August CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20389 · PDF fileAugust 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL ... Drum Corps Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ... colorful pageantry and martial marches starting

August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20389 By Mr. HALPERN:

H.R. 10440. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide a deduction from gross income for contributions and gifts to civic organizations; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. MORRISON: H .R. 10441. A bill to amend title 39, United

States Code, to provide certain mailing privileges with respect to members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

H.R. 10442. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to provide for the acquisition of postal field service e~ployee dwellings in the general vicinity of postal installations ordered to be closed, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. PEPPER: H .R. 10443. A bill to provide for the ac

quisition of an official residence for the Vice President of the United States; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. REID of New York: H .R.10444. A bill to amend sections 8 and

9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act so as to provide for the holding of expedited representation elections upon petition of employers where labor organizations seek recognition on the basis of employees' authorizations or similar evidence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. ST GERMAIN: H.R. 10445. A bill to assist cities and States

by amending section 5136 of ·the Revised Statutes, as amended, with respect to the authority of n ational banks to underwrite and deal in securities issued by State and local governments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By· Mr. MATHIAS: H .R. 10446. A bill to indemnify dairy farm

ers; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. PATMAN: H.R. 10447. A bill to amend title 39, United

States Code, to provide for the ·acquisition of postal field service employee dwellings in the general vicinity of postal installa.tions ordered to be closed, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. LONG of Maryland: H.J. Res. 621. Joint resolution to authorize

the President to issue a proclamation commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Stamp Act Congress, held at New York, in the Colony of New York, October 7-25, 1765; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MURPHY of New York: H.J. Res. 622. Joint resolution to authorize

the President to issue a proclamation commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Stamp Act Congress, held at New York, in Colony of New Yark, October 7-25, 1765; to the Committee on ·the Judiciary.

By Mr. FULTON of Tennessee: H.J. Res. 623. Joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that the right to vote shall not be denied on account of age to persons who are 18 years of age or older; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CALLAN: H.J. Res. 624. Joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the United · States relative to equal rights for men and women; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CURTIN: H.J. Res. 625. Joint resolution to authorize

the President to proclaim April 9, 1967, as Bataan-Corregidor Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WYDLER: H. Con. Res. 461. Concurrent resolution

favoring self-determination for Cyprus; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. PATMAN: H. Res. 516. Resolution to provide addi

tional funds for the investigations and studies authorized by House Resolution 133; to the Committee on House Administration.

H. Res. 517. Resolution to provide additional funds for the investigations and studies authorized by House Resolution 133; to the Committee on House Administration.

By Mr. WOLFF: H . Res. 518. Resolution expressing the sense

of the House of Representa tives with respect to the Hague Protocol and the Warsaw Convention; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. TENZER: H. Res. 519. Resolution expressing the sense

of the House of Representatives with respect to the Hague Protocol and the Warsaw Convention; to the Committe·e on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. CLEVENGER: H.R. 10448. A bill for the relief of Fred H.

Gasparick; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FINO: H.R.10449. A bill for the relief of Ancilla

Zeni; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. MATHIAS:

H.R. 10450. A bill for the relief of Andrew Zaryk; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MINSHALL: H. Con. Res. 462. Concurrent resolution

citing ·the bravery, resourcefulness and success in conquering the Atlantic Ocean of Robert Manry, and..resolv.ing that his sailboat Tinkerbelle be retired for permanent display in the Smithsonian Institution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Drum Corps Week

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. DONALD J. IRWIN OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, August 12, 1965

Mr. IRWIN. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday marks the start of Drum Corps Week and I feel it is particularly fitting that we honor this worthwhile and purposeful activity and the many fine young people who participate in it.

At a time when the behavior of some of our youth leaves something to be desired, it is encouraging to know that about one million young Americans are active participants.

Drum corps activity is an aid to :fighting delinquency in our cities; it enables young people to participate in a · disciplinary activity at a formative period of their lives. It provides musical instruction to many young men and women. It enlivens parades and Civic celebrations. It teaches patriotism and love of country. And drufn corps marching and playing has helped raise millions of dollars for our charities.

Therefore, I would like to extend to my colleagues an invitation to join the

CXI--1286

people of Bridgeport in thrilling to the colorful pageantry and martial marches starting next Thursday for 4 days when Bridgeport plays host to the World Open Drum an_d Bugle Corps Championships.

Anniversary Salute to the Central African Republic


HON. ADAM C. POWELL OF NEW YORK



Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, August 13, the Central African Republic will celebrate the fifth anniversary of its independence. On this auspicious occasion, we wish to extend warm felicitations to His Excellency David Daco, President of the Central African Republic; and to His ExcellePcy Michel GallinDouathe, the Central African Republic Ambassador to the United States. ·

Five years ago, a small African nation, located at almost the precise center of the continent of Africa, received its independence from the French Government.

This was not a bloody revolution, filled with slogans of anticoloniali&m and high-blown claims of aggressive nationalism, but a quiet acceptance of the reins of government, the responsibility for their own destiny, on the part of the new leaders of the Central African Republjc.

Thus the old ties with France and other Western nations were not suddenly torn asunder by the hurricane of revolution but simply took on the aspect of a partnership of equals rather than the relationship of a colony to its colonial master. This peaceful change left the leaders of the Central African Republic with a basic body of French. law and an operable centralized political administration with which to build their new nation.

The basic policy of the Government of the Central African Republic has been to build the nation into a modern nation state, but to do so while still preserving the J unique character of the Central African traditions and heritage. The French legal system remains, but it takes on a peculiarly African character more suited to the local needs and traditions of this young .nation.

In economic matters the tasks are more difficult. Modernization does not come easily to people who have spent generation after generation farming by the ancient methods of their ancestors;

20390 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 12, 1965

yet, already the new government has made progress. The modernization and expansion of agriculture is one of the government's major goals, and there are already several research centers functioning under government support. New varieties of crops have been developed, such as a new strain of cotton which produces a longer fiber and is more resistant to disease, or in crossbreeding new livestock also resistant to local diseases.

In these and other ventures the new government has shown a strong willingness to work with Western agencies and the United Nations in cooperative projects. Technicians from the United Nations and Israel and developmental grants from France, the EEC and the United States have been earnestly put to use by a national leadership determined to achieve modernization and a higher standard of living for its people.

The road ahead of the Central African Republic will not be an easy one; yet, this young nation has already shown a willingness to accept the challenges and begin the long and difficult journey toward modernization. Let us wish them a most pleasant anniversary celebration and a future of progress and accomplishment.

Federal Government and Arkansas: Partners in Crime and Vice


HON. PAUL A. FINO OF NEW YORK



Mr. FINO. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to tell the Members of this House about the regrettable partnership of the Federal Government and the State of Arkansas in keeping gambling illegal in Arkansas, thus opening up gambling's lucrative profits to the misery-merchants of the mob.

Last year, the parimutuel turnover in Arkansas came to $27 million. More significant and more menacing is Arkansas' illegal gambling, long associated with Hot Springs and a few other towns. Testimony before the McClellan committee indicated that offtrack betting comes to about $50 billion annually throughout the Nation. With this figure accounting for only some 42 percent of the national annual illegal gambling total, which would thus be $120 billion. On a population basis, illegal gambling in Arkansas would come to about $1.2 billion a year. The mob cuts itself 10 percent of the illegal gambling take, which means that the "land of opportunity" is a State of realized opportunities for the mob. Government-run gambling would siphon these moneys from mob treasuries, putting gambling revenues to work on behalf of, rather than to the detriment of, the public welfare.

The best way to make gambling work for the public good, since it is basically ineradicable, is a national or series of State lctteries. If the State of Arkansas

would wake up to social and financial reality, it would legalize, regulate, and control gambling so that the gamblihg urge of the people of Arkansas would no longer serve the financial needs of the crime empires.

CBS Special Report-Vietnam Perspective : "The Decisions"


1fON. HERBERT TENZER OF NEW YORK



Mr. TENZER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening, August 9, 1965, millions of Americans were able to see and hear our distinguished Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and equally distinguished Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, on a CBS Special RePort "Vietnam Perspective: The Decisions."

The public service which CBS contributed has made many Americans more aware of the reasons for our Nation's commitments and a better understanding of why we are in southeast Asia, the policy which we are pursuing in Vietnam, and the efforts which we are exerting to secure peace in that corner of the globe.

No legislative or national issue has caused as much comment in my congressional district or resulted in as many let·ters from my constituents as our policy in •South Vietnam. The questions of whether we have had sufficient debate on United States foreign policy or whether we have truly made every effort to achieve peace in Vietnam have been asked by constituents to their Senators and Representatives time and time again. These questions have been answered in my letters to constituents and in my reports from Washington. In addition to my own views on the subject, I have distributed to my constituents other materials such as the S'tate Department's white paper and the publication entitled "The Third Face of War."

In this latest presentation to the public via national television, the President has made it clear that he wants the American people to know the facts so that their judgment concerning our Policy in Vietnam can be based upon the best available information and by hearing the opinions of those who have the facts in hand.

In the August 11, 1965, edition of Newsday, a daily newspaper published in Nassau County, Long Island, the following editorial on the Vietnam special report appeared:

A CASE WELL STATED

Secretaries Rusk and McNamara, on TV the night before Ia&t (and President Johnson, talking t.o the press Monday) made a good, a solid and a oonvinclng oase for the American presence in Vietnam. The two Secretaries said little that was new, but they said it so well as t.o deserve a rousing hand. They gave cogent, lucid responses t.o the questions that trouble some Americans. It was a first-class presentation.

I have proposed to Secretaries Rusk. and McNamara, and to the White House that they make available for the widest possible distribution-a transcript of the CBS program ref erred to---in question and answer form which I would like to send to my constituents in a special report on the Vietnam situation. The President said in a special briefing at which I was present on Wednesday, "Your judgment is no better than your information." I agree with the President and that is why I want to supply to my constituents the available information upon which they can base their judgment of the President's policy, which I heartily endorse.

Another Good Man Leaves Government Oceanography


HON. GEORGE P. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect and regard; namely, Capt. Paul Bauer, U.S. Naval Reserves, retired, who, voluntarily, offered his free time in the interest of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in its endeavors to focus on the oceanographic problems facing our country today.

Paul Bauer is a brilliant scholar in the field of earth sciences. Six years ago, he brought his knowledge and abilities in this field to the Federal Government by initiating his services as a staff man with the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. In his years of endeavor he has done much to enhance the ability of Congress to deal with the complex and diverse problems of oceanography.

I regret that, as of September l, he will be leaving the staff of this committee. However, with his departure I am certain we can be assured that he will continue to apply his talents in the field of earth sciences for the betterment of our society.

As hearings opened earlier this month. on the subject of oceanography, by the Oceanography Subcommittee of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. its distinguished chairman, the Honorable ALTON LENNON, of North Carolina, paid a great tribute to Captain Bauer. I believe that this tribute should be noted for the interest of all my colleagues since I consider it to sum up my thoughts and feelings concerning this fine man. Therefore, I am pleased to insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, an article from the Ocean Science News of August 6, 1965. which reports in full Congressman LENNON'S statement: [From Ocean Science News, Aug. 6, 1965] ANOTHER GOOD MAN LEAVES GOVERNMENT

0cEANoaatAPHY

At the opening of the August 3 hearings on oceanography before the Oceanographic

August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20391 Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Subcommittee Chairman ALTON A. LENNON, Democrat, of North Carolina, introduced the following statement into the record:

"Before we hear from our first witness, I want to make an announcement. For the past 6 years we have been privileged to have attached to our staff a man of very unusual talents, ab111ty, and creative energy, Capt. Paul Sherman Bauer, U.S. Navy, retired.

"I regret t.o announce that Paul will be leaving us on September 1. I hope these hearings will be concluded and positive legislation passed through Congress before we have to lose him. Captain Bauer first came with our committee in 1959 at the very beginning of the concept of a national oceanographic program. We have been fortunate in having his services as a consultant on oceanographic, fisheries, and other technical matters ever since. A successful businessman in his native Massachusetts, he has in recent years devoted almost full time to the · cause of science. Oceanography and other earth sciences have been his specialties. In addition t.o his valuable contributions to the committee, he has also served as professor of earth sciences at the American University, participated in numerous technical meetings of value t.o the work of this committee; and published several important papers.

"He brought to the committee a long background of technical and scientific achievement. He is wise in the ways of government--which has been invaluable to us as we have tried to unravel the mysteries of what has been going on in oceanography and to determine the course we should take for the future. While I can fully appreciate his desire t.o devote more time to his personal business, I want to express our regret at losing him. It has been a very fruitful period in the development of a true oceanographic prograJn since he came with us.

"Paul, in behalf of the committee, I wish you well in your new activities, and hope that we may call upon you from time to time for your wise and able counsel."

CONGRESS' LOSS, HOWEVER, IS OSN'S GAIN

On September 1, 1965, Captain Bauer joins both Ocean Science News and Geo-Marine Technology as an associate editor. This is not to say that he will be full time with us-for by his nature he must be interested in several things at once. However, the very diversity of his interests means we will do an even better job for you.

Anniversary Salute to Pakistan





Mr. POWELL. Mr. S'peaker, on saturday, August 14, Pakistan will celebrate its 18th anniversary of independence, and it is a pleasure for me to direct the attention of the House of Representatives today to this occasion, since the House will not be meeting on Saturday. We therefore send warm felicitations to His Excellency Mohammed Ayub Khan, President of Pakistan, and to His Excellency Shulam Ahmed, the Pakistan Ambassador to the United States.

Although Pakistan has been independent for just 18 years, the dream of an independent Moslem nation to be created out of a partition of India, once that

nation had achieved its independence from Great Britain, began as early as 1930. By 1940, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the revered leader of the Muslim League, officially endorsed the goal of establishing Pakistan as an independent homeland for the Moslems of the Indian subcontinent. · Seven years later, on June 3, 1947, the British Government declared it would grant full dominion status to India and Pakistan. Pakistan officially became an independent sovereign nation on the 14th of August, 1947.

The early years of independence for Pakistan were not easy ones. The economy was already weak in 1947 and it gradually deteriorated with the Political instability which came with the fierce partisan politics and Cabinet reshu1Des in the central government and provinces which continued until 1958.

In the light of the difficult times of that first decade, the achievements made since the peaceful revolution of 1958 have been impressive indeed. In the first years of independence Pakistan was an almost exclusively agricultural country; there were no indigenous banks, no industries, and practically no trained technicians. Today, despite the scarcity of natural resources generally required for economic growth, Pakistan has already achieved a substantial amount of industrialization as well as establishing several local banks and businesses. Moreover, the nation now claims a considerable amount of technical and professional talent. Such economic growth is indeed impressive; all the more so since it is primarily a product of the last 7 years.

Her political growth has been no less impressive; today Pakistan takes her place as one of the leaders of Asia and the newly emerging nations of the world.

The road to independence was long and difficult for Pakistan. That in itself makes every anniversary of her independence worth celebrating. But beyond the struggle for independence there has been the climb to political and economic maturity which has made her independence something to be cherished beyond its original expectations.

Let us extend our heartiest congratulations on Pakistan's 18th anniversary.

No Foreign-Built Ships


HON. THOMAS M. PELLY OF WASHINGTON



Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, along with many other Members of Congress I was dismayed when press reports stated that current rumor has it that the Defense Department is studying the possibility of contracting with British shipyards for some $50 million worth of naval vessels.

It was with consternation that I received this report. My first thought was that this rumor was in the nature of a

trial balloon. Unless Congress expressed its disapproval, I was fearful we would wake up some morning and read that an agreement had been consummated. So I decided for the protection of shipyard workers and shipbuilders-both Government and private-this balloon was one that I should help to shoot down.

Mr. Speaker, in line with this conviction, I introduced H.R. 10111 to prohibit the Defense Department from contracting for the construction of vessels for the Navy in foreign shipyards. In support of this bill I prepared a statement and submitted my testimony to the Committee on Armed Services at a hearing held on July 28.

At this hearing, Henry Kuss, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense, represented his department regarding this possible procurement. About all he said was that "any type of procurement by the United States in the United Kingdom will be subject to the conditions of price, quality, and delivery," which was in the nature of an admission.

Mr. Speaker, what he failed to do was deny or confirm the truth of this assertion. This whole deal has been cloaked in secrecy-the Pentagon neither denies or confirms the reports.

The rumor is that 14 naval vessels are scheduled to be built in the United Kingdom-which would not make much of a hit with the American people, especially our shipyard workers. But furthermore, in addition to the loss of jobs, there is a loss of gold. Right now, the United States has reported new lows in its gold supply.

Mr. Speaker, I am unequivocally opposed to spending 1 cent of the taxpayers' money abroad for the building of ships when our own shipyard industry has been in a depressed state operating at less than 50 percent of its efficient capacitythis is as it has operated for years. In Seattle there are two of the largest private shipbuilders in the country, ready, willing, and able to take on more work, and in Bremerton there is a public yard. Speaking of a public yard, the Secretary of Defense himself only this year stated there was an excess of naval shipyards and is phasing out two Government yards.

Without work to keep our own yards, private and naval, busy how can our Government justify allocating new ship construction to foreign firms? Our remaining shipyards, make no mistake about it, are absolutely dependent on Defense Department contracts. A buildf oreign policy would lead ultimately to the demise of shipbuilding in the United States.

Not more than 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress made it clear that it did not favor having parts of ships built in foreign yards. As a matter of fact language to this effect was included in the naval appropriations bill. This year we kept the same provision. It prohibits building a hull or a section of a ship, but does not prohibit the entire vessel from being built abroad.

Our domestic shipbuilding industry can build the finest ships in the world and that ability is necessary-and the skilled workers are necessary-to build and


maintain both maritime and naval vessels for national security.

In this connection, Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I include in the RECORD a news story appearing in the Journal of Commerce and Shipping Telegraph of London, England, telling of discussions in Washington, D.C., on this subject. Especially, I call attention to the last paragraph of this article which says that the Defense Department is confident that it can deal. with opposition to such a purchase of foreign-built vessels.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House must express in no uncertain terms their opposition, and I believe they will when given the opportunity to vote on H.R. 1O111, or a similar bill.

The above-mentioned news story follows: UNITED KINGDOM MISSION'S BID TO SELL SHIPS

TO UNITED STATES-TALKS ALL THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON A British technical mission is having talks

at the U.S. Defense Department, in Washington, on the possible sale of ships and other military equipment to the United States. The talks follow the recent disclosure that the Defense Department is interested in the possible purchase of British-built naval supply vessels, such as fleet oilers, if the price and other factors are right.

The British mission is headed by Mr. G. C. :B. Dodds, an Assistant Secretary at the Ministry of Defense. The mission, which comprises all the British service departments and the Ministry of Aviation, is expected .to be in Washington most of the week.

The mission's interest is not confined to ships, although the market in this field could be significant. Officials said the group would certainly be discussing ships, but would not be going into that subject in great detail at this time.

One · of the reasons is that the Defense Department has already been made aware of opposition in the United States to the purchase of ships abroad. Any announcement of a: definite order for British ships would probably evoke a protest from Amerizan shipbuilding interests.

The Defense Department is confident that i t can deal with such opposition, but does not want to provoke too much opposition at this time.-REUTER.

Anniversary Salute to India


HON. ADAM C. POWELL. OF NEW YORK



Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, August 15, India will celebrate the 18th anniversary of her independence. Since the House will not be· in session on that date, we wish today to extend warm felicitations to His Excellency Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Prime Minister of India; ·and to His Excellency B. K. Nehru, the Indian Ambassador to the United States.

One of the paradoxes that exist in history is with us today as we congratulate ·the nation of India on the 18th anniversary of its independence, for the existence of an Indian state is not a 20thcentury innovation.

Some 5,000 years ago, when the rest of the world was still wandering in the mists of precivilization, there developed on the shores of the Indus River one of the world's earliest civilizations. Speeding from the river valley to the surrounding countryside, and extending over a large area, the Indus Valley civilization proved the foundation for the subsequent development of many incoming peoples, and thus has come down to us as part of mankind's great legacy of the past. No, India is not a new land. It is steeped in valued tradition and the wisdom of ages of scholars that were but dim memories by the time of the Greeks. It possesses a culture so rich and so varied that it is almost impossible to comprehend its extent and wealth. It is a land of nearly 475 million people, a situation difficult to comprehend for those of us in the United States with our fract ion of this huge aggregation of souls. It is a land of great geographic and climatologic differences, of natural channels of transportation and communication, and of equally prominent natural barriers to accessibility. It is a land of a great past, a problem-filled present, and a tremendously potential future. It is truly unique among the world's nations. It is India.

The subcontinent of India has been the home of many succeeding stages of civilization. The Indus Valley culture, Aryan--or Indo-Aryan-Greek, Maurya, Hindu, and Mo.gul were followed by the European, introduced by Vasco da Gama in 1498, inaugurating a 200-year struggle by the Europeans for control of the fabulous jewel of the Indies. By the middle of the 1800's, the British had achieved complete control of the river valleys and coastal plains, the sources of most of the colonial wealth Britain sought. Interior and less-accessible areas were left under the control of the local hereditary rulers, but with British supervision.

In 1947, following years of protest, consultation, and careful planning, India finally achieved her rightful independence again, under the leadership of the immortal Mohandas Gandhi, the Mahatma. Gandhi's greatest contribution to his country may have been his work and influence toward peaceful independence. There are many, however, who would prefer to regard as his greatest gift to India the legacy of spiritual truth and love that he so impressed in his people that it has become inseparable from their national character. Certainly he must be considered with Siddhartha Gautama,' the Buddha, as one of the greatest of India's contributions t o the spiritual well-being of mankind. He is symbolic of the India of peace and moderation, of contemplation and mercy, of understanding and cooperation for peace.

India today certainly faces great problems, yet she is not alone. The greatest cooperation has been shown, for example, by the nation of India -in working with international organizations on the problem of nutrition and population growth. In the United Nations, as in other world organizations, the voice of India has been well-regarded and carefully considered. Her contributions to world underst and-

ing and cooperation are many and valuable. That a nation with such pressing internal development and standard-ofliving problems could be able to devote this much time and such careful, reasoned effort to the international problems of the world is indeed a sign of a right spirit and a dedication to the continued progress and peace of mankind.

It is most certainly. with a great pleasure that I today extend my salutations and congratulations to the Government and people of India. I know, also, that my colleagues join with me in extending our best wishes for the future, as one free people to another~

An Address by Hon. L. Mendel Rivers Before -the Exchange Club, Hartford, Conn., August 11, 1965


HON. F. EDWARD HEBERT OF LOUISIANA



Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Members of the House, and the Nation, should have the benefit of the views of the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who spoke in Hartford, Conn., yesterday before the Exchange Club.

L. MENDEL RIVERS, who has demonstrated such outstanding leadership as chairman of the· House Armed Services Committee, has expressed his candid, well-reasoned, and forceful views in a manner that can be clearly understood by those who are willing to face the facts of life.

I congratulate him for his courage; I compliment him for his c·andor; and I want to express my great admiration for him and for the outstanding leadership he is providing the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives.

The text of the speech fallows: SPEECH OF L. MENDEL RIVERS BEFORE THE EX

CHANGE CLUB, HARTFORD, CONN., AUGUST 11, 1965

Mr. Chairman, it is a very great pleasure indeed for me to be with you today. I have been a member of the Exchange Club for m any years a rid I h ave always enjoyed my association tremendously.

As I look about Hartford, I wonder how much of this city I .helped to build with my premiums.

But Hartford has also used these premiums for other purposes-making money available for industry, as well as individuals, and thus in great measure, helping to build America. The insurance industry here in Hartford and elsewhere, and members of the Exchange Club everywhere, have made invaluable contributions to progress and the free ent erprise system.

But I did not come today to discuss the free enterprise system with you because I doubt whether there is anyone here that needs any words from me on that subject.

Each of you is a stanch advocate of that system. Each of you knows the importance of the free enterprise system. Each of you is an adherent of that system.

August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20393 I mention it only because the free enter

prise system is an important element of a way of life that we are trying to defend and protect in a very chaotic world.

I am heartened, to some extent, by the belief that the Soviet Union, although Communist in its operation, is tending more and more toward the principles of the free enterprise system. As a matter of fact, there is even some semblance of the profit motive in effect in Russia.

I think the Soviet Union is in a rather difficult position. We constantly express our concern about the Soviet Union, and I presume that speakers in the Soviet Union express their concern about the United States.

But there is a difference today that did not exist 30 or 40 years ago in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union has a great deal to lose in the event of a war and very little to gain.

Back in the 1920's and the early 1930's, and immediately following World War II, the Soviet Union had very little to lose by war and something to gain.

Today the Soviet Union has a substantial industry. They have constructed, quite successfully, huge hydroelectric dams; they are increasing their production of steel and other vital products for their industry, but one of of their neigh bars to the east, I suspect, is looking with a rather greedy eye upon these successes in the Soviet Union and yearning to take over its asset.

My instinct tells me that the Soviet Union has fa.r more to fear from the Red Chinese than they have from any other nation: in the world. ·

Be that as it may, the Soviet Union is still our enemy as far as our way of life is concerned. I don't believe that the Soviets will ever give up their goal to communize the world.

And certainly there will come a day when the nuclear capability of Red China will pose a threat to every nation. Just remember those words of Mao Tse-tung: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Let us not kid ourselves--when Red China gets a nuclear delivery capability, it will control that part of the world just as the Soviet Union controls the Balkans.

Because of that, we· have no choice but to constantly strengthen our national defenses, increase our combat capabilities at every opportunity, and be ever ready to turn back any aggression, no matter where it may take place in the world.

Our arm.s--our weapons systems-must be the most sophisticated in the world. We have no choice but to expend vast sums, not only in procurement, but in research and development. And, of course, one of the great threats to freedom and our way of life exists today in South Vietnam.

I wonder if the American people, that is the vast majority of them, truly understand the importance of South Vietnam?

Do you remember the game of dominoes? Do you recall standing the dominoes end up in a twisted path? Visualize the path of a hook, and recall knocking over the first domino. As the dominoes fell, one after the other, they made a complete circle and eventually arrived at the end of the hook. All of the dominoes fall.

This is the situation we face in South Vietnam. South Vietnam is a courageous little country, struggling for its own independence and its own freedom. But it is a highly disorganized country, made up of people who lack unity; split by political discord; and even separated by ethnic differences in many areas, because there are highland tribes as different from the mountain tribes as are those who live along the coastal plains. To this must be added the problems of communication -difficulties, 'language barriers, and transportation problems'.

And you are also familiar, of course, with the religious conflict that exists there, stemming from a variety of Buddhist groups, competing with Christianity, introduced as a result of m any years of French colonization.

South Vietnam itself is not the final target of the Chinese Reds-Thailand is the first true objective. And if Thailand falls, with it will go 26 million hard-working, industrious people who export some of the finest rice grown anywhere. And if Thailand falls, Laos and Cambodia would be just a wayside stop, and then the Malaysian Peninsula would fall, and if that goes, Singapore goes.

Should Singapore go, a great port disappears as far as the free world is concerned, as well as the expqrt center of much of the world's supply of tin and natural rubber.

After that would go all of Indonesia, as if we did not have enough problems in that area alone.

And after Indonesia would go Borneo and Sumatra, and possibly the northern territory of Australia, as a beginning, and then the Philippines, Taiwan, Okinawa, and, finally, Japan and South Korea.

This is the grim picture that. faces the free world. That is the importance of South Vietnam.

It is for our own protection, it is for the preservation of these United States, that we defend South Vietnam. That is why we are fighting in South Vietnam-that, plus the inherent respect and admiration we have for people who are willing to fight for freedom.

And even if we win the war in South Vietnam, I cannot help but think that we are merely postponing the final victory of Red China-unless the Nation is prepared to risk the possible com:equences of destroying her nuclear capability. And unless we make that decision, it is possible that all of our fighting in South Vietnam will have been in vain.

We have helped people fight to preserve freedom in other parts of the world and we cannot turn our back on this courageous group of people who are willing to make the supreme sacrifice for a way of life which for them is still something of a mystery-with only the promise of future peace and prosperity.

Remember that the Vietnamese, in addi.tion to colonization by the French, have known nothing but war since 1941.

War has almost become a way of life with them, albeit an unpleasant one. The amazing thing is that they have stuck so well, instead of completely capitulating in abject surrender.

We have been told the war in South Vietnam may go on and· on and on. I am ·inclined to agree with that conclusion, particularly if we continue the policy of what I call retribution escalation.

But the m<;>re important question is, Are we prepared to fight a war in South Vietnam of larger proportion, or of long duration? Do we have the equipment, the trained manpower? Do we have the ships? Do we have the aircraft? Even more important--does the war have to last forever? Why not victory now?

We are now pouring additional men into South Vietnam. We are pouring aircraft into South Vietnam, to the point where the airfields can't hold any more planes.

But what will they be used for--or against? If we . want victory-we must be prepared for the .risks· associated with the effort.

There have been some rather inconsistent positions disclosed insofar as South Vietnam is concerned.

Let me paraphrase some testllilony before our committee on February 19 of this year.

· The Secretary of Defense, testifying before the committee of which I am chairman, said: "It is my view, and I believe it is the view of the Chiefs; that our casualties will be

fewer with 23,000 men than they would be with more men exposed to guerrilla attacks."

He then made this significant statement:· "We are trying to carry out our mission with the smallest number of .U.S. casualties. We believe the present deployment will best accomplish that objective."

When our committee urged him to increase the number of American troops in South. Vietnam last February, the Secretary said: "But I'm not interested in percentages. I'm interested in men's lives."

A member of the committee said: "I won't· belabor the question, but I certainly am. shocked and amazed at such a statement. coming from the Secretary of Defense and backed up, as you say, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those 209 boys are dead. Their families have lost 209 American boys and we· are going to lose more, according to yourstatement, because we cannot give them more protection. There will be that many more."

Mr. McNamara said: "But if I follow your plan, I think according to your own admission, the casualties would be higher still, and that is exactly why I don't propose to follow that plan. .

Now, what I am pointing out does not. prove that Mr. McNamara was not particularly far-sighted. But what I am suggesting is that Mr. McNamara's plans, and they are Mr. McNamara's plans, were based upon: the deployment of far fewer troops in South Vietnam last February. And today as you know, just a few months later, our plans have changed radically.

Are the rest of our plans--our equipment inventories--our preparedness-standing on just as weak a reed?

If I am correct in my information, the Secretary of Defense is the only member of the Defense team, who opposed the construction of another nuclear-powered carrier. As I understand it , almost all, if not all, of these other knowledgeable civilian advisers and practically all the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that the next carrier be a nuclear carrier. The Joint Committee· on Atomic Energy, in its report in December 1963, said: "In summary, the committee still does not know of any qualified techni-· cal person or group who recommended to theDefense Department that nuclear propulsion not be installed in the new aircraft. carrier," the John F. Kennedy. .

But Mr. McNamara, an individual with a tremendous amount of power, made the decision in the face of military advice to the contrary, and proceeded to award the contract for the construction of a nonnuclear or conventional carrier.

We need the carrier, there is no doubt about that. And that is the only reason why, in this session of Congress, I did not. raise the issue and seek to change the carrier now under construction from a conven-· tional carrier to a nuclear carrier. It would: have delayed us that much longer in the· actual completion of a badly needed new carriet.

I have felt , and the members of the Com-mittee on Armed Services feel, that the col-lective judgment of the Congress, together with the collective judgment of the executive branch of Government, will produce far-better results than the judgment of a strongman on horseback who makes all the deci- · sions.

I am afraid that I just do not believe in· the concept of infallibility insofar as the · Department of Defe.nse is ·concerned. And r think that the evidence that is unveiling it-self today with respeot to the situation in· South Vietnam is a classic example.

We have fumbled and bumbled under· civilian military tactics in South Vietnamlong enough. Now let's turn the conduct of the war over to those trained' in war-the professional military men. We must never let" the military make policy decisions-but.

20394 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 12, 1965 once mad.e--let us turn the war over to the experts who will be doing the fighting.

Just recently Gen. Omar Bradley said: "Military professionalism requires long training, rigid discipline, a high degree of versatility, and unflagging dedication."

Can you imagine anyplace on earth where this philosophy is more necessary than Vietnam? Remote control of the war in South Vietnam. is about as effective as bailing out the ocean with a coffee cup.

Last spring, I spoke before a large group in Washington and told them that as far as I was concerned the Congress of the United States would insist upon being a full partner in the matter of national security. I reminded the audience that I had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. And I meant every word of the oath tha'!; I took. I swore that I would uphold the Constitution and that I would see that it was faithfully carried out. And I have done that so far.

Part of the Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 8, to be exact, says that the Congress shall raise and support armies, provide for a navy, and make rules and regulations therefor.

No one else has that authority. Only the Congress has that authority, and with that authority goes the responsibility. We have no other choice in the matter, unless we sit idly by and let others usurp the powers vested in the Congress by the Constitution.

I have been accused of leading a revolt against the executive branch of Government. That is not correct. I have great respect and admiration for the President of the United States. I do not envy him his responsibility. I do not want his responsibility. I have enough of my own. I do not want any of the responsibilities or the powers vested in the executive branch of Government.

I respect and admire Secretary McNamara. He is a dedicated public servant and undoubtedly one of the most competent men in the Nation in business matters. But no one man can fully manage--in every respect-the Department of Defense. He needs the combined help of the Congress, his prof essional military advisers, and his service Secretaries.

And I want the Congress to exercise its authority. The Congress has plenty of responsibility and plenty of authority, if we'll just use it.

So far as national security is concerned, that responsibility is imposed upon the Committee on Armed Services. And I have a responsibility imposed upon me as chairman of that committee. I intend to fulfill the responsibility-I intend, in fact I insist, that the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives and the Congress be made a full-fledged partner in all matters affecting our security. And that is exactly what we are now doing. That is exactly what we will continue to do.

The other day, the House passed by a vote of 410 to O a pay bill written by the Committee on Armed Services and opposed by the administration. Here is an example of the Committee on Armed Services and the House of Representatives fulfilling their constitutional responsibility in every respect.

No one can convince the members o:f our committee or the Members o:f the House that our military personnel are adequately paid. They know better than that. And yet, we listened to evidence, if you could call it evidence, based upon Department statistics, which we refuted and disproved, that the men a.nd women in our armed services are adequately paid and only need a token increase.

Tell that to the wife of a sergeant who is moonlighting. Tell it to a corporal's wife who is standing in line at a commissary wondering whether she can pay her bill and worrying whether the commissary is going to remain open. Tell it to a first lieutenant's

wife trying to find some way to buy new clothes for the baby, especially when she knows the wife of a classmate of her husband is in industry earning double her husband's salary.

And add to all of that the fact that her husband 1s either at sea or serving an unaccompanied tour in South Vietnam and she goes to bed every night wondering whether he is still alive.

No, the Committee on Armed Services was not fooled. The committee exercised its responsibility. The House, to its everlasting credit, supported us unanimously, and I have every hope that the Senate will do likewise.

One of the great things about the Congress of the United States is that, individually and collectively, the Members understand people. We do not work with computers. We work with people. And when all is said and done, there ls nothing more important in the world than people.

Everything we do revolves around people. And there are many, many decisions that affect people that must be based upon intuition or just good commonsense. These are not the kind of answers that come out of computers. These are the answers that come out of people's hearts and minds. These are the answers that come from people who know and understand people.

Our Joint Chiefs of Staff system is constantly being threatened by those who would eliminate it and substitute a single Chief of Staff. Efforts continue to strengthen the Office of the Secretary of Defense in order that that Office may become more of an operational office and less of a policy office.

We will continue to oppose any erosion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any strengthening of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, from an operational viewpoint.

There are those who would seek to increase the Joint Staff, which could only lead to a further step toward the direction of a single general staff system-a system which has brought defeat to every nation which has used it.

There is even a proposal to increase the rank of the Director of the Joint Staff, so that he may hold an equal rank with the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

All this tends toward the weakening o:f the single services, the weakening of the military departments, and the establishment of a single operational organization in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

In a recent interview, the Secretary of Defense was asked this question:

QUESTION. "Mr. Secretary, what role do the service Secretaries play? Are they your assistants or do they represent the services?"

ANSWER. "They are my assistants and they do not represent the services."

Now this may seem unimportant to those who are not familiar with our Defense organi~ation, but I can assure you the separate identity of the services is a vital part of our national security.

The jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none concept, if ad.opted, could destroy the most vital ingredient in our Armed Forces, esprit de corps and mar.ale.

Some time ago, a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, of which I was then chairman, made a report about the seriousness of our naval ship obsolescence. The Secretary of Defense says there has been a 100-percent increase in general ship construction and conversion to modernize the fleet. But how many o:f these ships are major combatant vessels? I can only tell you that our fleet is not being relaced at a rate sufficient to overcome what will eventually become a serious obsolescence situation. And sea power is vital-absolutely indispensable-to our survival.

We have been told about the increase in our conventional war capabilities-but we are still using four different kinds of small arms ammunition in South Vietnam.

Just a few weeks ago we were told that we had all of the weapons and ammunition we needed to win a war. Then the situation suddenly reversed itself.

I mention all of this only to indicate that while our nuclear missile strength is overwhelming, there are still deficiencies in our defense planning.

Some of these deficiencies may be the result of unilateral decisions; some the result of well-intended economies; and others the result of miscalculations.

But the well-meaning, well-intentioned amateurs, who worry more about escalation than victory, have had their day. Let the civilian heads of government tell our military personnel what they want done but let trained military professionals decide how to accomplish the objectives.

But let me hasten to add that recrimination will gain us nothing-the objective today is to win the war in South Vietnam. To paraphrase a famous expression-if we start a quarrel between the past and the present, we may discover that we have lost the future.

The Congress has reasserted itself as an indispensable partner in providing for the security of the American people. We represent the people--and the people want victory.

There is no substitute for victory-and there is no shortcut.

Wishing would not make it so--only grim resolve and a recognition ar the will of the American people.

Two men in our century have left an indelible imprint upon the scrolls of history.

One of them, Douglas MacArthur, said about our trained military personnel: "Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession at your public service must be duty, honor, country."

The other, Winston Churchill, said: "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

I prefer to follow the advice of those two truly great men, MacArthur and Churchill, who have become legends in the struggle for freedom.

I want victory-even yesterday was too late.

Salute to the Republic of Cyprus

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OJ'




Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago today, the Island of Cyprus gained its independence, after 2,000 years of foreign domination. On this memorable occasion therefore, we wish to extend warm felicitations to His Excellency Archbishop Makarious, the President of the Republic of Cyprus; and the Cypriot Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Zenon Rossides.

The geographical position of this 3,-500-square-mile island has been such that it has long been in the mainstream of the world's politics. Cyprus is about

August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20395 230 miles north of Egypt, 45 miles south of Turkey, and 65 miles west of Syria. Thus, because of its central pasition in the eastern Mediterranean, its generally pleasant and healthful 9limate, its mineral riches, and the fertility of the central Mesaoria, or plain, Cyprus has been coveted by many of the world's powers.

Throughout the ancient world, Cyprus was known as the source of copper. It is thought that the island either received its name from the Greek word for copper, "kypros," or donated its name to that mineral. From about the year 2000 B.C. on, Cyprus was visited and mined by expeditions from the various maritime nations of the ancient eastern Mediterranean. The island's copper was then carried off in the holds of Greek, Phoenician, and Egyptian ships, to be used in the making of the bronze tools and weapons upan which many peoples depended. These mines continue to produce their valuable ore, and they are still one of Cyprus most valuable economic assets.

After long being an outpost of the Greek world in the eastern sea, Greek colonists arrived around 1400 B.C., soon to be followed by Phoenician settlers. Cyprus has since seen many new peoples, and many different ensigns raised over its ports, plains, and mountains. The Egyptians conquered Cyprus in 560 B.C. They were in turn followed by each of the dominant Near-Eastern powers: Persia, Alexander the Great's Greece, Egypt again, Rome, the Byzantine Empire, the Arabs-all have at various times controlled this troubled island and exploited it for their own purposes. Thus, the legacy of Cyprus today is one of strife, conquest, turmoil, and unrest. It is not a happy heritage.

Richard the Lion-Hearted took Cyprus from its Byzantine ruler in 1191, and soon thereafter sold it to the Knights Templar. The island was then transferred by the order to Guy of Lusignan, who inaugurated one of the island's most brilliant periods. His dynasty lasted for some 300 years. Cyprus was next conquered by Venice in 1489, soon followed by the Turkish conquest of 1562. Great Britain persuaded the ailing Ottoman Empire to permit British administration of the island in 1878, and when Turkey entered World War I, Cyprus was annexed to the British Crown, becoming a crown colony in 1925.

Then, in 1960, after centuries of domi:. nation and rule by a myriad of foreign powers, many of which no longer exist except as names in our history books, Cyprus was finally granted its independence. When we consider the heritage of unrest and con:fiict that the island has had to contend with, we can cast many of Cyprus' recent problems and tensions in a more favorable light. Traditions, attitudes, tensions, and problems that have been ingrained in the very soil and people of an island for some 2,000 years or more are not easily or quickly alleviated or rectified.

Thus, today, as the Republic of Cyprus celebrates its independence day, we assure the people of this troubled and torn island of our continued understanding and sympathy. They are striving to solve problems that we have fortunately

not had to face. We certainly wish them a happier future, and we hope that peace, prosperity, and progress will reward their diligent efforts toward the solution of their problems.

Can Subsidies Solve America's Problems?


HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, the August issue of Nation's Business, published by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, poses the question: "Can Subsidies Solve America's Problems?"

The magazine publishes the answer to this question as viewed by a U.S. Senator, a community, a university study, and an industry.

My good friend ROBERT c. BYRD, of West Virginia, was the Senator who responded. He based his findings on his own investigation into the so-called welfare situation in the District of Columbia.

I hope that the officials of every State and city in the country will read what Senator BYRD found. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CoNGRESsroN AL RECORD his answer to the question: "Can Subsidies Solve America's Problems?"

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: · CAN SUBSIDIES SoLVE AMERICA'S PROBLEMS?

A U.S. SENATOR'S ANSWER (By ROBERT c. BYRD, Democrat, Of West

Virginia) (NoTE.--Shocked by his findings of wide

spread welfare cheating, this lawmaker calls on all cities to check their relief rolls.)

Americans are unwittingly spending millions of dollars each year to promote laziness, irresponsib111ty, and outright immorality.

Ironically, all of this is being done in the seemingly sacred name of public welfare.

If taxpayers woUld look more closely at what is happening to their welfare dollars, I am convinced they would react as I did to the shocking discoveries of a field investigation conducted jointly by the U.S. General Accounting omce and the District of Columbia Department of Welfare.

I was personally outraged to learn, in this probe of public assistance payments, that 60 percent of those drawing aid to dependent children and general public assistance monthly relief checks in the Nation's Capital were not eligible to receive them.

A subsequent investigation of the Federal program of aid to the permanently and totally disabled revealed a startling ineligibility rate of 40 percent.

Investigators came upon case after case in which people holding jobs were also pocketing relief checks every month. Relief recipients were interviewed who boasted that they preferred living off the public dole to finding work, although they were able to work ,and jobs were available to them. Sordid situations typically involved mothers of numerous children born out of wedlock who kept their paramours hidden away so that they could continue to qualify for relief.

In a typioal instance, the investigators found a 35-year-old mother of four children who was getting assistance on the basis of a claim that her husband had deserted her. Further inquiry disclosed that she had known of her husband's whereabouts all along and had been receiving regular financial support from him although she would not permit him to live regularly in the home.

In some cases "relief" money was going into purchases of expensive hi-fl sets, TV's, and other luxury items.

As chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding the welfare program of the District of Columbia, I was determined that these relief abuses would be cleaned up. A good start has been made toward achieving that goal; hundreds of freeloaders have been removed from District of Columbia's relief rolls, the program itself has been stream.lined, its administration has been greatly improved and made more e1Hcient, and we are reaching for even greater progress.

Yet I have become the target of bitter criticism and scurrilous abuse from many sides.

One organization has threatened to throw a picket line in front of my home, charging that I have acted to clean up welfare abuses only because of alleged racist sympathies.

Let me make this absolutely clear. I do not oppose helping those who qualify for assistance-whether orphans, blind, aged, or mentally and physically incapacitated. Nor is my campaign against public welfare cheating in any way related to questions of race. Nor is it a criticism of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Public welfare, however, has become a public scandal of enormous dlm.ensions.

FR.AUD NATIONWIDE I am confident that what has been found

in America's Capital City would come to light in other large cities if they employed trained investigators to check out their welfare programs With the same thoroughness that has characterized the job done here. Yet, I do not know of any other city where this is being done, despite the fact that the national cost o.f conventional welfare programs has soared to $5 billion a year. It will continue to climb, I predict, until our big cities take the steps necessary to prevent relief payments from becoming a haven for the indolent and shiftless.

We face other challenges on the welfare front, and one of the most urgent is the necessity of educating people to the fact that they should not bring children into this world unless they have the expectation and means of supporting them.

We face a crisis of priorities, too. Our financial resources are not unlimited. In addition to aiding those who are truly needy, we must provide education, health, police, recreation, and other vital services for an expanding population. Every dollar spent on an undeserving relief recipient is a dollar siphoned away from other deserving programs.

It heartens me to find that hundreds of residents of the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, support my position. Letters pouring into my omce daily are plain evidence, I believe, that most Americans are fed up With those who would prey on public welfare funds.

Some people criticize me for appropriating funds for investigators to check on the eligibility status of District of Columbia welfare recipients. I think the best answer to this was provided by a lifelong resident of Washington-a Negro lady-who recently wrote to me:

"If a wage earner and taxpayer can quietly endure investigation relative to hts loyalty to this country • • • why cannot the deserving welfare recipient quietly endure the price of investigation as the cost of unearned money?"

20396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 12, 1965 It has also been said that I am denying

the District of Columbia a level of relief available to people in my home State. First of all, in my subcommittee chairmanship I can only deal with appropriations for the District of Columbia. What West Virginia does in the field of welfare is a question for the legislature of that State to decide. It also should be noted that my State imposes a ceiling of $165 on welfare payments, but in the Nation's Capital there is no ceiling. A relief income of between $400 and $600 a month, including surplus food allotment.a, 1s not uncommon.

As for my personal feelings , I take most literally the Biblical admonition that we must be our brother's keeper. But it offends me to see this precept stretched and twisted to camouflage the transgressions of those who make relief a way of life-and, in some instances, a gainful racket.

Charity to one's fellow m an should cease when it is perverted into nothing more than a scheme for dodging family responsibility, shirking one's own duty to society, and discarding the respect we all owe to ourselves as human beings.

My critics do not take the time to point out that I have worked hard to give the District of Columbia, and the Nation, the wherewithal needed, not only in welfare but also in other fields, to meet society's real needs. For example, education and health care, to name just two programs of national importance.

In Washington I have succeeded in recent years in strengthening the city's educational system, including more and better teaching services for mentally retarded children. I have also supported a welfare training center, where poor people can learn such things as how to budget, sew, cook, and apply for and hold a job.

INVESTIGATORS NEEDED

In the welfare field I have pressed for increases in the number of social workers available to the District of Columbia, and for improvements in the pay of these key people. The more good caseworkers, the more time each of them will have to devote to the families he counsels. Social workers should not be burdened with the time-consuming job of checking on the eligibility of relief recipients. That is a job for trained investigators. A:hd I believe that any public welfare program, to be efficiently and economically administered, must include an adequate and trained investigative staff.

As a result of cleanup efforts in Washington, the caseload in the ADC category alone fell from 5,601 cases in September 1961, to 3,823 cases in October of 1963, or a reduction of 1,778 cases involving about 7,000 persons.

In this same period, the general public assistance caseload was trimmed from 1,617 cases to 568. These reductions meant dollar savings of more than $4 million annuallymoney freed for use in other places where it was needed.

If you believe as I do-that the individual bears responsibility for his actions-you resent unfair criticism from people who emotionally distort that conviction and make it seem a hard-hearted and smallminded belief.

Let us get back to some basic facts about America before it is too late for all of us. This Nation was not built by people willing to let someone else do it. Nor was it built by men willing to turn their back on those who are unfortunate and in need of help. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. We can have both greatness and compassion, but we can only attain them when we put an end to the philosophy that has taken root in this country in recent years-the notion that society owes us a living and that if we fall down it isn't our fault, but society's.

Just what is society? It is all of us, each individual. We make up society, and society 'Will only be as good as each of us can be in

the light of his own talents and initiative and self-reliance.

Is society helping an individual when it makes it easier for him to loaf on relief than to hold down a job? Is society helping an individual when it says to him, "We will take the responsibility for your family off your shoulder"? Is society really helping families when it sets up welfare programs so loosely run that they seduce family members into making shiftlessness and drunkenness and irresponsibility a tacitly approved way of life from one generation to another? A way of life smiled on benignly by Government?

The answers to all these questions are, in my opinion, a resounding series of "No's."

UNCLE SAM WILL PROVIDE

We gain nothing when we institutionalize the loss of respect for the b asic dignity of work by making nonwork so easy and so attractive. Some people living on welfare in the District of Columbia have an annual income from welfare p ayments that puts them well over the $3,000 poverty line drawn by President Johnson's poverty fighters. Does that make sense?

We gain nothing, and the individual gains nothing, when we spread and defend the idea that "the goverment will take care of you."

Back in the 1930's, when I was walking 3 miles a day to my first job as a service station attendant in West Virginia, we did not have all the assistance programs that are accessible to people today. A lot more people were out of work then, too. But few of them, relatively speaking, went over the brink into lives of crime or slothfulness or dependence. People had respect for themselves and the integrity of work. A man with a job prized that job, no matter how humble it was.

Today it is different. We are feeling the effects of 25 or 30 years in which the idea has been promoted that society and the government owe everyone a living. And in too many welfare programs we are reaping the whirlwind of subsidized fecundity, promiscuity, and illegitimacy . . America's moral sensitivities have deteriorated; we are getting soft.

There are many jobs open today for people of little or no skill. But what happens? The jobs often go begging, because a lot of people simpy do not want to work. They have been taught by the insidious philosophy of dependence that they do riot need to work; someone else will take care of them.

Try to find a person to do domestic work in your home, just for example. "I will not wax floors ." "I will not work after 4 o'clock." "I will not climb stairs." "I will not clean windows." Everything is hedged, qualified, held back. The drive to work for the joy and satisfaction of work is simply gone from many of our people. This is a national tragedy-but one that we probably deserve for letting a system develop which encourages laziness by attaching a monetary reward to it.

All Americans should be stunned by what the investigation of welfare abuses in Washington disclosed.

In some cases families have been leaning on the dole for two and three generations. In an atmosphere like that how can one expect the children to grow up as anything but indolent, lazy, irresponsible people?

I feel very strongly about the dignity of work. I have never been afraid of work; I welcome work and I find joy in it. I know from my own life that it is only by getting and holding a job that a man puts down roots and develops a sense of responsibility and civic interest. These things follow naturally. The man with a job begins to acquire a little property which he can call his own, and he cares how his tax dollar is spent and how well, or poorly, his government is run. He has a vested interest in law and order to

protect his family, himself and his propertyand the property of other people.

But the man who never really enters our society because we are paying him to stay out of it cannot feel a sense of responsibility or even a rudimentary interest in what goes on beyond his next relief check. What do law and order mean to him? Why should he care?

Critics claim that I am punishing children for the sins of their parents by insisting that families with a man in the house who is able to work should not qualify for the Federal program of aid to dependent children.

It is easy to cast me in a bad light on this point. But the mere sending of a relief check into a home does not insure that the children of that home will get any benefit from the money.

In all of the investigations and hearings on welfare in the District no real evidence has been encountered to support the theory that unemployed men have deserted their families so that the families can qualify for welfare. But there is plain evidence that the men who desert do so usually because they are irresponsible, or because-as sonie cases have proved-the wife prefers to draw the relief check and to consort with a variety of men while she is on welfare.

Let me cite just one case reported by the General Accounting Office to illustrate:

A 25-year-old mother of four children, two of whom were fathered by men other than her husband, had been getting assistance payments since October 1956. When an investigator visited her home, the young mother admitted that she was employable, said that she did not want investigators coming to her home, and voluntarily signed a statement requesting withdrawal from the aid to dependent children assistance program. After she had signed the withdrawal statement she said:

"Now I can have all the men I want in my home and you men can't do a thing about it."

The fact that the number of case openings based on absence of a parent has been declining since 1957 indicates that the charges that men are being driven to desertion are very questionable.

The businessman has a large stake in the welfare problem.

As a taxpayer of substance, naturally he should be concerned as to how his tax dollars are spent. If his community has not bothered to check out its relief rolls, he should use his leadership infiuence to see that such an investigation is made.

Some welfare people-and I am not being critical here-will make paperwork estimates as to how much cheating is going on. One must be very wary of this. In Washington, it was figured, on the basis of early estimates, that we would find an ineligib111ty rate of perhaps 3 to 5 percent. It proved to be many, many times higher. If the question arises in your city, do not let a paperwork guess take the place of a full field investigation.

The businessman should be concerned about the welfare program in his oommunity for reasons other than cost, of course. If it is a bad program, if it i£ one geared to encouraging the loafers, he will inevitably feel the backlash. It will come in crime delinquency, unfilled jobs for people of law skill, lack of training programs for people whose skills can be upgraded to make them qualified to hold more demanding jobs. It will show up in the attitudes of people who apply for work. If they can make a good living on welfare they are not likely to be productive workers.

The first welfare programs were designed to get people back on their feet and back to wark. That aim was largely accomplished. Unfortunately, the typical welfare case today is quite unlike its counterpart of, say, 20 years ago.

August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20397 Now we are down to what one welfare offi

cial in Washington has bluntly described as "the bottom of the ba rrel." We are dea ling all too often with the hard-care shiftless, people who arrogantly choose the relief rolls ove;r honest toil. There is only one way to shatter that kind of irresiponstble thinking and it is simply to 'say, "You have got to go to work. If you lack training, we will train yQIU. But we will not permit you to freeload."

These .are hard fa;cts, and to many people they are unpleasant, even in the telling,

But I believe fervently that they are facts that need to be told and retold if we are to break the ever lengthening chain of dependency in Amerioa. We must forge a · new chain, the links of which are self-help, individual responsibility, pride in work and a concern for our fellow human beings that is grounded in genuine respect for their dignity and not in programs thait, while politically appealing, in fact drain away those precious qualities that make men and women most truly human.

The 17th Anniversary of the Republic of Korea





Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, we want to extend wB,rm felicitations to the Republic of Korea on the occasion of its 17th anniversary of its independence this coming Sunday, August 15. This House will not be in session then and therefore we are today congratulating His Excellency Chung Hee Park, the President of Korea; and His Excellency Hyun Chul Kim, the Korean Ambassador to the United States.

In their long history the people of Korea have enjoyed a political continuity and stability unusual among Asian nations. The land was first united under a single dynasty in A.D. 669. The king-

. dom was ruled by three successive dynasties until 1910 when the last king was deposed by the Japanese and the nation was made a part of the growing Japanese Empire.

The 20th century has not been kind to Korea. Foreign domination and occupation were experienced by these proud people for the first time in many centuries. The distinct Korean civilization, one of the oldest in the world, dates back more than 4,000 years.

The anniversary we honor now marked the return of at least part of the Korean people to independence. As was the case with other small nations, World War II brought an end to Axis tyranny and a promise of freedom for the future. But these hopes were cruelly thwarted when the Russians occupied the northern part of the peninsula and then refused to live up to their agreement to allow free elections and unification. Thus Korea became a divided nation with its territory and its people artificially separated in two parts, with the northern part dominated from outside and made into an armed camp.

Elections were held Jn the south in 1948 and the Republic of Korea was

founded on August 15. Eighty-five percent of the electorate voted in this nation where all men and women of 20 years and older have the right to vote.

Few nations have suffered such tragedy in such a short time. The invasion from the north was launched less than 2 years later. The young nation was saved by the United States and the United Nations acting to preserve its independence. The cost was high. South Korean forces suffered more than half of the 400,000 U.N. casualties.

More than 1 million South Korean civilians were killed with another 1 million wounded or missing. Hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows were the inevitable product of war.

The new nation suffered the additional handicap of an unbalanced economic base, for 80 percent of the nation's industry was located in the Communist zone.

In spite of their misfortunes, the people of South Korea have shown a remarkable determination to rebuild. The economy is making steady progress. The average i;i.nnual rise in gross national product from 1954 to 1964 has been 5 percent with industrial growth playing a major role. Trade is on the rise and should be aided by the recent agreement with Japan. ·

The youth of Korea have been a dynamic element in the nation's progress, and women have a status in society and in the economic life of the nation that is unusual for Asia.

We shall continue to do whatever is needed to help these brave people emerge on the side of progress in freedom during the difficult days ahead.

Gesundheit Is Not the Answer


HON. EDNA F. KELLY OF NEW YORK

IN THE :flOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


roughly $60 for injections, plus from $20 to $40 for medications-that is, about $100 per person, per year for those who seek medical help. In fact, the .air pollution control board in its studies has estimated that more than a million people in the State of New York suffer from hay fever, and that some 250,000 lose a week or more from work or school each year because of the allergy.

Much study has been made in order to combat the ragweed but it has been confined predominantly to the State of New York. I seek to have this problem recognized as a national one and a serious one affecting the health and earning capacity of over 10 million Americans. I seek, through H.R. 1047, to expand study and experimentation to eradicate the ragweed into a Federal program. This legislation provides for Federal ragweed elimination by the U.S. Department of

· Agriculture. Addition of the word "ragweed" in section 102a of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 would put the noxious plant in the same category as witchweed, which impedes growth of grains. The act requires the Department to work on eradication of witch.:.. weed.

Research seeking to combat the harmful effects of ragweed usually points to control, rather than eradication, as the safer and more economical method. Daily research is being conducted in the form of a pollen count taken in the allergy department of the Jewish Hospital in Brooklyn. The pollen count is the average number of pollen grains found on a square centimeter of a sticky glass slide that has been exposed to air for 24 hours.

The hospital's allergy department, headed by Dr. Max Grolnick, has a pollen-counting station on the 21st floor of a building on 86th Street this year. The hospital has been counting pollen for 27 years. In former years, it maintained counting stations in Brooklyn and Far Rockaway as well as Manhattan, but the 86th Street readings were so close to the three-station average that the hospital is dropping the other two.

Brooklyn Jewish starts keeping the count when the pollen season begins.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, within the The newspapers start printing the count next 2 weeks, the ragweed plant will when the ragweed season opens, around be in full bloom and approximately 10 the first of May. million Americans will be painfully aware Dr. David Merksamer goes to the staof its presence. The Allergy Foundation tion every morning at 9 a.m. to take a of America reports that a rainy first half . reading. A pollen count over 25 means of August · will mean a miserable hay misery for all sufferers. But unusually fever season. sensitive persons can feel unhappy when

Pollen from the ragweed plant causes the count is as low as 7. the unpleasantness of hay fever-runny Research at the University of Michigan nose, weeping eyes, sneezing, and head- has shown that about 95 percent of ragaches, not to mention many more seri- weed pollen grains settle from the air ous illnesses which are affected by rag- within about 150 feet of the point of exweed, the prime example of which is pulsion from the blossom. From this it bronchial asthma, the killer of some 4,000 appears that hay fever is a localized probpersons yearly. The Air Pollution Con- lem and that sufferers are victims of the trol Board of the Department of Health particular environment in which they live of the state of New York has concluded and go about their daily activities. that they know of no beneficial use for However, one of the most interested ragweed except, in the overall balance of followers of the above-mentioned daily nature, it does.more harm than good. pollen count and more importantly, a

In addition to their health suffering, man whose earning capacity is limited by these 10 million hay-fever victims will hay fever, Herman Aaronoff, of Brooklyn, lose about $140 million dollars a year in does riot believe the problem to be a loeal treatment. Medical cost is estimated at one. Mr. Aaronoff is a part-time real


estate clerk and freelance writer for the Jewish press. He claims, "Local action can't solve the problem. Municipal and State authorities may do the job in their areas but the winds still carry ragweed Pollen across State lines. Only a national program can do an effective job."

Data from the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture would seem to substantiate this theory. It is reported that one or more species of ragweed occur in all 50 States of this country. About half the States can be found to have no areas which are free of pollen. Ragweed is found to be most prevalent in the North Central and Northeastern States followed by tl;le Southern, Great Plains, Intermountain, Pacific Coastal States, and Hawaii.

There are three methods of control: spraying, crowding, and cutting.

Spraying or the use of herbicides is the most effective; however, the drift of the chemical spray is known to cause severe crop damage.

Ragweed is not a competitive plant. It can be crowded out and thus, stifled by heavy seedings of alfalfa, clover, bluegrass and other thick vegetation. It grows most profusely where the soil will not be disturbed and the pollen will be controlled.

The method of cutting is most advisable. If the ragweed plant is cut before flowering, the pollen will be eliminated. The soil will not be disturbed and the pollen will be controlled.

The cutting method has been exhibited most successfully in Niagara Falls, where a city ordinance was adopted directing all property owners to cut the weeds on their property. If this is not done, the city does the cutting and adds the cost to the individual's tax bill. There has been a gradual and steady drop in the pollen index in Niagara Falls since 1960.

The Tuberculosis Association in Connecticut is attempting to start a pollen sampling program this year-that is, a program to determine the extent of pollen in an area in order to decide upon a manner of control. Pennsylvania has had such a program for several years.

These programs are the most effective among the relatively few to combat ragweed. Shall we expand these programs and incorporate them on a Federal level in order to improve the health and economic plight of over 10 million Americans?

More on Jet Noise-Part VII-Report on Noise Forum


HON. HERBERT TENZER OF NEW YORK



Mr. TENZER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, July 15, 1965, I was privileged to act as sponsor of a Public Forum on Aircraft Noise Abatement in Lawrence, Long Island. The purpose of this forum was to bring together a panel of Federal and local officials to discuss the

problem of jet noise abatement, and what is now being done about it by the Federal Government, with the residents of my congressional district. As Lawrence is my own hometown, I can appreciate only too well the suffering of the thousands of my constituents living within the shad.ow of Kennedy International Airport.

The residents of the western end of my district including the villages of Lawrence, Inwood, Cedarhurst, Woodmere, North Woodmere, Hewlett, Lynbrook, Valley Stream, East Rockaway, Oceanside, Island Park, Atlantic Beach, and the city of Long Beach are all affected by the ever growing air traffic in and out of Kennedy International Airport with the attending evil of the jet aircraft noise.

As I feel that this problem is not a local one but one that will, with the expansion of jet travel, become increasingly more troublesome throughout our country, I believe the results of this public forum will be of interest to my colleagues in the House.

Both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Agency were represented. by speakers at the forum. The guest speakers from NASA were William S. Aiken, Jr., Chief of Operating Problems Branch, Office of Advanced Research and Technology; Harvey H. Hubbard, Chief of Acoustics Branch of Dynamic Loads Division at Langley Research Center; and I. E. Garrick, Chief, Office of Dynamic Loads Division at Langley Research Center. Joseph Wilson, noise abatement officer, eastern district, presented the progress rePorts from the FAA.

After the presentations, questions from the audience were answered by these officials. The reaction of the audience, after viewing slides and hearing somewhat technical and detailed presentations, reflected an understandable impatience with long-range promises and statements which presented the complexities of the problem and the scientific approach necessary to find a solution, if indeed there is a solution.

The more than 300 persons present demanded relief from the irritating and increasing aircraft noise problem now. They asked for a ban on night flights to and from Kennedy; for diversion of flights to alternate airfields; for a change in runway patterns to shift more flights over ocean flightpaths; for accelerated research activities; for the construction of longer runways over the water and away from residential areas; for the construction of other jet airPorts located away from residential communities with connecting transportation to Kennedy and New York City by rail or taxi strips, and for any other means, no matter how drastic, to achieve some relief from the effects of residing in the jet noise belt.

Many of these residents lived on Long Island before Kennedy AirPort was constructed. They did not plan their settlements with the knowledge of the suffering they would encounter. They are persons who know the agony of jet noise because they feel the effects on their nervous systems. They are persons who know the disruptions to peace and tranquillity as they attempt to read,. talk, or

per! orm any of the daily acts related to the .enjoyment of their property. They demand relief.

If the Aircraft Noise Forum brought any message to these people, it was the message that the experts in noise abatement do not foresee any immediate relief. The answer may lie in accelerated research, but the answer will not be discovered tomorrow.

My reaction to the forum was one of increased determination to bring back the message to my colleagues that jet noise is a national problem of rapidly increasing importance and that congressional action is necessary now. Tomorrow we will have new jet airports and with the development of smaller jet aircraft, hundreds and perhaps several. thousand airports will be seeking to service jet aircraft. The problem of jet noise and the related problems of increased litigation and adverse effects on the Nation's health will be experienced by millions of our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, these problems have been discussed in this Chamber before. By way of reference let me suggest to my colleagues who wish additional inf ormation on this problem that they read my previous statements in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of May 6, page 9701; in the daily CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS of May 13, A2377; May 20, A2532; May 27, A2718; June 10, A3037; and July 8, A3630.

I have introduced two bills dealing with aircraft noise abatement. H.R. 7981 would authorize NASA to coordinate and supervise research activities to reduce aircraft noise and H.R. 7982 would authorize the FAA to adopt regulations concerning operational techniques to reduce noise and partially finance the cost of implementing these new procedures. Under H.R. 7982 the FAA could reimburse municipalities, airline owners, and operators for part of the cost of land acquisition and construction of devices to reduce noise. This legislation, if enacted, would place the Federal Government in the Position of sharing the responsibility of alleviating the aircraft noise problem.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of this Nation cannot enjoy their property without protection from this problem. The public will not be satisfied with our efforts in this field until we have officially recognized aircraft noise as a national problem. Local communities will wage their battle in the courts and will demand from flight control personnel every effort to relieve those who reside near our major airfields.

Local efforts are directed toward the change of flight patterns which have the effect of shifting the noise from our community to a neighboring community. However, like the hands on a clock they return to the point of beginning and the process starts all over again and may go on ad infinitum. In my district local committees have made significant contributions, but deal primarily with the aspects of the problem as they affect operation of the airport which is located in New York City adjacent to Nassau County and particularly the villages which I mentioned above. Airport operations are in the province of FAA.

-August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20399

At the Jet Noise Forum, I said that I would call for a Presidential Commission on Aircraft Noise Abatement. This would be a major step forward in recognizing our responsibility and our determination to put our best minds to work in a concerted effort to solve this perplexing problem. All over resources must be made available to find the solution.

I urge my colleagues to look to the future and plan now for the protection of millions of citizens who will find themselves in a position similar to my constituents near Kennedy Airport unless we accept the challenge before us and act now we will lose the battle against jet noise. This is a battle we must not and dare not lose.

Australia's Restriction on Trade Deplored


HON. HAROLD D. COOLEY OF NORTH CAROLINA



Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to remind our friends in Australia that trade, like friendship-and Australia certainly is our friend-is a two-way proposition; trade is a two-way street.

I am concerned at the recent decline in one of our most important exports to Australia-tobacco--at a time when U.S. imports of agricultural products from that country have been increasing rapidly.

This is a vital matter when related to our balance of payments, and it creates a serious problem to several hundred thousand Flue-cured tobacco growers in the United States.

The tariff agreement negotiated between Australia and the United States in 1947 included concessions of importance to the agricultural interests of each country and was designed to be mutually beneficial. In return for U.S. conces-· sions on meat and wool, the Australians agreed to concessions on the importation of U.S. unmanufactured tobacco into their country. This concession bound the tariff duty rate on unmanuf actured tobacco and, due to the expansion and prospective volume of tobacco exports from this country to Australia, that concession was approved by U.S. negotiators as exceeding all others in value. However, there were certain loopholes which were not apparent at the time.

The net result is that we are importing vastly more meat and animal products than we were at the beginning of this agreement, while our tobacco exports have dropped from an average 26.3 million pounds in the 1952-56 period and an annual high of 37 .8 million pom~ds in 1957 to a new low of 13.4 million pounds in 1964.

This switch of Australian policy on tobacco started about mid-1950 when Government officials in that country initiated steps for cutting back on the

quantity of tobacco imported. This policy was effectuated by two key devices: First, the prescribing of a constantly mounting series of percentages on Australiangrown leaf to be incorporated into the respective tobacco products and, second, the system of tobacco import rates severely penalizing manufacturers who do not comply with the prescribed "mixing percentages."

During the 1947-51 period the minimum percentage of domestic leaf prescribed for cigarettes was 3 percent. Those who complied with this percentage paid a duty of the equivalent of 80 U.S. cents per pound. Those who did not comply were charged the equivalent of 96 U.S. cents per pound or a differential of 16 U.S. cents. Through the years this minimum percentage of domestic leaf has systematically been increased up to the present rate of 45 percent with regulations presently in effect to eventually increase this minimum percentage to 50 percent at the beginning of 1966.

In consequence of these developments, it naturally followed that U.S. exports of tobacco to Australia would suffer. An examination of the use of U.S. tobacco by the Australian tobacco product manuf acturers shows even more clearly the results of these stringent mixing regulations. There has been a steady annual decline in the estimated use of U.S. leaf ·from 29.1 million pounds in 1958 to an estimated 17 million pounds in 1965, or a total reduction of 42 percent. During this same period, the total estimated annual use of all tobacco by Australian manufacturers increased approximately 9 percent from 47 .8 million to 52 million pounds.

Australians may wish to argue that they have a right to change prescribed mixing regulations in any desired way due to the language contained in the negotiated trade agreement of 1947. In the light of these provisions, some modification of the status of domestic tobacco not only was authorized, indeed it was expected. However, the scope and severity of actions which have in fact been taken by Australia could not in any sense be considered reasonable. On the contrary, had the situation in this regard been foreseeable in any degree whatever in 1947, no negotiator in his right mind would have considered opening negotiations.

The result of this systematic increase of the requirement for the utilization of domestic tobacco has raised the auction price of Australian tobacco to the point where the farmer is now guaranteed a price of about $1.17 a pound by the Australian Government, more than double

. our own average price in this country, and which in the final analysis simply means that we are through this trade agreement indirectly subsidizing the Australian tobacco farmer through our heavy importations of meat products and wool which we have agreed to take.

With this high price, it is reasonable to assume that the tobacco manuf acturers in Australia have resisted the enforced usage of increasing percentages of native leaf, but apparently this has been too little or of no avail. This native leaf is not only higher priced than other

tobacco on the world market, but it is a well known fact that it cannot compare with the quality of the standard American grown tobacco and must therefore adversely affect the quality of Australian cigarettes. The local manufacturer who is in the middle of this situation, however, has no alternative but to comply with the mixing regulation due to the heavy duty penalty for those who fail to do so.

It may be redundant to say that normally trade is a two-way proposition, but in the case in question the more we have favored the Australian exporter, in the spirit of the 1947 trade agreement, the more our friends from down under have followed the reverse course with a highly protectionist policy which has harmed our exports as well as the exports of other tobacco producing countries who supply this market.

It is only because of the quality consideration that the United States has even been able to maintain its relative position with other foreign suppliers in this market.

These developments at a time when we are seeking freer world trade as evidenced by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 should bring widespread concern to not only the tobacco producing areas but to all other areas of the United States expecting to share in increased exports through freer access to world markets. For this reason, I am now bringing this to the attention of my colleagues, as well as all other interested parties.

Australia should not expect to continue to expand its exports of agricultural products, such as sugar, mutton, and wool, to the United States while at the same time restricting its imports of' U.S. tobacco and other agricultural products.

President Tells Choir of Art Need


HON. HARLAN HAGEN OF CALIFORNIA


Thursday, August 12, 1965 Mr. HAGEN of Califor,nia. Mr.

Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I would like to insert in the RECORD a copy of a speech delivered by President Lyndon B. Johnson on Wednesday afternoon, August 4, in the Rose Garden at the White House to the members of the Bakersfield College Choir.

I would like to state that the Bakersfield College Choir was accorded the privilege of singing before the President as a result of the group's outstanding triumph in attaining first place in the mixed chorus competition at the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod in Wales. This achievement is all the more remarkable since most of the other 17 competing mixed choirs, several of which were from Iron Curtain countries, are professional singing groups which have been in existence for many years. This accomplishment speaks well for the training of the Bakersfield group by the


director, Mr. Joseph Huszti, and is a credit to the California junior college system.

It should be noted that following the choir's triumph in Wales, an invitation was extended for the group to perform before the Pope and at the Pope's personal request the choir performed a second time.

The President was most gracious in receiving the Bakersfield College Choir and I am including his remarks herewith:

Here at the White House, we are always pleased to have young people and good music. Sometimes it seems to me that when Luci has a party, we have more of the former than the latter. So, we are h appy now to have this excellent combination of both.

Over the years, I have observed that public figures have a suspicious habit. When they meet young journalists, public officials suddenly recall their own days as newspapermen. If a football team is present, the officeholder suddenly remembers his days as a quarterback. I am sure this has happened to you members of this fine organization.

But, in all candor and truth, I have a confession this afternoon. While I yield to no man in my enjoyment of harmony, and you can take that any way you like, I do yield to nearly everybody in the ability to carry a tune. It may be refreshing to you to learn that your President was never asked, or encouraged, to be a member of a choir.

The country can be proud of you young people.

You have brought honor upon yourselves and your country, by winning the first prize trophy for mixed choral groups at the recent international competition in Wales. We are proud of you for that.

We are also proud of you because you financed your own way to Europe, and then won the competition over choral groups from 19 countries. That is a splendid achievement.

I wish your example were not so exceptional-in some respects. In this country, I regret to say, all too m any of our talented individuals and groups are forced to struggle from day to day for their existence. This includes theater groups, dance and opera companies, musical organizations and actors. It also includes the solitary artist who seeks only the time to create his works.

For too long, all the arts h ave had uncertain footing in our society. There is a growing appreciation in America for the arts, a growing understanding and demand. This is welcome and heartening. But, the arts still lack a sure and solid base on which to stand, and I believe it is time for a change.

All societies remembered in history as great, have been distinguished by a deep devotion to all of the arts. Art is neither an indulgence, nor a sanctuary. In more earthy terms, art that expresses the character and aspirations of a people is never a luxury or a frill.

As a Nobel Laureate once put it, art is "a means of stirring the greatest number of men by providing them with a privileged image of our common joys and woes."

I believe that in this young, creative, and still emerging: country, we should realize that the creative and performing arts constitute a national treasure. As trustees of that treasure, we of this amuent and creative generation must answer to an especially demanding accounting.

Under times and conditions such as ours, I believe it is imperative that America's arts be supported more actively. I particularly believe that the Federal Government can and should provide both leadership and resources to advance the arts so the inner

spirit and life of our Nation, and heritage, may be continuously expressed and defined.

The bill now before Congress to establish the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities offers a realistic response to this opportunity and challenge. That legislation has already passed the Senate. I am hopeful that it will pass the House of Representatives, a lso.

When this measure is signed, it will be one of the most historic ena.ctments of any Congress in this century.

In this land of such a highly diversified people, the arts are of utmost importance. They are important as a unifying moral force. They also contribute to our awareness of who we are, where we are and what we want to be as a people. And the arts are important as a celebration of the American experience which encourages, clarifies and points to the next direction in our continuing struggle to achieve the promirn of our democracy.

The campuses of our colleges across the nation are producing many talents in many fields, and this Nation needs them all. But, I am especially gratified that our colleges, large and small, are yielding so much talent to our national treasure in the arts.

You from Bakersfield College are one example, a very fine example. I congratulate you. And, on behalf of the nation I am privileged to commend each of you for your efforts and strivings which have won for you international recognition and honor.

Secretary Freeman Talks Sense


HON. WM. J. RANDALL OF MISSOURI

IN THE ~OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, on August 2 Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman addressed the annual convention of the Missouri Farmers' Association at Columbia, Mo.

In his remarks the Secretary summarized the startling improvements in agricultural income during the past 4 years and described the shock and chaos the agricultural and the national economy would have to sustain if farm commodity programs were not extended by the 89th Congress.

Mr. Freeman also predicted that if the · administration's farm program were enacted it would not be unreasonable to anticipate in the next 4 years a repeat of the $1,000 gain in realized net income per farm of the last 4 years.

Because the Secretary's observations are so critically relevant to current House debate on the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, I have secured unanimous con.: sent to reproduce the speech in its entirety at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

There are some experiences which-no matter how often repeated-are ever new, and revive a man's zest for life and his joy in it.

Like feeling the trusting touch of the hand of a little child, recognizing the voice of an old friend by the warmth of it, seeing the haze of loveliness that wraps itself around a mother, a wife, a daughter, and, seeking to

match the intense concentration of an inquisitive boy.

Another of these always refreshing experiences is looking out over the versatile and vibrant farmlands of the Midwest in the midst of a growing season. There is always inspiration, accompanied by a deep sense of gratitude, in seeing firsthand the combination of farmer skills with nature's gifts that results in the miracle we know as food abundance.

So I find it good-good indeed-to be with you in this place, at this time. Thank you for inviting me.

Four years have gone by since we were last together at an annual meeting of the Missouri Farmers' Association. Since 1961 I have come to know the membership of this organization better than I did then-many of the more than 150,000 of you personally-all of you through the quality of your organiza tion and the character of the leadership you choose for it.

These associations and obser vations have led me to two conclusions about the Missouri Farmers' Association.

One is that you do not accept progress as inevitable. You look upon progress as a process demanding imagination and creativit y, sensitivit y and sensibility, anticipation and dedica tion, an d plain hard work.

The other is that you consistently operate from the premise that what's good for the farm families of Missouri and the Nation is good for the Missouri F armers Association. I've seen you apply this principle int ernally, as you weighed possible immediate advant ages for your cooperative enterprises against the p otential for long-term gains in the whole of agriculture; and I've seen you apply it in helping create and implement national farm and food policies and programs.

For establishing and following these commendable standards, you have my admiration and respect.

This organization's spirit and its concept of proper priority- as well as the personal philosophy and abilities you have recognized for a quarter of a century-have contributed to m aking your Fred Heinke! an internationally recognized agricultural leader.

Fred Heinkel holds the dual role of an architect, and a builder, in the food and agriculture policies and programs of the 1960's.

Few commodity programs, now or in the past, have records of performance and popularity equalling that of our present feed grains program. It was the first big step in bringing farm production policy into harmony with the era of abundance. The chairman of the advisory committee which played a major part in the creation of the feed grains program, and in perfecting it through the years since 1961, was Fred Heinkel.

Fred, I want MFA members to know that no one has done more for American agriculture through this period of almost 5 years than you. And if you will accept a personal tribute, I want to express my own high regard and warm affection.

Earlier I recalled it has been 4 years since I attended an annual MFA meeting. At that time we discussed what needed doing in the decade of the 1960's to correct inequities that were denying parity of income opportunity to our farm families and threatening the destruction of the free enterprise family farm system.

Since then, working together, we have corrected, and we have innovated.

We have broadened the avenues of economic, educational, and social opportunity for the people of rural America---farm and nonfarm.

By combining the abilities, the knowledge, the resources and the purposes of people and Government we have moved steadily

August 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20401 upward on a number of fronts from the low levels of 1960.

As Al Smith once said: "Let's look at the record."

Farm earnings today are substantially better than they were. Realized net farm income in this year of 1965 is now expected to total $13.5 billion-the highest since 1953 and some $1.8 billion more than our farm families earned in 1960.

'foday's income is better than that of 1960 because we've succeeded in moving to more equitable farm price levels. In the early summer of 1960 the average return to farmers from soybeans was $1.94 a bushel. This year it was $2.72-78 cents a bushel more.

Here are some other early summer of 1960 and 1965 comparisons:

Corn, $1.09 a bushel then, $1.30 now. Hogs, $16.20 a hundredweight then, $22.70

now. Cattle, $21.70 then, $23 a hundredweight

now. ~ Lambs, $20.10 then, $25 a hundredweight now.

Wool, 45 cents a pound then, 49 cents a pound now.

All hay, $15.90 then, $20 a ton now. Farm spending is better than it was. The

income gains are reflected in improved rural town and city economies as sales of goods and services to farmers trend upward. Last year, when gross farm income was $4 billion over the total of 1960, farmers increased their expenditures for automobiles by over $600 million a nd boosted other expenditures for capital goods and machinery by another $400 million. Better living on the farm means better living in St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, and Rock Island.

Food is a better bargain than it was. For the million s of American consumers, food is the best buy they find in retail stores. This year, for the average family, food costs will take about 18.3 percent of income after taxes. In 1960, food required 20 percent-and the diet contained less beef. If the same percentage of income were being spent for food in 1965 as consumers were .spending in 1960, they would have $7 billion less to spend on other things.

Food distribution is better than it was. We're doing a much-improved job of making our food abundance cover the whole of our society-our families requiring public assistance, and our schoolchildren. The USDA's food programs are now reaching over 40 million American adults and youngsters each year. The volume of food distributed through these domestic programs has increased from 900 million pounds in 1959- 60 to 2.1 billion pounds in 1964-65. In addition, a growing volume of food is moving into the homes of low-income families through commercial channels under the food stamp program.

Farm exports are better than they were. Sales of agricultural commodities overseas are expected to reach a new record of $6.1 billion in the current fiscal year. It will be the second year in a row with farm exports in excess of $6 bililon, as compared with $4.5 billion in fiscal 1960. This me.ans more than better markets, better incomes, for farm families-it means expanded job and income opportunities in the areas of processing and shipping-and it makes a substantial contribution to a favorable balance of payments .. From a humanitarian standpoint and from a commercial standpoint the expanded utilization of American food and fiber abroad contains the greatest opportunity for maximum use of our great food production plant. In this effort there is need for the facilities and the skills of our cooperatives, and the interest demonstrated by NFA is most welcome.

The supply-demand relationship is better than it was. Surpluses are down. Carryover stocks of grain by the end of the year will be at the lowest level since the mid-1950's, which means greater farm price stability and a cut in storage and handling costs. for t axpayers.

We can t ake pride and satisfaction in these achievements.

What we've done in the past 4 years is proof it is possible to base a reasonable, progressive, serviceable food and agricultural policy on a concept of abundance r a ther than scarcity, benefiting producers and consumer alike. ·

That doesn't mean we have achieved full parity in income opportunity for our adequate, commercial family farms or that rural America as a whole is moving ahead in job and other opportunities as rapidly as it must to reach our goal of parity of opportunity.

But we're on the right track. Whether we stay on it depends upon the

decisions the Congress m akes this month on legislation that will make it possible to continue--with a variety of improvements-the policies that h ave provided fuel for the steady progress made since 1960.

Let me emphasize that these legislative proposals are not designed to maintain the status quo. While incorporating the dynamic parts of our past experience, the omnibus farm bill is designed to encourage development of an agricultural plant and a family farm economy that will respond to the potentials of the future.

The same mechanisms that made things better than they were are not necessarily sufficient to make them better than they are.

Enactment of forwardlooking legislation is mandatory to a forwardmoving rural economy, a forwardmoving national economy.

Failure to act will be catastrophic to both. Studies made by the Congress, by univer

sity economists and others, agree that if we fail to extend our farm commodity programs we will quickly experience a decline of as much as 50 percent from the current, still inadequate net farm income level.

Anyone can understand a 50-percent pay cut, and its impact upon the individual family directly affected. But let me turn your attention, an.ct the attention of the entire Nation, to what such a blow to the farm economy would mean to the whole of the country's economic well-being.

A quick look at the farm credit situation is most revealing:

On January 1, 1965, the total farm debt amounted to $36 billion. That's 45 percent more than it was just 5 years ago. It is nearly 200 percent over the farm debt total of 1950.

It is a matter of deep, personal concern to the farm families who owe it. It should also be a matter of both humanitarian and economic concern to noufarmers, because if farm families cannot pay it city families are going to be in trouble, too.

The debt situation in agriculture is neither better, nor worse, than in other sectors of the economy. Farm debt has increased at about the same rate as the debt of corporations, and at a somewhat slower rate than consumer debt and private noncorporate debt.

Indications are that the sharp rise in farm debt is not due to the use of credit as a substitute for income.

Rather, the increase has resulted largely from borrowing by farmers to increase the emciency of their operations, and borrowing by young farmers becoming established on adequate family farms. And comparatively few of them are having debt difficulties so far-this fact is made clear by the excellent record made by farm lending institutions in

collections from 1961 through 1964, and the near-record low levels of delinquencies and foreclosures.

If we succeed in maintaining the farm income gains of the past 4 years-if we continue our already significant progress toward full parity of income opportunity for the operators of the growing numbers of adequate family farms--the farm debt situation is not likely to cause serious difficulties for most farmers, for the communities which provide them with goods and services, or for the urban factory workers dependent upon rural markets for a substantial share of their employment.

However, a sharp decline in farm income resulting from failure to continue construct! ve farm and food policies and programs would, on the other hand, quickly upset the entire rural credit structure. It would deprive farmers of the ability to borrow or to repay the massive debt load they carry today. It would mean wholesale foreclosure and liquidation. It would mean rural chaos that would quickly infect the entire economy. Once again newspapers would repeat, in headlines, the old adage that "depressions are farm-led and farm-fed."

The times of truly great tragedy in rural America have been the times of mass foreclosures. In this community and in others across the land scars still remain as a reminder of the last time-an accelerated downgrading of the value of-a man, his family and his farm made it impossible for the family farmer to lllake the payments on his mortgage.

The stakes are big this month as the Congress prepares to act ' on the Great Society farm program. If it is enacted into law, we can look forward to steady progress-and it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to anticipate in the next 4 years a repeat of the thousa,nd dollar gain realized net income per farm of the last 4 years.

But-if we fail to build upon the experience and the programs and the progress of the 1961-65 period, the outlook will be grim indeed. If failure to adopt reasonable, purposeful legislation brings a drop in net farm income from the current level down to just $6 billion a year, every American will suffer. In that event .the efficient family farm structure that now ranks among the wonders of the modern world would be wiped out. No one can predict what might replace it, but the food abundance and fair prices consumers now accept as casually as the air they breathe would be gravely threatened.

If we fail to respond to both the responsibility and the opportunity contained in the food and agriculture bill now before our Congress, we'll appear in the coloring book of history painted thoughtless and indifferent-perhaps even ruthless.

I believe in the positive approach-and so do you, or you couldn't face up to the yearafter-year, season-after-season hazards of farming.

I can sense a growing realization among all the people of our country that they have a good thing going for them in the policies and programs that give rural America stability and sound growth prospects, give urban America an abundance of good food at fair prices, and give the hungry of the world not only a source of food, but a fountain of know-how that can improve their ability to feed themselves.

If that realization comes to flower in terms of constructive legislation this month, the prospects are excellent that the twin goals of parity of income for the adequate family farm and parity of opportunity for all of rural America can be reached by the end of the 1960's.

Let's keep our wagon hitched to that star.

Documents

August CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20389 · PDF fileAugust 12, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL ... Drum Corps Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ... colorful pageantry and martial marches starting