, with which they could themselves become selfsufficient.

As free world leaders we urged this same duty on the other industrially advanced countries who shared some of our own values. And these countries responded, slowly at first, but with increasing acceptance of the American lead, and of the need to follow on in the course of mutual cooperation for which we Americans were calling.

By 1967, the :flow of public aid and private capital which the DAC countries provided to the needy nations came to $11.2 billion-an increase of 8 percent over the previous year. Not long ago, DAC set as its goal-with American concurrence, indeed, with American urging-that each of its members allocate to international development aid 1 percent of its own gross national product.

We have gotten our message across. Nations which we once helped to get off the ground are now sharing the load, are now helping others. Last year, two countries had reached the goal of allocating 1 percent of gross national product for development assistance. One of them was France, with 1.24 percent of her gross national product. The other was the Netherlands, with slightly more than 1 percent.

But we in the United States have slipped. Our percentage of the national wealth devoted to international development is below the average of DAC members. In terms of omcial aid the United States is in a seventh-place tie with the United Kingdom-behind France, behind Australia, behind Belgium, Portugal, West Germany, and the Netherlands.

Not a very lmpre~ive showing for a leader.

And now we propose to do less. This ;year, starting out with the smallest foreign-aid request 1n the program's history, we have seen the aid bill buffeted from pillar to post. From an economic .aid request of $2% billion, $1 billion has now been ripped out.

To be sure, we have domestic problems and priorities, we have pockets of poverty which need attention within our own country. But does anyone here suggest that we are less able than formerly to contribute to the physical and economic health of the needy parts of the world? In fact, our national wealth has increased while our allocation to international development has been declining.

Barbara Ward, the economist, recently wrote an article on this subject. It is worth noting Miss Ward's remarks preceded the latest slashes in this program. She noted that the United States was cutting back its assistance which, she said, is not more than 0.4 percent of our gross national product. She pointed to the relatively small increase that would be necessary on the part of the wealthier countries to avert widespread tragedy in the years ahead.

When we come up, as individuals and nations before the Judgment Seat-

Miss Ward asks-and before us rises up, as a symbol of our rejection, the image of Lazarus whom we did not help, shall we cry to the Seraphim that we thought 0.4 percent of our superabundant wealth was "generous" enough? And will they listen?

Miss Ward is concerned, as I am sure we all are, with a matter of conscience. But as practical men, too, let us recognize that the danger is not solely that of being callous in the face of our fellow human being's needs and suffering. We are in danger of throwing away the progress already made and the promise, in some cases so close to fruition, of seeing these neighbors self-sutncient. We have succeeded in enlisting the support of the other ''have" nations in this job. If we renege, they will get that message very quickly. We will face the almost certain prospect of losing their support in doing the job.

And, I assure you, the job will have to be done-either in cooperation with others or, more expensively, all alone.

FOREIGN AID AND FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the pending foreign aid bill has been roughly handled on its journey from the AID drawing boards to the :floor of this House. In my judgment, it has been cut far too much.

One hundred years ago, on a visit to America, the scientist Thomas Huxley remarked to our people:

I cannot say that I am in the slightest degree impressed by your bigness, or by your material resources, as such. Size 1s not grandeur, and territory does not make anation. The great issue about which ha.ngs the terror of over-hanging fate, 1s what are you going to do with these things?

Mr. President, I would like to ask Senators what are we going to do with our size and our material resources with re~pect to the rest of the world? Shall we,

24210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 1968 by withholding some millions of dollars from a monetarily insignificant but strategically crucial program, retreat to an atmosphere of 19th century isolationIsm? When the Congress has for years been so closely involved in the making of this country's foreign policy, are we now effectively going to adopt a policy of "no policy," in a deliberate withdrawal from our part in helping to shape the future of two-thirds of the world?

I am not advocating a spendthrift attitude on the part of the Senate: I am in favor of economizing in the Federal budget; in fact, I think it is vitally necessary. But meat ax, action of the board reduction in the field of foreign aid is not the direction we should take.

Such cuts would be wasteful because they would necessitate the curtailment or drastic reduction of projects underway in which a great deal of money, our own and that of host nations, has been invested. They would preclude the initiation of new projects designed to support and further the total development process in a number of countries. They would result in a loss for American business which would seriously affect our own economy. They would constitute a clear admission of failure, a conviction that our entire aid program has been useless, and that we have been repeating a great national mistake for .over 20 years.

Further reductions in the economic aid program would be dangerous, in my view, because of the fact that the evolutionary process of development has been started, under ·our aegis, in a number of countries and has built up momentum to the point where it must be guided and controlled or it will become convulsive revolution. Apathy has given way to hope and confidence, a will to live and to make a better life, to change the medieval status quo, in which life for centuries has been dark, nasty, brutish, and short. Either we control and direct this upsurge of activity, or it will turn into violence and mob action.

I am seriously concerned about the future of the foreign aid program and the world role this country will be called upon to play. If we wish to continue to lead the free world as we have done in the past, if we wish to preserve the precarious balance of power as it now exists, it seems clear to me that we will have to continue to take an active interest in the needs of the developing world and help to answer those needs with tangible assistance.

The gains we will make by further reducing the aid program will not seem important when measured by what we stand to lose: We may outstrip the Russians in our space program by a few months or weeks or days; we may continue to get our mail delivered to our homes on Saturday; we may replace some miles of six-lane interstate highway with some miles of eight-lane highway; we may finance a very few more jet bombers for the war in Vietnam, costly as they are. And we may also lose our present influence over the conduct on international relations in the world.

I am not proposing a paternalistic attitude of telling the rest of the world how to nin its business, but I do believe in

realistic attitude of enlightened self-interest and self-protection. I am afraid we will lose even the option of attitudes if we relinquish or diminish our greatest means of influence.

Because of this, I ask Senators to hold the fiscal 1969 foreign aid authorization to the figure at which it now stands. Any additional cuts will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and this is one instance in which we ourselves are .not only Paul, but Peter as well.

UNITED STATES USE OF THE METRIC SYSTEM

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside temporarily, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1422, H.R. 3136.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I shall not object-would my able friend indicate whether there will be any more rollcall votes tonight?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator let us consider this bill first?

Mr. KUCHEL. Surely. The PRESIDING OFFICER The bill

will be stated by title. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. H.R. 3136, to

authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a study to determine the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the metric system in the United States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment, on page 4, after line 18, strike out:

SEc. 5. From funds previously appropriated to the Department of Commerce, the Secretary is authorized to ut111ze such appropriated sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $500,0CO, to carry out the purposes of this Aot for the :first year of the program.

And, in lieu thereof, insert: SEc. 5. From any funds available to the

Department of Commerce during fiscal year 1969. the Secretary is authorized to utilize such sums as are necessary, but not to exceed $500,000, to carry out the purposes of this Act for the :first year of the program.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate would author:~e the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study to determine the advantages and disadvantages of converting the metric system in the United States.

The pending House-passed measure, H.R. 3136, is similar to two Senate bills which were the subject of hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee during the first session of this Congress. I refer to S! 441, sponsored by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], and S. 2356, which I introduced· on August 29, 1967.

Mr. President, although 90 percent of the earth's population is committed today to using the metric system, our Government has thus far failed to weigh the significance of this movement and its possibly adverse impact upon our international trade position.

Clearly, the time is long overdue for the United States to consider the feasibility of adopting an improved system of weights and measures-a system which is more closely allied with standards in effect in most of the rest of the world.

The trend in other parts of the world toward conversion to the metric system has been in evidence for several years.

Recently, on July 26 of this year, the British Government announced that metric measurements would be used in the United Kingdom beginning in 1975. It is almost inevitable that other Commonwealth countries will follow the British lead in this respect. Thus, the United States may become the only nonmetric country of any appreciable size in the world. As the world's leading industrial power, our country cannot afford to close its eyes to such an impending development.

Many people in the United States are firmly opposed to changing the Nation's present system of weights and measures; others advocate an immediate and complete conversion to the metric system.

A controversy concerning the proper course for the United States has been before the Congress for a number of years.

What is needed today is adequate, reliable information to provide the basis for reaching a sound and final judgment on the issue.

The impartial study authorized under H.R. 3136 will set the stage for such a judgment. The Secretary of Commerce is required to seek out the participation of private organizations, of industry and labor, in conducting the study. And the measure ensures that the possible practical difficulties and costs which might be encountered through increased use of the metric system will be c·arefitlly weighed.

Mr. President, I believe that the Senate should approve H.R. 3136 today, so that the United States may take a first, important step toward determining its course on this all-important question.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is with particular satisfaction that I support the bill now before the Senate. I have introduced legislation very similar to this in each of the three past Congresses. In fact, the House version of this bill as it originally was submitted to that body was identical to S. 441, which I introduced in the first session of this Congress.

I wish to emphasize a point that is constantly made in regard to this legislation, but one that should be repeated: that is, that this is not a bill providing for conversion to the metric system, but rather, a bill that will look into the pros and cons of conversion. This study will look into whether conversion will bring more or less efficiency to our society and whether we will be better or worse off in export markets. I personally think that the study will show that conversion makes good economic sense; but we must have a study to make sure. If the conclusion of the study docs come down on· the side of conversion, then the study · will provide a rough blueprint of how to proceed.

Traditions are comfortable things, but they must-when the need arises-give

July 30, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD·- -SENATE 2421l way to change. Our use of the old English method of measurement 1s -becoming an increasingly rare and unusual phenomena as we look around the world. I started my campaign for this legislation 5 years ago, in 1963, Mr. President. Since then, the United Kingdom has started to convert, while other countries such as France, Venezuela, and India have recently prohibited the use of any system other than metric. In fact, on Friday the British Government announced it plans to convert all weights and measures in that country to the metric system by 1975.

The establishment of this target date, I think, has substantial significance for the United States. It serves to bring home with some emphasis the fact that the United States will soon find itself in near isolation as a user of the old English foot-pound measurement system.

By the time the British complete their conversion to the metric system, just 7 years from . now, the United States, and perhaps Canada, will be the only major nations of the world not using the metric system.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the New York Times of July 27 on the British announcement be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.


<See exhibit 1.) Mr. PELL. Mr. President, one of the

factors making thie study a worthwhile endeavor that has come increasingly into the fore with the passage of time is the high..:priority need to improve this country's balance-of-payments position. The study called for in this bill will look into the effects on our trade position that results from maintaining a separate measurement system from that cf our trading partners. Conversion, if it comes, will naturally bring about an increase in 1mports as well as exports; but most experts seem to agree that exports will respond much more dramatically than imports. One estimate holds that American firms might be losing as much as $10 billion annually in export sales by adhering to our present system of weights and measures. During these times of serious bal.:. ance-of-payments deficits, we cannot responsibly ignore the benefits that might accrue as a result of conversion.

In the other body, amendments were added on the floor which make clear that, in conducting the study, the Secretary js to consider the effect which a change in our system of measurement would have on the related dimensional and engineering standards used within the United States. I have always believed that a general consideration of the impact which conversion would have on the standard sizes and shapes used in this country would be an integral part of the proposed study. It is helpful to have it specifically included.

At the same time, however, I am pleased that the Commerce Committee report on this · bill has placed the standards question in proper perspective. Certainly the study should not be concerned with the merits and demerits of specific product standards. Instead it should consider the impact which a change in our language of measurement would have

either in securing international adoption of the dimensional and other engineering standards currently 1lSeG in this country or in increasing international pressure on U.S. science and industry to abandon such standards.

I believe that the committee report clarifies any possible misinterpretation of the language of the bill. It establishes the intent of the committee that general consideration of the utllity of existing U.S. standards, which is required by section 3, 1s included in order to delineate

· one background factor which should assist the Secretary in determining what the impact of a change in our system of measurement would be.

During the last 5 years that I have been proposing legislation along the lines of this bill, some of the priorities indicating the need for a study have changed-for instance, the trade aspect is more important now than it was in the past. The overall need, however, has been clearly established, and it becomes more urgent all the time. Delay just puts off the day of reckoning and increases the costs.

I urge speedy action on the bill. ExHmiT 1

BRITONS SET 1975 FOR METRIC SHIFT (By Anthony Lewis)

LONDON, July 26.-By 1975 the man at the bar will say, "six hundred milliliters o:t best bitter, my dear"-or something like that. Britain is going metric.

The Government today fixed 19'75 as a target date :for converting all weights. and measures to the metric system. The Minister of Technology, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, made the announcement in the House of Commons.

Pounds, shillings and pence are already scheduled to give way to decimal currency in February, 1971. The principle o:f metric measures had also been accepted, but today•s announcement moved the idea from theory to deflni te policy.

Industry asked for the switch. Most of the world now uses metric measurement, and _a majority of British exports go to metric countries. They often require standards different from products for the home market.

No one has been able to estimate the possible savings to British manufacturers of a uniform system, or the costs of switching to metrics. But the feeling is that the trend in tha~ direction is irresistible.

An advisory committee that recommended the metric program to the Government estimated that by 1975 the entire world would be on the metric system, except the United States and Canada. Even in those countries, it said, there is new interest in switching.

A metrication board will be set up to guide and coordinate different industries in changing their measures. But the board will be only advisory. So far the Government has no plan, instead of yards, feet and inches.

"There can be no question of compensation" for businesses, Mr. Wedgwood Benn said. "The costs of adopting metric weights and measures must lie where they may." _

SOONER CALL FOR A GLASS The Consumer Council issued its own ob

servations on the metric issue today, agreeing with the Government that there should be a gradual change ending by 1975. The report said consumers would be too confused if everything changed at once.

The council offered some indications of what the British customer will have to learn to buy instead of the familiar retail sizes here.

Draft boor, for example, goes by the pint or half-pint in pubs now. The nearest metric equivalent would be 600 milliliters, six-

tenths of a liter, which is a llttle more-than a pint.

"But I'd never say that," one drinker swore. "I'd sooner just call for a glass!'

Road signs will be one of the major problems. A speed limit o:f 50 miles an hour, for example, will be 80 kilometers an hour instead. Road authorities may use the occasion :tor a general revis.ton of speed 11mits.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be deleted and that the bill as approved by the House be passed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The question 1s on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the third reading of the bill.

The bill was read the third time, and passed.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT, 1968

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 16263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT Mr. MANS~LD. Mr. President, the

distinguished acting minority leader has raised a question as to what the schedule will be for the rest of the evening. After discussing the matter with the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. DoMINICK] and the distinguished manager of the bill, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], and other Senators, I would like to propound a unanimous-consent request:

At the conclusion of morning business tomorrow, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 1 hour on each amendment, the time to be equally divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the manager of the bill, and that there be 2 hours on the bill itself. Mr.DO~~.Mr.President,reserv

ing the right to object, can the Senator give me a little more time than that, particularly on the second amendment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I modify the request to 4 hours-on the bill, so time can be allotted from time on the bill.

Mr. DOMINI~. Very well. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, would the

Senator from Montana · amend that request for me and provide for 5 minutes on each side for an amendment I have?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, with the time on the Miller amendment limited to 10 minutes, 5 minutes to each side.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understood the limitation of 1 hour applied to any amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator from Iowa asked for a special time on his amendment.

Mr. RUSSELL. I understand, but that does not debar any amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the unanimous-consent agreement proposed by the Senator from Montana? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

24212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 30, 196B

The unanimous-consent agreement subsequently reduced to writing ls as follows:

UNANIMOUS-CoNSENT AGREEMENT

Ordered, That, effective on Wednesday, July 31, 1968, at the conclusion of routine morning business, during the further consideration .of the bill (H.R. 15263), to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes, debate on any amendment, except an amendment by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Mn.LER], on which there will be 10 minutes, motion, or appeal, except a motion to lay on the table, shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of any such amendment or motion and the majority leader: Provided, That in the event the majority leader is in favor of any such amendment or motion, the time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the minority leader or some Senator designated by him: Provided further, That no amendment that is not germane to the provisions of the said bill shall be received.

Ordered further, That on the question of the final passage of the said bill debate shall be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided. and controlled, respectively, by the majority and minority leaders: Provided, That the said leaders, or either of them, may, from the time under their control on the passage of the said btll, allot additional time to any Senator during the consideration of any amendment, motion, or appeal.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there will be no further debate, or at least no voting, on the pending measure tonight.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, 1969

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move at this time that the Senate turn to the consideration of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, H.R. 18706.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana withhold that motion for just a moment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SPARKMAN. I believe we can dis

pose of the Miller amendment within 5 minutes' time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, it can be done following that.

Mr. President, I renew my request that the pending business be laid aside temporarily and that the Senate move to the consideration of the District of Columbia appropriation bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 18706> making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations with amendments.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, the Committee on /.ppropriations recommends a total of $548,193,810 in appropriations for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1969. This represents an increase over the House apprl''lpriation amounting to $19,307,810, the House appropriation having been $528,886,000.

The amount recommended by the Sen-

ate Appropriations Committee is $27,-613,964 over the appropriations for 1968, but. it represents a reductio .. l under the revised estimates for 1969 of $57,997,190.

The committee recommends a Federal payment of $80 million, which is $5 million over the House allowance .of $75 mtllion.

The committee recommends a total of 3,409 additional positions, a net increase of 967 positions over the House recommendation.

The estimated revenues available---at the time of markup--for expenditures from all funds for the fiscal year 1969, inc~tiding Federal payment and general sanitation, sewer, and waterworks funds of $83,282,000, and Treasury loans of $70,473,000 to the general highway and water funds, amounted to $552,776,000.

It is estimated there will be a surplus in the general fund as of June 30, 1969, amounting to $723,000.

The funds required amount to $550,-022,0()0.

Included in the total requirements is a reserve of $26,042,000 for contingent expenses, as follows: Indefinite appJ"opriations, $1,016,000; salary increases for classified employees, $5,150,000; pay raises for policemen and firemen, $7,-076,000; and pay raises for schoolteachers, $12,800,000.

The committee has allowed the full request of 1,000 additional policemen, bringing the authorized total number of policemen up from 3,100 positions to 4,100 positions. The 1,000 additional policemen will be granted on a staggered basis of 100 per month, beginning with September 1, 1968, and proceeding through the remaining 10 mo!'.ths of the fiscal year.

The Pollee Department, during the past few months, has been able to recruit policemen at the rate of something Uke 65 policemen per month, and lt is felt that providing for the recruitment of 100 additional positions per month will be more than adequate in view of past experience concerning recruiting.

The committee has also allowed 50 additional civilian positions in the Police Department, and $143,000 and eight positions to expand the Crime Control and Criminal Statistics oftlce.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Would the Senator mind waiting until I complete my statement? Then I shall be happy to yield.

For the Metropolitan Pollee Department, the Senate committee appropriated an increase of $4,240,232 over the House b111. The total for the Police Department is $52,309,232.

With the additional police positions, the committee feels that the amount expended for overtime should materially decrease, more than $6 .million having been expended for overtime in fiscal year 1968.

For the public schools, the committee recommends $101,769,385. This is a net increase of $930,385 over the House allowance. This increase will provide 40 additional positions, which include 10 teachers for the perceptually handicapped children, 25 librarians in exist.,. ing schools, and five additional employees in · the transportation service.

The committee has allowed the full budget request for teaching positions.

The committee has also included additional sums for instructional supplies and materials, textboolts, workboOks, and library books essential to cover the increased enrollment at the elementary, secondary, and vocational levels.

The committee has restored all of the capital outlay items which were appealed to the committee for the Public Schools Department.

For the Health Department, the committee recommends $73,943,491'. This is a decrease of $693,509 below the sum recommended in the HouSe bill.

For public welfare, the committee recommends a total of $46,599,379. This is a net decrease of $207,621 from the sum provided in the House b111.

For parks and recreation, the committee recommends a total appropriation of $16,983,988, a net decrease of $57,012.

For the recreation department the committee recommends the appropriation of $8,571,158, a <;lecrease of $86,842.

For highways and traffic, the committee concurs in the House allowance of $17,621,000 for operating expenses. This sum includes $14,829,000 for the Department of Highways and Trame, $2,534,000 for the Department of Motor Vehicles, and $258,000 for the Motor Vehicle Parking Agency.

For sanitary engineering, the committee agreed to the House allowance of $30,-735,000.

For capital outlay, a total of $105,936,-000 is recommended. This sum is $15,36.4,-000 above the House allowance, and $36,-093,000 below the total budget estimate.

I have already made reference to the public school projects, but included in the capital outlay increase of $15,364,000, are the Fort Lincoln urban renewal area projects, and the Department of Sanitary Engineering conversion of the 0 Street incinerator, as well as funds for the renovation of the old Emory school building.

But the committee denied, as did the House, the request for $21,886,000 of the $27,574,000 requested for construction funds, on a matching basis, of the Rapid Rail Transit Authority, a project under the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

The committee has increased the authorization for use of privately owned automobiles in the performance of official travel from 8 to 10 cents per mile, but not to exceed $35 instead of $25 per month for each automobile.

Mr. President, I think that constitutes a summation of the items in the appropriation bill, in the main.

I should like to have printed in the RECORD tables from the committee report which will indicate the number of positions that have been allowed for each of the departments, and I ask unani~ mous consent, therefore, that such a summary of authorized positions requested and allowed be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED PoSrriONS REQUESTED AND ALLOWED

The committee recommends 3,409 additional positions, a net increase of 967 positions over the House recommendation.


Total 1969 increases Senate Total 1969 increases Senate IUthorized recommen- authorized ------recommen-

1968 Requested House bill dation 1968 Requested House bill dation

Public Safety-Continued General operating expenses: Executive Office__________ ______ ___ _________ 170 46 27 29 Corrections _______ ----~ __________ ------- __ _ 1, 027 70 53 53 District of Columbia City Council________ ____ _ 33 33 ~~ licenses and Inspections __ _________ __ _____ _ _ 461 23 19 19 Department of General Administration._---- - ·==74=0====29===2=0=== National Guard _______ _ -- ------ ________ -- ··-- 25 3 3 3

======================= Regulatory and miscellaneous agencies:

28 ----------------- -------------Total, public safety _______ _____ ____ ·------ 7, 282 458 347 1, 408

~~~~~~~~!~r~ti~~r~f~~~~!rriws:: ~ = = = = = = = = 16 4 4 4 Education: ========== Death investigations. __________ --------- 26 2 ------- --------- -- -- Public Schools _____ ------------- __________ _ 9,898 679 436 476 Administration of insurance laws ________ _ 26 ----·------------------------- Higher Education ________ ------ ____________ _ 257 508 508 508 Administration of Wage, Safety and Hour --------------------------Total, education ____ ______ . ___ ___ _________ _ Laws ____ ____ ------_-----------------Filing and Recording Property and Cor-

34 1 -------------------- 10,155 1,187 944 984

poration Papers. __ ------ __ --------- - - 73 ----- __ ----------------------. Parks and Recreation: ========== Recreation Department__ ___________ ------ __ _ 435 161 36 25 Public Service Commission ••• --------- " - 31 ------------------------------

Pianninf and Zoning_________ __________ _ 12 1 1 1 National Park Service _______________ _. ______ _ 709 119 70 64 8Qard o Appeals and Review____ ________ 4 --------------- ------ ----- ---- National Zoological Park ____________________ _ 237 16 ---------- 7 Commissioner's Youth CounciL______ ____ 16 ------------------------------ --------------------------Total, parks and recreation ___ ____ __ ______ _ 1, 381 296 106 96 Office of Community RenewaL__ _______ _ 12 6 --------------------Council on Human Relations____ _____ ____ 8 14 6 0 ======================= Commission on the Status of Women___ _____________ 2 -------------------- Health and Welfare:

Vocational Rehabilitation. _______ . ___ . ______ _ 123 ----- ------------- ------- -----Total, regulatory and miscellaneous Public Health _______ ----------- - ___ ______ _ _ 4,410 538 471 425

agencies •• ~- --------------- -- ------ 286 30 11 5 Public Welfare __________________________ __ _ 3, 734 555 321 2~7

--------------------------Total, health and welfare _________________ _ Occupations and Professions _____________ ·____ 56--------------- --- - ----- ------Public LibrarY------- ----------------------- 533 31 13 13 Veterans' Affairs ____ ----------------------· 12 ------------------ - -----------

8,267 1,093 792 672 =======================

Highways and Traffic: Department of Highways and Traffic_______ __ _ 1, 668 6 Motor Vehicles __________________ ----------- 248 2 2 2

Buildings and Grounds___ ___________________ 372 19 1 1 Surveyor ____________________________ ••• __ -===6=1 =-=--=·=--=·=--=·=--=·=--=--=·=--=·=--=·=--=·=--=-

T.otal, general operating expenses____ __ ____ 2,234 188 105 101 Motor Vehicle Parking Agency_______________ 14 --------------------------------------------------------Total, highways and traffic_________________ 1, 930 11 Public Safety:

Corporation CounseL______________________ 133 25 3 3 Metropolitan Police_________________________ 3, 539 11,260 202 11,260 =======================

SanitarY Engineering: Fire Department____________________________ 1, 499 22 22 22 Civil Defense____________________________ __ 12 1 1 1 Department of SanitarY Engineering _________ _ 3, 212 161 140 140

329 ------ - ------------- ~ ---------=========== Washington Aqueduct__ ________ -------- ____ _ Courts: --------------------------Juvenile ______________________________ _ 164 55 14 17

357 30 10 10 Total, sanitarY engineering_____ __ ___ ____ ___ 3,541 161 140 140

General Sessions. ________ • __ • _________ • ======================= Appeals._-------- _______________ ._---- 16 12 12 12

3 ------------------------------Grand totaL ___ ------------------------- 34,790 14,452 2, 442 13,409

Tax __________________ ._------ ____ ----_ Legal Aid Agency ______________________ _ District of Columbia Bail Agency ________ _

33 15 8 8 13 -------- ------------------------------------------------Total, courts ____________________ ----- 586 112 44 47

1 Includes 1,000 police, 50 police civilians, 8 crime control and criminal statistics staff in H. Doc. 346.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a table of Federal grants to the District of Columbia. This table will show that there is an anticipated total o·f $186,857,674, which will be made available to the District of Columbia in fiscal year 1969. Of course, this amount is over and above the $548,193,810 that is being appropriated in the bill before us.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:· · Federal grants to the District of Columbia,

estimated 1969 Agency

Executive Office ______________ _ General Adril.inistration -------Public Service Commission ____ _ Planning and Zoning _________ _ Commisaioner's Youth CounciL Urban Renewal and Redevelop-

Amount $998,031

4,234 5,897 3,228

50,050

ment Land Agency__________ 9, 436, 000 Council on Human Relations___ 25, 974 Public LibrarY---------------- 353,569 Office o! the Surveyor_________ 2,543 Pollee Department____________ 274, 075 Fire Department______________ 15, 900 Office of Civil Defense_________ 164, 406 Juvenile Court________________ 11,030 Legal Aid Agency______________ 278, 000 Corrections ------------------ 57, 000 Licenses and Inspections _____ ._ 1, 885, 000 Public Schools _____ .___________ 20, 442, 499 Higher Education ____ .:________ 1, 572, 904

Recreation ------------------- 1, 686, 285 Vocational Rehabilitation_____ 4, 106, 706 Public Health---------------- 10, 810, .355 Public Welfare______________ 17, 786,064 Highways and Traffic-~-------- 113, 809, 204 Sanitary Engineering__________ 3, 078, 720

Grand total~------------ 186,857,674

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I call attention to . two areas of the committee report, and I should like to read verbatim into the RECORD the following paragraphs:

With further respect to the Metropolitan Police force, it has been called to the attention of the members of the committee that several groups, in some manner yet unexplained, have proposed a "takeover" or "control" of the Metropolitan Police force. In the event that any such proposal is receiving serious consideration by any such group or person, the committee merely wishes to state that the Constitution gives to the Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and that the Congress, in exercising that power, has conferred the power to appoint, assign to duty, and promote members and officers of the Metropolitan Police force on the Commissioner of the District of Columbia.

While the committee fully realizes that no such "takeover" or "control" of the Metropolitan Pollee force can constitutionally be attained inasmuch as Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to private groups or individuals, the committee does wish to emphasize that it would view with much concern any action on the part of any governmental officer or employee encouraging or assisting any such group or person in attempting. to accomplish indirectly what they are unable to accomplish directly.

I have called attention to this language in view of some of the reports that have appeared in the press in recent days to the effect that certain organizations or groups or individuals are con:. ducting hearings and issuing sta.tements with the idea of promoting the vesting of control of the Police Department in

certain citizen groups. I feel it appropriate that this language from the committee report be read into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

The present laws do not provide for any such takeover of the police department. But the committee wants it clearly understood that as far as the committee is concerned, it has no intention of appropriating moneys now or at any other time for such purpose.

Mr. President, I now call attention to another section of the committee report which I think is perhaps important from the standpoint of a minor controversy that arose not very long ago anent the payment of transportation to their homes of persons who had participated in harassment and demonstrations conducted against Federal officials in both the executive branch and the legislative branch.

There was evidence that the Department of Welfare was defraying the expenses, through reimbursements to the Travelers Aid Society of some of the demonstrators back to their homes. That matter was clarified to the satis,faction of the chairman of the subcommittee by letter from Assistant Commissioner Fletcher which assured that all moneys had been repaid to the Welfare Department from private donors.

Nevertheless, the following language appears in the committee report:

The committee is concerned over the recent demonstrations that have been conducted within the District and the failure of the organizing body to provide sufficient funds to transport all of the demonstrators

24214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE July 30, 1968 back to their homes. Therefore, the committee directs that no funds appropriated to the District of Columbia shall be available for transportation to their homes of persons who have come to the District of Columbia as a participant of an organized group whose express purpose is the petitioning or demonstrating against any branch of the District of Columbia or Federal Government.

Mr. President, the bill has the approval of the senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] who is the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. He and I and the staff of the committee went over the budget together on last Saturday and the bill before us today is precisely the ·package which he and I and the staff developed together at that time, except for one minor change which was made today in the subcommittee markup at the request of the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] who moved to restore three positions to the Council on Human Relations, to be paid for out of available funds. This makes a total of 11 authorized positions in that agency, rather than eight as authorized for fiscal year 1968.

Senator HRUSKA could not be here today, but it was with his full approval that we proceeded with subcommittee and full committee markup and floor action.

I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Senator HRUSKA for his unfailing cooperation and assistance, as well as for his helpful advic'e and counsel. It is no easy task to handle this bill, although it is, by far, the smallest of the regular appropriation bills, and I appreciate the opportunity to work with a ranking minority member who fs so able, so interested, and so cooperative and agreeable as is the Senator from Nebraska. Without him this assignment would be far more difficult and far less pleasant.

I also want to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], and to the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], for their cooperation, their interest, and assistance as members of the subcommittee. They have been most helpful.

Mr. President, I would not want to close my remarks without paying due recognition to the faithful clerk of the subcommittee, Mr. Harold Merrick.

During my 8 years as chairman of the subcommittee, he has untiringly given of his wisdom and experience to the work of the subcommittee, and has rendered exemplary service. I am deeply grateful for the help and encouragement he has

given to me throughout these many years.

Mr. President, that completes my statement concerning the bill making appropriations for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 1969.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.


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.


Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the bill as thus amended be regarded for purposes of amendment as original text, provided that no point of order shall be considered to have been waived by reason of agreement to this order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. 1s there objection to the request of the Senator from West Virginia? The Chair hears none, and it 1s so ordered.

The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:

On page 1, line 9, after "June 30, 1969", strike out "$75,000,000" and insert "$80,000,-000". '

On page 2, line 12, after ~·(D.C. Code, Sec. 9-220 (b); 81 Stat. 339) ",strike out "$67,390,-000" and insert "$70,473,000"; and, in line 16, after the word "fund", where i·t appears the first time, strike out "$58,140,000" and insert "$61,223,000".

On page 2, line 24, after the word "expenses", strike out "$31,703,000" and insert "$31,827,738"; and, on page 3, line 5, after the word "for", strike out "$5,000" and insert "$2,500".

On page 3, line 22, after the word "of", strike out "one hundred and nine" and inbert "one hundred and eighty-four"; in line 24, after the word "including", strike out "one hundred" and insert. "one hundred and seventy-five"; and, on page 4, at the beginning of line 5, strike out "e100,475,000" and insert "$104,682,829",

On page 5, at the beginning of line 10, strjke out "$108,400,000" and insert "$108,969,385".

On page 6, line 1, after the word "Park", strike out "$17,041,000" and insert "$16, • 983,988".

On page 6, line 10, after the word "Health", .strike out "$122,343,000" and insert "$121,-441,870".

On page 10, at the beginning o! line 5, .strike out "$90,572,000" and insert "$105,-936,000"; in line 8, after the word "That", strike out "$32,114,000" and insert "$46.995,-000"; and, in line 10, after the word ''That", strike out "$6, 765,320" and insert "$9,472,020".

. On page 11, line 12, after the word "at", strike out "8" and insert "10"; in line 13, after the word "exceed", strike out "$25" and insert "$35"; and, in line 18, after the word "than", strike out ''$410" and insert "$550".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question 1s on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill (H.R. 18706) was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

The bill <H.R. 18706) was passed. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi

dent, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.


Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House of Representatives thereon, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. SPONG, Mr. HRUSKA, and Mr. JAVITS conferees on the part of the Senate.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the order previously entered, that the Senate stand in ad· journment until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The motion was agreed to; and <a.t 6 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned until Wednesday, July 31, 1968, at 10 a.m.

CONFIRMATION

EXecutive nomination confirmed by the Senate July 30, 1968:

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Irvine H. Sprague, o:f California, to be a member of the Boord of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for a term of 6 years.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Tuesday, July 30, 1968 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. Lory Hildreth, First Baptist

Church, Texarkana, Tex., offered the following prayer:

Our Father, we are in Thy presence, but whlle we are in Thy presence, the world 1s still with us. A world lost and in need of spiritual guidance; a world hungry and In need of physical sustenance; a world split and in need of a basis for unity; a world frustrated and in need

of a birth of hope; and a world of great potentiai and in need of fulfillment.

As these needs reveal our inadequacy, help us to discover Thy adequacy. Supplement our weakness with Thy strength; supply our needs by Thy grace. Workers together with Thee, help us with Thee, to bring about Thy purpose for the redeeming the whole of man and the whole of creation. Through Jesus Christ our .Lord. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of

yesterday was read and approved.

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

rington, one of its clerks, announced that · the Senate had passed without amendment a bill of the House of the following title: ·

SENATE-Tuesday, July 30, 1968

Documents

Transcript of SENATE-Tuesday, July 30, 1968