CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-
21650
SENATE
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1965
SENATE
transaction of routine morning business
be ordered limited to 3 minutes.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian,
and was called to order by the Vice
RAIL RAPID TRANSIT FOR THE
President.
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Rev. Horace Thomas, minister, HighMr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
lands Presbyterian Church, Salisbury,
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Rhodesia, offered the following prayer:
proceed to the consideration of Calendar
O Lord our God, great art Thou and No. 619.
greatly to be praised.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
In the meeting of this assembly, to be stated by title.
decide matters of moment, grant us the
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
mind of Christ in all that we strive to do. 4822) to authorize the prosecution of a
In the decisions and choices of this day, transit development program for the Nagrant us to choose aright as in Thy tional Capital region and to further the
presence: to distinguish not only be- objectives of the act of July 14, 1960.
tween the good and the evil, but between
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there obthe good and the better.
jection to the request of the Senator
Save us from treason to Thee; by dis- from Montana?
guising to ourselves Thy demands; by
There being no objection, the Senate
any choice of ashes for bread; by any proceeded to consider the bill.
surrender to popular demands; by any
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, it gives
accommodation of duty or faith to the me great personal satisfaction to present
passing fad.
before the Senate today the recommenThrough men of good will, give us a dations of President Johnson and the
true fellowship, creating peace in a world Senate Committee on the District of Coof discord. For our country, give us lumbia to authorize the construction of
leaders of strong conviction and who ever a $431 million rail route transit system
speak with Thee before they speak with for the Nation's Capital, the hub of the
their fellows.
fastest growing metropolitan area in the
For the world, give Thy help where United States.
Washington, D.C., has no greater need
new nations are emerging. Give us
forbearance and wisdom, that we may today than an efficient, balanced transportation system to meet its main purforge the family of God. Amen.
pose-service to the public, a public that
THE JOURNAL
On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, the reading of the
Journal of the proceedings of Tuesday,
August 24, 1965, was dispensed with.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENTAPPROVAL OF BILLS
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States were communicated
to the Senate by Mr. Jones, one of his
secretaries, and he announced that on
August 24, 1965, the President had approved and signed the following acts:
S.678. An act for the relief of Lee Hi
Sook; and
S.i054. An act to amend further the Peace
Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), as amended, and
for other purposes.
numbers more than 2 million persons
today, is expected to number more than
3%/ million by 1980, and morc than 5
million 20 years thereafter.
The bill which we bring to the Senate
today has been before the Congress of
the United States in various forms for a
decade. First, a bill to study the transportation system was passed. The system has been studied, restudied, and
studied again.
I would not wish to mislead anyone
into believing that the proposed system
will serve the entire metropolitan area.
It is a basic system, and one which should
bring relief to the traveling public in the
Nation's Capital. Expansion can come as
demands require in the years ahead. We
must make a beginning and this bill supplies that substantial beginning.
I am delighted to say that the bill was
unanimously reported out of the District of Columbia Committee. I think
COMMITIEE MEETINGS DURING
that augurs well for a bill of this magSENATE SESSION
nitude, and with the problems and comOn request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by plexities that are involved.
Mass transportation in the Nation's
unanimous consent, the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry and the Com- Capital region has held the attention of
mittee on Aeronautical and Space the Senate during the last four adminSciences were authorized to meet during istrations, dating back to the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952. Mr. Presthe session of the Senate today.
ident, never before has any legislation
for the District of Columbia been
LIMITATION OF STATEMENTS DUR- brought before the Senate with a longer
ING TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE and more thorough background of study
and preparation than the bill we have
MORNING BUSINESS
before us today.
Mr. MANSFIELD.
Mr. President,
The 82d and 84th Congresses authere are a few other bills that the lead- thorized and appropriated $460,000 for
ership would like to have the Senate con- one of the most comprehensive transsider, but at this time I ask unanimous portation studies ever undertaken in an
consent that statements during the American city. Its results were published
August 25, 1965
and submitted to Congress by President
Eisenhower as the Washington mass
transportation survey in 1959.
I can recall that my own personal association with this transportation problem stems back to 1957 when I became
chairman of the Joint Committee on
Washington
Metropolitan
Problems.
The distinguished senior Senator from
Oregon [Mr. MORSEz and myself, along
with other Members of both Houses of
Congress, held lengthy hearings on this
and related subjects in 1958 and 1959,
with the record of hearings running more
than 1,000 pages. I recall in opening
those hearings in 1959 that I expressed
the committee's feeling of urgency concerning metropolitan transportation. I
stated then-as now, almost 6 years
later I say again-the Washington region
has no more important problem than a
solution to its traffic and transportation
crisis. Action by the Congress was called
for then. It is imperative now.
The next step was enactment of the
National Capital Transportation Act of
1960. Congress created the National
Capital Transportation Agency to obtain the evidence we needed to move
ahead with major transportation improvements. The Agency was directed
to prepare a transit development program giving consideration to development of a subway from Union Station
capable of rapid dispersal of passengers
to the principal employment centers in
the District and its immediate suburbs,
and capable of being extended to serve
other parts of the National Capital region.
In that act, the Congress specifically
provided that any financial arrangements proposed by the Agency must provide, as far as possible, for the payment
of all costs by the persons using or benefiting from the facilities and services of
the system, and for the equitable sharing
of any remaining costs among the Federal, State, and local governments.
The ral rapid transit program authorized by the bill before the Senate today
is a faithful response to the requirements
of the 1960 act. This system will be a
giant step toward meeting the public
transportation needs of the National
Capital region not only today, but will
set the pattern for 75 years or more
hence.
Mr. President, at the conclusionus of
our hearings and committee consideration of this bill one week ago, every member of our committee supported this legislation, a demonstration of the unanimity of thought by those of us who have
studied this proposal. After all, Washington's traffic congestion cuts across
party lines, too. Sooner or later, it engulfs all of us.
I invite the Senate's attention to the
routes and service characteristics of the
systems. The routes and station locations are portrayed on the map in the
committee report at your desks.
Briefly, the system would consist of
25 miles of double track transit lines.
Approximately one-half, or 13 miles,
would be in subway. Seven and one-half
miles would occupy existing railroad
right-of-way and the balance would
utilize other exclusive rights-of-way.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Bus transfer facilities and parking spaces
for some 12,000 automobiles would be
provided at outlying stations.
Of the 29 stations contemplated for
the system, the National Capital Transportation Agency proposes that one
would be within the grounds of the U.S.
Capitol. The bill expressly provides that
no portion of the transit line or facilities
authorized by the act shall be constructed
within the Capitol grounds except upon
the approval of the Commission for the
Extension of the U.S. Capitol.
Service on the system would be provided by fast, modern, attractively
designed, air-conditioned, high-speed,
high-capacity trains.
Briefly, downtown, the subway would
run between Lafayette Park adjacent to
the White House on the west and Judiciary Square on the east, largely beneath
G Street. There would be major centerplatform stations at 12th and G and
8th and G Streets NW. During rush
hours, there would be a train every
90 seconds on this section of the system.
From Judiciary Square, another route
would run to and beneath Union Station.
North of the station, this line would
share the existing right-of-way of the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad to a station
at Woodside, Md., beyond Silver Spring,
in Montgomery County.
Moving to the other side of the city,
service to northwest Washington would
be provided by a line from Lafayette
Park uptown beneath Connecticut Avenue to Van Ness Street NW. At Connecticut Avenue and Columbia Road, another route would branch through the
densely populated Columbia Heights
section of the District to Georgia and
New Hampshire Avenues NW.
And finally, there would be a line west
assisted by some of the best and most
experienced transportation engineering
firms in the country. The estimates are
consistent with the actual cost experience
in other cities that have undertaken
rapid transit construction in recent
years.
Your committee's conclusion, commensurate with that of the other body,
is that the present estimate has been
carefully prepared in accordance with
accepted standards of professional engineering.
The administration recommendation,
and concurred in by your committee, is
that the cost of the system be financed
by a combination of direct grants by the
Federal and District of Columbia governments, and by the sale of bonds to be
repaid out of the revenue of the systemthe farebox-over a period of years.
The contributions would be $100 million by the Federal Government, $50 million by the District of Columbia government, and $281 million from the proceeds of revenue bonds.
In other words, $150 million, or approximately one-third of the cost, would
be provided by direct appropriations.
This, in turn, would be shared on a twothirds, one-third basis by the Federal
and District of Columbia governments.
The balance of the necessary funds,
$281 million, or about two-thirds of the
cost of the system, would be raised
through the sale of bonds and repaid out
of system revenues. Under the bill,
these bonds would be underwritten by
the Federal and District of Columbia
governments on the same two-thirds,
one-third basis recommended for the
grants.
The bill before us today authorizes the
grant portion of this overall plan. This
is needed to launch construction of the
system. Under the President's recommendations, the bill does not address
itself to the bond and bond-underwriting
features which will be the subject of
further legislation.
In his letter transmitting the program
to the Congress, the President pointed
out that the 1960 National Capital Transportation Agency Act authorized the negotiation of an interstate compact under
which the District would join with Maryland and Virginia in creating an organization to develop a transit system for
the entire region. The President expressed his hope that a suitable compact
organization can be brought into existence at an early date and be able to
assume the responsibility for the issunue will take about 5 minutes, regardless ance and sale of bonds needed to meet
of weather and surface traffic conditions. the remainder of the cost of the system.
By contrast, the same move by surface
The compact has been under negotiatransit today would take anywhere from tion over the past 4 years. Maryland
four to eight times as long, depending passed a compact bill earlier this year,
on traffic conditions and weather.
and the Virginia Legislature will conThe National Capital Transportation sider the matter early next year. ConAgency, with assistance of the best en- gress is expected to act subsequently for
gineering talent in the country, estimates the District.
that it will cost $431 million, exclusive
Mr. President, I submit this financing
of interest requirements, to construct plan looks to the transit rider and the
and equip this system. This estimate is fare box for the repayment of the major
described in great detail in a special sup- part of the investment, actually 651/2
plemental report on engineering plans percent. The Federal and District govand cost estimates transmitted to the ernments will share the balance on a
Congress when the President forwarded two-thirds, one-third basis.
the draft bill. The record shows that
Actually, this follows the pattern of
in developing its figures, the Agency was Federal assistance established by Confrom Lafayette Park beneath H Street
NW., and the Potomac River to the
Pentagon and the so-called Pentagon
City development area in Arlington
County, Va. This route would pass beneath the newly developed commercial
center in Rosslyn, Va.
The trains, representing the latest advances in rapid transit technology, would
travel at an average speed, including
station stops, of 34 miles per hour. This
is almost double the average system
speeds of other American rapid transit
systems today and three times as fast
as today's bus service to downtown Washington.
With this system, a trip from Capitol
Hill to the hotel area on Connecticut Ave-
21651
gress in the Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1964. Clearly, it seemed to your
committee, that if the Nation's Capital is
to have a subway system, a modern
transportation pattern, then it is squarely up to the Federal Government, the
largest employer and the largest landowner in the region, to take the first
step. This bill represents that commitment.
The question may be asked: What
about the Agency's claim that two-thirds
of the cost-$281 million plus interestcan be repaid out of the fare box?
This aspect of the program was examined carefully by our committee and by
the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Walter
J. McCarter, recently appointed Administrator of the Agency, who has spent
the last 43 years in the mass transportation business in major cities, supports
the Agency estimate.
The Agency's financial forecasts assume that by 1980, with this system in
operation, and under today's fare structure, 48 percent of the people traveling
to downtown Washington during rush
hours will ride public transit. By contrast, 40 percent of those trips are already being made on the present slowmoving, all-bus system. In other rail
rapid transit cities, from 55 to 90 percent
of them go by transit. I am satisfied
that NCTA has done its work carefully.
There is every reason to expect this system will repay two-thirds of the total
investment, and possibly more, considering population increase estimates, over
a period of some 40 years.
Mr. President, during the committee's
consideration of the bill, considerable
discussion was had about operation of the
new system. Under section 3(b)(3) of
the bill, the system would be operated not
by the National Capital Transportation
Agency but by private transit companies,
private railroads, or other private persons under contract with the Agency.
The bill provides that any operating contract must be formally advertised and
could be entered into only after negotiations with all interested and qualified
parties, including the transit companies
now operating in the National Capital
region.
The bill does not undertake to specify
the form of the arrangement to be used
in contracting-out the operation. It will
take about 7 years to construct and equip
the facilities. It would be unwise at this
date to attempt to delineate contractual
forms. When the time comes, the objective will be to obtain the best possible operator at a price that will be fair to both
the public and the contractor.
The contract approach to operations
achieves two basic ends. First, this sys-
tem will be a public financial undertaking-a public investment of $431 million.
The risks are being taken by the people
and the public investment must be safeguarded. Under the contractual approach, the National Capital Transportation Agency, or whatever public agency
is responsible, will be able to retain control over the economics of the operations,
fares, revenues, and expenses. These
controls will be essential to assure that
debt service requirements are met.
Second, the contract device enables
the Government to obtain the benefits of
21652
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
qualified, experienced private transit
management that would itself employ the
labor required for the operation. Under
the bill the transit workers would be
hired by the operating contractor, not by
the Government. The established pattern of labor-management relations in
the local transit industry would not be
disturbed. The Government's involvement in day to day operations could be
held to a minimum.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to devote a minute to the matter of how the
present privately owned bus systems fit
into this program, and what their prospects are with rail rapid transit hope-
fully on the horizon.
I want to say first that this bill in no
way changes the existing legal and operating rights of any of the bus companies in the region. In fact, the bill
contains a number of amendments included by the House, at the request of
the bus companies and the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Commission,
that specifically
preserve all existing
rights intact.
But what about the prospects of the
bus operations when rail services begin?
It has been suggested that the economic
health of the bus companies will be impaired by the rail system. Basically, the
question is: "Will there be enough passengers to support both a rail system and
the bus companies in Washington?"
The preponderance of the evidence
available to the Committee indicates that
there will be. In fact, there is every indication that the rail system will help
the bus operators, not harm them.
The record shows that during the past
10 years all of the local bus companies
combined have consistently carried between 165 and 170 million revenue passengers annually. D.C. Transit System,
Inc., has carried about 135 million each
year. In other words, bus usage has remained fairly stable over a long period.
At the same time, however, the population, or the potential transit market,
has skyrocketed by some 33 percent, but
the bus operators have not been able to
attract any significant part of this larger
market. More and more highways have
become more and more crowded and the
same downtown streets have become
more congested. Despite their best efforts to improve service, the bus companies have not been able to make their
service an attractive alternative to the
use of private automobiles.
The rail system will, however, bring a
new level of service to the total public
transit system. The new system has been
carefully planned to integrate with existing bus routes. It will include convenient
bus transfer facilities to its outlying stations, and at points where bus routes
intersect the rail lines at station
locations.
Studies show that by combining rail
and bus operations, through the coordination of operating schedules, the use of
joint-fare arrangements and universal
transfers, sharp reductions in travel
times will be achieved and large numbers
of new passengers will be attracted to
public transportation-both bus and rail.
I submit, the rail system cannot do the
transportation job alone. Bus companies
SENATE
must continue to provide downtown service in the traffic corridors not served by
the rail lines, and all local and crosstown service. An extensive areawide net-
work of bus lines will be needed to carry
the public to the rail stations. Growth
prospects of the National Capital region
are such that more, not less, bus service
will be required in the years ahead.
Based on the record, my conclusion is
that the interests of private bus companies are adequately safeguarded, and
that there is ample reason to expect that
they will continue to prosper after the
rail operations begin.
The committee recognized the necessity for coordination of bus and rail service in its report to the Senate and pledged
to maintain a continuing interest in that
coordination. Likewise, its report recognized the substantial private investments
in privately-owned bus companies and
again pledged to maintain a continuing
interest for the rights of private stockholders.
Mr. President, probably no other city
in the United States more urgently needs
a rail rapid transit system than Washington, D.C. Census Bureau figures show
that the Washington Metropolitan area
has the fastest rate of metropolitan
growth in the country with population
figures increasing 25 percent to more
than 2 million persons in the last 8 years.
By 1980, the population of the National
Capital region will reach 31/2 million or
more, an increase of more than 50 percent over 1960.
Statistics show that today motor vehicles moving in, through, and out of a
10-square mile area of downtown Washington every 24 hours, are the greatest of
any comparable area in any city of the
United States.
This morning between 7 and 9 a.m.,
80,000 automobiles moved into parking
spaces in downtown Washington. Tonight, between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m., the
same number will move out again. Today more than one million motor vehicles will cross District of Columbia
boundary lines to and from Maryland
and Virginia. Estimates are that, without some form of speedy public transportation, this city 20 years from today
will need 190,000 automobile parking
spaces in downtown Washington to meet
August 25, 1965
We have known for years that rail
rapid transit is the best solution devised
by transportation experts. It will take
7 years to complete this system and the
start has been delayed long enough.
There will be a million and a half more
people and something like a million more
automobiles by 1980. A rapid transit
system is needed here and now.
Mr. President, H.R. 4822 is a sound,
carefully considered bill. It is essential
legislation for the Capital City of this
country, and I strongly urge its passage.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BIBLE. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I join in the remarks made by the distinguished chairman of the District of Columbia Committee. I am glad that he emphasized
the fact that the bill has been reported
unanimously.
I wish to emphasize that the bill has
been cleared with the leadership on the
other side of the aisle; and they, likewise, approve this measure.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President,
there seems to be no opposition from any
substantial source to this District transit
bill, which will also benefit many of my
constituents in northern Virginia.
I note in the hearings that the distinguished Governor of Virginia, Albertis
S. Harrison, Jr., has no objection to the
proposal. The one amendment he suggested, to protect the jurisdiction of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Regulation Compact, appears to have
been taken care of.
The record also includes statements
from the Fairfax County Chamber of
Commerce and the Arlington County
Board indorsing the proposal.
The Fairfax organization made it clear
that it approves this project, which is
limited to a downtown Washington subway, only as a short-term beginning of a
solution to the mass transportation
problems of northern Virginia.
Under this bill, one leg of the District
subway will run from Lafayette Square,
under the Potomac, to a point near the
Pentagon.
But there is awaiting consideration by
the General Assembly of Virginia, probably next year, a compact already acted
upon by Maryland, under which future
demands-110,000 more than the city has extensions of a unified mass transit systoday.
tem for the entire area could be worked
Mr. President, the record speaks for dut.
itself. The bill before us today will give
Mr. Roy O. Chalk, who heads the D.C.
the Nation's Capital the kind of public Transit System, did not oppose the bill,
transportation system it needs. Wash- but asked for provisions to protect any
ington stands almost alone among the legal rights his company may have under
major capitals of the world in not having its charter if it suffers any damage.
a fast, efficient underground transit sysMr. Chalk testified that there is not
tem. Rail rapid transit is the most cost- sufficient business to sustain two systems
efficient way of moving large numbers and one or the other, most likely both,
of people into and out of the city and will suffer financial hardship.
Mr.
throughout downtown.
Chalk explained he meant that if the two
This system will take people and au- systems are not unified they must be
tomobiles off the city streets. It will in- competitive, and if they are competitive,
ject new life and vitality into the downsomeone is going to get hurt.
town area. It will increase land values
The District Committee, and the backalong its routes. It will do much to pre- ers of the plan, are proceeding on the
serve and enhance the beauty and dig- theory, however, that bus service must
nity of the parks and the monuments remain a key factor in the region's puband national shrines of this great Capital lic transportation and that the private
City.
bus companies serving the region must
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
remain healthy, prosperous, and a sound
investment.
At another point in the hearings Mr.
Chalk indicated that he Is not too pessimistic about the outlook, because he said:
First, we do not wish to be preempted and
deprived of the right to bid for the operation
of the proposed subway as a private enterprise.
Although the subway system is to be
owned by a Government agency, it will
be privately operated on a contract basis,
and there is nothing to prevent existing
bus companies from bidding to be the private operator.
The subway system will cost $431 mil-
lion, to be financed as follows:
Million
Federal contribution------------- $100
50
District government----------------Public sale of revenue bonds--------- 281
Walter J. McCarter, Administrator of
the National Capital Transportation
Agency, testified that this division of cost
follows the ground rules laid down by
Congress in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 for assisting cities
throughout the country.
Here is a general outline of the subway plan: There would be a main subway running under G Street from
Lafayette Square-17th Street-to Judi-
ciary Square-Fourth Street. This section would be common to all of the radial
routes.
One would run from Lafayette Square
under H Street and the Potomac River
to Rosslyn, and from there south to the
Pentagon.
One would go out from Lafayette
Square under Connecticut Avenue to
Van Ness Street. A spur from this line
would go east through Columbia Road
to Georgia and New Hampshire Avenues.
One would run east from Judiciary
Square to Union Station and then
through Silver Spring to Woodside, in
Montgomery County, Md.
Another spur would run from Judiciary Square to the Capitol Building, then
east to the District of Columbia Stadium
and on to Benning Road and Kenilworth
Avenue NE.
At the terminals of these subways provision would be made for automobile
parking, and for connection with buslines going farther into the suburbs.
The plan calls for trying to work out
transfer arrangements between the subway and buslines.
It seems a little ironic that within 5
years after Congress directed the local
company to get rid of streetcars on the
surface, we are planning to go back to
rail transportation underground.
The streetcars undoubtedly slowed
down automobile traffic, but they moved
people more comfortably than the buses
do.
Mr. Chalk told the District Committee
that when he was in Barcelona, Spain,
recently his chest "swelled with pride"
when he saw the beautiful District trolley cars that were sold to that city. He
added:
They looked beautiful and the people appeared to be very happy using them.
I have a feeling that some of the
Washingtonians trying to get on a
SENATE
crowded bus in the rush hour now would
also be happy to see them again.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the bill
to authorize construction of a rail rapid
transit system in Washington has my
wholehearted support. It was my pleasure to cosponsor this initial measure.
I wish at the outset to compliment the
chairman of our committee, Senator
BIBLE, for his long years of efforts on behalf of an improved transportation system for the National Capital. The original hearings held in 1959 to consider the
transportation problem were under his
leadership and he played the major role
in the passage of the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1960 which made
the planning of the rapid transit system
possible.
Our committee has reported the present bill unanimously. It has a degree of
support rarely seen with respect to District of Columbia legislation or national
legislation. It passed the House on a
voice vote and within the House District
Committee enjoyed the support of a majority of Republicans and Democrats
alike. It has been endorsed by representatives of over 400 civic groups in the
National Capital region.
Throughout the Nation, large urban
areas, including many smaller than
Washington, have been devoting great
effort to meeting the constantly rising
wave of congestion caused by increasing
reliance on the automobile. The product
of that congestion has been the decay
of the central areas of many of the cities
and now, one after another of these
cities has turned to rapid transit as a
means for easing congestion and revitalizing the downtown area. Washington has a very special position as the
National Capital and a very urgent need
for improved transportation. We have
800,000 automobiles in the region today
and it is estimated that there will be a
million more by 1980.
The population of the region is exploding. It is the second fastest growing Metropolitan area in the Nation and
the expectation is that its population will
have grown 75 percent between 1960 and
1980. Its downtown area is badly in
need of revitalization. And there is a
clear danger that if we do not move to
construct a rapid transit system, the
city will be paved over with more and
more highways.
Our committee carefully considered
the Administration's bill and the bill
that passed the House which included a
few amendments that in our view were
exceedingly helpful. We are satisfied
that the plan for the rapid transit system is an excellent one which gets the
greatest mileage with the least cost. We
are equally satisfied that the bill will
provide adequate protection for labor
and for the private bus companies that
operate in the region. Finally, the
financing formula is entirely equitable.
Two-thirds of the cost of the system are
to be met from revenues paid by the
users.
This means that the suburban commuters from Maryland and Virginia will
make a substantial contribution to the
cost of the system because their fares
will help meet operating costs and capital
21653
costs as well. The rem,ining one-third
of the cost of the system is to be shared
by the U.S. Government and the District
of Columbia government on the same
two-thirds, one-third formula that we
adopted in 1964 for the Urban Mass
Transportation Act providing aid to
cities throughout the Nation.
The new rapid transit system will be
a dramatic improvement in Washington's
public transportation. It will take only
5 minutes from here to Faragut Square,
near the White House, compared with the
20 minutes to one-half hour it takes to
make that trip by bus today. As much
as one-half hour will be saved on trips
from the suburban to the downtown area.
And we have assurance that the system will be attractive and modern in all
respects-a far cry from the system in
some of our cities constructed 50 years
ago. And it is estimated that it will
move 50,000 passengers into the city each
morning in the rush hour. These are
people who today congest our streets
either in automobiles or buses and the
system thus presents the one great hope
we have of solving the city's congestion
problem.
We are in the odd position of having
the one major National Capital in the
Western World which lacks a rapid
transit system. In my view, we should
have begun the task of constructing such
a system years ago. The time is long
overdue to begin. The administration's
bill will permit us to do so and I think it
deserves our vigorous support.
This system will be the nucleus of a
rail transit system embracing the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. A transit compact is envisioned,
uniting the mass transit efforts of the
entire National Capital region.
Now that the nucleus of the system is
underway, we must begin to plan for the
transit system of the future, to provide a
modern, balanced transportation system
for the National Capital region.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, the
pending legislation is of singular importance to the District of Columbia. It
represents an effort initiated by President Eisenhower, and carried on by two
succeeding Presidents, to bring effective
and efficient mass transportation to the
District of Columbia. As the beauty of
our Federal city and the quality of urban
living are threatened by strangulation
from automobiles, as the radius of our
metropolitan area ever lengthens to the
suburbs, and as more people find more
ways and means to go back and forth,
to and within the city, something must
be done to bring order, harmony, and
convenience out of disorder and disruption. In my opinion the bill before us
would do much to reduce or remove one
of the most persistent problems and
pressures of urbanization-immobility.
As the downtown core of our city and
the access routes to it become crowded
to overflowing with vehicular traffic the
economy of the city strangely suffers.
More and more employers, including the
Government, remove their facilities from
the central core of the city, not so much
for reasons of decentralizing in case of
a nuclear holocaust, but because the central city is no longer a convenient, attractive, and harmonious place to do
21654
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
August 25, 1965
my desire to pay tribute where tribute is his championing of this transit develdue to those parties in both bodies over opment program in the 88th and 89th
the years who have been stalwart cham- Congresses. His leadership and skill in
moving this bill through the House of
pions of rail rapid transit legislation.
My knowledge dates from 1954 when I Representatives demonstrate a very
came to the Senate. I was introduced to high level of real statesmanship. As
the Washington transportation and traf- was pointed out during the debate in the
fic problems immediately as a motorist. House, none of these transit lines runs
The next years, as I have said earlier, to Gastonia, N.C., and there are few
brought me into closer grips with the votes involved in this kind of a cause.
problems as they came before me in the The real motivation is an abiding concern for the welfare of the people of
Senate and before Committees.
Washington and for the preservation
Mr. President, it was my privilegealong with the distinguished junior Sen- and enhancement of our Nation's Capiator from Maryland [Mr. TYDnNGsl-to tal in the interest of all our citizens.
sponsor this bill in the Senate this year. The distinguished gentleman from North
This bill marks the culmination of more Carolina has set a good example for the
years not because of any particular afflu- than 10 years of effort-dating from the rest of us.
Also, on the House side, I want to
ence of this period but because the riders 84th Congress and extending through
needs could not possibly be served by the the administrations of four Presidents. commend the very able and distinguished
It is the outgrowth of a great deal of Republican Congressman from Minneexisting transportation.
My statement is not meant in criti- work on the part of many people both sota, the Honorable ANCHER NELSEN, for
cism of the existing systems. They are in and out of Government. The names his role in moving this legislation along.
Here again, none of the lines of this
for the most part able and efficient sys- are too numerous to mention all of them,
tems doing their best under difficult cir- but all who participated in the many transit system will run out to Minnesota
cumstances to serve a rapidly growing years of study that have gone before are or to think of it, to Reno or Las Vegas,
population. But, no matter what efforts to be commended. However, I do want Nev. Congressman NELSEN wrote, however, and I quote:
they make, the nature of the problem to mention a few whope long and devoted
prohibits a solution in terms of surface, interest in Washington's transportation
We and our people back home have a very
shared right-of-way systems only.
problems have contributed more than special interest in Washington. We expect
that
our National Capital will be second to
What this city needs and must have is ordinary support in the development of
none in its vitality, beauty, dignity, and
an exclusive right-of-way, rail surface this program.
manner
of development.
and subsurface system of transportation
First, I want to express my appreciable to carry multitudes of passengers ation to the members of our District of
This, I think epitomizes the statesat high speeds over the far reaches of Columbia Committee for their careful manlike approach that led to the overour city. The pending bill would pro- attention and diligence in considering whelming bipartisan support for this
vide such a system at a modest cost, and this bill and getting it reported to the legislation in the other body. The work
insure that such a system would be in- Senate. I want to single out my good of the gentleman from Minnesota contegrated into a cohesive unit with the friend and colleague, the distinguished tributed a great deal to the success of
other existing forms of transportation. senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. the bill in the House, and was a high
Each currently existing private operator MORSE] for special commendation. He order of true public service.
would retain his autonomy and his sys- served with me on the Joint Committee
I think the record should also note the
tem. He would benefit from the addi- on Washington Metropolitan Problems long, continuous efforts, interest, and
tion of this new rapid rail system by in- back in the 85th and 86th Congresses support of Congressman JOHN L. McMILcreased efficiencies in his own system as when we spent many days in public LAN, my good friend and the distinthe arterial and radial thoroughfares are hearings
numerous guished Chairman of the House District
and conducted
relieved of some of the pressure.
studies of the area's transportation prob- Committee, who served with me as Vice
Finally, Mr. President, the matter lems. Throughout his long service on Chairman of the Joint Committee on
which gives me great satisfaction in this the District Committee he has demon- Washington Metropolitan Problems of
legislation is the fact that it is a bi- strated his deep concern for the welfare the 85th and 86th Congresses, and our
partisan measure-bipartisan on this side of the people of Washington. He has distinguished colleagues, Congressmen
of the Hill and bipartisan in the House. given unstintingly of his time and great HOWARD W. SaITH and JOEL T. BROYIn fact, one of its most distinguished ability over many years in the Congress' HILL of Virginia, both of whom are memsupporters was the able ranking minority search for a sound, practicable solution bers of the joint committee and both of
member of the House District Commit- to the transit problems of the National whom as longtime members of the House
tee, the Honorable ANCHER NELSEN with- Capitalregion.
committee have for many years actively
out whose support this legislation would
My deep appreciation goes to the other supported the formulation of a sound,
not have been possible. I compliment members of my committee, the junior practicable transit development prohim for his efforts.
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Mc- gram.
So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption INTYRE]; the junior Senator from New
The tremendously effective support
of this bill and its swift transmittal to York [Mr. KENNEDY] who was particu- the President lent to the rapid transit
the President. We cannot and ought larly helpful in moving this legislation cause this year cannot be praised too
not to wait another minute-let us pro- into the unanimity of general support much. His aids and Budget Bureau officeed with the construction of this system. it received both in the committee and be- cials were effective.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill is fore the Senate; and the junior Senator
Staff personnel of the National Capital
open to amendment. If there be no from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], whose Transportation Agency, Administrator
amendment to be proposed, the question interest and attentiveness were invalu- Walter J. McCarter, and others were
is on the third reading of the bill.
able this year.
outstanding.
The bill (HR. 4822) was ordered to a
And, finally, commendation should
The close examination of the bill at
third reading, was read the third time, hearings as supplied by the junior Sena- also go to our District Committee staff
and passed.
tor from Colorado [Mr. DOMrIICK] was for its fine contribution in analyzing and
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I move to
most helpful, as was the support pro- preparing the material for committee
reconsider the vote by which the bill was vided by the junior Senator from Ver- consideration.
passed.
As I have said before, this is a great
mont [Mr. PROTrY] in getting unaniday for Washington. It will be a greater
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I mous committee approval.
I also want to single out some of our day when the transit cars roll down the
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was colleagues in the other body. Repre- subway tracks in 1971.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
agreed to.
sentative BASIL L. WHITENER, the disMr. BIBLE. Mr. President, before the tinguished gentleman from North Caro- ask unanimous consent to have printed
Senate proceeds to other business, it is lina, deserves special commendation for in the RECORD an excerpt from the report
business. When urban claustrophobia
sets in, places of business and residents
move out. Many of the problems related
to the urban character of our city can
be traced in part to the immobility of the
masses within the city.
How many of our unemployed remain
so because they cannot afford to travel
to available job openings? How many
man-hours are lost because existing
forms of transportation are so slow? In
fact, how many transit revenue dollars
are lost because the existing forms of
transportation are prohibited from doing
a swift and efficient job by the weight of
Transit
numbers they must serve?
ridership hr ' decreased over the past few
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
section, and service every 3 minutes would
be provided throughout the working day on
most of the radial lines. A rapid transit
There being no objection, the excerpt trip from Capitol Hill to Connecticut Avewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD, nue and K Street NW. would take 5 minutes,
as follows:
and to the hotel area on upper Connecticut
Avenue, 8 minutes. On the proposed system,
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF BILL
a trip between Capitol Hill and the PentaThe purpose of this bill, unanimously approved by your committee, Is to authorize gon would take only 11 minutes, and a half
the establishment in the National Capital hour or more would be saved on trips from
upper Northwest Washington, Silver Spring,
region of a system of rail rapid transit lines
and related facilities, in furtherance of the Md., and Falls Church, Va., on the one hand
objectives of the National Capital Transpor- and the Capitol on the other.
tation Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-669, apFINANCIAL STRUCTURE
proved July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 537).
The estimated capital investment required
Over the past years, your committee has for the construction of this system is $431
become increasingly concerned over the criti- million, exclusive of interest requirements,
cal transportation problems of the National
and would be financed as follows:
Capital region. In its report accompanying
Million
the 1960 act (Rept. No. 1631, 86th Cong.)
Federal contribution----------------.
$100
your committee noted that since World War
District of Columbia contribution-....
50
II, Washington, like every other large Ameri- Public sale of revenue bonds---------281
can city, has been suffering from steadily
The system would be designed and conworsening traffic congestion. The report
stated that-"a new system of high-speed, structed by private engineering firms under
contract with the Federal Government.
express transit service is esesntial to preThe bill requires that the system shall be
serve the District of Columbia and its environs as a good place to live and do busi- operated by private transit companies, railness, and as a beautiful and dignified Capital roads, or other private parties under contracts with the Agency. The Federal GovCity of our great Nation."
That was 5 years ago. Since then growth ernment would retain control over essential
has occurred at a spectacular rate and the matters such as fares and safety standards
but would not be involved in day to day opregion is now the fastest growing metropolierations.
tan area in the United States. By 1980, its
population is expected to increase by more
The bill accords transit labor in the Nathan 50 percent over 1960. Automobile regtional Capital region the same protective
istrations in the region are expected to be provisions given transit workers in other
1 million greater than they are today. Your
cities under the Urban Mass Transportation
committee is convinced that attractive, high- Act of 1964. Operating personnel would be
speed, high-capacity, exclusive right-of-way
employees of the private operator and not
rapid transit facilities are urgently needed
Federal employees.
today, and that the need will become imThe bill contains provisions preserving the
perative in the years ahead.
rights of the bus companies presently servThe routes and related facilities of the rail ing the region. Furthermore, the companies
rapid transit system authorized by this bill will continue to be regulated by the Washare described in some detail elsewhere in
ington Metropolitan Area Transit Commisthis report and even more fully in reports sion which has a statutory obligation to asof the National Capital Transportation sure a reasonable rate of return.
Agency entitled "Rail Rapid Transit for the
OPERATION TIMETABLE
Nation's Capital, January 1965" (app. A
Your committee was advised that the
hereto) and "Engineering Plans and Cost
Estimates, Engineering Supplement Transit Agency's 5- to 7-year timetable for construction establishes 1972 as the target date for
Development Program, 1965."
Briefly, the system would consist of 24.9 completion of the proposed rail system. Actually, representatives of the Agency testimiles of double track rail transit lines with
29 stations. Approximately one-half of the fied that a portion of the system would be
open for public use in 1971 and that the enmileage (13.1 miles) would be in subway,
7.5 miles would occupy existing railroad tire system would be fully open to the public
right-of-way, and the balance would utilize in 1972.
other exclusive rights-of-way. Bus transfer
BACKGROUNDOF THE LEGISLATION
facilities and parking spaces for some 12,000
This legislation comes before the Congress
automobiles would be provided at the outlyagainst a background of more than a decade
ing stations on the system.
of surveys, studies, and recommendations
Of the 29 stations which are contemplated dealing with the increasingly serious transfor the system, the National Capital Transportation problems of the National Capital
portation Agency proposes that one would
region. Of the broad range of matters combe within the grounds of the U.S. Capitol.
ing before your committee over the years,
The bill expressly provides "(Sec. (3) (b) none has occupied
more time or been more
(1))" that no portion of the transit line or closely examined than that of the urgent need
facilities authorized by the act shall be conCapital for a rail rapid
National
of
our
structed within the Capitol grounds except
system.
upon the approval of the Commission for transit
As has already been noted, the National
the Extension of the U.S. Capitol.
Capital region is now the fastest growing
Service on the system would be provided
metropolitan area in the United States. In
by fast, modern, attractively designed, air2 milconditioned trains. Downtown, the subway 1960, its population was approximately
to reach 3.5 million by
would run between Lafayette Park on the lion. It is expected
1980 and 5 million by the year 2000. In addiwest and Judiciary Square on the east,
millions of our citizens from
largely beneath G Street. From this down- tion, many
the Nation visit the National
throughout
town line, radial lines would serve Capitol
Capital each year, and even larger numbers
Hill and the area east to the District of Coexpected to do so in the future.
are
year
each
lumbia Stadium; Union Station and Montgomery County, Md., via the B. & O. Railroad There are now some 800,000 motor vehicles
right-of-way; the upper Connecticut Avenue registered in the National Capital region. It
and Columbia Heights sections of Northwest is estimated that there will be 1 million more
Washington; and suburban Virginia by by 1980.
This tremendous growth has been accommeans of a line under the Potomac River to
Rosslyn and the Pentagon in Arlington panied by increasingly serious transportation
County.
problems. Street traffic within the regionDuring rush hours there would be a train especially during the rush hours-has beevery 90 seconds on the downtown G Street come more and more congested. Due to the
(No. 637), explaining the purposes of the
bill.
21655
slow traveltime on public transportation
systems, more and more people in the area
have resorted to private transportation.
Recognizing the seriousness of this problem, and realizing that it involves the welfare of the citizens of the District of Columbia, the efficiency of operation of the
National Government, and the national interest in protecting and enhancing the beauty, dignity, and livability of the National
Capital, your committee and the Congress
have searched long and carefully for a solution that will best serve both the local
welfare and the national interest. A resume
of the many actions taken by the Congress
to define and meet the transportation problem from 1952 to 1962 entitled "Mass Transportation Proposals for the District of Columbia" is contained in appendix B of this
report.
The 1959 plan
The National Capital Planning Act of 1952
(66 Stat. 781) created the National Capital
Planning Commission to prepare and adopt
a comprehensive, consistent, and coordinated
development plan for the National Capital,
including
recommendations
concerning
transportation requirements.
The Second Supplemental Appropriation
Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 28) made available
$200,000 for "a survey of the present and
future mass transportation needs of the
National Capital region," to be conducted
jointly by the National Capital Planning
Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. Later appropriations brought the total to $460,000.
This
survey was one of the most exhaustive
studies of transportation needs ever made
in any American city. The results were published in 1959 as the "Mass Transportation
Survey Report," and it culminated in the
adoption by the two planning agencies of a
"Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region," which was forwarded to the
Congress by President Eisenhower in July
1959.
Your committee has been deeply involved
in the development of the planning and implementation stages of efforts to bring about
an efficient, balanced transportation system
for the National Capital region since 1957.
While the mass transportation survey was
being conducted, the Congress created the
Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems (H. Con. Res. 172, 85th Cong.),
under the chairmanship of Senator ALAN
BIBLE, of Nevada, chairman of the Senate
District Committee, with Senator WAYNE
MORSE, Of Oregon, and former Senator J.
Glenn Beall, of Maryland, as the other representatives of the Senate, and including
three members of the House Committee on
the District of Columbia. Under the joint
committee's auspices, studies were made of
a broad range of area problems bearing on
transportation requirements, and in May and
June 1958 the joint committee conducted 3
days of public hearings on transportation
problems.
In November 1959, the joint committee
held 6 days of public hearings on the mass
transportation survey report and plan prepared by the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional
Planning Council.
In May 1960, the joint committee held 2
days of public hearings on the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, the legislation that created the National Capital
Transportation Agency to continue the
work begun by the 1959 transportation survey and to prepare a transit development
program for the region.
Thus, during the period 1958-60, the transportation problems of the Washington metropolitan area were extensively and thoroughly examined by the joint committee.
One of the central conclusions of the 1959
mass transportation survey and plan was
that while an expanded system of highways
21656
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
and expressways is needed to handle present
and future motor traffic for this region, highway facilities alone cannot solve the area's
traffc problems, and a modern rapid transit
system is required. Analysis of the 1959 plan
and the public reaction to it convinced the
joint committee that creation of a network
of rail rapid transit lines operating on exclusive rights-of-way is an essential element
of the overall transportation requirements
of the region. However, the data, including
cost and revenue estimates underlying the
1959 plan, were not sufficiently detailed to
permit the joint committee to recommend
construction of new transit facilities at that
time. The 1959 plan had pointed the way,
but before construction of new transit facilities could warrant authorization, a detailed plan for action had to be formulatedone providing the Congress a basis for action.
Accordingly, your committee reported, and
the Congress passed the 1960 act (40 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) establishing the National Capital
Transportation Agency. That act carefully
outlined the Agency's mission. Among other
things, the act directed1. That special attention be given to early
development of a subway system in downtown Washington serving the principal employment centers in the District and its immediate environs, and capable of being extended to serve other parts of the region;
2. That consideration be given to the use
of existing railroad lines and to the development of express transit lines in conjunction
with major highways;
3. That a plan for financing the transit
development program be prepared, providing
as far as possible for the payment of all costs
by the persons using or benefiting from the
facilities, and for equitable sharing of any
remaining cost among the Federal, State, and
local governments;
4. That the Agency evaluate the 1959
transportation plan, and conduct such additional studies as might be necessary because
of changed conditions and the response of
Government agencies and the public to that
plan;
5. That not later than November 1, 1962,
the Agency submit to the President for
transmittal to the Congress, recommendations for organization and financial arrangements for transportation in the region.
The 1962 plan
Following more than 2 years of additional
study, on November 1, 1962, the National
Capital Transportation Agency, in accordance
with section 204(g) of the 1960 act, submitted to the President a report entitled
"Recommendations for Transportation in the
National Capital Region: Finance and Organization." In January 1963, the Agency
published six appendixes to its report describing the manner in which its work was
done and containing detailed data in support of the Agency's recommendations.
The Agency's 1962 report recommended the
establishment of a regional mass transportation system composed of a subway distribution system in downtown Washington, a network of radial rail rapid transit and commuter railroad lines serving the suburban
communities outside the District, and a system of express and feeder bus services. The
program envisaged construction of the proposed rapid rail system over a 10-year period.
Unlike the 1959 plan, NCTA's program included specific route and station locations,
recommendations as to equipment, preliminary engineering studies of selected routes,
more detailed estimates of construction costs,
traffic revenues, and operating expenses, and
recommendations respecting organization for
transportation in the region and for financing the cost of the proposed facilities.
On May 27, 1963, President Kennedy forwarded the Agency's report to the 88th Con-
SENATE
gress, together with recommended legislation to authorize construction of the proposed transportation facilities.
During July 1963, Subcommittee No. 6 of
the House Committee on the District of Columbia held 7 days of public hearings on legislation to authorize prosecution of the
transit development program. It heard the
testimony of 54 witnesses representing Federal agencies, the State and local governments of the National Capital region, planning agencies, civic and business organizations, private transportation companies,
union officials representing labor generally
and transit employees in particular, and individual citizens.
Numerous letters and
other statements received from citizens and
organizations having an interest in the
transportation problems of the region are included in the printed record of those hearings.
The "bobtailed" system
Although satisfied that the areawide transit development program recommended in the
Agency's 1962 report was soundly conceived,
the House committee recognized that the proposed program was based upon estimates for
a distant year-1980-and that the pattern of
regional development may proceed in a fashion somewhat different from that envisaged
by that program. Accordingly, that committee did not believe it to be either desirable or
necessary to commit the Federal Government
to the full areawide network of transit facilities proposed in 1962. (H. Rept. No. 1005,
88th Cong., 1st sess.)
In its report, the House committee recognized that the most critical feature of the
area transportation problem today is traffic
congestion within the District of Columbia-and particularly in downtown Washington. Convinced, however, that a basic
rail rapid transit system operating in subways within the District is urgently needed,
a substitute bill, H.R. 8929, was introduced,
providing for the construction of such a
limited District of Columbia system. The
substitute was reviewed and approved by
the Bureau of the Budget, the District of
Columbia, numerous other agencies of the
Federal and local Governments of the region,
and by many individuals and organizations
interested in the transportation problems of
the region.
H.R. 8929 was reported out by the House
committee on December 6, 1963 (H. Rept.
1005, 88th Cong., 1st sess.). The bill was considered by the House on December 9, 1963, and
was referred back to committee for further
study.
The present bill, H.R. 4822, was introduced
in the 89th Congress on February 10, 1965,
was the subject of 5 days of hearings before
Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee
on the District of Columbia in February and
March of this year, and was overwhelmingly
approved by the House on July 15, 1965.
The present bill would authorize the National Capital Transportation Agency to design, engineer, construct, equip, and to take
such other actions authorized in the bill
necessary to provide for the establishment of
a system of rail rapid transit lines and related facilities for the mass transportation of
persons within the District of Columbia and
between the District and points in Montgomery County, Md., and Arlington County,
Va.
The proposed rapid rail system would be
limited largely to the District of Columbia.
However, there would be one extension into
Arlington County, Va., to serve the heavy
Fereral employment concentration at the
Pentagon, and a short extension into Montgomery County, Md., in order to reach a
suitable terminal location. The total system would be 24.9 miles long, with double
track throughout, and would include 29 sta-
August 25, 1965
tions. Approximately one-half (13.1 miles)
would be in subway, 7.5 miles would utilize a
portion of existing railroad rights-of-way,
and the balance would occupy other exclusive
rights-of-way.
ACTUAL ROUTES
The proposed rail system would actually
consist of the following:
1. A downtown subway line between
Lafayette Park on the west and Judiciary
Square on the east, largely beneath G Street,
with major stations at 12th and G Streets
NW, 8th and G Streets NW., and Judiciary
Square. This section would be common to
all of the radial routes of the system.
2. A Pentagon route running west from
Lafayette Park in the alinement of H Street
NW., then beneath the Potomac River to
Rosslyn, Va., and from there south to the
Pentagon and to a terminal within or near
the so-called Pentagon City development
area in Arlington County.
3. A Connecticut Avenue route running
northwest from Lafayette Park beneath
Connecticut Avenue to a point near Van Ness
Street NW.
4. A Columbia Heights route branching
from the Connecticut Avenue route at Columbia Road NW., and running to the
vicinity of Georgia and New Hampshire
Avenues NW.
5. A B. & O. route running east from Judiciary Square beneath Union Station and on
the right-of-way of the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad, to Woodside in Montgomery County, Md.
6. A Benning route running from Judiciary
Square to the U.S. Capital and then to the
District of Columbia Stadium and a terminal and maintenance base in the vicinity of
Benning Road and Kenilworth Avenue NE.
The system is described in detail in the
aforementioned reports of the Agency.
The outlying stations would include bus
transfer facilities and parking spaces for
approximately 12,000 automobiles.
The establishment of the system authorized by the bill would be subject to the provisions of the National Capital Transportation
Act of 1960 (40 U.S.C. et seq.) and would be
carried out substantially in accordance with
the schedules and plans contained in the
Agency's aforementioned reports.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I am
very gratified by the action taken by the
Senate this afternoon in authorizing
construction of a rail rapid transit system for the District of Columbia and
the metropolitan area.
The action taken by the House and
Senate in passing the rail rapid transit
system bill will prove to be a highly
significant factor in the sound economic
development of this area. I am most
hopeful that appropriations for this very
important project will be made available
in this session of Congress so that detailed planning and construction can
take place without further delay.
As a member of the Senate Committee
on the District of Columbia, I have
worked very closely with the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr.
BIBLE] on transportation problems in
the Nation's Capital. My very good
friend from Nevada and I served together on the Joint Committee on WashThis
ington-Metropolitan Problems.
committee held extensive hearings in
1958 and 1959 on transportation problems and related subjects pertaining to
the Washington, D.C., area. Those
hearings convinced me that a well-balanced transportation program is urgent-
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-
ly needed to solve the transportation
problems facing this area at the earliest
possible time.
Out of the hearings of 1958 and 1959
came the enactment of the National
Capital Transportation Act of 1960. In
this act, the Congress authorized the
creation of the National Capital Transportation Agency to explore the problem
in depth and provide the Congress and
the community with recommendations
for improvement. The National Capital
Transportation Agency has presented to
the Congress its recommendation for a
rail rapid transit system for the District
of Columbia. Extensive hearings were
held by the House Committee on the District of Columbia and briefer hearings
by the Senate District of Columbia Committee on the Agency's rail rapid transit
system proposal.
After considering the testimony presented at the hearings, I became convinced that we must go forward at this
time to develop a rail rapid transit system to meet the urgent transportation
needs of this area. As serious as the
traffic problems are today, they will be
much worse by the time the subway system becomes operational.
This legislation received very careful
study and has received widespread support within the various agencies of the
Federal and local government, as well as
the community. I know of very few
pieces of important legislation which
have received more widespread support
than this bill. So, as a member of the
Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, and one closely associated with
transportation problems of this area for
a good many years, I am glad to endorse
the enactment of the bill.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has passed the
bill authorizing a rail rapid transit system for the District of Columbia. The
battle to get this bill through the Congress has been long and frustrating and
I am glad that we are now successful.
While there is reason to be elated, our
sense of accomplishment must be tempered by the knowledge that the program will not be fully implemented until
its financing has been provided for.
The bill provides that in addition to
the sale of revenue bonds to cover $281
million of the $431 million cost, it will
be necessary to appropriate $100 million
from the Federal Treasury and permit
the District to exceed its borrowing authority by $50 million to cover the remainder of the cost.
In other words, because Congress controls the purse strings of the District as
well as its general affairs, it will be necessary to appropriate a total of $150
million to complete the financing of this
project.
This appropriation then is a potential
target-and a large target-for those
who would seek to undermine the program by denying it necessary funds.
Only by fully funding the program will we
see the successful development of a rail
rapid transit system for the District of
Columbia. This is no time to relax our
efforts;
21657
SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,
ETC.
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the
Senate the following communication and
letters, which were referred as indicated:
REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN TO ASSIST IN THE
RECOVERY OF ALASKA FOLLOWING THE EARTHQUAKE
A communication from the President of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on actions taken by five Federal departments and agencies to assist in
the recovery of Alaska following the earthquake of March 27, 1964, for the 6-month
period ended June 30, 1965 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
PAYMENT BY LOCALAGENCIES OF PART OF COSTS
OF FURNISHING CERTAIN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SOIL CONSERVATION ACT OF
1935
A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture,
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
to provide for the payment by soil and water
conservation districts and other State and
local agencies and farmers, ranchers, and
other landowners and operators of part of
the Federal costs of furnishing certain technical assistance under the Soil Conservation
Act of 1935, and for other purposes (with an
accompanying paper); to the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry.
REPORT ON SHIPMENTS INSURED BY THE
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Export-Import Bank of Washington, Washington, D C., reporting, pursuant to law, on shipments to Yugoslavia insured by the Foreign
Credit Insurance Association and the ExportImport Bank, under the short term export
credit insurance program, for the month of
July 1965; to the Committee on Appropriations.
REPORT ON APPROVALOF LOAN TO THE BIG
RIVERS RURAL ELECTBIC COOPERATIVE
CORP.
A letter from the Acting Administrator,
Rural Electrification Administration, Department of Agriculture, reporting, pursuant to
law, on the approval of a loan to the Big
Rivers Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., of
Henderson, Ky., in the amount of $3,352,000,
for the financing of certain transmission
facilities (with accompanying papers); to the
Committee on Appropriations.
REPORT ON ACTUAL PROCUREMENT RECEIPTS
FOR MEDICAL STOCKPILE OF CIVIL DEFENSE
EMERGENCY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT PURPOSES
A letter from the Under Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, reporting,
pursuant to law, the actual procurement receipts for medical stockpile of civil defense
emergency supplies and equipment purposes, for the quarter ended June 30, 1965; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL GRADE CHROMITS
FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL STOCKPILE
A letter from the Administrator, General
Services Administration, Washington, D.C.,
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
to authorze the disposal of chemical grade
chromite from the supplemental stockpile
(with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Armed Services.
DISPOSAL OF COLEsMANITE FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL STOCKPILE
A letter from the Administrator, General
Services Administration, Washington, D.C.,
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
to authorize the disposal of colemanite from
the supplemental stockpile (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on ArmedServices.
REPORT ON
REVIEW
or VOLUNTARY
AGREE-
MENTS AND PROGRAMS
A letter from the Attorney General, trans.
mitting, pursuant to law, a report on review of voluntary agreements and programs,
as of August 9, 1965 (with an accompanying
report); to the Committee on Banking and
Currency.
REPORT ON ACTIVITES AND TRANSACTIONS
UNDER THE MERCHANT SHIP SALES ACT OF
1946
A letter from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on
activities and transactions under the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, for quarterly
period ended June 30, 1965 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on
Commerce.
AMENDMENT
OF ACT
TO PROVIDE
FOR
THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC CREMATORIUM
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A letter from the President, Board of
Commissioners, District of Columbia, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to
amend an act to provide for the establishment of a public crematorium in the District of Columbia (with an accompanying
paper); to the Committee on the District
of Columbia.
To GIVE EFFECT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR FACILITATING THE INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION
OF VISUAL AND AUDITORY MATERIALS OF AN
EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL
CHARACTER
A letter from the Acting Director, U.S. Information Agency, Vashington, D.C., transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to
give effect to the Agreement for Facilitating
the International Circulation of Visual and
Auditory Materials of an Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Character, approved at
Beirut in 1948 (with accompanying papers);
to thi Committee on Finance.
REPORT OF U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL
AFFAIRS
A letter from the Chairman, U.S. Advisory
Commission on International Educational
and Cultural Affairs, Washington, D.C.,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of
that Commission, for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1965 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
REPORT ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH GRANTS
A letter from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on
scientific research grints, for the fiscal year
1965 (with an accompanying report); to the
Committee on Government Operations.
REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALKS
BUILDING
GOVERNMENT-OWNED
AROUND
SITES AND INSTALLATIONS
A letter from the Administrator, General
Services Administration, Washington, D.C.,
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
to provide for the repair and replacement of
sidewalks around Government-owned building sites and installations (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Government Operations.
REPORTS OF ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL
A letter from the Acting Comptroller General, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on questionable need for purchase of commercial computer time by the Air Force
Cambridge Research Laboratories, Bedford,
Mass., Department of the Air Force, dated
August 1965 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government
Operations.
A letter from the Acting Comptroller General, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on potential savings by reducing the packing
21658
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
requirements for mattresses shipped within sular convention with the Union of Soviet
the United States, Department of Defense, Socialist Republics, which was referred
dated August 1965 (with an accompanying to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
report); to the Committee on Government
Operations.
A letter from the Acting Comptroller GenREPORTS OF COMMITTEES
eral, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
The following reports of committees
on retention of land excess to needs at hospitals and domiciliaries. Veterans' Adminis- were submitted:
(with an
tration, dated August 1965
By Mr. PELL, from the Committee on Labor
accompanying report); to the Committee on and Public Welfare, with amendments:
Government Operations.
H.R. 3157. An act to amend the Railroad
A letter from the Acting Comptroller Gen- Retirement Act of 1937 to eliminate the proeral, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report visions which reduce the annuities of the
on need for increased use of quarters in Air
spouses of retired employees by the amount
Force-leased hotels by military personnel on of certain monthly benefits, to amend the
official duty in London, England, Department
Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and for other
of Defense, dated August 1965 (with an acpurposes (Rept. No. 645).
companying report); to the Committee on
By Mr. HOLLAND, from the Committee on
Government Operations.
Agriculture and Forestry, without amendA letter from the Acting Comptroller Gen- ment:
eral, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
S. 2092. A bill to amend the Agricultural
on additional costs incurred for farm storage Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to permit
of grain, Commodity Credit Corporation, De- marketing orders applicable to celery, sweet
partment of Agriculture, dated August 1965 corn, limes, or avocados to provide for paid
(with an accompanying report); to the Com- advertising (Rept. No. 648).
mittee on Government Operations.
By Mr. FULBRIGHT, from the Committee
A letter from the Acting Comptroller Gen- on Foreign Relations, with an adverse
eral, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report report:
on increased Federal participation resulting
H. Con. Res. 285. Concurrent resolution to
from overallocation of public facility costs allow the showing in the United States of
to five urban renewal projects in Hawaii and the U.S. Information Agency film "John F.
California, Urban Renewal Administration, Kennedy-Years of Lightning, Day of Drums"
Housing and Home Finance Agency, dated
(Rept. No. 646).
August 1965 (with an accompanying report);
to the Committee on Government Operations.
REPORT ON TORT CLAIMS PAID BY ATOMIC
SHOWING IN THE UNITED STATES
ENERGY COMMISSION
OF USIA FILM "JOHN F. KENA letter from the General Manager, U.S.
OF
LIGHTNING,
NEDY-YEARS
Atomic Energy Commission, Washington,
DAY OF DRUMS"-REPORT OF A
D.C., transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
COMMITTEE (S. REPT. NO. 647)
on tort claims paid by that Commission, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1965 (with an
Mr. FULBRIGHT, from the Commitaccompanying report); to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
REPORT ON TORT CLAIMS PAID BY THE
tee on Foreign Relations, reported an
original joint resolution (S.J. Res. 106)
to allow the showing in the United States
PEACE CORPS
of the U.S. Information Agency film
A letter from the Director, Peace Corps,
"John F. Kennedy-Years of Lightning,
Washington, D.C., transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on tort claims paid by that Day of Drums," and submitted a report
thereon; which report was ordered to be
agency, during fiscal year 1965 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on printed, and the joint resolution was
the Judiciary.
read twice by its title, and placed on the
calendar.
REPORT ON TORT CLAIMS PAID BY THE
AmRFORCE
A letter from the Secretary of the Air Force,
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on
INTRODUCED
tort claims paid by that Department, for the
fiscal year 1965 (with an accompanying reBills and joint resolutions were introport); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
duced, read the first time, and, by unaniREPORT ON CLAIMS PAID UNDER MILITARY mous consent, the second time, and
PERSONNEL CLAIMS ACT
referred as follows:
A letter from the Secretary of the Air Force,
By Mr. INOUYE:
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on
S.2449. A bill to amend title II of the
claims paid under the Military Personnel
Social Security Act to provide that, for beneClaims Act, for the fiscal year 1965 (with an
computation purposes, a man's insured
accompanying report); to the Committee on fit
status and average monthly wage will be
the Judiciary.
figured on the basis of an age-62 cutoff (the
REPORT ON APPROVALOF PETITIONS ACCORDING same as is presently done in the case of
FIRST PREFERENCE CLASSIFICATION
women); to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SCOTT:
A letter from the Commissioner, Immigra5. 2450. A bill for the relief of Elsian
tion and Naturalization Service, Department
of Justice, reporting, pursuant to law, on the Thomas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HILL:
approval of petitions according first preference classification to certain aliens (with ac.2451. A bill for the relief of Margaret
companying papers); to the Committee on
Lee Well; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the Judiciary.
By Mr. NELSON:
S. 2452. A bill for the relief of the widow
and children of Eldor H. Pofahl; to the ComRESOLUTION OF THE CONSERVAmittee on Post Office and Civil Service.
(See the-remarks of Mr. NELSON when he
TIVE CLUB OF NEW YORK
introduced the above bill, which appear
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the under a separate heading.)
Senate a resolution adopted by the ConBy Mr. CASE:
servative Club of Yonkers, N.Y., protestS. 2453. A bill for the relief of Lee Kwan
ing against the ratification of the con- Tee; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
August 25, 1965
By Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts:
S. 2454. A bill to authorize liens of value of
secured equipment used solely for navigation
or fishing on a vessel of the United States
and to permit the recording of such liens;
to the Committee on Commerce.
(See the remarks of Mr. KENNEDY Of
Massachusetts when he introduced the above
bill, which appear under a separate heading.)
By Mr. DIRKSEN:
S.2455. A bill to provide for the location
of the U.S. Patent Office in the State of Ilinois; to the Committee on Public Works.
By Mr. HART:
S. 2456. A bill to provide for certain payments to be made with respect to property
acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture for
National Forest purposes in Gogebic County,
Mich., and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
(See the remarks of Mr. HART when he introduced the above bill, which appear under
a separate heading.)
By Mr. McCLELLAN (by request) :
S.J. Res. 105. Joint resolution to authorize
the Administrator of General Services to enter into an agreement with the University of
Texas for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Archival Depository, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Government
Operations.
(See the remarks of Mr. MCCLELLAN when
he introduced the above joint resolution,
which appear under a separate heading.)
By Mr. FULBRIGHT:
S.J. Res. 106. Joint resolution to allow the
showing in the United States of the U.S.
Information Agency film "John F. KennedyYears of Lightning, Day of Drums"; placed
on the calendar.
(See the reference to the above joint resolution when reported by Mr. FULBRIGHT, from
the Committee on Foreign Relations, which
appears under the heading "Reports of Committees.")
CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING OF
THE REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTY-SECOND
BIENNIAL MEETING OF THE CONVENTION OF AMERICAN INSTRUCTORS OF THE DEAF AS A SENATE
DOCUMENT
Mr. HART (for himself and Mr.
McNAMARA) submitted the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 53);
which was referred to the Committee on
Rules and Administration:
S. CON. RES. 53
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the report of
the proceedings of the forty-second biennial
meeting of the Convention of American
Instructors of the Deaf, held in Flint, Michigan, June 21-25, 1965, be printed with illustrations as a Senate document, and that five
thousand additional copies be printed and
bound for the use of the Joint Committee on
Printing.
ELDOR H. POFAHL
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I introduce a bill, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be referred to the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. It is a bill for special relief under the Civil Service Retirement Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUSSELL Of South Carolina in the chair).
Is there objection?
Mr. President, I
Mr. LAUSCHE.
should like to ask a question. What is
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENA .TE
the purpose of the bill? Is it now being
referred to a committee to which it
would not be referred under the rules?
What is the reason for the requested
action?
Mr. NELSON. A member of my staff
placement and repair was extended by
the Government where financial assistance was not otherwise available on reasonable terms. In addition, various
suppliers have provided modern equip-
checked, and told me that that com-
forms of security as leases, conditional
sales contracts, chattel mortgages, and
other means. Examples of the equipment are electronic depth sounders and
radars.
Some of these suppliers in Massachusetts have indicated to me that there is
a growing reluctance to furnish this
equipment because they have not been
permitted to record with the collector of
customs any notice of their claim and
description of their security. In certain
mittee was the appropriate committee to
consider the bill, but I would have to ask
unanimous consent that it be referred
to that committee. I did not check on
the technicality involved.
The bill would provide special relief
for a postal employee who did not have
adequate time under the Civil Service
Act to draw a pension. It is a bill which
provides that his temporary time might
be counted toward his pension. It should
not be referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, because if the bill should pass,
the money would not come out of general funds but out of the Civil Service
Retirement Act.
Mr. LAUSCHE. As written, would the
bill be referred to the Committee to
which the Senator from Wisconsin has
asked that it be sent?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. While
the Chair is not completely aware of the
exact nature of the bill, it apparently
would not appropriate money out of the
General Treasury but would deal with
the civil service retirement fund.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Do I correctly understand that the Parliamentarian wishes
to study the question further before an
answer is given?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without examining the bill, it appears on its
face to the Chair that the bill should be
referred to the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Then I shall not raise
any objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be received and appropriately
referred; and, without objection, the bill
will be referred to the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service.
The bill (S. 2452) for the relief of the
widow and children of Eldor H. Pofahl,
introduced by Mr. NELSON, was received,
read twice by its title, and referred to
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.
AUTHORIZATION
OF LIENS
OF
VALUE OF CERTAIN NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I introduce for appropriate
reference, a bill to authorize liens of
value of equipment used solely for navigation or fishing on a vessel of the United
States furnished under a lease, conditional sale contract, chattel mortgage, or
other security instrument and to permit
the recording of such liens.
One of the purposes of the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 was to provide a
framework within which the many problems of the commercial fishing industry
might be worked out. It was recognized
that the industry was unable to secure
adequate financing to upgrade vessels
and equpiment to keep pace with new
developments and techniques. Such fi-
nancing for operation, maintenance, re-
ment to the fishing industry under such
21659
result from the purchase of these lands
by the United States.
Sylvania now pays about $30,000 in
local taxes which is shared by the Gogebic County, Watersmeet Township,
and Watersmeet School District. These
taxes form an important part of the fi-
nancial support of these local govern-
mental agencies, particularly of the
township and school district.
Gogebic County is a rural county,
sparsely populated and currently suffering a high degree of unemployment and
financial stress. It is an area of persistent and high unemployment or underemployment and an inordinately
large proportion of families are in the
low-income brackets. It cannot be exinstances, the suppliers have lost title pected to absorb or replace the loss of
to their equipment because their security taxes now paid by Sylvania during the
next several years. In fact, I believe it
was not known to other lienors.
If these suppliers are willing to extend will require from 10 to 20 years for benetheir credit to help the fishing industry fits from public ownership and developimprove its condition and expand its ment of this tract to substantially equaloperations, I feel they should be entitled ize the burden the local governments
to protection on their claims for the will assume when the property is removed
equipment in the same manner that from the tax rolls. In the meantime,
the acquisition of the property in the
mortgages are granted priority.
broad public interest should not be deThis proposed legislation seeks to inlayed nor should already overloaded local
sure this protection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill governmental agencies be required to
will be received and appropriately re- absorb the full shock of the tax loss impact on their operations.
ferred.
During the transition period the local
The bill (S. 2454) to authorize liens of
value of secured equipment used solely authorities would have the opportunity
for navigation or fishing on a vessel of and should take full advantage of makthe United States and to permit the re- ing needed adjustments in the assesscording of such liens, introduced by Mr. ments of property for tax purposes.
Such adjustments will aid in distributKENNEDY of Massachusetts, was received,
read twice by its title, and referred to ing the tax burden properly.
Today I am introducing for considerathe Committee on Commerce.
tion by the Congress a bill to provide
for certain payments to be made with
PAYMENTS TO BE MADE FOR CER- respect to property acquired by the SecTAIN PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY retary of Agriculture for National Forest
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN purposes in Gogebie County, Mich., and
for other purposes. This bill provides
GOGEBIC COUNTY, MICH.
for the cushioning of the impact on
Mr. HART. Mr. President, thanks Gogebic County and the other taxing
to the able leadership
and under- agencies therein of income reduction
standing of the chairman of the when Sylvania is removed from the local
Senate Appropriations Committee, and tax rolls. It is limited as to amount and
subsequent approval by the Members as to time. It is a measure to give these
of Congress, the Forest Service of taxing agencies assistance while other
the Department of Agriculture now is sources of local governmental support
arranging for purchase by the United are developing. Briefly, the bill proStates of a magnificent area located in vides for payments, from receipts of the
Gogebic County in the Upper Peninsula National Forests not otherwise approof Michigan. This property is known as priated, to the tax collector of Gogebic
Sylvania. The purchase of this beauti- County for distribution and use by the
ful complex of forests, lakes, and wildlife respective taxing authorities in the
will be one of the first fruits of the Land county in the same proportion and manand Water Conservation Fund Act ner as are taxes on other such property.
passed by the last Congress.
The amount of the taxes last levied and
I heartily approve public acquisition of assessed on the property before conveythis tract as part of the Ottawa National ance to the United States will be paid for
Forest. Its development and manage- 10 years. Thereafter such payments
ment by the Forest Service will bring will be reduced by 10 percent each year
substantial economic benefits to north- so that the entire tax replacement beneern Michigan over a period of time. The fits will phase out over a 20-year period.
Forest Service estimates that Sylvania This arrangement, modest in cost and
will eventually receive over 800,000 rec- transitional in character, will serve to
reational visits annually. These visitors cushion the impact on local peoples and
will require services and supplies and will government of a project very much in
generate and sustain local businesses in the broad public interest. I recommend
the area. But the accretion of these it for the approval of the Congress.
economic benefits will be gradual, and a
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
good many years may elapse before they will be received and appropriately
offset the immediate tax loss that will referred.
21660
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
The bill (S. 2456) to provide for certain payments to be made with respect
to property acquired by the Secretary of
Agriculture for national forest purposes
in
Gogebic
County,
Mich.,
and
for
other purposes, introduced by Mr. HART,
was received, read twice by its title, and
referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVAL DEPOSITORY
Mr. McCLELLAN.
Mr. President, I
introduce for appropriate reference a
joint resolution to authorize the Admin-
istrator of General Services to enter into
an agreement with the University of
Texas for the Lyndon Baines Johnson
Presidential Archival Depository, and for
other purposes.
Under the proposed legislation, the Administrator of General Services will be
authorized to enter into an agreement
upon such terms and conditions as he
determines proper with the University of
Texas to utilize as the Lyndon Baines
Johnson Archival Depository land, buildings, and equipment of such university
to be made available by it without transfer of title to the United States, and to
maintain, operate, and protect such
depository as a part of the National
Archives system.
This joint resolution is introduced at
the request of the Administrator of General Services. I request unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD at this point
a copy of a letter from the Administrator
addressed to the President of the Senate
under date of August 19, 1965, together
with correspondence between the Presi-
dent, the University of Texas and the
General Services Administration which
sets forth the background and the need
for the proposed legislation.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER. The
joint resolution will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the correspondence will be printed
in the RECORD.
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 105) to
authorize the Administrator of General
Services to enter into an agreement with
the University of Texas for the Lyndon
Baines Johnson Presidential Archival
Depository, and for other purposes, in-
troduced by Mr. MCCLELLAN, by request,
was received, read twice by its title, and
referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
The correspondence presented by Mr.
MCCLELLAN is as follows:
GENERAL
SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,
President of the Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In accordance with
section 507(f) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as
amended (44 U.S.C. 397(f)), I submit a report on a proposed Presidential Archival Depository to be known as the Lyndon Baines
Johnson Library. An offer has been received
from the University of Texas to provide a
suitable site of 14 acres within the principal
academic environs of the university at Austin, Tex., and to design, construct, furnish,
and equip thereon a building of not less
than 100,000 square feet, all at its expense,
SENATE
to be used as a Presidential Archival Depository for the housing and display of President Johnson's papers and other historical
materials and to turn over, dedicate, and
make available the same to the United States
for its use in perpetuity as the Lyndon
Baines Johnson Library. A copy of this offer
and the President's reply is attached as
appendix A.
The offer is conditioned upon the Government's acceptance of the papers and other
historical materials of President Johnson
and its agreement to maintain and operate
the building and its contents permanently
as a Presidential Archival Depository within
the meaning of the act cited above. These
conditions are consistent with the law.
An offer has also been received from President Johnson to give his papers and other
historical materials to the Government. This
offer is conditioned upon the Government's
entering into an agreement with the University of Texas to utilize as the Lyndon Baines
Johnson Archival Depository the land, buildings, furnishings, and equipment of the University of Texas to be made available by it
for such use without transfer of title to the
United States, and to maintain, operate and
protect such Depository as a part of the National Archives system in accordance with
the provisions of the act cited. The offer
proposes that the contents of the papers be
made available for study and research, withholding for a time certain specified categories
of papers in order to protect the confidential
character necessarily inherent in such Presidential documents.
A copy of President
Johnson's letter making the offer and my
acceptance is attached as appendix B. The
conditions he sets forth are consistent with
law.
The papers offered by President Johnson
are all those pertaining to his public offices.
The other historical materials include books,
pictures, models, and many other classes of
objects illustrative of his life and especially
of his public career. Title to the papers and
other historical materials accepted pursuant
to the offer would be in the United States.
This would be a gift of exceptional importance for the future understanding of the
history of a most significant period of our
national life.
It is also intended that there be deposited
in the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library (in
accordance with section 507(f) (2)) papers
and other historical materials of associates
and contemporaries of President Johnson
which may in the future be received as gifts.
In addition, the Library may be used to preserve such records of permanent historical
value originating in Federal agencies as may
be determined by the Administrator to be
appropriate for deposit in the Library as
well as certain papers and other historical
materials now held by the University of
Texas relating to and contemporary with the
life and works of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The University of Texas intends to furnish and equip all space and facilities necessary for the successful operation of the
Library. No additional furnishings or equipment, other than normal operating office
supplies and furniture for the administrative and archival staff of the General Services Administration, will be required. In
addition to the space and facilities to be
provided and dedicated for use as the Presidential Archival Depository, the building
also will include space and facilities for
University of Texas purposes to be used in
furtherance of studies and research in history, government, economics, public administration and related disciplines. The cost
of administering, maintaining, operating and
protecting the site of the Presidential Library and such portion of the building as is
used for university purposes will be borne
by the university.
The annual cost to the United States of
maintaining, operating, and protecting that
August 25, 1965
portion of the building dedicated to National Archival Depository use is estimated
to range from approximately $190,000 during the early years to $225,000 after the
Library is in full operation.
The space and facilities to be occupied
by the Presidential Library will be completed
and ready for occupancy, subject to the
Administrator being authorized to enter into
an agreement with the university, within 2
years after final working drawings are ready
for marketing. The university is ready to
begin to implement its proposal upon signing the agreement with the Administrator.
The acceptance of these offers appears to
me to be in the public interest.
Sincerely yours,
LAWSON B. KNOTT, Jr.,
Administrator.
Enclosures.
EXHIBIT A
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, August 9, 1965.
Hon. W. W. HEATH,
Chairman,Board of Regents, The University
of Texas, Perry Brooks Building, Austin,
Tex.
DEAR MR. HEATH: It is a pleasure to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of
August 6, 1965.
I have been aware, of course, of the existence of the other Presidential Libraries and
their contribution to history. It has been
a source of satisfaction to know that through
these institutions we are making certain that
the full record of each Presidential administration is being carefully kept for study and
use by all those interested in the history of
our country.
Your letter has served as a suggestion that
it is not too early for me to be giving thought
to the planning of a similar institution for
this administration. As you know, I'm deeply
committed to the preservation and safeguarding of our historical and cultural resources and have made an effort to preserve
the papers of my own public career since
1937. I am, of course, particularly concerned
that the generations that follow us should
have the opportunity for detailed analysis of
those historical records from which can be
derived a full understanding of the momentous years through which we are passing.
Your letter has not only reminded me that
it is time to give attention to this matter, but
it has set my mind at rest as to how the whole
question can best be dealt with. The fine
public spirit and magnificent generosity that
have prompted the University of Texas to
make this unexampled offer of a site and
structure on its campus for use as a Presidential Library should earn it the respect of
the entire Nation. I am pleased that you
believe that placing the Library on the University of Texas campus will significantly
strengthen and enrich the educational pro.grams in which that great institution is engaged. I would also hope that your action
would enhance the opportunity for improving the academic endeavors of all institutions
of learning, and provide additional opportunities for scholarly research in public affairs.
It is with heartfelt gratitude, therefore,
that I accept your proposal and join with
you in this undertaking.
I have referred your proposal and a copy
of this reply to Mr. Lawson B. Knott, Jr.,
Administrator of General Services, who is
charged by existing law with establishing and
operating Presidential Libraries as a part of
our national archives system. Mr. Knott and
I will cooperate in working out with you the
detailed arrangements necessary to bring to
actuality the benefits of this great national
education asset which the University of
Texas has undertaken to provide.
Sincerely,
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
orientation on the selected site and its physical relationship with other university facilities will be subject to approval by you or
your designee. The building is to contain
The PRESIDENT,
the following:
The White House.
(a) Not less than 100,000 square feet of
Subject: Letter of intent from University of
Texas for the Lyndon Baines Johnson space to be dedicated to use as a Presidential
Archival Depository for the housing and disPresidential Archival Depository.
play of presidential papers and other hisDEAR MR. PRESIDENT: It is our understandtorical materials relating to and conteming that at an appropriate time you intend to
donate your papers to the United States for porary with your life and works as a fitting
ultimate deposit in a Presidential archival and lasting memorial to you and your long
distinguished years of service to our beloved
depository.
The University of Texas shares the belief Nation; and
(b) Additional space as the university
of the academic world and others that the
papers of a President constitute a vital part deems appropriate for university purposes as
of our Nation's historical heritage. We like- detailed in paragraph 5-c, hereof.
3. The university will confer with the Adwise believe that the richness and fullness
of the Nation's knowledge and understand- ministrator of General Services or his desing of that heritage depends in a large meas- ignee concerning site selection, design, conure upon the completeness of a President's struction, furnishing, and equipping the lihistorical materials, the care with which they brary including its museum aspects.
4. The university will provide adequate,
have been preserved, the adequacy of the
archival and museum facilities in which they convenient parking facilities for the use of
are housed, and their general accessibility visitors to the Presidential Library.
5. The University of Texas, in expanding
and availability for scholarly research and
its teaching capabilities in history, governstudy.
A university can only fulfill its total man- ment, economics, public administration, and
date by being sensitive to contemporary related disciplines, expects:
(a) To have access to the presidential paworld affairs, the lessons of our national expers and other historical materials housed
perience, and our Nation's constant effort to
improve the processes of Government. The in the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, recognizing, however, that the Presidential Lirole of a university in bringing about an
brary will be a national research institution
understanding of our times is affected adand, therefore, officers, faculty, and students
versely unless it can impart a knowledge of
the conditions from which they arose; and of the university, along with scholars and
other interested persons everywhere, will be
it is equally clear that its responsibility to
accorded access to the collections of presidevelop tomorrow's leaders, capable of making intelligent decisions for the future, can dential papers and other presidential hisbe greatly advanced when the inquisitive torical materials housed therein. The unimind has available at the university the versity understands also, particularly since
research collections from which a compre- it is anticipated that great numbers of people
hensive view of the age in which we live will visit this library on the University of
can be obtained. It follows inevitably that Texas campus daily, that reasonable regulaconvenient access to the rich resources of a tions must be provided to insure orderly use
Presidential library, and the tremendous an- of the materials and access to all such hiscillary benefits which will follow will enable torical materials will be subject to such rethe University of Texas, in a most dramatic strictions as may be imposed by the donors,
manner, to meet its responsibilities to expand or by statute, Executive order, regulations,
its academic capabilities, especially at the etc.
graduate school level, in the fields of history,
(b) To offer and lend to the United States
government, economics, public administra- for deposit in the Lyndon Baines Johnson
In
furtherance
Library certain papers and other historical
tion, and related disciplines.
of these objectives we intend to establish at
materials now held by the university relating to and contemporary with the life and
the University of Texas a school to be known
as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Institute of works of Lyndon Baines Johnson; and
Public Service Affairs, at which we hope you
(c) In addition to the space dedicated to
will consent to teach or lecture after your the Presidential archival depository to proretirement from the Presidency, devoting as
vide space and related facilities in the buildmuch time thereto as you may find possible. ing contemplated in paragraph 2, hereof, for
In view of the considerations set forth university purposes to be used in furtherance
above, and the benefits which will thus of studies and research in history, governaccrue to the University of Texas in fulfilling
ment, economics, public administration, and
its educational purposes and objectives as related disciplines.
Texas,
law
of
the
State
of
fixed by applicable
6. Upon completion of the construction,
the University of Texas deems it an excepfurnishing, and equipping of the space and
tional honor and privilege, consistent with facilities to be occupied by the Presidential
its educational purposes and objectives, to
archival depository, the university hereby
make the following proposal:
undertakes and agrees to turn over, dedicate,
1. The university, at its expense, will proand make available the same, including the
vide an appropriate site comprised of 14 furnishings and equipment therein, to the
acres within the principal academic environs United States for its use in perpetuity as
of the university at Austin, Tex., to be uti- the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, but
lized as the site of a Presidential Archival without transfer of title, pursuant to the
Depository which will be known as the Lyn- provisions of section 507(f) of the Federal
don Baines Johnson Library. The university Property and Administrative Services Act
warrants against encroachment on or use of 1949, as amended.
of such site for purposes other than the
7. In consideration of the foregoing and
site of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library upon acceptance by the United States, the
and related parking areas except as other- Presidential Library and the space and faciliwise expressly provided herein, or as may ties occupied by it will be administered, opbe later agreed by the University of Texas, erated, protected, maintained, and staffed
you or your representatives, and the Adminin perpetuity by and at the expense of the
istrator of General Services or successors
United States of America. It is also underin legal functions. The site selected will be
stood and agreed that the administering,
subject to approval by you or your designee. staffing, maintaining, operating, and protect2. The university, at its expense, will deing the site of the Presidential Library and
sign, construct, furnish and equip a build- such portion of the building as is used for
ing to be located on such site. The selecactivities of the university as contemplated
tion of the architect or architects and the by paragraph 5-c, hereof, shall be borne by
design concept of the facility, including its
the university.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS,
BOARDOF REGENTS,
August 6, 1965.
21661
8. The space and facilities to be occupied
by the Presidential Library will be completed
and available for occupancy within 2 years
after final working drawings are ready for
marketing: Provided, however, that in no
event shall said 2-year period begin to run
until the Administrator of General Services
has entered into an agreement, as provided
for in section 507(f) (1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
as amended, with the University of Texas, to
maintain, operate, and protect said Presidential Library as a part of the Nacional
Archives system. It is understood that the
said Administrator may not enter into such
an agreement prior to the expiration of the
first period of 60 calendar days of continuous
session of Congress following the date on
which a report of the proposed transaction
is transmitted to the Congress as required
by section 507(f) of the Property Act, supra.
It is further understood that the time when
such report may be submitted to the Congress is a matter entirely within the discretion of the President of the United States or
his designee.
9. Upon your assent to this proposal the
University of Texas will proceed with its implementation.
Respectfully,
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS,
HARRY RANSOM,
Chancellor.
W. W. HEATH,
Chairman,Board of Regents.
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., August 17, 1965.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
DEAR Ms. PRESIDENT: It is an honor and
pleasure on behalf of the United States to
accept, in accordance with the powers vested
in me by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended,
your generous offer of certain papers and
other historical materials contained in your
letter of August 13, 1965, under the conditions and restrictions which you have prescribed therein.
This priceless gift to the Nation and scholars of this generation and those that follow will forever enrich our history and culture. I know that the memory of your selfless gesture will live eternally in the hearts
of a grateful people.
Respectfully yours,
(S)
Lawson B. Knott, Jr.
LAWSON B. KNOTT, Jr.,
Administrator.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, D.C., August 13,1965.
DEAR MR. KNOrr: It has long been my belief that the papers and other historical
materials of a President constitute a vital
part of our Nation's historical heritage and
that such papers and materials should be
permanently preserved and made available
for scholarly research and study.
You are aware that it also has long been
my intention to donate my papers and other
historical materials to the United States for
ultimate deposit in a Presidential Archival
Depository as provided by section 507(f) of
the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended (44 US.C.
397(f)).
You are also aware that the University of
Texas has advised me of its intent, consistent with its educational purposes and objectives, to provide, at its expense, an appropriate site within the principal academic
environs of the University of Texas, and to
construct thereon a suitable Presidential
Archival Depository to be known as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and to turn
over, dedicate, and make available the space
and facilities so to be constructed, furnished,
21662
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
and equipped by it, to the United States for
its use in perpetuity pursuant to the aforesaid authority, as a Presidential Archival
Depository for the housing, preservation, display, and appropriate use of my Presidential
papers and other historical materials.
I have indicated to the University of Texas
and publicly announced my approval of its
proposal.
Accordingly, and in furtherance of the
public purposes which will thus be served,
I hereby offer as a gift to the United States
for the purpose of ultimate deposit in the
said Presidential Library my Presidential and
other papers, documents, historical materials,
mementos, objects of art, and other memorabilia, including books, motion pictures, still,
pictures, and sound recordings, all hereinafter called materials belonging to me or
in my possession which relate to my life
and work, subject to the condition that these
materials be accepted, preserved, and made
available by the United States under the following conditions:
1. As an initial step the materials shall
be accepted by the United States for deposit
in the National Archives pursuant to section
507(e) of the act, supra, until the completion and acceptance by the United States of
the above-described Lyndon Baines Johnson
Library at which time the materials shall be
deposited in that Library and administered
in accordance with the pertinent provisions
of the act, supra.
2. It is my purpose to make the papers
and other historical materials referred to
herein available for the purpose of study and
research as soon as possible and to the fullest possible extent. However, since the President of the United States is the recipient
of many confidences from others, and since
the inviolability of such confidence is essential to the functioning of the constitutional office of the Presidency, it will be necessary to withhold from public scrutiny certain papers and classes of papers for varying periods of time. Therefore:
(a) I hereby reserve the right to restrict
the use and availability of any materials to
which this agreement applies, irrespective
of the time when such materials may have
been, or may be delivered to the United
States, for such time as I, in my sole discretion, may from time to time specify, and such
restrictions shall be adhered to and observed
in all respects for as long a period of time
as may be specified or until such restrictions
are revoked or terminated by me or persons authorized to act on my behalf with
respect thereto, or as otherwise provided
in this agreement.
(b) During my tenure as President of the
United States any materials accepted and
deposited pursuant to paragraph 1, above,
shall be made available by display or otherwise for public inspection, research, or other
use subject to restrictions (1) imposed at
time of delivery of possession thereof to the
United States; (2) as otherwise provided for
in this agreement; and (3) as may be imposed by me or by persons authorized to
act for me with regard thereto.
(c) Archival personnel of the United States
designated by the Administrator of General
Services shall review the materials to which
this agreement applies and any materials in
the following categories shall be placed under
seal of restriction:
(i) Materials containing statements which
may in any manner be used to injure, embarrass, or harass any person, or materials
which may in any manner be prejudicial to
the conduct of foreign relations of the United
States of America, or materials containing
statements made by or to me in confidence.
(ii) Defense information that has been
security classified pursuant to law or Executive order: Provided, That such information
may be declassified or otherwise made available in accordance with the procedures estab-
lished by law or Executive order governing
availability of security classified information.
(iii) Papers relating to my family or private affairs, and papers relating to the families or private affairs of persons who have
had correspondence with me.
(d) All material restricted pursuant to
this agreement shall be reviewed from time
to time by archival personnel designated by
the Administrator of General Services, the
restrictions removed therefrom, and the materials made available for public display and
research use as soon as the passage of time
or other circumstances no longer require
such materials being kept under restriction:
Provided, That restrictions imposed on materials by paragraph 2(b), above, shall not
be removed during my tenure as President
without my personal approval or the approval of persons authorized to act for me
with respect thereto.
(e) Materials placed under restriction pursuant to this agreement shall not be made
available to anyone or their contents
divulged to anyone (including public officials) except (1) persons authorized under
the terms of paragraph 5 below and (2)
archival personnel designated by the Administrator of General Services when performing essential archival work processes
on such papers under the supervision of the
Administrator of General Services: Provided,
That access to security-classified materials
shall be made available in accordance with
the procedures established by law or Executive orders.
3. All unrestricted materials shall upon
(a) deposit in the Lyndon Baines Johnson
Library and (b) expiration of my tenure as
President, be made available for public display and inspection, and made equally accessible to all competent private persons
interested in using the materials for study
and scholarly research purposes subject to
regulations issued by the Administrator of
General Services governing the use of materials in the Library: Provided, that such
materials may be made available for display,
inspection and research purposes prior to
the expiration of my tenure as President
with my personal approval
4. This offer shall not and is not intended
to apply to or embrace such items which I
determine to be of special or private interest
to the personal and family affairs of myself,
my wife, and children, and I specifically reserve the right to retain title and possession
and to regain possession of any such items
that I, in my sole discretion, may determine
to be excluded from the purview of this gift,
irrespective of the fact that such items may
have been theretofore delivered to the United
States.
5. All materials transferred to the United
States pursuant to this agreement shall be
freely accesible to me or my wife or to persons designated by me in writing, subject to
the provisions of applicable law and Executive orders governing availability of securityclassified information.
6. Subject to restrictions imposed by or
pursuant to this agreement, all materials
transferred to the United States pursuant to
this agreement shall be subject to the right
of the Administrator in his discretion (a)
to make temporary loans thereof to such
persons, organizations, or institutions as he
shall determine; (b) to dispose by sale, exchange, or otherwise of any such papers or
historical materials which he may determine
to have no permanent value or historical Interest or to be surplus to the needs of the
Lyndon Baines Johnson Library; -and (c) to
remove from the said Library any and all of
such papers or historical materials if he shall
deem it necessary to preserve them from
threatened destruction.
7. I hereby assign to the United States all
my literary property rights in all papers
transferredto the United States in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this agreement, except that I reserve to myself and my
heirs (a) the right to make any use of such
papers and (b) all literary property rights in
any works that I have written or may hereafter write for publication, including the
right to license the publication of such material.
8. The offer of the materials to which this
agreement is applicable is conditioned upon
the United States, acting by and through the
Administrator of General Services, entering
into an agreement with the University of
Texas to utilize as a Presidential Archival
Depository the space and facilities to be constructed, furnished, equipped, and made
available by it for such use without transfer
of title, and upon agreement by the United
States to maintain and operate the Library
at all times thereafter as a Presidential
Archival Depository for the preservation of
such materials, in accordance with the provisions of section 507(f)(l) (44 U.S.C. 397
(f) (1)) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
Sincerely,
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF
1965-AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 422
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I submit an amendment to the farm bill for
printing, and ask that it lie at the Vice
President's desk until the farm bill is be-
fore the Senate for consideration.
The amendment provides that, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not make any sales of wheat at less
than 110
percent of
current support
prices plus reasonable carrying charges;
and for the renumbering of subsequent
sections accordingly.
It is my intention to discuss the
amendment more fully at a future date,
but I wish to have it printed and lie at
the desk so that other Senators who are
interested may consider the proposal,
which I think is important to the Na-
tion's agriculture and the wheat farmers
of the Nation.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER. The
amendment will be received, printed, and
will lie on the desk, as requested.
CHANGE OF REFERENCE
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I am advised that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. RUssELL] has no objection
to the re-referral of Senate bill 1391, to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey certain lands at the old Hickory
lock and dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, to the Tennessee Society for
Crippled Children and Adults, Inc.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be re-referred to the Public Works Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT-CHANGE
OP CONFEREE
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDTI be excused as a conferee on the bill (H.R.
6927) to establish a Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and
for other purposes, and that the Senator
from New York [Mr. JAvIrs] be appointed
in his stead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRINTING OF REVIEW OF REPORT
ON LYTLE AND WARM CREEKS,
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. (S. DOC.
NO. 53)
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, I
present a letter from the Secretary of the
Army, transmitting a report dated June
2, 1965, from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, together with
accompanying papers and an illustration, on a review of the report on Lytle
and Warm Creeks, San Bernardino,
Calif., requested by a resolution of the
Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the
report be printed as a Senate document,
with an illustration, and referred to the
Committee on Public Works.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF BILL
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the name of
the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS] may be added as cosponsor to S. 1927, to preserve as an area
of historic interest certain structures and
lands comprising the Washington Navy
Yard, at the next printing of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
NOMINANOTICE
CONCERNING
TIONS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the
following nominations have been referred to and are now pending before the
Committee on the Judiciary:
Robert Nelson Chaffin, of Wyoming, to
be U.S. attorney, district of Wyoming,
term of 4 years-reappointment.
George A. Bukovatz, of Montana, to
be U.S. marshal, district of Montana,
term of 4 years-reappointment.
Keith Hardie, of Wisconsin, to be U.S.
marshal, western district of Wisconsin,
term of 4 years-reappointment.
On behalf of the Committee on the
Judiciary, notice is hereby given to all
persons interested in these nominations
to file with the committee, in writing, on
or before Wednesday, September 1, 1965,
any representations or objections they
may wish to present concerning the above
nominations, with a further statement
whether it is their intention to appear at
any hearing which may be scheduled.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed a bill (H.R. 10586)
making supplemental appropriations for
the Departments of Labor, and Health,
Education, and Welfare for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1966, and for other
purposes, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED
The bill (H.R. 10586) making supplemental appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education,
and Welfare for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1966, and for other purposes,
was read twice by its title and referred
to the Committee on Appropriations.
THE SANTO DOMINGO HEARINGS
BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN
RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, it
is with regret that I note the altercation
between the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and committee members as to actions incident to
U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic.
I agree with the actions of the administration in this regard, and so stated
at the time of these hearings. But I
most certainly do not agree with a statement made on the floor yesterday that
"a methodical effort was made to prove
that the United States was wrongly
within that Republic."
The document compiled by the committee staff was not one analyzing the
developments in Santo Domingo, or one
based on an effort to pass judgment on
administration policy.
It was meant to be a working paper
with which committee members could
outline the subject matter to be discussed during the hearings.
Questions were asked of administration witnesses about the purported facts
in the articles in question. From the
answers received I reached my conclusion that the action of the administration was proper and sound under the
circumstances.
I do not believe that my friend the
Senator from Connecticut would have
criticized this development in the manner he did if he had been present. For
example, a key witness for the administration was just as critical of some of
the newspapermen praised in the statement of the Senator from Connecticut
as he was about some of the newspapermen criticized by the Senator.
The Senator from Arkansas mentioned
in the RECORD that he was considering
resigning as chairman of the committee.
In my opinion that would be a most unfortunate occurrence. The chairman is
a man of character and integrity; and
he has a profound background of long
experience in the field of foreign relations. I am proud to serve with him
on this committee. We do not always
agree, but that is characteristic of the
nature of our Government.
I am equally proud that he is not
either a rubber stamp for the executive
branch, or for any particular group on
this committee. He makes a sincere effort to develop the truth; and the way
21663
the world is today, the truth would seem
of utmost importance.
Mr. CARLSON.
Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to my friend from Kansas.
Mr. CARLSON. I associate myself
with the remarks that the distinguished
Senator from Missouri has made regarding our distinguished and most outstanding chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I cannot think of
anything that in my opinion would set
back our international programs and
policies more than even the suggestion
or thought that our chairman might
consider resigning from that great committee.
It has been a pleasure to be associated with the Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. FULBRIGHT]. He is not only able, but
also a great student. As a member of
the committee, I cannot think of anyone more able or better qualified. He
possesses qualities that make it a joy
to work with him.
I appreciate very much the comments
that the Senator from Missouri has
made.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I shall yield. But
first, Mr. President, I thank my able colleague, also a member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from Kansas.
Knowing him, I am not surprised at his
statement. I am grateful for what he
said.
I am glad to yield to the majority
leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
join my distinguished colleagues in the
remarks they have made about the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I, too, hope that he does not intend to give serious consideration-or
any consideration-to the possibility of
resigning as chairman of the committee
which he now heads. He is the one Senator who is present at every meeting.
He must undertake onerous responsibilities, but he faces up to them with independence, with vigor, and with knowledge.
I came to the Congress 23 years ago
with BILL FULBRIGHT. I have watched
him in those years with admiration and
respect. I have also noted that in the
press on occasion he takes unmerciful
beatings because he has the temerity to
express his independent thoughts on issues of great importance to the country.
I point out that a Senator has a responsibility, and a chairman of a committee
has a little added responsibility.
What Senator FULBRIGHT has done has
always been in the best interests of the
country, and what Senator FULBRIGHT
has done in conducting the affairs of the
committee has been fair and impartial to
all concerned.
I believe he is one of the great chairmen of that committee in the history of
the Republic.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the distinguished majority leader. In that he
is also a member of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, what he says in this
connection is of special significance.
21664
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DURING
SENATE SESSION
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, at the
suggestion of the majority leader, I ask
unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
THE ADMINISTRATION
CASE FOR
THE VIETNAM COMMITMENT
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
administration has assembled as persuasive a document on why we are in Vietnam and why we are staying there as I
have seen. It contains concise statements by President Johnson, Secretary
Secretary
and
Rusk,
State
of
McNamara.
It also contains the letters from President Eisenhower and President Kennedy, which constitute the basis for our
national promise to Vietnam to assist.
Since these documents are all relatively brief I ask unanimous consent that
the monograph entitled "Why Vietnam?"
be printed in full at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the monograph was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
WHY VIETNAlM?
FOREWORD
MY FELLOW AMERICANS: Once again in
man's age-old struggle for a better life and
a world of peace, the wisdom, courage, and
compassion of the American people are being
put to the test. This is the meaning of the
tragic conflict in Vietnam.
In meeting the present challenge, it is essential that our people seek understanding
and that our leaders speak with candor.
I have therefore directed that this report
to the American people be compiled and
In its pages you will
widely distributed.
find statements on Vietnam by three leaders of your Government-by your President,
your Secretary of State, and your Secretary
of Defense.
These statements were prepared for different audiences, and they reflect the differing
responsibilities of each speaker. The congressional testimony has been edited to avoid
undue repetition and to incorporate the
sense of the discussions that ensued.
Together, they construct a clear definition
of America's role in the Vietnam conflict:
the dangers and hopes that Vietnam holds
for all free men, the fullness and limits of
our national objectives in a war we did not
seek, the constant effort on our part to bring
this war we do not desire to a quick and
honorable end.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
AUGUST 20, 1965.
THE BOOTSOF COMMITMENT
In the historic documents that follow, two
American Presidents define and affirm the
commitment of the United States to the
people of South Vietnam.
In letters to Prime Minister Churchill in
1954 and to President Diem in 1954 and 1960,
President Eisenhower describes the issues at
stake and pledges United States assistance
to South Vietnam's resistance to subversion
and aggression.
And in December 1961 President Kennedy
reaffirms that pledge.
SENATE
EXTRACTS FROM LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL, APRIL
4, 1954
(From Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Mandate for
Change, 1953-56," New York, 1963)
DEAR WINSTON: I am sure * * * you are
following with the deepest interest and anxiety the daily reports of the gallant fight
being put up by the French at Dien Bien
Phu. Today, the situation there does not
seem hopeless.
But regardless of the outcome of this particular battle, I fear that the French cannot aloneee the thing through, this despite
the very substantial assistance in money and
materiel that we are giving them. It is no
solution simply to urge the French to intensify their efforts. And if they do not
see it through and Indochina passes into
the hands of the Communists the ultimate
effect on our and your global strategic position with the consequent shift in the power
ratios throughout Asia and the Pacific could
be disastrous and, I know, unacceptable to
you and me. * ** *This has led us to the
hard conclusion that the situation in southeast Asia requires us urgently to take serious
and far-reaching decisions.
Geneva is less than 4 weeks away. There
the possibility of the Communists driving a
wedge between us will, given the state of
mind in France, be infinitely greater than
at Berlin. I can understand the very natural
desire of the French to seek an end to this
war which has been bleeding them for 8
years. But our painstaking search for a way
out of the impasse has reluctantly forced us
to the conclusion that there is no negotiated
solution of the Indochina problem which in
its essence would not be either a face-saving
device to cover a French surrender or a facesaving device to cover a Communist retirement. The first alternative is too serious in
its broad strategic implications for us and
for you to be acceptable. * * *
Somehow we must contrive to bring about
the second alternative. The preliminary lines
of our thinking were sketched out by
Foster [Dulles] in his speech last Monday
night when he said that under the conditions
of today the imposition on southeast Asia
of the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communists ally, by whatever means, would be a grave threat to the
whole free community, and that in our view
this possibility should now be met by united
action and not passively accepted. * * *
I believe that the best way to put teeth in
this concept and to bring greater moral and
material resources to the support of the
French effort is through the establishment
of a new, ad hoc grouping or coalition composed of nations which have a vital concern
in the checking of Communist expansion in
the area. I have in mind, in addition to our
two countries, France, the Associated States,
Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the
Philippines. The U.S. Government would expect to play its full part in such a coalition. * **
The important thing is that the coalition
must be strong and it must be willing to
join the fight if necessary. I do not envisage the need of any appreciable ground
forces on your or our part. * * *
If I may refer again to history; we failed
to halt Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler by not
acting in unity and in time. That marked
the beginning of many years of stark tragedy
and desperate peril. May it not be that our
nations have learned something from that
lesson? * * *
With warm regard,
IKE.
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO
PRESIDENT DIEM, OCTOBER
1, 1954
DEaR Ma. PRESIDENT: I have been following
with great interest the course of developments in Vietnam, particularly since the
August 25, 1965
conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The
implications of the agreement concerning
Vietnam have caused grave concern regarding the future of a country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping,
weakened by a long and exhausting war and
faced with enemies without and by their
subversive collaborators within.
Your recent requests for aid to assist in
the formidable project of the movement of
several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese
citizens away from areas which are passing
under a de facto rule and political ideology
which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am
glad that the United States is able to assist
in this humanitarian effort.
We have been exploring ways and means to
permit our aid to Vietnam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to
the welfare and stability of the Government
of Vietnam. I am, accordingly, instructing
the American Ambassador to Vietnam to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of
Government, how an intelligent program of
American aid given directly to your government can serve to assist Vietnam in its present hour of trial, provided that your government is prepared to give assurances as to the
standards of performance it would be able to
maintain in the eveni such aid were supplied.
The purpose of this offer is to assist the
Government of Vietnam in developing and
maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of
resisting attempted subversion or aggression
through military means. The Government
of the United States expects that this aid will
be met by performance on the part of the
Government of Vietnam in undertaking
needed reforms. It hopes that such aid,
combined with your own continuing efforts,
will contribute effectively toward an independent Vietnam endowed with a strong
government. Such a government would, I
hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it
will be respected both at home and abroad
and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.
Sincerely,
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO PRESI-
DENT DIEM, OCTOBER 26, 1960
DEAR MR.PRESIDENT: My countrymen and I
are proud to convey our good wishes to you
and to the citizens of Vietnam on the fifth
anniversary of the birth of the Republic of
Vietnam.
We have watched the courage and daring
with which you and the Vietnamese people
attained independence in a situation so perilous that many thought it hopeless. We
have admired the rapidity with which chaos
yielded to order and progress replaced despair.
During the years of your independence it
has been refreshing for us to observe how
clearly the Government and the citizens of
Vietnam have faced the fact that the greatest danger to their independence was communism. You and your countrymen have
used your strength well in accepting the double challenge of building your country and
5
In
resisting Communist imperialism.
short years since the founding of the Republic, the Vietnamese people have developed
their country in almost every sector. I was
particularly impressed by one example. I
am informed that last year over 1,200,000
Vietnamese children were able to go to elementary school; three times as many as were
enrolled 5 years earlier. This is certainly
a heartening development for Vietnam's future. At the same time Vietnam's ability to
defend itself from the Communists has
grown immeasurably since its successful
struggle to become an independent republic.
Vietnam's very success as well as its potential wealth and its strategic location have led
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
the Communists of Hanoi, goaded by the
bitterness of their failure to enslave all
Vietnam, to use increasing violence in their
attempts to destroy your country's freedom.
This grave threat, added to the strains and
fatigues of the long struggle to achieve and
strengthen independence, must be a burden
that would cause moments of tension and
concern in almost any human heart. Yet
from long observation I sense how deeply
the Vietnamese value their country's independence and strength and I know how well
you used your boldness when you led your
countrymen in winning it. I also know that
your determination has been a vital factor
in guarding that independence while steadily advancing the economic development of
your country. I am confident that these
same qualities of determination and boldness
will meet the renewed threat as well as the
needs and desires of your countrymen for
further progress on all fronts.
Although the main responsibility for
guarding that independence will always, as
it has in the past, belong to the Vietnamese
people and their government, I want to assure you that for so long as our strength
can be useful, the United States will continue to assist Vietnam in the difficult yet
hopeful struggle ahead.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.
FROM PRESIDENT KENNEDY TO PRESIDENT
LETTER
DIEM, DECEMBER
14, 1961
DEARMR. PRESIDENT: I have received your
recent letter in which you described so
cogently the dangerous condition caused by
North Vietnam's efforts to take over your
country. The situation in your embattled
country is well known to me and to the
American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your country. Our
indignation has mounted as the deliberate
savagery of the Communist program of assassination, kidnaping, and wanton violence
became clear.
Your letter underlines what our own information has convincingly shown-that the
campaign of force and terror now being
waged against your people and your Government is supported and directed from the
outside by the authorities at Hanoi. They
have thus violated the provisions of the
Geneva accords designed to insure peace in
Vietnam and to which they bound themselves
in 1954.
At that time, the United States, although
not a party to the accords, declared that it
"would view any renewal of the aggression
in violation of the agreements with grave
concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security." We continue
to maintain that view.
In accordance with that declaration, and
In response to your request, we are prepared
to help the Republic of Vietnam to protect
Its people and to preserve its independence.
We shall promptly increase our assistance to
your defense effort as well as help relieve the
destruction of the floods which you describe.
I have already given the orders to get these
programs underway.
The United States, like the Republic of
Vietnam, remains devoted to the cause of
peace and our primary purpose is to help
your people maintain their independence. If
the Communist authorities in North Vietnam
will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam, the measures we are taking to assist your defense efforts will no
longer be necessary. We shall seek to persuade the Communists to give up their attempts of force and subversion. In any case,
we are confident that the Vietnamese people
will preserve their independence and gain the
peace and prosperity for which they have
sought so hard and so long.
JOHN F. KENNEDY.
CXI-1366
SENATE
TOWARD PEACE WITH HONOR
(Press conference statement by the President, the White House, July 28, 1965)
Not long ago I received a letter from a
woman in the Midwest. She wrote:
"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In my humble way
I am writing to you about the crisis in Vietnam. I have a son who is now in Vietnam.
My husband served in World War II. Our
country was at war, but now, this time, it is
just something I don't understand. Why?"
I have tried to answer that question a
dozen times and more in practically every
State in this Union. I discussed it fully in
Baltimore in April, in Washington in May, in
San Francisco in June. Let me again, now,
discuss it here in the East Room of the
White House.
Why must young Americans, born into a
land exultant with hope and golden with
promise, toil and suffer and sometimes die in
such a remote and distant place?
The answer, like the war itself, is not an
easy one. But it echoes clearly from the
painful lessons of half a century. Three
times in my lifetime, in two world wars and
in Korea, Americans have gone to far lands
to fight for freedom. We have learned at a
terrible and brutal cost that retreat does not
bring safety, and weakness does not bring
peace.
The natureof the war
It is this lesson that has brought us to
Vietnam. This is a different kind of war.
There are no marching armies or solemn declarations. Some citizens of South Vietnam,
at times with understandable grievances,
have joined in the attack on their own government. But we must not let this mask the
central fact that this is really war. It is
guided by North Vietnam and spurred by
Communist China. Its goal is to conquer
the South, to defeat American power, and
to extend the Asiatic dominion of communism.
The stakes in Vietnam
And there are great stakes in the balance.
Most of the non-Communist nations of
Asia cannot, by themselves and alone, resist
the growing might and grasping ambition
of Asian communism. Our power, therefore,
is a vital shield. If we are driven from the
field in Vietnam, then no nation can ever
again have the same confidence in American
promise, or in American protection. In each
land the forces of independence would be
And an Asia so
considerably weakened.
threatened by Communist domination would
imperil the security of the United States
itself.
We did not choose to be the guardians at
the gate, but there is no one else.
Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring
peace. We learned from Hitler at Munich
that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle would be renewed in
one country and then another, bringing with
it perhaps even larger and crueler conflict.
Moreover, we are in Vietnam to fulfill one
of the most solemn pledges of the American
Nation. Three Presidents-President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and your present
President-over 11 years, have committed
themselves and have promised to help defend
the small and valiant nation.
Strengthened by that promise, the people
of South Vietnam have fought for many long
years. Thousands of them have died. Thousands more have been crippled and scarred
by war. We cannot now dishonor our word
or abandon our commitment or leave those
who believed us and who trusted us to the
terror and repression and murder that would
follow.
This, then, my fellow Americans, is why
we are In Vietnam.
Increased effort to halt aggression
What are our goals in that war-stained
land?
21665
First: We intend to convince the Communists that we cannot be defeated by force
of arms or by superior power. They are not
easily convinced.
In recent months they
have greatly increased their fighting forces,
their attacks, and the number of incidents.
I have asked the commanding general, General Westmoreland, what more he needs to
meet this mounting aggression. He has told
me. We will meet his needs.
I have today ordered to Vietnam the Air
Mobile Division and certain other forces
which will raise our fighting strength from
75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately.
Additional forces will be needed later, and
they will be sent as requested. This will
make it necessary to increase our active fighting forces by raising the monthly draft call
from 17,000 over a period of time, to 35,000
per month, and stepping up our campaign for
voluntary enlistments.
After this past week of deliberations, I have
concluded that it is not essential to order
Reserve units into service now. If that necessity should later be indicated, I will give
the matter most careful consideration. And
I will give the country adequate notice before
taking such action, but only after full
preparations.
We have also discussed with the Government of South Vietnam lately the steps that
they will take to substantially increase their
own effort-both on the battlefield and toward reform and progress in the villages.
Ambassador Lodge is now formulating a new
program to be tested upon his return to
that area.
I have directed Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara to be available immediately
to the Congress to review with the appropriate congressional committees our plan in
these areas. I have asked them to be available to answer the questions of any Member
of Congress.
Secretary McNamara, in addition, will ask
the Senate Appropriations Committee to add
a limited amount to present legislation to
help meet part of his new cost until a supplemental measure is ready and hearings can
be held when the Congress assembles in
January.
In the meantime, we will use the authority
contained in the present Defense appropriations bill now to transfer funds, in addition
to the additional money that we will request.
These steps, like our actions in the past,
are carefully measured to do what must be
done to bring an end to aggression and a
peaceful settlement. We do not want an
expanding struggle with consequences that
no one can foresee. Nor will we bluster or
bully or flaunt our power.
But we will not surrender. And we will not
retreat.
For behind our American pledge lies the
determination and resources of all of the
American Nation.
Toward a peaceful solution
Second, once the Communists know, as we
know, that a violent solution is impossible,
then a peaceful solution is inevitable. We
are ready now, as we have always been, to
move from the battlefield to the conference
table. I have stated publicly, and many
times, America's willingness to begin unconditional discussions with any government
at any place at any time. Fifteen efforts
have been made to start these discussions,
with the help of 40 nations throughout the
world. But there has been no answer.
But we are going to continue to persist,
if persist we must, until death and desolation have led to the same conference table
where others could now join us at a much
smaller cost.
I have spoken many times of our objectives in Vietnam. So has the Government of
South Vietnam. Hanoi has set forth its own
proposal. We are ready to discuss their proposals and our proposals and any proposals
21666
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
of any government whose people may be
affected. For we fear the meeting room no
more than we fear the battlefield.
The United Nations
In this pursuit we welcome, and we ask
for, the concern and the assistance of any
nation and all nations. If the United Nations and its officials-or any one of its 114
members-can, by deed or word, private initiative or public action, bring us nearer an
honorable peace, then they will have the
support and the gratitude of the United
States of America.
I have directed Ambassador Goldberg to go
to New York today and to present immediately to Secretary-General U Thant a letter
from me requesting that all of the resources,
energy, and immense prestige of the United
Nations be employed to find ways to halt
aggression and to bring peace in Vietnam.
I made a similar request at San Francisco a
few weeks ago.
Free choice for Vietnam
We do not seek the destruction of any
government, nor do we covet a foot of any
territory. But we insist, and we will always
insist, that the people of South Vietnam
shall have the right of choice, the right to
shape their own destiny in free elections in
the South, or throughout all Vietnam under
international supervision. And they shall
not have any government imposed upon
them by force and terror so long as we can
prevent it.
This was the purpose of the 1954 agreements which the Communists have now
cruelly shattered. If the machinery of those
agreements was tragically weak, its purposes
still guide our action.
As battle rages, we will continue as best
we can to help the good people of South
Vietnam enrich the condition of their lifeto feed the hungry, to tend the sick-teach
the young, shelter the homeless, and help
the farmer to increase his crops, and the
worker to find a job.
Progressin human welfare
It is an ancient, but still terrible, irony
that while many leaders of men create division in pursuit of grand ambitions, the children of man are united in the simple elusive
desire for a life of fruitful and rewarding
toil.
As I said at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, I
hope that one day we can help all the people
of Asia toward that desire. Eugene Black
has made great progress since my appearance
in Baltimore in that direction, not as the
price of peace-for we are ready always to
bear a more painful cost--but rather as a
part of our obligations of justice toward our
fellow man.
The dificulty of decision
Let me also add a personal note. I do not
find it easy to send the flower of our youth,
our finest young men, into battle. I have
spoken to you today of the divisions and the
forces and the battalions and the units. But
I know them all, every one. I have seen them
in a thousand streets, in a hundred towns, in
every State in this Union-working and
laughing, building, and filled with hope and
life. I think that I know, too, how their
mothers weep and how their families sorrow.
This is the most agonizing and the most
painful duty of your President.
A nation which builds
There is something else, too. When I was
young, poverty was so common that we didn't
know it had a name. Education was something you had to fight for. And water was
life itself. I have now been in public life
35 years, more than three decades, and in
each of those 35 years I have seen good men,
and wise leaders, struggle to bring the
blessings of this land to all of our people.
Now I am the President. It is now my opportunity to help every child get an educa-
SENATE
tion, to help every Negro and every American
citizen have an equal opportunity, to help
every family get a decent home and to help
bring healing to the sick and dignity to the
old.
As I have said before, that is what I have
lived for. That is what I have wanted all
my life. And I do not want to see all those
hopes and all those dreams of so many people for so many years now drowned in the
wasteful ravages of war. I am going to do all
I can to see that that never happens.
But I also know, as a realistic public
servant, that as long as there are men who
hate and destroy we must have the courage
to resist, or we will see it all, all that we have
built, all that we hope to build, all of our
dreams for freedom-all swept away on the
flood of conquest.
So this too shall not happen; we will stand
in Vietnam.
THE TASKS OF DIPLOMACY
(Statement by Secretary of State Dean Rusk,
before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, August 3, 1965)
As the President has said, "there are great
stakes in the balance" in Vietnam today.
Let us be clear about those stakes. With
its archipelagos, southeast Asia contains rich
natural resources and some 200 million people. Geographically, it has great strategic
importance-it dominates the gateway between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and
flanks the Indian subcontinent on one side,
and Australia and New Zealand on the other.
The loss of southeast Asia to the Communists
would constitute a serious shift in the balance of power against the interests of the
free world. And the loss of South Vietnam
would make the defense of the rest of southeast Asia much more costly and difficult.
That is why the SEATO Council has said
that the defeat of the aggression against
South Vietnam is "essential" to the security
of southeast Asia.
But much more is at stake than preserving
the independence of the peoples of southeast
Asia and preventing the vast resources of
that area from being swallowed by those hostile to freedom.
The test
The war in Vietnam is a test of a technique
of aggression: what the Communists, in
their upside-down language, call wars of national liberation. They use the term to describe any effort by Communists, short of
large-scale war, to destroy by force any nonCommunist government. Thus the leaders
of the Communist terrorists in such an independent democracy as Venezuela are described as leaders of a fight for "national
liberation." And a recent editorial in Pravda
said that "the upsurge of the national liberation movement in Latin American countries
has been to a great extent a result of the
activities of Communist Parties."
Communist leaders know, as the rest of the
world knows, that thermonuclear war would
be ruinous. They know that large-scale invasions, such as that launched in Korea 15
years ago, would bring great risks and heavy
penalties. So, they have resorted to semiconcealed aggression through the infiltration
of arms and trained military personnel across
national frontiers. And the Asian Communists themselves regard the war in Vietnam
as a critical test of that technique. Recently General Giap, leader of North Vietnam's army, said:
"If the special warfare that the U.S. imperialists are testing in South Vietnam is
overcome, then it can be defeated everywhere
in the world."
In southeast Asia, the Communists already have publicly designated Thailand as
the next target. And if the aggression
against South Vietnam were permitted to
succeed, the forces of militant communism
everywhere would be vastly heartened and
August 25, 1965
we could expect to see a series of so-called
wars of liberation in Asia, Latin America, and
Africa.
International law does not restrict internal
revolution. But it does restrict what third
powers may lawfully do in sending arms and
men to bring about insurrection. What
North Vietnam is doing in South Vietnam
flouts not only the Geneva Accords of 1954
and 1962 but general international law.
The assault on the Republic of Vietnam is,
beyond question, an aggression. It was organized and has been directed by North Vietnam, with the backing of Communist China.
The cadres of guerrilla fighters, saboteurs,
and assassins who form the backbone of the
Vietcong were specially trained in the North.
Initially, many of them were men of South
Vietnamese birth who had fought with the
Viet Minh against the French and gone North
in their military units after Vietnam Wfas
divided in 1954. But that reservoir was
gradually exhausted. During 1964 and since,
most of the military men infiltrated from
the North have been natives of North Vietnam. And near the end of last year they
began to include complete units of the regular North Vietnamese army. In addition to
trained men and political and military direction, the North has supplied arms and ammunition in increasing quantities-in considerable part of Chinese manufacture.
Between 1959 and the end of 1964, 40,000
trained military personnel came down from
the North into South Vietnam, by conservative estimate. More have come this year.
Had all these crossed the line at once-as
the North Koreans did in invading South
Korea 15 years ago-nobody in the free world
could have doubted that the assault on Vietnam was an aggression. That the dividing line between North and South Vietnam
was intended to be temporary does not make
the attack any less of an aggression. The dividing line in Korea also was intended to be
temporary.
If there is ever to be peace in this world,
aggression must cease. We as a Nation are
committed to peace and the rule of law. We
recognize also the harsh reality that our security is Involved.
We are committed to oppose aggression not
only through the United Nations Charter
but through many defensive alliances. We
have 42 allies, not counting the Republic of
Vietnam. And many other nations know
that their security depends upon us. Our
power and our readiness to use it to assist
others to resist aggression, the integrity of
our commitment, these are the bulwarks of
peace in the world.
If we were to fail in Vietnam, serious consequences would ensue. Our adversaries
would be encouraged to take greater risks
elsewhere. At the same time, the confidence
which our allies and other free nations now
have in our commitments would be seriously
impaired.
The commitment
Let us be clear about our commitment in
Vietnam.
It began with the Southeast Asia Treaty,
which was negotiated and signed after the
Geneva agreements and the cease-fire in
Indochina in 1954 and was approved by the
U.S. Senate by a vote of 82 to 1 in February
1955. That treaty protects against Communist aggression not only its members but
any of the three non-Communist states
growing out of former French Indochina
which asks for protection.
Late in 1954 President Eisenhower, with
bipartisan support, decided to extend aid to
South Vietnam, both economic aid and aid
in training its armed forces. His purpose,
as he said, was to "assist the Government
of Vietnam in developing and maintaining
a strong, viable state, capable of resisting
attempted subversion or aggression through
military means."
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Vietnam became a republic in 1955, was
recognized as an independent nation by 36
nations initially, and is so recognized by more
than 50 today.
Beginning in 1955, the Congress has each
year approved overall economic and military
assistance programs in which the continuation of major aid to South Vietnam has been
specifically considered.
During the next 5 years, South Vietnam
made remarkable economic and social progress-what some observers described as a
"miracle."
Nearly a million refugees from the north
were settled. These were the stouthearted
people of whom the late Dr. Tom Dooley
wrote so eloquently in his first book, "Deliver
Us From Evil," and who led him to devote
the rest of his all-too-brief life to helping
the people of Vietnam and Laos.
A land-reform program was launched. A
comprehensive system of agricultural credit
was set up. Thousands of new schools and
more than 3,500 village health stations were
built. Rail transportation was restored and
roads were repaired and improved. South
Vietnam not only fed itself but resumed
rice exports. Production of rubber and sugar
rose sharply. New industries were started.
Per capita income rose by 20 percent.
By contrast, North Vietnam suffered a drop
of 10 percent in food production and disappointments in industrial production.
In 1954, Hanoi almost certainly had expected to take over South Vietnam within a
few years. But by 1959 its hopes had withered and the south was far outstripping the
heralded "Communist paradise." These almost certainly were the factors which led
Hanoi to organize and launch the assault
on the south.
I beg leave to quote from a statement I
made at a press conference on May 4, 1961:
"Since late in 1959 organized Communist
activity in the form of guerrilla raids against
army and security units of the Government
of Vietnam, terrorist acts against local officials and civilians, and other subversive activities in the Republic of Vietnam have
Increased to levels unprecedented since the
Geneva agreements of 1954. During this period the organized armed strength of the
Vietcong, the Communist apparatus operating in the Republic of Vietnam, has grown
from about 3,000 to over 12,000 personnel.
This armed strength has been supplemented
by an increase in the numbers of political
and propaganda agents in the area.
"During 1960 alone, Communist armed
units and terrorists assassinated or kidnaped
over 3,000 local officials, military personnel,
and civilians. Their activities took the form
of armed attacks against isolated garrisons,
attacks on newly established townships, ambushes on roads and canals, destruction of
bridges, and well-planned sabotage against
public works and communication lines. Because of Communist guerrilla activity 200 elementary schools had to be closed at various
times, affecting over 25,000 students and 800
teachers.
"This upsurge of Communist guerrilla activity apparently stemmed from a decision
made in May 1959 by the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of North Vietnam
which called for the reunification of Vietnam
by all 'appropriate means.' In July of the
same year the Central Committee was reorganized and charged with intelligence duties
and the liberation of South Vietnam. In
retrospect this decision to step up guerrilla
activity was made to reverse the remarkable
success which the Government of the Republic of Vietnam under President Ngo Dinh
Diem had achieved in consolidating its political position and in attaining significant economic recovery in the 5 years between 1954
and 1959.
"Remarkably coincidental with the renewed Communist activity in Laos, the Communist Party of North Vietnam at its Third
SENATE
Congress on September 10, 1960, adopted a
resolution which declared that the Vietnamese revolution has as a major strategic task
the liberation of the south from the 'rule of
U.S. imperialists and their henchmen.' This
resolution called for the direct overthrow of
the Government of the Republic of Vietnam."
Next door to South Vietnam, Laos was
threatened by a similar Communist assault.
The active agent of attack on both was Communist North Vietnam, with the backing of
Peiping and Moscow. In the case of Laos, we
were able to negotiate an agreement in 1962
that it should be neutral and that all foreign
military personnel should be withdrawn.
But
We complied with that agreement.
North Vietnam never did. In gross violation
of its pledge, it left armed units in Laos and
continued to use Laos as a corridor to infiltrate arms and trained men into South
Vietnam.
There was no new agreement, even on
paper, on Vietnam. Late in 1961, President
Kennedy therefore increased our assistance
to the Republic of Vietnam. During that
year, the infiltration of arms and military
personnel from the north continued to
increase. To cope with that escalation, President Kennedy decided to send more American military personnel-to assist with logistics and transportation and communications
as well as with training and as advisers to
South Vietnamese forces in the field. Likewise, we expanded our economic assistance
and technical advice, particularly with a view
to improving living conditions in the villages.
During 1962 and 1963, Hanoi continued to
increase its assistance to the Vietcong. In
response, President Kennedy and later President Johnson increased our aid.
Hanoi kept on escalating the war throughout 1964. And the Vietcong intensified its
drafting and training of men in the areas it
controls.
Last August, you will recall, North Vietnamese forces attacked American destroyers
in international waters. That attack was met
by appropriate air response against North
Vietnamese naval installations. And Congress, by a combined vote of 504 to 2, passed
a resolution expressing its support for actions
by the Executive "including the use of armed
force" to meet aggression in southeast Asia,
including specifically aggression against
South Vietnam. The resolution and the congressional debate specifically envisaged that,
subject to continuing congressional consultation, the Armed Forces of the United States
might be committed in the defense of South
Vietnam in any way that seemed necessary,
including employment in combat.
In summary, our commitment in Vietnam
has been set forth in the Southeast Asia
Treaty, which was almost unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate; the pledges made
with bipartisan support by three successive
Presidents of the United States; the assistance programs approved annually, beginning
in 1955, by bipartisan majorities in both
Houses of Congress; the declarations which
we joined our SEATO and ANZUS allies in
making at their Ministerial Council Meetings
in 1964 and 1965; the joint congressional resolution of August 1964, which was approved
by a combined vote of 504 to 2.
Our commitment is to assist the Government and people of South Vietnam to repel
this aggression, thus preserving their freedom. This commitment is to the South
Vietnamese as a nation and people. It has
continued through various changes of government, just as our commitments to our
NATO allies remain unaltered by changes in
government.
Continued escalation of the aggression by
the other, side has required continued
strengthening of the military defenses of
South Vietnam. Whether still more American military personnel will be needed will
depend on events, especially on whether the
21667
other side continues to escalate the aggression. As the President has made plain, we
will provide the South Vietnamese with
whatever assistance may be necessary to ensure that the aggression against them is effectively repelled-that is, to make good on
our commitment.
The pursuit of a peaceful settlement
As President Johnson and his predecessors
have repeatedly emphasized, our objective
in southeast Asia is peace-a peace in which
the various peoples of the area can manage
their own affairs in their own ways and address themselves to economic and social
progress.
We seek no bases or special position for the
United States. We do not seek to destroy or
overturn the Communist regimes in Hanoi
and Peiping. We ask only that they cease
their aggressions, that they leave their neighbors alone.
Repeatedly, we and others have sought to
achieve a peaceful settlement of the war in
Vietnam.
We have had many talks with the Soviet
authorities over a period of more than 4
years. But their influence in Hanoi appears
to be limited. Recently, when approached,
their response has been, in substance: You
have come to the wrong address-nobody has
authorized us to negotiate. Talk to Hanoi.
We have had a long series of talks with the
Chinese Communists in Warsaw. Although
Peiping is more cautious in action than in
word, it is unbending in its hostility to us
and plainly opposed to any negotiated settlement in Vietnam.
There have been repeated contacts with
Hanoi. Many channels are open. And many
have volunteered to use them. But so far
there has been no indication that Hanoi is
seriously interested in peace on any terms
except those which would assure a Communist takeover of South Vietnam.
We and others have sought to open the
way for conferences on the neighboring
states of Laos and Cambodia, where progress
toward peace might be reflected in Vietnam.
These approaches have been blocked by
Hanoi and Peiping.
The United Kingdom, as cochairman of the
Geneva conferences, has repeatedly sought a
path to a settlement-first by working toward a new Geneva Conference, then by a
visit by a senior British statesman. Both
efforts were blocked by the Communistsand neither Hanoi nor Peiping would even
receive the senior British statesman.
In April, President Johnson offered unconditional discussions with the governments
concerned. Hanoi and Peiping called this
offer a "hoax."
Seventeen nonalined nations appealed for
a peaceful solution, by negotiations without preconditions. We accepted the proposal. Hanoi and Red China rejected it with
scorn calling some of its authors "monsters
and freaks."
The President of India made a constructive proposal for an end to hostilities and
an Afro-Asian patrol force. We welcomed
this proposal with interest and hope. Hanoi
and Peiping rejected it as a betrayal.
SIn May, the United States and South Vietnam suspended air attacks on North Vietnam. This action was made known to the
other side to see if there would be a response
in kind. But Hanoi denounced the pause as
"a wornout trick" and Peiping denounced
it as a "swindle." Some say the pause was
not long enough. But we knew the negative reaction from the other side before we
resumed. And we had paused previously for
more than 4 years while thousands of armed
men invaded the south and killed thousands
of South Vietnamese, including women and
children, and deliberately destroyed schoolhouses and playgrounds and hospitals and
health centers and other facilities that the
South Vietnamese had built to improve their
21668
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
lives and give their children a chance for a
better education and better health.
In late June, the Commonwealth Prime
Ministers established a mission of four of
their members to explore with all parties concerned the possibilities for a conference
leading to a just and lasting peace. Hanoi
and Peiping made it plain that they would
not receive the mission.
Mr. Harold Davies, a member of the British
Parliament, went to Hanoi with the approval
of Prime Minister Wilson. But the high officials there would not even talk with him.
And the lower-ranking officials who did talk
with him made it clear that Hanoi was not
yet interested in negotiations, that it was
intent on a total victory in South Vietnam.
As Prime Minister Wilson reported to the
House of Commons, Mr. Davies met with a
conviction among the North Vietnamese that
their prospects of victory were too imminent
for them to forsake the battlefield for the
conference table.
We and others have made repeated efforts
at discussions through the United Nations.
In the Security Council, after the August attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin, we supported a
Soviet proposal that the Government of
North Vietnam be invited to come to the
Security Council. But Hanoi refused.
In April, Secretary General U Thant considered visits to Hanoi and Peiping to explore the possibilities of peace. But both
those Communist regimes made it plain that
they did not regard the United Nations as
competent to deal with that matter.
The President's San Francisco speech in
June requested help from the United Nations' membership at large in getting peace
talks started.
In late July the President sent our new
Ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur J.
Goldberg, to New York with a letter to
Secretary General U Thant requesting that
all the resources, energy and immense prestige of the United Nations be employed to
find ways to halt aggression and to bring
peace in Vietnam. The Secretary General has
already accepted this assignment.
We sent a letter to the Security Council
calling attention to the special responsibility in this regard of the Security Council
and of the nations which happen to be members of the Council. We have considered
from time to time placing the matter formally before the Security Council. But we have
been advised by many nations-and by many
individuals-who are trying to help to
achieve a peaceful settlement that to force
debate and a vote in the Security Council
might tend to harden positions and make
useful explorations and discussions even
more difficult.
President Johnson has publicly invited
any and all members of the United Nations
to do all they can to bring about a peaceful
settlement.
By these moves the United States has intended to engage the serious attention and
efforts of the United Nations as an institution, and its members as signatories of its
charter, in getting the Communists to talk
rather than fight-while continuing with
determination an increasing effort to demonstrate that Hanoi and the Vietcong cannot
settle the issue on the battlefield.
We have not only placed the Vietnam issue
before the United Nations, but believe that
we have done so in the most constructive
ways.
The conditions for peace
What are the essential conditions for peace
in South Vietnam?
In late June, the Foreign Minister of South
Vietnam set forth the fundamental principles of a "just and enduring peace." In
summary, those principles are:
An end to aggression and subversion.
Freedom for South Vietnam to choose and
shape for itself its own destiny "in con-
SENATE
formity with democratic principles and without any foreign interference from whatever
sources."
As soon as aggression has ceased, the ending of the military measures now necessary
by the Government of South Vietnam and
the nations that have come to its aid to defend South Vietnam; and the removal of
foreign military forces from South Vietnam.
And effective guarantees for the freedom of
the people of South Vietnam.
We endorse those principles. In essence,
they would constitute a return to the basic
purpose of the Geneva accords of 1954.
Whether they require reaffirmation of those
accords or new agreements embodying these
essential points, but with provision in either
case for more effective international machinery and guarantees, could be determined
in discussions and negotiations.
Once the basic points set forth by South
Vietnam's Foreign Minister were achieved,
future relations between North Vietnam and
South Vietnam could be worked out by
peaceful means. And this would include the
question of a free decision by the people of
North and South Vietnam on the matter of
reunification.
When the aggression has ceased and the
freedom of South Vietnam is assured by other
means, we will withdraw our forces. Three
Presidents of the United States have said
many times that we want no permanent bases
and no special position there. Our military
forces are there because of the North Vietnamese aggression against South Vietnam
and for no other reason. When the men and
arms infiltrated by the North are withdrawn
and Hanoi ceases its support and guidance
of the war in the South, whatever remains
in the form of indigenous dissent is a matter
for the South Vietnamese themselves. As for
South Vietnamese fighting in the Vietcong or
under its control or influence, they must in
time be integrated into their national society. But that is a process which must be
brought about by the people of South Vietnam, not by foreign diplomats.
Apart from the search for a solution in
Vietnam itself, the U.S. Government has
hoped that discussions could be held on the
problems concerning Cambodia and Laos.
We supported the proposal of Prince Sihanouk for a conference on Cambodia, to be
attended by the governments that participated in the 1954 conference, and noted the
joint statement of the Soviet Union and the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam, in April, to
the effect that both favored the convening
of conferences on Cambodia and Laos. Subsequently, however, Hanoi appeared to draw
back and to impose conditions at variance
with the Cambodian proposal.
We look beyond a just and enduring peace
for Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, to the
day when Peiping will be ready to join in a
general settlement in the Far East-a general settlement that would remove the threat
of aggression and make it possible for all the
peoples of the area to devote themselves to
economic and social progress.
Several of the nations of Asia are densely
populated. And high rates of population
growth make it difficult for them to increase
per capita incomes. The solution to these
problems cannot be found through external
aggression. They must be achieved internally within each nation.
As President Johnson has said, the United
States stands ready to assist and support cooperative programs for economic development in Asia. Already we are making available additional funds for the development of
the Mekong Valley. And we are taking the
lead in organizing an Asian Development
Bank, which we hope will be supported by
all the major industrialized nations, including the Soviet Union. We would welcome
membership by North Vietnam, when it has
ceased its aggression.
August 25, 1965
Those are our objectives-peace and a
better life for all who are willing to live at
peace with their neighbors.
The present path
I turn now to the specific actions we are
taking to convince Hanoi that it will not succeed and that it must move toward a peaceful solution.
Secretary McNamara is appearing before
the appropriate committees of the Congress
to discuss the military situation within
South Vietnam in detail. In essence, our
present view is that it is crucial to turn the
tide in the south, and that for this purpose
it is necessary to send substantial numbers
of additional American forces.
The primary responsibility for defeating
the Vietcong will remain, however, with the
South Vietnamese. They have some 545,000
men in military and paramilitary forces. Despite losses, every branch of the armed forces
of South Vietnam has more men under arms
than it had 6 months ago. And they are
making systematic efforts to increase their
forces still further. The primary missions
of American ground forces are to secure the
airbases used by the South Vietnamese and
ourselves and to provide a strategic reserve,
thus releasing South Vietnamese troops for
offensive actions against the Vietcong. In
securing the airbases and related military
installations, American forces are pushing
out into the countryside to prevent buildups for surprise attacks. And they may be
used in emergencies to help the South Vietnamese in combat. But the main task of
rooting out the Vietcong will continue to be
the responsibility of the South Vietnamese.
And we have seen no sign that they are
about to try to shift that responsibility to
us. On the contrary, the presence of increasing numbers of American combat troops
seems to have stimulated greater efforts on
the part of the fighting men of South Vietnam.
At the same time, on the military side, we
shall maintain, with the South Vietnamese,
our program of limited air attacks on military targets in North Vietnam. This program is a part of the total strategy. We had
never expected that air attacks on North
Vietnam alone would bring Hanoi to a quick
decision to cease its aggression. Hanoi has
been committed to its aggression too long
and too deeply to turn around overnight.
It must be convinced that it faces not only
continuing, and perhaps increased, pressure
on the north itself, but also that it simply
cannot win in the south.
The air attacks on the North have also had
specific military effects in reducing the scale
of increased infiltration from the North.
Finally, they are important as a warning to
all concerned that there are no longer
sanctuaries for aggression.
It has been suggested in some quarters
that Hanoi would be more disposed to move
Sto negotiations and to cease its aggression if
we stopped bombing the North. We do not
rule out the possibility of another and longer
pause in bombing, but the question remains-and we have repeatedly asked it:
What would happen from the North in response? Would Hanoi withdraw the 325th
Division of the Regular Army, which is now
deployed in South Vietnam and across the
line in Laos? Would it take home the other
men it has infiltrated into the South?
Would it stop sending arms and ammunition
into South Vietnam? Would the campaign
of assassination and sabotage in the South
cease? We have been trying to find out
what would happen if we were to suspend
our bombing of the North. We have not
been able to get an answer or even a hint.
Those who complain about air attacks on
military targets in North Vietnam would
carry more weight if they had manifested, or
would manifest now, appropriate concern
about the infiltrations from the North, the
August 25, 1965
CONNGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
high rate of military activity in the South,
and the ruthless campaign of terror and assassination which is being conducted in the
south under the direction of Hanoi and with
its active support.
The situation in South Vietnam
Let me now underline just a few points
about the political and economic situation
in South Vietnam. For we know well that,
while security is fundamental to turning the
tide, it remains vital to do all we can on the
political and economic fronts.
All of us have been concerned, of course,
by the difficulties of the South Vietnamese
in developing an effective and stable government. But this failure should not astonish
us. South Vietnam is a highly plural society
striving to find its political feet under very
Other nations-new
adverse conditions.
and old-with fewer difficulties and unmolested by determined aggressors have done
no better. South Vietnam emerged from the
French Indochina war with many political
factions, most of which were firmly antiCommunist. Despite several significant initial successes in establishing a degree of political harmony, the government of President
Diem could not maintain a lasting unity
among the many factions. The recent shifting and reshuffling of Vietnamese Governments is largely the continuing search for
political unity and a viable regime which can
overcome these long-evident political divisions.
And we should not forget that the destruction of the fabric of government at all levels
has been a primary objective of the Vietcong.
The Vietcong has assassinated thousands of
local officials-and health workers and
schoolteachers and others who were helping
to improve the life of the people of the
countryside. In the last year and a half, it
has killed, wounded, or kidnaped 2,291 village officials and 22,146 other civiliansthese on top of its thousands of earlier
victims.
Despite the risks to themselves and their
families, Vietnamese have continued to come
forward to fill these posts. And in the last
6 years, no political dissenter of any consequence has gone over to the Vietcong.
The Buddhists, the Catholics, the sects, the
Cambodians (of which there are about a
million in South Vietnam), the Montagnards-all the principal elements in South
Vietnamese political life except the Vietcong itself, which is a very small minorityremain overwhelmingly anti-Communist.
The suggestion that Ho Chi Minh probably
could win a free election in South Vietnam is
directly contrary to all the evidence we have.
And we have a great deal of evidence, for
we have Americans-in twos and threes and
fours and sixes-in the countryside in all
parts of Vietnam. In years past Ho Chi
Minh was a hero throughout Vietnam. For
he had led the fight against the Japanese
and then against the French. But his glamour began to fade when he set up a Communist police state in the North-and the
South, by contrast, made great progress under a non-Communist nationalist government. Today the North Vietnamese regime
is badly discredited. We find the South Vietnamese in the countryside ready to cooperate
with their own government when they can
do so with reasonable hope of not being
assassinated by the Vietcong the next night.
At the present time, somewhat more than
50 percent of the people of Vietnam live in
areas under the control of their Government.
Another 25 percent live in areas of shifting
control. And about 25 percent live in areas
under varying degrees of Vietcong control.
But even where it succeeds in imposing taxes,
drafting recruits, and commandeering labor,
the Vietcong has not usually been able to
organize the area. We have a good deal of
evidence that Vietcong tax exactions and ter-
rorism have increasingly alienated the villagers. And one of the problems with which
the South Vietnamese Government and we
have to deal is the large scale exodus from
the central highlands to the coastal areas of
refugees from the Vietcong.
It is of the greatest significance that, despite many years of harsh war, despite the
political instability of the central government, and despite division of their country
since 1954, the people of South Vietnam fight
on with uncommon determination. There is
no evidence among politicians, the bureaucracy, the military, the major religious groups,
the youth, or even the peasantry of a desire
for peace at any price. They all oppose surrender or accommodation on a basis which
would lead to a Communist takeover. The
will to resist the aggression from the North
has survived through periods of great stress
and remains strong.
The central objective of our foreign policy
is a peaceful community of nations, each free
to choose its own institutions but cooperating with one another to promote their mutual welfare. It is the kind of world order
envisaged in the opening sections of the
United Nations Charter. But there have been
and still are important forces in the world
which seek a different goal-which deny the
right of free choice, which seek to expand
their influence and empires by every means
including force.
The bulwark of peace
In defense of peace and freedom and the
right of free choice:
We and others insisted that the Soviets
withdraw their forces from Iran.
We went to the aid of Turkey and Greece.
We joined in organizing the European recovery program and in forming the North
Atlantic Alliance.
We and our allies have defended the freedom of West Berlin.
We and 15 other nations joined in repelling the aggression in Korea.
We have joined defensive alliances with
many other nations and have helped them to
strengthen their defensive military forces.
We supported the United Nations in its
efforts to preserve the independence of the
Congo.
We insisted that the Soviet Union withdraw strategic weapons from Cuba.
Had we not done these things-and
others-the enemies of freedom, would now
control much of the world and be in a position to destroy us or at least to sap our
strength by economic strangulation.
For the same basic reasons that we took
all those other measures to deter or to repel
aggression, we are determined to assist the
people of South Vietnam to defeat this aggression.
In his last public utterance, recorded only
half an hour before his death, a great and
beloved American, Adlai Stevenson said:
"There has been a great deal of pressure
on me in the United States from many
sources to take a position-a public position-inconsistent with that of my Government. Actually, I don't agree with those
protestants. My hope in Vietnam is that resistance there may establish the fact that
changes in Asia are not to be precipitated
by outside forces."
I believe, with the President, that "once
the Communists know, as we know, that a
violent solution is impossible, then a peaceful solution is inevitable."
The great bulwark of peace for all freemen-and therefore of peace for the millions
ruled by the adversaries of freedom-has
been, and is today, the power of the United
States and our readiness to use that power,
in cooperation with other free nations to
deter or to defeat aggression, and to help
other free nations to go forward economically, socially, and politically.
21669
We have had to cope with a long series of
dangerous crises caused by the aggressive appetites of others. But we are a great nation and people. I am confident that we will
meet this test, as we have met others.
THE TASKS OF DEFENSE
(Statement by Secretary of Defense Robert
S. McNamara, before the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, August 4, 1965)
The issue in Vietnam is essentially the
same as it was in 1954 when President
Eisenhower said:
"I think it is no longer necessary to enter
into a long argument or exposition to show
the importance to the United States of
Indochina and of the struggle going on there.
No matter how the struggle may have started,
it has long since become one of the testing
places between a free form of government
and dictatorship. Its outcome is going to
have the greatest significance for us, and
possibly for a long time into the future.
"We have here a sort of cork in the bottle,
the bottle being the great area that includes
Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, all of the surrounding areas of Asia with its hundreds of
millions of people. * * *"
The nature of the conflict
What is at stake in Vietnam today is the
ability of the free world to block Communist armed aggression and prevent the
loss of all of southeast Asia, a loss which
in its ultimate consequences could drastically alter the strategic situation in Asia
and the Pacific to the grave detriment of our
own security and that of our allies. While
15 years ago, in Korea, Communist aggression took the form of an overt armed attack,
today in South Vietnam, it has taken the
form of a large-scale intensive guerrilla
operation.
The covert nature of this aggression, which
characterized the earlier years of the struggle
in South Vietnam, has now all but been
stripped away. The control of the Vietcong
effort by the regime in Hanoi, supported and
incited by Communist China, has become
increasingly apparent.
The struggle there has enormous implications for the security of the United States
and the free world, and for that matter, the
Soviet Union as well. The North Vietnamese
and the Chinese Communists have chosen to
make South Vietnam the test case for their
particular version of the so-called wars of
national liberation. The extent to which
violence should be used in overthrowing
non-Communist governments has been one
of the most bitterly contested issues between
the Chinese and the Soviet Communists.
Although the former Chairman, Mr. Khrushchev, fully endorsed wars of national liberation as the preferred means of extending
the sway of communism, he cautioned that
"this does not necessarily mean that the
transition to socialism will everywhere and
in all cases be linked with armed uprising
and civil war. * * * Revolution by peaceful
means accords with the interests of the
working class and the masses."
The Chinese Communists, however, insist
that:
"Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the
revolutionary struggles of the people. The
transition from capitalism to socialism in
any country can only be brought about
through proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country. * * * The vanguard of the proletariat
will remain unconquerable in all circumstances only if it masters all forms of struggle-peaceful and armed, open and secret,
legal and illegal, parliamentary struggle and
mass struggle, and so forth." (Letter to the
Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union, June 14, 1963.)
21670
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Their preference for violence was even
more emphatically expressed in an article in
the Peiping People's Daily of March 31, 1964:
"It is advantageous from the point of
view of tactics to refer to the desire for
peaceful transition, but it would be inappropriate to emphasize the possibility of peaceful transition. * * * the proletarian party
must never substitute parliamentary struggle for proletarian revolution or entertain
the illusion that the transition to socialism
can be achieved through the parliamentary
road. Violent revolution is a universal law
of proletarian revolution. To realize the
transition to socialism, the proletariat must
wage armed struggle, smash the old state
machine and establish the dictatorship of
the proletariat. * * *"
"Political power," the article quotes Mao
Tse-tung as saying, "grows out of the barrel
of a gun."
Throughout the world we see the fruits
of these policies and in Vietnam, particularly, we see the effects of the Chinese Communists' more militant stance and their
hatred of the free world. They make no
secret of the fact that Vietnam is the test
case, and neither does the regime in Hanoi.
General Giap, head of the North Vietnamese
Army, recently said that "South Vietnam is
the model of the national liberation movement of our time. * * * If the special warfare that the U.S. imperialists are testing in
South Vietnam is overcome, then it can be
defeated everywhere in the world." And,
Pham Van Dong, Premier of North Vietnam,
pointed out that "The experience of our
compatriots in South Vietnam attracts the
attention of the world, especially the peoples
of South America."
It is clear that a Communist success in
South Vietnam would be taken as proof that
the Chinese Communists' position is correct
and they will have made a giant step forward
in their efforts to seize control of the world
Communist movement.
Furthermore, such a success would greatly
increase the prestige of Communist China
among the nonalined nations and strengthen the position of their followers everywhere.
In that event we would then have to be
prepared to cope with the same kind of
aggression in other parts of the world wherever the existing governments are weak and
the social structures fragmented. If Communist armed aggression is not stopped in
Vietnam, as it was in Korea, the confidence
of small nations in America's pledges of support will be weakened and many of them,
in widely separated areas of the world, will
feel unsafe.
Thus, the stakes in South Vietnam are far
greater than the loss of one small country
to communism. Its loss would be a most
serious setback to the cause of freedom and
would greatly complicate the task of preventing the further spread of militant Asian communism. And, if that spread is not halted,
our strategic position in the world will be
weakened and our national security directly
endangered.
Conditions leading to the present situation
in South Vietnam
Essential to a proper understanding of the
present situation in South Vietnam is a
recognition of the fact that the so-called
insurgency there is planned, directed, controlled, and supported from Hanoi.
True, there is a small dissident minority in
South Vietnam, but the government could
cope with it if it were not directed and supplied from the outside. As early as 1960, at
the Third Congress of the North Vietnamese
Communist Party, both Ho Chi Minh and
General Giap spoke of the need to "step up"
the "revolution in the South." In March
1963 the party organ Hoc Tap stated that the
authorities in South Vietnam "are well aware
that North Vietnam is the firm base for the
southern revolution and the point on which
SENATE
it leans, and that our party is the steady and
experienced vanguard unit of the working
class and people and is the brain and factor
that decides all victories of the revolution."
Through most of the past decade the North
Vietnamese Government denied and went to
great efforts to conceal the scale of its personnel and materiel support, in addition to
direction and encouragement, to the Vietcong.
It had strong reasons to do so. The North
Vietnamese regime had no wish to force upon
the attention of the world its massive and
persistent violations of its Geneva pledges
of 1954 and 1962 regarding noninterference
in South Vietnam and Laos.
However, in building up the Vietcong
forces for a decisive challenge, the authorities in North Vietnam have increasingly
dropped the disguises that gave their earlier
support a clandestine character.
Through 1963, the bulk of the arms infiltrated from the North were old French and
American models acquired prior to 1954 in
Indochina and Korea.
Now, the flow of weapons from North Vietnam consists almost entirely of the latest
arms acquired from Communist China; and
the flow is large enough to have entirely reequipped the main force units, despite the
capture this year by government forces of
thousands of these weapons and millions of
rounds of the new ammunition.
Likewise, through 1963, nearly all the personnel infiltrating through Laos, trained and
equipped in the North and ordered South,
were former southerners.
But in the last 18 months, the great majority of the infiltrators-more than 10,000
of them-have been ethnic northerners,
mostly draftees ordered into the People's
Army of Vietnam for duty in the South.
And it now appears that, starting their journey through Laos last December, from one to
three regiments of a North Vietnamese regular division, the 325th Division of the North
Vietnamese Army, have deployed into the
Central Highlands of South Vietnam for
combat alongside the Vietcong.
Thus, despite all its reasons for secrecy,
Hanoi's desire for decisive results this summer has forced it to reveal its hand even
more openly.
The United States during the last 4 years
has steadily increased its help to the people
of South Vietnam in an effort to counter
this ever-increasing scale of Communist
achieved some
aggression. These efforts
measure of success during 1962. The South
Vietnamese forces in that year made good
progress in suppressing the Vietcong insurrection.
Although combat deaths suffered by these
forces in 1962 rose by II percent over the
1961 level (from about 4,000 to 4,450), Vietcong combat deaths increased by 72 percent
(from about 12,000 to 21,000). Weapons lost
by the South Vietnamese fell from 5,900 in
1961 to 5,200 in 1962, while the number lost.
by the Vietcong rose from 2,750 to 4,050. The
Government's new strategic hamlet program
was just getting underway and was showing
promise. The economy was growing and the
control.
Government seemed firmly in
Therefore, in early 1963, I was able to say:
"* * * victory over the Vietcong will most
likely take many years. But now, as a result
of the operations of the last year, there is a
new feeling of confidence, not only on the
part of the Government of South Vietnam
but also among the populace, that victory
is possible."
But at the same time I also cautioned:
"We are not unmindful of the fact that
the pressure on South Vietnam may well
continue through infiltration via the Laos
corridor. Nor are we unmindful of the possibility that the Communists, sensing defeat
in their covert efforts, might resort to overt
aggression from North Vietnam. Obviously,
this latter contingency could require a
August 25, 1965
greater direct participation by the United
States. The survival of an independent
government in South Vietnam is so important to the security of all southeast Asia and
to the free world that we must be prepared
to take all necessary measures within our
capability to prevent a Communist victory."
Unfortunately, the caution voiced in early
1963 proved to be well founded. Late in
1963, the Communists stepped up their efforts, and the military situation began to
deteriorate. The Diem government came
under increasing internal pressure, and in
November it was overthrown. As I reported
in February 1964:
"The Vietcong was quick to take advantage
of the growing opposition to the Diem government and the period of uncertainty following its overthrow. Vietcong activities
were already increasing in September and
continued to increase at an accelerated rate
in October and November, particularly in the
delta area. And I must report that they
have made considerable progress since the
coup."
Following the coup, the lack of stability
in the central government and the rapid
turnover of key personnel, particularly senior
military commanders, began to be reflected
in combat operations and throughout the
entire fabric of the political and economic
structure. And, in 1964, the Communists
greatly increased the scope and tempo of
their subversive efforts. Larger scale attacks became more frequent and the flow of
men and supplies from the north expanded.
The incidence of terrorism and sabotage rose
rapidly and the pressure on the civilian population was intensified.
The deteriorating military situation was
clearly reflected in the statistics. South
Vietnamese combat deaths rose from 5,650 in
1963 to 7,450 in 1964 and the number of
weapons lost from 8,250, to 14,100. In contrast, Vietcong combat deaths dropped from
20,600 to 16,800 and, considering the
stepped-up tempo of activity, they experienced only a very modest rise in the rate of
weapons lost (from 5,400 to 5,900).
At various times in recent months, I have
called attention to the continued buildup
of Communist forces in South Vietnam. I
pointed out that although these forces had
not been committed to combat in any significant degree, they probably would be after
the start of the monsoon season. It is now
clear that these forces are being committed
in increasing numbers and that the Communists have decided to make an all-out
attempt to bring down the Government of
South Vietnam.
The entire economic and social structure
is under attack. Bridges, railroads, and highways are being destroyed and interdicted.
Agricultural products are being barred from
the cities. Electric powerplants and communication lines are being
sabotaged.
Whole villages are being burned and their
population driven away, increasing the
refugee burden on the South Vietnamese
Government.
In addition to the continued infiltration of
increasing numbers of individuals anc' he
acceleration of the flow of modern equipment and supplies, organized units of the
North Vietnamese Army have been identified
in South Vietnam. We now estimate the
hard core Vietcong strength at some 70,000
men, including a recently reported increase
in the number of combat battalions. In addition, they have some 90,000 to 100,000 irregulars and some 30,000 in their political
cadres; i.e., tax collectors, propagandists,
etc. We have also identified at least three
battalions of the regular North Vietnamese
Army, and there are probably considerably
more.
At the same time the Government of
South Vienam has found it increasingly difficult to make a commensurate increase in
the size of its own forces, which now stand at
August 25, 1965
COb NGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
about 545,000 men, including the regional
and local defense forces but excluding the
national police.
Combat deaths on both sides have been
mounting-for the South Vietnamese from
an average of 143 men a week in 1964, to
about 270 a week for the 4-week period ending July 24 this year. Vietcong losses have
gone from 322 a week last year to about 680
a week for the 4-week period ending July 24.
Most important, the ratio of South Vietnamese to Vietcong strength has seriously
declined in the last 6 or 7 months from about
5 to 1 to about 3 or 3/2 to 1; the ratio of
combat battalions is substantially less. This
is far too low a ratio for a guerrilla war even
though the greater mobility and firepower
provided to the South Vietnamese forces by
the United States help to offset that disadvantage.
The South Vietnamese forces have to defend hundreds of cities, towns, and hamlets
while the Vietcong are free to choose the
time and place of their attack. As a result,
the South Vietnamese are stretched thin in
defensive positions, leaving only a small central reserve for offensive action against the
Vietcong, while the latter are left free to concentrate their forces and throw them against
selected targets. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Vietcong retains most of the
initiative.
Even so, we may not as yet have seen the
full weight of the Communist attack. Presently, the situation is particularly acute in
the northern part of the country where the
Communists have mobilized large military
forces which pose a threat to the entire region and its major cities and towns. Our
air attack may have helped to keep these
forces off balance but the threat remains
and it is very real.
Clearly, the time has come when the people
of South Vietnam need more help from us
and other nations if they are to retain their
freedom and independence.
We have already responded to that need
with some 75,000 U.S. military personnel,
including some combat units. This number
will be raised to 125,000 almost immediately
with the deployment of the Air Mobile Division and certain other forces. But, more
help will be needed in the months ahead and
additional U.S. combat forces will be required
to back up the hard-pressed Army of South
Vietnam. Two other nations have provided
combat forces-Australia and New Zealand.
We hope that by the end of this year others
will join them. In this regard, the Koreans
have just recently approved a combat division for deployment to Vietnam, which is
scheduled to arrive this fall.
Role of U.S. combat forces in South Vietnam
As I noted earlier, the central reserve of
the South Vietnamese Army has been seriously depleted in recent months. The principal role of U.S. ground combat forces will
be to supplement this reserve in support of
the frontline forces of the South Vietnamese
Army. The indigenous paramilitary forces
will deal with the pacification of areas
cleared of organized Vietcong and North
Vietnamese units, a role more appropriate for
them than for our forces.
The Government of South Vietnam's
strategy, with which we concur, is to achieve
the initiative, to expand gradually its area of
control by breaking up major concentrations
of enemy forces, using to the maximum our
preponderance of airpower, both land and
sea based. The number of fixed-wing attack sorties by U.S. aircraft in South Vietnam will increase manifold by the end of the
year.
Armed helicopter sorties will also increase
dramatically over the same period, and extension use will be made of heavy artillery,
both land based and sea based. At the same
time our air and naval forces will continue
to Interdict the Vietcong supplies line from
North Vietnam, both land and sea.
Although our tactics have changed, our
objective remains the same.
We have no desire to widen the war. We
have no desire to overthrow the North Vietnamese regime, seize its territory or achieve
the unification of North and South Vietnam
by force of arms. We have no need for permanent military bases in South Vietnam or
for special privileges of any kind.
What we are seeking through the planned
military buildup is to block the Vietcong
offensive, to give the people of South Vietnam and their armed forces some relief from
the unrelenting Communist pressures-to
give them time to strengthen their government, to reestablish law and order, and to
revive their economic life which has been
seriously disrupted by Vietcong harassment
and attack in recent months. We have no
illusions that success will be achieved quickly, but we are confident that it will be
achieved much more surely by the plan I
have outlined.
Increases in U.S. military forces
Fortunately, we have greatly increased the
strength and readiness of our Military Establishment since 1961, particularly in the kinds
of forces which we now require in southeast
Asia. The Active Army has been expanded
from I1 to 16 combat ready divisions.
Twenty thousand men have been added to
the Marine Corps to allow them to fill out
their combat structure and at the same time
facilitate the mobilization of the Marine
Corps Reserve. The tactical fighter squadrons of the Air Force have been increased by
51 percent. Our airlift capability has more
than doubled. Special forces trained to deal
with insurgency threats have been multiplied
elevenfold. General ship construction and
conversion has been doubled.
During this same period, procurement for
the expanded force has been Increased greatly: Air Force tactical aircraft-from $360 million in 1961 to about $1.1 billion in the original fiscal year 1966 budget; Navy aircraftfrom $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion; Army helicopters-from 286 aircraft to over 1,000. Procurement of ordnance, vehicles and related
equipment was increased about 150 percent
in the fiscal years 1962-64 period, compared
with the preceding 3 years. The tonnage of
modern nonnuclear air-to-ground ordnance
in stock tripled between fiscal year 1961 and
fiscal year 1965. In brief, the Military Establishment of the United States, today, is in
far better shape than it ever has been in
peacetime to face whatever tasks may lie
ahead.
Nevertheless, some further increases in
forces, military personnel, production, and
construction will be required if we are to deploy additional forces to southeast Asia and
provide for combat consumption while, at
the same time, maintaining our capabilities
to deal with crises elsewhere in the world.
To offset the deployments now planned to
southeast Asia, and provide some additional
forces for possible new deployments, we propose to increase the presently authorized
force levels. These increases will be of three
types: (1) Additional units for the Active
Forces, over and above those reflected in the
January budget; (2) military personnel augmentations for presently authorized units in
the Active Forces to man new bases, to handle
the larger logistics workload, etc.; and (3)
additional personnel and extra training for
selected Reserve component units to increase
their readiness for quick deployment. We
believe we can achieve this buildup without
calling up the Reserves or ordering the involuntary extension of tours, except as already
authorized by law for the Department of the
Navy. Even here the extension of officer
tours will be on a selective basis and extensions for enlisted men will be limited, in general, to not more than 4 months.
The program I have outlined here today
and the $1.7 billion amendment to the fiscal
year 1966 Defense appropriation bill now be-
21671
fore the committee will, in the collective
judgment of my principal military and civilian advisers and myself, provide the men,
materiel, and facilities required to fulfill the
President's pledge to meet the mounting aggression in South Vietnam, while at the same
time maintaining the forces required to meet
commitments elsewhere in the world.
THE CHALLENGE OF HUeMA~
N NEED
(Address by the President to the Association
of American Editorial Cartoonists, the
White House, May 13, 1965)
The third face of the war
The war in Vietnam has many faces.
There is the face of armed conflict-of terror and gunfire-of bomb-heavy planes and
campaign-weary soldiers. * * *
The second face of war in Vietnam is the
quest for a political solution-the face of
diplomacy and politics-of the ambitions and
the interests of other nations. * * **
The third face of war in Vietnam is, at
once, the most tragic and most hopeful. It
is the face of human need. It is the untended sick, the hungry family, and the illiterate child. It is men and women, many
without shelter, with rags for clothing, struggling for survival in a very rich and a very
fertile land.
It is the most important battle of all In
which we are engaged.
For a nation cannot be built by armed
power or by political agreement. It will rest
on the expectation by individual men and
women that their future will be better than
their past.
It is not enough to just fight against something. People must fight for something, and
the people of South Vietnam must know that
after the long, brutal journey through the
dark tunnel of conflict there breaks the light
of a happier day. And only if this is so can
they be expected to sustain the enduring will
for continued strife. Only in this way can
long-run stability and peace come to their
land.
And there is another, more profound reason. In Vietnam communism seeks to really
impose its will by force of arms. But we
would be deeply mistaken to think that this
was the only weapon. Here, as other places
in the world, they speak to restless peoplepeople rising to shatter the old ways which
have imprisoned hope-people fiercely and
justly reaching for the material fruits from
the tree of modern knowledge.
It is this desire, and not simply lust for
conquest, which moves many of the individual fighting men that we must now, sadly,
call the enemy.
It is, therefore, our task to show that freedom from the control of other nations offers
the surest road to progress, that history and
experience testify to this truth. But it is not
enough to call upon reason or point to examples. We must show it through action
and we must show it through accomplishment, and even were there no war-either
hot or cold-we would always be active in
humanity's search for progress.
This task is commanded to us by the
moral values of our civilization, and it rests
on the inescapable nature of the world that
we have now entered. For in that world, as
long as we can foresee, every threat to man's
welfare will be a threat to the welfare of our
own people. Those who live in the emerging
community of nations will ignore the perils
of their neighbors at the risk of their own
prospects.
Cooperative development in southeast Asia
This is true not only for Vietnam but for
every part of the developing world. This is
why, on your behalf, I recently proposed a
massive, cooperative development effort for
all of southeast Asia. I named the respected
leader, Eugene Black, as my personal representative to inaugurate our participation in
these programs.
21672
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Since that time rapid progress has been
made, I am glad to report. Mr. Black has
met with the top officials of the United Nations on several occasions. He has talked to
other interested parties. He has found increasing enthusiasm. The United Nations is
already setting up new mechanisms to help
carry forward the work of development.
In addition, the United States is now prepared to participate in, and to support, an
Asian Development Bank, to carry out and
help finance the economic progress in that
area of the world and the development that
we desire to see in that area of the world.
So this morning I call on every other industrialized nation, including the Soviet
Union, to help create a better life for all of
the people of southeast Asia.
Surely, surely, the works of peace can
bring men together in a common effort to
abandon forever the works of war.
But, as South Vietnam is the central place
of conflict, it is also a principal focus for
our work to increase the well-being of people.
It is that effort in South Vietnam, of which
I think we are too little informed, which I
want to relate to you this morning.
Strengthening Vietnam's economy
We began in 1954, when Vietnam became
independent, before the war between the
north and the south. Since that time we
have spent more than $2 billion in economic
help for the 16 million people of South Vietnam. And despite the ravages of war, we
have made steady, continuing gains. We
have concentrated on food and health and
education and housing and industry.
Like most developing countries, South
Vietnam's economy rests on agriculture.
Unlike many, it has large uncrowded areas
of very rich and very fertile land. Because
of this, it is one of the great rice bowls of
the entire world. With our help, since 1954,
South Vietnam has already doubled its rice
production, providing food for the people as
well as providing a vital export for that
nation.
We have put our American farm knowhow to work on other crops. This year, for
instance, several hundred million cuttings
of a new variety of sweet potato, that promises a sixfold increase in yield will be distributed to these Vietnamese farmers. Corn
output should rise from 25,000 tons in 1962
to 100,000 tons by 1966. Pig production has
more than doubled since 1955. Many animal
diseases have been eliminated entirely.
Disease and epidemic brood over every
Vietnamese village. In a country of more
than 16 million people with a life expectancy
of only 35 years, there are only 200 civilian
doctors. If the Vietnamese had doctors in
the same ratio as the United States has doctors, they would have not the 200 that they
do have but they would have more than
5,000 doctors.
We have helped vaccinate, already, over 7
million people against cholera, and millions
more against other diseases. Hundreds of
thousands of Vietnamese can now receive
treatment in the more than 12,000 hamlet
health stations that America has built and
has stocked. New clinics and surgical suites
are scattered throughout the entire country;
and the medical school that we are now
helping to build will graduate as many doctors in a single year as now serve the entire
civilian population of South Vietnam.
Education is the keystone of future development in Vietnam. It takes trained people
to man the factories, to conduct the administration, and to form the human foundation for an advancing nation. More than
a quarter million young Vietnamese can now
learn in more than 4,000 classrooms that
America has helped to build in the last 2
years; and 2,000 more schools are going to
be built by us in the next 12 months. The
number of students in vocational schools
has gone up four times. Enrollment was
SENATE
300,000 in 1955, when we first entered there
and started helping with our program. Today it is more than 1,500,000. The 8 million
textbooks that we have supplied to Vietnamese children will rise to more than 15
million by 1967.
Agriculture is the foundation. Health,
education, and housing are the urgent human needs. But industrial development is
the great pathway to their future.
When Vietnam was divided, most of the
industry was in the North. The South was
barren of manufacturing and the foundations for industry. Today more than 700
new or rehabilitated factories-textile mills
and cement plants, electronics and plasticsare changing the entire face of that nation.
New roads and communications, railroad
equipment, and electric generators are a
spreading base on which the new industry
can, and is, growing.
Progress in the midst of war
All this progress goes on, and it is going to
continue to go on, under circumstances of
staggering adversity.
Communist terrorists have made aid programs that we administer a very special target of their attack. They fear them, because
agricultural stations are being destroyed and
medical centers are being burned. More than
100 Vietnamese malaria fighters are dead.
Our own AID officials have been wounded and
kidnaped. These are not just the accidents
of war. They are a part of a deliberate campaign, in the words of the Communists, "to
cut the fingers off the hands of the Government."
We intend to continue, and we intend to
increase our help to Vietnam.
Nor can anyone doubt the determination of
the South Vietnamese themselves.
They
have lost more than 12,000 of their men since
I became your President a little over a year
ago.
But progress does not come from investment alone, or plans on a desk, or even the
directives and the orders that we approve
here in Washington. It takes men. Men
must take the seed to the farmer. Men
must teach the use of fertilizer. Men must
help in harvest. Men must build the schools,
and men must instruct the students. Men
must carry medicine into the jungle, and
treat the sick, and shelter the homeless. And
men-brave, tireless, filled with love for their
fellows-are doing this today.
They are
doing it through the long, hot, danger-filled
Vietnamese days and the sultry nights.
The fullest glory must go, also, to those
South Vietnamese that are laboring and dying for their own people and their own nation. In hospitals and schools, along the
rice fields and the roads, they continue to
labor, never knowing when death or terror
may strike.
How incredible it is that there are a few
who still say that the South Vietnamese do
not want to continue the struggle. They,
are sacrificing and they are dying by the
thousands. Their patient valor in the heavy
presence of personal physical danger should
be a helpful lesson to those of us who, here
in America, only have to read about it, or
hear about it on the television or radio.
We have our own heroes who labor at the
works of peace in the midst of war. They
toil unarmed and out of uniform. They
know the humanity of their concern does not
exempt them from the horrors of conflict, yet
they go on from day to day. They bring
food to the hungry over there. They supply
the sick with necessary medicine. They help
the farmer with his crops, families to find
clean water, villages to receive the healing
miracles of electricity. These are Americans
who have joined our AID program, and we
welcome others to their ranks.
A call for aid
For most Americans this is an easy war.
Men fight and men suffer and men die, as
August 25, 1965
they always do in war. But the lives of most
of us, at least those of us in this room and
those listening to me this morning, are untroubled. Prosperity rises, abundance increases, the Nation flourishes.
I will report to the Cabinet when I leave
this room that we are in the 51st month of
continued prosperity, the longest peacetime
prosperity for America since our country was
founded. Yet our entire future is at stake.
What a difference it would make if we
could only call upon a small fraction of our
unmatched private resources-businesses and
unions, agricultural groups and builders-if
we could call them to the task of peaceful
progress in Vietnam. With such a spirit of
patriotic sacrifice we might well strike an
irresistible blow for freedom there and for
freedom throughout the world.
I therefore hope that every person within
the sound of my voice in this country this
morning will look for ways-and those citizens of other nations who believe in humanity as we do, I hope that they will find ways
to help progress in South Vietnam.
This, then, is the third face of our struggle
in Vietnam. It was there-the illiterate, the
hungry, the sick-before this war began. It
will be there when peace comes to us-and
so will we-not with soldiers and planes, not
with bombs and bullets, but with all the
wondrous weapons of peace in the 20th
century.
And then, perhaps, together, all of the
people of the world can share that gracious
task with all the people of Vietnam, North
and South alike.
U.S. DRIVE TO NEGOTIATE IN VIETAND
NAM-RUSK,
GOLDBERG,
BUNDY SPELL IT OUT
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
New York Times headlined the Monday
night CBS news special on Vietnam as
"US. Diplomacy by TV." This interrogation of Secretary Rusk, Ambassador
Goldberg, and Presidential Assistant
Bundy once again contributed greatly to
the understanding by the American people of our policies in Vietnam.
In the judgment of the New York
Times, this broadcast may also have
served another vital purpose. In that
broadcast, as Max Frankel reports in this
morning's New York Times, Secretary
Rusk may well have imparted to Hanoi
the fact that it could expect no military
respite without negotiations, and that
this country is ready, willing, and anxious to negotiate on the basis of the 1954
Geneva agreement and, again, of the
1962, Laotian agreements. The Secretary spells out in detail the nature of the
self-determination, the free secret ballot election in South Vietnam to which
we agree.
Mr. President, there is an unusually
clear exposition of our will to negotiate
expressed by Ambassador Goldberg and
by Mr. Bundy. Let me read briefly from
it:
Mr. HOTTELET. But can one not hasten this
process somewhat? Can one not ripen the
quiet diplomacy by creating circumstances
in which the other side will find it necessary to come to the conference table, by,
for instance, dramatizing a desire to return
to Geneva, or perhaps some dramatic, substantive but dramatic, approach by President
Johnson-a summit conference on this problem, which I think everyone recognizes is a
most serious problem?
Mr. GOLDBERG.Mr. Hottelet, how more
dramatic can the President of the United
August 25, 1965
CON 1GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
States be? He made a public declaration
about this in Baltimore, "unconditional discussions," and then some critics said that
the President did not mean "negotiations."
So then in the letter that he sent down with
me to the Secretary General of the United
Nations, he used the word "negotiations" to
put at rest this thing that people were
talking about. Following which, we sent
a letter to the Security Council, in which
we said, "We call upon anyone, any member,
not only of the Security Council, but of
the United Nations, to participate with us in
this effort."
The 17 nonalined nations made a proposal. We said that they would form the
basis for a negotiation. And then-I can't
go through all of the 15 efforts that were
made. Mr. Davies went to Hanoi. We said
that we welcomed that initiative. The Commonwealth ministers made a declaration.
We said we welcomed that initiative. Mr.
Nkrumah has indicated some interest; we
did not discourage it.
I personally feel that you never denigrate
any party nor a great nation by indicating
a desire for peaceful resolution of a conflict.
The President has done this. He's gone all
out for this purpose.
Mr. HoTTLET. The purpose of my question, Mr. Goldberg, was to ask whether one
could not do more than just indicate a willingness to accept, indicate acquiescenceMr. Bursr. Well, we have done that, Mr.
Hottelet, in the specific case that you mentioned. It seems to me that the fact is,
and it's very clear, really, and increasingly
recognized around the world, we are unconditionally ready for negotiations; we are
unconditionally ready to return to Geneva
if others are; we are unconditionally ready
for the good offices of the United Nations in
any way that they can be made effective; we
are unconditionally ready to meet with all
interested governments and go to work on
this problem, and we have said so in every
sharp and flat, and the President is fond of
saying, in every State of the Union. And I
believe the message has been heard.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of this historic
and significant interview be printed at
this point in the RECORD, together with
the fascinating interpretation of the significance of the interview by Max
Frankel, published in today's New York
Times.
There being no objection, the transcript and interpretation were ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPOT--VIETNAM
PERSPECTIVE: "WINNING THE PEACE"
(Part III of four parts, as broadcast over
the CBS Television Network, Monday,
August 23, 1965)
Participants: Secretary of State Dean
Rusk, U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg,
Presidential Assistant McGeorge Bundy.
Reporters: CBS News United Nations Correspondent Richard C. Hottelet, CBS News
Diplomatic Correspondent Marvin Kalb, CBS
News White House Correspondent Harry
Reasoner.
Produced by CBS News.
ANNOUNCER. This is the third of four special 1-hour broadcasts by CBS News, "Vietnam Perspective." In the past 2 weeks, the
new decisions and the American military
effort in Vietnam were examined. Tonight,
"Winning the Peace."
The paths to a peaceful settlement in
Vietnam will be discussed by three Government officials. Now here is CBS News White
House Correspondent Harry Reasoner.
Mr. RzASoNEa. Good evening. We're in the
John Quincy Adams Room of the State Department in Washington for the third in our
series of programs with the US. policymak-
ers on Vietnam. Across from me are three
distinguished officials whose task it is to
pursue perhaps the most difficult and illusive
of our objectives in Vietnam, the pursuit
of peace.
We're happy to have back with us the
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, who with the
President formulates our foreign policy and
who heads our diplomatic offensive in southeast Asia.
This is our newly designated Ambassador
to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, who
is exploring the avenues of a peaceful settlement in Vietnam through U.N. channels.
And this is McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President, who has played a
key role in the formulation of our policies
in Vietnam and who, a few weeks ago on
this network, defended the administration's
position with some professors who disagree
with it.
Seated with me are two CBS News colleagues, diplomatic correspondent Marvin
Kalb, who regularly covers the State Department and who is just back from one of
many trips to Russia. And U.N. correspondent Richard C. Hottelet.
Gentlemen, I'd like to begin with a fairly
basic question. It's been quite a weekend
in Vietnam. We bombed close to China
again. We bombed for the first time some
targets that could be described as less directly military than before, and there is a
kind of new optimism about how the ground
fighting is going. Is this the moment? Is
this the time for negotiations? I'd like each
of you to reply to that briefly. Secretary
Rusk?
Mr. RusK. Well, that depends on the other
side in their assessment of the situation.
We have been ready for a long time to make
peace in southeast Asia. Our problem is to
get the other side to the conference table.
We just don't know. The other side must
make that decision.
Mr. REASONER. Ambassador Goldberg?
Mr. GOLDBEaG. I think any time is a good
time for negotiations. The only way to resolve conflict is to go to the bargaining table,
to use a term that I am very well familiar
with, and it seems to me that this is not determined by the calendar, or even by the
course of military events. This is determined by the genuine desire of the parties
to the conflict to remove the problem from
the battlefield to the bargaining table. So
for me, any time is a good time to negotiate.
Mr. REASONER. Mr. Bundy?
Mr. BUNDY. Well, it's certainly true that it
is our position that now is a good time to
negotiate. We have had that view for many
months, have tried to make it clear in every
way, public and private, at every level of discourse, from the President on down. It is
also true that the response from Hanoi, still
more from Peiping, has been consistently and
powerfully negative. No later than a week
ago, in an interview with the correspondent
of the French newspaper Le Monde, Ho of
Hanoi made it very plain that they were not
prepared to negotiate except on terms of all
power to the Communists. I believe it to be
true that military success of the kind which
we have seen in recent days does help us
bring nearer the day when there will be effective negotiation.
Mr. HorTELET. It also reinforces the question that some people have asked of whether
you ought to negotiate at all, or whether, if
you find the tables turning your way, if you
are gaining any kind of military ascendancy,
whether you shouldn't use that advantage,
press it to checkmate Communist aggression, which is the U.S. professed aim,
not only in Vietnam, but all through southeast Asia and Laos and in northeast Thailand
and Malaysia as well. In other words, Why
should we negotiate? is the question.
Mr. BusRm. I think all of us would agree,
and I know this to be the position of President Johnson, that we are ready to negotiate
21673
and that we are not disposed to take the
view that because the battle is going well we
are unwilling to talk about it. In our view,
the effort to end the aggression must continue, while the aggression continues, but
we are prepared for discussion and for negotiation at any time.
Mr. KALB. There is in the air right now in
Washington something which has not been
here before, at least in the last couple of
months, and that is a wispy kind of feeling
that maybe there is some optimism here and
some grounds for optimism. I'd like to ask
you, Mr. Secretary, what are the grounds for
optimism? What is the evidence that gives
rise to this sense?
Mr. RUSK. Well, I think the fact that
President Johnson has made it very clear that
we are not going to be pushed out of South
Vietnam and that we shall meet our commitments to South Vietnam has made a big difference to this situation. I think also the
fact that international opinion is not supporting the effort of Hanoi to take over South
Vietnam makes a difference, because I think
they were hoping at one time that there
would be a buildup of international opinion
that might cause the United States to change
its attitude toward our commitment.
Mr. GOLDBERG.Gentlemen, may I make an
observation on the Secretary's statement?
New to diplomacy, I have been reading in
diplomacy. Talleyrand made a statement
about the Vienna Congress in which he said
that the great powers there assembled were
too frightened to fight and too stupid to agree.
And I think in a very simple measure, we
can say of American foreign policy in this
situation, that it is clear from what the
President has said, from what the Secretary
of State has said, Mr. Bundy said in his
teach-ins, that the United States very definitely is not too frightened to fight. That
has been demonstrated.
Mr. RusK. Let me come back, Mr. Kalb, if
I may, to Mr. Bundy's reference to the interview-in Le Monde, Ho Chi Minh on August
14. He seemed to be saying there that a
precondition for peace is the withdrawal of
American forces. Well, under the circumstances, this is quite an unrealistic point
of view, because those forces are there solely
because of the intervention of outside forces
from Hanoi in South Vietnam. Now one
would suppose that peace requires that there
be a withdrawal of those North Vietnamese
forces that have penetrated into South Vietnam. If you don't like the word withdrawal,
you can use the word redeployment, but it
is that infiltration which is solely responsible for the presence of American combat
forces in South Vietnam.
Now, obviously, we and others have been
giving a good deal of thought to the basis
on which peace can be achieved. I think
the entire record of the United States since
1945 shows that we want peace and not war
and that all of our effort in this postwar
period has been directed to that end. Well,
now, in South Vietnam, the cessation of outside aggression, the cessation of this infiltration from the north is certainly fundamental
because that would make it possible for
American forces to come home. We should
like to see full performance on all sides of
the military clauses of the 1954 agreements.
We have said repeatedly, time after time,
that as far as the United States is concerned, we have no interest in military bases
or a permanent military presence in southeast Asia. Well, now, that is in accord with
the 1954 agreements and that should be one
of the essential elements of a peaceful settlement.
Now as far as South Vietnam internally is
concerned, we have a deep commitment to
the simple notion of self-determination. In
the 1954 agreements, it was anticipated that
there would be elections, through secret elections-through secret ballot, and that the
peoples of Vietnam, north and south, would
21674
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
have a chance to express their-their opinions, and we are prepared for elections in
South Vietnam to determine what the people
of that country want in terms of their own
institutions.
And then the question of reunification
which has been troublesome over the years.
Again, it is instinctive with the United States
to say, What do the people want? What do
the people want? And there again, to find
out in North Vietnam and South Vietnam
what the people themselves really want on
this matter is important. Now, this isn't
very simple. And it doesn't mean that both
are going to want reunification. The people
in the north would want reunification only
if there were a Communist regime throughout the country. The people in the south
don't want reunification on that basis, but
it is for the people of Vietnam to decide that
at such time as they have a chance to express
their views freely on that point. So what
we are talking about here are the simple
elements of a settlement which were reached
basically in 1954 and again in 1962 in the
Lao agreements.
Mr. HOTTELET. Mr. Goldberg, you sit at
probably the most sensitive listening post in
the world. Do you get any indication from
the-your colleagues at the United Nations
that the other side has gotten this message
of-that we are not too frightened to fight,
not too stupid to talk?
Mr. GOLDBERG.
Not yet. Not yet in all candor. We have to persevere with patience,
and experience and hope. Our message is
loud and clear. The signal that the Secretary has refererd to on occasion, saying that
negotiations will take place when you hear
a signal, has been made by the United States.
Our President has stated publicly to the
world that we are prepared to sit down in
unconditional negotiations, discussing the
points that Hanoi has made, discussing the
points we have made and to arrive at a durable settlement, a durable settlement. I am
hopeful-I am hopeful-and I continue in
this hope that we will get a similar signal
from the other side. It's very simple to make
that signal. The President did it at Baltimore. He did it on other occasions. He has
done it since. He armed me with a letter to
the Secretary General when he said very
plainly that we are ready to negotiate unconditionally all problems and to negotiate on
the basis of their position and our position,
and I think we are looking for a signal from
the other side.
Mr. REASONER. Mr. Secretary, I think that
there's some confusion in this country about
these 1954 agreements which are mentioned
so often. For instance, I don't know how
many Americans realize it's an agreement
that we didn't sign. Does-could you outline why we did not sign that and if we
would sign a similar agreement now?
Mr. RUSK. Well, we did not formally sign
those agreements, but Gen. Bedell Smith,
who was then Under Secretary of State, made
a statement at the time which in effect embraced those agreements on behalf of the
United States, and said that any attempt to
violate those agreements by force would be
looked upon by the United States as a threat
to the peace. So that we do believe that
the 1954 agreements, in their essential principles, do provide a basis for peace in southeast Asia. What we do not believe is that
the settlement of 1954 can be upset by force
by any party.
Mr. REASONER. Mr. Bundy, for reasons
which you've explained, and the President
has explained, the war in Vietnam has gotten
bigger. Our participation in it has increased.
How do we know that it won't continue to
escalate until eventually we have world war
III? Is there some kind of a tacit understanding on how far both sides go?
Mr. BUNnY. I know of no tacit understanding, Mr. Reasoner, but I think it is fair
to say that all parties-and all those con-
SENATE
cerned-are aware of the danger of enlargement of the conflict. We certainly are on
our side. We have lived with crises large
and small over a 20-year period now-in Berlin, in Greece, in Korea, in Cuba, and elsewhere-and I think Americans can be proud
of the care and the prudence and the restraint which their government has shown
in this generation of effort. Under the leadership of President Johnson-a man of peace
if there ever was one-we are conducting our
affairs in that tradition and with that purpose of restraint. We believe that there is a
similar recognition-although not always a
similar recognition of the rights of othersthere is a similar recognition of the hazards
of any great enlargement of the conflict on
the part of the parties interested on the
other side. We cannot be sure of what they
will do. We can be sure, and we must be
accountable for what we do, and that is why
our entire effort has been directed at things
related specifically to what is being done to
and in South Vietnam. That's what we are
concerned with; not the fate of any other
regime elsewhere; not the safety or security
of any larger power nearby which we do not
threaten. We are concerned with the fulfillment of our obligations in South Vietnam,
a limited objective, and the nature of those
limitations we've made just as clear as we
know how.
Mr. KALB. Mr. Bundy, could you convince
us, and thereby provide us with the evidence
that leads you to feel that the American
bombing of North Vietnam is specifically
related to acts of terrorism in South Vietnam, and that this will convince the Vietcong
operation in South Vietnam that they must
stop what they're doing?
Mr. BUNDY. No, the bombing in North Vietnam is not-I would not relate it specifically
and directly to any one action in South
Vietnam, but to the campaign in South Vietnam, and to the program pursued by Hanoi
against South Vietnam it is related and
related most directly. The targets are military targets: military lines of communication,
military barracks, military depots. There
has been no miscellaneous bombing of any
old target inonam
in North Viet
or anywhere so
far as we can avoid it. The targets have
been directly related to a campaign of infiltration, a campaign of military control,
and a campaign of organized terror where
the heartbeat of that campaign is in Hanoi.
Mr. HOTTELET. Getting back to China, I've
heard the assumption expressed that China
will not intervene directly in Vietnam as long
as the regime-the Communist regime of
North Vietnam-is not in danger of being
overthrown, and as long as there is no massive incursion of American power on the
ground. Is this, in fact, an assumption that
guides your policy?
Mr. RusK. Well, I think we are at some
hazard in trying to think like the members
of the Politburo in Peiping. It is my impression that the Communist world does not
want a general war over southeast Asia. Unfortunately, some of them want southeast
Asia. Thereforere, we cannot be completely
sure at the end of the trail which desire on
their part will predominate. But, the authorities in Peiping must know ttthat they have
undertaken to support an effort in South
Vietnam right up against an American commitment of which they were fully informed.
Therefore, they must recognize that there are
very large hazards if they themselves elect
to pursue this by direct intervention. Now
we, therefore, have been acting with a combination of firmness and prudence in an
effort to keep wide open the doors of peaceful
settlement. This has characterized American
policy in all of these postwar crises to which
Mr. McGeorge Bundy referred, and we would
hope very much that the time will come
when it will be recognized on the other side
that pushing this matter militarily is not
worth the risk at the end of the trail, and
August 25, 1965
therefore, that they will bring this to the
conference table for settlement.
Mr. KALB. Mr. Secretary, there are a number of people in Washington who study the
China problem who believe that, on the contrary, it is precisely a war in southeast Asia
that the Chinese want. It is precisely the
bogging down of an enormous number of
American troops in southeast Asia that the
Chinese want, both for internal political reasons as well as a justification of their position in terms of their quarrel with the Russians. What evidence can you provide that,
indeed, the Chinese-I'm not talking about
the Russians now-do not really want this
kind of-of a larger and deeper American
involvement, even running the risk of war
with America?
Mr. RUSK. Well, one can only judge by
their actions thus far and by impressions one
gets from those who have been in touch with
Peiping. There is a comment going around
in the Communist world these days that
Peiping is prepared to fight to the last Vietnamese. There is a certain caution and prudence in their action, more so than in their
words, but when you analyze these matters from the point of view of basic national interest, objectively in terms of what
can be at the root of their thinking, I myself
cannot believe that it is a rational idea that
the principal powers involved in this business could look with favor upon the outbreak
of a general war. It doesn't make sense from
anyone's point of view.
Now, that means that it is important to
do what we can not to let events take control; to try to keep some sort of control
over the situation so that contacts among
the capitals might have a chance to find a
way to a peaceful settlement. And that is
one of the reasons why, one of the principal
reasons why President Johnson has tried to
act with the combination of the firmness and
prudence that he believes the situation requires.
Mr. BUNDY. Could I pick up from what the
Secretary said for one moment and say that,
in the first place, that nothing is more
important than the maintenance of prudence and of effective control of our own
operations by our own Government. That's
the meaning of the insistent, direct surveillance which the President maintains over
major military decisions, and specifically,
over decisions which affect military action
against North Vietnam. This is a matter
which he keeps under his own control by the
consent and with the support of the senior
military commanders concerned.
And just one more point. Obviously, the
Chinese would be delighted to have us mismanage our affairs in South Vietnam and in
southeast Asia so that we got more and more
engaged in something less and less successful. It is our object and our purpose and our
Sresponsibility to do a better job than that,
and to do that job within the limits of prudence, restraint, and decency which we are
trying to follow.
Mr. GOLDBERG.
Could I summarize American policy in this area by quoting an
ancient Gre,
-e man, Polybius, who said
that "the purr.
of war"-and I would
describe it in terms of our attitude toward
Hanoi-"is not to annihilate the enemy, but
to get him to mend his ways." And this,
in fact, is what we have been attempting to
do, prevent aggression, and this has been
made clear time and time again. We-the
President said, my distinguished predecessor
at the United Nations said, we don't covet
any territory, we don't seek to establish any
military bases; we are acting the way we
do to stop aggression. And when you move
only to stop aggression, not to promote aggression, I thing the dangers of a general
war are minimized.
Mr. KALB. Mr. Ambassador, the-everything that you said is certainly true, and
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
this is precisely what the administration is
saying. At the same time, people said in
the Chinese capital. who have to view it
from the point of view of their national
interest-you can say that we're not building
bases around China, but when the Chinese
leaders look out at the map, they can see the
presence of American military forces from
one end of the Chinese border to the other.
When you bomb, as we did today, to within
31 miles of the Chinese border, people responsible for Chinese national security probably would look with some great concern
about that. I am trying to understand what
makes you feel that they're not that deeply
concerned, or that they don't feel that bombing 31 miles on this side of the border might
not lead to 31 miles on the other side of the
border.
Mr. GOLDSERG. Mr. Kalb, for a very simple
reason: because we have stated as a matter
of direct public policy to the world, a commitment which America has made to everybody, that if aggression ceases from the
north, our activities in South Vietnam will
likewise cease. This is a pretty broad statement, quite different from statements that
were made by other powers at other points
in the history of South and North Vietnam.
Mr. HOTTELET. There was a time in the
Korean war after the cessation of fire, and
before the armistice was signed, when-as
President Eisenhower revealed not long agohe got tired of waiting for the Chinese to
sign the armistice and threatened or promised to use all American power, including
nuclear power, aganst the Chinese. He said
they got the message and they came to the
conference table. Can you envisage any similar circumstances in Vietnam?
Mr. RusK. Well, I think we'll have to let
that question ride for the future. There
already was a negotiation going on at that
time, and the problem was to bring it to
a final conclusion. In a major sense, the
fighting had already been brought to a conclusion by the earlier discussions of the
cease-fire. We may get to a point where
a cease-fire gets to be the crucial element
there in Vietnam.
Mr. Kalb, If I could return to your point
for a second. I don't believe that ideological
differences are as profound as to cause
Peiping to be concerned about what they see
around their borders when they know that
we would come home if Hanoi would leave
South Vietnam alone, and that we would
not have bases or troops in southeast Asia
if these countries could live in peace. Now
they can pretend, given their Ideological
commitments, that they somehow are afraid
that we have in mind a major attack on
China. There's nothing in the record to
show that. Nothing in the conduct of the
last 15 or 20 years to give any support to
that idea.
Mr. KALB. Mr. Secretary, you are suggesting
then that the American confrontation-if I
can use that large word-in southeast Asia is
really the United States and North Vietnam,
and not the broader confrontation of the
United States and Communist China?
Mr. RUsK. Well, I think, in the first instance, it is clear that what Hanoi is doing
Is our principal problem and explains why
we're in South Vietnam with military forces,
so that we're not involved in a confrontation,
the purpose of which, on our side, is to destroy the regime in Peiping. We have two
divisions in Korea, because, among other
things, several hundred thousand Chinese
came into the Korean war in 1950-51, and
this posed a problem of the security of South
Korea. But throughout this postwar period,
force has been initiated by the other side.
The free world has had to meet that force
with determination, but the free world has
also met it with the kind of prudence and
restraint that keeps open the doors of peaceful settlement. And all I would say on that
SENATE
to our colleagues in Peiping, if they want to
test whether or not the United States is aggressive, then let them live at peace with
their neighbors, and they would find out
that the United States is not aggressive with
respect to mainland China.
Mr. KALB. We're talking in a kind of a
shorthand, though, sir. Isn't it more direct
in some way at this stage, given the dimension of the danger, to have a more direct
link of communication with the Chinese
Communists? I'm aware of the Warsaw
conversations, but we've had enormous political differences with the Russians; we've
been able to establish a hot line to Moscow.
What about some kind of line directly to
Peiping?
Mr. RUSK. Well, I think we've had more
discussions with Peiping over the last 10
years on more important subjects than has
any government that recognizes Peiping,
with the possible exception of Moscow. Our
problem with Peiping is not communication.
Our problem is that when we have talks with
them, they begin by saying that there can
be no improvement in the situation until we
are prepared to surrender Formosa to the
mainland, and that means turning over 11
million people against their will to Peiping,
and we make it clear that this is not possible,
and I must confess, the conversation gets to
be implacable and harsh and takes wellknown lines as represented in the public
statements of the two sides.
Mr. BUNDY. Going by their own conversations, Mr. Kalb, and their own-what they
say to journalists, the few and rare ones
whom they receive, the Peiping government
itself has said over and over again, framing
the matter in its own terms, that what is at
issue in Vietnam is fundamentally a matter
for the Vietnamese people to decide. This is
exactly what we think. We believe that the
center of this question is in what is being
done to and in South Vietnam. It is not in
Peiping, except as they may be engaged in
support and assistance to those who are attempting to destroy a given society and
replace it with one fashioned in their own
image. And I believe the people in Peiping
know that, and I believe they understand
clearly that it is only by their action and by
their decision that there can be the kind -f
enlargement which would involve direct
danger to them.
Mr. REASONER. This question has come up
several times about letting the people of Vietnam decide what they want to do. Is this,
indeed, the case, or it it a case, as in other
U.S. policy, where there are limitations, where
there are certain options denied them? Suppose South Vietnam decided that it wished
to make a separate peace. Would we accept
it?
Mr. BUNDY. Well, I think when you asked
that question earlier to Ambassador Taylor
he said that he just didn't think that was
a realistic possibility. My own judgment is,
on the basis of one short visit and innumerable reports and a great many discussions
with others who have been there much
longer, that there is no problem, from our
side, of confidence in the ability of the people of South Vietnam, given a free choice and
conditions of reasonable peace, to frame their
own future in ways with which we would
be happy to live; that it is an unreal question to suppose that they would freely choose
to cast their lot with the Communists.
Mr. REASONER. Nevertheless---Mr. BuNDY. There is a great deal ofMr. REASONEa. It is not an unreal question, to this extent: that some intelligence
estimates this spring indicated this would
be a possibility. Now, if-even if it is unlikelyMr. BmtfY. I am not aware of those-Mr. REAsoNEB. It must be something we
consider.
Mr. Bouwr. Intelligence estimates, Mr.
Reasoner. Really not---
21675
Mr. REASONEB. Well, then put it on a purely hypothetical basis. To think through the
unthinkable, what would be our attitude?
Would we accept it?
Mr. BOu r. Well, let me put it the other
way around, and say that the United States
is obviously not in a position to make the
kind of effort and to make the kind of sacrifices which we are making if there were
not effort and sacrifice by the people and
government of the country to which we are
giving assistance. There is that kind of effort. There is that kind of sacrifice. Our
attention focuses most naturally upon the
battles in which Americans are heavily engaged, and we feel, most naturally, American casualties. But the rate of casualties
and the rate of effort is running many times
to one on the Vietnamese side as between
us.
Mr. HOTTELET. Are there any points on
which the peace alms of the United States
and the Government of South Vietnam do
not coincide?
Mr. Bunry. Well, there's a constant problem of discussion over the exact ways in
which we would state our peace aims, but the
current situation is that-and the Secretary
can speak to this better than I can-that the
Foreign Minister of the Government of South
Vietnam, and the Secretary himself, have
made closely parallel statements about our
peace aims.
Mr. REAsoNER. I don't mean to be offensive,
and I certainly recognize your right to decline to answer this question, but in Santo
Domingo we retained a possibility of a veto
over a government. This was clear. This
denied certain options to people in the way
of self-determination. Do we retain similar
veto over possible decisions out of Vietnam?
Mr. BuoND. Mr. Reasoner, you're talking
about an island I love. I was down there.
And the point that I think needs to be made
is rather that these two situations are closely
parallel. Our action there, first to save lives,
then to prevent a particular kind of Communist hazard, has developed into an action
designed precisely to give a reasonable opportunity for the people of the Dominican
Republic to make their own choice about the
kind of government and the kind of society
they want to have. Now, a small island in
the Caribbean, and a newly-independent
country operating within international agreements which somewhat affect its international position on the other side of the
world-these are two very different situations, but my own belief is that the fundamental purposes of the United States in both
areas can be defined in the same broad
terms.
Mr. Rusu. Mr. Reasoner, there's a very
deep commitment of the American people to
the simple notion that governments derive
their Just powers from the consent of the
governed, and we have not seen a government, a Communist government, brought to
power by the free election of its own people.
Now, we have overwhelming evidence from
all sections, sectors, areas, groups, in South
Vietnam that they do not want what Hanoi
is offering to them in South Vietnam.
Therefore, I do not believe that we need fear,
from the point of view of freedom, that we
need to fear what the effect would be of
genuinely free elections among the people of
South Vietnam. I've heard some people who
were not, I think, in a very good position to
know the details, speculate that 80 percent
of the people in South Vietnam would elect
Ho Chi Minh or accept Hanoi if they had
a free election. That just doesn't fit any of
the evidence that we have about the attitude
of these people.
Mr. REASONER. I was thinking not so much
of elections as of a coup which would put
into power, without reference to the peopleas essentially the present government is,
21676
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
August 25, 1965
Mr. BUMNY. To put it another way, the
without reference to a majority of the peoMr. RUSK. Well, perhaps I could say
ple; it's not established that way yet; they Geneva Conference included as a participant "identical" as far as my present knowledge is
the State of Vietnam. The current position
concerned. I'm not aware of any significant
don't know how, Ambassador Lodge saysbut if they had a government which wanted from Hanoi is that there is no question of
difference in the war aims of our two counSaigon authorities. This is the very lanto make peace, do we retain veto power over
tries. The central thing, gentlemen, the
guage of Ho Chi Minh, so what they wish to
that peace?
central thing is that the aggression from the
do is to foreclose the question of choice by North, the infiltration of men and arms from
Mr. BUNDY. Mr. Reasoner, the coup-makthe North, must be stopped and the South
ing power, to put it in those terms, does the establishment as the only authentic representative, again his own language, their Vietnamese be allowed to work out their own
rest, as Ambassador Taylor was suggesting
problems themselves without the use of force
last week, primarily with the military. agent, controlled from within by a clearly
from the outside. Now, this is the major,
There's no hint of this in the military. The Communist Party, the Vietcong.
Mr. RusK. And without elections.
central, overriding point. The details are
people underestimate the degree of the comMr. KALE. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned
incidental to that central point and on that
mitment of all factions, not the Communists,
before
that-or
Mr.
Bundy
did
actually,
that
there's no difference between us and Saigon.
to a non-Communist solution in South VietMr. GOLDBERG.Can I phrase-rephrase the
nam. One of the principal Buddhist leaders you and the Foreign Minister of South
Secretary's remark in a simple way? I was
said to one of our people the other day on Vietnam have come out with statements
that
are
rather
similar
as
to
what
both
writing
it down as he said it. If we look at
with
up
occasionally
that
comes
a point
respect to negotiation, that he hoped very countries want in South Vietnam. We have the public record, and the public record is
much that we would not give any interna- yet to hear what the Prime Minister of not unimportant in this area, the goal of
tional diplomatic recognition to the Viet- South Vietnam actually wants and there Hanoi policy as recently expressed is to wage
a 20-year war to impose a Communist regime
cong. The Vietcong did not represent the have been stories that there are possible
differences already even in this early period on South Vietnam. The goal of American
South Vietnamese people, but only an agency
of Ambassador Lodge's return, of differences
and South Vietnamese policy is to determine
of the Communists in the North. This is atheir own destiny, by democratic means
there are divisions and difficulties, many, between the two; the Prime Minister was not
there when the Ambassador arrived. Do you
under conditions of peace.
varied and fascinating, among the non-Comfeel, sir, that negotiations as we have been
Mr. RUSK. I think an examination of
munist forces in South Vietnam, but not on
discussing them is in any way realistic, or
Hanoi's, Peiping's, broadcasts in the last
this issue.
possible, given the possibility of continued several months will indicate that they were
Mr. HorrELET. The Vietcong has been
treated as a monolithic force, which is really political instability in South Vietnam or the leaning rather heavily on three points: One,
continued absence of statements from the that they could score a military success in
not human, because human beings are different and even if they are bound by a dis- new South Vietnamese governments that South Vietnam-we know that will be denied
to them; secondly, that international opincipline or bemused by an ideology, they do aline themselves with us?
Mr. RUSK. Oh, I think the political instaion somehow will build up in such a way as
have their own antecedents and they do have
their own tastes. How much is being done bility in South Vietnam is itself directly re- to put sufficient pressure on the United
lated
to
violence
in
the
countryside
and
the
States to cause us to change our commitment
now and what will be done more in the
conditions of the war. During the Greek to South Vietnam-we know that that will
future to-to insert a wedge into the difguerrilla
operations,
for
example, there were not occur. And, third, that divisions inside
ferences that must exist inside this theoretically monolithic Vietcong-the nationalists, some eight Greek governments in the period the United States will cause us to change
the patriots, the people who are just peasants of some 15 months of guerrilla operations. our view of this matter-we don't believe
It isn't easy to sustain an orderly governthat will occur. Therefore, Hanoi, I think,
wanting to live a life of their own?
ment based upon elections throughout the must face the fact that three essential pilMr. RUSK. Well, there are various elements
countryside
when
thousands
of
local
officials
lars in their policy are weak pillars and,
in the national liberation front. I think it
is true that not all of them are Communists, are being assassinated or kidnaped and therefore, we would hope very much that
they would realize that this matter must be
although the Communists have, in even re- when the normal processes of the economy
are interrupted by sabotage of routes of combrought to some conclusion.
cent weeks, declared that they are the domiNow, I don't want to exaggerate the role
nant factor and they must themselves be the munication, so that there is a connection
between
the
political
possibilities
of
what
we
of public discussion and public debate.
ones to give the orders. I think there may
also be some tensions between some of the would call a democratic and constitutional You'll recall, for example, that the Greek
guerrilla problem was not settled in debate.
southerners and some of the northerners government and peace throughout the country. I have no doubt that-that the South At a certain stage the guerrillas simply began
within the liberation front. But basically,
Vietnamese themselves would move toward to wither away. You'll recall that the Berlin
they are united on the notion that the proa government rooted in popular support and blockade was not lifted through a debate in
gram of liberation front must be accepted
as a solution for South Vietnam and that that this could be easily demonstrated if the the Security Council. It was done through
conditions of peace made it possible for them private contacts ahead of time by-between
the liberation front itself must have a dominant role in the government there, regard- to proceed on that basis. A few weeks ago,
the Soviet Union and the United States.
as you will recall, they did have provincial Similarly, the Korean war was not settled in
less of the fact that this is not the wishes of
elections, for a large number of those who
the overwhelming majority of 14 million
a debate in the United Nations. It was
were eligible to vote did in fact register, over- settled by contacts among the parties. And,
South Vietnamese.
Mr. GOLDBERG.May I add a word in this two-thirds, and that some 73 percent of therefore, we believe that we're in a period
those who were registered did in fact vote,
connection? I was looking at the Geneva
where the real views of the various parties
even though the Vietcong were opposing
agreement last night. The Geneva agreeneed to be explored by channels that are
those provincial elections. There were mul- available, in order to see whether the basis
ment, despite what is said in Hanoi, did not
tiple
candidates.
From
our
point
of
view,
contemplate, nor does it say anything about
for a peace exists.
I've indicated myself
a coalition government in which the libera- they were free elections and we can be-I
earlier in this program what seemed to us to
tion front would occupy the dominant role think, take some confidence in the fact that be the main lines of a peaceful settlement as
that Hanoi would like to accord it. The if given a chance, if given some possibility of
far as we're concerned. There are many depeace, these people in South Vietnam would
Geneva agreement says that "the Vietnamese
tails which can't be elaborated, because we're
know how to establish a government and . not at a negotiating table. But I do believe
people, north and south, should enjoy funbase it upon popular support and get on that it is important for us to pursue the
damental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions"-I am reading-"estab- with the main job which would be their first quiet diplomacy, whether in the United Nachoice.
lished as a result of free, general elections
tions or in other respects, because it is in
Mr. KALB. And yet, sir, the Prime Minister
by secret ballot." Now, it's very interesting
that way that we shall, I think, get the key
of
the
country,
the
air
commodore,
has
exto see the contrast in positions. When we
signals at some stage that might bring this
talk about returning to the essentials of the pressed his impatience publicly with the to the conference table.
politicians in South Vietnam. He's even exGeneva agreement, which Hanoi says it
Mr. HOTTELET. But can one not hasten this
wants and which we say we subscribe to, pressed a certain admiration for dictators of
process somewhat?
Can one not ripen the
we rely upon the fact that there shall be the past. Do we really have a sense that quiet diplomacy by creating circumstances
self-determination. Hanoi relies upon the this is the kind of government that we can
in which the other side will find it necessary
go to the conference table with?
fact that they should take over the Governto come to the conference table, by, for inMr. RusK. Oh, I think that we go to the stance, dramatizing a desire to return to
ment in their image before there are f:se
elections. Well, we all have had a bit of conference table with the government of
Geneva, or perhaps some dramatic, substanSouth Vietnam. I think that their war aims tive but dramatic, approach by President
history in this since the war. I don't recall
and our war aims are basically .he same and Johnson-a summit conference on this probafter that has been done elsewhere that
there have been any free elections. Now, that if the country can get some peace, then
lem, which I think everyone recognizes is a
there can be a rapid development of their most serious problem?
surely the acid test is whether you are willpolitical, economic, and social institutions in
ing to subscribe to the principle of free elecMr. GOLDBERG.Mr. Hottelet, how more drathe direction which would cause all of us to
tions. That, we have said, we are ready to
matic can the President of the United States
subscribe to. If we are ready to subscribe applaud them and give them full support.
be? He made a public declaration about
to it, it must reflect a considerable degree of
Mr. HorrELET. You don't say, sir, that the this in Baltimore, "unconditional discusconfidence-confidence which is lacking on
war aims are identical. What are the points sions," and then some critics said that the
the other side.
of difference?
President did not mean "negotiations." So
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
then in the letter that he sent down with
me to the Secretary General of the United
Nations, he used the word "negotiations" to
put at rest this thing that people were talking about. Following which, we sent a letter
to the Security Council, in which we said,
"We call upon anyone, any member, not only
of the Security Council, but of the United
Nations, to participate with us in this effort."
The 17 nonalined nations made a proposal. We said that they would form the
basis for a negotiation. And then-I can't
go through all of the 15 efforts that were
made. Mr. Davies went to Hanoi. We said
that we welcomed that initiative. The Commonwealth Ministers made a declaration.
We said we welcomed that initiative. Mr.
Nkrumah has indicated some interest; we did
not discourage it.
I personally feel that you never denigrate
any party nor a great nation by indicating
a desire for peaceful resolution of a conflict. The President has done this. He's
gone all out for this purpose.
Mr. HOTTELET. The purpose of my question, Mr. Goldberg, was to ask whether one
could not do more than just indicate a
willingness to accept, indicate acquiescence-Mr. BUNDY. Well, we have done that, Mr.
Hottelet, in the specific case that you mentioned. It seems to me that the fact is, and
it's very clear, really, and increasingly recognized around the world, we are unconditionally ready for negotiations; we are unconditionally ready to return to Geneva if
others are; we are unconditionally ready for
the good offices of the United Nations in any
way that they can be made effective; we are
unconditionally ready to meet with all interested governments and go to work on this
problem, and we have said so in every sharp
and fiat, and the President is fond of saying,
in every State of the Union. And I believe
the message has been heard.
Mr. KALB. Mr. Bundy, at one time there
was an unadvertised pause in the bombing
of North Vietnam. I wonder, sir, if the administration might not-in following up
Dick's line of questioning-might not consider that an advertised or unadvertised effort along these same lines might not be
contemplated, because the leaders in Hanoiand you keep making reference to the other
side-have certain things that they must go
on, too--Mr. BUNDY. WellMr. KALB. In addition to public statements, they have the fact that they are
being bombed.
Mr. BUNDY. You talked about this matter
in this series a couple of weeks ago, and I
think the Secretary then made the point
that at the time of the unannounced pause
there was information about its existence
was, in fact, conveyed to the governments
most concerned, and in the first instance, to
the government in Hanoi. They were in no
doubt that this was happening. They were
in no doubt that we would be watching to
see whether there was any response or any
secondary action.
Any time that we thought that there was
a promise of action and response in terms of
the reduction of the activities which had
made this trouble, there would be no hesitation in the United States about making
appropriate adjustments in our own military activity.
Mr. RUSK. Yes, I'd like to assure you that
we have not been negligent in our business,
and that hardly a week goes by that the
other side doesn't have a chance to indicate
what else would happen if the bombing
ceased.
Now, I said in our earlier program that we
would be willing to consider cessation of
the bombing if it were a step toward peace.
Now that remains open, that possibility.
SENATE
But what else would happen? Would the
325th North Vietnamese Division go home?
Would there be a cessation of the bombing
in South Vietnam, where it's occurring all
the time among the South Vietnamese and
against our own forces?
In other words, the target here is peace,
and all of these incidental aspects of it
ought to be fitted into a movement toward
a genuine, permanent, peaceful settlement of
this situation.
Mr. REASONER. There's a question here I'd
like to address to Mr. Bundy. If, as we seem
to feel, that we have some years ahead of us,
or some weeks or months or possibly years,
making South Vietnam strong, waiting for
a signal, what happens to the war in the
meantime? It seems to get a little bigger
all the time. Our participation seems to get
stronger. Is there a limit to that?
Mr. BUNDY. Well, our actions there-and
this is a point which I think Secretary McNamara spelled out with some care a couple
of weeks ago on this program-our actions
there have been essentially actions in response and in reply, and what has enlarged
the war has been the increasing commitment
directed from, supplied by and coming from,
very often and increasingly, coming from
North Vietnam into South Vietnam. Our
own forces are there because of actions which
have been necessary in response. That is why
we feel so strongly that the question here as
to whether it's going to get worse or better,
the question as to when it will come to the
peace table, is one in which one has to
think about more than just the U.S. position.
Our determination is to assist and support
a people who are defending themselves
against an effort to make them a Communist
power-part of a Communist power. That
effort has been the effort which seemed necessary and appropriate at each stage, and
only that much. We are not in a position
to say to our countrymen in this country
when that will end. We think that the
American people understand why they are
there, why these sacrifices are necessary. We
hope that it will not grow larger, the conflict
in South Vietnam. We will do what we can
to limit it. But we cannot be unwilling and
unready to do our part.
Mr. HorTErET. Looking ahead to the permanent peace settlement, you have stresssed
your adherence to the essentials of the
Geneva agreement and you have stressed the
need for self-determination.
When the
United States refrained from signing the
Geneva agreement, Bedell Smith also suggested that free elections should be supervised by the United Nations. Do you see a
role for the United Nations in making certain that any future Geneva agreement on
Vietnam is actually honored by those recitals?
Mr. RUSK. Yes, I would hope that the
United Nations could play an important
part in connection with any settlement. But
that would depend upon the attitude of all
the parties, including Hanoi and Peiping,
and thus far, both of those capitals have
rather pushed aside and rejected participation by the United Nations. But if there
could be organized an international inspection force, a police force, to supervise a peaceful settlement, if there could be a strong effort to build upon the capability of the
United Nations to bring about economic and
social development in the area, then I think
there's a very important role for the United
Nations in connection with the making and
keeping of the peace, and I would hope very
much that the other parties would make it
possible for the United Nations to play that
kind of role.
Mr. GOLDBERG.Before we leave this subject, may I make an observation on what
Mr. Bundy just said. We are not the ones
that are talking about a war that lasts 10
or 20 years. Ho Chi Minh has been talking
21677
about that. We are talking about a peace
that should be negotiated here and now.
Here and now.
Mr. BUny. That's a very important point.
I'd like to just make one comment in finishing up on that. We don't know when, but
the sooner the better, and we are absolutely
sure that it is the order to all of us from our
President, from our Nation's President, that
we shall never be second, never be slow, never
be without energy and imagination in trying
to find ways of bringing a peaceful and
decent settlement to this contest.
Mr. RusK. Mr. Reasoner, it seems to me
that each citizen in the United States has
a special obligation in thinking about such
a problem as South Vietnam. I think it
really isn't enough just to worry about it
and be concerned about it and be anxious
about the future. Of course, all of us are
concerned about it and anxious about the
future. But each citizen might consider
what he would do if he were the President
of the United States, facing the choices
faced by the President of the United States,
to enter into the full agony of the question,
what does the United States do in this situation? And I have no doubt that if each one
of us should look very hard at the nature of
the aggression, at the nature of the American
commitment, the importance of the integrity of the American commitment, at the
many efforts made to find a peaceful settlement, that the citizen would, thinking of
himself as President for the moment, would
conclude that we have to make good on our
commitment, but at the same time we have
to explore every possibility for a peaceful
settlement.
And that is what President
Johnson is doing.
Mr. REASONER. Gentlemen, I'd like to
thank you very much for coming, as we
leave some millions of citizens considering
what they would do if they were the President of the United States. You may have
spoiled a lot of people's sleep, Mr. Secretary.
Thus far in our four-part series on Vietnam, we have examined the critical decisions
that our country faces, the questions of how
we can win the war there; and tonight, how
we can win the peace. Two weeks from tonight, on September 6, in the conclusion
of Vietnam Perspective, we shall take a close
look at what kind of a war it is we're fighting there. Teams of CBS News correspondents and camera crews will film a single day
of combat at different locations, to bring to
you. in color, Vietnam Perspective: "A Day
Good
This is Harry Reasoner.
of War."
night.
[From the New York Times]
U.S.
DIPLOMACY
BY
TV-JOHNSON'S
AIDS
BEGIN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF HANOI'S PLAN
FOR "BASIS" OF SETrLEMENT
(By Max Frankel)
WASHINGTON.-The Johnson administration has begun a subtle effort to discover
whether it can agree with North Vietnam
on a broad but deliberately ambiguous
statement of objectives for future negotiations.
Last night, before a nationwide television
audience that was never fully briefed on
what it was witnessing, leading U.S. policymakers in effect addressed the North Vietnamese Government in Hanoi and responded,
point by point, to its 4-month-old proposal
for a "basis" of settlement.
It was diplomacy by television, but elaborate files of earlier assertions were needed
to follow the drama enacted by Secretary
of State Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, the
President's assistant for national security,
and Arthur J. Goldberg, permanent representative at the United Nations.
The exercise was part of a new Washington peace offensive that is not, however,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
21678
confined to peaceful means. Officials acknowledged today that their call for negotiations, "the sooner the better," was being
reinforced by increased military pressure
against the Communists in both North and
South Vietnam.
The bid for a peace conference marked
the biggest stride yet away from the administration's reluctance of last winter to move
toward the bargaining table and its hesitation, as late as February, even to utter the
word "negotiation."
A FATEFUL CHOICE IN HANOI
The change is being attributed here to
the estimate that the rapid buildup of U.S.
military strength should by now have persuaded North Vietnam that Americans will
not be militarily pushed out of southeast
Asia.
The accelerating offers of negotiation are
also timed to coincide with what is thought
to be a fateful choice in Hanoi between a
major increase in its military effort and
attempts to arrange at least a ceasefire.
"I think the fact that President Johnson
has made it very clear that we are not going
to be pushed out of South Vietnam and
that we shall meet our commitments to
South Vietnam has made a big difference to
the situation," Mr. Rusk asserted.
"Military success of the kind which we
have seen in recent days does help us bring
nearer the day when there will be an effective negotiation," Mr. Bundy said.
By success, officials here are said to mean
not only the Marine Corps victory over a
large Vietnam force in a favorable coastal
position near Chulai but also mounting reports that the Communist guerrillas are
short of food, medical supplies and ammunition and unable to mount the kind of
summer offensives they had planned.
The essence of the administration's message to North Vietnam was that it could
expect no respite in further military action
but that it would find the United States
prepared to reach an accommodation on the
"basis" of the 1954 Geneva Agreement on
Indochina.
Simultaneously, Secretary Rusk and his
colleagues played heavily on the evidence
that neither the Soviet Union nor Communist China was eager to become involved in
the fighting to help North Vietnam. Mr.
Rusk went so far as to taunt Hanoi with the
"comment going around in the Communist
world these days" that Peiping was "prepared to fight to the last Vietnamese."
The heart of the developing diplomatic
situation is the word "basis." In effect, both
sides are now attempting to formulate not
the conditions or terms of a final settlement, but the broad definitions of purpose
and objective that will serve as the "basis"
of negotiations.
Successfully framed statements of the
"basis" of negotiation are customarily vague
enough to allow each side to interpret them
In its own way, so as not to foreclose genuine bargaining at a conference. But because they tend to reveal much about a
negotiator's intentions, they are often contested with the same energy as a final
settlement.
The origin of the present exchange is President Johnson's offer April 7 to consider
"unconditional discussions."
North Vietnam replied April 13 with a
four-point peace formula that has been
widely misinterpreted as a set of "preconditions" for negotiation. Actually, the four
points were followed by the statement that,
if they were accepted as the "basis" for a
settlement, North Vietnam would find it possible to "consider" the reconvening of an
international conference.
Officials here thought at the time that
many parts of the proposal were acceptable
and that others could be refined to become
acceptable. But it was not until July 28
SENATE
that President Johnson offered publicly to
discuss North Vietnam's proposals, among
others.
Without actually saying so, his aids undertook that discussion last night.
The North Vietnamese formula stipulated
the following:
Recognition of the sovereignty and unity
of all Vietnam and agreement that, under
the 1954 Geneva accord the United States
must withdraw all military troops and weapons from South Vietnam and end the
bombardment of North Vietnam.
Strict respect for these military provisions
of the Geneva accord in the indefinite period
in which Vietnam will remain divided into
north and south.
Settlement of the internal affairs of South
Vietnam by the South Vietnamese people
themselves, in accordance with the program
of the Vietcong's political arm, the National
Liberation Front, and without foreign interference.
Settlement of the question of the peaceful
reunification of Vietnam by the people of
both zones, without foreign interference.
Mr. Rusk dealt directly with the four points
by stating that the Johnson administration
wished to see "full performance on all sides
of the military clauses of the 1954 agreements."
August 25, 1965
In substance, what President Johnson's top
advisers had to say was new only in bringing
together many of the bits and pieces of
American policy that have emerged gradually
since President Johnson's April offer of "unconditional discussions."
But that very
process clarified the opening position the
United States is taking in informal peace
contacts and showed how far Washington
has moved in its readiness to facilitate peace
talks.
Washington and Hanoi seem to be within
negotiating distance of each other now except on two significant points: Hanoi's insistence that the Vietcong represent South
Vietnam at the conference table and that
Saigon be excluded; and Hanoi's demand for
a coalition government in South Vietnam
with Communist participation, if not dominance. On the first, Washington proposes
that Saigon represent South Vietnam and
that the Vietcong sit in Hanoi's delegation.
On the second, the United States has countered with the challenge of free elections to
choose a South Vietnamese Government.
Ways undoubtedly can be found to narrow
these differences once Hanoi decides, as
Washington clearly has, that it too wants a
negotiated settlement.
The real question
is whether the Van Tuong battle has moved
Hanoi in this direction.
ONE MAJOR POINT OF DIFFICULTY
Whereas the Communists had stressed the
need for the United States to agree to talk
about its military withdrawal, Mr. Rusk said
the Communists had to end their "outside
aggression." On points 1 and 2, therefore,
he indicated there need be no disagreement,
provided that Communists military activities were halted in exchange for U.S. actions.
On point 4, about the eventual peaceful
reunification of Vietnam, the Johnson administration also indicated that it agreed
with the Communist statement that this
should be settled by the Vietnamese themselves.
This left point 3 as the major difficulty
of the moment. Apparently, the Communists
contend that a solution in accordance with
the Vietcong's program requires some kind
of coalition government in South Vietnam
in which Communists and their sympathizers
would play the leading role.
The United States has said it would never
agree to this. Instead, Mr. Rusk reiterated
the administration's offer to conduct free
elections in South Vietnam.
Officials here say they will agree to bar
"foreign interference" in these elections if
North Vietnam, too, agrees not to interfere
in them.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that an editorial entitled "Toward Vietnam Talks," published in today's New York Times, com-
LIVINGSTON CLARIFIES RELATIONS
OF LIQUIDITY TO CORRECTION
OF U.S. PAYMENTS BALANCE
Mr. PROXMIRE.
Mr. President, one
of the Nation's most pressing economic
problems is the persistently adverse balance of payments. It has a serious effect on the policies of Congress. It
should affect the judgment of Congress
on how big a defense budget we can afford-a judgment which will be made by
the Senate this very day. It should enter
into our decision as to how much to
spend on foreign aid-a decision on
which this body will pass in a few days.
Even in our domestic spending measures,
the balance of payments has real relevance.
The Joint Economic Committee and
the Senate Committee on Banking and
Currency have both had a series of hearings on the balance of payments, and I
expect to say much more on this matter
in the next few days. Unfortunately, in
spite of the unavoidable responsibility
of Congress for policymaking decisions
that go to the heart of the balance-ofpayments problem, many Members of
Congress have little opportunity to learn
menting on the welcome desire to the real nature and significance of the
negotiate now as expressed by Rusk, .problem.
It is not only a matter of adopting
Goldberg, and Bundy, be printed at this
policies that will decrease our spending
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial of dollars abroad and increase the spendwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD, ing by foreign countries here. It is also
a matter of the correction of the deficit
as follows:
in the U.S. balance of payments in such
TOWARD VIETNAM TALKS
The Johnson administration has followed
the military success on Van Tuong Peninsula
with a convincing demonstration of its desire for early negotiation of a Vietnamese
settlement.
Secretary Rusk, Ambassador Goldberg, and
McGeorge Bundy in their hour-long CBS
television interview Monday night made it
clear that the Marines' extraordinary combat
feat has not revived old Washington dreams
of military victory. On the contrary, the
entire tone of the discussion underscored
Mr. Bundy's assertion "that now is a good
time to negotiate."
a
way that the growth of free world
economies is not restrained, and particularly so that trade is not choked and
limited.
Our deficit dollars and our loss of gold
have supplied the ready cash that has
fueled free world and especially trade
expansion in the long and fortunate
postwar economic boom in the free
world. Precipitate and indiscriminate
choking off of this deficit could provoke
a free world deflation and recession as
the ready cash disappears.
August 25, 1965
claims against the dollar.
the increase-in
- SENATE
correct our adverse bal-RECORD
Yet we mustCONGRESSIONAL
These claims are, in effect, foreign credits to
ance of payments. The relation between the United States. And we've exhausted our
the recondite term "liquidity" and our
balance of payments is spelled out clearly
and simply in a remarkably revealing
article written by Columnist J. A. Livingston and published in this morning's
Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
LIQUIDITY Is A MATTER OF NATION'S STANDING
(By J. A. Livingston)
Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
That's the American dollar dilemma-yours,
mine, and, as a matter of high policy, President Johnson's.
The President is caught between the industrialized nations of Europe which now have
more dollars than they want and the underdeveloped nations of the world which need
more dollars than they have.
Most European countries are no longer capital short. They no longer rely on the United
States to prime their investment pumps.
President Charles de Gaulle of France doesn't
want French companies and markets taken
over by American money.
Underdeveloped nations, especially those in
Latin America, are capital poor. Their gold
reserves are low. Their principal asset in international commerce is the dollar. If the
United States slows down the outflow of dollars, they'll be distressed: "What will the
world do for liquidity?"
A strange recondite word is liquidity?
What is it?
To an American businessman, it's dollars
in the bank or a line of credit to get dollars;
to a French businessman it's francs in the
bank or a line of credit to get francs; to an
Englishman it's pounds, and so on.
But to a finance minister or central banker,
it's gold, or the equivalent of gold. Five and
ten years back, the dollar was liquidity plus.
It was not only as good as gold, but even
better.
Why? Because gold is an inert metal. It
takes up space. It has to be guarded. It
doesn't earn money. Dollars do.
A decade ago central banks invested their
dollar holdings in US. Treasury bills or certificates of deposit with commercial banks at
2½/percent or so. They were happy with the
return.
Today they can earn nearly 4 percent on
their dollar holdings and are uneasy. Thus,
central banks of Europe have reduced their
dollar holdings from $8.3 billion at the end of
last year to $6.8 billion at the end of May.
Again why? Arithmetic.
Total potential claims-I O U's-outstanding against U.S. gold have climbed to more
than $27 billion, but the gold stock has
dropped to less than $14 billion, as you can
see:
Gold to
claims
Year
1955--------------....
19150-------------1965-----.........
Claims
Billions
$13.6
21.3
27.4
Gold
Billions
$21.75
17.80
13.86
Percent6
160
84
51
Any central bank can convert dollars to
gold by presenting a chit to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Bank of
France has been doing this regularly of late.
But there's a difference between having $1.60
of gold for each dollar of potential claim and
only a half dollar.
That explains the commitment of the
President and Secretary of the Treasury
Fowler to equilibrium in the U.S. balance of
payments. They seek to curb the outflow-
21679
trict for a period of 1 year when the cause
line of credit.
arose within the District, or a resident for
But many economists2 and
yearscentral
when bankers,
the cause arose outside of the
especially the central bankers
District.of underdeveloped nations, feel that2. this
commitment
Annulment:
cramps
international Ancommerce.
action forWorld
annulment of a marriage
liquidity-gold
plus performed
dollars--won't
outside rise
of the District of Columrapidly enough to support
trade
expansion.
bia may be maintained if one of the parties
To reconcile the differences
between
to the action
is arich
bona fide resident of the
and poor nations, Secretary
is- of commencement of
DistrictFowler
at thehas
time
sued a call for an international
monetary
the action. In
case of a marriage performed
conference.
within the District of Columbia, either party
The objective: To assure
the liquidity
thefor annulment and the
may bring
an action
world needs to grow on
by reaching
residence
of the agreeparties at the time the acments on new techniques
and
fiats
to
suption is commenced shall not be a factor in
plement-to buttress-gold
and thewhether
dollar. the action shall be
determining
For this purpose, he leaves
this week to visit
maintainable.
the leading finance ministers
of
Europe.
Existing law requires that the petitioner
must have been a bona fide resident of the
District of Columbia for a period of 1 year,
THE CALENDAR
in order to maintain an action in annulment,
of whetherI the marriage was perMr. MANSFIELD.regardless
Mr. President,
formed within or without the District of
ask unanimous consent
that the Senate
Columbia.
proceed to the consideration
of Calendar
3. Affirming
validity of a marriage:
Nos. 620, 621,622, and 401.
An action to affirm the validity of a marThe VICE PRESIDENT.
Without
obriage, whether
performed
within or without
the District of Columbia, may be maintained
jections, it is so ordered.
if either party is a bona fide resident of the
District of Columbia at the time the acis brought.
AMENDMENT OF tion
PART
II OF THE
No residenceCODE,
requirement relating to the
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
affirmance of a marriage is stated in existRELATING TO DIVORCE,
LEGAL
ing law.
SEPARATION, AND
ANNULMENT
4. Grounds
for divorce:
(a) An absolute divorce may be granted
OF MARRIAGE
on the ground of actual or constructive deThe Senate proceeded
to which
consider
sertion
has the
continued for a period of
bill (H.R. 948) to amend
1 year. part II of the
District of Columbia Code
Present
relating
to di- for absolute divorce
law provides
on the
ground
of desertion only after a pevorce, legal separation,
and
annulment
riod of of
2 years.
of marriage in the District
Columbia,
(b)
Voluntary
separation without cohabiwhich had been reported from the Comtation
is a groundwith
for an absolute divorce afmittee on the District
of
Columbia
ter a period of 2 years.
amendments on page 1,Present
line 8,lawafter
the that a period of volunprovides
"six months"
word "least", to strike
taryout
separation
without cohabitation for a
2,
line
on
page
and insert "one year";
period of 5 years is 18,
a ground for an absolute
to strike out "one
after the word "for",divorce.
and, on
year" and insert "two(c)years";
An absolute
divorce may be granted
where
has"the",
been a conviction for a felony
thethere
word
page 3, line 4, after
and
a
sentence
of
not
where it appears the first time, to insert less than 2 years in a
penal institution has been imposed and where
"legal".
such sentence is served in whole or in part.
agreed
The amendments were
Existing
lawto.
requires that the felony be one
be
The amendments "involving
were ordered
moraltoturpitude."
a third
to Grounds
be read for
engrossed, and the bill 5.
limited divorce:
time.
A legal separation from bed and board may
for cruelty,
and as well as for any of
thegranted
third time,
The bill was read be
the
enumerated grounds for absolute dipassed.
vorce.
A
decree
for
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, aI limited divorce may be
enlarged into an absolute divorce on applito ofhave
ask unanimous consent
cation
the printed
innocent party after the separe- has been continuous
from
in the RECORD an excerpt
ration of
the the
parties
the next
purposes
port (No. 638), explaining
for 1 year
before making of the apof the bill.
plication.
Existingthe
lawexcerpt
provides for the enlargement
There being no objection,
of a limited
to an absolute divorce on
was ordered to be printed
in thedivorce
RECORD,
application
of
the innocent party after 2
as follows:
years from date of the decree.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
6. Void marriages:
ex- may be declared void
is to amend
The purpose of this bill
Marriage
contracts
requireisting law relating to the
if (1)residence
either party
had a lawful husband or
annul- undissolved marriage;
ment for divorce, legal
wifeseparation,
by a previous
chil-party is discovered and
maintenance
ment of marriage, and (2)
lunacy of of
either
dren and former wives
in isthe
of cohabitation following
there
no District
voluntary
Columbia.
the discovery; (3) the marriage was procured
H.R. 948, as amended,
if
enacted,
would
by fraud or coercion; (4) either party is matas to provide:
amend existing law so rimonially
incapacitated at the time of mar1. Divorce:
riage and has continued so; (5) either party
divorce
occurs
for the
That where the cause
lacked
age of
consent and there was no
party
District, either
after
attainment of legal age.
within or without thecohabitation
the divorce
to the marriage may bring
Present
law isaction
essentially the same except
the
resident
of
a combined statement
if either party has been
for the
of grounds relatyear next
prefor to1 lunacy
District of Columbia ing
and to
fraud and coercion.
of the of
action.
ceding the commencement
7. Finality
decree:
petitioner
to
Existing law requires A the
decree
for annulment
or absolute divorce
have been a bona fideshall
resident
of the effective
Disnot become
until the time for
noting an appeal shall have passed, or, if
notice of appeal has been entered, such
21680
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
decree shall not become effective until date
of final disposition of the appeal.
Present law provides for a 6-month waiting period after a final decree in the case of
an absolute divorce before such decree becomes effective.
8. Maintenance of wife and minor children:
That (a) a divorced father must maintain
his minor children of the dissolved marriage,
and (b) a former husband who has obtained
a foreign ex parte divorce, on application of
the former wife and with personal service of
process upon the former husband in the District of Columbia, may be required by decree
of court to maintain his former wife.
CLOSER CONFORMITY
TO ADJACENT STATES
The provisions of H.R. 948, as amended,
which amends the District of Columbia divorce, annulment, and legal separation laws,
will have the effect of liberalizing these provisions of District law and also, in some
measure, bring them into somewhat closer
conformity with the laws of Maryland and
Virginia.
Under the provisions of the bill, where the
cause for divorce occurs within or without
the District, either party to the marriage
may, as stated, bring the divorce action if
either party has been a bona fide resident
of the District of Columbia for a period of 1
year. This change would permit a nonresident to sue for divorce in the District of
Columbia where the other spouse has resided in the District for a period of 1 year.
This would provide a remedy to the nonresident wife whose husband has deserted her
and established residence in the District of
Columbia. The deserted wife could come to
the District and invoke the jurisdiction of
the District's courts and obtain an adjudication of her right to divorce, property
rights, and rights to support for herself and
her children.
In the matter of residence requirements,
the laws of Maryland and Virginia are somewhat similar to those proposed in H.R. 948,
as amended. The Maryland statute merely
requires that either the party plaintiff or
the defendant be a resident of the State at
the time of the application for a divorce or
an annulment is made, unless the cause of
action arose outside of the State, in which
case the party plaintiff or defendant must
have resided within the State for a period of
1 year. The Virginia statute requires that
one of the parties shall have been a resident
of the State for 1 year before commencement
of the action.
In H.R. 948, as it passed the House, the
residency period for a divorce had been set
at a 6-month period.
This committee
amended the bill and in lieu of the 6-month
period, provided for a residency period of 1
year. In so doing, it was the view of the
committee that the year period would bring
the District residency requirement into closer
conformity with Virginia and Maryland.
The bill amends existing law with regard
to the annulment of marriages. It would appear that public policy favors reasonably
prompt dissolution of marriages where either
party can justify an annulment. The bill
facilitates the possibility of prompt action
by permitting either party to bring an action to annul a marriage performed outside of the District if either party is a resident of the District of Columbia at the time
the action is brought. In connection with
marriages performed in the District, either
party may bring an action for annulment
and the question of residence shall not be
a consideration in determining whether the
action is maintainable.
H.R. 948 also amends the law of the District of Columbia relating to causes for
divorce.
The bill makes the following
changes in the grounds for divorce:
1. The period of actual or constructive desertion as a ground for absolute divorce is
reduced from 2 years to 1 year.
SENATE
August 25, 1965
2. The period of voluntary separation re- the District of Columbia, can maintain a
quired as a ground for an absolute divorce
suit for separate maintenance against such
is reduced from 5 years to 2 years.
former husband in this jurisdiction. The
3. The words "involving moral turpitude" direct effect of the amending language in
are eliminated from the description of a
H.R. 948, as amended, will be to make this
felony conviction as a ground for absolute
principle of law a part of the general statutes
divorce.
relating to divorce and the related problems
4. The waiting period for enlarging a
of maintenance. Clearly, this change is delimited divorce into an absolute divorce is
sirable in order that aggrieved persons may
reduced from 2 years to 1 year upon applicaassert their legal rights with full and comtion of the innocent party after the legal
plete assurance of the extent of such rights
separation of the parties has been continuunder the law of the District of Columbia.
ous for 1 year next before making of the
H.R. 948, as amended, is similar to S. 1761
application.
which passed the Senate in the 87th Congress.
The reduction of the period of actual or
On July 14, 1965, the Judiciary Subcomconstructive desertion from 2 years to 1 year mittee held hearings on H.R. 948. A reprewould bring the District statute into consentative of the District of Columbia Comformity with that of the State of Virginia missioners appeared and supported H.R. 948
and 25 other States which have a similar as amended by the committee. Also, repre1-year requirement in their laws. In Mary- sentatives of the District of Columbia Bar
land, the period for desertion is 18 months.
Association, the Women's Bar Association,
The reduction of the period for voluntary and Washington Bar Association appeared
separation without cohabitation from 5 years and provided testimony supporting H.R. 948
to a period of 2 years would make the Disin principle. These representatives urged
trict statute comparable to the requirement the enactment of the proposed legislation as
of the State of Virginia which also has a soon as possible in order to bring the District
period of 2 years. The State of Maryland of Columbia divorce and annulment laws
requires 18 months. The reduction of the into closer conformity with the adjoining
waiting period for enlarging a limited divorce jurisdictions.
into an absolute divorce on the grounds of
cruelty or desertion brings the District of
Columbia statute into line with the law TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS
of the State of Virginia, which likewise proFROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
vides for such action after 1 year.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
H.R. 948, as it passed the House, provided
a 1-year period for voluntary separation.
TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The committee amended the bill so as to proCOURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS
vide for a 2-year period for voluntary separaAND CERTAIN OTHER AGENCIES
tion. It was felt that such period would be
more compatible with the 18-month and 2The bill (S. 1611) to transfer certain
year periods already existing in Maryland functions from the U.S. District Court
and Virginia.
for the District of Columbia to the DisThe bill eliminates the presently required
trict of Columbia Court of General Ses6-month waiting period in the District of
Columbia before a final decree of an absolute sions and to certain other agencies of
divorce becomes effective. The law for the the municipal government of the District
District of Columbia would thus parallel the of Columbia was considered, ordered to
similar provisions of (1) Virginia, where a be engrossed for a third reading, read
final decree becomes effective on the deter- the third time, and passed, as follows:
mination of the issues, and (2) Maryland,
s. 1611
where the final decree becomes effective imBe it enacted by the Senate and House
mediately on determination that ground for
of Representatives of the United States of
divorce exists.
America in Congress assembled, That the
MAINTENANCE OF WIFE AND MINOR CHILDREN
first sentence of section 561 of the Act enThese proposed amendments of H.R. 948, titled "An Act to establish a code of law for
as amended, relating to support and maintethe District of Columbia", approved March 3,
nance are essentially remedial. Their en1901 (31 Stat. 1279), as amended (sec. 1-504,
actment will assure in the District of ColumD.C. Code, 1961 ed.), is amended by striking
bia that children of divorced parents are "United States District Court for the District
accorded the same right to the enforcement
of Columbia or a judge thereof", and insertof support from their fathers as children
ing in lieu thereof "Commissioners of the
whose parents are not divorced.
District of Columbia or their designated
The courts, under their equity powers, have agent".
jurisdiction of an action by the next friend
SEC. 2. Section 563 of the Act approved
of an infant to obtain support for such in March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1279), as amended
part from its divorced father (Schneider v.
(sec. 1-506, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), is amended
Schneider, 78 App. D.C. 383, 141 F. 2d (1944);
to read as follows: "Each notary public shall
Rapeer v. Colpoys, 85 F. 2d 715 (1936)). Even
file his signature and deposit an impression
though this is the case, the courts of the of his official seal with the Commissioners of
District of Columbia will not enforce such
the District of Columbia or their designated
support orders with criminal proceedings.
agent, and the Commissioners or their desigThe explanation for this is that the wording nated agent may certify to the authenticity
of the present statute requires the father of the signature and official seal of the notary
be a "husband." HR. 948 corrects this defipublic."
ciency in existing law by amending the law
SEC. 3. Section 572 of the Act approved
to require that a divorced father as well as
March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1280), as amended
the presently designated "husband" must (sec. 1-515, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), is amended
maintain his minor children.
by striking "United States District Court for
In addition to correcting the present de- the District of Columbia", and inserting in
ficiency in the law as it pertains to support lieu thereof "District of Columbia Court of
for minor children, the bill also codifies the General Sessions".
maintenance rights of a former wife as such
SEC. 4. Section 573 of the Act approved
rights are presently defined in the existing March 3, 1901, as amended (sec. 1-516, D.C.
case law of the District of Columbia. In the Code, 1961 ed.), is amended by striking "clerk
case of Hobson v. Hobson, 95 App. D.C. 285, of the United States District Court for. the
221 F. 2d 839 (1955), the U.S. Circuit Court District of Columbia", and inserting in lieu
for the District of Columbia ruled that a
thereof "Commissioners of the District of Coformer wife, divorced by an ex parte proceed- lumbia or their designated agent".
ing brought by her former husband in a
SEC. 5. The first sentence of the second
foreign jurisdiction, and who has obtained paragraph of section 13 of the Act entitled
personal service on such former husband in
"An Act to regulate the practice of optometry
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
in the District of Columbia", approved
May 28, 1924, as amended (sec. 2-513, D.C.
Code, 1961 ed.), is amended by striking the
semicolon and inserting a period in lieu
thereof, and striking the remainder of the
sentence.
SEC. 6. Sections 877, 878(b) and 878(f) of
the Act approved March 3, 1901 (31 Stat.
1333), as amended (secs. 48-101, 48-302 and
48-306, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), are amended by
striking "clerk of the United States District
Court for", and inserting in lieu thereof
"Recorder of Deeds of".
SEc. 7. (a) The first section of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate in the District of
Columbia the traffic in, sale, and use of milk
bottles, cans, crates, and other containers of
milk and cream to prevent fraud and deception, and for other purposes", approved
July 3, 1926 (44 Stat. 809), as amended (sec.
48-201, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), is amended by
striking "clerk of the United States District
Court for" wherever that term appears and
inserting in lieu thereof "Recorder of Deeds
of".
(b) The first section of the Act entitled
"An Act to authorize associations of employees in the District of Columbia to adopt
a device to designate the products of the
labor of their members, to punish illegal use
or imitation of such device, and for other
purposes", approved February 18, 1932 (47
Stat. 50), as amended (sec. 48-401, D.C. Code,
1961 ed.), is amended by striking from the
second sentence "clerk of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia
and the clerk", and inserting in lieu thereof
"Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia and the Recorder"; and by striking the
third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
"A certified copy of the drawing may be
obtained upon the payment of $1 for each
certification.".
SEC. 8. Subsection (a) of section 15-101,
District of Columbia Code, is amended by
striking from clause (1) the word "or"; by
striking from clause (2) "District Court-",
and inserting in lieu thereof "District Court;
or"; and by inserting immediately following clause (2) the following:
"(3) civil division of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, if the
judgment or decree was rendered on or after
the effective date of this clause-".
SEC. 9. (a) Subsection (a) of section 15102, District of Columbia Code, is amended
by striking from clause (2) the word "and";
by striking from clause (3) "forfeited-" and
inserting in lieu thereof "forfeited;"; and by
inserting immediately following clause (3)
the following:
"(4) recognizance taken by the criminal
division of the District of Columbia Court of
General Sessions, or judge thereof, from
the time when it is declared forfeited (if the
forfeiture occurred on or after the effective
date of this clause); and
"(5) judgment or decree rendered in the
civil division of the District of Columbia
Court of General Sessions after the effective
date of this clause-".
(b) Subsection (b) of section 15-102, District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking "after being forfeited," and inserting in
lieu thereof "forfeited prior to the effective
date of subsection (a) (4),".
SEC. 10. Subsection (a) of section 15-132,
District of Columbia Code, is amended by
striking "(a) A" and inserting in lieu thereof "(a)(1) Except as provided by section
15-101, a"; and by inserting at the end the
following:
"(2) A judgment entered on or after the
effective date of this paragraph in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions
may not be docketed in the Office of the
Clerk of the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. The provisions of
this title relating to enforcement of judgments, executions thereon and writs and
proceedings in aid of execution thereof, are
applicable to judgments entered on or after
CXI-1367
the effective date of this paragraph in the
District of Columbia Court of General Sessions."
SEC. 11. Section 15-310. District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking from the
first sentence "An" and inserting in lieu
thereof "(a) An"; by striking from the second sentence "It" and inserting in lieu thereof "Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, it"; and by inserting at the end the following:
"(b) An execution issued on a judgment
entered on or after the effective date of this
subsection in the District of Columbia Court
of General Sessions may be levied on real
estate."
SEC. 12. Section 15-311, District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking from the
first sentence "The writ" and inserting in
lieu thereof "(a) The writ"; and by inserting at the end the following:
"(b) A writ of fieri facias issued from the
District of Columbia Court of General Sessions upon a judgment entered in that court
on or after the effective date of this subsection may be levied on legal leasehold or freehold estates of the debtor in land."
SEC. 13. (a) Sections 1288, 1290, 1291, and
1293 of the Act approved March 3, 1901 (31
Stat. 1392), as amended (secs. 30-106, 30-108,
30-110, and 30-112, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), are
amended by striking "United States District
Court for the District of Columbia" and inserting in lieu thereof "District of Columbia
Court of General Sessions".
(b) Section 1288 of the Act approved
March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1392), as amended
(sec. 30-106, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), is further
amended by inserting at the end the following: "The clerk of the District of Columbia
Court of General Sessions and such deputy
clerks of the court as may, in writing, be
designated by the clerk of the court and approved by the chief judge, are authorized to
celebrate marriages in the District of Columbia."
(c) (1) The fifth paragraph under the
heading "Hygiene and Sanitation in the
Public Schools" under the caption "HEALTH
DEPARTMENT" in the first section of the Act
entitled "An Act making appropriations for
the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in whole or
in part against the revenues of such District
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, and
for other purposes", approved February 25,
1929 (45 Stat. 1285), as amended (sec. 30-115,
D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), is repealed.
(2) The clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia shall
transfer all marriage records in his custody
(including marriage records transferred from
the health department) to the clerk of the
District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.
(d) (1) Paragraphs (11), (12), (13), and
(14) of section 15-706(e) of the District of
Columbia Code are repealed.
(2) Chapter 7, title 15, District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting at the end
the following:
"§ 15-717. Marriage license and related fees
"For each marriage license, the fee shall be
$2; for each certified copy of a marriage
license return, the fee shall be $1; for each
certified copy of application for marriage
license the fee shall be $1; and for registering
authorizations to perform marriages and issuing certificate, the fee shall be $1.
"The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions may, by rule of court, increase
or decrease fees provided by this section."
(3) The analysis of chapter 7 of title 15
preceding section 15-701 of the District of
Columbia Code is amended by inserting at
the end:
"15-717. Marriage license and related fees."
SEC. 14. Subsection (e) of section 4 of the
Act entitled "An Act to provide for unemployment compensation in the District of
Columbia, authorize appropriations, and for
21681
other purposes", approved August 28, 1935
(49 Stat. 946), as added by the Act approved
June 4, 1943 (57 Stat. 100, 109, 110), as
amended (sec. 46-304, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.),
is amended by striking from the second and
from the penultimate sentences "clerk of the
United States District Court for" and inserting in lieu thereof "Recorder of Deeds of".
SEC. 15. (a) Sections 1238, 1239, and 1241
of the Act approved March 3, 1901 (31 Stat.
1384, 1385), as amended (secs. 38-102, 38-103,
and 38-105, D.C. Code, 1961 ed.), are amended
by striking "clerk of the United States District Court for" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Recorder of Deeds of".
(b) Sections 1238 and 1246 of the Act
approved March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1384, 1386),
as amended (secs. 38-102 and 38-110, D.C.
Code, 1961 ed.), are amended by striking
"clerk" and inserting in lieu thereof "Recorder of Deeds".
(c) In addition to fees otherwise provided
for, the Recorder of Deeds shall charge and
collect the following fees:
(1) for filing and recording each notice of
mechanic's lien, $1;
(2) for entering release of mechanic's lien,
50 cents for each order of lienor; and
(3) for each undertaking of lienee, 75
cents.
SEC. 16. The Act entitled "An Act to establish a lien for moneys due hospitals for services rendered in cases caused by negligence
or fault of others and providing for the recording and enforcing of such liens", approved June 30, 1939 (53 Stat. 990, 991), as
amended (secs. 38-302 and 38-305, D.C. Code,
1961 ed.), is amended by striking from sections 2 and 5 "clerk of the United States
District Court for" and inserting in lieu
thereof "Recorder of Deeds of"; and by striking the second sentence of section 5 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The
Recorder of Deeds shall index the same in
the name of the injured person and shall
charge and collect a fee of $1 for recording,
indexing, and releasing the lien so filed."
SEC. 17. Paragraph (3) of subsection (a)
of section 6323 of subchapter C of chapter 64
of the Act entitled "An Act to revise the internal revenue laws of the United States",
approved August 16, 1954 (68A Stat. 779; 26
U.S.C. 6323), is amended to read as follows:
"(3) WrITH ECORDEROF DEEDSOF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-In the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia,
if the property subject to the lien is situated
in the District of Columbia."
SEC. 18. Section 6 of title I of the Act entitled "An Act to provide revenue for the
District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved August 17, 1937 (50 Stat.
673, 674), as amended (sec. 47-1406, D.C.
Code, 1961 ed.), is amended by striking
"clerk of the United States District Court
for", and inserting in lieu thereof "Recorder
of Deeds of"; and by striking "said court"
and inserting in lieu thereof "the United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia."
SEc. 19. Paragraphs 16 and 18 of section
15-706(e), District of Columbia Code, are
repealed.
SEC. 20. Appropriations to carry out the
purposes of this Act are authorized.
SEC. 21. This Act shall take effect on the
first day of the first month which is at least
ninety days after the date of approval of this
Act.
Mr. MANSFIELD.
Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the
RECORD an excerpt from the report (No.
639), explaining the purposes of the bill.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this bill is to transfer a
number of functions from the U.S. District
21682
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Court for the District of Columbia to the
District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Commissioners of the District of
Columbia, and to the Recorder of Deeds for
the District of Columbia. The functions
transferred by the terms of this bill are all
of a nature which are not customarily performed by a U.S. district court, but rather
by a local court or by some administrative
agency. The bill in providing for the transfer of functions, carries out specific recommendations contained in a study submitted
to the Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives, and which such committee directed be made pursuant to House Report 1708, 85th Congress. The study and the
recommendations included in such study
were prepared by representatives of the Bureau of the Budget, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the government of
the District of Columbia.
The transfer of functions provided by the
terms of this bill relate generally to the following:
Notary public
Designates the District Commissioners, in
lieu of the clerk of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia as the depository for
filing papers, records, signatures, certified
seal of a notary public. Also, empowers the
District of Columbia Court of the General
Sessions rather than the district court to
remove a notary public for cause.
Optometry
Relieves the district court of the responsibility of receiving for filing certified copies of
optometrists' registrations. (Retains the Department of Occupations and Professions of
the District of Columbia government as custodian of such records.)
Trademarks, trade names
Designates the office of the District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds, in lieu of the
clerk for the district court, as the depository
for filing, trademarks, trade names, labels,
and brands.
Judgments
Makes extensive changes respecting the
docketing of judgments and decrees rendered in the District of Columbia court of general sessions. (See section-by-section analysis included hereafter in this report.)
Recordation of liens
Designates the Office of Recorder of Deeds
of the District of Columbia, in lieu of .he
clerk for the district court, as the depository
for mechanic liens, Federal tax liens (United
States Code, sec. 6323), District personal
property tax liens, District of Columbia unemployment compensation tax liens, and
hospital liens.
Marriage licenses
Transfers from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia to the District of
Columbia court of general sessions, the function of issuing and recording marriage licenses, licensing persons to celebrate the
rites of marriage, and fixing the fees in connection with the issuance thereof. Also,
authorizes the transfer of all marriage records to the custody of the clerk of the District of Columbia court of general sessions
from the district court. Provision is also
made for the clerk of the court of general
sessions and the deputy clerks of such court,
when designated by the chief judge, to celebrate marriages in the District of Columbia.
The committee was advised that the latter
provision conforms with the practice now
provided for in Maryland and several of the
counties in Virginia.
On June 9, 1965, the Judiciary Subcommittee held public hearings on S. 1611. Representatives of the District Commissioners
and of the District of Columbia Bar Association appeared at the hearing and testified in
support of the bill. The committee also received a letter from the Deputy Director, Ad-
August 25, 1965
SENATE
ministrative Office of the US. Courts, and committee, that assault on a correctional ofthe chief judge of the U.S. district court ficer of the District should be a felony offense for the reason that such increased
recommending enactment of the bill.
The committee is also informed that the penalty could help to maintain more effecJudicial Conference of the United States dur- tive discipline in District penal and correcing its session on March 18, 1965, approved tional institutions.
Moreover, extending such coverage to Disenactment of the legislation.
trict correctional officers would conform to
Federal law which at present provides that
PENALTY FOR ASSAULTS ON EM- assault on Federal penal and correctional
officers is a felony offense (18 U.S.C. 111PLOYEES OF PENAL AND COR1114).
RECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND
Also, the Commissioners of the District of
PLACES OF CONFINEMENT OF
Columbia were of the view that an assault
JUVENILES OF THE DISTRICT OF on an employee of the Department of Public
Welfare charged with the supervision of juveCOLUMBIA
niles under detention at the Children's CenThe bill (S. 1715) to extend the pen- ter, Laurel, Md., or the Receiving Home in
alty for assault on a police officer in the the District of Columbia, should be raised
District of Columbia to assaults on em- to the level of a felony offense, as provided
by this bill. A juvenile being brought within
ployees of penal and correctional instithe jurisdiction of such charge would permit
tutions and places of confinement of
judges of the juvenile court, in appropriate
juveniles of the District of Columbia was
cases, to waive jurisdiction over an offender
considered, ordered to be engrossed for a
so that he could be tried as an adult. (The
third reading, read the third time, and Juvenile Court Act of the District of Columpassed, as follows:
bia (D.C. Code, 11-1553) provides that if a
child 16 years of age or older is charged with
S. 1715
Be it enacted by the Senate and House an offense which would amount to a felony
in the case of an adult, the judge may waive
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sub- jurisdiction to the appropriate adult court.)
The Commissioners of the District of Cosection (a) of section 432 of the Revised
lumbia are of the view that this provision
Statutes relating to the District of Columbia
would be a desirable means of aiding in the
(D.C. Code, sec. 22-505) is amended by inmaintenance of discipline at the Receivinl
serting after "District of Columbia" the folHome and Children's Center and of empowerof
any
any
officer
or
employee
lowing: ", or
ing the juvenile court judges to take appropenal or correctional institution of the Dispriate action where a felonious assault has
trict of Columbia, or any officer or employee
occurred on supervisory personnel.
of the government of the District of ColumThe Judiciary Subcommittee of the District
bia charged with the supervision of juveniles
being confined pursuant to law in any fa- of Columbia Committee held a hearing on
S. 1715 on June 9, 1965, at which time reprecility of the District of Columbia, whether
sentatives from the District of Columbia
such institution or facility is located within
Department of Corrections and the District
the District of Columbia or elsewhere,".
of Columbia Commissioners appeared and
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I testified in support of this legislation. Also,
ask unanimous consent to have printed the president of the District of Columbia Bar
in the RECORD an excerpt from the re- Association was present and recommended
port (No. 640), explaining the purposes enactment of this measure.
Enactment of this bill will not incur any
of the bill.
expense to the District of ColumThere being no objection, the excerpt additional
bia government.
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this bill is to amend existing law (22 D.C. Code 505) in order to make
applicable the so-called assault on a police
officer criminal statute and the penalty prescribed therein, to employees of District of
Columbia penal and correctional institutions,
and other persons responsible for the confinement of juveniles under the jurisdiction
of the District of Columbia.
Under District law at the present time,
persons who, without excusable cause, assault, resist, oppose, impede, or interfere
with any officer or member of any police
force in the District of Columbia while engaged in the performance of his official duties, shall be fined $5,000, or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both. In instances
where a dangerous weapon is used, the penalty is increased to a term of imprisonment
of not more than 10 years.
Although police officers of the District of
Columbia are included within the coverage
of the above statute, District correctional
officers, and persons charged with the supervision of detained juveniles, are not included.
Consequently, whenever correctional officers
are assaulted, without a weapon, by inmates
of District of Columbia penal institutions
at Lorton, Va., and Occoquan, Va., as well as
the District of Columbia jail, the only charge
that can be brought against such inmates
is simple assault, a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is a prison sentence
of not more than a year.
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are of the view, and so informed the
A
BIPARTISAN
COMMISSION
TO
STUDY FEDERAL LAWS LIMITING
POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (S. 1474) to create a bipartisan commission to study Federal laws limiting
political activity by officers and employees of Government.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, the
question as to how strictly the Govern-
ment should limit the political activity
of Federal employees, and of State employees who work primarily in activities
financed by Federal funds, involves issues of critical importance to the integrity of the civil service and to the efficiency of Government administration.
This subject calls forth issues which are
as old as the Republic itself and which
could affect in a fundamental way our
system
of
representative
government
and the political structures which are so
vitally a part of that system.
Our Government was nearly a century
old when in 1833 Congress enacted the
Civil Service Act creating the Civil Service Commission and the civil service
merit system. Congress deemed it essential to the merit system to incorpo-
rate into that act the basic policy on
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
political activity which had been expressed in Executive orders and in civil
service rules. The regulation of political activity thus became a necessary
part of the duties which devolved upon
the Commission in administering the
Civil Service Act. It is significant that
Theodore Roosevelt, who had served as
a Civil Service Commissioner, found it
desirable, when he was President, to expand the existing political activity restrictions which applied to the classified
civil service. Thus he did by Executive
Order No. 642, issued on June 30, 1907.
It was not until 1939, however, that
Congress again acted in this area. That
year, by enactment of the Hatch Political Activities Act, Congress incorporated
into law the civil service rules as they
had evolved over the years.
Twenty-five years have passed since
the enactment of this law. These have
been years of unparalleled progress and
growth. There have been changes in
governmental programs and relationships. These changes may well have affected or altered the purposes and requirements for limiting partisan political
activity of Government employees. They
may have produced conditions which call
for modifications in the methods and degree of such restrictions.
That is why I introduced S. 1474, which
would establish a bipartisan Commission
of 12 members.
The members of the Commission would
be appointed as follows:
Four by the President; two from the
executive branch of the Government, and
two from private industry;
Four by the President of the Senate;
two from the Senate, and two from private enterprise; and
Four by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives; two from the House and
two from private enterprise.
I was gratified by the favorable consideration given to this bill by the members of the Senate Rules Committee.
I am pleased the distinguished majority leader called up the bill for final
action in the closing days of the session.
I believe this legislation can contribute
much to the morale of the Federal employee.
I urge all my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed, the question
is on the engrossment and third reading
of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, was read the third
time, and passed, as follows:
S. 1474
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION
SECTION. 1. There is hereby established a
commission to be known as the Commission
on Political Activity of Government Personnel (in this Act referred to as the "Commission").
MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION
SEC. 2. (a) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.The Commission shall be composed of twelve
members as follows:
(1) Four appointed by the President of
the United States, two from the executive
SENATE
21683
branch of the Government and two from slon, are necessary to carry out its recomprivate life;
mendations.
(2) Four appointed by the President of
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
the Senate, two from the Senate and two
SEC. 8. (a) HEARINGS AND SESSIONS.-The
from private life; and
(3) Four appointed by the Speaker of the Commission or, on the authorization of the
House of Representatives, two from the Commission, any subcommittee or member
House of Representatives and two from pri- thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out
the provisions of this Act, hold such hearings
vate life.
(b) POLITICAL AFFILIATION.-Of each class and sit and act at such times and places,
administer such oaths, and require, by subof two members appointed under subsection
(a), not more than one member shall be from pena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production
each of the two major political parties.
of such books, records, correspondence,
(c) VACANCIES.-Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall memorandums, papers, and documents as
be filled in the same manner in which the the Commission or such subcommittee or
member may deem advisable. Subpenas
original appointment was made.
may be issued under the signature of the
OF THE COMMISSION
ORGANIZATION
Chairman of the Commission, of such subSEc. 3. The Commission shall elect a Chaircommittee, or any duly designated member,
and may be served by any person designated
man and a Vice Chairman from among its
members.
by such Chairman or member. The provisions of section 102 to 104, inclusive, of the
QUOnRUM
Revised Statutes of the United States (2
SEC. 4. Seven members of the Commission
U.S.C. secs. 192-194, inclusive), shall apply
shall constitute a quorum.
in the case of failure of any witness to
COMPENSATION OFMEMBERS OF THE
comply with a subpena or to testify when
COMMISSION
summoned under authority of this section.
SEC. 5. (a) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.-Mem(b) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA.-The Combers of Congress who are members of the mission is authorized to secure directly
Commission shall serve without compensafrom any executive department, bureau,
tion in addition to that received for their agency, board, commission, office, independservices as Members of Congress; but they ent establishment, or instrumentality inshall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, formation, suggestions, estimates, and staand other necessary expenses incurred by
tistics for the purpose of this Act; and each
them in the performance of the duties vested
such department, bureau, agency, board,
in the Commission.
commission, office, establishment, or instru(b) MEMBERS
FROM
THE
EXECUTIVE mentality is authorized and directed to furBRANCH.-The members of the Commission
nish such information, suggestions, estimates,
who are in the executive branch of the Govand statistics directly to the Commission,
ernment shall serve without compensation
upon request made by the Chairman or Vice
in addition to that received for their servChairman.
ices in the executive branch, but they shall
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and
other necessary expenses incurred by them ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the performance of the duties vested in
in the RECORD an excerpt from the rethe Commission.
port (No. 408), explaining the purposes
(c) MEMBERS FROM PRIVATE LIFE.-The of the bill.
members from private life shall each receive
There being no objection, the excerpt
$50 per diem when engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Com- was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
mission, plus reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses inPurpose of the legislation: In essence, S.
curred by them in the performance of such 1474 proposes the creation of a bipartisan
duties.
commission consisting of 12 members which
STAFF OF THE COMMISSION
shall make "a full and complete investigation
SEC. 6. (a) The Commission shall have and study of the Federal laws which limit or
discourage the participation of Federal and
power to appoint and fix the compensation
of such personnel as it deems advisable, State officers and employees in political acwithout regard to the provisions of the civil tivity with a view to determining the effect
service laws and the Classification Act of of such laws, the need for their revision or
1949, as amended.
elimination, and an appraisal of the extent
(b) The Commission may procure, with- to whch undesirable results might accrue
out regard to the civil service laws and the from their repeal."
Classification Act of 1949, as amended, temThe Federal law which would be the subporary an-. intermittent services to the ject of greatest concern to the Commission
same extent as is authorized for the depart- under the bill is the Hatch Political Activiments by section 15 of the Administrative ties Act, 1939, as amended. That act, first
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), but at signed into law August 2, 1939, has existed
rates not to exceed $50 per diem for individ- for almost 26 years without major amenduals.
ment, and proponents of S. 1474 urge a thorDUTIES OF THE COMMISSION
ough and detailed examination to ascertain
whether, at this time-a quarter century
STUDY AND INVESTIGATION.SEC. 7. (a)
after its passage-the Hatch Act needs modThe Commission shall make a full aid comification.
plete investigation and study of the Federal
Testifying before the subcommittee on
laws which limit or discourage the participaS. 1474, John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman of the
tion of Federal and State officers and emU.S. Civil Service Commission, stated as folployees in political activity with a view to
determining the effect of such laws, the lows:
"Twenty-five years have passed since the
need for their revision or elimination, and
enactment of this law (the Hatch Act).
an appraisal of the extent to which undeThere have been changes in governmental
sirable results might accrue from their reprograms and relationships. These changes
peal.
(b) REPORTS.-The Commission shall sub- may well have affected or altered the purposes and requirements for limiting partisan
mit a comprehensive report of its activities
political activity of Government employees.
and the results of its studies to the President
and to the Congress within one year after They may have produced conditions which
call for modifications in the methods and
the date of enactment of this Act at which
degree of such restrictions. There would be
date the Commission shall cease to exist.
The final report of the Commission shall no objection to a temporary commission to
contain such proposed legislation enact- assess these changes by the method, and for
ment as, in the judgment of the Commisthe purposes, set forth in this bill (S. 1474)."
21684
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
While witnesses before the subcommittee
criticized many facets of the GovernmentFederal employee relationship with respect to
partisan political activity, unanimous recognition was given to the need for a broad
study of pertinent Federal laws pursuant to
the provisions of Senator BREWSTER'S proposed legislation.
Recommendation: The subcommittee is of
the opinion that a bipartisan, objective study
of this nature would serve the best interests
of the Federal Government, its employees,
and the public. Many vague and uncertain
areas of Government-employee relationships
might well benefit from a constructive, critical review of the laws pertinent to those relationships.
There may be some revisions of the Hatch
Act which would be in the public interest,
therefore, a commission to study the matter is in order.
It is not intended that such a Commission
lose sight of the problems which made the
Hatch Act necessary. There should be no
reversion to the situation where Federal employees are coerced into making political
donations, kickbacks from their salaries, and
doing political work for the administration
in power.
It was the grave abuses in these areas that
caused the Congress to adopt the act originally. If a Commission is appointed that
makes recommendations, those recommendations should preserve the original intent of
the Hatch Act.
EXPLOSION AT DU PONT NEOPRENE
PLANT, LOUISVILLE, KY,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I regret to announce what may be a major
disaster in my home city of Louisville,
Ky.
About 2/2 hours ago, 17 explosions
occurred in the Du Pont neoprene plant
at what is known as Rubber Town, a
huge industrial and chemical complex
on the outskirts of Louisville.
Apparently 17 chemical tanks exploded. There is no estimate yet of the
casualties that might be involved. The
plant employs some 1,900 people. Of
course, all would not have been on duty
at that hour.
The Civil Defense has been called out,
all deputy coroners have been called to
the scene, all police in the Louisville and
surrounding suburbs and towns are on
alert, all traffic has been blocked in and
out of the area, and everything else is
being done that can be done.
I regret the necessity to make this
sad announcement. Further details will
be available later in the day.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I was
at a committee meeting this morning,
and I have just learned of the explosion
at the Du Pont plant in Louisville, Ky.
I know that the officials and the public
authorities, as well as private agencies
and individuals, are doing all possible
to alleviate the suffering and provide for
the needs of those who have been so
tragically involved. I know that the
sympathy of all goes out to the families
of those who have died and to those who
have been injured. I know that all possible will be done to meet distress in the
city.
COWBIRDS IN SOCIETY
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, individual integrity, respect of persons,
August 25, 1965
SENATE
obedience to laws, loyalty to one's community, State, and country, and a moral
and spiritual resurgence have been
stressed by prominent and dedicated
persons during the last few days as the
only answer to the problems plaguing
our Nation and the world today. President Eisenhower publicly declared that
the "senseless violence" in recent days
must be ended. Such actions have seriously set back the constructive efforts
made in orderly fashion causing not only
grave disadvantages to the community
affected but to the individuals involved.
From the editorial of the August 1965
issue of Record, the Illinois Farm Bureau magazine, I should like to underscore one of William J. Kuhfuss' creditable statements:
Anyone who ceases to make a contribution
to society is a burden to that society.
A person of one talent must use that
talent or it will wither away; likewise,
a person of many talents must keep them
alive. The laws of the land must be respected and obeyed. Should there be
laws that are in need of change, due
process of legislation should correct
them. Only under dictatorships can individuals attempt to wield a single hand
of authority. Individuals must be selfreliant and willing to accept responsibilities for their own growth as well as for
the growth of their communities, states,
and nation. I ask unanimous consent
that President Kuhfuss' editorial entitled "Who Wants a Cowbird?" be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WHO WANTS A COWBIRD?
Old folks, young people, and in-betweens
can be cowbirds to a society.
A cowbird is a shiftless lot doing not for
herself that which she can get someone else
to do for her. She cannot be considered all
bad because she lives on insects, many of
them detrimental. She lays her eggs in the
nest of a smaller bird and leaves to it the
burden of hatching and feeding her young.
At feeding time the larger intruder's baby
reaches higher with open mouth than its
host's young. The smaller, weaker birds
many times are rooted from the nest. This
savage, inconsiderate creature in nature has
a limited potential for a prominent future
as a species. Her future depends upon how
many places she can chisel in.
Life for humans, as for birds, can be
brutal. We don't personally make the rules,
but must live with the influences whether
created by the laws of nature or by man.
Anyone who ceases to make a contribution to
society is a burden to that society. Many
people, have earned the right to be such a
burden by their previous contributions. It
is difficult to justify able-bodied people imposing themselves on others. The infant
progresses from complete dependence to
graduated degrees of self-reliance.
We have no lament for the laws of nature,
but many times we deplore the laws and
circumstances created by man. Civilizations
are built and lost by people. In a growing
and developing society, there is no place for
cowbirds. The expression, "no work, no
food" is a radical statement to the leeches
in society. For the shiftless lot, "the Government owes me a living."
The burden of big government, as a dominating imposition of centralized authority,
has ever been a cowbird of civilizations. It
saps the lifeblood of the economy.
The
infants of freedom, of initiative, of thrift,
and self-reliance are rooted from the nest.
Recently, a businessman was assessed
$161,000 back taxes. After 3 years of court
feuding, his case was settled for $8,700. He
had spent $30,000 proving misassessment.
Settlement was made by agreement to avoid
further harassment so that constructive effort could be resumed. All court costs in
these circumstances and wasted effort bleed
our economy as the cowbird bleeds the efforts of smaller birds. These are the tracks
that eventually lead to the crumbled ruins
of a managed society.
If we are to have a great society, it must
be woven with the fiber of individual integ.
rity. It cannot be born of political manipulation for personal security. A government
cannot be the biggest business, the biggest
contractor, the biggest buyer, the biggest
welfare agency, the biggest employer, and
remain the servant of its people. It is the
slavemaster and even in our Republic, government "by the people" becomes questionable.
It is time each of us realizes the hazardous
course we are following by encouraging cowbirds in our economy. Many Federal spending efforts do just that. We need a change
in philosophy of government because a "government cannot give that which it has not
first taken from its people."
SUNDAY
VOTING IN NATIONAL
ELECTIONS
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, on
February 19, 1965, I introduced S. 1211,
to provide for Sunday voting in national
elections.
The proposal has stirred a
great deal of interest and in all candor
I must say that much of it was hostile to
the idea even though Sunday voting is a
common practice in a great many coun-
tries, including the more developed
countries in Europe.
There has, however, come to me a
letter from Rev. Roderick N. De Young,
pastor of the First Reformed Church of
East Orange, N.J.
It so happens that I am a member of
the Reformed Church in America and
the letter was, therefore, of extraordinary interest because the Reverend Mr.
De Young fully espouses the proposal
which I submitted. He states the case
without equivocation and I believe it will
be extremely useful for his letter to appear in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in
connection with my remarks in the hope
that it will be brought to the attention of
a great many people who have shown an
interest in this matter.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the letter be printed in the
SRECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE FIRST REFORMED CHURCH,
East Orange,N.J., July 28, 1965.
The Honorable EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
U.S. Senator,
Broad Run Farms,Sterling, Va.
DEAR SENATOR DIRKSEN: My church, the
Reformed Church in America, has written to
you strongly opposing the bill to make Sunday a national voting day. As far as I know
my lone voice was raised against their opposition and I wanted you to know, sir, that it's
perfectly al right with me, whatever comfort that may bring to you, to make Sunday
a national voting day.
And, as long as I'm writing to you I may
as well do double duty and with a few extra
words get some things off my chest to the
Christian Action Commission of my Church,
so please indulge some of my thoughts on
Sunday.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Today is Sunday, the first day of the week,
6:45 p.m. I'm sitting in the church office
looking out on Main Street and watching
the people walk by, drive by, and still others
entering the Ormont Theater across the
street. Some of those walking by are members of this church, some of those driving
by are members of this church, some of those
entering the Ormont Theater are members
of this church.
Some of those walking by are coming back
from the tennis courts (they're carrying their
rackets), some of those riding by are just
returning from the lake or the shore. (If
I hadn't had to conduct a funeral today I
might have joined them, yet according to
some in the church that would be wrong.)
What is Sunday; how does it fit into 20th
century America?
Well, first of all let me say what I think
it is. According to my Lord it was a time
meant for man. As I see it that means I
ought to enjoy the day. For some that may
mean attending church on Sunday morning
or Sunday evening with their family. For
others it means getting up bright and early
and going to the lake or shore with their
family. I've always sort of smiled when the
shore was placed in the same category as hell
as far as Sunday is concerned, although I
must admit that the population explosion
on the beach seems at times to be a fairly
accurate picture of hell as far as enjoyment
is concerned. I can remember when the
only way to the shore was a two-lane road
with stoplights every 5 miles and what traffic
jams on Sunday. Now we have four-lane
superhighways with 70 miles-per-hour speed
limits and what traffic jams.
What I'm trying to say is that nowadays
everybody can't do the same thing at the
same time. Many factories now stagger their
quitting hours so that their employees don't
all jam the highways at once. The day when
factories shut down for the whole month
and let everyone go on vacation at the same
time is past, except for isolated circumstances. I do believe the honored gentlemen
in Washington still find it necessary to vacation at the same time, but I doubt this custom will continue for long. More and more
we are going to see people having Monday
and Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, or
Friday and Saturday as their days off. Before A.D. 2000, I suspect that as many people
will have off Monday and Tuesday as others
will have Saturday and Sunday. Not only
will staggered "weekends" become more
numerous but, as the cybernetics revolution
continues to spread, more and more people
will have more and more time to do what
they want to do-like going to the shore.
Then, of course, there are always those
strange creatures who must work on Sunday,
like firemen, policemen, and the gals who
serve us in the restaurants.
And now comes the rub-are we going to
say "religion as usual"-you're damned if
you work on Sunday-or are we truly going
to let the Sabbath serve man. Whether we
like it or not, Sunday as that day that belonged to the religious (Christian) communities is almost past, the day when society was
governed by the so-called Calvinistic tradition is dead, and perhaps that version is
best left unresurrected.
In a way we "religious" have gotten exactly
what we asked for-1 day a week at the cost
of 6 other days. If we want the church to
continue to be the mediating influence it
has been in the world we had better stop
wasting our time on preserving the customs
of the past and think more about the challenging future.
I guess I'm not saying too well what I
believe Jesus of Nazareth was saying to His
friends. All of life is blessed and holy and
when "we raise too high the roof beam" of
religiosity we stand the terrible chance of
building cathedrals of architectural beauty
and total irrelevancy.
SENATE
21685
Let's let go of Sunday; let's stop trying to
at an accelerating rate and I believe it
impose our rules on others. We don't have will not be long before the Federal Govto do those other things, you know. (Maybe
ernment is being repaid in taxes from
that's part of the problem-we're really enAlaskans and Alaska businesses what it
vious of all the fun that others have on
invested
in 1964.
Sunday.)
The report on Alaska's economy in
What does concern me is how we are going
to utilize our present organizational struc1964 is the work of a group of able facultures in ministering to a society which has ty members and students of the Univerno structural similarity to that society in
sity of Alaska under the leadership of
which the church organization developed.
Dean William M. Dickson, acting director
How can we use what we have to meet the
of the Institute of Business, Economic,
wonderful, yet so different, future? Perhaps
one step is to relax our death grip on that and Government Research. Dean Dickfirst day and begin to spread out a little bit son began to publish a series of monthly
of
with something for everyday, for those who reports entitled "Alaska Review
want it. Perhaps we can begin to meet the Business and Economic Conditions" in
future by letting the state organize their May of 1964, recognizing that current
activities as they feel can best bring results
economic information was vital to the
and let us concentrate on helping people
recovery of the State. He and his assistbecome what they have been given the
ants deserve much praise and it is my
possibility of becoming.
And so, Senator DIRKSEN, you have one hope that they will continue to perform
this important service.
in
America
voice of the reformed church
There being no objection, the report
which speaks for your proposed bill and
which will do its best to support this effort was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
of yours.
as follows:
Yours truly,
ALASKA'S ECONOMY IN 1964
Rev. RODERICK N. DE YOUNG.
The year 1964 was a critical one for Alaska's
economy. On March 27 of that year, an
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY earthquake of great intensity struck the State
causing many deaths and destroying vast
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, a amounts of public and private property.
little over a year ago, a cataclysmic The damage was so extensive in some areas
earthquake struck Alaska. In the first that there was doubt about Alaska's ability
few hours following that event, many of to recover. Now, 16 months after the devasearthquake, the uncertainty as to
us thought all our dreams and hopes tating
Alaska's recovery has been largely dispelled.
for the new State were as twisted, torn Alaska's economy has absorbed the shock of
and smashed as the buildings and the the disaster and is well on its way to becomearth itself. But we had no time to ing stronger and better balanced than before.
give to despair.
Within hours massive Federal assistance, directed by President Johnson,
was on its way to the shattered towns
and villages and the frightened and
grieving people.
Work was a great cure
for the ills which held Alaska in their
grips during those hours and work there
was in plenty.
The reconstruction effort is still going
on, but the major portion has been accomplished. Under the wise and farsighted leadership of Senator CLINTON
P. ANDERSON, the Chairman of the Fed-
eral Reconstruction and Development
Planning Commission, the reconstruc-
tion effort became not merely a replacement effort but a means of building a
solid foundation upon which the fledgling economy could develop.
What I wish to report to my colleagues
in the Senate is that the reconstruction
effort has succeeded beyond all expectations.
Last month the Institute of Busi-
ness, Economic and Government Research of the University of Alaska published a report on the Alaska economy
for 1964.
The report, although brief, gives a fair
and adequate description of the many
satisfying events which have contributed
to the recovery effort and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The report in no way pretends to
demonstrate that the earthquake was
not a devastating event. What it does
show, however, is that the belief and
support of the Federal Government
made it possible for the State to recover.
This confidence and concern by the Federal Establishment spurred Alaskans to
work harder and more imaginatively in
building their State. They are doing this
PERSONAL INCOME I
ALASKA, 1964
An examination of the data concerning
personal income received by Alaskans in 1964
presents graphic evidence of the State's
present economic vitality. Alaska experienced the largest rate of growth in personal income of any State in the Nation
during 1964, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Alaska's total personal
Income increased from $704 million in 1963
to $782 million in 1964. This gain of 11 percent was substantially above the 6 percent
improvement in personal income registered
for the Nation as a whole.
Personal income is generally considered
the most comprehensive measure of economic activity available on a geographic
basis. It covers the income received by residents of a State from business establishments, Federal, State and local governments,
households and institutions and foreign
countries. All forms of income flowing to
persons from these sources are included.
Notwithstanding the large gain in personal income shown for Alaska in 1964, personal income data compiled by the U.S.
Department of Commerce for Alaska tends
to be somewhat understated. This is because income earned in Alaska by nonresidents is excluded from the data. This nonresident earned income is estimated to be
about 10 percent of income received by residents.
Per capita personal income in Alaska (that
is, the average amount of income for each
person in the State) increased by 10 percent
during 1964. It rose from $2,839 in 1963 to
$3,128 in 1964. Per capita personal income
for the United States as a whole increased 4
percent during the same 12-month periodrising from $2,448 to $2,550.
Alaska ranked fifth among the States in
per capita personal income in 1964. Alaska
ranked ninth in 1963. The four States with
per capita personal incomes higher than
Alaska during 1964 were Delaware, Connecticut, Nevada, and New York.
Prices in Alaska remained relatively stable
during 1964. Thus the 10 percent increase
21686
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
August 25, 1965
employees to population in the United States
speed Alaska's economic recovery. The initial setback suffered by the trade industries, (236:10,000). Only Vermont and Hawaii had
lower local government employees to popudue to the earthquake damage, was overlation ratios. than Alaska which had a ratio
come and by yearend the trade employment
of 177:10,000.
Alaska's average monthly
level surpassed the previous year's level
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO ALASKA
A comparison of 1963 and 1964 yearly aver- salary for education employees was $694 in
Much of the credit for Alaska's economic
October
of 1964. This was the highest in the
recovery from the devastating effects of the age employment levels in the various Alaskan
United States.
March 27 earthquake and seismic waves must industrial categories is shown in table II.
Although employment increased from 1963
go to the Federal Government. Massive Fed- The greatest yearly increase (29.9 percent)
occurred in the construction industry. to 1964, in the majority of industry cateeral financial assistance has been extended to
Alaska since the earthquake and many Fed- Lesser but impressive gains were enjoyed by gories, some suffered losses. The largest deeral personnel joined with Alaskans in ex- the trucking and warehousing, and the crease occurred in the food processing category (7.3 percent). The category entitled
finance, insurance, and real estate categories
erting great effort on the State's behalf.
The final total of all the Federal assistance which advanced 14.7 and 11.3 percent re- "other transportation, communications and
utilities," and the "water transportation"
miscellaneous,
The
service
and
spectively.
extended to Alaska as a consequence of ihe
category suffered losses of 6 and 5.2 percent
earthquake is estimated between $325 and logging, lumber and pulp, food stores, gov$414 million by the Federal Reconstruction ernment, and mining categories enjoyed sig- respectively.
Approximately 4,000 more workers were
nificant
increases
in
employment
levels.
Commission.
Planning
and Development
employed in 1964 in Alaska, on the average,
They increased on the average 92; 8.5; 6.5;
This total includes aid to the private sector
than
were employed in 1963. The average
1963
to
5.7
percent
respectively
from
5.9;
and
through loans and debt forgiveness as well
as the cost of restoring damaged Federal and 1964. The largest increase in the Govern- unemployment rate for the State decreased
from
8.5 percent in 1963 to 7.5 percent in
ment category occurred in the Federal sector
State facilities. (See Table I.)
1964.
(6.4 percent). Local and State followed in
EMPLOYMENT IN ALASKA IN 1964
AVERAGEWAGES AND HOURS
that order increasing by 5.8 and 4.4 percent
The earthquake and seismic waves which
respectively. Along these same lines, the DeTable III shows the average changes that
struck Alaska last year exerted two diametri- partment of Commerce reports that Alaska occurred in the number of hours worked and
cally opposite influences on the State's level
is the only State in which the number of the average earnings for selected industries
of employment. Initially, the earthquake Federal civilian employees is greater than the in Alaska from 1963 to 1964. The contract
adversely affected employment in several innumber of State and local government emconstruction workers received the highest
dustry categories. Since many businesses ployees.
average weekly earnings in 1963 and 1964.
were destroyed, some jobs were lost immediThe lowest average weekly earnings during
ately in the wholesale and retail trade areas. TABLE II.-Average yearly employment and the same period were received by individuals
percentage
change,
by
industry,
in
Alaska,
In addition, the destruction of several ports,
in the finance-insurance and real estate em1963 and 1964
a large number of storage facilities, and some
ployment category. The people in the mincanneries created substantial unemployment
ing industry worked the greatest number of
in the water transportation, warehousing,
Percent
hours per average week during both 1963
and food processing employment areas.
change
Yearly Yearly in yearly and 1964. The highest average hourly earnThe reconstruction activities taking place
ings were received by workers in the conIndustry
average, average, average
in the devastated areas, on the other hand.
1963
1964
from
tract construction industry for both years.
provided many new employment opportuni1963to
1964
TABLE I.--H-ours worked and average earnties. Hundreds of new building and conings, selected industries, Alaska, 1963 and
struction jobs developed in the areas dam1964
aged by the earthquake. Within a few
months after the earthquake, in Anchorage Civilian work force --76
76,925.0 80,458.0
+4.0
alone, approximately 1,600 more workers were
Involved in work stop1963
+415.0
42.8
8.3
pages -----------------employed in contract construction work than
-8.0
unemployment-6-6,367.0 5,858.0
Industry
had been employed in that category during Total
8.5
7.5
---Percent of work force....
Average Average Average
the same period in 1963.
+5.7
70,550.0 74,558.0
Total employment-...weekly weekly hourly
wage
Nonagricultural
earnings hours earnings
TABLE I.-Estimated Federal assistance exand salary ----61,092.0 64,72.5.0
+5. 9
tended to Alaska as a result of the Mar. 27,
1,150.0
1,216.0
+5.7
Mining.-.------1964, earthquake
Construction-..
. 4,267.0 5,542.0
+29.9 Mining---------------- $173.75
48.2
$3.61
0
5,667.0 5,683.0
Manufacturing-__....
Estimated
Contract construction..... 262.33
43.6
6.01
-7.3
Food processing.... 2,867.0 2,658.0
Manufacturing---..---- - 142.66
41.1
3.49
amount of aid
Logging, lumber,
Food
processing
---.
111.03
39.2
2.83
Type of assistance
(millions dollars)
+8.5
1,975.0 2,142.0
and pulp .----Logging, lumber and
manufacturOther
To State and local governments:
3.99
41.8
pulp ...----------- 166.39
+1.0
o-------- 825.0
833.0
ingWholesale trade .....---140.67
37.4
3.76
Disaster relief--------_-- --60.0-70.0
Transportation, comRetail trade _-------.------ 120.03
37.3
3.l22
Transitional grants--------17.0-23.5
munications, and
Finance, insurance and
utilities
6,858.0
1----6,750.0
-1.6
Highways-----------------43.0-63. 0
real estate-....-...---99.30 -Trucking and wareUrban renewal grants-..
.
25.0-40.0
+14.7
850.0
975.0
housing .--------Purchase of Alaska bonds-..
10.0-25.0
Water transporta1964
Planning advances---------.3.4
1,192.0 1,133.0
-5.2
tion....--0
Air transportation__ 1,767.0 1,775.0
Other transporta$3.50
49.1
Mining______________--------- $171.00
Total to public segment. 155.3-221.9
tion, communica268.56
43.0
6.25
Contract construction.---6.0
tions, and utilities_ 3,050.0 2,867.0
3.63
150.08
41.5
-----Manufacturing
To private individuals
+1.0
and
8,567.0 8,625.0
Trade- ..---------2.91
39.1
Food processing- --. __ 113.69
1,558.0 1,592.0
+2.2
Wholesale trade- .groups:
Logging, lumber and
7,033.0
0
trade---7,008.0
Retail
173.81
43.0
4.04
pulp---...----------Loans by SBA and others--_
60 -70
General merchanWholesale trade-------160.87
39.2
4.11
Outstanding loans, adjust-1.0
dise and apparel 1,867.0 1,850.0
3.22
36.8
118.29
trade
1i
-Retail
ment and forgiveness-...
7 -10
+6.5
1,033.0 1,100.0
Food stores -- ..
Finance, insurance and
and
drinkEating
Tax refunds and offsets--...
20 -30
real estate..............
99.12 ........
-1.4
ing places....... 1,758.0 1,733.0
0
Other retail trade _ 2,350.0 2,350.0
Total to private segment.
87 -110
Finance, insurance,
Average percent change
and real estate-.... 1,775.0 1,975.0
+11.3
from 1963 to 1964
Service and misTo restore and operate Federal
cellaneous.--.
6,217.0
6,792.0
+9.2
facilities:
Government ---.
26, 592.0 28,150.0
+5.9
Mining--------------------2
+2
-3
Defense facilities, etc--......
35.6
Federal
.----------16,250.0 17,283.0
+1-6.4 Contract construction.
-1
+4
+3
Alaska Railroad-----------.
6,042.0 6,308.0
+4.4
State---.....--...
27. 0
+1
+4
-5
Manufacturing -----------Loca---.....---4,300.0
4,550.0
+5.8
All other Federal agencies-_
+3
+2
0
Food processing-.....
19.6
Logging, lumber and
+1
+3
+5
----pulp
Total, direct Federal--82.2
Source: Computed from data obtained from the Em- Wholesale trade
+14
+5
+9
- .-- - - ----ployment Security Division of the Alaska Department
0
-1
-1
Retail trade 1_______
of Labor.
Total, Federal aid to
Finance, insurance and
realestate
------...............
0 -----Alaska--.------__--- 324.5-414.1
As of October 1964 there were 413 State
and local government employees for every
Source: Federal Reconstruction and De2Excluded eating and drinking places.
10,000 population In Alaska. Wyoming and
velopment Planning Commission.
Nevada were the only two States with higher
Source: Computed from data obtained from the
Many new employment opportunities in
ratios of State and local government em- Employment Security Division, Alaska State Department
of labor.
government also developed at this time as
ployees to population, having ratios of 464:Federal and State governmental units were 10,000 and 430:10,000 respectively.
Alaska
There was a marked improvement in
established or expanded in order to help had the highest ratio of State government Alaska's industrial earnings from 1963 to
in per capita personal income during 1964
suggests that Alaskans as a group may have
enjoyed increased purchasing power since
1963.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
1964 according to the indicators mentioned
21687
SENATE
TABLE IV.-Summary of petroleum industry
activity in Alaska, 1964--Continued
State oil and gas lease acreage:
Issued during year---------.
856,633
1,727,972
In effect at year's end-------Federal oil and gas lease acreage:
Issued during year---------2,609,714
6,413
Transferred to State--------In effect at yearend--------.
11, 589, 149
Total industry expenditures -- $65,654,350
above. Only those in the mining and retail
trade industries experienced a decrease in
average weekly earnings. However, the losses
were small, being only 2 and 1 percent respectively. Workers in all other employment
categories enjoyed increases. Individuals in
the wholesale trade, the logging-lumber and
pulp industry, and other manufacturing, enjoyed the largest increases. These increases
were 14, 5, and 5 percent respectively.
iExclusive of marketing and sales activity.
ALASKA'SPETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN 1964
Source: State of Alaska, Department of
New oil and gas discoveries in Alaska in
Resources, Division of Mines and
1964 constituted some of the year's most ex- Natural
Minerals.
citing and important economic news. A new
IRON OREDISCOVERY
major oil production area, containing an
estimated 150 million barrels in reserves, was
Vast iron ore deposits were discovered in
discovered in Cook Inlet. By November 1964, Alaska during 1964 by the Pan American
there were four producing wells in this new Petroleum Corp. These deposits contain an
field. One well tested at the highest rate, in estimated 1 billion tons of recoverable iron,
barrels per day, of any Alaskan well to date. and could rank as one of the seven largest
The discovery of Alaska's new major oil
iron discoveries in the world. The combined
field is of particular importance at this time, deposits of the recent Alaska discovery are
because Alaska's only developed oil field, larger than those of any iron ore discovery
which is in the Swanson River area, has previously made in the United States except
reached maturity. By the middle of May for the deposits in Minnesota.
1965, over 42 million barrels of oil had been
The deposits were found in several scatproduced from the Swanson River area field. tered locations in the vicinity of Lake
There are now 58 oil wells over 2 miles deep Iliamna on the Upper Alaska Peninsula about
in the area, and in addition, there are 6 gas
200 miles southwest of Anchorage. They
wells capable of production. Through the were detected accidently by an aerial maguse of gas repressurization, the Swanson
netometer while oil geologists were surveying
River field is expected to yield about twice as sedimentary basins in the Cook Inlet area.
much oil as was originally expected.
The one contains an average of 15 percent
During 1964, 30 percent of the exploratory
iron, and probably can be reduced to an iron
wells drilled in Alaska were successful, acconcentrate of 95 percent. Processing of the
cording to industry sources. The average
ore, utilizing the nearby natural gas reserves
success ratio in exploratory drilling through- for heat and power requirements, appears
out the 50 States last year was 16.68 percent,
feasible. The cost of transporting the ore
and only 4 States enjoyed a ratio higher than
from Alaska could possibly be kept relatively
Alaska. The new discoveries indicate that
low because of the proximity of the deposits
an acceleration of exploratory drilling will
to ice-free tidewater. Hopefully the concentake place in Alaska during 1965 and 1966.
trate made from these deposits will find a
Two large permanent all-weather drilling market in the developing west coast and
platforms currently are being positioned in Japanese steel industries. However, officials
the waters of Cook Inlet. They will become
of Pan American indicate that it will be sevoperational in 1965. Each of the 2 plat- eral years before any extensive development
forms will be large enough to permit the of the deposits occurs.
directional drilling of 32 development wells.
During the summer of 1964, the Kennecott
Production from these platforms is expected
Copper Co. installed a 75-man permanent
to begin in 1966.
camp on its mining site in the Kobuk River
Exploratory activity remains high in the
Valley east of Kotzebue. The Kobuk deposit
Arctic Slope area, north of the Brooks Range.
is the largest known Alaska copper reserve.
Some geologists feel that Alaska's Arctic
It has an estimated 100 million tons of ore
Slope may have the greatest petroleum potential of any geological province within the which contains 1.2 to 1.6 percent copper.
ALASKA'S EXPORTS IN 1964
United States.
During 1964, Alaska received $15,742,329 in
Exports of U.S. domestic products through
revenue from the gas and petroleum industhe Alaskan customs district totaled $35,985,000 in 1964. This was an increase of $3,878,try activity in the State. This amount was
approximately $960,000, or 5.8 percent, less 000, or 12 percent, over the 1963 total. Japan
than the revenue received by the State from continued to grow in importance as Alaska's
No. 1 foreign customer. During 1964 Japan
this source in 1963. Bonus bids from competitive leases on State land accounted for received 89 percent of all Alaskan exports.
$5,511,769 in 1964. This amount comprised This represents an increase from the 76 per35 percent of the total revenue received cent registered in 1962 and the 82 percent in
1963. Substantial decreases in Alaskan exfrom the gas and petroleum industry during
ports in 1964 were registered for Canada and
that year. Bonus bids accounted for 43 perIndia compared with the 1963 export figures.
cent of the revenue Alaska obtained from
Forest products are Alaska's leading export
the petroleum industry in 1963; 66 percent in
and have accounted for the major growth in
1962; and 86 percent in 1961.
shipments during the past several years. ExTABLE IV.-Summary of petroleum industry ports of forest products totaled $29,708,000
in 1964. This constituted 83 percent of all
activity in Alaska, 1964
Alaskan exports during that year and was an
Drilling permits approved..--.
15
increase
of $8,944,000 over the 1962 forest
Exploratory wells spudded-...
16
products export figure.
Development wells spudded-...
2
two pulp mills continue as the
Alaska's
Wells completed (oil)---....
2
leading exporters in the State. Pulp exWells completed (gas)--------5
Wells abandoned-------------15 ports were valued at $24,470,885 in 1964, which
is an increase of 30 percent over 1962. The
Footage drilled, exploratory....
177, 110
Footage drilled, development-.
7,499 rate of increase from 1963 to 1964, however,
Total footage drilled---------184, 609 was only 1 percent. Lumber exports increased almost 50 percent in 1964. During
Average number of active rotary
rigs ------- ________-----6 the same 12-month period however, the value
Total oil produced (barrels)-. 11, 059,201 of logs exported dropped sharply. Unless
Number of wells----------...
.
54
governmental regulations prohibiting the exAverage daily oil production_-_
80,285 port of raw or round logs cut from public
land are changed, this export category will
continue to decline in value.
Pulp exports are expected to continue to
level off for the next few years. The pulp
mills at Ketchikan and Sitka are both operating at near capacity rates and unless they
make significant changes in their marketing
patterns pulp exports will remain much as
they are now.
Lumber exports (other than logs) might
expand in 1965. The officials of the mills
which produced lumber for export in 1964
indicate that their lumber exports in 1965
will at least equal those of last year. Additional exports could develop from new operating, mills which will begin production
during 1965.
ALASKAN AGRICULTURE IN 1964
Table V contains estimated figures for agricultural production as developed by Alaska's Division of Agriculture for 1963 and
1964. The 1964 data are preliminary and
are subject to revision.
Milk and potatoes continued as Alaska's
leading sources of agricultural income in
1964. The value of milk production decreased, however, from $2,309,000 in 1963 to
$2,200,000 in 1964. This was due, at least
in part, to a decrease in the price paid to
the producer. The average price paid to the
producer was approximately $9.80 per hundredweight in 1963, but dropped to $9.30 per
hundredweight in the last 6 months of 1964.
Sales of fluid milk in the private market increased, owing to a reduction of $0.05 per
half gallon in the wholesale price, but sales
to the military decreased. Milk production
in 1964 was about equal to that of 1963.
The value of potato production increased
from $612,000 to $662,000 from 1963 to 1964.
The acreage and production of potatoes was
approximately equal to that of 1963, but
prices were higher owing to a crop shortage
in other States.
TABLE V.-Estimated value of selected agricultural commodities produced in Alaska,
1963 and 1964
Commodity
Milk---
1963
1964
------$2,309,00 $2,200,000
Eggs ...-.--------------Wool----------Reindeer meat ----------Other livestock products.
Potatoes ..--------_.
Other vegetables-..-. .
383,000
97,00
171,000
322,000
612,000
202,000
380,000
120,000
215,000
350,000
662,000
164,000
Percent
change
from
1963to
1964
-4.7
-1.0
+23.7
+25.7
+8.7
+8.2
-18.8
Source: Alaska State Department of Natural Re.
sources.
For the State as a whole, the number of
acres which were harvested decreased approximately 10 percent from 1963. The largest decrease occurred in the MatanuskaSusitna Valley (1,300 acres).
There were
fewer acres harvested in small grains, silage
and produce, and about the same number in
hay in 1964 compared to 1963.
One of the
main reasons for the decrease in acreage
planted was the short season caused by a late
spring.
MINER.4L INDUTSTRY
INT1964
Alaska's mineral industry, as a whole, experienced some growth during 1964. See
table VI. The value of production of petroleum, natural gas, sand and gravel, and mercury increased from 1963 to 1964. The increases were 3.8 percent, 44.9 percent, 5.9
percent, and 36.8 percent respectively. Further increases in all of these mineral categories appear certain. Production from offshore sites should increase the State's total
output and value of petroleum. The future
use of natural gas to repressurize existing oil
21688
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
August 25, 1965
substantially less than the wholesale value gory is not the leading one in the Ketchikan
labor market area. However, government
of the smaller 1963 harvest due to unfavorable market conditions.
employment ranks second in Ketchikan and
An estimated 33.6 million pounds of king average employment Increased within this
crab were caught in the Aleutian Island area classification from 732 in 1963 to 777 in
in 1964. This harvest was more than double 1964.
any crab harvest previously taken from that
More persons are employed in manufacturarea. The large increase in the Aleutian Ising in the Ketchikan area than in any other
T&aB• VI.--Minerl production in Alascka, land area's production of crab can be attribclassification. Approximately 28 percent of
1964
uted to the utilization of additional floating the average total number of employed perprocessors which were supplied with crab sons in Ketchikan were employed in manuPercent
by vessels that had shifted from the Kodiak facturing in 1964.
Quanchange
area. Kodiak suffered the loss of some crab
JUNEAU
from
Value
tity
Type of commodity
processing facilities when the city was dam1963
The average total number of persons emaged by seismic waves.
value
ployed
in
the
Juneau
labor market area inDespite the March 1964 devastation, the
second largest king crab production took creased from 5,463 in 1963 to 5,827 in 1964.
800,000 $5, 536,00
-6.3
Coal ....-short tons_
This
was
an
increase
of
7 percent. The avplace in the Kodiak area in 1964. The Ko63,000 2,188,000 -37.2
Gold_....- troy ounces
diak area registered a catch of 29.6 million erage number of persons employed in conMercury
tract
construction
in
Juneau
increased 21
340
104,000 +36.8
76-pound flasks.
pounds. The Alaska Peninsula area harvest
Natural gas
totaled over 15 million pounds and the Cook percent from 1963 to 1964. The number of
million cubic feet15,982 1,610,000 +449
Inlet area harvest, 6.9 million pounds. The employed workers in the manufacturing, and
Petroleum
Chignik, Prince William Sound and south- the transportation, communication, and pubcrude-barrels_ 11,030,00 33, 880,000
+3.8
lic utilities categories increased 3 percent and
Sand and gravel
eastern Alaska areas collectively produced 1.6
+5.9
short tons_ 21,000,000 23,300,000
4 percent, respectively, from 1963 to 1964.
million pounds of king crab.
Silver .--troy ounces_
7,000
,000 -50.0
Alaska's 1964 Dungeness crab harvest of Average employment within the trade, the
4,395,-000 +69.8
--Undistributed 2__...
12.7 million pounds exceeded the 1963 record finance, insurance and real estate, and the
service and miscellaneous categories increased
71, 022,000 +4.7
Total value . _ .__.catch by 600,000 pounds.
The Alaska shrimp catch decreased from 6 percent, 2 percent, and 4 percent, respec1Includes only natural gas sold. An additional 15.1 million pounds in 1963 to 7.8 million tively, from 1963 to 1964.
5,479,000,000 cubic feet of gas was used for pressure pounds in 1964. This sharp decline was
Juneau, Alaska
maintenance and power or was unavoidably lost.
SUndistributed includes gem stones, platinum group due to a loss of processing facilities and un- (1964 population in city limits, 8,600; population in
favorable price conditions rather than a retrade area, 12,000;number of occupied dwelling units,
metals, uranium ore, clay, and copper.
2,286]
Source: Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the source scarcity, according to the Alaska DeInterior and the Division of Mines and Minerals, Depart- partment of Fish and Game.
AverAver- Percent
ment of Natural Resources, State of Alaska.
Ketchikan, Alaska
age,
age,
change
The value of gold production decreased
1963
1964
from
11964
population in city limits, 6,700; population in trade
1963
372 percent from 1963 because of the conarea, 10,500;number of occupied dwelling units, 2,450]
tinuing profit squeeze resulting from a fixed
of
coal
The
value
price and rising costs.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
AverAver- Percent
production decreased owing to lower purage,
age,
change
-20
13
10
Mining._____ ---from
chases by the military.
1963
1964
257
310
+21
Contract construction-.
1963
ALASKA'S BUSINESS CENSUS
Manufacturing------------154
158
+3
Transportation, communiThe U.S. Department of Commerce recation, and public
EMPLOYMENT
TRENDS
cently released Alaska's 1963 Census of Busi+4
479
46
utilities...--------------+
648
611
ness. The latest previous census of AlasTrade----------------0
-100
6
Mining________
174
246
+41 Finance, insurance, and
Contract construction --ka's business was taken in 1958.
+
129
127
real estate ----------1,196
+1
1,181
Alaska's 1963 retail sales of merchandise Manufacturing -------+4
445
461
Service and miscellaneous__
connmunitotaled $284,408,000 according to the reports. Transportation,
+8
2,82
3,049
Government------------cation, and public
568
583
+3
This was an increase of $82,370,000 or 41 per--------+20 Other-------.
563
468
utilities__--+7
5,827
5,463
employment.---Trade-----------00
527
+5 Total
cent since 1958.
Total unemployment --249
231
-11
Finance, insurance, and
Sales of wholesale trade establishments in
6,058
+6
work
force..
5,722
Total
civilian
96
+10
87
real estate---------------Alaska during 1963 totaled $180,605,000. This Service and miscellaneous__
+9
4.0
4.
345
318
Percent unemployed______
+6
777
732
was an increase of $42,663,000, or 31 percent,
Government...------SELECTED
BUSINESS
DATA
+2
558
570
Other--..----since 1958.
4,318
+7
4,023
Total employment --The wholesale trade of Anchorage ac- Total unemployment-.-_
-8
26,621
358
358
0 Postalreceipts.------ 24,687
4,533
... 4,533
counted for 52.4 percent of Alaska's total Total civilian work force -4,381
4,668
+7 Telephones in service
8.1 ..---. Lighting and power
8.4
wholesale trade during 1963. Fairbanks, Percent unemployed---.
+5
8,235
,
7,869
customers_---- ------Juneau, and Ketchikan collectively ac1,142
1,142
Municipal water customers_
DATA
SELECTEDBUSINESS
counted for about 26 percent of the State's
+12
Kilowatt-hour sales-- ...--- 3, 74,91 3443,949
+15
16,944
total wholesale trade.
14,710
Postal receipts _------2,614
+1
.
2,580
Telephones in serviceALASKA'S FISHERIES INDUSTRY
The Federal, State, and local governments,
Lighting and power
+1 and their administrative units, provide jobs
3,246
customers _.-----------. 3,220
Alaska's fisheries industry enjoyed a sig0 for the largest number of persons in the Ju2,391
2,392
water customers
nificant degree of economic growth in 1964. Municipal
+4
3,267, 7443,408,873
Kilowatt-hour sales----.
neau labor market area. Approximately 52
The wholesale value of Alaska's fisheries propercent of the average total number of perduction increased from $109,038,000 in 1963
KETCHIKAN
sons employed in the Juneau area in 1964
to $125,677,000 (preliminary figure) in 1964.
This was a gain of over 15 percent for the 1The average total number of persons em- were employed within the government employment classification. Average governyear period.
ployed in the Ketchikan labor market area
The salmon catch, the most important segincreased from 4,023 in 1963 to 4,318 in 1964. mental employment in the Juneau area inment of Alaska's fisheries, increased from
This constitutes an increase of 7 percent. creased from 2,828 in 1963 to 3,049 in 1964.
This represents an average increase of 8 per223,063,180 pounds in 1963 to the 1964 level of
There were no persons officially listed as em312 million pounds. The wholesale value
ployed in the mining industry in the Ketchi- cent.
The average number of persons unemployed
of Alaska's salmon catch increased from apkan area in 1964 although there had been
proximately $76 million to $96 million dur- an average of six miners employed in Ketchi- in the Juneau labor market area decreased
259 in 1963 to 231 in 1964, a decrease of
from
salmon
pack
ining the same period. The
kan in 1963.
11 percent.
creased to 3.5 million 48-pound cases in 1964
The contract construction employment
FAIRBANKS
from the 2.7 million 48-pound cases produced
category, with a 41-percent advance, enjoyed
the year before.
The average number of employed persons
the largest increase in average monthly emAlaska's harvests of king crab and Dungeployment from 1963 to 1964. The transporta- in the Fairbanks labor market area increased
ness crab in 1964 were the largest in the histion, communication and public utilities and from 11,560 in 1963 to 11,765 In 1964. This
tory of the Alaska fisheries according to pre- the trade categories increased 20 percent and represents an average increase of approxiliminary data released by the Alaska De5 percent respectively. The finance, insur- mately 2 percent.
Average yearly employment within the
partment of Fish and Game. The estimated
ance and real estate category and the service
king crab catch of 86.7 million pounds for and miscellaneous category experienced inmining and contract construction industries
calendar year 1964 was 8 million pounds creases of 10 and 9 percent respectively from suffered losses of 11 and 17 percent respecabove the total weight of the 1963 king crab
1963 to 1964.
tively in 1964. Employment within the manharvest. The wholesale value of Alaska's
Unlike the three other major cities in ufacturing employment category remained
essentially the same, but the transportaking crab production in 1964, however, was Alaska, the government employment catewells and as a source of fuel should increase
the production and value of that commodity. An active construction season will increase the production and value of sand and
gravel, and the pronounced rise in the
world price of mercury should stimulate
greater production of that commodity.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD - SENATE
and public utilities
tion, communications,
category, and the trade category enjoyed
The
the increased duties have only been in effect
gains of 7 and 5 percent respectively. ANcHORAGE
employment
trade
5-percent increase in the
The
average
total number of persons em- for a very short period of time.
since
significance,
Both the majority and minority members
category has particular
ployed
in the Anchorage
labor market area
largest in 1963 to 30,202 in
of the Commission found that a reduction
the second
that category contains
increased
from 28,597
labor
the Fairbanks
group of employees in1964.
in
tariff would force a number of older and
This constitutes an average increase of
market area.
6 percent. Average employment in contract smaller plants to close. It is apparent, then,
Fairbanks,
Alaska
that
steady employment in the glass industry
construction increased 39 percent in 1964.
Average
population in in the mining and and m the many industries serving the glass
16,464;employment
[1964population in city limits,
trade area, 39,927; numbermanufacturing
of occupied dwelling
units,
categories
increased 4 percent industry can be maintained only by keeping
4,964]
the tariff rates intact.
and 6 percent respectively during the same
Most of the jobs lost and plants closed
period. Average employment within the
transportation,
communications, and public would be in already depressed areas, where
Average,
the
Government is spending millions of dolutilities
category
decreased
2
percent
during
1963
Percent
lars to attract new industry. retain existing
the same period, and average employment in
Average, change
plants
and create jobs. Six industry plants,
the trade category remained essentially un1964
from
in fact, are in Appalachia, two of these in
1963
changed from 1963 to 1964. The finance, inPennsylvania:
Therefore be it
surance and real estate, and the service and
183
Resolved, That the Senate of the Commiscellaneous
categories increased on the
1,176 5 and 4 percent respectively from monwealth of Pennsylvania finds that the
average,
2451964.
1963 to
termination of the escape-clause duties imThere were more persons employed within posed in 1962 could only be harmful to the
845
business and labor interests of the Commonthe government
category in the Anchorage
1,500
labor market area in 1964 than in any other wealth of Pennsylvania; and be it further
Resolved, That the senate respectfully
category.
Approximately 42 percent of the
413
urges President Lyndon B. Johnson tc retain
average total number of persons employed in
1,230
the
the
by
present tariff that was established under
area
were
employed
Anchorage
the 4,671
the escape-clause increase of June 1962;
in 1964. Government employgovernment
1,297
and
be it further
11,560
ment
increased an average of 4 percent from
to 1964.
196312,908
Resolved, That copies of this resolution
12,6
The7.6average total number of persons un- be sent to President Lyndon B. Johnson, to
employed in the Anchorage labor market area the Tariff Commission, and to each U.S.
decreased from 1.810 in 1963 to 1,676 in 1964, Senator and Member of Congress from
a decrease of 7 percent. Expressed as a rate, Pennsylvania.
Attest:
unemployment decreased from an average of
[SEAL ]
MARK GRUELL, Jr.,
6 percent in 1963 to 5.1 percent in 1964.
708,797
750,072
Secretary,Senate of Pennsylvania.
GLASS TARIFFS
5,492
5,732
21689
MIPLOYMENT
TRENDS
----Mining ....--...--.
Contract construction...
Manufacturing-......
Transportation, communication, and public
utilities-----------utdilities.............
Trade-------------Finance, insurance, and
realestate-..---....---Service and miscellaneous----............Government-----other..................
Other--.
--------Total employment.......
Total unemployment ....
Total civilian work force..
Percent unemployed ..BUSINESS DATA
BELECTED
Postal receipts total_.....
Telephones in service.....
Lighting and power
customers--...........5,366
5,007
Municipal water custom1,979
2,088
ers-------------Kilowatt-hours sales,
total--------.............. 75,419, 96387,02,173
The average number of people employed In
the finance, insurance, and real estate category and the service and miscellaneous category decreased by 3 percent and 8 percent respectively from 1963 to 1964.
The government category, the category in
which the greatest number of persons were
employed in Fairbanks in 1964, increased
from an average of 4,671 in 1963, to an average of 5,114 in 1964. This represents an
average increase of 9 percent. Approximately
43.5 percent of the average total number of
persons employed in the Fairbanks labor
market area in 1964 were employed in the
government category.
Anchorage, Alaska
11964population in city limits, 49,900; population in
trade area, 102,100; number of occupied dwelling units,
14,3111
Average,
1963
EMPLOYMENT
TRENDS
Mining.....-----------------Contract construction-..Manufacturing-..-..-.Transportation, communication, and public
utilitioes _....
.
Trade --___ _____Finance, insurance, and
realestate -----------serviceandisceaneous
Government--...--Other-.........-------Total employment ...
Total unemployment___Total civilian work force.
Percent unemployed....
2,
470
620
2,242
4,326
1,018
3,04
12,057
2,802
28,597
1,81
30, 407
6.0
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, in 1962
sheet glassTOwas
the tariff on foreign TRIBUTE
MIKE MANATOS
raised to protect the domestic industry,
Mr. INOUYE.
Mr. President, there
with the forfaltering under competition
are several outstanding men who pereign market.
form the essential job in this GovernCommisthe Tariff
This past June, ment
of maintaining
communications
sion recommended between
that thethePresident
White House and the Conforeign
lower the present duty
gress.rates
I doonnot
mean the telephone resheet glass.
pairmen, although their work is necesindustry
The sheet glass sary
and is
is already
excellently performed.
I
a duty
reducand the
struggling for survival
mean
men
who communicate the
older
for the
theadministration
tion would mean death
to the inviews of
I Congress and, in
and smaller industries.
dividualTherefore,
Members of
Secretaryconcern themselves
President,
have written to the the
other direction,
Comof
Secretary
of Labor Wirtz, andwith
the attitudes and problems of
merce Connor, expressing
Congressmy
as concern
they involve the adminisand hope that additional
I mean will
the men who day after
tration. burdens
industry
in the
not be placed on this
day pay
attention
to the needs of our
form of lowered tariffs.
States as we call them to their attention,
Mr. President, I ask
to the needsconof the administration in
and unanimous
sent that a resolution
from the
Senatethe men who watch
I mean
Congress.
Percent of Pennsylvania to the President,
asking
the progress of the administration's bills
Average, change
in
printed
tariff, bethe
for retention of the through
1964
from
legislative
mill, the men
1963
the RECORD.
who understand the operations of the
are welcomed day after
Congress, the
whoresoluThere being no objection,
congressional
in theoffices and who perbeinprinted
tion was ordered today
RECORD, as follows: form the countless tasks which are nec489
+4
2,809
+39 RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE
an effective cooperation beessaryOF for
PENNSYLVANIA,
660[
+6
17, 1965 the legislative and executive
AUGUST tween
That this
branches
of the
inwasGovernment.
sheet glass
In 1962 the tariff on
2,198
-2
Congress in
hasserious
been effect
an outstanding
that
4,337
0 creased because of the
1,072
3,183
12,551
2,904
30,202
1,676
31,803
5.1
+5
+4
44
-4
+6
-7
+5
SELECTEDBUSINESS DATA
Postal receipts-..---..--.
153,902
163,535
Telephones in service.
24,943
25,995
Lighting and power
customers----...----.
22,984
24, 59
Municipal water
customers_ s
.er
9,935
9,831
Kilowatt-hour sales ..-.
20,354,349 22,473, 06
+6
+4
+5
-1
+10
on the domestic
imported glass was having
owes a great deal to the
that respect
domestic
increase
industry. Prior to thismen
who the
make
up the White House conor onteam.
a
at a loss
industry was operating
gressional
liaison
marginal basis.
The name Larry O'Brien is well known
On June 11, 1965, theinTariff
connection.re- And in this body so
this Commission
ported to the President, in a split 3-to-2
of Senate liaison, Mike
too
is
the
chief
of
the
present
a
reduction
that
decision,
Manatos
Wyoming.
a slight of
effect
on the
duties would have only
domestic industry.
Mike Manatos is, as every Member
madeof the aisle knows, a
Commissioners
The three majorityhere
on both sides
of wise
the fact
that a tireless and dedithis recommendation fine
in spite
man,
and
percentage
of
sameman
the foreigners have the
who knows
the Senate and
cated
percent)
as
they
had
the market now (25 every
of its Members inside and out
one These
prior to the increase in duties.
three
in the that
besttheir
sense
rec-of the term. Mike
Commissioners also concede
mayfact
have
Manatos
ommendation is complicated
by the
that his headquarters in
the White House but the Senate is really
his home away from his Wyoming home.
21690
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
I suspect he understands and appreciates the Senate even better than he does
the White House.
That is to be expected.
He spent many years in and around this
floor and accumulated an enormous experience.
His tutor was the great voice
of Wyoming and the defender of all the
people's interests-Senator Joe O'Mahoney. I remember Mike Manatos from
those years because as principal aid to
Senator O'Mahoney, he helped in the
struggle for Hawaiian statehood-so, in
that sense, he is partly responsible for
my being a Member of the Senate.
After the passing of Senator O'Mahoney from the Senate, Mike Manatos
became associated first with the late
President John F. Kennedy who held
him in the highest regard, and then with
President Lyndon B. Johnson who holds
him in similar esteem. For years now,
he has been adding to his substantial
Senate background, this great experience
of working in the administration and in
the White House.
Mike Manatos is one of those rare and
priceless servants of the people who over
the years has made an enormous and, as
yet, only partly tapped contribution to
government. At the same time, he has
retained his homespun integrity and has
never forgotten the source, the roots of
his being which lie among the people of
the State of Wyoming.
I believe Mike Manatos deserves the
thanks of the Senate for the great work
he has done for and with the Senate and
I am looking forward to his continued association with the Senate in one way or
another for a long time to come.
"TECHNOLOGY
CHANGE:
A
AND
SOCIAL
MIDWESTERN
CON-
GRESSMAN'S VIEW"
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, several
weeks ago my colleague in the House of
Representatives, Representative
JOHN
BRADEMAS, of Indiana, addressed a sym-
posium on "Science and Public Policy:
Evolving Institutions" at Purdue University.
The subject of Representative BRADEMAS' address was, "Technology and Social
Change: A Midwestern Congressman's
View."
Because I believe that what Representative BRADEMAS had to say on this
occasion will be of general interest to
Members of the Senate and the House
and particularly to those of us who rep-
resent Midwestern States, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of this
thoughtful address in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TECHNOLOGY
AND SOCIAL CHANGE: A MD-
WESTERN
CONGRESSAN'S
VIEW
(An address by Congressman JOHN BRADEMAS, Democrat, of Indiana, at a symposium
on "Science and Public Policy: Evolving
Institutions," Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Ind., April 13, 1965)
I want to speak to you tonight about some
aspects of science and technology and their
impact on our society, and I shall do so from
the viewpoint of a Member of Congress of a
particular party who represents a particular
district and who serves on a particular committee.
SENATE
I speak from the perspective of a Congressman who represents a Midwestern district
which has had certain economic difficulties
in recent years, as represented most obviously by the exodus of the Studebaker
plant, as well as from the viewpoint of a
member of the congressional committee that
writes most of the education legislation in
the House.
I propose to talk with you about your own
area of expertise, science and technology,
and in particular about some of the implications of scientific and technological developments for our part of the United States,
the Midwest.
First, let me observe that it is now widely
understood that scientists and engineers and
their research and development activities
played a crucial part in winning World War
II.
Today scientists and engineers are increasingly recognized by the public generally and
by politicians in particular as essential to
winning the future. Only in recent years
has the country as a whole come to realize
the critical role that scientists and technicians play in stimulating economic growth,
in building the overall strength of our
Nation.
I want to concentrate on one particular
problem in the field of science and technology about which a number of us in the
Midwest have in recent years become increasingly concerned.
I refer to what has been described, in a
most inelegant if telling phrase, as "the Midwest brain drain."
I remember very well just 3 years ago this
summer going with a group of 15 Midwestern
Congressmen to the Office of Secretary of
Defense McNamara to discuss with him the
problems occasioned by the flow of defense
procurement contracts away from the Midwest to the east and west coasts. You will
recall, I am sure, the celebrated report, "The
Changing Pattern of Defense Procurement,"
issued by the then Under Secretary of Defense, Roswell Gilpatric (sic.).
Secretary
McNamara told us during our visit that the
shift would continue unless the Midwestern
States and our local communities acted to
develop our capacity for scientific research
and technology.
Here is the famous statement of the Secretary on that occasion: "We seek the best
brains and we go where they are and generally speaking they are not in the Midwest."
Secretary McNamara was not, of course, as
some Midwestern politicans either erroneously or deliberately represented him as doing, declaring that the Midwest was a desert
of ignorance. He was rather describing a
sociological fact, namely that some parts of
the United States have attracted scientific
and technical manpower and research programs more effectively than we in the Midwest have done.
It was late last year that this subject of
the "brain drain" was translated into statistical reality in a report prepared for the
House Science and Astronautics Committee.
In this report we learned with dismay that
the Midwest-here I refer to what the statisticians call the east-north central region,
the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin-received in fiscal year
1963 less than 7 percent of the prime contracts and grants awarded by the Federal
Government for research and development.
Since this region contains 20 percent of the
Nation's population and contributes at least
22 percent of the gross national product, this
mere 7 percent is a matter that demands the
urgent attention of those of us who live in
the midwestern partof the United States and
who represent the Midwest in Congress.
I think one result of the study to which I
have just made reference is the recent announcement of Senators JOSEPH CLARK of
Pennsylvania and GAYLORDNELSON of Wis-
August 25, 1965
consin that a Senate Labor and Public Welfare Subcommittee will hold public hearings
on the impact of Federal research and development policies on scientific and technical
manpower. Senator NELSON has told me that
he intends in these hearings to prosecute
very vigorously the case of the Midwest for
a greater share of the scientific installations
and research programs funded by the Federal Government.
A closer examination of the Science and
Astronautics Committee report shows something rather surprising-although only 5
percent of Federal prime contracts to profitmaking organizations go to the Midwest, our
region receives some 14 percent of all contracts and grants to educational institutions.
The universities are therefore doing three
times as well as industry in an area of competition with great significance for economic
growth. This is a striking contrast with California and New York, for example, where
the percentage of contracts and grants to
universities is less than that awarded to
profitmaking organizations.
We can trace the outlines of this pattern
still more clearly by looking at the diffusion
of research and development funds through
the processes of subcontracting. The Space
Committee's study made a start on this analysis by looking at the first-tier subcontracts
under the 10 largest prime contracts awarded
in fiscal 1963 by the Department of Defense,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation,
and the Atomic Energy Commission. These
results show a decidely poorer performance
by the Pacific coast, for example, as a subcontractor than as a winner of prime contract awards, and a better performance by
the Midwest. I strongly suspect that if this
analysis were extended to the tens of thousands of smaller contractors and suppliers, all
of whom share in the Federal research and
development pot, the Midwest would come
out rather well. Of particular significance
is the fact that over one-third of the firsttier subcontracts under National Science
Foundation prime contracts went to the Midwest, twice as much as to the Pacific coast.
The importance of this fact is that NSF programs are not mission-oriented in the sense
of a weapons system, a space satellite, or a
nuclear reactor.
Based on these studies one might put forth
the following hypothesis: The Midwest is exceedingly successful in obtaining non-mission-oriented basic research funds; holds its
own in general university research, basic and
applied; does very poorly in industrial development related to Federal research and development problems; and does very well as a
supplier of production items in support of
Federal research and development projects.
If this hypothesis is correct, we may be confronted by a problem rather different from
the one that has received so much publicity.
.For our five-State region with 20 percent of
the Nation's population, contains over 20
percent of the Nation's scientists and engineers, generates 21 percent of the Nation's
personal income, and had in 1960, 24 percent
of the Nation's industrial research manpower. If there is a "brain drain," it can be
diagnosed only from the fact that the region
contains a larger percentage of the Nation's
engineers than its scientists, but this in turn
serves to underscore the accomplishment of
the universities.
Let me turn now to a question which is
building an increasingly stiff political voltage. Is there a Federal procurement policy
to discriminate against the Midwest or any
other area of our country? The statistics
reflect the results of thousands of individual
procurement actions, each necessarily based
on technical and business judgments. Under
these circumstances it may be an understandable reflex to demand a region's fair
share of Federal research and development
funds. But it seems to me that if this de-
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
mand for a fair share, whatever that may be,
should end there we can expect little beneficial effect for our part of the United States.
Perhaps we can put the real problem in a
more succinct way; namely, does the Midwest really want Federal prime contracts for
research and development? Is Midwestern
industry, are Midwestern banking interests, is
our community at large willing to do what
is necessary in order to obtain such contracts?
If, in fact, we in the Midwest are not being aggressive enough in this respect, what
government decisions or actions can we take
to improve matters? The problem was highlighted by former Under Secretary of Defense
Gilpatric when he said, with respect to the
States surrounding the Great Lakes, "Certain institutions, certain companies and certain communities have been far more alert,
more active, and more effective in their quest
for defense contracts than others have been."
We all know that the Midwest has been
heavily oriented toward the civilian market,
toward the production of automobiles, steel,
heavy machinery, an orientation that has
made it the industrial heartland of the United
States. We know as well, however, that the
Midwest has not really made, at least in my
judgment, aggressive enough efforts to obtain a larger share of the Federal research and
development market.
Perhaps it would be essential before we
draw too many firm conclusions about the
distribution of Federal funds to undertake
an analysis of proposals by midwestern industrial firms to Federal agencies for research
and development contracts: How many proposals have been made? How successful have
they been? How many were solicited and
Then we should
how many unsolicited?
compare these figures with similar ones for
other parts of the United States.
OUTFLOW OF TRAINED PEOPLE FROM THE
MIDWEST
There is another very disturbing feature
which is not related directly to Federal research and development expenditures but
which is generated locally and concerns the
attitudes of a society toward its educated
people. It is a factor which may help explain the "brain drain."
A recent study by the National Academy
of Sciences contains an analysis of the Ph.
D. degrees granted by American universities
from 1960 to 1962. The study shows that
the great universities of the Midwest-I still
refer to the five States of the east northcentral region-were the source of well over
one-fourth of all the doctorates produced in
the United States during the 1920's, a figure
above that of any other statistical region of
the country. In the 1960-61 period, our region is still producing over one-fourth of the
Nation's doctorates and continues to surpass any other region. It has maintained itself during this entire timespan. Especially
gratifying has been the demonstrated growth
of many of our educational centers since the
Second World War. Today 7 of the first
14 universities in the Nation in
the
granting of doctorates are located here--Ilinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, and Chicago. This analysis
also shows the well-known fact that many
fewer holders of Ph. D. degrees are employed
in our region than are educated here. Perhaps the number of Ph. D.'s granted is not
surprising for it is characteristic of a great
center of learning to attract people from all
over the United States. But what is surprising, and disturbing is that a smaller percentage of this group of highly educated people
is employed in the Midwest than was born in
the Midwest. This is indeed a brain drain.
An equally disturbing feature is that the
brain drain is occurring not just in the
natural sciences, but in the arts and professions as well.
One can understand the
mobility of mathematicians, physicists, elec-
SENATE
tronic and mechanical engineers, and others
essential to programs in defense and space;
they will understandably go to the laboratories and Institutes where Federal research
and development funds are being spent. But
I am most uneasy when I see this trend in
the nonscientific fields of specialization that
are not supported by Federal research and
development.
To insure that these figures represented a
sufficient body of data to warrant some conclusions, I made another check of material
from the 1960 census. I was again surprised
to see that in each of the States of our area
the percentage of the population with at
least 4 years of college education fell below
the national average.
The deficits varied
from 40,000 to 70,000 college graduates per
State.
Such evidence as this enables us to draw
some conclusions about our situation in the
Midwest. In our region we have an enormous
production capacity, a bulwark of the industrial strength of the country, producing
highly complex products for worldwide markets based on constantly improving technology. Yet industry is not deeply involved
in the federally supported sector of technical
advances unrelated to its business.
Here is a region of great universities and
educational traditions with outstanding faculties and teachers and research workers and
students from all over the land, working on
the frontiers of science and engaged over a
broad front, in research efforts supported by
Federal funds. And here is a society, a community of people, supporting and supported
by the great industrial establishment and
universities of the region. Yet this region
has not yet effectively linked with its industry and commerce the rapid changes that are
occurring with increasing frequency across
the entire spectrum of science and technology.
There is, therefore, an unhappy, if indeed
not vicious, cycle apparently at work. The
universities have not yet done an effective
job of bringing to the community an awareness of the advances of modern science. The
community has not been able to generate
enough concern about using such advances
to meet the need for industrial diversification and even greater economic growth. Nor
has industry been aggressive enough in seeking from the universities new ideas to be
exploited and new scientific discoveries to be
translated into the technology on which the
future economy of the region will depend.
The problem of which I speak is, therefore,
in no small measure one of education and
communication.
CAUSE OF OUTFLOW
Although the situation I have been analyzing concerns the Midwest, the region I
know best, it represents, I daresay, a problem
shared in one form or another by other parts
of the United States-even those currently
enjoying large outlays of Federal research
and development funds. This Federal support of science and technology is not in itself
the primary cause of the problem, serious as
the geographical imbalance is. The failure
to attract Federal prime contracts in the
Midwest is symptomatic of more fundamental difficulties, and the significance of Federal prime contracts for research and development does not lie principally in the
amounts of money involved,
attractive
though the money is, but rather in its identification of where the dynamic scientific
and technological leadership Is now to be
found in this country. It is this leadership
that is the key today to the character of the
science and technology which will open the
industrial frontiers of tomorrow.
To prove my point, one need only look at
the growth of the computer, electronics, and
space industries. The character of the most
advanced science and technology today will
determine the map of the economic future,
21691
and it will mean the difference between industrial advance and industrial lag. No industry can hope to flourish in the future
merely by continued application of present
or past technology. Midwestern industry
cannot hope to build its longrun future
along the same lines as the present technological strength of other parts of the United
States. We cannot really run another Route
128 through South Bend or even through
West Lafayette. Nor can an industry hope
to build its technological base without a continuing supply of the trained and creative
manpower which is the source of this base.
The economy in the United States today is
generally good, but changes are in progress
at home and abroad. In 1953 the United
States exported twice the value of steel mill
products and 20 times the value of the automobiles that it imported; by 1962 we were
exporting only 25 percent more in steel mill
products and only 2Ys times the value of
automobiles than we were importing. In
1958 an estimated 55 percent, over half, of
the establishments in our machine tool industry were obsolete.
Figures such as these, and they could be
extended over a broad area, cannot be improved by the simple expedient of building
more productive capacity. Nor can they be
improved by waiting until the deterioration
is obvious to all; for the training of people
take- time as do the processes of innovation and the exploitation of new ideas.
DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE CAPACITY
The problem of innovation is, therefore, a
national problem. The innovative capacity
of the Nation is a national resource. It is a
resource so important to the well-being of
the country that its allocation to specific
tasks cannot be delegated, if you will permit a politician to say so, solely to scientists
and engineers.
Part of this innovative capacity is now
being utilized by the Federal Government
alone. In a free society, with a free economy, the allocation of innovative capacity
will be made through the choices of thousands
of
entrepreneurs and managers
throughout the country, and through the
actions of thousands of scientists and engineers who seek to make their contributions to knowledge. Any region, any community, any university, or any company
which fails to allocate wisely its innovative
capacity correspondingly weakens the whole
and hence the future strength of the Nation.
I repeat that the Government alone cannot and should not determine this allocation. To atempt to do so would be to undermine the proven sources of our national
strength. Yet it must also be recognized
that what the Federal Government does
makes an enormous difference.
The Government must, in the national interest, do
what is necessary to aid all regions and
parts of the country that need and want assistance.
In my judgment, however, the
Federal Government still has a long way to
go in developing a sound national policy of
allocation of Federal research and development funds-sound, not only from the viewpoint of accomplishing specific missions essential to specific Federal agencies, but sound
as well in terms of the overall scientific and
technological and economic strength of the
Nation.
Let us hope that Senator NELsoN's hearings will shed some light on this problem
and, if you will allow me to say so, I hope
he sheds some heat on the Government decisionmakers as well. For example, I applaud the National Science Foundation program to develop centers of excellence
throughout the land. Yet-and I know that
the distinguished Director of NSF, Dr. Leland Haworth, who is here tonight, will correct me if I am mistaken-it is my understanding that NSF has not yet allocated the
21692
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
money for these centers for the current fiscal
year, which ends in June.
As I have said, the Federal Government
cannot and should not determine all the
mechanisms of allocation and exploitation of
scientific and technological resources. Such
determinations depend ultimately on the
citizenry and on their informed view of society and the world. It is here perhaps that
the universities have chief responsibility; for
they must insure that the citizens are informed.
Meeting the problems of technology and
social change involves all sections of our
country and all institutions, public and private. I should like now to suggest a number
of directions in which we might seek :olutions for the kinds of problems I have
raised.
Once again I shall refer to the Midwest
for practical, not parochial, reasons; for the
leaders of the Midwest have not been cblivious of these problems and they have already undertaken many constructive steps.
UTILIZATION OF THE INNOVATIVE CAPACITY
First, it seems to me essential that the
research and innovative capacity of our area
be brought together with the productive
capacity and in such a way that both can
benefit. I believe that the universities have
and should exercise a large part of the initiative here. There are some things that the
universities can do, some of which they are
already doing and doing well and others that
they are not doing that, it seems to me, they
should be doing. For example, I should like
to suggest that universities and colleges
organize forums at the local level for continuing discussions between university and
industrial leaders about how the resources
of each can be more effectively exploited to
the advantage of both and to that of the
entire community.
Second, I believe that midwestern universities-at least the larger ones-should
organize a series of symposia at which the
top administrators of the university, together with their scientific and engineering
deans and local industrial and governmental
leaders could meet with a selected group of
the top scientists, educators and industrialists in the Nation. The purpose of such a
gathering would be to discuss the future of
that particular area and that particular university; to consider just what area of scientific and technological expertise could be developed in that university. Such a group
would look down the road, as it were, 10 or
20 years and would try to make some intelligent judgments about what problems will
need solving in the American society then,
not today. Then Notre Dame, or Purdue, or
Indiana, or Illinois could then begin to formulate decisions about how they can make
unique contributions to meeting future national need, contributions not paralleled elsewhere-in transportation, in biomedicine, in
marine engineering, or in solving urban problems.
The approach I am suggesting might, for
example, in my own district, bring together
at the University of Notre Dame, Father
Theodore Hesburgh and Dean Frederick Rossini of the School of Science with a Lloyd
Berkner, a James Webb, and a Jerome
Wiesner.
My basic point is that we in the Midwest
need to think about shaping the future and
we are not now thinking hard enough about
it and our part in shaping it.
But deciding on how we are going to participate in molding the future is not enough.
We in the Midwest must also show some
"follow through" at both the university and
the community level. For example, we must
far more effectively than we have been doing,
support at our universities a first-class research staff which works closely with the
local financial and industrial communities
to win their understanding and support.
SENATE
We need also, I believe, to realize that, in a
given university, we should seek to build
excellence in at least one particular area
rather than make an effort to populate each
of the departments of the university with
one big name professor and thereby build
not excellence but mediocrity.
THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITIES
Let me reiterate that above all we must
think; we must think about the future; we
must think about the question of the longrun scientific and technical and hence industrial advance of the Midwest. And having thought, we must make decisions on
where to place our efforts, and we must not
leave the decisions to chance; we must organize. An instance of the kind of action
we might take is the development by the
universities of resident fellowship or extension programs for company executives and
scientists. Consider, for example, the problems that will occur in this country if peace
should break out, if there should be a major
disarmament agreement between the United
States and the Communist world. Many industrial firms in the United States have
been engaged almost entirely in defense
procurement and the chief talent of many
of their executives has been their capacity
for negotiating with Federal procurement
officials; they have not had to develop,
therefore, the innovative instinct-the ability to develop productivity-which has been
an essential source of the economic strength
of the United States.
Another suggestion would be to encourage
increased consultative participation by faculty members with local industry. Such
specific action can go far in helping to break
down barriers that still exist in many communities between town and gown and can
establish a basis for cooperation between
the universities and industry.
Certainly the universities should continue
the fine start that has been made in the
development of research centers such as the
McClure Park at Purdue, the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Park, and
the Modern Research Industries Park at
Urbana.
I know that another promising project has
been the early success of the NASA-supported Aerospace Research Applications
Center, initiated by Indiana University for
the purpose of providing technical information services to industry. I must say to
you, however, with perhaps more candor
than a politician should, that some of us
from the Midwest suspect that NASA was
in part at least moved to authorize this
Aerospace Research Applications Center out
here to keep some of the more vocal and
critical Midwest Congressmen off the backs
of NASA for not providing larger, more substantial contracts to our part of the United
States.
Also to be congratulated is the Committee
on Institutional Cooperation formed several
years ago by the joint action of 11 universities of the area, including the University of Minnesota and the University of Iowa,
for the purpose of improving "the educational and public services offered by fostering
cooperation in instruction and research particularly at the graduate level."
Another
active organization resulting from the initiative of universities in the region is the
Great Lakes States Industrial Council.
If the universities have responsibilities so
too does industry. I have said I believe
that one of the greatest dangers to industry
in the Midwest is its failure to look far
enough ahead. It has too often confused
increasing present production capacity with
developing future strength. The rate of
technological advance is accelerating. The
volume of competition in sophisticated technology is increasing. It takes time to diversify and time to build and exploit new
markets. So Midwestern companies, to a
August 25, 1965
greater extent than many of them are now
doing, should aggressively build their applied research and development capabilities.
Industry should also, far more aggressively
than it is now doing, take the initiative in
seeking the assistance of the universities to
identify new product opportunities, new
areas for exploitation.
Finally, I believe that midwestern industry
should much more actively seek Federal support for research and development.
It is
perhaps ironic that a northern Democratic
politician should have to be preaching the
gospel of free enterprise, of competition, to
Midwestern industry. Yet on several occasions during my 7 years in Congress, I have
helped organize seminars and procurement
conferences in my own congressional district for the purpose of making available to
the industrial and business firms of my area
the latest information on government procurement possibilities and encouraging them
to get in there and fight for the business.
Industry must become more aggressive, more
competitive,
more enterprising if
you
please.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
The community too has responsibilities.
It is gratifying to see the beginnings of active civic sponsorship of such ventures as
the Greater Ann Arbor Research Park and
two new research parks in Wisconsin. But
I think there are not enough such examples
in the Midwest. Encouraging as such efforts
are, moreover, research parks should not
stand only as symbols of technological enlightenment. They must touch and affect
the attitudes and aspirations of the entire
community. Nor can research parks substitute for direct communication between the
universities and the community or, by themselves, solve a basic problem-the response of
established industry to the technological
challenges of the future.
THE INDUSTRY-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
RELATIONSHIP
The Federal Government is increasingly
concerned with the kinds of problems I have
been describing for these problems, as we all
know, are national problems. The innovative capacity of the Nation is a scarce national resource, consisting primarily of educated men and women, many of whom have
received their training at public expense,
and at expensive installations, many of
which have been purchased with public
funds. The great innovative centers of the
Nation are of three types-Governmentowned and Government-operated, Government-owned and privately operated, and privately owned and privately operated. Since
these are the places where the innovative
resources of the Nation are utilized, the Government has a role and an obligation with
respect to each.
It is in the Government agencies, and
often with the cooperat:on of Governmentoperated laboratories and installations, that
the judgments are made and from which the
Federal research and development funds are
distributed. The Government must examine
its procurement policies and procedures more
carefully than, in my judgment, it has been
doing to insure that alternative sources are
considered, to insure that unused capabilities
throughout the Nation are sought and appraised, to insure that we are avoiding unwarranted concentration. I do not, for a
moment, want to imply that Federal procurement of research and development services should be distributed purely on the
basis of geography. I do want to suggest,
however, that the Federal research and development investment should not be inadvertently unbalanced through the operation
of procurement methods which could be improved.
In the case of Government-owned and
privately operated activities, different problems arise. In recent weeks, we have be-
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
21693
come aware of the latest candidate in the visers to the President came from Ivy pers have always been cognizant of the
League colleges, nor is it beside the point most important part agriculture plays in
category-a 200 billion volt proton-accelerator expected to cost as much as $300 million that Dr. Frederick Seitz of Illinois was the our overall economy and the need of price
to install and as much as $50 million a year only Midwestern member of the President's
support programs.
to operate. This machine, and probably the Science Advisory Committee. This is the
There being no objection, the editorials
trend which was continued this spring when
most expensive single research facility ever
several terms expired and there was but one were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
planned, will affect the community in which
it will be located in much the same way as Midwesterner among the new PSAC ap- as follows:
I trust that no one will take [From the Fargo (N. Dak.) Forum, Aug. 22,
the NASA installation at Huntsville has done. pointees.
Where this accelerator will be located and offense if a politician takes note of the
19651
who will operate it thus become issues of the politics of science.
FARM BILL GIVxE TIME To 'SEE
BETTER
greatest public concern. Congress must exCongress is experiencing its own scientific
ANSWER
amine this type of problem. The factors revolution as evidenced by the efforts of the
The debate that preceded House passage
involved-site selection, availability, and Space and the Atomic Energy committees
of the administration's omnibus farm bill
mobility of the necessary manpower, ways and their research and development subof assessing the relative needs of different
committees; by the work of the Elliott Com- found the opposition swinging away lustily
communities, the nature of the most effec- mittee; and by the hearings which Senator at a so-called bread tax in the wheat protive management instrument-must be eval- NELSON is undertaking. Look further, if you visions.
The Democrats, with the help of a few
uated by Congress to insure that the nawill, to what we in Congress have been doing
tional interest will be served. For a problem
to increase the national investment in edu- farm State Republicans, beat back all efforts
to
change the bill substantially, but not beof this type and magnitude cannot be re- cated men and women: the National Defense
solved solely by the scientists themselves but
Act of 1958, and the many amendments fore the administration had offered the
amendment
which provides that the increase
only through the consensus of all of the inwhich have followed; the Higher Education
terests that will be affected by the outcome. Facilities Act and the Vocational Education in the wheat certificate payments will be
financed by the U.S. Treasury instead of by
The third class of activities, those which
Act both of 1963; the Manpower Developare privately owned and privately operated, ment and Training Act; and the Health the processors.
If the Senate adopts the measure in its
also imposes responsibilities on the Govern- Professions Assistance, to name only some
ment, for it is certainly in the public inter- of the education bills we have been enacting. present form, the new farm bill will be in
effect
for 4 years. This will remove the farm
this
In
flourish.
too
should
est that they
Only an hour ago I returned from the
issue from the congressional scene in the
area the problems revolve around communi- White House where President Johnson gave
election year of 1968, and maybe
presidential
cations among groups-the communities, the me a signed scroll on which there were
will give the farmers and the Congress time
universities, and industry. Here too some of inscribed the words he spoke when last Suntogether
a long-range program that
to
put
the problems must be examined by Con- day morning in Austin, Tex., he signed into
will work.
gress-such problems as, for example, the law the pioneering Elementary and SecondEfforts in the House to send the farm bill
management of scientific and technological
ary Education Act of 1965. In his remarks
information. The Federal role in supporting President Johnson declared "* * * those back to committee for extensive amendment
education. Two items of legislation now Members (of Congress) of both parties who were defeated on a 224-to-169 rollcall vote,
with 211 Democrats and only 13 Republicans
pending before Congress offer significant
supported the enactment of this legislation
promise in this area. They are: (1) the will be remembered in history as men and voting against recommittal while 110 Republicans and 59 Democrats wanted major
higher education bill and (2) the State women who began a new day of greatness
changes.
technical services bill. These bills complein American society."
When the bill passed on a vote of 221-toment each other. Part of the higher eduI am confident that if we in the Midwestcation bill would enable universities, with businessmen and bankers, scientists and 172, there were 19 Republicans on the "yes"
side, and 104 voting against. There were
Government assistance, to establish or to
engineers, professors and politicians-begin
202 Democrats for the bill, 68 against.
improve community extension services and now, more aggressively than we have been
It is noteworthy that North Dakota's two
facilities, thereby providing a mechanism
doing, to think, to decide, to act, along some
Congressmen (one Democrat, one Republifor drawing upon many resources of the of the lines
I have been venturesome enough
can) and Minnesota's eight (four Democrats,
university necessary for the solution of comto suggest, we can begin a new day of greatfour Republicans) all voted for the bill on
munity problems.
ness for midwest America as well.
final passage. The Minnesota Republicans,
The State technical services bill, which
however, had supported the GOP-led move
would be administered by the Department
to send the bill back to committee.
of Commerce, would focus on industrial tech- THE IMPORTANCE
OF
AGRICULTURE
As for the wheat provisions, the omnibus
nology and thus supplement the general
SAND THE NEED FOR PRICE SUPfarm bill takes one important step in addicommunity services program in meeting
tion to the 4-year duration. It raises the
specialized needs. These programs together / PORT PROGRAMS
direct payment to farmers on a farmer's
would operate through the choices and deMr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. share of the domestic wheat market from
cisions of the local communities and their
President,
for
many
years
after
the
great
institutions.
75 cents a bushel to $1.25, with the 50-cent
depression of the late twenties and early increase being paid by the Treasury. At the
Another way in which the Government
thirties just about everyone agreed that same time, it removes any certificate paycould assist regional industrial development
Is to establish financial incentives to enone of its major causes was the sharp ment (or subsidy, as farm bill opponents call
courage local industry to engage in research
break in farm prices that occurred a year it) for wheat going into the export market.
The changes should increase the farm income
and development. One way this might be or more previous to the
depression.
per bushel by 10 or 15 cents.
done has been initiated in Canada where a
For
years
afterward,
most
people
recWith the removal of the payment on extax deduction of 150 percent of the increase
in expenditures for research and develop- ognized that there was no way to main- ports, no longer can the farm critics conment, after the base year of 1961, is now tain a fair level of farm prices for many tend that the taxpayer is subsidizing Russia
permitted for individual companies. Especi- farm commodities, particularly the stor- or Australia or any other buyer on the world
ally for small business, which is unable to
able ones, except through price support market. Wheat will move into world trade
world price. Therefore, the eliminaestablish its own R. & D. laboratories, such
programs. In later years many people at the
tion of certificate payments on export wheat
a provision could go far toward enabling
have come to believe that even though might make it uncomfortable for the admany companies to maintain constructive
ministration to continue the requirement
relations with research institutes and uni- farmers still have a tremendous purchasing power, the prosperity of this great that 50 percent of the wheat shipped to East
versities.
Europe be shipped in American cargo vessels.
In conclusion, let me say that Congress is segment of our economy has little effect
This requirement is a direct subsidy to
increasingly coming to grips with the kinds on the overall economic situation of the
U.S. maritime unions and raises the cost of
of problems I have been discussing. But
country.
before I give you an indication of some of
wheat to the buyer by 10 or 15 cents a bushel
It is encouraging that in the last year or more, with the result that no American
the ways in which Congress is seeking, fitor two more and more influential people wheat goes to these markets.
fully perhaps, to meet some of the responIf no export subsidy Is to be paid to the
sibilities which scientific and technological in this Nation are taking a second look
advance have brought to our country, I at agriculture and recognize the need for American farmer, the U.S. Government in
good conscience can no longer require that
must interject one particular word about
farm programs.
a subsidy be paid to American maritime
the role of the universities in the kind of
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
whose members do not even
picture I have been discussing. It seems to
to have two excellent editorials on the unions-unions
see the wheat until it is sold in the world
me that university administrators and scisubject of farm price supports carried in market.
entists must involve themselves, whether
they like it or not, in a kind of national two of North Dakota's leading newspaWe believe it unfortunate that it was necscience politics if their institutions and their pers-the Fargo Forum and the Minot
essary to pay for the increase in the certifiregions are to benefit. It is not, I think, Daily News-inserted in the RECORD as a cate payments for domestic consumption diinsignificant that the first four science ad- part of my remarks. These two newsparectly out of the Treasury. This system will
21694
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
keep the cry of "subsidy" rolling along, and
will give the Bureau of the Budget a tempting $150 million a year to try to prune out of
future budgets.
It keeps the wheat price in the political
marketplace, and there can be no solid solution to farm problems until the political
angles are reduced to a minimum.
There was no great cry from the meat
processors about protecting the consumer
when meat prices recovered substantially
this year. Yet the cry of "bread tax" and
"pity the consumer" almost killed the farm
bill last week. If the consumer cannot be
convinced that the farmer is entitled to a fair
price for his crops, how will the Government
ever get out of the farm economy?
Even though the farm bill is through the
House, it still faces opposition in the Senate.
At one point, Senator MILTON R. YoUNG, Republican, of North Dakota, estimated its
chances of passage as not better than 50-50.
Perhaps the changes accepted by the administration in the House have eliminated some
of the Senate opposition.
We hope so, because our farmers need the
protection of this farm bill, and the breathing
space it provides in our efforts to work out a
long-range solution.
[From the Minot (N. Dak.) Daily News,
Aug. 21, 1965]
WE BEG TO DISSENT
Fine gentlemen all, officers and directors
of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
paid Minot the honor of a visit this week.
It is a pleasure to have them come, even
when the conference is devoted to expounding what certain analysts say is inevitable in
North Dakota.
The conference reviewed their interpretations of the changes taking place in North
Dakota agriculture. The consensus seemed
to be that they and everybody, including us
North Dakotans, should acquiesce, accept it
gracefully, and adjust to it.
Factually the gentlemen from Minneapolis
told us nothing new. We who live here know
what the changes are. We have listened to
economists' analyses of this matter over and
over again. There was nothing very challenging, either, in the advice that we should
all acquiesce to bigness.
Here in North Dakota we are accustomed
to adjusting ourselves to necessities. We
may differ from the Federal Reserve bank
men on what the necessities of the situation
are, and on what is inevitable, and what response on their part and ours would be
desirable.
What we in North Dakota have gained for
ourselves in the past has not all been gained
by climbing on bandwagons and going along
with the trends. It is not inevitable, in our
view, that North Dakota farms must keep
getting larger and that all the little fellows
must continue to quit. We know this is
happening. It is partly the result of the
direction in which agricultural automation
is going. It is partly, also, because of the
intentional or unintentional effects of compromised agricultural policy, which compromises Minneapolis business has helped to
create, sometimes by its obstinacy. But it is
happening, too, because of the present-day
philosophy of Minneapolis business.
Business philosophy in the Twin Cities, as
much as politics, has contributed frequently
to sabotage of the worthy aims of Federal
programs for agriculture.
Right now that
philosophy supports a point of view which
may well result in North Dakota becoming
an economy of big plantations.
In dealings abroad the United States finds
it advisable to take a hand in the breakup
of plantation systems. Yet on the domestic
front we find leaders of business, by their
thinking, throwing weight on the side of
building an agricultural plantation system
here.
SENATE
We observe that food processing, food distribution, and food marketing in the United
States has taken the primrose path to bigness. It is imagined that bigness goes with
efficiency in almost every kind of business.
Even in newspaper publishing, chains are
gaining ground. No one needs to be reminded how finance is organized. So men
in the food business and in banking may
find it hard to understand why grassroots
North Dakota would prefer to buck the tide
against concentration in agriculture.
We wish some of the people imbued with
the philosophy that efficiency through concentration is the answer to all needs would
join us in our contrariety. If everyone now
enjoying the benefits of North Dakota agriculture would respond to this challenge of
the plantation system by saying, "No, we
won't let this happen," instead of "Yes, this
is the wave of the future," the trend toward
bigger farms in North Dakota could be reversed.
We would have to concentrate some effort
on gaining technological breakthroughs to
favor mechanization in small units rather
than big ones. We would have to concede
it to be possible that small units can be
made efficient in food production. We might
even have to admit that efficiency is not as
Important a goal in agriculture as happy
families, and lots of them, living in the
country and in small towns. It would help
if people now benefiting from so-called subsidies and Government protection in their
own businesses would quit pointing the finger
at the one subsidy they don't like, which is
adequate income guarantees to foster family
agriculture on smaller spreads. It might be
worthwhile for us to take this matter up
with the Department of Health. Education,
and Welfare, if Twin City business lobbies
are going to keep thwarting our efforts to
get a workable program through the Department of Agriculture.
Privately based economic study and propaganda groups, like the Committee on Economic Development and the Upper Midwest
Research and Development Council, are quite
within their rights in promoting the idea
of the inevitability of agricultural plantations. But it is questionable whether a Government-related institution like the Federal
Reserve bank should lend its support to a
one-sided and, inevitably political, point of
view.
ANNUITY INCREASES NEEDED NOW
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
am pleased by the prompt action the
Senate Post Office and Civil Service Com-
August 25, 1965
and Federal employees. I support this legislation and urge its prompt enactment.
Inflation is the greatest enemy of retired
persons and this is especially true for a total
of some 700,000 retirees and survivors of the
Federal Government. The Consumer Price
Index has risenby more than 17 percent since
1955. While Congress has been generous
with providing pay increases for postal and
Federal employees, much less has been done
for the retired.
Retirees and their survivors need help
now. A longer wait would find them in
worse straits. Retirees as a group have a
very short future. Delay while waiting a
report of a commission to be submitted at
some future date only works extreme hardship.
It is all too easy to overlook the needs of
the retired and fail to remember that they
were once active Federal employees who provided needed services for our country.
H.R. 8469 provides an approximate 11percent increase in annuities to those who
retired on or before October 1, 1956, and
an approximate 6-percent increase to those
whose annuities began later. A slightly
larger percentage increase is provided survivors-15 percent or $10 per month, which.
ever is less-for survivor annuitants whose
spouse retired prior to April 1,1948.
Congress, in 1962, adopted legislation providing for automatic annuity increases based
on the cost-of-living index. The mechanics
for adjusting annuities to reflect living costs
is improved by this legislation, and the time
element shortened by using the monthly
price index instead of an annual average.
In this way annuities in the future will more
accurately and promptly reflect the cost of
living.
Annuity increases are desperately needed
by retired Federal employees. It is inconceivable that when our Nation is devoting
so much effort to the war on poverty retired
Federal and postal employees would be
neglected, and left to live far below the
poverty level.
NINETY-ONE
PERCENT OF PRESI-
DENTS OF JUNIOR COLLEGES
SUPPORT COLD WAR GI BILL
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the cold war GI bill, for the education
of the returned veterans of the cold
war period, from February 1, 1955, to
July 1967-the end of the draft-passed
the Senate by a vote of 69 to 17 and is
now pending before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, where hearings
mittee is taking on legislation to provide
much needed increases in annuity benefits for retired Federal employees and
their survivors.
Mr. President, I have submitted a
statement in support of the legislation to
this committee, and I ask unanimous
consent that my statement to the Senate
Post Office and Civil Service Committee
be printed in the RECORD following these
remarks.
will be held beginning August 31, 1965,
There being no objection, the state-
dent of Vincennes College, Indiana, testified for the cold war GI bill on behalf
of the American Association of Junior
Colleges. Bulletin 7b, a special report
on Federal affairs from the American Association of Junior Colleges from its
Washington office, dated August 17, 1965,
contains this statement:
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR MAURINE B. NEUBERGERIN SUPPORT OF H.R. 8469, A BILL PROVIDING FOR ANNUITY INCREASES FOR RETIRED
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, SUBMITTED TO THE RETIREMENT_ SUBCOMMnTTEE, SENATE POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman, I actively support H.R. 8469
which passed the House of Representatives
with a favorable vote of 395 to 0. This muchneeded legislation provides increases in retirement and survivorship benefits for postal
with Congressman OLIN TEAGUE as chair-
man.
While the vote by which this bill
passed the Senate was more than 4 to 1,
the vote by which the presidents of the
American Association of Junior Colleges
of America approved the bill was more
than 9 to 1.
The chairman of the American Association of Junior College Commission on
Legislation, Dr. Isaac A. Beckes, presi-
The National Education Association supports the cold war GI bill, as did Dr. Isaac
Beckes, chairman of the AAJC Commission
on Legislation, in a recent Senate hearing.
A recent AAJC poll showed 91 percent of our
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
presidents with views on it favored the bill.
But it is likely to pass the House only if
considerable public support is shown for it
this year.
SENATE
in order to try to get consistency in the
disposition of the public's property rights.
I. LARGE PART
OF GOVERNMENT
ALREADY
COVEREDBY LEGISLATION
The Congress has already legislated in
Surely an educational bill for the cold
areas so there is considerably more
war veterans, that is supported by more many
uniformity and consistency than one might
than 90 percent of the college presidents think. The following agencies or programs
of junior colleges of this country is are already covered by statute and require
worthy of the attention of every branch title on behalf of the public, to the results
of the Government, executive as well as of research financed by the public:
(a) Department of the Interior: Helium
legislative. Justice should be done these
Gas Act. Saline Water Act, Solar Energy Act,
veterans without further delay.
THE GOVERNMENT'S PATENT
POLICY
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President,
Senator RUSSELL B. LONG has long had a
concern for the disposition of the public's
property rights arising out of the huge
expenditures of public funds. My colleague from the State of Louisiana is
seeking to insure that what the Government pays for be made freely available to
all the people of this country. When the
public pays for research, why should the
Government give exclusive rights to one
company for 17 years, or any amount of
time, so that it can charge the public a
higher price for the results of this research than would be possible under competitive conditions? When the public
finances such research and development
to the amount of $15 billion annually our
citizens certainly should be the beneficiaries of the fruits of these efforts.
I have the testimony delivered by
Senator LONG before the McClellan Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and
Copyrights on June 3, 1965. His pre-
pared statement contains much interesting and important material relating
to the merits of this issue. Senator
LONG's discussion of the subject, his detailed analysis of S. 789, S. 1809, and S.
1899, as well as his explanations of the
international aspects of Government
patent policy should be brought to the
attention of all the Members of the Senate and the general public. Since Senator LONG'S testimony will not be available
to the public for a considerable period
of time, I ask unanimous consent that it
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENTBY SENATOR RUSSELL B. LONG
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS,
TRADEMARKS,
AND COPYRIGHTS
Mr. Chairman, although the subject of
these hearings has been advertised as Government patent policy, it should be recognized that it is a misnomer. It is not a
patent problem at all. It is not concerned
with the patent system; it is not concerned
with the administration of the Patent Office.
The subject we are dealing with involves the
disposition of the public's property rights
arising out of the huge expenditures of public funds.
Also involved is the problem of insuring
that the manner in which the public's property rights are disposed of will not defeat
the objectives we are trying to attain in specific legislation. The only way to do this is
to study each bill as it comes up to make
sure that the disposition of property rights
involved will help us achieve the purpose
of the legislation. Each piece of legislation,
because it has problems unique to itself,
should not be put into a Procrustean mold
Water Resources Act, Coal Research and Development Act.
(b) Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Marketing and Research Act.
(c) NASA:
National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958.
(d) Atomic Energy Commission: Atomic
Energy Commission Acts of 1954 and 1958.
(e) Housing and Home Finance Agency:
Housing Act of 1958.
(f) Veterans' Administration: Prosthetic
and Sensory Device Research Act.
(g) Tennessee Valley Authority: Tennessee Valley Authority Act.
(h) Disarmament Agency: Disarmament
Act.
(i) Appalachian Regional Development
Act of 1965 (under Department of Commerce).
With the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Aviation
Agency following somewhat of a title policy
uniformity is provided by these statutes in
a large area of Government.
My bill, S. 1899, should be modified so, if
enacted, would not override the special laws
already enacted by the Congress. You will
notice that under S. 1899 the AEC provisions
are retained. This should be extended to
cover more of the recent provisions. In other
words, S. 1899 or any general bill should be
operable only where an agency is not covered by any provisions dealing with the disposition of the Government's property rights.
If any general bill should be adopted, it
should be on this formula. In this way,
Congress will be enabled to look at the substance of each bill to see what the policy
should be. To the extent that Congress does
not do this, then a general bill may be
salutary.
U. DESCRIPTION OF S. 1899
The basic premise of S. 1899 is that inventions should belong to "those who pay to
have them created." It is for that reason
that section 3(b) of the bill provides that
title to an invention shall be taken by the
United States for the benefit of all the people of the United States if made in the performance of a Government contract. The
premise Is applied when according to section
2(1) the "conception or first actual reduction to practice" occurs incident to the performance of a Government contract.
This is the same principle which you supported, Mr. Chairman, as far back as 1947
in the form of the Kilgore-Aiken amendment
to the National Science Foundation bill
which stated:
"(d) any invention, discovery, or finding
hereafter produced in the course of federally
financed research and development shall
whether or not patented be made freely
available to the public and shall, if patented,
be freely dedicated to the public." 1
It is recognized that in practice situations
do occur in which both the Government and
private industry have made contributions to
an invention. Section 10 of the bill, therefore, makes provision for waiver of title by
the United States, when it is shown that
the equity of a contractor predominates.
In waiving the Government's property
rights there must be effective protection of
21695
the public interest in inventions at all times.
To accomplish this, no waiver may be made
unless the Administrator has determined
that: (a) the applicant for a waiver has made
a contribution to the invention which exceeds the contribution made by the U.S.
Government by such an extent that equitable
considerations favor the granting of such
waiver;
(b)
granting
of such waiver
would affirmatively advance the interests of
the United States and would be consistent
with the public policy declared by S. 1899;
and (c) the Administrator has received a
written determination made by the Attorney
General to the effect that the granting of
such waiver would not facilitate growth or
maintenance of monopoly and concentration
of economic power with respect to any part
of the trade or commerce of the United
States.
Another feature of S. 1899 is the proposed
establishment of a Federal Inventions Administration, which would administer all
Government-owned patents and make necessary determinations of the act. It would
be affirmatively charged with the duty of
protecting the public interest in scientific
and technological developments achieved
through the activities of agencies of the
U.S. Government and would be charged with
the dissemination of knowledge so developed.
It will undertake a program of utilization
as means of widening the uses of patents.
discoveries, and new scientific and technical
knowledge derived from publicly financed research. This is expected to stimulate invention and innovation, which will cut costs,
produce new products and increase per
capita industrial production through efficiency and new technology.
The third feature is intended to stimulate
discovery and invention in the public interest by providing for the making of generous monetary awards as well as public
recognition to all persons who contribute to
the United States for public use scientific
and technological discoveries of significant
value in the fields of national defense or
public health, or to any national scientific
program, without regard to the patentability
of the contributions so made. I believe this
will serve as an incentive, which will elicit
from private, commercial, or Government
scientists their best efforts on behalf of the
whole country.
III. SOME INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT PATENT POLICY
There are many reasons why the Government should retain title to the results of
publicly financed research. One of these
reasons is the effect on the country's balance
of payments and the military aspects. Let
me give you some specific, concrete, cases.
A recent court decision in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Zenith Radio
Corporation) has revealed how a firm, the
Hazeltine Research, Inc., with a large patent
portfolio, has prevented American firms such
as Zenith, through international patent pooling arrangements, from exporting their goods
to important foreign markets. What is
especially intolerable is that U.S. Government funds paid for 90 percent of the research which enabled this company to accumulate its patents.
In essence, then, public funds have been
used to bar Americans from exporting their
goods.
Indications are that this practice
is widespread, and the effects on our balance
of payments are undoubtedly very serious.
It doesn't make sense to allow this to go
on, and at the same time make it difficult
for ordinary citizens who have saved their
money for years to go on a foreign vacation
or to make it hard for them to bring in gifts
for their friends and families by cutting
down customs exemptions from $100 to $50.
1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 19, 1947, pp.
International patent pools can also under5472-5480.
mine our national safety. They have been
21696
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
used in the past to transmit military information-even to our enemies. A good
example is the case of the Bausch & Lomb
Optical Co. Contracts between this company and Carl Zeiss, of Germany, resulted in
Bausch & Lomb transferring to the German concern, the designs and engineering
data developed with funds supplied by our
own Navy Department. Senator Kilgore, of
West Virginia, in a speech on the Senate
floor on May 19, 1947, told of his experience
after V-E Day, when he discovered German
binoculars made by Zeiss which were an
exact duplicate of the Navy's 7.5 binoculars,
which we thought were secret. The use of
this patent pool enabled the entire German
Army to be equipped with the latest optical
instrument we had, and which was developed
with public funds. In other words, Mr.
Chairman, public funds were used to assist
those who wanted to destroy us.
Another example of the use of international patent cartels is the case of magnesium.
A cartel arrangement among I. G. Farbenindustrie, the Aluminum Co. of America and
Dow Chemical Co., established Dow as the
sole producer of the metal in the United
States. The U.S. output was deliberately
kept small because of a high-price policy
followed by Dow for its own private gain
and because of the Aluminum Co's insistence
that Dow not offer a cheap substitute for
aluminum. In 1938, when Hitler's Germany
had a production of 12,000 tons, our own
production was only 2,400 tons. Moreover,
Dow's exports were limited to a specified
amount to a single customer in Great Britain, who was then preparing to defend freedom in Europe, and to certain quantities
which I. G. Parbenindustrie agreed to buy.
Dow, by agreement couldn't even export to
the European Continent. In this particular
case an international patent cartel undermined the defense programs of our allies in
Europe by withholding strategic raw materials from them and kept our own country
weak by restricting production of this essential material.
The pushing and shoving by private firms
to get the right to patent the results of
research must be
Government-financed
stopped. Otherwise, we shall find that most
of the results of our research, paid for by
the American public, will be in the hands
of foreign cartels. We already have considerable material showing that this is happening. The Monopoly Subcommittee of the
Senate Small Business Committee, since 1962,
has been studying the relationship of Government patent policy, international cartels,
and their effect on our foreign trade and
balance of payments.
IV. PHILOSOPHY OF PATENT SYSTEM
I am not suggesting that the patent system
be eliminated. If Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones,
or anyone else can invent a good product, let
him do it and patent it. And let him derive
a profit from his work. But I resent the
fact that the people of the United States,
paying the men to do the development
work-and very frequently paying for their
education also-have to pay monopoly prices
when they wish to use the results of research
they paid for in the first place.
The power to exclude competition, the
power to charge monopoly prices is the reason why private firms want to have the
patent rights to the results of publicly
financed research. What is their justification?
The patent system endeavors to attain the
constitutional objective of promoting the
progress of science and useful arts by granting to the inventor or initial investor a
temporary monopoly in a new product or
process. The logic of granting such monopoly rights through patents in a free enterprise
system rests upon the assumption that such
grants will speed up technological progress
through the stimulus it provides for the
SENATE
undertaking and financing of industrial research and development and of new industrial ventures and that the deliberate restraint of competition which the Government institutes by granting temporary patent
monopolies in the use of inventions is intended to have the ultimate objective of
serving the public interest in that the gains
for society resulting from this stimulation
will offset the restrictions on freedom of enterprise which the patent grant imposes.
This stimulus is considered necessary to
the undertaking of extraordinary risks. No
one knows in advance whether he will be successful. The cost may be great. There are
many businessmen who have not invested a
single penny in the cost of the inventions,
but are ready to imitate the new invention
and compete in selling the new products or
using a new process. Why, then, risk large
sums of money in inventing, in developing
new markets, perhaps in investing large sums
in new plant and equipment? If a patent
monopoly, however, can be expected to keep
the imitators off for just a short while, the
innovator perhaps can secure an attractive
profit. The hope for such temporary monopoly profits serves, therefore, as an incentive to take risks.
But where are the risks in Governmentfinanced research and development contracts? There really are none. Practically
all research and development contracts let
by Federal agencies are on a cost-plus basis.
No matter how expensive a project turns out
to be, the costs are covered by the Government.
Moreover, there is no risk in finding a market for the new product. The market is
there, waiting eagerly in the form of the
Federal department or agency for whom the
research and development has been performed. The whole thing is practically a
riskless venture for the contractor. Even
the possibility of contract cancellation cannot be considered a risk, for the firms have
invested none of their own funds and are
generally granted, in addition, a return well
in excess of costs.
Where an inventor has not devoted his own
independent efforts and resources to the development of an invention, but has used his
employer's resources, it is a well-known common law doctrine that any resulting invention is the property of the employer.
Similarly, when the contractor has used
Government money or facilities or both, and
has been compensated by the Government
for his efforts, there is no justification for
giving to him also the title to the invention
so made. In that case, it is the Government
which has made the invention possible and
should in all propriety get what it paid for.
This is exactly what private industry does.
V. SOME CLAIM THAT MONOPOLY NEEDED TO
INSURE COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION
Another argument advanced by those who
wish to grant patent monopolies to the results of publicly financed research is that
a monopoly is needed in order to bring
about commercial exploitation of the invention. This, of course, is nonsense.
Dr. Roy C. Newton, retired vice president
for research of Swift & Co. made the following report to the Department of Agriculture:
"The policy of the USDA with regard to
patents is closely and aggresively followed
in the utilization research laboratories.
These utilization laboratories account for
approximately 85 percent of all USDA
patents.
"According to this policy every effort is
made to obtain U.S. patents on all inventions made in the course of these scientific
studies. The U.S. patents are assigned to the
Secretary of Agriculture and free licenses
are issued to any responsible American citizen or company who requests it. The rights
to foreign patents revert to the inventor if at
the end of 6 months the U.S. Government
August 25, 1965
has decided not to file application for patents
in foreign countries. In practice the Government seldom files for foreign patents which
means that foreign patents can be owned by
the inventors and they are free to exploit
them to their own financial benefit without
any requirement to report except to the Department of Internal Revenue. In discussions with industry representatives there are
two complaints commonly expressed. The
first of these complaints has to do with domestic patents and arises from the fact that
a company cannot get even a temporary exclusive license to compensate it for the expense of commercializing the product of the
invention. These people will say that this
inhibits the very objective of the research
which is to market new products of agriculture, because no one will put up the risk
capital for such a new venture without some
exclusivity to protect it. A few leading questions however usually develops the fact that
they will go into the venture if their competitors are making a success of it, and if
the invention is good enough to be very
promising to their competitor they will try to
beat him to it. It is doubtful therefore if
this policy is a serious handicap to the commercialization of new developments by
utilization research."
During hearings held in March 1963 by
the Monopoly Subcommittee of the Senate
Small Business Committee practically every
witness was asked if he knew of any data,
studies, or facts of any kind at all which
could support the thesis that the working of
inventions will be fostered by transfer of
the Government's property rights to a contractor. The unanimous answer was "No."
When Mr. Webb, of NASA, was asked the
question he stated that:
"It is a very difficult statement to prove,
but anyway I will do my best for you."
When he was asked: "Offhand, you have
no such facts or figures?"
He answered: "Not offhand." 2
Mr. Chairman, it is well over 2 years later,
and Mr. Webb has yet to supply evidence to
support his contention.
On the other hand, there is considerable
evidence that the very opposite is true-that,
when new inventions or discoveries are made
freely available to the public, the technological level of our whole society is raised.
Private industry itself benefits from this.
Rather than repeat myself, please refer to
a speech I delivered discussing this specific
subject on the Senate floor on May 4, 1965,
also the speech I delivered on May 17, 1965,
on the Senate floor. The latter speech presents a case history of what happens when
a patent monopoly on the results of Government-financed research is given to a drug
company. It is a typical case. If you have
not read it, I earnestly hope you will do so.
VI. COMMENTS ON S. 789 AND S. 1809
Now, let me say a few words about the
other two bills which purport to establish a
national policy with respect to the disposition of the public's property rights.
S. 789 is an out and out giveaway. The
principle of equity is ignored. The fact that
the U.S. Government is pouring billions and
billions of dollars into research and development, that over 70 percent of all the research
and development in this country is paid for
by the taxpayers; that industries have been
based on Government expenditures-these
facts are not even mentioned. They are
completely ignored. The virtue of this bill,
however, is that it doesn't hide behind any
verbiage; the public knows where it stands.
The public pays for the research, and the results are given away to a contractor as his
private monopoly. It is as simple as that.
2
Economic aspects of Government patent
policies, hearings before Monopoly Subcommittee of Senate Small Business Committee,
p. 322.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
S. 1809 does not offer very much more to
the public. The effect can be the same as
S. 789; the administration of such legislation
would be almost impossible. There is not
enough time to discuss this bill in great detail, but let me call your attention to a few of
the provisions.
On page 4, lines 12 to 16, it provides such
license shall extend to its existing and future associated and affiliated companies, etc.
What precisely does this mean? Does it include foreign companies and entities of foreign governments? If so, has anyone studied
the economic and political implications of
this situation?
On page 6, section (8), it says that an invention shall be void when the contractor
"knowingly withheld" rendering a prompt
and full disclosure to that agency of such
invention.
How can an invention be voided under
present law and procedure?
This whole section is meaningless and impossible; there is no way of revoking a patent
unless fraud is proven.
Now, let us look at paragraph (9) on page
6, which provides "that nothing contained
in this Act shall be construed as requiring
the granting to the United States of any
right or interest duly acquired in or with
respect to any patent issued for any invention not made in the course of or under the
contract."
What is the precise meaning of this paragraph, especially when combined with the
definition of the term "made" on page 3?
Does this mean that even if I thought of an
idea and the Government paid to have it developed, it is not "made" under the contract?
Is an idea plus a patent application without
any actual reduction to practice enough to
include it under th-s paragraph?
Is it not administratively almost impossible to prove that tht invention was not conceived before the contract? It seems to me,
Mr. Chairman, that this paragraph alone
could be the basis of a mass giveaway.
Section 2(a) limits the scope of "invention" to patentable inventions. (Cf. sec.
2(g) of S. 1899.)
Section 1809 does not establish any single
agency charged with the administration and
prosecution of the Government's proprietary
interests. (See sec. 4 of S. 1899.)
Section 1809 makes no affirmative provision for the collection and dissemination of
scientific and technological information acquired by the United States. (Cf. sec. 7 of S.
1899.)
It contains no automatic screening provision to detect failure of the contractor to
disclose fact of the making of invention
under Government contract. (Cf. sec. 9 of S.
1899.)
It contains no provision for awards for inventive contributions. (Cf. sec. 12 of S.
1899.)
Section 4(a) specifies conditions in which
the United States is to require "principal or
exclusive" rights, but does not specify what
those rights are to be.
Section 4(a) specifies a too-limited set of
conditions under which such greater rights
are to be obtained by the United States. The
inference is that outside of these limited
conditions, the Government's property rights
will be given away to the contractor. In addition, these conditions completely fail to
take into account: (a) the relative contributions of the United States and the contractor to the invention, and (b) the effect upon
restraint of trade.
Section 4(a) permits the grant of greater
rights to the contractor in "exceptional circumstances"-whatever
this means-but
provides no standards whatever to guide an
agency head in determining what action is
in the public interest.
In this connection, Senator RmBCOFw, when
he was Secretary of Health, Education, and
CXI--1368
21697
SENATE
Welfare, warned about the danger in the use
of the phrase "exceptional circumstances":
"The phrase in 'exceptional circumstances,
is relatively vague and indefinite and, in the
absence of any indicated criteria in the policy itself, would appear to leave considerable
latitude to each agency head to determine
what constitutes such circumstances. While
this does have the advantage of providing
flexibility, it does have the disadvantage of
exposing agency heads to the pressures of
those contractors who would urge that each
circumstance of hardship, however slight,
represents an exceptional circumstance calling for more generous allocation of invention
rights."
Section 4(b) too sharply limits the extent
of the right the Government may acquire,
without regard to the extent of the Government's contribution.
Section 4(c) again, provides no standards
whatever to guide the agency head in determining what "special circumstances" are
referred to, or in what way the "public interest" is to be determined.
These are only a few of the many objections I have about S. 1809.
In the days and weeks to come, I and others shall discuss this problem on the floor
of the Senate, so the public at large as well
as the Senate will understand what is at
stake.
S. 1809 is loaded against the public and
its Government. Its net effect is that except in a few limited and nebulous cases, the
private contractors are going to get private
monopolies on the results of the vast sums
spent on research and development by the
public.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WORLD'S BEST KNOWN HAWAnAn STILL YOUNG
AT HEART-IT's 75 CANDLES FORTHE "D' KE"
(By Fran Reidelberger)
The bronze "Duke" of Waikiki will be 75
tomorrow.
And for Duke Kahanamoku, Hawaii's first
Olympic games athlete, there is no more
fitting birthday present than the announcement of an invitational surfing championship in his name.
Long known as the father of surfing, Duke
will celebrate the reaching of the threequarter-century-mark with a noon luau at
his Waikiki night club to which some 250
friends have been invited.
The Duke Kahanamoku invitational surfing championships will be held December 15
and 16 on Oahu's north shore. It will feature the best surfers from all over the world
and is to be televised by the Columbia
Broadcasting System network.
In an exclusive interview, the Star-Bulletin found the Duke of today rather
stooped, white-haired, but a proud man who
still harbors young ideas.
Watching him move so slowly it was hard
to realize that he was once one of the
world's greatest athletes.
"Come here. Come here a minute. Let me
show you something," he said.
His now cloudy eyes became clear and his
halting speech fluent as he fondly handled
a framed wreath on his bedroom wall.
HONORED BY KING GUSTAV
"I was just a big dumb kid when King
Gustav of Sweden gave me this. I didn't
SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF
even know what it was really and almost
THE WORLD'S BEST KNOWN HA- threw it away. But now it is my most prized
trophy," he said proudly.
WAIIAN: DUKE KAHANAMOKU
When he won the wreath at the 1912
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, congratu- Olympics,
he was being heralded as the
lations and birthday greetings are pour- Bronze Duke of Waikiki, the world's greating into Honolulu this week for a world- est swimmer.
renowned son of the Hawaiian Islands,
Today he is world renowned as Hawaii's
Duke Paoa Kahanamoku, who observed greatest sportsman and good will ambassador.
his 75th birthday anniversary yesterday.
Duke relaxed in an easy chair in his Black
As Hawaii's greatest sportsman and Point home where he could see the moungoodwill ambassador, Duke Kahanamoku tains and the ocean. He talked about things
has symbolized Hawaii at its best. With ranging from the last of the Hawaiian monto high-rise Hawaii of today and
his warm, winning ways, the onetime archs
tomorrow.
champion
swimming
great
Olympic
Duke said he can't see an end to the highbrought fame to his native islands and rise hotels and increasing population for
endeared himself to fans and admirers Oahu.
in many lands.
"I wouldn't be surprised to see the hotels
He was Hawaii's first Olympic athlete, at Waikiki so close together pretty soon that
you
won't be able to see between them.
making the U.S. Olympic swimming team
"I liked the old days better. Now the
in 1912. He also participated in the
Olympic games in 1920, 1924, and 1932, place is cluttered with people. People all
breaking records as easily as he made over the place and it's not going to stop.
There's no end to it.
friends.
"It's good economically, but it sure makes
Duke Kahanamoku has served as Ha- it crowded here."
waii's ambassador of goodwill for more
than half a century. Whether as a
sportsman, the sheriff of Honolulu, or a
shipboard greeter, he remains the world's
best known Hawaiian.
Brain surgery in 1962 incapacitated
him for a time but he has made a splendid comeback. With his charming and
gracious wife Nadine, the beloved Duke
lives in the Waikiki environment of sun,
sea, and surf he loves so dearly.
On the eve of his 75th birthday anniversary, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin
printed an interview recalling the colorful life of Duke Kahanamoku. I know
his hosts of friends everywhere will be
pleased to read about him again.
I ask unanimous consent to have the
article printed in the RECORD.
TALKS ABOUT THE OLD DAYS
During the old days that Duke talks about,
he says there weren't many visitors here and
things were slower and easier.
"I was born in what was then called the
Arlington Hotel. It is now a bank at the
corner of Bishop and King Streets downtown.
"At Waikiki there weren't any hotels, very
few buildings, trees all over the place and
the beach was shaped different.
"Now the sand is all In front of the hotels.
It used to be more spread out. Some spots
where the hotels are now were bare or
covered with seaweed.
"But the sand has always been a beautiful
white. That's still the same.
"And surfing," he mused as he watched
the rolling surf break on the beach below his
house, "there were only three or four boards
on the whole island then."
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
21698
Surfing is a million dollar business in
Hawaii today and Duke has surfboards manufactured in his name being sold on the mainland and in Hawaii.
He made his own board once, has surfed
almost his entire life and loves to talk about
the sport.
"Those old boards were heavy. They were
made of pure koa wood and you had to be
pretty clever to maneuver one of them.
"Judge Henry Steiner was one of those
who used the old boards and he was really
pretty good at it.
"The boards these kids are using today
are okay but they're too light for me."
MADE HIS OWN
114-POUND
BOARD
The board Duke made for himself weighed
about 114 pounds compared to the average
board today which weighs 35 pounds.
"My board was 16 feet of solid redwood and
I made it myself without calipers to shape
it.
"I would just feel and say 'need a little
off here, that's pretty good, little bit here'
and so on until it was like I wanted it.
"Then I'd try it in the water after putting
two coats of shellack on it.
"Finally it was just right. I took it out
and caught a wave. I could feel it. I said,
'Oops, this is it Duke. Don't mess with it
any more. This just what you're looking
for.'
"When I caught a wave with the board,
I rode a long way.
"The longest ride I ever had was on a
35-foot wave and I rode for about a mile and
It was from the Old Castle
one-eighth.
Homes to where the Queen's Surf is today.
"We couldn't maneuver as well as they do
today and it's good to see the progress that
has been made. These kids today can do
a lot of things with a board that we
couldn't."
Even today. Duke remains actively interested in surfing and he says there is no telling how large the sport may become.
In honor of Duke's 75th birthday, four
young surfers, Fred Hemmings, Jr., Butch
Van Artsdalen, Joey Cabell and Paul
Strauch, Jr., are starting a surf club in Duke's
name and hope to build a worldwide membership.
"Who knows how big surfing will become?
It might even become an Olympic sport
someday," Duke said.
"I can't really say where the best surfing
place is. I might say Makaha but I've seen
more of that than any place else.
"I think it is necessary for us to provide
better places for these visiting surfers to
stay if we want to continue attracting them
here for the meets.
"They don't have any reasonable place to
stay so they wind up sleeping on the beaches.
"When I saw that I wanted to help. So,
we're working on it.
"Surfing has helped Hawaii financially by
attracting more people here and we have to
take care of the boys and girls who take part
in the sport.
"Surfing is good for them. It keeps them
off the streets," Duke adds.
Surfing and boating are the two sports
that Duke talks about most today, but
swimming is the sport that made him
famous and the one he learned earliest.
"My father and an uncle threw me into
the water from an outrigger canoe and I had
to swim or else.
"That's the way the old Hawaiians did it.
"I don't know exactly how old I was, but
real young. And I made it back to the boat
OK, too," he laughed.
Duke learned his swimming lessons well
and by the time he was 19, he was breaking
world records in swimming races here in
Hawaii.
For a while officials refused to recognize
his efforts because the recorded t:m_s sezmed
too phenomenal to be possible.
SENATE
August 25, 1965
But, in 1910 Duke's record of 23 seconds
tion across from where the Royal Hawaiian is
for the 50-yard free style was accepted and now and one up in Nuuanu.
put in the record books. He went on to set
"I did it because it was something to do.
many more records in swimming events, all The president of the company asked me if
of them surpassed today.
I wanted a job and I said 'Heck yes, I'm not
Sportswriters have said that Duke never
too proud to pump gas.' "
did swim as fast as he could. He only swam
He got out of the gas pumping business
to win, not to set records.
in 1935 when he was elected to fill the newly
Duke smiles and waves his hand quickly created sheriff's position for Honolulu.
as if to dismiss the whole subject today, and
"I wanted to do both jobs but they told
says, "I broke someone else's records. And me one was enough and I thought it was
someone else broke mine eventually."
more better I be a sheriff," he says.
In 1912 Duke was named to the U.S.
Duke was almost monotonously reelected
Olympic squad and became Hawaii's first to the sheriff's job from then until the post
Olympic athlete.
was abolished in 1961.
He also represented Hawaii at the Olympic
Duke started out as a Republican, switched
Games in 1920, 1924, and in 1932 when he
to Democrat, back to Republican again and
was 42 years old.
it didn't seem to make much difference in
What does he remember best about those the vote count.
times?
"I just decided to return to my old poli"When Jimmy (Jim Thorpe, the Indian
tics," he says.
who became an All-American football player
"You see, did I ever tell you about my job
at Notre Dame) and I were on the boat to
as superintendent at city hall?
the Olympics in Sweden (1912) we had a talk.
"Ha. Superintendent was nothing but of"I said, 'Jimmy, I've seen you run, jump, ficial toilet cleaner but at least I was my
throw things and carry the ball. You do
own boss.
everything so why don't you swim too?'
"Anyway, my mother sort of helped me get
"Jimmy just grinned at me with that big that job.
The Democrats were running
grin he had for everyone, and said, 'Duke, I
things down there then and I was Repubsaved that for you to take care of. I saved
lican.
that for you.' I'll never forget that time."
"Francis Brown went to see my mother
Duke received a gold medal and an Olympic
and asked her if there was anything he could
wreath for winning the 100 meter free style do for her.
swimming event that year and Thorpe won
"I wasn't working at the time, so she said,
almost everything else.
'There's just one thing. Pleasesee
that my
When he returned to the mainland, Thorpe oldest boy,' that's me, 'is taken care of.'
was accused of professionalism by the Amer"So, Francis got me the job, and I sort of
ican Amateur Athletic Commission and was
became a Democrat for a while."
forced to return all of his amateur trophies.
Somewhere along the line Duke appointed
He had reportedly accepted money for himself unofficial greeter for the State, and
playing baseball one summer which made he used to meet the boatloads of visitors.
him a professional athlete and ineligible to
"Oh, I can't remember when I started dotake part in amateur competition like the ing it, but I've been meeting people as long
Olympics.
as I can remember, he says.
Duke says he doesn't like to talk about
"I used to greet them with real carnation
this because it is a very bitter memory.
leis, not these cheap paper ones like today,
"But I will tell you this. Jimmy Thorpe but real expensive carnation leis.
was the greatest athlete there ever was. He
"The malihinis didn't know about the
could do everything. And what happened aloha spirit of Hawaii, so I tried to show
to him was a bad break for sports and for them.
everyone," Duke says.
"I know the beauty of these islands, and I
In 1922 Duke went to Hollywood and wanted them to know it, too.
stayed for 10 years.
"For as far as I can remember back, I have
While there he played numerous roles, been encouraging visitors to go to the neighmostly Indian chiefs, and starred with John
bor islands, too. Each island has something
Wayne.
different to offer.
"I played chiefs. All kinds of chiefs but
"Since my last operation, I don't have
never a Hawaiian," he says.
nearly the stamina any more. Before that
The only time a studio was looking for
I used to get up and go all the time. I could
someone to play a Hawaiian, they bypassed swim and surf all day and night, but not any
Duke for someone who they thought looked more."
more like a real Hawaiian.
Duke underwent brain surgery in 1962 to
Duke continued his swimming and surfing remove a blood clot, and he has been forced
while in Hollywood and one afternoon while to slow down his previously active pace consurfing he rescued eight people from a capsiderably.
sized sailboat in rough waters near the coast.
The operation was performed by Dr. Mauheroics,
paddling rice Silver at Kaiser Hospital, and it actually
His
single-handed
on
his
surffour
times
the
waves
through
saved Duke's life.
board to save the eight people, made wideDuke jokes about the whole thing today,
spread headlines.
'but realizes he must take it easy.
But Duke remembers his swimming with
"It didn't hurt at all when the doctor was
fellow Olympic champion, Johnny Weiss- drilling those pukas in my head, but it felt
muller and playing second string on the Hol- sort of funny, because I could hear the bit
lywood Athletic Club's water polo team much drilling into the bone.
better.
"After the operation and after I got out of
"In the 1924 Olympics, Johnny placed the hospital, I was ordered to take it easy.
So we went to Kauai for a vacation.
first in the 100-yard free style, me second
and my brother Sam, third. Sam was no
"Everyone was going swimming, so I
slouch you know. He used to give us a jumped in, too. Thought I was smart, you
know.
rough time.
"They had to help me out of the water be"And Johnny used to joke that if it wasn't
for the tricks I taught him while we were cause I couldn't get out by myself. That
scared
me a little."
together in California, he wouldn't have beat
me."
Duke says he still gets around on his moVeissmuller later went on to movie fame torboat at the Waikiki Yacht Club and enas Tarzan and he and Duke have maintained joys anything that takes him near the water.
their friendship over the years.
"I use my motorboat to be patrolman durDuke left Hollywood in 1932 and returned ing sailing races when I'm not racing. No
to the islands to work at numerous odd jobs. one else likes that job and the club doesn't
He became a service station manager in have a boat for that purpose any more, so I
1934 for Union Oil Co. He operated a sta- do the job when I can.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
"I'malways near the water, doing anything
that I can and I still swim too."
Some people say Duke has done more for
Hawaii than any other person.
His planned Surfer's Club and the Duke
Kahanamoku surfing meet are evidence that
he is still trying to do more.
Another thing Duke would like to see for
Hawaii is a hall of fame for all prominent
athletes from countries bordering on the Pacific Ocean.
He says excellent athletes from each sports
category would be included in this hall of
fame.
Duke says he might even dig up his multitude of medals, trophies, cups, and ribbons
for display if such a thing is ever brought
about.
When asked where he keeps all of his
awards, Duke says, "Oh, here and there.
Some of them are hidden, some of them lost
probably. But I would find them for our
hall of fame."
Plans for this project are also in the early
stages.
This year is also Duke's 25th wedding anniversary.
He met his wife Nadine, then a young
dancing instructor for Arthur Murray at the
Royal Hawaiian Hotel, in 1940.
They were married August 2, that year on
the big island. Duke was 50 years old then.
He describes their romance like this.
"I was on the beach at Waikiki one day and
I saw her sitting at the hotel. It sort of
struck me. Like, she's my girl, you know
what I mean?
"I found out where she worked and then
I went to see her and offered to teach her
swimming if she would teach me to dance.
"She taught me to dance but she wouldn't
accept my swimming lessons. I don't know
why.
"She said she loved me the first time she
saw me."
Duke and Nadine tried to elope to the big
island and get married without anyone knowing about it but one of Duke's sisters leaked
the news.
The radio stations were broadcasting the
fact that we were married before the event
actually took place, Duke says.
They weren't always as well off financially
as they are today, Duke adds.
"In fact, we were poor people for a while,"
he says. "Flat broke."
After 25 years of marriage Duke says they
are very happy.
"We are very close and very, very happy,"
he says.
Just because he met his wife at Waikiki,
however, Duke doesn't necessarily think
that's a good place to meet a prospective
bride today.
"It all depends on the situation. One
place is like another. You have good and
bad down there today. A lot of those skimpy
bikinis and all.
"I liked the days when women wore their
skirts so they covered their knees," he says.
"Of course, some of them look pretty good
in those bikinis," he adds with a big grin.
"A long time ago, they used to come only
to Oahu; but now they are getting smarter.
They stay here for a few days and then see
the other islands too. That's good for everyone."
In 1960 he was appointed official city and
county greeter and he still holds that position.
However, Duke says he doesn't get around
to greet too many people any more.
"At my restaurant, Duke's, in Waikiki, we
have so many people we have to chase them
away sometimes.
"Once in a while I get down there to greet
the people but it's hard because so many
people say 'Hey Duke! Remember me?'
"I try to remember them all but it's impossible."
SENATE
Duke had known many people in his lifetime, including the last of the Hawaiian
monarchs, and he has lived through and
helped shape Hawaii from one era to another.
After thinking only for a short while,
Duke says he liked the old days better, the
days before the wars.
"I knew Queen Liliuokalani and King
Kalakaua. I was a pallbearer at the Queen's
funeral," he says.
He says, however, that it would be even
better to be a youngster today.
"If I were young today, it would be even
better.
"I would try real hard to break records
and I would be in every sport just like I
was, but there is more opportunity today.
"There's no end to the good things for
Hawaii and there's no end to what a young
boy can do here today," he says.
LET'S SAVE THE WASHINGTON
NAVY YARD
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I am
pleased to announce to my colleagues
that Senators BREWSTER, HARTKE, MANSFIELD, MUSKIE, SCOTT, WILLIAMS of New
Jersey, and TYDINGS have joined with
me in cosponsoring S. 1927, legislation
designed to preserve certain lands and
structures of the Washington Navy
Yard as an area of historic interest. The
entire text of this legislation together
with my introductory remarks were
printed in the RECORD on May 10, 1965,
page 10011.
Mr. President, the Washington Navy
Yard, as initially surveyed by George
Washington lies on the eastern branch
of the Potomac, now called the Anacostia River, and was the first such Navy
yard to be appropriated for our young
country. The famous architect-designer,
Benjamin Henry LaTrobe, designed the
main arcade and the Commandant's
house in 1805. These buildings, incidentally, are still standing and are in
good condition.
We need a national naval museum,
and I can think of no better place for
one than in the Nation's Capital. The
service of the U.S. Navy in the development of our country should not be neglected, and deserves a place for posterity so that the entire Nation might
view for all time this service and tradition. The United States does not have
a national naval museum as do other
countries, and I think that it is high
time that we begin to think of having
one.
For the moment, most of the initial
lands of the Washington Navy Yard
have been turned over to the General
Services Administrator by the Navy De-
partment because the lands and buildings were no longer needed for military
purposes.
But I,
for one, feel that it
would be intolerable to have this historysteeped facility further turned over to
the "warehousers" and the "high-risers"
for commercial exploitation-losing forever the historical significance and
meaning of the Washington Navy Yard.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent
to include two articles at the conclusion
of my remarks dealing with the current
status and history of the Washington
Navy Yard. The first article, from the
August issue of Navy, the Magazine of
21699
Seapower, tells of the present scope of
the U.S. Naval Display Center located at
the Navy yard. The second article, from
the Washington Post, by Staff Writer
Richard Corrigan, discusses the various
legislative proposals in the 89th Congress and the meaning of this legislation.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Navy, the Magazine of Seapower,
August 1965]
WASHINGTON'S RICH NAVAL HERITAGE
(By Joel Truitt, contributing writer)
Since Federal days, Washington has been
the naval capital of our country. The Naval
Observatory, the Navy Yard, the first Government drydocks, and the family homes of
Commodore Stephen Decatur, Benjamin
Stoddard, and other personalities who helped
shape the U.S. Navy, are located there.
This summer is a particularly good time
to visit Washington and see these naval
treasure troves. The new U.S. Naval Historical Display Center is open this season for
the first time, the Truxtun-Decatur Naval
Museum has been reopened after extensive
remodeling, and the Stephen Decatur House
will remain open until early fall when it will
undergo restoration. Admission to the first
two places is free; there is a small charge at
Decatur House. All are open daily and on
most weekends.
THE NAVY YARD
It was the foresight of Benjamin Stoddard,
the first Secretary of the Navy, which convinced Congress in 1799 to establish in Washington the first Government-owned Navy
yard and drydocks large enough to build 74gunners. After four name changes and four
major wars, it no longer functions in this
historic role. On December 31, 1961, the
yard closed its industrial doors.
Today the yard, which is still Navy property, provides office and storage space for a
number of Government agencies and housing
for 14 admirals, most of whom live on "admiral's row." The best known of these residences is Tingey House, named after the
yard's first commanding officer, Commodore
Thomas Tingey. It was designed by the
famous English architect Benjamin H. Latrobe. The house fronts on a manicured
green around whose edge are cannons and
naval pieces representative of those produced
and used at the yard. Docked at the several
piers are ships of the Reserve Fleet-a submarine and a destroyer-tugs, vessels of the
Navy Diving School, and President's yacht
the Honey Fitz, named by the late President
Kennedy.
DISPLAY
CENTER
The U.S. Naval Historical Display Center,
located in the Navy Yard on the waterfront,
is the Navy's newest museum.
Housed in a vast factory building built 33
years before the Civil War, the Center has
on exhibit such items as a French Empire
"dolphin" sofa from Old Ironsides, dioramas
of several wars, ship models including the
Confederate submarine Hunley and remnants
from the steamer Jeanette, which was lost
on an Arctic expedition in 1882.
More recent events have provided the museum with such items as the crook and
lanyard used to haul Comdr. Alan B. Shepard from his spacecraft in 1961 and an exhibit depicting the loss of the nuclearpowered submarine U.S.S. Thresher.
On the green in front of the building are
displayed some of the pieces manufactured
in the yard's past: a Dahlgren gun, mortars,
rockets, bombs, mines, submarines, and the
first radar used aboard ship-and it still
works.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
21700
The Display Center is under the command
of Rear Adm. E. M. Eller, U.S. Navy (retired), Curator of Naval History, and is managed by Capt. Slade Cutter, U.S. Navy, and
a small staff.
DECATUR HOUSE
After Commodore Decatur defeated the
Barbary Coast pirates, he returned to Washington in 1816 to build a house for his bride,
Susan Wheeler.
Built by Benjamin H. Latrobe, Decatur
House soon became the social center of
Washington under its charming hostess.
Fourteen months later, however, Decatur
was killed in a duel with Commodore James
Barron, and Mrs. Decatur moved from the
house.
Mrs. Truxtun Beale bequeathed the house
to the national trust upon her death in
1956. Her family owned the house for over
80 years. The Beales head the list of such
famous occupants of the fashionable Federal-style residence as: Henry Clay, Mar;in
Van Buren, and Edward Livingston.
This fall the house will be closed for restoration. The elaborate Victorian gaslight
chandeliers and furnishings on the second
floor will remain, in tribute to the Beale's.
The first floor, though, will receive extensive restoration. The rare wood in the
floor imported from California will be replaced by the original planking. Original
Latrobe fireplaces will be put in place, and
much of the carpentry work about the windows will change. Even the gardens will
be replanted according to the 1816 plan.
TRUXTUN-DECATUR MUSEUM
Curiously, the museum bearing the name
of two famous early American naval commanders houses our Nation's Civil War naval
exhibits.
Located in the converted stables to Decatur House, it has recently been remodeled
and the exhibits refurbished. Not only are
the exhibits, models and relics of historical
interest, but the display cases themselves
have history. They are hand-me-downs
from the earliest sections of the Smithsonian Institution.
Built of fine woods of
graceful design, they provide a striking contrast to the museum's modern interior.
[From the Washington Post]
BILLS CONSIDER NAVY YARD'S HISTORY
(By Richard Corrigan)
They used to wheel whisky into the Washington Navy Yard in 100-barrel lots, and the
men would lay down their hammers for a
minute and lay into the whisky. Commandant Tingey wanted things that way because the shipbuilders had been spending
too much time in the grog shops and the
gunboats weren't going down the slip fast
enough.
That was back in the early 1800's, in the
days when life along the Anacostia River
really had a salty tang to it because the
Washington Navy Yard was going to be the
shipbuilding center of this new sea-going
Nation.
Nowadays there is a water cooler alongside
the slip, and the men talk about the tugboat
that was in for repairs a couple of weeks
ago. Sometimes a stiff breeze comes upriver,
and there is a faint smell of the salty ocean
far away, but the stronger taint comes from
the dead fish floating belly-up in the
channel.
RIVER VIEW GONE
From the commandant's house back by
the Eighth Street gatehouse, there used to
be a clear view across the green and down
to the river. But even if the ghost of
Thomas Tingey still prowls through that
house carrying his brass spyglass under his
nightshirt, as the legend has it, he can't see
the river any more.
Instead, the view is of brick and plaster
and TV antennas, of twisting streets and
SENATE
cobblestone alleys, of a crowded military reservation that buzzes to the uninspiring
sounds of "administrative functions."
They don't build ships at the Navy yard
any more, and they don't make cannon or
guns or rockets or anything else. Other
cities have deeper harbors and congressional
pull, and all the contracts are gone.
So now the talk is of saving some of the
oldest sections of the old yard for historic
display. Several bills to this effect have been
introduced in both Houses of Congress, with
bipartisan sponsorship, and the Defense Department has been asked to submit its views
on the project.
The yard is awash with history, just as
the Anacostia itself used to wash over much
of its 125-acre site. For a while it was
Washington's biggest enterprise-until Tingey put the torch to it in 1812 when the
British troops approached.
Tingey's house and the old gatehouse were
saved, however, and the yard got back in
business soon enough. Sloops and frigates
and schooners were launched, and sailed off
to the West Indies and the Barbary Coast
and the Orient.
Yet the yard became more and more of an
ordnance plant through the years, turning
out cannon for the ships being built elsewhere. During the Civil War it was also
used to hold Confederate prisoners, but at
the end of that war there was talk of closing the place altogether.
ACTIVE IN
WORLD WAR
During the First and Second World Wars
the yard hummed again, and in the old
brick buildings where sails used to be strung
more cannon and guns were forged. At its
peak days in World War II the yard employed 10,000, and every style of firepower
the Navy used was made there.
In the immediate postwar years the yard
was turning out rocket and missile components, too. But that didn't last either.
The place is officially called the Navy Yard
again instead of the Naval Weapons Plant,
and it serves as a training and office center
for dozens of different functions, such as
keeping watch over the Presidential yachts.
But the General Services Administration is
closing in to starboard, and the Library of
Congress now keeps its catalog cards there.
The proposed legislation would shield the
Tingey House, the old foundry and farmhouse and several other venerable buildings
from such encroachment if the Navy should
ever quit the yard. And old ships might
tie up outside the new U.S. Naval Museum
down at dockside to give the place more of
a maritime look.
The legislation would save the yard from
the sad fate that befell its first big sailing
ship, the sloop of war Wasp, which in 1 short
day in 1812 gained glory by capturing the
British brig Frolic only to be overcome by
another British ship, pressed into His
Majesty's service and later lost at sea off the
Virginia coast.
THE 130TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
ARRIVAL OF THE FIRST RAILROAD
TRAIN IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON
Mr. TYDINGS.
Mr. President, today
marks an important date in the history
of railroad engineering. Today is the
130th anniversary of the arrival of the
first railroad train in the city of Washington. It originated in the great city of
Baltimore and operated on the Baltimore
& Ohio Railroad line.
The B. & 0. was
formed in 1827 to provide a means of
transport between the port of Baltimore
and the Ohio River. Its first terminus
was Ellicott's Mills. It then progressed to
August 25, 1965
Harper's Ferry and was completed in
1835.
While this main-line work was in progress, officials began to see the value of a
branch line into Washington. Its necessity became increasingly evident as work
was begun on connecting links from New
York to Philadelphia to Balitmore, and
a new line was begun from Relay House
to the Nation's Capital.
Three river
crossings were necessary along the way.
The bridge over the Patapsco River near
Relay is still in use, and stands as a monument to the outstanding ability of Benjamin H. Latrobe, the engineer who de-
signed it. Students of architecture who
are familiar with the construction details
of our Capitol Building will recall the
name. The father of the B. & 0. engineer
was famous as an architect and was
called to Washington by President Jefferson and given the task of completing
the Capitol Building.
The bridge was built to hold 6-ton locomotives, but daily carries hundreds of
tons of railroad equipment, bespeaking
the grandeur of the structure. It is 700
feet long, has 8 elliptical arches, each 60
feet in width, and about 65 feet above the
level of the stream, and is built on a
curve.
Railroad buffs in Maryland have not
forgotten that glorious day in 1935 when
the 100th anniversary of that famous
Baltimore to Washington ride was commemorated. Mr. Allan H. Constance, one
of Maryland's leading railroad enthusiasts, has sent me a copy of the description of that day 30 years ago. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include
at this point in the RECORD a description
of that day as taken from "The Story of
the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad," by
Edward Hungerford.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
It is the 25th day of August 1935, and a
warm summer sun already is shining down
upon the heads, the hats and the parasols
of the privileged folk who are making their
way to the immaculate new cars drawn up
in Pratt Street just opposite the inner depot
at Charles. Nearly a thousand folk come to
ride upon this excursion. * * * Sixteen cars
are not going to be enough for all this throng.
A messenger is sent on horseback up to
Mount Clare. More cars come sliding down
through pleasant, tree-embowered Pratt
Street.
Off and away, at last. Up the long hill
toward the edge of the town and the upper
tepot. And here at the upper depot, four
brandnew locomotives, spic and span and
shined almost to the last possibility of human effort * * *. These engines have been
built by Baltimore manpower. * * * They
are also of the upright boiler type, which,
with its huge, ungainly rods and arms and
joints, is beginning to be known colloquially
in Baltimore as the "grasshopper" engine.
These engines-the George Washington,
the John Adams, the Thomas Jefferson, and
the James Madison-divided the heavily
laden cars among them.
A little delay and they are off * * *. By
this time the road up to the wonderful new
stone bridge over the Patapsco-curious how
these Baltimore folk will persist in calling
it Latrobe's Folly * * * is fairly familiar.
But beyond, the country is new to most of
the party, save to those who have been steady
travelers over the Washington TurnpikeBladensburg is the first stop. The party dis-
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
Third, I wonder if he realizes that his
regards the instructions in the morning paper and go tumbling out there. A trainload policy and lack of action in this matter
of bigwigs over from Washington comes for- is giving those of us who have not made
ward to meet the Baltimore trains * * *
a final decision on the proposed repeal
The new depot in Washington at the foot
of section 14(b) strong motivation for
of the hill just back of the Capitol (Pennsylvoting against repeal of section 14(b).
vania Avenue and Second Street) was by no
means complete, but the trains were able to
approach it and there discharge their passenBIG BROTHER: NEED FOR NEW
gers who formed themselves behind a military band and proceeded to Gadsby's and
WIRETAP LAW
Brown's Hotels, where there was a customary
Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presibanquet * * *. At half past 4 o'clock, the
dent, last February I received a most infour trains were again in motion, homeward
bound. And the record of the memorable teresting letter from Judge Samuel H.
Ohio
day in the annals of the Baltimore &
Hofstadter, of the Supreme Court of
closes with the fact that the upper depot at New York, on the need for new wiretap
Mount Clare was reached 2 hours and 20 legislation. The judge and Prof. George
minutes later.
Horowitz have authored the book "The
Right to Privacy."
More recently, the judge published a
THE SHORTAGE OF APPLE PICKERS
most provocative letter in the New York
Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, the
Herald Tribune, July 31, 1965, on the
Lewiston Daily Sun, one of the great
same subject.
newspapers of Maine and noted for its
Having received the judge's permisexcellent editorials, has literally hit the
nail on the head in its editorial of August sion, I ask unanimous consent to have
both these letters and a decision printed
20, 1965, entitled "No Canadian Apple
Pickers." I ask unanimous consent that at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
it be placed in the body of the RECORD
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
at this point.
as
follows:
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, [From the New York Herald Tribune, July 31,
1965]
as follows:
No CANADIANAPPLE PICKERS
The U.S. Secretary of Labor, W. Willard
Wirtz, has advised Senator MARGARET CHASE
SMITH that it will not be necessary to import
Canadian workers to harvest the apple crop
in Maine this year. Enough American workers will be available, he said.
We hope that Secretary Wirtz proves to be
correct. The apple harvest is nearly upon
us and it won't wait. Either the apples are
picked when ready, or they spoil, like any
other produce.
The Maine Employment Security Commission has launched a program to recruit workers for the apple growers, and the U.S. Department of Labor is financing recruitment
efforts. Meanwhile, apple growers themselves
are looking around for willing hands to take
part in the harvest. Their entire investment
is at stake. If apples go unpicked, they represent a dual loss: The apples themselves
and the fact that the public has to pay a
premium price for those harvested if the
supply is not normal.
Last year, about 1,100 workers were employed for the Maine apple harvest. About
400 of them were Canadian migrant workers.
The latter are the ones which Secretary
Wirtz want to replace with Americans, in
order to bolster employment in the United
States.
In the days ahead, the success of the recruitment efforts will be decided.
If an
insufficient number of Americans sign up,
then Secretary Wirtz should exercise his
authority and grant an exception for the
importation of the necessary Canadian
workers. It would be poor economics to let
the apples go to waste for lack of pickers,
while a willing labor force sits on its hands
across a friendly border.
Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, I have
three observations to make on this matter. First, I wonder if Secretary of
Labor Wirtz realizes the great jeopardy
in which he is placing Maine applegrowers-and the great economic loss with
which Maine is threatened because of his
policy thus far.
Second, surely he can do for the applegrowers of Maine what he has done for
the potato growers, instead of discriminating against the applegrowers.
A FEDERAL WIRETAP LAW
To the Herald Tribune:
Your editorial, "Wiretapping Gone Wrong"
(July 18), is most cogent. It is timely, too,
because of the hearings recently held in
Washington by the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Administrative Practice and Procedure
(of which U.S. Senator EDWARDV. LONG, of
Missouri, is chairman).
Instead of flouting existing law, all governmental officers, both Federal and State,
will be better advised to cooperate in formulating a rational compromise ir an endeavor
to secure congressional approval for use of
"taps" in such areas as subversion, murder,
kidnaping, racketeering, and the like. The
President's action (occasioned by the abuses
of the Revenue Service), purporting to restrict unlawful practices is commendable,
but not adequate, especially because it is
without basis in existing law. Rigid controls,
such as prior judicial approval, should be
imposed by congressional legislation to prevent abuse. Unauthorized "taps" should be
severely punished; and they should not be
received in evidence in any civil or criminal
case.
The dismal art of wiretapping has engendered sharp conflict, raising issues on
which equally intelligent and well-meaning
people hold different opinions. Some would
permit it freely by law enforcement officers;
others would limit it; still others would outlaw it altogether, believing that possible advantage is outweighed by the potential
mischief which inheres in its use. But the
American principle of honorable accommodation dictates that we adopt a reasonable compromise to solve the tangled issue-including
the vexing problem of Federal-State relations-by securing Federal legislation to permit use of "taps" in limited areas by State
as well as Federal officers, under strict supervision-and sanctions for excesses.
This
offers a fair balance between the right of
privacy and the needs of modern law
enforcement.
Under existing law (section 605 of the
Federal Communications Act), all "tapping"-by either Federal or State officialsis unlawful. Conduct to the contrary by
constituted authorities (including the FBI)
has been a grave disservice. The Federal act
overrode any State enactments-such as we
have in New York-purporting to authorize
21701
wiretapping. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly so ruled in the Benanti case in 1957.
Since then, some enforcement officers have
honored this ruling; others have not. Moreover, New York's appellate courts have upheld the use of taps, though illegally secured,
in both civil and criminal cases. Under any
new Federal legislation it should be rendered
manifest that this course is proscribed except
in the limited areas indicated.
Until restricted and explicit Federal legislative approval is forthcoming, no "taps"
should be "authorized," nor made, nor received in evidence in any court. How shall
there be respect for the law of authority if
authority does not respect the law?
SAMUEL H. HOFSTADTER.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
February16,1965.
Senator EDWARD V. LONG,
Chairman,Subcommittee on Administrative
Practice and Procedure of the Judiciary
Committee, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR LONG: Instead of flouting
existing law, enforcement officers, both Federal and State, will be better advised to cooperate in formulating a rational compromise in an endeavor to secure congressional
approval for use of "taps" in such limited
areas as subversion, murder, kidnaping and
the like. Rigid control, such as prior judicial approval, should be imposed to prevent
abuse.
Unauthorized "taps" should be
severely punished; and they should not be received in evidence in any civil or criminal
case.
The dismal art of wiretapping has engendered sharp conflict; raising issues on which
equally intelligent and well-meaning people
hold different opinions. Some would permit
it freely by law enforcement officers; others
would limit it; still others would outlaw it
altogether, believing that possible advantage
is outweighed by the potential mischief
which inheres in its use. I incline to the
latter view. But the American principle of
honorable accommodation dictates that we
adopt a compromise to solve the tangled
issue-including the vexing problem of Federal-State relations by securing Federal legislation to permit use of "taps" in limited
areas by State as well as Federal officers, under
strict supervision and sanctions for excesses.
This offers a fair balance between the right
of privacy and the needs of modern law enforcement.
Under existing law (sec. 605 of the Federal
Communications Act), all "tapping"-by
either Federal of State officials-is unlawful.
Conduct to the contrary by constituted authorities (including the FBI) has been a
grave disservice. And the intransigence of
the "absolutists" has compounded the difficulty. For, it has postponed action by Congress which alone can resolve the impasse.
The Federal act overrode any State enactments-such as we have in New York purwiretapping. The
porting to authorize
Supreme Court has explicitly so ruled. In
the Benanti case decided on December 9, 1957,
Chief Justice Warren said: "The constitution
and statutes of the State of New York provide that an ex parte order authorizing wiretapping be issued by judges of a certain
rank. * * * [But] keeping in mind the comprehensive scheme of interstate regulations,
we find that Congress, setting out a prohibition in plain terms, did not mean to allow
State legislation which contradicts that section [605] and policy."
On January 2, 1958, in a formal memorandum (a copy of which is enclosed) I advised enforcement and prosecuting officers
that I could not, and would not, honor any
applications for a wiretap authorization, saying: "Clearly a judge may not lawfully set
the wheels in motion toward the illegality
by signing an order-the warrant itself partakes of the breech, willful or inadvertent, of
21702
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
the Federal law. Such breach may not find
sanction in the orders of courts charged with
the support of the law of the land and with
enforcing that law."
Since then District Attorney Hogan, of New
York County, and perhaps others, have desisted from either applying for any authorization to acquire taps or to use them if
others secured them contrary to law. Unfortunately, still others have not been so
scrupulous in honoring the supreme law of
the land. Moreover, appellate courts have
upheld their use in both civil and criminal
cases. Under any new Federal legislation
it should be rendered manifest that this
course is proscribed except in the limited
areas indicated.
Until such restricted and explicit Federal
legislative approval is forthcoming, no "taps"
should be "authorized," nor made, nor received in evidence in any court. How shall
there be respect for the law of author:ty if
authority does not respect the law?
Cordially yours,
SAMUEL H. HOFSTADTER,
Justice, Supreme Court,
State of New York.
COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF MR. JUSTICE SAMUEL
H. HOFSTADTER RE WIRETAPPING IN PROCEEDINGS AT SPECIAL TERM, PART II OF THE SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY, JANUARY 2, 1958
SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY, SPECIAL
TERM, PART II-IN THE MATTER OF INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS
J. HOFSTADTER.Under the decision of the
US. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Benanti, 26
U.S. Law Week, 4045, decided December 9,
1957, no wiretap order pursuant to section
813a of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1 may
lawfully be issued.
As we have no system of advisory opinions
in this State and, according to our practice,
applications for wiretaps are made at special
term part II, this memorandum will apprise
enforcement and prosecuting officers that
while I preside at special term part II during
this month, no application for a wiretap
order will be honored.
Under the decision in Benanti, orders authorizing interceptions are contrary to controlling Federal law. Its authority requires
me, therefore, to deny any applicaiton for
such an order. For all wiretaps, whether
"authorized" or not, in this State are now
illegal. In Matter of Interception of Telephone Communications, 207 Misc. 69. I
denied an application in the exercise of discretion; any further application would have
to be denied because of lack of lawful competence.
There may be those who differ from this
interpretation of the Supreme Court decision. In that event, the result of these proceedings may be the salutary one that the
view expressed here can be challenged and
become the subject of authoritative determination by our State appellate courts; subject, of course, to any ultimate review in the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States have adumbrated the expectancy that legal safeguards will provide
the needed bridge between the moral and
legal law. Time and again, the gap between
moral and legal law has been spannedsometimes by the slow and painful process
1
So far as here material, sec. 813a of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (enacted under
art. I, sec. 12 of the State constitution)
reads: "An ex parte order for the interception
* * * of * * * telephonic communications
may be issued by any justice of the Supreme
Court * * * when
there is
reasonable
ground to believe that evidence of crime may
be thus obtained * * *." Any reference in
this memorandum to this section applies
only to telephone interceptions.
SENATE
of the innovation of time, and sometimes
by a courageous leap into the future. Such
an advance has been effected by the Benanti
case. In clear accents, it tolls the knell
of all wiretapping, including so-called legal
wiretapping, in our State. Following the
holding in Weiss v. U.S., 308 U.S. 321 it
flatly proclaims, in language which no one
can mistake, that an interception of a telephone communication, even by a State law
enforcement officer acting under an order
issued pursuant to section 813a, constitutes
a violation of section 605 of the Federal
Communications Act (47 U.S.C., title 47).
Its expressions are compelling-it is explicit
that the warrant of the order does not make
the wiretap legal; it is implicit that the
order itself is unlawful.
New York police officers, suspecting one
Benanti of dealing in narcotics, obtained
a wiretap order from the court. As a result
of the wiretap he was arrested. It was found
that he was not a dealer in narcotics but a
bootlegger of whisky. He was turned over to
Federal agents for prosecution. On his trial
the State officers were permitted to testify
to the wiretapped conversation. On appeal
from his conviction the U.S. court of appeals
decided, as a matter of first impression, that
where there is no participation by a Federal
officer the Communications Act does not bar,
in a Federal court, the admissibility of evidence obtained by State officers by wiretaps
in violation of the act.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this
conclusion. It held unanimously that wiretapping by New York State law enforcement
officers, although authorized by the State
constitution and statutes, violated Federal
law and the evidence was inadmissible. The
Court found no exemption for State officials in section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which reads: "No person not being authorized by the sender shall
intercept any communication and divulge or
publish the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication * * *."
Chief Justice Warren said: "The constitution and statutes of the State of New York
provide that an ex parte order authorizing
a wiretap may be issued by judges of a certain rank * * *. It is not urged that, constitutionally speaking, Congress is without
power to forbid such wiretapping even in
the face of a conflicting State law * * *.
Rather the argument is that Congress has
not exercised this power and that section
605, being general in its terms should not be
deemed to operate to prevent a State from
authorizing wiretapping in the exercise of
its legitimate police functions. However, we
read the Federal Communications Act and
section 605, in particular, to the contrary.
The Federal Communications Act is a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of interstate communication. In order to safeguard those interests, protected under section 605, that portion of the statute perti-.
nent to this case applied both to intrastate
and to interstate communications * * *, In
light of the above considerations, and keeping in mind this comprehensive scheme of
interstate regulation and the public policy
underlying section 605 as part of that scheme
we find that Congress, setting out a prohibition in plain terms, did not mean to allow
State legislation which would contradict
that section and that policy (cp. Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497; Hill v. Florida,
325 U.S. 538; Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S.
52)."
In the Benanti case, the U.S. court of appeals for this circuit had said: "Despite the
warrant issued by the New York State court
pursuant to New York law, we have no alternative other than to hold that by tapping
the wires, intercepting the communication
made by appellant and divulging at the trial
what they had overheard, the New York police
officers violated the Federal statute (Nardone
August 25, 1965
v. U.S., 302 U.S. 379, 308 U.S. 338; Weiss v.
United States, 308 U.S. 321). Section 605 of
47 United States Code is too explicit to warrant any other inference-and the Weiss case
made its terms applicable to intrastate communications" (244 Fed. 2d 389).
These views of the court of appeals regarding the illegality of the authorized
wiretap were confirmed by the Supreme
Court, but its ruling of the admissibility of
the fruits of the tap was overruled, the Supreme Court basing its decision on the intent of the Federal Communications Act.
After its first pronouncement, the U.S.
court of appeals, several months later, reiterated its views on the illegality of intrastate interceptions, saying: "Appellant next
contends that the act does not apply to the
calls he intercepted, because they were intrastate in character rather than interstate or
foreign. This contention is completely refuted by Weiss v. U.S. (308 U.S. 321), wherein
the Court said at page 327: '* * * Plainly
the interdiction thus pronounced is not
limited to interstate and foreign communications. And, as Congress has power, when
necessary for the protection of interstate
commerce, to regulate intrastate transactions,
there is no constitutional requirement that
the scope of the statute be limited so as to
exclude intrastate communications.' And at
page 329: 'We hold that the broad and inclusive language of the second clause of the
section is not to be limited by construction
so as to exclude intrastate communica(United States v. Cris, 247 Fed. 2d
tions.'"
860.)
Thus, section 605, as interpreted by controlling Federal judicial authority renders
unlawful the interception of all telephone
messages within our State, even by an officer
acting under an order of this courts; it cannot be within the competence of this court,
properly exercised, to "authorize" such an
unlawful act-section 813a of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to the contrary notwithstanding. For "in case of conflict, the State
law, not an otherwise unobjectionable Federal statute, must give way," under the Constitution. (United States v. Gris, supra.)
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, article VI, clause 2, provides: "This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States, which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof * * * shall be the supreme Law of
the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary
And, since Gibbons v.
notwithstanding."
Ogden, 9 Wheaton 1, it has been firmly established that when Congress enacts legislation
within its competence, and it becomes the
"supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, State interests must yield to the
paramount national concern. The law of
the General Government governs. The exercise by Congress of its power is absolute-it
precludes, modifies, or suspends-as the case
may be-local legislation in conflict2 or inconsistent with Federal enactments.
2 Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniav. Nelson
restated the rules for determining whether a
Federal statute may be supplemented by a
State enactment, where, as here, Congress
has not stated specifically that its legislation
fully occupied a field in which the States
would otherwise be free to legislate. The
touchstones for decision, said the Supreme
Court, were: First, that the scheme of Federal regulation was so pervasive as to make
reasonable the inference that Congress left
no room for the States to supplement it.
Second, that the Federal statute touched a
field in which the Federal interest was so
dominant that the Federal system must be
assumed to preclude enforcement of the
State laws on the same subject. Third, that
enforcement of the State statute would present a serious danger of conflict with the
Federal program.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
In the interpretation and construction of
Federal judicial rulings are
Federal statutes,
3
controlling. The Supreme Court has held
that the Communications Act is an "express, absolute prohibition" against interception or divulgence of wiretapping with no
qualifications-that when State officers indulge in wiretapping they are violating Federal law and subject themselves to Federal
prosecution. So long, therefore, as section
605 of the Federal Communications Act remains the law, so much of section 813a of
our Code of Criminal Procedure which permits interceptions, is inoperative.
Hence, even when authorized, interceptions of telephone messages within this State
are illegal. Yet, orders have been issuing
and interceptions have been made. As Benanti and Gris now make it painfully clear,
the orders so issuing out of the courts to
"authorize" interceptions, have been void
because contrary to law.
These decisions require that we now cease
and desist, for it cannot be lawful to authorize what is an illegal act. It is more
and worse than a mere futility-for if the
police officer violates the Federal statute by
tapping wires notwithstanding a warrant issued out of this court pursuant to New York
law-if that act be illegal-those who set the
act in motion have condoned if not instigated illegality. Clearly a judge may not
lawfully set the wheels in motion toward
the illegality by signing an order-the warrant itself partakes of the breach, willful or
inadvertent, of the Federal law. Such
breach may not find sanction in the orders
of courts charged with the support of the
law of the land and with enforcing that
law:
Dated January 2, 1958.
J.S.C.
A unanimous decision, handed down by
the Supreme Court of the United States on
December 9, 1957, affects the course of this
part-special term part II-of our court, in
an important area, namely, applications for
orders under section 813a of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. On the first day of the
opening of Court, therefore, it is appropriate
to record this court's opinion of the matter
as it will affect the action to be taken by me
while I preside at special term part II during this month.
In view of recent events, it seems especially
desirable that the matter be clarified
promptly.
It is desirable that the practice of this and
other courts be uniform. If the views herein
expressed are correct they will be sustained
by appellate authority; if I have erred they
should be redressed promptly by proper review in an appropriate proceeding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
furthermorning business? If not, morning business is closed.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1966
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the unfinished
business be laid before the Senate.
3
Sadowski v. L.I.R.R. Co., 292 N.Y. 448,
453; Brown v. Remembrance, 279 App. Div.
410, 412, affd. 304 N.Y. 909; Ruggiero v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 272 App. Div. 1027,
affd. 298 N.Y. 775; see also Bailey v. Central
Vermont Ry., 319 U.S. 350, 352; Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271
U.S. 472, 474; Jacobs v. Reading Co., 130 F.
2d 612, 614; Albert Pick & Co. v. Wilson, 19
F. 2d 18, 19. It is implicit in the cases constituting prevailing authority that authoritative Federal decisions even when not those
of the Supreme Court, govern; it has been
rendered explicit, too. See especially Ruggiero v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra.
SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK.
A bill (H.R.
9221) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
resumed the consideration of the bill.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Montana for the
purpose of making such remarks as he
may see fit.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consider executive business to
consider the nomination for the Tax
Court only.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to the consideration of executive business.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the
Senate messages from the President of
the United States submitting sundry
21703
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the confirmation of the nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the President will be notified forthwith.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, the Senate resumed
the consideration of legislative business.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DURING
SESSION OF THE SENATE TODAY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee on the Judiciary
be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
nominations, which were referred to the
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had passed a joint resolution (H.J. Res.
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A
639) making continuing appropriations
COMMITTEE
for the fiscal year 1966, and for other
The following favorable report of purposes, in which it requested the connominations was submitted:
currence of the Senate.
By Mr. MONRONEY, from the Committee on
The message also announced that the
Post Office and Civil Service:
House had agreed to the amendments of
ninety-six
postmaster
One hundred and
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4465) to ennominations.
act part III of the District of Columbia
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there Code, entitled "Decedents' Estates and
be no further reports of committees, the Fiduciary Relations," codifying the genclerk will state the nomination on the eral and permanent laws relating to decedents' estate and fiduciary relations
Executive Calendar.
in the District of Columbia.
The message further announced that
TAX COURT
the House had agreed to the e-lendment
The Chief Clerk read the nomination of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6964) to
of Charles R. Simpson, of Illinois, to be amend section 4082 of title 18, United
a judge of the Tax Court of the United States Code, to facilitate the rehabilitaStates for the unexpired term of 12 years tion of persons convicted of offenses
against the United States.
from June 2, 1956.
The message also announced that the
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is con- House concurred in the amendment of
Senate to the bill (H.R. 5280) to
the
firmed.
appropriate committees.
(For nominations this day received,
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
21704
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
provide for exemptions from the antitrust laws to assist in safeguarding the
balance-of-payments position of the
United States, with amendments, in
which it requested the concurrence of
the Senate.
SENATE
On page 26, after line 5, to insert a new
title, as follows:
"TITLE V--EMERGENCY
FUND,
SOUTHEAST
ASIA
"Departmentof Defense
"Emergency Fund, Southeast Asia
"For transfer by the Secretary of Defense,
upon determination by the President that
such action is necessary in connection with
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
military activities in southeast Asia, to any
APPROPRIATIONS, 1966
appropriation available to the Department
of Defense for military functions, to be
The Senate resumed the consideration
merged with and to be available for the
of the bill (H.R. 9221) making appropri- same purposes, and for the same time period
ations for the Department of Defense as the appropriation to which transferred,
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
$1,700,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That transfers under this
and for other purposes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, what authority may be made and funds utilized
is the pending matter before the Senate? without regard to the provisions of subsection (b) of section 412 of Public Law 86-149,
The PRESIDING
OFFICER. H.R. as amended, 10 U.S.C. 4774(d), 10 U.S.C.
9221, the military appropriation bill.
9774(d), section 355 of the Revised Statutes,
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask as amended (40 US.C. 255), and 41 U.S.C.
12."
unanimous consent that the committee
At the top of page 27, to change the title
amendments to the bill be agreed to en
number from "V" to "VI".
bloc, that the bill as thus amended be
On page 27, at the beginning of line 3, to
considered as original text, and that no
change the section number from "501" to
points of order be considered as waived. "601".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
On page 27, at the beginning of line 16, to
change the section number from "502" to
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
"602".
is so ordered.
On page 27, at the beginning of line 20,
The amendments agreed to en bloc are
to change the section number from "503"
as follows:
to "603".
On page 2, line 10, after the word "elseOn page 28, at the beginning of line 23, to
where," to strike out "$4,096,100,000" and inchange the section number from "504" to
sert "$4,092,291,000"; in line 14, after the word "604".
"fund", to strike out "Provided, That not to
On page 29, at the beginning of line 6, to
exceed $337,000,000 of the foregoing amounts change the section number from "505" to
shall be available for permanent change of
"605".
station travel:", and in line 16, after the word
On page 29, at the beginning of line 10, to
"Provided", to strike out "further,".
change the section number from "506" to
On page 3, line 8, after the word "fund", "606"; and on page 30, line 16, after the word
to strike out the colon and "Provided, That "Code", to insert a semicolon and "(h) for
the purchase of milk for enlisted personnel
not to exceed $169,800,000 of the foregoing
amounts shall be available for permanent of the Department of Defense heretofore
made available pursuant to section 1446(a),
change of station travel".
7, United States Code.".
On page 3, line 20, after the word "fund", title
On page 30, at the beginning of line 20,
to strike out the colon and "Provided, That
to
change
the section number from "507" to
not to exceed $44,300,000 of the foregoing
"607".
amounts shall be available for permanent
On page 31, at the beginning of line 19, to
change of station travel".
change the section number from "508" to
On page 4, line 8, after the word "fund", "608".
to strike out "Provided, That not to exceed
On page 32, at the beginning of line 11, to
$301,100,000 of the foregoing amounts shall change the section number from "509" to
be available for permanent change of sta- "609".
tion travel:", and in line 10, after the word
On page 33, at the beginning of line 7, to
"Provided", to strike out "further,".
change the section number from "510" to
"610".
On page 4, line 24, after "$238,600,000", to
On page 33, at the beginning of line 11, to
insert a colon and "Provided, That the Army
Reserve shall be maintained at an average change the section number from "511" to
"611".
strength of not less than 270,000 during fiscal
On page 34, at the beginning of line 7, to
year 1966.".
change the section number from "512" to
On page 6, line 9, after the word "law", to
"612".
strike out "$266,200,000" and insert "$271,At the top of page 35, to insert:
800,000"; and in line 12, after the word
"(d) The Secretary of Defense shall im"Code", to insert a colon and "Provided mediately advise the Committees on Approfurther,That the Army National Guard shall
priations of the Congress of the exercise of
be maintained at an average strength of
any authority granted in this section, and
not less than 380,000 during fiscal year
shall report monthly on the estimated obliga1966.".
tions incurred pursuant to subsection (b)
On page 8, line 9, after the word "Govand (c)."
On page 35, at the beginning of line 6, to
ernment", to strike out "$3,475,200,000" and
change the section number from "513" to
insert "$3,483,600,000".
On page 13, at the beginning of line 7, "613".
On page 36, at the beginning of line 12,
to strike out "$533,762,000" and insert
to change the section number from "514" to
"$533,490,000".
On page 17, line 18, after the word "au- "614".
On page 37, at the beginning of line 7,
thorized", to strike out "$1,205,800,000" and
to change the section number from "515" to
insert "$1,204,800,000".
"615"; in line 10, after the word "effects",
On page 19, line 17, after the word
to insert in excess of eleven thousand pounds
"plants", to strike out "$1,120,000,000" and net", and-in line 11, after the word "shipinsert "$1,149,900,000".
ment", to strike out "having a net weight in
On page 25, line 19, after the word "trans- excess of thirteen thousand pounds for offiferred", to strike out "$150,000,000" and incers in pay grades 0-7 through 0-10; of
sert "$100,000,000".
twelve thousand pounds for officers in pay
August 25, 1965
grade 0-6; and eleven thousand pounds for
all others".
On page 37, at the beginning of line 16,
to change the section number from "516"
to "616".
On page 37, at the beginning of line 23,
to change the section number from "517" to
"617".
On page 38, at the beginning of line 6, to
change the section number from "518" to
"618".
On page 38, at the beginning of line 13,
to change the section number from "519"
to "619".
On page 39, at the beginning of line 10,
to change the section number from "520"
to "620".
On page 39, at the beginning of line 17,
to change the section number from "521"
to "621".
On page 39, at the beginning of line 24,
to change the section number from "522"
to "622".
On page 40, at the beginning of line 6, to
change the section number from "523" to
"623".
On page 41, at the beginning of line 9, to
change the section number from "524" to
"624".
On page 41, at the beginning of line 17,
to change the section number from "525" to
"625".
On page 41, at the beginning of line 22, to
change the section number from "526" to
"626".
On page 42, at the beginning of line 9, to
change the section number from "527" to
"627".
On page 42, at the beginning of line 14, to
change the section number from "528" to
"628".
On page 43, at the beginning of line 3, to
change the section number from "529" to
"629".
On page 43, at the beginning of line 12, to
change the section number from "530" to
"630".
On page 43, at the beginning of line 23, to
change the section number from "531" to
"631".
On page 44, at the beginning of line 7, to
change the section number from "532" to
"632".
On page 44, at the beginning of line 13,
to change the section number from "533" to
"633".
On page 44, at the beginning of line 23,
to change the section number from "534" to
"634".
On page 45, at the beginning of line 13,
to change the section number from "535" to
"635".
On page 45, at the beginning of line 22,
to change the section number from "536" to
"636".
On page 46, at the beginning of line 11,
to change the section number from "537" to
"637".
On page 46, after line 18, to strike out:
"SEc. 538. None of the funds provided
herein shall be used to pay any recipient of
a grant for the conduct of a research project
an amount equal to as much as the entire
cost of such project."
And, in lieu thereof, to insert:
"SEC. 638. None of the funds provided herein shall be used to pay any recipient of a
grant for the conduct of a research project
an amount for indirect expenses in connection with such project in excess of 20 per
centum of the direct costs."
On page 47, after line 2, to insert a new
section, as follows:
"SEC. 639. Of the funds made available in
this Act for repair, alteration, and conversion
of naval vessels, at least 35 per centum shall
be available for such repair, alteration, and
conversion in privately owned shipyards:
Provided, That if determined by the Secretary of Defense to be inconsistent with the
21705
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
new obligational authority. However,
the House did not consider the supplemental request of $1.7 billion for the
southeast Asia emergency fund.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends appropriations totaling $46,756,319,000 of new obligational
authority, which includes the full $1.7
billion supplemental request for the
southeast Asia emergency fund.
These recommendations are:
Under appropriations for fiscal year
1965 by $926,126,000;
Under the budget estimates for fiscal
year 1966 by $95,781,000; and
Over the House bill by $1,688,819,000.
However, excluding the $1.7 billion for
the- southeast Asia emergency fund,
which the House did not consider, the
recommendations of the subcommittee
are $11,181,000 below the House bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at this
point a tabulation giving a summary of
the committee's recommendations by bill
titles and organizational components.
There being no objection, the tabulation was ordered to be printed in the
REcoRD, as follows:
public interest based on urgency of requirevessels
have such
ment of the fleet to major
then ask that I may
points,
andreas required
paired, altered, or converted
yield to the Senator from Massachuabove, such work may be done in Navy or
setts
SALTONSTALL], unless at that
direct."
may [Mr.
private shipyards as he
proceed otherwise.
time11,heto desires
new
insert ato
On page 47, after line
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
section, as follows:
the Department of Dethe President,
approval bythe
"SEc. 640. Only upon Mr.
of law bill for fiscal year
enactment
Congress, through the
fense
appropriation
or reorganization
hereafter, of a realinement
1966 includes funds for the various proof the Army Reserve Components, the Secregrams and activities of the Department
tary may transfer the balances of approexclusive
of Defense
supportof the regular miliAct for the
priations made in this
construction
program which was
to the exComponents
of the Army Reserve tary
suchina reallneconsidered
this body on last Friday,
tent necessary to implement
the provisions
ment or reorganization;
the and
military
assistance program, and the
for
strengths
average
in this Act establishing
civil
defense
program.
Army National
the budget
the Army Reserve and The
requests for the programs
effective."
Guard shall cease to be
and
activities requiring new obligational
to insert a new secAt the top of page 48,
authority
included in this bill total $46,follows:
as
tion,
including the supplemental
852,100,000,
"SEc. 641. None of the funds provided in
request of $1,700 million for the souththis Act shall be available for the expenses of
east Asia emergency fund requested in
the Special Training Enlistment Program
Senate Document No. 45.
(STEP) or similar programs."
These requests
to $46.8 billion in new
of line 4,for
On page 48, at the beginning
obligational
"539" to represent 43.3 perfrom authority
change the section number
cent of the $108.1 billion new obligational
"642".
authority requested to date for all dethe
President,
Mr. STENNIS. Mr.
of the Federal
partments
andasagencies
I proon the floor,for
manager of the billGovernment
fiscal year 1966.
the the House of Repsummary
pose to make a briefThis
bill as itofpassed
resentatives included $45,067,500,000 in
Summary of appropriations
Amount
Appropriations,
Title
fiscal 1965
Budget
estimates, 1966
House
recommended
allowance
by Senate
committee
Increase (+) or decrease (-), Senate bill
compared with-
Appropriations,
Budget
1965
estimates, 1966
House
allowance
+$1,791,
-- $65,79. 000 +40,291,000
----- $14,66, 000,000 $14,560,000,000 $14,598,500,000 $14,600,291,000
Title I-Military Personnel---..-------(+58,100,000)
----------(58,100,000)
(58,100,000)
(58 100,000)
Reappropriation--.-------.-----------Title II-Operation and Maintenance ..--.....---- 12,445,878,000 12,471,600, 000 12,484, 500, 000 12,492,628, 000
+46, 750,000
+21,028,000
+8,128,000
Reappropriation_.
------------ -(8, 600 0)
(8,600, 000)
(8, 600,000)
(+8, 600.000)
-------------Contract authority liquidation__
.. ------------- ---(54,044, 000)
(54,044,000)
(54,044,000) (+54, 044. 000)------Title II-Procurement-.-------- ------------------13,422,047,000 11,411,700,000 11,390,000,000 11,418, 900,000 -2, 003,147,000
+7,200, 000
+28,900,000
TitleIV--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation_. 6,448,520,000
6,708,800, 000 6,594,500,000
6,544,500,000
+95.980,000
-164,300,000
-50.000.000
Title V-Emergency Fund, Southeast Asia-.............
700, 00,0000
1,70,00
000,0001,00
000000
+1, 000, 00,000
1,700, 000, 000
Total...---_____--- ------
----
------
47,682,445,000
46,852,100, 000
45,067, 500,000
46,75,319,000
120,744, 000
+120,744, 000
-926, 126, 000
-95,781.000
+1.688,819. C00
47,682,445,000
46,972,844,000
45,188,244,000
46,877, 063,000
-805, 382,000
-95,781,000
+1, 688.819,000
- 11,412,659,000
10,895,059,000
10,897,559,000
10,906,750,000
-505, 909, 000
+11,691,000
+9,191,000
17,473,800,000
17, 473,800,000
-1,134, 801, 000
Rleappropriations and contract authority liquidation__....-Adjusted totaL.-----------------------
----------
--
120,744.000
120, 744,00
Distribution of appropriations by organizational component:
Army..------....- ..........-..........-...
Reappropriations-----------------------------Liquidation of contract authorization-_ _ _-----Navy .....--.--.....
--------------------- 14,326,271,000
Reappropriation ..---------------------------Air Force ....------
------
---------
Reappropriation...
.......
Defense Agencies/OSD--..
..............----Southeast Asia Emergency Fund_______
.
----
18, 608, 601,000
_
(12,300,000)
(54,044,000)
13,924,000,000
(8,600,000)
17,556,300,000
..-------------------------(45, 800,000)
2,634,914,000
2,776,741,000
700,000,000
1,700, 000, 000
Total, Department of Defense----------------- 47,682, 445,000 46,852,100,000
Reappropriations and liquidation of contract authority--_
- - 120,744,000
1-Adjusted total, Department of Defense.---..---. _
SSubmitted in S. Doc. 45. Not considered by House.
Mr. STENNIS. The amounts budgeted
for fiscal year 1966 will provide a total
military strength of 2,640,226, excluding
the recently announced increase of 340,000. Of this number, 953,094 will be
members of the Army, which budgeted
for 16 divisions, 4 armored cavalry regiments, and 7 brigades. The Army will
have an active aircraft inventory of 7,624
planes.
For the Navy, the budget called for
684,848 active duty military personnel.
The Navy plans to have approximately
900 commissioned ships in the fleet,
comprised of 28 carrier air groups, 32
patrol and warning squadrons, and an
active aircraft inventory, including the
Marines, of 8,241.
47,682,445,000
46,972,844,000
(12,300,000)
(12,300,000)
(54,044,000)
(54,044,000)
13,933,00,000
13,
500,000
(8,600,000
(8,600,000
(45,800, 000)
2,762,541,000
__-- ____ _-
(+12,3000,000)
------(+54,044,000)
_
---362,771,000
+39,500,000
+29, 900,000
(+8,600,000)--------
(45,800, 000) (+45, 800, 000)
2,712,269,000
+77, 355, 000
1,700,000, 000 +1,000, 000,000
45, 067, 500,000
120,744,000
46, 756,319, 000
120,744,000
-926,126,000
+120,744,000
45,188,244,000
46,877,063,000
-805,382,000
-82, 500, 000
-64, 472, 000
-50.272,000
11,700, 000,000
-95,781,000
+1,688,819,000
___---
--- ---__
-95,781,000
+1,688,819,000
For the Marine Corps, there is
of 193,190
planned in the budgetIna total
discussing
the items that are inpersonnel,
including
active duty militarycluded
in that
bill, I believe I can make
3
air
wings.
3 Marine divisions and
it clearer by first outlining the items the
budget
For the Air Force,
$1.7the
billion
doescalled
not include.
personmilitary
for 809,134 active duty
The
first item
that is not covered by
74 comman
would
nel. These personnelthe
$1.7 billion is those funds to promissile wings, and
bat wings, including
vide for squadrons.
340,000 additional military
112 combat support flying the
which
it is now planned to add
aircraft
an active
There was budgetedpersonnel
to
cur
present
strength. The
Air
inventory of 13,706 planes for themilitary
expense
of
bringing
those men into the
Force.
service
care of that expense
we call
to and
whattaking
I now refer especially
willbillion
be paidSoutheast
for through section 612(c)
in this bill the $1.7
of the This
bill now
itembefore
was us. Section 612 is
Asia Emergency Fund.
to a degree
a transcription of the
in a supplesubmitted by the President
the bill had
mental request afterprovision
firstalready
included in the bill at the
passed the House. time of the Berlin buildup several years
ago.
21706
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
It has been included as an emergency
authority in every appropriation bill
since then, but it has not been since
fiscal year 1962. Its present utilization
will provide for the expenses of bringing
in the additional men. A direct appropriation will have to be made for it some
time later.
This expense will start now and will
continue until the 340,000 men are added,
which will be approximately a year from
now, or September 1966. Therefore, the
expense will be at a mounting rate. On
the average, the personnel costs will be
approximately at the rate of $5,000 per
man on a 12-month basis. The money
will be appropriated in a supplemental
bill.
For the Army, an increase of 235,000
military personnel is contemplated, including one new division, three brigades,
aviation companies, and combat support
forces. For the Navy, an increase of
35,000 is contemplated, certain ships
will be retained in the active fleet, other
ships will be activated, and manning
levels will be increased for deployed ships
and bases in southeast Asia. For the
Marine Corps, the three division and aircraft wings will be augmented by 30,000
personnel. For the Air Force, the B-52
bomber, the tactical fighter, and the
troop carrier squadrons will be augmented; a reconnaissance squadron
scheduled to be phased out will be retained; and airlift utilization capability
will be increased. In addition, increased
readiness is planned for the Reserve
components, with the size of the Army
Reserve increase still to be determined.
I mention this now because everyone
has the right to know exactly what the
complete picture is, and what the Appropriations Committee is doing about it.
Therefore, in effect, we are approving
the idea of financing the cost of these
added men in this way.
I wish to point out two other items
which are not financed in this measure.
First, it does not contain any funds for
the pending pay increase for military
personnel, which will be funded from the
amounts available until after the start
of the next calendar year. Second, it
does not contain the full funding required for the vigorous prosecution of
the war in Vietnam. The $700 million
supplemental passed last May merely
enabled the Department to balance the
books for fiscal year 1935. The $1.7 billion amendment to this present bill will
ease the financial drain in certain procurement and military construction
programs, but it is not intended to fi-
nance the actual combat operations.
Much of this expense is found in what
we call the personnel and operation and
maintenance cost-that is, O. & M.-of
operation of the services. Under the
item of "personnel" are included the
salaries and traveling expenses of men
and the subsistence of enlisted personnel. The operation and maintenance
item includes almost everything else in
the way of general expense, the actual
operation of the Department. The operations associated with combat in
southeast Asia are not included in this
$1.7 billion.
August 25, 1965
SENATE
Again, the extra cost which goes with
that war will be financed temporarily
through section 612(a), which permits
the President to spend money that is appropriated for the general program, and
to spend it in advance rather than on a
quarterly basis, to anticipate from one
quarter to another, and spend more than
one quarter of it, say, in the the first
quarter.
That method is not unusual or extraordinary, and will eventually be taken
care of in a supplemental bill.
Furthermore, the $1.7 billion does not
include all the procurement dollars now
contemplated as needed for this war at
its present rate of operation. No one
knows how much that figure will develop into. We do not know how many
airplanes we may lose. We do not know
to what extent the war will be carried
on, what the tempo will be, or at what
level. However, we do know enough
about it to know that the $1.7 billion will
not be enough to cover the extra costs of
that war for the rest of this fiscal year.
There are no funds in the bill, either,
for shortages of equipment which may
be found in any of our other divisions.
Nor is there any new money in the bill
to cover the creation of any new division which will be included in the 340,000 additional troops I have already mentioned. Out of that will come at least
one new division for the Army.
On the affirmative side, the $1.7 billion for the southeast Asia emergency
fund will provide the funds that are
needed immediately for the procurement
of such expendable items as bombs,
rockets, conventional ammunition, and
small weapons. It includes funds for
advanced procurement necessary to support an increase in the production of
fixed-wing aircraft
arratnd helicopters of
the types that are being used in southeast Asia. Substantial funds are included for the procurement of spare and
repair parts to support the operations
of aircraft and other weapons being used
there. Funds are also included for the
construction of a limited number of high
priority facilities most of which are
located in southeast Asia.
We have an itemized list of the items
supplied by the Department of Defense
in our files. Much of it is classified, of
course, and we cannot place it in the
RECORD, but it is available for any Senator to examine.
So far as security will permit, we shall
be glad to answer any questions later
that any Senator wishes to ask. Any
answers that we cannot give in open debate we will supply to any Senator who
is interested before he casts his vote.
posture and are provided with the military assets and resources which are vital
to insuring the safety and integrity of
this Nation now and in the future. As I
have already indicated, it is my judgment that it will be adequate for that
purpose only with the addition of substantial amounts early next year.
It must be recognized that, unless the
situation changes suddenly and drastically, next January will find us faced
with a substantially larger request for
supplemental funding. This will be required to replace personnel and operations and maintenance funds expended
from the regular appropriation, to procure additional equipment, weapons and
war consumables both for Vietnam and
for our other forces around the world,
and to fund the military pay increase.
Furthermore, sooner or later we are
going to have to provide the funds to
replace equipment and materiel diverted
to Vietnam, to reconstitute our strategic
reserve, to supply existing shortages of
equipment and weapons, and to forestall
even more serious problems and deficiencies. I do not propose to discuss this
in detail at this time but I am convinced
that there are substantial problems in
this area which, if neglected, could become critical. I do not believe that they
are critical at the present time. They
will not be overcome merely by denying
that they exist.
VIETNAM OUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE
Mr. President, with respect to the situation in Vietnam, this is a matter which
has concerned me greatly, particularly
during this calendar year. The battlelines there have now become the very
first line of defense for our Nation. I
do not have too much patience with the
argument as to how we got there. I was
interested in that argument a year ago.
Frankly, I did not favor our going in
there, but I have no patience with that
argument now, since we are committed,
and our boys are fighting and dying
there every day and night. Our fighting men there are locked in a battle for
our own freedom, security, and safety.
This is an important and vital fact. It
should always be remembered. Our
people should be reminded of it more
frequently.
I do not wish to be understood as saying that we alone can protect and defend
all of non-Communist Asia, or even all
of non-Communist
southeast Asia
against Asian Communist aggression.
I do not believe this can be done without substantial assistance in men,
money, and materiel from the other free
world nations. There is a crucial need
I should like to add a few words at this for a strong common effort by nations
point, which represent more or less my which have a common interest in the
own ideas, with reference to the picture cause of freedom.
However, we have now selected Vietin south Asia and the need for the funds
and equipment which go with it, and nam where we will make a stand. As
matters have developed over the years,
other related needs.
While the situation in Vietnam and there is now no realistic alternative to
the mounting tempo of our operations standing firm and providing our fightthere are foremost in the minds of all ing men with all the arms and equipof us, it is well to bear in mind that this ment they need. Our flag and our men
bill provides funds for our military forces are on the battleline there, and we are
worldwide. The amount recommended deeply and heavily committed. We
is the minimum amount required to in- must stay with our men in uniform and
sure that we maintain a superior defense support then in every respect. We
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
must support then not only in money
and materiel, but also with moral support and unity among ourselves, as their
representatives and the representatives
of the people from which they come.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield. First, however, let me add this thought. The Senator from Massachusetts and I have attended a great many hearings in the
course of the year. We know the dark
side of the picture. We have had a
chance to know about it as well as most
persons in Washington, though not all,
and I have been frankly discouraged
about it-not hopeless, but discouraged.
I believe that last week, a turn in the
most recent battle in Vietnam has meant
even more than its immediate content.
I believe that we are getting our feet
on the ground, so to speak. Our men
are getting a grip on things, and are
understanding the situation much better
as to what the nature of the warfare
there is and what they are up against. I
still believe there is a long, bloody road
ahead, but I am encouraged to believe
that we have made a step forward.
I am glad to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL.
I thank the
Senator. I wished to state, in furtherance of what the Senator has said on
this question, that if we do not stand
firm, and if we do not support our men
morally and physically and with equipment, we shall have to support more men
with more equipment in some other place
in the world. We must show that we can
stand firm and that we will stand firm
in Vietnam.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has stated
it very well. I am certainly not happy
about having to do this. However, we
are there. If we run out or back out or
are pushed out, we shall only be borrowing trouble for which we will have to pay
with compound interest in other places
in the world in the future, and perhaps
not too far in the future.
The one honorable alternative available to us under the present circum-
stances is to stand our ground unflinchingly.
Tragically, this means sending our
boys to fight and die in mountain highlands and steaming jungles.
It also
means that we must bear the burden of
higher and higher costs and greater and
greater appropriations.
Our fighting men in Vietnam deserve
the gratitude and tribute of all Americans and freedom-loving people every-
where. They fight for the cause of free-
dom.
I have no illusions. I have tried to be
realistic. As I said some moments ago,
when we first went in, my advice was to
the contrary. However, we chose to
make a stand there and to fight. Our
men are highly skilled, highly trained,
and possess excellent morale.
The fine morale of our boys is the
brightest thing in the clouds over there
that we have seen all year. Our enlisted
men, some of them merely boys, the
older, more mature enlisted men, the
young officers, the middle-aged officers,
and the senior officers all have this fine
SENATE
morale. I have been deeply impressed
with the uniformally high morale that
the reports show. Once again they are
proving that the American soldier is a
magnificent fighting man who is completely dedicated to the security and survival of his country. Upon us, and upon
Americans in all walks of life, there devolves the responsibility to support them
in every respect and to endure any sacri-
fice which is necessary to ensure that
they do not lack for any equipment,
weapons or material necessary to enable
them to do their job with maximum
efficiency.
I say this with emphasis. This not
only means fighting materiel and equipment and uniforms, but also morale at
home and unity at home, and the avoidance of small issues.
Every Member of this body has the
greatest freedom to argue for what he
believes are the merits of various problems or issues. I hope this will always
be a free forum. However, so far as supporting our men out there is concerned
and standing behind them and not entertaining any idea of running out or
being pushed out, I hope there will be no
argument about those things. We must
stand, and stand as one.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. I am sure that all of us
join the Senator in the sentiments he
has expressed about the fighting quality
and the morale of our armed services.
I direct my questions to the adequacy
of supplies for those who are fighting in
Vietnam. I have heard the Senator comment on this subject on several occasions,
and he has always been forthright. He
said months ago that we were at war.
In his television appearance 2 weeks ago
on "Meet the Press," he was very forthright and candid in his discussion of the
situation in Vietnam.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. COOPER. Charges have been
made to the effect that there are shortages of equipment and supplies for our
men in Vietnam. Does he intend to
speak about the charge during this
debate?
Mr. STENNIS. If I may answer the
Senator, I have spoken before about
shortages-not critical shortages, in our
other divisions, back home, with reference to spare parts, and items of that
kind. The Senator from Mississippi has
always emphasized that the shortages do
not apply to our men in Vietnam. I do
not believe there are any shortages
there, or have been, of any equipment or
supplies, or of food or medical supplies
or ammunition or planes. Everything
needed by our fighting men is supplied.
Under certain circumstances, in a particular location, perhaps for a few hours
or perhaps a day or two, when the men
had been cut off, supplies may not have
been exactly where they were needed,
but generally our men are well supplied
and have been. I do not see any prospect
of anything like that happening. Our
concern has been with respect to the
drain that the war has been on our other
divisions. Now it is being taken care in
part by the $1.7 billion appropriation.
21707
The situation has been improved during
the past 2 months.
Mr. COOPER. I am glad to hear the
Senator's comment on this most important question that there is no shortage
of supplies for the members of our armed
services in Vietnam.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. I do not think there is any doubt
about that.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator has mentioned the drain on the aggregate of
our military supplies. Is the situation
such that there is danger that there will
be shortages of supplies during the rest of
the year or in the next year?
Mr. STENNIS. No. Most fortunately, the shortcomings that we have can
be overcome with the enormous capacity
that we have for the production of these
very items. I believe that the fill-in
will be available when needed. The situation was developing to a point where
it could have become critical. However, I have always said that there was
no critical shortage.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator has said
the $1.7 billion additional appropriation
will help maintain the supplies that are
needed. Is it sufficient?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I pointed out
certain items that are not included, and
it will require more in January or February.
But, of course, $1.7 billion will be a
great help. The Committee on Appropriations urges that the same requests be
made for those funds. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I wish to add
that we have evidence from the military
men themselves and from the civilians
in charge of the Military Establishment
that there are no present shortages, and
apparently there will be none, in Vietnam. Our problem is to make sure, not
only that the military there are well supplied, but that supplies and the equipment are not drained from our other
divisions, and that our other divisions
are kept in a proper state and quality of
readiness, which they may lack at the
present time because of the amount of
equipment that is going to Vietnam. But
there is no present shortage in Vietnam,
and I believe there will be none if the
Senate passes this bill and takes care of
the supplemental appropriation in January.
Mr. COOPER. I hope the Senator is
correct. I remember that, despite the
great commitment in Korea, there were
continual charges of shortages; and after
the war was over, an investigation was
held by a subcommittee of the Armed
Services Committee on which I served.
He will remember that it disclosed that
there had been critical shortages in
Korea. General Van Fleet and others
testified that there had been shortages
which had adversely affected our military action in Korea.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is entirely correct; and we are trying to avoid
that situation now. We appreciate the
Senator's support.
21708
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield to the
Senator from Massachusetts for such
time as he may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
being no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the
Senator from Mississippi. I should like
to add a few more thoughts to the statement he has just made. As I have said,
the Senator from Mississippi is one of
the most conscientious and hard-working Senators, and has given greatly of
his time and abilities to reporting what
I believe is a proper bill for maintaining
our Defense Department.
As he has said, the committee has
taken care of the immediate needs in
Vietnam by this $1.7 billion appropriation, and we must expect a substantial
supplemental appropriation in January,
not only to cover our needs in Vietnam
and the needs of our military everywhere, but also to take care of the increased pay bill, which in itself will cost
a billion dollars a year.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his remarks and for the time, attention, counsel, and judgment that he has
so generously given the committee all
these months. Hearings on this bill
began some time in early February, and
have continued at intervals until just a
few days ago. The Senator from Massachusetts has been present without fail,
and has rendered valuable, outstanding
service, based upon his years of experience as well as his dedication in this and
every other field.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I appreciate
what the Senator has said. It is always
easy and agreeable to cooperate with
him.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
the committee considered programs
totaling nearly $50 billion, including $1.7
billion for the southeast Asia emergency
fund which was submitted after the
House had acted on this appropriation
measure. As I have stated, the funds
provided for in this bill will meet the
needs of the military and the Department of Defense, exclusive of military
assistance, military construction and
Civil Defense, which will be considered
in other appropriations bills. Included
in this total are approximately $47 billion for programs which are to be financed from budget estimates for new
obligational authority and $3 billion anticipated to be available from sources
other than new obligational authority.
That is, transfers from working capital
funds, unobligated balances available
from prior years, recoupments from prior
year programs, and funds derived from
sale of military equipment. In addition,
the committee considered requests for
reappropriations and funds for liquidation of contract authority in the amount
of more than $120 million for the three
services.
The appropriations recommended by
our committee are more than $95 million below the budget request for new
obligational authority and more than
$1.6 billion net over the House allowance,
of which $1.7 billion is for the new
southeast Asia emergency fund. When
SENATE
this amount is excluded the recommendations of our committee are more
than $11 million below the total appropriations provided in the House bill.
I will only mention a few of the items
considered by our committee; namely,
the elimination of the restrictions placed
by the House on the permanent change
of station travel for the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, and the Air Force. That
obviously is necessary because of the
Vietnam crisis. Our committee considered the proposal to establish a special
training enlisted program-STEP-and
the committee denied the request for the
initiation of the STEP program. The
committee took the position that this
was not a proper program to be administered by the Army.
Mr. President, I agree with the action
of the committee, because this training
enlisted program, without going into details about it, is the responsibility of
other departments of the Government,
and I do not believe the Army ought to
get into programs that involve the social,
educational, and economic advancement
of those persons who have been found
ineligible for military service for one
reason or another.
The committee did not take a position
with respect to the realinement of the
National Guard and Army Reserve components. It felt that separate legislation
should be enacted in order to bring this
about. The committee appropriated the
fund for the National Guard and Army
Reserve components on the same basis
as heretofore. It recommended a provision in the bill to implement through the
appropriations any reorganization that
is approved by Congress through the enactment of law.
We have included a provision that if
a new law is passed and approved by
the President, these funds can be transferred to carry out the requirements
of the new law. But essentially, this
bill provides for the National Guard and
the Army Reserve in the way that they
have heretofore been provided for.
The committee provided $100 million, $50 million below the budget request, for the emergency fund for the
transfer by the Secretary of Defense with
the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, to any appropriations for military
functions available for research, development, test and evaluation or procurement or production related thereto and
in addition $150 million to be used by
the Secretary of Defense upon determination that such funds can be wisely,
profitably and practically used in the
interest of national defense. These
funds will be derived by transfer from
appropriations available for obligation
during the current fiscal year. These
transfers shall not exceed 7 percent of
the appropriation from which transferred. In addition there is $200 million
available to transfer from any military
appropriation for the purpose of improving the readiness of the Armed
Forces should the emergency needs of
the military require it.
The Secretary of Defense has almost
$300 million for transfer for research
purposes to improve and modernize our
equipment, and another $200 million
August 25, 1965
available for transfer for any immediate
needs of the armed services. The committee believes this amount has been sufficient in the past and is sufficient for
the present.
I should point out that this bill does
not include funds for personnel costs
resulting from (a) the acceleration of
combat activities in southeast Asia, (b)
the announced increase of 340,000 men in
the active forces, and increases in the
reserved forces, (c) the military pay
raise. The above costs will be met under
the authorities in section 612 of the bill
and will be the subject of a supplemental
request transmitted to the Congress at a
later date.
The committee recommended the deletion of section 538 of the House bill
dealing with indirect costs of research
grants and the insertion of language that
has appeared in the bill in past years.
The committee has recommended an
allowance of 20 percent for administrative costs in research work and that will
go to conference between the House and
the Senate.
The committee recommended the inclusion of the limitation on ship repairs,
alteration and conversion providing that
65 percent of such work shall be performed in Government shipyards and 35
percent in private yards. The Navy has
indicated that they can live with this
provision although the Budget recommended its deletion.
Those are the same percentages that
have been included in the bill for the
past several years. The Navy does not
like it particularly, but they say they
can work under it, so it has been included, and there again, it will go to
conference, because the House struck out
this provision in its bill.
I should remind the Senate that the
$1.7 billion emergency fund for southeast Asia will temporarily provide the
necessary funds required. In January, I
predict we will be called upon to appropriate a substantial amount to provide
guns, trucks, helicopters, and so forth,
that will be needed.
On the whole I think that this bill
will, for the time being, adequately provide for the needs of the military services. The necessary balance will come
from a supplemental request next year.
I heartily join the Senator from Mississippi in believing we have provided
for the needs of our Armed Forces and
those who are fighting in Vietnam, and
the forces that are equipped in Europe,
in this country, and in other places
around the rest of the world, and I hope
that this bill will have the unanimous
support of the Members of the Senate.
I join the Senator from Mississippi in
the feeling that, for the time being, we
have provided for the needs of our
Armed Forces-those which are fighting
in Vietnam and those that we are equipping in Europe, in this country, and elsewhere throughout the world. I hope the
bill will have the unanimous support of
the Senate.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. SALTONSTALL.
I yield.
Mr. COOPER. Of course, we will support the bill by providing whatever sums
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
imperative to add substantial funds to
this bill if we were to be assured that
our Military Establishment-apart of
the war in Vietnam-were to be maintained on the level of readiness indicated
as necessary in the budget request.
On June 9 the Secretary of Defense
had written to the chairman of the
House Appropriations Committee a letter which appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD on June 23, the day the defense
appropriations bill was being considered by the House. It is too lengthy to
quote in full, but the gist of it appears
in the final paragraph:
To summarize, the fiscal year 1966 defense
budget request now before the Congress
would provide all the funds we need at this
time to continue the strengthening of our
SENATE INSISTENCE ON PREPAREDNESS
overall military posture and to carry out
FINANCING
whatever combat operations our forces are
As a member of the Senate Appropri- called upon to perform in the next 12
ations Committee, I take what I believe months. The special transfer provisions
to be justifiable pride in the fact that the contained in the bill and the reprograming
committee and the Senate itself have, arrangements approved by the committees
provide sufficient flexibility to meet all forethrough the years, demonstrated on re- seeable requirements until the Congress repeated occasions our concern over the convenes next January and can act on a
adequacy of our defense posture. On possible fiscal year 1966 supplemental.
many occasions we have recommended
I, for one, strongly doubted the wisdom
the appropriation of additional funds
when we have believed the budget re- of this policy. On June 25, I appeared
on
this floor and spoke on the inadequests to be inadequate.
To cite only one example from a large quacy of the requests which the Departnumber of such actions, let me remind ment of Defense had presented to the
the Senate of what happened in 1940. committee. At that time, I said:
Based upon a careful and extensive study
Gen. George C. Marshall appeared before the committee to justify the Army's and analysis over a period of several months,
I
am
compelled to suggest to the Senate and
request for approximately $860 million in the decisionmakers
in the Pentagon that it
appropriations for the coming fiscal year. is now time to reexamine the entire fiscal
The Nazis had meanwhile overrun Nor- year 1966 defense budget for the purpose of
way and Denmark and were about to insuring that funds will be available to meet
launch attacks on Holland and Belgium. our defense requirements, including our
The committee recognized the inade- stepped-up activities in Vietnam.
Unless the budget is revised upward and
quacy of the budget request, which had
is instituted In the
been prepared months before. Our re- add: ional procurement
near future, critical problems could arise in
vered chairman, Senator HAYDEN, who combat essential firepower, mobility, and
was a member of the committee at that communications equipment.
time, took a leading part in urging the
I urge the Secretary of Defense to
Department to make known its needs. make an immediate study of the entire situHe remarked, in words which we might ation and come to the Congress with all the
facts and with such revisions in the fscal
well have used 25 years later:
budget as are necessary to take up the
Anyone who reads the hearings will note year
slack caused by the heavy unplanned and
that the principal discussion is not what
unprogramed
expenditures.
was in the bill, but what ought to be in
the bill In order properly to meet the situaWe resumed our hearings on July 14.
tion which confronts us. As a result of On that day and on subsequent days, I
hearings more than 2 weeks ago, the committee stated to the representatives of the repeatedly asked the responsible officers
War Department that, while they might be of the Army, Navy and Air Force as to
bound by budget limitations, the committee the adequacy of their budget requests.
was not, and the committee desired full In this I was joined by other members of
information from them in detail as to what the committee. At the time I stated
changes should be made in the bill in order that I thought it was a ridiculous situato accomplish the desired purpose.
tion listening to testimony supporting
That committee asked General Mar- requests for purposes for which we knew
shall to go back to the War Department, the funds could not be used if the war in
study the adequacy of our defenses, and Vietnam continued.
come back to the committee with a
At that time the Secretary of Defense
revised request. He did so, asking for was in Vietnam. Very shortly after his
funds which almost doubled the previous return a supplemental request for $1.7
request. We had initiated the impetus billion was submitted to the Senate.
toward preparedness.
The total amount is included in the bill
History repeated itself again this year now under consideration. It is the hope
in connection with the war in Vietnam. of the committee that it will prove adeSubsequent to the presentation of the quate to meet the most important rebudget document and House considera- quirements which could not otherwise be
tion of the bill, American involvement financed until Congress returns in
intensified in southeast Asia, necessitat- January.
ing the utilization of material and equipHowever, I would be less than frank
ment earmarked for peacetime uses if I left you with the impression that
elsewhere. To me, and to some of our this sum will finance the war in the
colleagues, it became obvious that it was present fiscal year. It definitely will
are required. But is the Senator able
to make any estimate now concerning the
sum of additional appropriations that
will be required by the first of the year?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator
from Mississippi has left that question
open, so to speak. However, it would
not be improper to say that the supplemental bill which will come before Congress in January will have to provide between $7 and $10 billion, at least.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from Massachusetts for his remarks.
We shall both be glad to answer questions
to the best of our ability.
There are certain other subjects that
should be discussed a little more at
length because of their general interest.
21709
not. In this light, the Congress and the
executive branch must realize that the
war on poverty is not the only war which
we are engaged in at this time. American boys are dying every day in Vietnam
for American ideals that are as important to us as raising the standard of living in local communities. The Department of Defense has understandably been
unable to estimate how much will be required for the rest of the year, but it will
be substantially more than this supplemental, which includes only certain procurement funds and a little construction
money. As I have previously stated, it
does not include any funds for the increases in military personnel announced
by the President.
I should like now to discuss the major
changes which your committee has made
in the House bill.
The proposal of the Department of
Defense to merge the Army Reserve and
the Army National Guard has received
much attention from Congress during
the present session. The Senate Preparedness Subcommittee and a subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee have held extensive hearings on the proposal. The Department
of Defense Appropriations Subcommittees of both Houses have held hearings
on the proposal.
The President's budget was based on
the realinement, and provided funds for
a yearend paid drill strength of 575,000
all in the Army National Guard.
It was made clear during the course
of the hearings that substantive legislation would be required in order fully to
achieve the goals of the Department's
proposal. No such legislation has been
reported, and it is highly improbable
that such necessary legislation will be
enacted during this session of Congress.
That is the opinion of the Senator from
Mississippi.
In view of the lack of legislation and
the likely possibility that certain elements of the Army Reserve components
might be called to active duty, it was the
view of the committee that the Army
Reserve forces should be maintained at
their present strength of approximately
270,000 in the Army Reserve and 380,000
in the Army National Guard.
There has been what is called strength
authorization of 300,000 in the Army Reserve and 400,000 in the Army National
Guard, but the figures of 270,000 in the
Army Reserve and 380,000 in the Army
National Guard are approximately the
present level of strength. Those figures
were used as a floor, not a ceiling. To
accomplish this, the committee recommends appropriations totaling $960.5
million for the support of the Army Reserve components, which is an increase
of $83.3 million over the budget and
$25.4 million over the House allowances.
Furthermore, the committee has recommended the inclusion in the bill of
provisions to require the Department to
maintain the Army Reserve at an average strength of not less than 270.000 and
the Army National Guard at an average
strength of not less th-n 380,000.
In the event that Congress, through
the enactmznt of law, approves a reorgani.:tion cr realinement of the Army
CONNGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
21710
Reserve components, the committee has
recommended the inclusion in the bill of
a provision for the necessary authority
to transfer funds to implement such a
reorganization.
That question will be in conference on
this bill. The Senator from Mississippi
understands, but has not had it outlined
to him-neither did the committeethat there will still be another request
by the Department of Defense for some
such treatment on this subject, particularly to enable the Department to bring
up to full strength four of the National
Guard divisions that are now at about 80
percent of strength.
I do not know what that plan is. I
do not know whether the proposal will
be limited to that group or just what
it will be. But something may have to be
provided in conference.
In view of the possible callup of those
four divisions, or even more, or parts
of the four divisions, an acute situation
is presented, as Senators will readily see.
I have no plan in mind. I have nothing
to suggest. I have no thought except
what I have just expressed.
I invite the attention of the members
of the subcommittee, especially the
Senator from
South Carolina
[Mr.
who is interested and has
done some vital thinking concerning the
possibility of such a request being made,
particularly as to the four divisions. I
mention this now because we shall be
calling upon him for help.
The matter could become more acute
at any time and could become greatly
changed before Congress returns in
January. I shall be glad to answer any
questions later on this point, but those
are the facts of the matter.
The situation has been nailed down
for the time being, as I have already explained, by providing language that if
some other plan is adopted, the Secretary
would have the authority to transfer
funds to carry out the plan.
It is possible that some other plan
might be proposed which would appeal
to the conferees; I do not know. I assure Senators that there is no disposition
on my part or the part of other conferees
to reach any kind of agreement without
consultation.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. I hope the conference committee will not agree to any
plan that would provide for the transfer
of personnel and funds, because the Secretary of Defense would then be accom-
THURMOND],
plishing in an indirect way or through
the backdoor, so to speak, what he has
failed to accomplish through the frontdoor. If funds and personnel are transferred, that is really all there is to it, in
a way.
I hope that if this proposal is not
agreeable to the Secretary of Defense,
legislation will be proposed and considered on its own merits and not brought
before us as a part of the conference report on this big defense appropriation
bill, which is so important to the Nation.
I feel that legislation such as that pertaining to the Reserve-Guard question
should be determined by the Senate on
its own merits and not intermingled with
the main bill.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for his suggestions. The
Senator from Mississippi would rather
that this be done as a straight, orthodox
legislative process. However, I must
make the point that we cannot close our
eyes to situations that may develop.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
I invite the attention of the Senator from
South Carolina to the fact that section
640 of the bill provides that only upon
the approval by the Congress, through
the enactment of law hereafter, of a realinement or reorganization, can the balances be moved around.
I wanted to make it clear that a conference committee could not move them
around without the enactment of a law.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
thank the able Senator from Massachusetts. I should like to get an interpretation from the able Senator from Mississippi on that point.
I gained the impression that perhaps
the Senator from Mississippi felt that if
the conference committee should reach
agreement on and bring in a certain provision, such procedure could be considered as an enactment by law.
I remember that I moved in the committee to amend section 640 to insert the
words "only" before the words, "upon the
approval by the Congress," and "hereafter" after the word "law." I was of the
opinion that with those words contained
in the bill, it would be clearly specified
that there would have to be such legislation. I should like to have the benefit of
the interpretation of the Senator on that
provision. That was the purpose in adding those two words, as the Senator from
Massachusetts has so cogently brought
out.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall
be glad to answer the Senator as fully as
I can.
In the first place, let us take the negative side. I do not see how we could enact any language in the Senate that
would be binding on the House. I do not
see any way that the Senate conferees
could guarantee that they would bring
back only the language contained in the
Senate bill on this subject and nothing
else. Our system of legislation would not'
permit such action.
That is the reason that I emphasize
that such a thing is possible. I do not
want it to happen, but it is possible that
the conferees could come forth with
something different, and they would have
the authority, subject to the approval of
the Senate, to change this language, so
that we could not make it finally binding here and now.
As the Senator from Mississippi understands the rules, when the measure
would come back to the Senate, if there
were language contained in the measure
which was objectionable to the Senator
from South Carolina or some other Senator, the Senator could, under our rules,
obtain a separate vote on that particular
point. I would certainly favor a sepa-
August 25, 1965
rate vote on that point. So, in effect, it
would mean that no language in a measure could be passed by the Senate without a separate vote on the particular
language with reference to his subject
matter.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator for making that point.
I believe it is an important point to be
brought out at this time.
I believe that the able Senator would
agree that if the language contained in
the bill now could be retained, there
would have to be separate legislation
hereafter to provide anything different.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. The question is
whether we can maintain that language
in the bill.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
express the sincere hope that the able
Senator from Mississippi will exert every
possible effort to maintain the language
placed in the bill by the Senate committee.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator.
I have had no plan presented to me in
any way that appeals to me more than
the language contained in the bill. However, I recognize that the problem of
bringing up those four divisions is on
our doorstep, and that perhaps it cannot be deferred altogether until January.
I am sure that we see that as a problem
which is facing us.
ARMY SPECIAL TRAINING ENLISTMENT PROGRAM
Returning to my remarks, another
item of general interest is the Army's
Special Training Enlistment program,
commonly referred to as the STEP program. For fiscal year 1966 $31.2 million
was requested. Under this proposed
program medical care and educational
training would be given by the Army
to a limited number of individuals who
do not presently meet Army's medical
and mental standards. It will be recalled
that the Office of Economic Opportunity
through its Job Corps has a somewhat
similar program. The Department of
Defense sought the authority to proceed with this program last spring
through a reprograming request. This
request was rejected by the Department
of Defense Subcommittee after a hearing and thorough consideration. However, the subcommittee did indicate its
willingness to again consider the program in connection with this bill. Again
the committee recommends that this program be rejected. The nature of the
program is such that it is the view of the
committee that the Army is not the
proper agency of the Government to administer it. Furthermore, and more important, is the fact that the recently announced increase of 235,000 in the
strength of the Army will impose a tremendous burden on the existing basic
and advanced training facilities. For
example, the STEP program would utilize almost 100 percent of the training
capacity of Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.,
which is one of the Army's most modern
training facilities.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
An amendment will be offered to restore this provision to the bill. I believe
that the discussion of that matter can
come at that time.
NAVY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM
There are two items included in the
Navy's shipbuilding program which I
should call to the attention of the Senate. The first is an increase of $133.6
million for the construction of two additional nuclear powered attack submarines. The budget included funds for
only four, even though the Department
had advised the Congress that the rate
of production would continue at six for
several years. Let me add that the Joint
Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended the funding of six attack submarines during fiscal 1966. During the
hearings it was clearly established that
the submarine threat to American control of the seas had not lessened. In view
of this fact it was the opinion of the
committee that we should continue the
construction of six nuclear attack submarines a year. This action is in accord
with the authorization act.
The other item is the $20 million included in the bill for the long leadtime
procurement for a nuclear powered
guided missile frigate. While the budget
does not include any funds for this ship,
the authorization act did include $150.5
million. The committee believes that the
Navy should proceed with the construction of more nuclear-powered surface
ships. It has therefore included the $20
million for advanced procurement and
has urged the Department to include
funds for construction of this ship in the
fiscal year 1967 budget.
EMERGENCY FUND
The bill has for many years carried an
appropriation designated as an emergency fund, which permits the Department of Defense to transfer cash appropriations and other funds to support the
exploitation of new scientific developments and technological breakthroughs
in the various research, development,
test, and evaluation accounts. The Department requested for fiscal year 1966
$150 million in appropriations and a like
amount in transfer authority. The committee has provided $100 million in appropriations and the budgeted transfer
authority of $150 million. It did so after
it received evidence that substantial sums
in the appropriation were being transferred during the last month of the fiscal
year, raising the question as to whether
the utilization of these funds was based
on emergency breakthroughs based on
new scientific developments or for other
reasons. The committee strongly believes that this fund should be used solely
for the purpose for which it was set up.
To do otherwise is to negate the constitutional control of the Congress over appropriations.
OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS
Because of the widespread interest evidenced in the overseas dependents school
situation, I wish to describe briefly what
action the committee has taken in that
regard. The committee recommends
that the per pupil limitation of $285 be
increased to $455. This is consonant
SENATE
21711
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withwith the budget request and House action. It will provide the teachers with a out objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
$300 annual pay raise, for which funds
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
are included in the appropriate appropriations. In addition, the committee Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
has pointed out in its report that if pending legislation is enacted providing fur- the Senator from Oregon. I have a few
ther pay increases, the committee expects more remarks to make on the high points
the Department to take the necessary of the bill.
Mr. MORSE. The statement of the
action to prevent any curtailment in the
level of operations of the schools. This Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULERIGHTI
is of great importance and has given me
it can do under existing laws.
Virtually the full amount for research a great deal of trouble with regard to the
and development is provided in the bill report. I would like to comment on it,
for the three services, as authorized in but I am willing to accommodate Senators.
the authorization bill.
Mr. STENNIS. I shall be glad to have
RESEARCH GRANTS
the Senator make his comment. I wish
The committee has recommended that
to make a few more remarks on the most
the limitation on indirect costs of re- important points of the bill.
search grants be continued at 20 perThere is a limitation on repair funds
cent, with the same language as was in for ships with respect to the 65-35 forthe law for fiscal year 1965. The De- mula that has been in effect for several
partment had requested that this section years.
be deleted, and the House had included
That will be discussed in the debate
a provision which limited the direct costs later. I shall defer any explanation of
of research grants to something less it until that question arises.
than the total costs. The committee
ADVANCED MANNED STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
based its action on the belief that the
It is not necessary to review the posiDefense appropriations bill should in no
wise be considered a subsidy to educa- tion the Congress has taken with respect
tion. Whatever may be the merits of to the development of a new manned
assistance to colleges and universities in bomber to replace the aging B-52 fleet.
the form of research grants as provided However, it is well known that the legisthrough other governmental depart- lative branch has on several occasions
ments, funds for defense should be for provided the necessary funds to step up
the purpose of providing for the national the development of such an aircraft.
It is now clear that the Air Force will
security. The contractual procedure is
always available for out-of-house re- have to depend on something less than
search requirements of the Department an aircraft developed specifically for the
strategic bombing mission to replace the
of Defense.
The committee believes that the De- B-52's. This will probably be a modificapartment of Defense should be bound by tion of the F-1ll aircraft. However,
the 20-percent limitation for at least an- this in no way lessens the requirement
other year. The new plan being tried to proceed with the full development of
out by the Department of Health, Edu- an advanced manned strategic aircraft.
The committee recommendation incation, and Welfare and other agencies
can be tested. We believe that to be a cludes $22 million in new obligational
authority
for the development of the
complete answer.
advanced manned strategic aircraft,
FOREIGN RESEARCH
which is an increase of $7 million over
Mr. President, the Department of De- the budget estimate. In addition, there
fense has in recent years expanded its is available from prior year programs
research programs in foreign countries, $24 million to provide for a total effort
and based on the total effort, the results of $46 million during fiscal year 1966.
have been most favorable. However, the The Secretary of Defense has advised
recent experience with the Army's the committee that the increase of $7
Camelot project has made it clear that million over the budget estimate will be
the Department must coordinate these used during fiscal year 1966.
programs with other departments and
Mr. President, a decision on the develagencies of the Federal Government.
opment of this aircraft must be made
The chairman of the Foreign Relations next year. It was the unanimous deCommittee proposed an amendment cision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that
which would require the Secretary of the Department proceed with the projState to approve all such projects, the ect definition phase of the development
chairman of the committee being, of of the advanced manned strategic aircourse, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. craft during fiscal year 1966. Gen. John
FULBRIGHT]. That has led to an under- McConnell, Chief of Staff of the Air
standing between the departments that Force, in discussing the decision on the
meets the end the Senator from Arkan- development of this aircraft, said:
sas had in mind. We did not include any
I think we can delay it until fiscal year
legislation on the subject, but we are in1967 at the latest.
debted to him for a very able presentaThe record is clear, Mr. President.
tion and for having brought about the
compromise arrangement.
Not being The Congress and the executive branch
of
the Government must make a deable to be present, he asked that I include a memorandum by him on Depart- cision on this matter in the next session
ment of Defense research in foreign of the Congress.
NIKE X
policy matters. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's statement appear
Another important decision which
at the end of my remarks.
must be made next year is that of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
21712
deployment of an antiballistic missile
system, commonly referred to as the Nike
X.
The committee's recommendations include approximately $400 million for the
continued development of the Nike X
system. This sum includes a small
amount for "preliminary production
engineering."
Let me point out that the Joint Chiefs
of Staff unanimously recommended the
inclusion of substantial production funds
in fiscal year 1966 for the Nike X. This
recommendation was rejected by the Department of Defense.
The Secretary of
Defense, in discussing this matter, said:
We plan to reexamine the question of production and deployment of the Nike X system again next year. Considering the vast
amount of development, test and evaluation
work still to be accomplished, deferral of this
decision to fiscal year 1967 budget should not
delay an initial operational capability by
many months beyond what we could expect
to achieve if we were to start production in
fiscal year 1966.
NUCLEAR TESTING SAFEGUARDS
Mr. President, the hearings of the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee on the
nuclear test ban treaty led to the establishment of four specific safeguards to
be followed in connection with the treaty.
These safeguards are:
First. The conduct of comprehensive,
aggressive, and continuing underground
nuclear test programs.
Second. The maintenance of modern
nuclear laboratory facilities and programs in theoretical
nuclear technology.
and
exploratory
Third. The maintenance of th3 facilities and resources necessary to institute
promptly nuclear tests in the atmosphere
should they be deemed essential to our
national interest.
Fourth. The improvement of our ca-
pability to monitor the treaty, to detect
violations, and to maintain our knowledge of Sino-Soviet nuclear activity capabilities, and achievements.
The implementation of these safeguards is a joint responsibility of the Department of Defense and the Atomic
Energy Commission. The recommendations of the committee include $243.2
million for the activities of the Department of Defense in this most important
program. I can assure the Members of
the Senate that this sum is adequate to
allow the Department to meet in full its
responsibilities in carrying out these safeguards.
The committee has made a number of
other relatively minor changes in the
House bill which are fully covered in the
committee report, which you have before
you.
However, I shall be happy to at-
tempt to answer any question which may
arise.
EXHIBIT 1
STATEMENT BY SENATOR J. W.
FULBRIGHT ON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESEARCH IN FOREIGN POLICY MATTERS
I wish to comment briefly on the action
taken by the Appropriations Committee concerning research financed by the Department
of Defense which touches on foreign policy
matters.
Two months ago, it came to light that the
Special Operations Research Office of American University, an activity which the Army
created and supports, was preparing to con-
SENATE
duct research in Chile involving delicate
questions of our relations with that country.
Neither our Ambassador nor the Chilean
Government was consulted in advance about
the project and both apparently learned of
it from an article in a Chilean newspaper.
The Chilean project, it developed, was only
a small part in a much more ambitious
operation called "Project Camelot."
Camelot was described in a "fact sheet"
provided by the Department of the Army
as a "basic social science research project on
preconditions of internal conflict, and on
effects of indigenous governmental actionseasing, exacerbating or resolving-on those
preconditions."
This language seems to
mean that Camelot was intended as a study
of conditions that give rise to revolution and
what might be done about them.
This project was but one aspect of this
organization's research work for the Army.
SORO's work was described by Dr. Vallance,
its director, as concerning "* * * mainly the
relationships with the peoples of the developing countries and deals with problems of
aiding in the orderly process of social change
and national development which is of concern to the U.S. Military Establishment."
The Army provided $2,463,000 in the last fiscal year for the operations of this office.
Project Camelot had a budget of $450,000
for the second half of fiscal year 1965 and
$1.1 million for fiscal 1966. The total projected cost over 3 to 4 years was to be about
$6 million. The project was cancelled in the
wake of protests by Members of Congress and
by Ambassador Dungan. So far as is known,
SORO has not been required to turn back
unexpended funds provided for Camelot. I
do not know what the Army plans to do with
any funds available to it for Camelot but
not yet turned over to SORO. I trust we can
take it for granted that any such funds will
Snot be turned over to SORO.
Project Camelot gave great offense to the
Chilean press and intellectual leaders and,
presumably, to the Chilean Government as
well. The reason for its offensiveness is obvious to anyone with an iota of commonsense and it seems to me it should also have
been obvious to the highly trained "scientists" at American University, as well as to
the Army. At a time when United States-Latin American relations are complicated by our
Intervention in the Dominican Republic, it
is not surprising that a project like Camelot
should be interpreted as having some pertinence to a possible future U.S. military intervention in Chile in the event of a revolution.
In any case, studies of possible insurgency
movements within a country are an exceedingly delicate matter. I can well imagine
how Members of the Senate might react if
it were announced that Chilean or British
or French "scientists" were initiating a study
of the conditions that might give rise to
racial insurgency in Los Angeles or any other
American city and what might be done to
prevent it.
Although Camelot has been canceled,
other Department of Defense research projects are planned or underway in other Latin
American countries, including Colombia,
Peru, and Venezuela.
I am personally concerned with such projects as Camelot because I believe there lies
beneath the jargon of "science" in which
these studies abound a reactionary, backward-looking policy opposed to change. Implicit in Camelot, as in the concept of "counterinsurgency," is an assumption that revolutionary movements are dangerous to the
interests of the United States and that the
United States must be prepared to assist, if
not actually participate in, measures to repress them. It may be that I am mistaken
in this interpretation; if so, I would be
greatly reassured to have convincing evidence
to that effect.
I ask unanimous consent that there be inserted in the RECORD two documents provided
August 25, 1965
by the Department of the Army, one a fact
sheet, the other a task statement on Project
Camelot.
Following disclosure of the ambitious plans
for Camelot and its cancellation by the Department of Defense, the President, by letter,
directed the Secretary of State to establish
procedures for clearing all Governmentsupported research involving foreign policy
matters. This letter sets a clear and direct
policy for all agencies, which should insure
that an incident like Project Camelot will
not happen again, to the embarrassment of
the Nation's foreign policy. I ask unanimous consent to have the President's letter
printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
This directive accomplishes the purpose I
had in mind in proposing an amendment to
the defense appropriation bill when it was
pending before the Senate committee. I
understand that the question was discussed
at length by the committee and I am pleased
that it included language in its report expressing its concern about the need for coordination in keeping with the President's
order. The report makes mention of a directive issued by the Secretary of Defense,
designed to implement the President's instructions, and I ask unanimous consent
that this letter be printed in the RECORD
following my statement.
The committee's expression is reassuring,
and I am hopeful that it will follow up to
insure that the Department of Defense is
indeed carrying out the letter and the spirit
of the President's order for coordination. I
can assure the Senate that the Committee
on Foreign Relations will have a continuing
interest in this problem.
Beyond the immediate implications of this
incident, broader issues have been raised
concerning Government-financed research
generally. The Federal Government is now
spending some $15 billion a year on research
and development. Over $6.7 billion is budgeted for Department of Defense research
in fiscal 1966.
All too often, it seems that research is
used by Government agencies either for
prestige and growth purposes, or as a substitute for positive decisionmaking. This is
both an unhealthy and a costly trend and
I believe that Congress should take a hard
look at all Government research activities.
I note, for example, that nearly $23 million is budgeted this year for research on
behavioral and social sciences by the Defense Department, $8.3 million of this
amount was allocated to the Army and out
of this, $2.7 million was to finance work of
the Special Operations Research Office. The
House and the Senate committees have reduced the total of this type of research by
about $4 million and I fully support this
action. Project Camelot, I fear, is illustrative of the expendable nature of most of this
research.
My concern is not limited to this $23 million budget request but goes to the contribution to our society from the $15 billion spent
for Government research. Is this 15 percent
of our Federal budget being spent as wisely
and usefully as it should be? This is a basic
problem which the Congress has allowed to
grow to gargantuan proportions with insufficient consideration and evaluation. The
question of sound priorities must be faced
some day, but I realize that this is not the
proper time for such a discussion and that
we can deal only with the bill before us.
But I am hopeful that before long the appropriate Senate committee, or a special committee, will undertake a thorough study of
all our Government's research programs.
PROJECT CAMELOT FACT SHEET
Project Camelot: Basic social science research project on preconditions of internal
conflict, and on effects of indigenous governmental actions-easing, exacerbating or
resolving-on those preconditions.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
the importance of the low-level conflict mission of the military. Paralleling this trend
has been a growing realization among military and civilian governmental leaders that
a requirement exists for earlier warning of
the possibility of outbreak of internal war and
greater understanding of the effects of
various military and other governmental postures and actions in this environment.
Military knowledge, skills and techniques
which were sufficient to meet the task of
preparing for and fighting conventional warfare, both nuclear and nonnuclear, require
expansion and refinement to meet the operational and military assistance demands of
cold war environment.
The military requirement for research of
the various types covered in this task have
been expressed in CDOG 1310(A)b, 1310(B)b,
1510, and 1320(B)o; in the report of the
R.D.T. & E. Limited War Task Group, August
1961 (2.2.2.2-.4), and in the April 1963 IDA
report (Barmack).
(c) Method of approach: This task will
consist of a large number of interrelated
studies within each of the four areas of research defined by the above four objectives.
These areas of research will, in turn, be interrelated. Findings and concepts within
each will direct the plans and orientations
within the others. Generally, the types of
studies to be planned within each of the four
areas will be the following:
(1) Model construction: The first major
effort of the task will be to construct a conceptual scheme or analytic model which will
identify parameters of social systems to be
studied in detail for an understanding of social conflict, and will relate the findings of
such studies to the operational objectives.
Three types of studies may be indicated: reviews of previous attempts based on the most
relevant of past work modified by findings
of this task applicable to the current operational need, and simulation studies of particular aspects of conflict. During the life of
the task, the new model will be modified and
refined as results from all areas of study suggest improvements. At the final stage, this
model will be used as a guide for the translation of research findings into a set of
specifications for an information storage and
TASK STATEMENT
1. Task title: "Methods for predicting and retrieval system which can be tested for suitInfluencing social change and internal war ability as a scientific base for operational and
policy planning.
potential" (Camelot).
(2) Indicator analysis: Based on param2. Sponsor: OCRD.
3. Consumers: DCSOPS, OCRD, ACSI, eters identified in the model, studies of
CDC, all commands conducting counter- indicators of internal war potential will fall
in the following areas:
insurgency.
(A) Studies of societal processes will be
4. Principal investigator: To be deterdone to determine the underlying nature of
mined.
social
conflict, including both the characterLocation of main effort: Washington, D.C.,
istics of cleavage formation within a society,
and Latin America.
and
the
nature of adjudication processes.
5. Scope:
(B) Preconditions of internal war will be
(a) Objective of research: To assist the
Army in planning for appropriate advisory studied both empirically and analytically.
and assistance operations in developing na- This will include indicators emphasizing intions by testing, in relation to one country, tellectual factors (e.g., ideology), economic
the feasibility of developing a social systems factors (e.g., changes in standard of living),
model which will give the following capabil- political factors (e.g., relative strength of
incumbents and potential insurgents), and
ities:
(1) Measurement of internal war poten- societal processes (e.g., rapid social change).
(C) The processes by which conflicts and
tial: a means for identifying, measuring, and
preconditions are transformed into internal
forecasting the potential for internal war.
war
can be studied in the changing relation(2) Estimation of reaction effects: a means
for estimating the relative effectiveness of ship between incumbents and potential invarious governmental practices, and levels of surgents, the organizing activities of both
military involvement over a wide range of incumbents and insurgents preparatory to
internal warfare, and techniques (such as
environmental conditions.
(3) Information collection and handling terrorism) of conducting internal war.
(3) Effects of governmental actions. Using
systems: means and procedures for rapid
collection, storage, and retrieval of data on as criteria the types of societal changes ininternal war potential and effects of govern- dicative of potential internal war, a series
of studies will be conducted on the effects
mental action, with appropriate consideration of existing and likely future automated of various kinds of governmental actions.
This will include military activities such as
facilities for processing and analysis.
(b) Background: The present interna- civic action, training of recruits, foreign
tional situation-especially
our relations training of officers, civil affairs, internal sewith the developing countries-has resulted curity missions, psychological operations,
in a marked increase in the appreciation of socialization within the military and overt
CX--1369
Contractor: Special Operations Research
Office of the American University.
Sponsor: Army Research Office, Office of
Chief of Research and Development, Department of the Army.
Starting dates: Authorized in August
1964; large-scale research planning commenced in January 1965.
Estimated completion date: Early 1968.
Budget: $450,000 last half of fiscal year
Esti1965 (January 1 to June 30, 1965).
mated $1.1 million for fiscal year 1966 (current fiscal year).
Current status: No research has been conducted in any country at this time. The
past 6 months have been spent in planning
the theoretical approaches and the research
design. Possible sites for field research have
not yet been chosen. The research design
is expected to be completed in early fall;
field work may begin in late fall.
Staff: Six professional staff members by
February 1, 1965. Twenty professional staff
members by June 30, 1965. Three consultants have taken on major planning responsi(They are not counted in 20 staff
bilities.
members cited above.)
Thirty staff members expected at peak.
Total effort is planned at 140 professional
man-years over length of projects.
B.A.
Project director: Rex D. Hopper.
(1922), Butler University (English); M.A.
(1925), Butler University (comparative religion); Ph. D. (1943), University of Texas
Senior staff scientist at SORO.
(sociology).
Previous experience and publications: chairman, department of sociology and anthropology, Brooklyn College; visiting professor of
sociology under Fulbright program, National
University of Buenos Aires; visiting professor of sociology under Smith-Mundt Act, National University of Paraguay, Asuncion del
Paraguay; visiting professor of sociology, National University of Mexico (four summers);
member of faculty, Department of Sociology,
University of Texas, and of the Institute of
Latin American Studies; member of staff and
treasurer, Colegio of Internacional, Asuncion
del Paraguay; publications on violent social
change and sociology in Latin America.
21713
SENATE
political activities. Analyses of these programs should consider scope, intensity, timing, control, coordination, subtypes and
techniques of the activities. Other governmental actions to be considered will be those
in which military cooperation or coordination is most important, including police
function, economic development, social welfare, public information and foreign policy.
(4) Information system design and feasibility test. The translation of findings into
operational use will require cost/effectiveness
studies of collection, storage and retrieval
processes. As a basis for such evaluations
attempts will be made to collect the information required in a specified country, to
integrate the information on internal war
indicators and governmental actions, and to
render this information into forms most usable by planners and operators.
6. Estimated professional man-years required:
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
Fiscal
year
year
year
year
1965----------------1966-------------------1967---------_____---1968--------------------
_ 20
50
_ 50
20
7. Phasing.
Fiscal year 1965, first question: Initial
coordination with relevant Government
agencies; establishment of project concept.
Appointment of National Academy of
Science advisory committee.
Determination of additional staff requirements and initiation of necessary recruiting.
Second question: Designation of overall
project manager.
Development of more detailed planning.
Selection of appropriate countries or study
sites.
Selection of special advisory panels.
Establishment of organizational structure
for project.
Coordination with relevant government
agencies.
Third question: Establishment of details
of project projections.
Initiation of state-of-knowledge studies in
all project areas.
Establishment of field office and development of field research connections.
Determination of special facility requirements.
Preparation of requests for proposals on
portions of project to be subcontracted.
Fourth question: Establishment of inhouse cross-policy, and systems studies.
Receipt and review of proposals for subcontracts.
Establishment of summer study and review group.
Further detailed development of activity
projection.
Augmentation of staff.
8. Fiscal year 1966: Focus of research on
cross-policy field studies. Fiscal year 1967:
Focus of research on field studies of the
selected country. Fiscal year 1968: Conduct
of feasibility test of information system for
planning
and
anticipating insurgency
counteraction.
THE WHrrE HOUSE,
Washington, D.C., August 2,1965.
Hon. DEAN RUSK,
Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. SECRETARY: Many agencies of
the Government are sponsoring social science
research which focuses on foreign areas and
people and thus relates to the foreign policy
of the United States. Some of it involves
residence and travel in foreign countries
and communication with foreign nationals.
As we have recently learned, it can raise
problems affecting the conduct of our foreign policy.
For that reason I am determined that no
Government sponsorship of foreign area
research should be undertaken which in the
21714
COi NGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
August 25, 1965
amount involved is a great deal of money. Secretary discretion. He can divide this
But we have capable public shipyards, as he may direct, so long as he bases his
and of course we have capable private conclusion upon the facts, the sole guide
shipyards. There is not a shipyard in being the public interest. The Senator
Mississippi that shares in the $843.2 mil- used the term "national interest." The
lion included in this bill for conversion, words here are "public interest," which is
alteration and repair of Navy ships, so equivalent to the same thing.
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina.
I am not directly involved in the matter.
But there should be some surveillance. They mean the same thing.
Mr. STENNIS. If he finds this forThe Senator from Hawaii should note
the fact that the committee did not mula too rigid or too inconsistent with
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
write a hard money or dollar rule, but in- the public interest, based on the urgency
cluded a proviso on page 47 of the bill of the requirements of the fleet, with
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
reference to repair, alteration, or conwhich reads:
Washington, D.C., July 12, 1965.
Provided, That if determined by the Sec- version of naval vessels, he can do it in
Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military
the
with
be
inconsistent
any way he may direct. That language
to
of
Defense
retary
Departments; Director of Defense Reof require- was put in to give him the discretion to
search and Engineering; the Chairman, public interest based on urgency
resuch
vessels
fleet
to
have
ment
of
the
which the Senator has referred.
Joint Chiefs of Staff; Assistant Secrepaired, altered, or converted as required
taries of Defense; General Counsel; the above, such work may be done in Navy or
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina.
Special Assistant; Assistants to the private shipyards as he may direct.
Let me ask the Senator another question
Secretary of Defense; Director, Defense
in connection with the military procureCommunications Agency; Director, DeSo the Secretary has absolute discre- ment authorization bill: Was not a secfense Intelligence Agency; Director, Detion to do what he thinks is best in the
fense Supply Agency; Director, National public interest, as indicated in the pro- tion similar to this omitted therefrom,
and would that not normally be the place
Security Agency.
viso. It has worked well in the past, and where such a provision as this would
Subject: Clearance of studies with foreign I believe it will in the future.
appear?
policy implications.
Mr. INOUYE. I commend the Senator
Mr. STENNIS. There is a section in
Hereafter all studies done in or for the
is
provision
That
Mississippi.
from
that bill, and being a member of both
Department of Defense, the conduct of
which may affect the relations of the United helpful, but I think it would be much committees, I made the point at the time,
States with foreign governments, are to be better if it were deleted.
that I did not believe that the language
cleared with the Office of the Assistant SecMr. STENNIS. I appreciate the com- precluded the Appropriations Committee
retary of Defense (International Security ments of the Senator from Hawaii and
from recommending the inclusion of the
Affairs) before they are initiated.
his attitude.
"65-35" provision, and that it did not
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA.
Mr. President, I had promised to yield preclude the Senate from adopting such
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, several to the Senator from South Carolina, who a provision. I believe that I reported
Senators have mentioned that they wish has a comment to make.
that to the Senate when the conference
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina. Mr. report on the procurement authorization
to offer amendments and make remarks.
I believe the Senator from Wisconsin was President, both Senators from South was considered. I know that the Senator
the first one to mention an amendment. Carolina have studied section 639. We from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI
The Senator from Oregon had some com- share the concern of the Senator from was in the same conference.
ments to make on the Fulbright memo- Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE]. As Senators well
There is language on the subject, but
randum. I shall yield, as nearly as I can, know, we have an important shipyard in this is a limitation on the use of funds
employment.
We
our
State,
with
a
large
in the order in which Senators asked to
included in this bill, in my opinion.
are aware of the difficulties that this secbe heard.
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina.
Suppose we have some comments first tion may involve. It is necessary for a The impression given to the Secretary,
and then get to the amendments. I yield shipyard to maintain a steady work force I hope, will not be employed to reduce
first to the Senator from Oregon [Mr. to be able to engage in repairing of ships. the effectiveness of the very important
In order to be able to perform their work, naval shipyards we have-especially
MORSE].
the
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall it is necessary to have a regular staff one in Charleston.
be
maintained
as
a
of
employees
who
can
take half or three-quarters of an hour
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
to comment on that matter, because it working force. We feel that that is as I hope that it does not involve a Navy
raises fundamental policy questions. I essential to our Naval Establishment as yard in his State. It is a valuable yard
am willing to accommodate myself to the it is to have ships, particularly with re- facility. This language has been in the
spect to the Charleston Navy Yard, beconvenience of Senators.
law now for 3 consecutive years. The
Mr. STENNIS. Suppose I yield to the cause we engage there in the very im- Senator's yard has prospered greatly
portant work of repairing Polaris subSenator from Hawaii, then.
under this very language.
marines.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
I have discussed this matter on sevto commend the able Senator from Mis- eral occasions with the distinguished will the Senator from Mississippi yield?
sissippi for a magnificent presentation of Senator from Mississippi, for whom we
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro temthis complex measure. I invite attention all have the highest regard.
pore. Does the Senator from Mississippi
to the committee amendment on page
I compliment him for the moving state- yieldto the Senator from Massachusetts?
47 of the bill, section 639, covering the ment he made in connection with the
Mr. STENNIS. I am happy now to
65-35 formula. I am sure the Senator war in Vietnam. It was reassuring
and a yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
realizes that many of us have felt our- fine statement, for the benefit of all He has worked on this bill for a long time.
selves in opposition to the proposal in Americans.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Let me say to
this item. I believe we have adequately
Returning to the section, as I under- both Senators from South Carolina [Mr.
satisfied the proposal that the Secretary stand, the addition of the proviso
gives RUSSELL and Mr. THURMOND], to the
of Defense should be given authority to a broad area of discretion to the Secre- Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Mcdecide on the distribution of work be- tary in order to make his determinations INTYRE], who I see is on his feet, and
tween public and private yards. There- in accordance with what he believes is also to the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
fore, I am hopeful that the conference in the national interest. That makes INOUYE], that the 65-35 section has been
committee will seriously consider delet- flexible, as I understand it, the previous in the bill for 3 or 4 years. The Navy
ing section 639 from the bill.
language of the section, which is quite does not like it particularly, but they say
Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the inter- direct and refers to the percentages.
they can live with it. The Secretary of
est of the Senator. Other Senators have
Do I correctly understand that the Defense says that he will get by with it.
a different interest. So there is an inter- proviso provides that flexibility of operaUnder the public interest proviso, there
est on both sides of this matter.
tion and that area of discretion to the has been more money spent in the Naval
Generally, I think there should be Secretary in carrying out this section? shipyards than the 65 percent in the last
some surveillance by the Congress over
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has read two years. I believe that the actual
the allocation of these funds. The the language correctly. It does give the amount spent in naval yards last year
judgment of the Secretary of State would
adversely affect United States foreign relations. Therefore I am asking you to establish effective procedures which will enable
you to assure the propriety of Governmentsponsored social science research in the
area of foreign policy. I suggest that you
consult with the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget to determine the proper procedures for the clearance of foreign affairs research projects on a Government-wide basis.
Sincerely,
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
was all but 33 percent. I am confident
that this provision, with its broad discretion in the public interest, will be satisfactory.
The House has nothing in the bill on
this subject. If there are strong. demands by the House conferees we can
leave the section out.
From my own personal point of view, I
would not care too much to see it left out,
but we have put it in for the last 3 or
4 years because of divergent interests
brought up on the floor of the Senate
and, therefore, we felt that as the Navy
can get along with it, and the Secretary
of Defense can get along with it, it was
better to have it in and take it to conference.
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina. I
am encouraged that the House conferees
may be insistent, and I am delighted to
hear the expressions of the Senator from
Massachusetts that he does not feel
strongly on this point.
Mr. STENNIS. On the question of the
public interest, let me ask the Senator
from Massachusetts, has it not proved to
be an adequate vehicle to take care of
any situation that can arise on either side
of the controversy?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The answer is
"yes," obviously.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I am especially
interested in section 639 of the Senate
version of the bill since the Senate Committee on Appropriations amended it to
include a provision that at least 35 percent of the funds appropriated for repair, alteration, and conversion of naval
vessels should be utilized in private shipyards.
I was pleased that the House of Representatives did not include any such
provision in the bill which it passed.
The provision which the Senate committee wrote into the bill would provide
a degree of flexibility. The Senate provision makes it possible for the Secretary
of Defense to depart from the limitation
when he determines that application of
the limitation is inconsistent with the
public interest.
However, it is my belief that it would
be the wiser course to omit entirely the
provision which is in the bill, as did the
House. The allocation of repairs, alterations, and conversions of naval vessels
between Navy shipyards and privately
owned shipyards should be made, particularly in this time of emergency, on
the basis of efficiency, proficiency, time
factors, and economy, rather than on
any arbitrary allocation.
The decision should be made on a
case-to-case basis by the Navy Department.
It is my hope, therefore, that the position of the House on this matter will prevail in the conference, as I feel that this
would be in the best interests of the
national security.
We in South Carolina have one of the
finest naval shipyards in the country.
We are very much interested in this
shipyard. Still, I would not take this
Position if I did not feel it to be in the
SENATE
best interest of national security; but,
unless we keep these shipyards ready at
any moment to go forward for repair,
alteration, or conversion of vessels, I believe that we could be in trouble.
The capabilities of our naval shipyards
are as essential a part of our defense
forces as the vessels which they construct and repair. We must maintain
these capabilities by utilizing them.
Only in this way can we insure that the
requisite skills and experience in shipbuilding and repair will be available in
critical emergencies.
We take pride that those employed in
the naval shipyard located in Charleston, S.C., are skilled employees. They
are dedicated, regular employees who
know their jobs. In my judgment, it is
important that we keep this reservoir in
store, to be used at any time it may be
needed.
On the bill as a whole, I compliment
the able Senator from Mississippi. He
has done an outstanding job. It has
been my great pleasure to cooperate with
him.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina. I appreciate his
cooperation. I do not wish to be misunderstood. As I said, I believe that we
need some surveillance around the flexible language in the bill but, of course, if
this provision goes to conference, I, as a
conferee, will support the Senate position.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from New Hampshire. I
know that he has a great interest in this
matter.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, as
usual, the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations has done an outstanding
job in its consideration of this year's
appropriations for the Department of
Defense. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I would like to
express my admiration of the careful,
meticulous job done by the Senator from
Mississippi and his colleagues in shaping
the bill now before the Senate.
I was quite concerned, however, to
learn of the inclusion in this bill of section 639, which has attempted to restore
a modified version of the often discredited 65-35 formula.
As Senators will know, the Secretary
of Defense testified before the Committees on Armed Services of both the Senate and the House that retention of the
65-35 formula for the distribution of
work between public and private shipyards would result in increased costs to
the taxpayers for ship repair, alteration,
and conversion. Both Chambers of the
Congress concurred by striking the 65-35
formula from the defense authorization
bill. This action was taken with the full
and enthusiastic support of the Department of Defense.
After the Congress had thus expressed
itself on this subject, the House enacted
H.R. 9221, the bill before us, without any
attempt to restore the 65-35 provision.
I was disappointed to learn that the Senate Committee on Appropriations had
thus acted on its own to insert this give-
21715
away of the taxpayers' dollars which
section 639 represents.
I am hopeful that the conferees on
H.R. 9221 will see the wisdom of deleting
section 639. I express this hope free
from any regional interest, and base it
solely on the fact that, to the best of my
knowledge, every knowledgeable expert
in the field has recommended that the
65-35 formula be abolished.
Among
these experts I would list the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy
and the Chief of the Bureau of Ships.
The issue here is not whether or not
U.S. naval vessels will be repaired, overhauled, or converted. The issue is simply whether the U.S. Navy will be permitted to do this work with a maximum
of efficiency and a minimum of expense
to the taxpayers.
Mr. President, section 639 is bad medicine for the ills of our domestic shipbuilding industry. Its anticompetitive
effect is simple; it simply guarantees to
the commercial yards that, no matter
how slipshod their work, the Navy will
continue to send work to them. Its impact upon quality control, overall competitiveness, and the ability of management is easy to forsee. The retention of
section 639 will represent another victory
for the private shipbuilding interests of
this Nation at the taxpayers' expense.
Mr. President, I am appreciative of the
remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], and the remarks
of the Senator from Mississippi, indicating that there will be a considerable
amount of flexibility in this provision as
it is administered by the Secretary of
Defense.
I, for one, thinking in terms of the
Vietnam situation, thinking in the terms
the Senator has shown to the American
people through his analysis of defense
matters, believe that next year, with
strikes up and down the west coast in private yards, as well as up and down the
east coast, the Secretary of Defense
should not have this limitation placed
upon him. I urge the Senator and the
other conferees on the part of the Senate,
when they go to conference with the
House, to give serious thought to the
complete deletion of section 639.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
He has stated his thoughts on this subject very well. I appreciate his remarks.
I believe I should now describe the committee action and the reasons therefor.
LIMITATION ON SHIP REPAIR FUNDS
The Department of Defense Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 1963, 1964,
and 1965 included the so-called 65-35
formula with respect to the allocation of
Navy ship conversion, alteration, and
repair work between the Navy shipyards
and the privately owned shipyards. This
provision includes an escape clause that
allows such work to be allocated without regard to the formula when the Secretary of Defense determines that it is
in the national interest to do so. The
Secretary did make use of this provision
during fiscal year 1965.
The budget proposed that this provision not be included in the bill for
fiscal year 1966, and it was not included
21716
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
in the House bill. However, the committee recommends the inclusion of the
provision. In recommending this provision, the committee considered section
303 of the Department of Defense Procurement and Research Act-Public Law
89-37-which provides:
The assignment of naval ship conversion,
alteration, and repair projects shall be made
on the basis of economic and military considerations and shall not be restricted by the
requirements that certain portions of such
naval shipwork be assigned to particular
types of shipyards or to particular geographical areas by similar requirements.
Mr. President, when I presented the
conference report on the procurement
authorization bill to the Senate, I m,de
it clear that this provision did not ::estrict the right of the Committee on Appropriations to recommend, and the Senate to adopt the 65-35 provision, so long
as that provision is tied to the funds appropriated in the bill containing the
provision.
In recommending the inclusion of this
provision, the committee has taken into
consideration several factors, such asFirst. The fact that the United States
has an excess of shipyard capacity.
Second. The fact that it is in our national interest to maintain as much of
this capacity as possible.
Third. The fact that during the past
3 years the provision has not resulted in
any serious problems for the Navy shipyards.
Mr. President, there is one other point
that should be stressed. This bill includes $843,173,000 for conversion, alteration, and repair work. Under the
Navy's preliminary plan the private
shipyards would be allocated $221,865,000 of this total, which is about $3 million more than they were allocated during fiscal year 1965. However, this allocation represents only 26.3 percent of the
total. This allocation is similar to the
allocation to private yards during fiscal
year 1962, which was the year before the
65-35 provision was introduced and
when the private yards were allocated
only 21.6 percent of such work.
In addition, it is generally known that
the Department of Defense is seriously
considering a proposal whereby shipyards in the United Kingdom will be allowed to compete on an equal basis with
American shipyards for the construction
of a limited number of Navy noncombatant ships. These ships are of the
type that would ordinarily be built in the
privately owned shipyards in this country. For these reasons, the committee
urges the adoption of the current provision contained in section 639.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first, I
would like to add my compliments to
those of Senators who have expressed
their appreciation to the Senator from
Mississippi for the outstanding work he
has done on the bill. We have come to
expect such fine work from him.. I appreciate also his remarks on the Vietnam situation, which I believe are most
helpful.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish
to make a brief comment to supplement
the remarks that have already been made
SENATE
about section 639, to indicate my reservations with respect to it.
The Department of Defense has constantly stressed its dedication to the
principle of the strongest possible Defense Establishment, combined with emphasis on cost effectiveness. I know that
the Senator from Mississippi has the
same objective.
Congress could take no action more
effectively designed to accomplish this
purpose than to repeal the 65-35 provision for conversion, alteration, and repair of naval vessels. The Secretary of
the Navy has pointed out that an increase
in the overhaul of nuclear submarines
accomplished at naval shipyards, as opposed to private shipyards, would constitute a substantial savings to the U.S.
Treasury.
With a defense budget running over
$50 billion a year, we must look for areas
where savings can be made, especially
when these savings will serve to sharpen
the skills of craftsmen who will be among
those first called in the event of a national emergency.
If it is the objective of Congress to insist upon the most effective expenditure
of Federal funds, repeal of this provision,
it seems to me, would be in the public interest. When the Joint Senate-House
Conference Committee meets to consider
the defense appropriations bill, I hope
that the Senate conferees will seriously
consider supporting this suggestion.
I am reassured, as also are the Senator from New Hampshire and other Senators, by the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that
the language of section 639, as it is now
included in the bill, is designed to insure
flexibility in the exercise of discretion
by the Secretary of Defense. For that
assurance I am very grateful to the Senator.
Mr. STENNIS I thank the Senator
very much for his fine remarks and
presentation. I know that he has a great
interest in this subject.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, N.H., is fighting for its life. The
Secretary of Defense has ordered that
this yard be phased out over a period of
10 years, a decision which I cannot accept as wise and expedient. This action
presumably was based, in part at least,
on the determination that the Portsmouth yard is not economically competitive. The management at the yard and
the workers at the yard have jointly extended ever;, effort to disprove this conclusion over the past few months, and
remarkable progress in efficiency and
productivity has been achieved. But we
can only prove our mettle by having full
opportunity in the construction, conversion, alteration, and repair of Polaris
and attack submarines.
It is for that reason that I express my
concern about the restrictive language
recommended by the Senate committee,
which would limit the use of funds for
ship repair, alteration, and conversion,
so as to provide that at least 35 percent
of such work shall be perfcrmed by privately owned shipyards. I cannot concede, as the language in the report suggests, that this is a reasonable, equitable,
August 25, 1965
or desirable distribution of work between
private and public yards. If there is one
area where the public yards admittedly
excel, it is in the field of alteration and
repair. On this point, I invite the attention of the Senate to a statement
contained in the summary of "Study of
Naval Requirements for Shipyard Capacity," issued by the Department of Defense on November 17, 1964, in support
of the decision to close some of our public
yards.
In respect to conversion, alteration, and
repair (CAR) work, the studies show that
in many cases it is cheaper for DOD to perform such work in-house. This results from
the fact that the naval shipyards which must
be maintained for strategic and operational
reasons have a high fixed overhead cost
which continues regardless of workload assigned. Hence, if the volume of CAR work
performed in the naval shipyards were increased from the present level of 65 percent
to the former level of about 80 percent, it is
believed the overall savings to DOD, at least
in the short run, would be $10 to $15 million
annually.
Mr. President, it is clear from this
statement that military authorities
themselves would prefer to return to the
former distribution, which resulted in
80 percent of the repair work being done
in public shipyards. And it is interesting to note that during 1965, the Secre-
tary of Defense found it necessary to
authorize several exceptions to the 65-35
formula in order that the necessary work
might be performed where it could be
handled most satisfactorily, and that was
in our public facilities.
I realize that due to the parliamentary
situation it is virtually impossible to
revise their formula in the bill now before the Senate. However I feel strongly
that we should not further starve our
already hungry public yards and that,
moreover, we should not tighten this already restrictive language, by making it
even more difficult for the Department of
the Navy to obtain its repair work on our
fighting ships when and where it needs
it.
Mr. SCOTT.
Mr. President, earlier
this year the military procurement authorization bill was enacted. This bill,
now Public Law 89-37, includes section
303 which reads as follows:
The assignment of naval ship conversion,
alteration, and repair projects shall be made
on the basis of economic and military considerations and shall not be restricted by reqluirements that certain portions of such
naval shipwork be assigned to particular
types of shipyards or to particular geographical areas or by similar requirements.
The Secretary of Defense requested the
elimination of the statutory 35-65 ratio
for the allocation of ship repair, alteration, and conversion work between privately owned and public shipyards.
Pointing out that this work can be accomplished with essentially equal efficiency in private shipyards and naval
shipyards, Secretary of the Navy Paul
Nitze feels that the distribution of this
work between the two categories of shipyards should be based upon consideration of assuring efficient utilization of
shipyard capacities and capabilities rather than a rigid 35-65 division. He has
pointed out that as more of this work
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
is assigned to the Navy yards, it is more
economical to the Defense Department
because they operate with fixed overhead
costs that are largely independent of
their assigned workload.
Being fully acquainted with the excellent operations of the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, I can attest to the correctness
of the Navy's judgment,
It is, therefore, with regret, Mr. President, that I note the addition to H.R.
9221 by the Committee on Appropriations
of the statutory 35-65 division. This action controvenes the policy established
by Congress only a few months agu in
Public Law 89-37. I earnestly hope that
the Senate-House conferees will delete
section 639 from the bill.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I shall vote
for this very important and necessary
appropriation bill which provides funds
for the military functions of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1966.
I do want, however, to express my disappointment that the Senate Appropriations Committee added languagesection 639-requiring that at least 35
percent of Navy ship repair, alteration,
and conversion funds be expended in
privately owned shipyards, leaving 65
percent for Navy yards.
Section 639 is almost identical to
language carried in the defense appropriation bill the past 3 years. This year,
however, Secretary of the Navy Paul H.
Nitze recommended repeal of this arbitrary allocation of Navy ship repair,
alteration and conversion work.
His superior, Secretary of Defense
Robert S. McNamara, recommended repeal of the 35-65 proviso.
His superior, the Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces, President Lyndon
B. Johnson, recommended repeal of the
35-65 proviso.
The House Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee recommended omission of
the 35-65 proviso, the full House Appropriations Committee concurred, and the
House of Representatives, in approving
the pending bill (H.R. 9221), also omitted
this restriction.
I have opposed the 35-65 proviso from
the very beginning-and for precisely the
same reasons the administration now opposes it.
I believe national defense considerations, not an arbitrary dollar division,
should be the first and foremost basis for
allocating Navy ship conversion, alteration, and repair work.
I am glad that those administration
officials most closely concerned with Navy
fleet readiness and combat capability now
agree that the 35-65 proviso is not in the
best interest of national security.
I would like to remind my colleagues
that earlier this year Congress enacted as
part of the defense procurement and research and development authorization
act a section stating that assignment of
such Navy shipwork be on the basis of
economic and military considerations,
not under restrictive requirements that it
be assigned to particular types of shipyards or to particular geographic areas.
The section of this enactment-Public Law 89-37-reads as follows:
21717
SENATE
shall be made on the basis of economic and
military considerations and shall not be restricted by requirements that certain portions of such naval shipwork be assigned to
particular types of shipyards or to particular
geographical areas or by similar requirements.
Thus, only last May, the Senate and
the House went on record opposing restrictions to allocate Navy ship conversion, alteration, and repair work by type
of shipyard.
Today, we are asked to approve a bill
containing a section that allocates such
work by type of shipyard.
While I would like very much to see
section 639 of the pending bill stricken, I
realize the practical difficulties in attempting to do this.
Section 639 reads as follows:
Of the funds made available in this Act
for repair, alteration, and conversion of naval
vessels, at least 35 per centum shall be available for such repair, alteration, and conversion in privately owned shipyards: Provided,
That if determined by the Secretary of Defense to be inconsistent with the public interest based on urgency of requirement of
the fleet to have such vessels repaired, altered,
or converted as required above, such work
may be done in Navy or private shipyards as
he may direct.
This is identical to language in the defense appropriation bill for fiscal year
1965, except that the words "of the fleet"
have been added this year.
It is recognized that section 639 is subject to a point of order and could be
stricken from the bill on the ground that
it is legislation in an appropriation bill.
The matter constituting legislation is the
language beginning "Provided, That"
through the end of the section.
To avoid a point of order, an amendment could be offered to strike the proviso clause. Section 639 then would
read:
Of the funds made available in this Act for
repair, alteration, and conversion of naval
vessels, at least 35 per centum shall be available for such repair, alteration, and conversion in privately owned shipyards.
This would be even worse than section
639 as it stands, for then the Secretary
of Defense would have no discretion
whatsoever to exceed the 65 percent for
Navy yards even if fleet requirements
demanded that additional work be performed in Navy yards.
As one who believes allocation of such
work should be on the basis of defense
requirements, I certainly would not want
to deprive the Secretary of Defense of
the authority to allocate more than 65
percent to Navy yards when fleet requirements are urgent.
The parliamentary situation being as
it is and the possible alternatives worse
than section 639 as it stands, the question then arises, "Why not move to strike
section 639 from the bill?"
This was attempted last year and was
overwhelmingly rejected by voice vote
of the Senate. My assessment of the
situation today shows the result would
be the same if anyone tried to delete section 639. A vote in the Senate to retain
639 would make it much more difficult
SEC. 303. The assignment of naval ship to remove section 639 if the bill goes to
conversion, alteration, and repair projects House-Senate conference committee.
Therefore, I am reluctantly forced to
bow to the realities of the situation.
I am as vigorously opposed to this section now, as I have always been.
I am hopeful that it will be deleted in
the House-Senate conference committee.
Despite my objection to this one section, I shall vote to pass the defense appropriation bill as a vital measure to our
national security.
I hope the conferees on the part of the
Senate will reconsider their position so
far as the 35-65 proviso is concerned and
take note of the fact that all the administration experts in this field have recommended that the 35-65 proviso be repealed.
I am glad to hear the assurance of the
Senators who are in charge of the appropriation bill that flexibility will be used
in working out the 35-65-percent proviso. I do hope that if the conferees
accept the Senate version, this flexibility
will be given.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
very much for his statement, which
covers the subject very well.
Mr. President, I offer an amendment,
which I send to the desk, and ask to
have stated. It is a technical amendment which would correct the reference
to a section number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
RUSSELL of South Carolina in the chair).
The amendment of the Senator from
Mississippi will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 38,
line 4, it is proposed to strike out "521"
and insert "621".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO.
417
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 417 and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment (No. 417) offered by
Mr. NELSON is as follows:
On page 2, line 10, strike out "$4,092,291,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "$4,107,499,-
900".
On page 48, beginning with line 1, strike
out all down through line 3.
On page 48, line 4, strike out "642" and
insert in lieu thereof "641".
Mr. NELSON. First, I should like to
say to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
STENNIS] that I have read extensively in
the last two volumes of the hearings conducted by the Senator, which total approximately 2,000 pages. I join other
Senators present in commending the
Sen^tor from Mississippi and the committee for an extremely thoughtful and
prob'ng hearing of the Defense Appropriation request.
My difference, considered alongside the
$47 billion appropriation amounts to
21718
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
August 25, 1965
The Army is properly concerned about work in the military service? There is
having to turn these men away, particu- menial work they could do. I thought
larly since they are at the same time ac- those letters made a fairly strong point.
I subscribe to what the Senator from
cepting over 100,000 men from the draft
each year, many of whom did not meet Wisconsin is trying to do in his amendArmy enlistment standards either.
ment.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator
from Ohio.
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NELSON. I yield to the Senator
During the past 3 years, 91,000 men
from Ohio.
came in through the draft who would
Mr. LAUSCHE. Do I correctly under- have been refused if they had volunstand that there are two rules which teered. Since it was felt that a willing
differ from each other-one rule relating volunteer frequently makes a better solto the physical and mental qualifications dier than an unwilling draftee, and since
which are applicable to volunteers and it is a great expense to the Army to have
a totally different rule which is applica- to train a new set of draftees every 2
ble to men who are drafted?
years, while a volunteer is in for at least
Mr. NELSON. That is correct. The 3 years, and is also much more likely to
quorum call.
Mr. President, the amendment pro- Army accepts the draftees who on their reenlist, the Army began to look about
poses to restore $15 million to the ap- academic tests achieve a percentile of 21. for some way to bring in more of the
propriation for the purpose of instituting That means that any draftee who men it was turning away, while at the
the Army special training enlistment achieves a score of 21 has 20 percent of same time maintaining its high standthe population academically beneath ards.
program called STEP.
The House of Representatives in- him.
The answer they developed was STEP.
appropriation
in
the
In the volunteer program the Army Under this program, volunteers who are
cluded the amount
will accept only volunteers who achieve qualified except for a correctible medical
bill passed by the House.
The appropriation for the STEP pro- a percentile of 31, which is substantially deficiency, or a correctible educational
gram is supported and was supported in higher. So we have a situation in which deficiency, but not both, can be accepted
the testimony by Secretary of Defense we are drafting into the Army men who as volunteers on a provisional basis, and
NcNamara. It was supported in the achieve a percentile of 21 and who do assigned to STEP.
testimony by Stephen Ailes, Secretary of not want to be in the Army, and rejectIn the case of those with a medical
the Army, Gen. Creighton W. Abrams, ing men who receive a percentile of 28, deficiency, the condition must be reJr., Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Maj. 29, or 30, on the grounds that that is not mediable within 6 weeks; after that time
Gen. B. F. Taylor, Director of Army high enough for a volunteer.
the man must meet the regular Army
Mr. LAUSCHE. That means that a physical standards.
Budget, Office, Controller of the Army,
Brig. Gen. Lloyd B. Ramsay, Deputy young man who wants to volunteer is reThere is one exception to the 6-week
Commander, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., jected unless he reaches the level of 31. time limit under the Army proposal:
Mr. NELSON. That is correct.
Tilton Davis, Jr., Director of Educational
if a man is underweight or overweight,
Mr. LAUSCHE. But when the supply and the doctors are confident that his
Development, 5th U.S. Army, and the
of volunteers is exhausted and draftees weight can be brought within the preChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There is rather extensive testimony in are needed, a person who did not qualify scribed bounds, but not within 6 weeks,
the record on the Senate side. I have as a volunteer could qualify as a draftee. he will still be eligible.
Mr. NELSON. That is correct.
all of that testimony and all of the quesIn fiscal 1964, there were 12,600 voluntions that were raised and, unlike the
Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the Senator teers who passed all other standards but
committee on the Senate side, I became from Wisconsin believe that this differ- were medically disqualified. The Army
strongly convinced that this is a very ence in testing is not sound?
estimates that 900 of these would have
sound, thoughtful, creative and fruitful
Mr. NELSON. The difference in the qualified for STEP.
proposal that ought to be adopted.
In
other
enough.
testing may be sound
The major part of STEP, however,
As I have said, the purpose of this words, it may be defensible to draft would deal with those whose mental test
amendment is to restore to the budget someone who has a percentile of 21 and is scores were too low. The Army requires
the funds for the Army's special training going to stay in the Army for only 2 a score of 31 on the Armed Forces qualienlistment program, or STEP. The Ap- years, but decline to accept a volunteer fying test-higher than any of the other
propriations Committee deleted these having a percentile of 31 who intends to services-and 56,000 volunteers were
funds, and added section 641 to the bill, spend his career in the service.
turned down in fiscal 1964 solely because
which states:
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes.
they did not achieve this score. Of
None of the funds provided in this act
Mr. NELSON. However, I do not these, about 41,000 scored high enough
shall be available for the expenses of the think it is defensible to refuse to accept to be eligible to enter the STEP program
special training enlistment program (STEP) a volunteer who achieves less than a per- if it were instituted.
or similar programs.
centile of 31, not because he does not
Until the program has operated for 4
The House Committee on Appropria- have the intellectual capacity tut be- years on an experimental basis, the
tions and the House of Representatives cause he has not had the reading, writ-' Army proposed to enlist 15,000 each year
voted to support the Army recommenda- ting, and arithmetic required.
out of the pool of around 42,000 eligibles
tion. I think the reasons for supporting
The purpose of the amendment is not for STEP.
the House position are extremely com- to reduce the percentile but to provide
Those who are admitted with an edupelling.
that the Army may accept volunteers cational deficiency will be placed in a
31,
of
less
than
a
percentile
The amendment would strike section who receive
special 14-week training program at Fort
641 from the bill, and add $15,208,900 send them to school at Fort Leonard Leonard Wood, Mo. Here they will
to the "Military personnel, Army" ap- Wood or elsewhere, and give them train- spend half of each day receiving basic
propriations account, the amount of ing in reading, writing, and arithmetic, combat training, and half the day remoney allowed for STEP by the House. so that they can take an examination and ceiving instruction in subjects like EngSTEP was conceived by the Army as achieve a percentile of 31 or above. Then lish, arithmetic, social studies, and scia way of reducing its reliance on the we will have a volunteer who will make a ence. This will be a stretchout of 6 weeks
draft. Because of the fact that it uses good soldier and will meet the standards in the normal 8-week basic combat training course.
large numbers of draftees, the Army has of the Army.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I have received a
the highest requirements for those who
At the end of the 14 weeks, trainees
number of letters in this period of in- who have satisfactorily completed their
enlist voluntarily of any of the services;
they are so high, in fact, that in fiscal ternational stress inquiring why many basic combat training, and whom the
year 1964, the Army turned away 70,000 persons are being rejected because they Director of General Educational Develmen who wished to volunteer but could are labeled as dull normal. The query opment believes to have advanced adenot qualify.
is: Are they not qualified to do some quately, will take the Armed Forces
something less than one one-thousandth
of 1 percent. The amount involved in
this is $15 million.
Mr. STENNIS. On behalf of the committee, as well as personally, I thank the
Senator from Wisconsin for his remarks.
The Senator is certainly within his
rights to offer an amendment, and I
shall be very much interested in the
points that he makes.
Does the Senator wish to have a yeaand-nay vote on his amendment?
Mr. NELSON. I shall ask for the yeas
and nays on the amendment. However.
I do not believe there is a sufficient number of Senators present to order the yeas
and nays, so I shall wait until there is a
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
qualifying test again. If they now score
31 or higher, they will be given 2 weeks'
leave and then sent to advanced indi-
vidual training like any other enlistee.
Those who fail the Armed Forces
qualifying test this second time, or who
do not take it because the Director feels
they are not ready, will be sent to a
modified program combining advanced
individual training and general educational development; for 3 weeks they will
receive 6 hours of general education and
2 hours of military training each day,
and will then take the Armed Forces
qualifying test a third time.
Those who still fail will receive one
final chance; they will continue for
another 5 weeks of modified training,
receiving up to 4 hours per day of general education on their deficient subjects,
combined with on-the-job training as
basic engineer pioneers, learning to use
engineer tools, and the basic techniques
of carpentry.
At the end of this period, the trainee
will take the Armed Forces qualifying
test.
If he scores 31 or higher, he will
be assigned to an Active Army unit; if
he scores lower, he will be discharged.
The Army for some time now has
operated similar programs of general
educational development for draftees
who were below their regular standards-at present, men are eligible for
the draft if they score as low as 21.
Mr. Tilton Davis, Director of Educational Development of the 5th Army,
presented some figures to the Appropria-
tions Committees on the success met by
these programs at installations in the
5th Army.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Mr. Davis
made before the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on January 26, 1965, be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY MR. TILTON DAVIS, JR., DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
5TH U.S. ARMY, BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE SUBCOMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS, U.S. SENATE, JANUARY 26,
1965
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, you recall that Mr. Ailes spoke of
the AFQT-Armed Forces Qualifying Testtest score of 31 being the mental standard
for enlistment but that some exceptions are
made in the case of high school graduates.
He further pointed out that during the past
3 years some 91.000 draftees were taken into
the Army who achieved scores below this
minimum.
The data I will present will be based on
results some of these men have achieved in
the Army's general educational development
program.
After a man is accepted into service, the
AFQT score is not used. The Army administers additional tests to specifically identify
the aptitudes of individuals.
The Army
classification battery, or ACB, is the principal test. It consists of 11 parts. By combining these part scores, aptitude areas of individuals are determined. The aptitude area
scores are one of the factors used by classification personnel to assign individuals to
MOS training and by service schools as
course prerequisites.
One of the aptitude area scores is called
the general technical or GT. The two parts
which make up the GT are the verbal test
SENATE
and arithmetical reasoning.
GT aptitude
area scores have a high correlation with
scores achieved on the AFQT. A score of 31
on the AFQT is about equal to a score of 90
on the GT aptitude area. An AFQT score of
15 is about a GT score of 75.
Since GT scores are recorded on official
records when educational level surveys are
taken, individuals whose GT scores are below
90 are identified. When the military training
situation permits, these men are enrolled in
on-duty or off-duty classes and instruction
is given in reading, social studies, arithmetic,
and general physical sciences.
The two charts which follow (not printed
in the RECORD) show the effect of GED instruction on the general technical score of
students. These experience data are from
two 5th Army installations for classes conducted in the past 9 months.
The first chart shows the GT scores
achieved by 471 men before and after 210
hours of instruction.
The GT scores are
plotted on the horizontal and number of men
achieving each score is shown on the vertical.
For example, this point shows that the possible range of scores on the GT Aptitude Area
Test is from 50 to 160 points.
Note on the original test, men achieved
scores ranging from the minimum possible,
50 points, to a high of 119 with the average
or mean of 83.5 points. After instruction,
some men still remained at the minimumthese were nonreaders-whereas the highest
score attained was 136 points. The mean on
retest was 94.1 points, an increase of 10.6
points over the original test.
This second chart shows data comparable
to the first chart except that the length of
instruction was 400 hours compared to 210
hours for the first group.
On the original test, scores ranged from
60 to 108 points with mean of 84.8 points,
only 1.3 points above mean of the first group.
Of the total 125 men 99 had below 90 GT
score. After 400 hours of instruction, the
range of scores was 73 to 139. The mean
on retest was 112.6, a raise of 27.8 points
from the original mean. On retest only eight
men had GT scores below 90.
Attention is invited to the fact that a
number of men achieved scores of 115 or
higher, and 43 men had scores of 120, the
qualifying score for some of the hard skill
MOS schools.
But there are additional advantages of
STEP that cannot be so objectively measured but surely are as real.
First, students can be carefully observed by
military trainers and skilled teachers; personal problems and difficulties can be identified and appropriate professional guidance
provided to overcome maladjustments.
Second, special programs of instruction
can be developed to meet the specific educational needs of the individual, to bring his
abilities into line with his interests.
And third, opportunity to truly measure
the value of the program-over a long period
of time-will now be made available.
The major problem of the GED portion of
STEP will be the hiring of teachers-teachers able, interested, and desiring to work with
young adults and knowledgeable of the characteristics of students they will have. It is
our hops and plan to secure teachers nationwide, from rural and urban areas, from
a large number of colleges, and with a variety
of all ethnic, economic, social, and racial
backgrounds. Through an effective program
of teacher training and orientation, we will
be able to better understand the personal
attitudes, motivations, and frustrations of
students who themselves will have great differences of culture and education. We will
have assistance of personnel located at all
Army installations in our hiring efforts. We
fully expect to fill our faculty of 250 civilian
teachers, but the task will be difficult in
terms of quality and quantity of teachers
desired.
21719
During the first 14 weeks of training, concurrent with BCT, the GED portion of the
program will consist of 280 hours apportioned approximately as follows: 80 hours,
English and reading; 60 hours, arithmetic
and basic mathematics; 50 hours, social
studies; 50 hours, elementary science; 40
hours, examination and evaluation.
It should be remembered that the specified
hours allotted GED in the subject areas
above will be modified as required to meet
the educational needs of the individual
trainees.
Ninety hours of GED will be given those
trainees during the first 3 weeks of the AIT/
GED phase of the program and 100 hours of
GED instruction will be given to those who
cannot advance to regular AIT at the end
of this period.
The USAFI achievement test II, USAFI
achievement test III or the advanced California achievement test, as appropriate, will
be administered at the beginning of the
STEP GED program to determine the functional grade levels of STEP trainees. Other
appropriate tests may be used as necessary
during the instructional phases to determine the educational progress of traineesto permit identification and regrouping of
rapid and slow learners and to determine
which trainees require increased individual
attention or additional instruction after
duty hours in supervised study halls.
In summary, then, it can be concluded
that the STEP academic program will surely
raise a large percentage of STEP students to
and above the academic level required for
enlistment. But more important, the students, through carefully designed guidance
and instructional programs, will continue
their personal growth after they complete
STEP. and be able to work effectively in the
Army structure.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON. I yield to the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND.
Does not the Sen-
ator feel that these young men should
be trained in the educational fundamentals by the Job Corps rather than to
place this responsibility upon the Army,
which has its hands full training soldiers?
Mr. NELSON. As the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina knows
there is testimony in the hearings on
this exact point. I read the questions
and answers of representatives of the
Department of Defense, who said no.
I believe the Department of Defense is
correct.
I do not believe there is any way to
combine
the
education
necessary
to
qualify and the necessary military train-
ing of the individual under any public
training organization or the HEW. On
that exact point, the testimony of Secretary Ailes was as follows:
Lastly-and the most difficult question
always is-the Job Corps is already going
to do this. They are going to take people
in and one of the things they hope to train
them for is to make them eligible for military service. I say that is fine. But that
is not a substitute, in our mind. That is
not the same thing. It does not do the same
thing for us that our program will do.
This program of ours enables us to give a
man education under military discipline, at
the same time he is getting his basic training. It enables us to screen and evaluate
and to be sure the men who come in, who
originally could not meet our standards, are
men who are going to make good soldiers.
21720
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
All we are talking about here is just some
10,000 additional spaces.
I submit this is a program the Army should
engage in. It will be useful to us in the
future. If we get Into a situation where we
have to broaden the base rapidly, we will
have learned how to bring up the qualifications of people. I am supported in this
by the Chief and the Vice Chief of Staff and
a group of hard-working people of the Army
staff who have studied this program and are
convinced it is a good program.
There is, as the Senator knows, testimony throughout the record on this exact point. I thought that the Army's
position was compelling and persuasive
as to that question. However, obviously
the Senate committee, of which I believe
the Senator is a member, did not believe so. But on the House side, the committee and the House of Representatives
endorsed and adopted the Army position.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
policies of the Department of the Army
and the Department of Defense are
guided by the policy handed down by the
administration. Does the Senator not
feel, in view of the responsibility which
the A; my has to train people to fight in
Vietnam and perhaps in other places,
that nonmilitary training should be handled by the Job Corps?
I remind the Senator that the Office
of Economic Opportunity has issued an
administrative manual, in December
1964, which provides that the educational program in the Job Corps centers
is geared to helping young people get
and hold jobs in which they can advance,
helping them to return to school, helping them to enter the MTDA, which is
the Manpower Training and Development Association, and other vocational
training programs, or helping them to
qualify to enlist in the Armed Forces.
Mr. President, one of the purposes of
the Job Corps is to prepare young people
to enter the Armed Forces. That is one
of the big arguments that was presented
here for the Job Corps-that the Job
Corps would prepare young people to
enter the Armed Forces. Figures were
cited to show-as the Senator cited
figures this morning-how many were
disqualified for one reason or another.
The Job Corps was organized. It is now
in operation. This is one of its purposes.
Why should we want to duplicate any
program? Why should we not allow the
Job Corps to do this job and let it provide the educational training and let
the Army devote its full attention to its
military responsibilities? The Army has
enough responsibilities without having
to operate a school for these young people.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there
are several answers to that. First, the
Army is already doing exactly what we
are talking about. The testimony of the
military spokesman for the Army pointed
out that they are taking draftees with a
percentile of 21, which is 10 less than
that required of a volunteer. They then
train them in a program similar to that
which is underway now. Second, a substantial portion of the Army function is
educational, educating soldiers and
training them in a thousand skills.
Mr. THURMOND. The Army facilities
are limited. The Army is not equipped
SENATE
to take on the responsibility of training additional thousands of young men
whom the Job Corps could train, whom
the civilian vocational schools or other
agencies could train. They would have
to train some of them because there
would be no other way out. However,
why should we place additional responsibilities on the Army and require it to
do more training than it is equipped to
do when such training could be done by
some other agency?
Mr. NELSON. I believe that the answer is very simple. Under this program the Army would take 15,000 volunteers who they think would qualify.
Those 15,000 volunteers would be trained
and they estimate 12,000 would achieve
a percentile of 31. Those volunteers
would be likely to remain in the Army
much longer. That has been proven by
the record. They would be in the Army
because they wanted to be. They would
replace 12,000 draftees who do not want
to be in the Army and who may never be
able to achieve a percentile of 31 anyway.
It seems to me that, instead of doing
that, we foolishly say, "No." There is a
man who wants to be a soldier. He has
the intellectual capacity to become a
soldier. So, instead of letting him make
a career out of the Army and become a
good soldier, we say, "No, we will not
give you the training, but we will draft
men with a percentile of 21, some of
whom could never reach a percentile of
31." So we are drafting men with a low
percentile and giving them that training, and yet refusing to take those who
want to join.
It does not make any sense to me. We
provide education in all walks of life.
We provide education in our schools,
which education helps young men enter
the Army. We provide education in the
Job Corps. We provide education in the
Army. The Army is the biggest single
educator in America. It has more people
taking correspondence courses and more
people taking technical courses of all
kinds than any school, university in this
country.
This is a function that the Army could
handle very well. As to the Job Corps, I
am glad to see them doing this job.
However, this would not do a volunteer
any good. A young man could qualify
with a percentile of 31 and above and still
not be able to get into the Job Corps.
The Job Corps is not able to accept them
August 25, 1965
ards, which are higher for enlistment
than are the standards in any other
service. I cannot understand such a
position.
Mr. THURMOND. The Army is possibly the greatest training center in the
United States. But it should not be required to take on additional duties and
have to train those who have fallen below
the standard which the Army has set,
because then it would take the time of
the Army away from its main functions
in order to give elementary nonmilitary
training to people who could receive that
training elsewhere.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I do not
believe the Senator's argument holds
water.
We spend a vast amount of time training draftees. The draftees come in for
2 years and then quit. We would not
have to continue to train them if we had
volunteers who stayed in for more than
the 2-year period.
On the basis of these figures, the Army
estimates that about 80 percent of the
15,000 STEP trainees, or 12,000 men, will
successfully pass through the program
each year. This will provide 12,000 additional military personnel. If this program is as successful as the Army believes it will be, it will ultimately provide
33,000 additional military personnel annually.
It has been argued that this program
belongs in the poverty program, rather
than the Army; that is why it was cut out
of the budget by the Appropriations
Committee. There can be little question
that STEP, like any program of education, will help to reduce poverty; but that
is not its main purpose. The main purpose of STEP is to reduce the Army's
training costs, and to secure a higher
caliber of manpower for the Army.
In fiscal year 1965, 266,000 men went
through basic training on their way into
the Active Army; combined with those
who received basic training in the Reserve and the National Guard, this made
a total of 388,000 men who were given
basic training by the Army. The Air
Force and the Navy, by comparison,
trained about 115,000 each.
If STEP proves successful in the 4year trial period, the Army may eventually be able to enroll all 42,000 of the
men who volunteer each year and are
turned down because of a correctible
medical or educational deficiency. The
all.
SArmy estimates that 80 percent of those
If anybody were to read the testimony entering STEP will successfully complete
carefully, he would have to come to the the course. It is thought that it will be
conclusion that the Army position is closer to 90 percent. However, 80 percent is used as a more conservarive
sound.
This program would relieve us of draft- figure.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ing thousands of men. We are talking
about drafting married men. What ask for the yeas and nays on the pending
sense would that make if we could obtain amendment.
volunteers, as the Army believes? Their
The yeas and nays were ordered.
experience seems reliable to me. They
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, to conhave the test scores to prove what they tinue my statement, the Army will be
can do, and how they can raise the per- able to take 33,000 draftees, men who are
centile.
not motivated to enlist, who in many
The proof has been submitted as a part cases are not eligible to enlist, and who
of the record. I believe that the Senator will not be eligible to reenlist after comhas read it. Why should we draft mar- pleting their 2-year terms, and replace
ried men when the Army can obtain them with 33,000 men who want to be in
about 35,000 additional volunteers a year the Army, who want to be in the Army so
who can qualify for the Army stand- much, in fact, that they are willing to
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
sign up for a 3-year term conditional
upon their successfully completing the
STEP educational program.
Recent newspaper accounts have reported that the Government is giving
serious thought to revoking the draft
exemption for men who are married but
have no children; it is thought that this
may be necessary because of the increased manpower needs for the war in
Vietnam. Yet we hesitate to let the Army
try, by running STEP on an experimental basis, to find some other way in which
it can meet its manpower needs without
causing the great disruption of families
which will be inevitable if we once again
start to draft married men. It would
seem sensible to follow the Army recom-
mendations of giving special training to
volunteers who want to enlist before we
embark on a program of drafting married men.
Of course, we cannot know for certain
how successful STEP will be: that is
why it is only planned for 15,000 men a
year, rather than 42,000, which is the
number estimated might come under the
program. But in view of the great gains
to be made, and the unquestionable benefits the Army will receive if anything
approaching the hoped for level of success is reached, it is certainly well worth
making the experiment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President. I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that there be a
time limitation of 10 minutes on the
pending amendment, control of the time
to be equally divided between the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the
Senator handling the bill, and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], who
has offered the amendment.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I did
not hear how much time.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Ten minutes; 5
minutes to a side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on passage of
the bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, briefly,
in response to the proposal to put into
the bill the STEP program, I wish to
make the following points: No proposal
has been made which has had more extensive consideration by the Appropriations Committee, not only this year, but
last year. Originally this proposal requested funds under a reprograming
provision. It was turned down by the
committee last year, but it was stated
that we would fully consider it again
this year.
Rather extensive hearings were held
by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Rus-
SENATE
SELL] last year. We went into it again
this year.
With all deference to the program and
those who may support it, I do not believe a single one of the members who
heard the full proposal and engaged in
the full discussion felt we should put
the program in the bill. That is more
particularly true now because of the
increased number of personnel that are
going to be brought into the Army.
Personally, I did not think the talent
of the Army, both commissioned and
noncommissioned, should be used in this
training program for a great number of
men, even if there were some talent
found in that group. I am not discounting the fact that there may be personnel who would ultimately qualify, but
we had better start with men who
we know have the potential and try
to make soldiers of them. We should
not spend military money on attempting
to train those other men. We should not
expend our military talent on a program
that is so largely educational.
We believe it would cost more to train
the STEP personnel. The point has been
made that training for those groups who
fail to reach induction requirements,
physical or mental, or both, would cost
$4,104 a year, whereas the actual cost of
those who are in the Army is $3,837. In
other words, the training cost is less for
the man who has the potential, which has
already been measured.
Another point, which is not controlling
but important, is that the program would
upset the Army training bases which are
already established to train men as soldiers. These facilities would be vacated
in several places and this educational
program would be installed there. I did
not like that part of the proposal. Places
like Fort Leonard Wood are dedicated
solely to the training of Army men in the
real arts of warfare. To use a part of
those facilities for an educational program did not make sense to me.
One of the stated objectives of the Job
Corps in the Office of Economic Opportunity is to improve the young men in
order that they may enlist in the Armed
Forces. That purpose is stated in the
body of the measure. Some progress is
being made in that direction. But, as a
military matter, we failed to find that it
would be feasible to draw on military
money and talent for this program. That
is particularly true when one considers
that the Army has the additional burden
of training 235,000 men, which number of
men will be brought into the service between now and September 1966.
Mr. President, that completes my remarks.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I believe, in the absence of the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIs]
most of the points that were raised by
his remarks were discussed in my speech,
or extemporaneously. So I shall not take
all of the 5 minutes alloted to my time.
I wish to make the point, in response
to the Senator from Mississippi, who
feels we ought to take the talent we have,
talent that is high enough to meet the
standards of volunteers. I point out
again that we are drafting men with a
21 percentile and then training those
21721
people, some of whom do not have the
capacity to reach the 31 percentile.
It is a tragic thing that we are not
prepared to open the doors and do everything we can for the young man who has
the basic innate ability to become a good
soldier, and qualify by all the standards
of the Army, who was deprived of the opportunity to be educated because of the
area of the country he came from, and
to say to the man who wants to become a
volunteer and defend his country, who
has all the qualifications, "No, sir, we are
not willing to spend any time on you, to
provide you with the basic, technical
training you need, but we are going to
draft men of 21 percentile."
These are the kind of young men we
wish to have in the service, those who
wish to serve and wish to make a career
out of a military life.
Therefore, I would certainly hope that
we would give them the opportunity to
serve.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Mississippi yield back
his time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how
much time have I left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
One
minute.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
1 minute to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
with relation to the STEP program, let
me say to the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin that the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. RUSSELL] and I heard Secretary of the Army Stephen Ailes last
September, and we both felt that such a
program should not be adopted and
should not be started, that the Army
should be kept out of educational and
health-giving programs, and so on. The
Secretary of the Army came up again in
the following January and again we
heard his request. We also heard it
again when the Senator from Mississippi
and I and others were on the committee.
At least on all those three occasionsand I am not sure that there was not a
fourth-I would say that we unanimously decided that the Army should not
enter into this sort of training program.
Personally, I feel strongly about that.
I feel extremely strongly about it at the
present moment, when the Army has so
much more of importance on its mind.
I hope, therefore, that the amendment
will be rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has now expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON].
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered; and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
DonD], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
MCGEE], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], are absent on official business.
21722
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Bayh
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Dominick
Eastland
Ellender
Fannin
Fong
Harris
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
SENATE
August 25, 1965
I further announce that the Senator
the OFFICER.
from Pennsylvania [Mr.
The structed in the United States. This is
PRESIDING
The CLARK],
Senator from North
Carolina
amendment
will [Mr.
be stated.
particularly important in light of perfrom
MinneERVIN], and the Senator
On page 18,
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK.
sistent balance-of-payments difficulties.
are necessarily
sota [Mr. MCCARTHY],
beginning
with the word "That" in line Yet today only 9 percent of our foreign
absent.
21, strike out all down through page 19, commerce moves in American-flag vesthat,
present
and
I further announceline
in lieu thereof:
2, ifand
insert
sels. Norwegian carriers transport twice
voting, the Senator from
of the funds herein appro- as much of the American foreign trade
ThatNorth
noneCarolina
Wyom[Mr. ERvIN], the Senator
as U.S.-flag ships. Liberia carries three
expended in any foreign
priated from
may be
ing [Mr. MCGEE], shipyard
and the
Senator
for (1)
the procurement of any vestimes as much as we do. And even from
from West Virginia
sel, [Mr.
or (2) RANDOLPH],
for the construction of any major
this poor position, we continue to lose
component of the hull or superstructure of ground.
would each vote "nay."
be
constructed
or
converted
any
vessel
to
The result was announced-yeas 27,
These concerns become all the more
nays 67, as follows: with funds herein appropriated.
urgent in view of the rapid buildup of
[No. 236 Mr.
Leg.] BREWSTER. Mr. President, this the fleets of other nations, most espeYEAS-27
is a very simple amendment. It requires cially of the Soviet Union. The United
funds expended for the building States ranks only fourth in the world in
that
allMorse
Bass
Hartke
Burdick
Javits of shipsMoss
under the appropriation bill be number of ships afloat, even discounting
Church
Kennedy,
Mass.
Nelson
spent
the United States. It would ef- the disastrous effects of the current mariCooper
Kennedy,
N.Y. inNeuberger
Douglas
LauschefectivelyPellprevent the purchase of war- time strike. The Soviet Union has alFulbright
Long, La.
Proxmlre
ships for
the U.S. Navy overseas. I be- ready surpassed us in number of ships
Gore
McGovern
Ribicoff
lieve that
the American merchant ma- in the active fleet, and may shortly exGruening
McNamara
Tydings
rine and
our Navy
Hart
Mondale
Williams,
N.J. have suffered by the ceed us in total tonnage afloat.
While nations like Japan and Norway
gradual deterioration of the shipbuilding
NAYS-67
industry in the United States. The dec- are engaged in determined efforts to
Hayden
laration of policy of the United States build up their fleets, we are falling
Hickenlooper
Pastore
Hill
was set forth in the Merchant Marine farther and farther behind. We now
Pearson
HollandAct of 1936. I should like to quote briefrank no higher than 11th among shipProuty
Hruska
building nations of the world. The
Robertson Inouye ly from the declaration of policy, which
Russell, S.C.
United States-the leading trading naJacksonis now the law of the land. It reads:
Russell, Ga.Jordan, N.C.
tion of the world-risks becoming low
It is necessary for the national defense and
Saltonstall Jordan, Idaho
Scott
Kuchel development of its foreign and domestic man on the totem pole of international
Simpson Long, Mo.
commerce that the United States shall have shipping and shipbuilding activities.
Smathers Magnuson
a merchant marine (a) sufficient to carry its
We have recently been informed by
Smith
Mansfield
domestic water-borne commerce and sub- the Department of Defense that after
Sparkman McClellan
stantial portion of the water-borne export
Stennis
this
appropriation bill passes, it is proand import foreign commerce of the United
Symington McIntyre
posed to buy $60 million worth of warand to provide shipping service on all
Talmadge Metcalf
States
Thurmond Miller routes essential for maintaining the flow of ships for the U.S. Navy from British
Monroney
Tower
Montoyasuch domestic and foreign water-borne com- shipyards.
Williams, Del.
merce at all times; (b) capable of serving
I feel that this purchase would repreYarboroughMorton
Mundt as a naval and military auxiliary in time of sent a disaster for the American merYoung, N. Dak.
Murphy
and
(c)
owned
emergency;
or
national
war
Young, Ohio
Muskie operated under the United States insofar as chant marine, and I am firmly opposed
to such action.
NOT VOTING-6
may be practicable, and (d) Let me state at the outset, Mr. PresiClark
Ervin
McGee
to
thisListen
dent,
that I appreciate the rationale of
Dodd
McCarthy
Randolph
composed of the best-equipped, safest, and the Defense Department in offering such
So Mr. NELSON'S amendment
(No.
417)
most suitable types of vessels, constructed in
a proposal. This country should purwas rejected.
the United States and manned with a trained
chase certain kinds of military equipUNANIMOUS-CONSENT and
AGREEMENT
personnel.
TO LIMIT
efficient citizen
ment abroad, as a partial offset to the
DEBATE ON BREWSTER AMENDMENT
huge amounts that our allies spend on
I believe that these are worthy objecPresident,
I
Mr. From
Mr. MANSFIELD.tives.
of view of na- military procurement in the United
the point
ask unanimous consent
that onthere
the is no question that States.
tional defense,
amendment to be aoffered
by the
dis- merchant marine,
I recognize-and support-the need
efficient
large and
tinguished Senator from
Maryland
[Mr.
shipbuilding and for give and take in these transactions.
with a healthy
coupled
BREWSTER] there beship
a time
limitation,
But
there are certain areas in which we
repair industry, can make a major
up to 15tominnot to exceed 30 minutes,
our national security. should not give, and shipbuilding leads
contribution
utes to a side, to be
controlled
by thefor troop transport: that list.
are needed
Vessels
distinguished Senator
charge
of the Division embarked
In any military conflict, there is
1st Cavalry
the inentire
bill, the Senator from
Mississippi
ship. They are needed great need for supply shipping. The avby [Mr.
for Vietnam
STENNIS], and the distinguished
Senator
for supply functions as well. Some 600 erage American fighting soldier requires
from Maryland [Mr.
BREWSTER].
ships were required to supply Amer- nearly 37 pounds a day in supplies, miliU.S.
The PRESIDING ican
OFFICER.
Is there
Korea, and the present 'tary equipment, and other materiel.
troops in
objection?
situation in southeast Asia has demon- During the Korean war, a daily supply
Mr. MORSE. I object.
strated the continuing need for such of 20,000 tons of dry cargo and 125,000
from
the Senator
Mr. STENNIS. Will
both naval and barrels of petroleum was required. This
The shipyards,
vessels.
Oregon withhold his
objection?
The
must also
be ready to activate meant that 600 ships had to be diverted
private,
unanimous-consent and
request
applies
only
for service in the na- to the military effort.
vessels
repair
to the amendment offered
the Senator
defense.
tional by
In Vietnam, there is an urgent need
from Maryland [Mr. The
BREWSTER].
conclusion of the Harvard Busi- for the immediate reactivation of ships
Mr. MORSE. I misunderstood
the
reness School study for the Navy Depart- in our mothball fleet. For such emerquest. I thought itment
wasinto1945
govern
all true today:
still holds
gencies, we must maintain a healthy
amendments.
shipyard industry which can meet this
The controlling factor in the determination
Mr. MANSFIELD.of No.
the characteristics of shipping and ship- need.
Mr. MORSE. I have
no objection.
building
activities in the United States in
We do not produce a healthy AmeriThe PRESIDING peacetime
OFFICER.
Is there
as well
as in wartime is the nacan shipyard industry by purchasing $60
security.
tional
objection? The Chair
hears
none, and
million of ships in Great Britain.
the order is entered. The value to U.S. commerce of a
Already 18 of our yards have gone out
AMENDMENT
NO. 420
healthy
merchant marine is equally clear. of business during the last decade. More
Mr. BREWSTER. There
Mr. President,
I call in employment, in yards will probably close down during
will be gains
and ask
thatAmerican
it be
up my amendment returns
to the
economy, and in the coming years-especially if we take
stated.
reliability if a substantial part of our away their business and transfer it to
commerce is carried in U.S. bottoms con- British yards. And every yard closed
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
down means that much less security for
the United States in the event of an
emergency.
The maritime editor of the Baltimore
Sun recently pointed out:
If there are more than 15 ships to reactivate at one time (for service in Vietnam)
there could also be a problem in the shipyards, which have been faced with a shortage
of skills because their men have turned to
industries with a more definite future.
The problems created by a shortsighted policy now could be of critical
importance in later emergencies.
And I maintain it is not good policy to
buy U.S. warships overseas.
But, it has been argued, this is a mere
exception to the general policy. This is
SENATE
War in Vietnam, like the Korean war, is
a maritime operation that rests on our capability of delivering men and equipment
across thousands of miles of sea. For Korea
we had "a bridge of ships" which is gone
today.
In an article recently prepared for publication, Adm. John D. Hayes, USN (retired),
points up that in the Korean war, Japan was
a base of operations not unlike Britain in
the war against Germany. We have no such
nearby base today and must depend on the
more distant Okinawa, Guam, and Philippines. In Japan there is virulent opposition
to our Vietnamese policy and a political
situation that is none too stable.
FINISHED WITH ENGINES
At Da Nang, Hayes points out, Marines
landed from virtually the same ships that
landed their ancestors on Okinawa in 1945
only a small purchase.
and at Inchon in 1950. The 173d Airborne
To those who advance that argument, Brigade was not airlifted from Okinawa to
I say: Look to the record. In early 1963, Saigon. It was transported in aging LST's,
the Navy contracted to produce two tor- of which only a few now remain.
When the Korean war began, we had
pedo boats in Norway.
The Navy described this as "an excep- 2,868 fairly new and efficient dry-cargo ships.
Today there are only 131 under 15 years of
tion to the general policy," due to "mili- age. In the Government
reserve there retary necessity."
main, along with the famous old Liberties
In September 1963, the Navy pur- "finished with engines," a few hundred effichased eight more torpedo boats in Nor- cient World War II vessels. The Navy, calling last year for ships for an amphibious
way, for a total of $6.3 million.
That same year, three destroyer es- exercise, found that about 157 ships of the
corts were purchased with U.S. funds in active merchant fleet could meet requirements of speed and cargo-lifting equipment
Portugal.
of these, only 121 had an additional
The record, it seems to me, is not very and,
required feature in standard cargo rig.
programs which
good. Government
In
1957 the replacement program of the
have started are not easy to stop.
subsidized lines began to take effect. The
We should not, in my opinion, pur- world's finest ships are among the 99 built
chase ships abroad when they could be at vast expenditure by those companies with
built in this country and contribute to a the help of the Government's construction
healthy American shipyard industry. subsidy to the shipyards. They have very
And they should most certainly not be great speed, which is of the essence in warpurchased abroad if the initial transac- time. Where shore facilities are inadequate
unloading, they are self-sufficient. Many
tion will balloon into even greater fu- for
ships of the subsidized
are already in
ture purchases, each more injurious than service to Vietnam. Butfleet
the building prothe last to U.S. shipyards.
gram in the face of developing demands in
I concede that those Defense Depart- the Far East has been slowed down by
ment officials responsible for this pro- budgetary decisions.
posal have the best of intentions. But I
An air transport carries limited cargo, but
strongly urge that we must do everything this is a question of millions of tons. Besides,
all aircraft are hungry consumers of
our
in
the
decline
In our power to halt
shipbuilding and ship repair industry, fuel, which is transported by sea. There is
for the sake of our national security. A great tanker tonnage available, but we are
first step in that direction would be to deficient in those of "handy" size for shallow ports. Only a few have been built.
prohibit such naval warship purchases
THE LENGTHENING REACH
abroad.
Equipment must go by sea not only to
I charge that the U.S. merchant marine and our shipbuilding industry is the an increasing number of American troops but
also to the South Vietnamese Army. Food
withered arm of the U.S. defenses.
must go to the population, and bases must
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- be built with material brought by ship.
sent to have printed in the RECORD an Meanwhile, cargo ships must haul the suparticle entitled "The Withered Arm," by plies for An-med Forces elsewhere. There is
Mr. Raymond Moley, published in News- the lifeline to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and
week, issue of August 30. It discusses Alaska. A number of vessels are committed
by law to serve essential trade routes. We
the very points I have made here.
foreign aid and must also try to conThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. ship
tinue to carry the 5 percent of our commerNEUBERGER in the chair). Is there cial cargoes that go by the U.S. ships-when
objection?
they are not strikebound.
There being no objection, the article
More than 99 percent of all American overwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD, seas transport is by ship.
as follows:
May we look for help from our maritime
friends? The price is rising, for they are
THE WITHERED ARM-II
busy
and also carry for the Russians and
(By Raymond Moley)
Red China. Many of their ships have been
Above the din of jet aircraft, the news did thriving in the enemy supply line to the
not penetrate to the Senate Appropriations Vietcong. While the power of Britain falCommittee that the future of our position in
southeast Asia rests on sea transport. ters at Singapore, her shipping companiesSimultaneously with the ominous weakening whining "freedom of the seas"-lengthen the
of Singapore in the defense of the crucial Communist reach toward the free world's
Malacca Strait, the committee canceled a British-protected jugular vein east of Suez.
cargo ship added by the House to the build- Japan, like Britain and West Germany,
ing program which is a vital part of our builds ships for the Communists, and depower to meet critical events in the Far mands that we return Okinawa-a staging
East.
base for the war in Vietnam. It is in that
21723
peculiar "one world" of international shipping that we must now shop around to supplement our "fourth arm of defense."
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BREWSTER. I am happy to
yield to the senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I
highly commend the Senator from
Maryland for his amendment and for
his argument in support of it. There
are two aspects I wish to emphasize in
its support.
This is really an additional foreign
aid program by some $7 billion of foreign assistance, including, in round
numbers, $3.5 billion that the Senate
voted yesterday afternoon.
The American people need to know, as
I argued yesterday afternoon, that the
foreign aid program is much in excess
of the amounts in the formal foreign aid
bill that the administration sent to Congress. There is no justification for
adding to the foreign aid already voted.
My second argument is that the proposal in the bill involves the exportation
of American jobs. We had better start
thinking about our greatest defensive
weapon, which is our own economy. We
had better stop weakening that economy.
We need to strengthen that segment of
the economy which is to be found in the
economic potential of the shipyards of
this country.
I argue not only for the workers in
those yards, but for the managers and
owners of the yards and the stockholders who have invested in them, as well.
I am at a complete loss to understand
why it should be proposed in the Senate
this afternoon to deny to our own workers and stockholders the development of
our own shipyards. From the standpoint of our security, that cannot be
justified.
I believe the Senator from Maryland
is to be congratulated on his farsightedness and foresightedness in the present circumstances.
Mr. BREWSTER. I thank the senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. TYDINGS. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. BREWSTER. I am happy to
yield to my colleague from Maryland.
Mr. TYDINGS. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the
senior Senator from Oregon and to commend the distinguished senior Senator
from Maryland for his amendment. I
hope that the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi will consider accepting it.
This country has grown great as a
maritime nation. Since the Revolutionary War it has grown great by its ability
to compete with any and all ships afloat.
However, it is well known that our
shipbuilding industry is, to put it mildly,
not now in the best of situations. In
view of this fact, it does not make sense
to permit and encourage the Defense
Department to purchase ships and have
them built in foreign shipyards, unless
we are faced with a dire emergency.
I hope the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi will consider the need of this
country to maintain a strong shipbuilding industry.
21724
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
It is important to the future of our
country, both for defense and for the
economy, that we build our own ships
and that we sail them.
I believe that the amendment of the
senior Senator from Maryland would be
a firm step forward in that direction.
Mr. BREWSTER. I thank my dis-
tinguished colleague from Maryland for
his eloquent comments and vigorous support.
Madam President, how much time
have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President,
this is a very important question. As I
see it, the merits of the question are not
only as they appear on the surface.
In the beginning I favored the position taken by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER]. The subcommittee and the full committee went fully
into the entire matter, and I became
firmly convinced, after talking with the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Defense, that it was a sound
position for us not to preclude the buying
of a few small ships from the United
Kingdom.
The bill provides $1.5 billion for the
construction and conversion of Navy
ships plus a carryover of $400 million
more, which will make available, in
round figures, almost $2 billion, for this
program.
Having a small number of small ships
built in the United Kingdom will not
amount to more than $50 or $60 million,
as now contemplated.
This is the rest of the picture: The
United Kingdom has agreed to buy from
us almost $2 billion worth of military
aircraft. Great Britain has already
made this announcement, and the program is already in effect so far as that
country is concerned. With the spare
parts that are to follow, the amount
could well equal $3 billion.
This has
been represented to the committee by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Defense, separately. I have
before me the papers with reference to
the financing.
I wish the Senator from Oregon were
in the Chamber now. He said this was
another foreign aid program. I found
it to be a hard loan from beginning to
end, paying 4.75-percent interest; that
it is repayable over a period of 7 years
after the last disbursement. The Export-Import Bank has already agreed to
the initial part of the loan.
This is a huge item. It represents a
marked change in policy by the Government of the United Kingdom.
My first impression was that this was
a soft loan and not a good thing, but
after going into it fully I became overwhelmingly convinced that it is a sound
policy, one that is highly important.
From speaking with the Secretary of
Defense I do not doubt that the United
States will be well represented in any
trading or bargaining when he is the
spokesman for our side. The Secretary
of Defense has nothing in mind that is a
soft policy, or anything of that kind.
The Secretary of Defense has not
agreed to buy a single dollar's worth of
SENATE
ships from the United Kingdom. He has
agreed that if they are to be built, the
United Kingdom will have an opportunity to bid on them. We merely offer
them a chance to compete. That is the
extent of the agreement.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
The inference
Mr. ROBERTSON.
that might be drawn from the remarks
of the distinguished Senator from Maryland is that we shall let the British shipyards build armed freighters or passenger ships which would go into our merchant marine. What type of ship is contemplated?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. At present, the
program involves one ocean salvage
tug, four yard tugboats, two survey
ships, and four ocean minesweepers.
Mr. ROBERTSON. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senators
for the question and the answer.
I emphasize that this is a far-reaching
It was thoroughly
policy question.
studied and should not be lightly considered or voted on by the Senate.
I asked the Secretary of Defense to
furnish us with a letter. I have received
that letter, which sets forth his assurances about his approaches to the
situation.
I look upon the proposition as a
meager token move by us in that direction, and an attempt to take care of the
situation-not in balance at all-in
which so much is to be purchased from
us.
The British are already spending $500
million a year in cash for the Polaris
submarine. That is another illustration
of what the British are paying.
Mr. LAUSCHE.
Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE.
Madam President,
will the Senator repeat the figures on
what our expenditures would be in England for the purchase of ships and what
the British expenditure would be in the
United States for the purchase of airplanes?
Mr. STENNIS. I have that information here in the form of a memorandum.
The British have options to order aircraft from us at a total cost of approximately $2 billion, depending on the
amount of the United Kingdom components used. That information is given
in detail. The memorandum mentions
that spare parts would bring the total
to $3 billion, which is the amount now
contemplated.
That would be over a period of years.
In other words, they are almost going
out of the business of building military
planes. This is to be a hard loan, as I
have explained, with 43/%percent interest
payable within 7 years of termination of
procurement and delivery.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Madam President,
what is the amount of the expenditures
that we would be making in Britain in
the purchase of these ships?
Mr. STENNIS.
August 25, 1965
The ships involved
will run about $60 million.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President, as
I understand it, there is about $1.5 billion in the fund.
Mr. STENNIS. No.
To show how
small the amount is, there is a carryover of $400 million.
Mr. HARTKE. That would be approximately $2 billion. As I understood,
the Senator states that it is expected
that only $50 to $60 million would be
spent overseas. However, could the entire amount not be spent overseas?
Mr. STENNIS. There is no prohibition in the bill against spending it.
However, it could not be done in any
good faith whatsoever. They came in
and outlined the perimeter of the program. A record was made of that. Of
course the "Buy-American" Act is applicable to these funds.
Mr. HARTKE. Why could we not
treat England fairly and say, "We will
permit $50 to $60 million to be spent in
England?"
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad that the
Senator brought that point up. That
has been considered from the standpoint of Germany and Italy. Germany
is already paying us in cash more than
$600 million a year for the military supplies that she is receiving from us.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President, I
believe that in all fairness the Senator
would agree that that is, in part, an
agreement whereby we are using the
manpower overseas to protect them
against communism.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, I
raised that point. What will we do
about Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
other countries? There is nothing pending concerning that situation.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President, it
seems to me that we would open the door
for the expenditure of approximately $2
billion in order to protect about $50 to
$60 million.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, we
would not be opening the door to any situation over which Congress does not exercise absolute control. This appropriation will be considered again next year.
The bill comes up every year, as the Senator knows, and we have absolute control over the program.
SMr. SALTONSTALL. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Madam President, I should say that the situation
could be summed up in about one sentence.
I quote from Secretary McNamara's
testimony:
Recently in connection with the potential
sale of about $1.5 million of such equipment,
a foreign government (England) asked us if
we would be willing to allow it to compete
for the manufacture of certain military
equipment to be bought in this country.
In other words, they would be allowed
to compete. There was no agreement.
They were to be allowed to offer bids to
compete with the industry in this country. Approximately $60 million for one
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
ocean salvage tug, four yard tugboats,
two survey ships, and four ocean minesweepers are involved at the present time.
That is all that is on the list now. They
bid for those in competition.
We would receive $1.5 billion or more of
business in England. We must remember that they gave up 22,000 jobs in
building airplanes in order to have airplanes built in this country.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President, I
am in favor of helping England. I do
not come from a shipbuilding State. So,
I am not arguing from any personal
standpoint in this regard. The only
point I make is that this proposal would
open the door for the expenditure of approximately $2 billion, or, to put it
another way, $2,000 million, in order to
protect $50 to $60 million.
I do not see why we could not place a
limitation on that and provide that we
would permit $75 million to be spent
there and protect the balance. It would
leave us with approximately $1,900
million.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, we
would be receiving $2 billion in orders
for the items that I have mentioned, and
all we would be promising to do would
be to allow them to compete with domestic shipyards on these ships.
Mr. HARTKE. We could allow them
to compete with reference to $100 million
rather than the $2 billion.
Mr. STENNIS. No; with all due deference the Senator has that wrong.
Mr. HARTKE. Can the Senator show
me where I am wrong?
Mr. STENNIS. We are not promising
to buy anything. We are merely going
to allow them to compete for $60 million
of business.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President, I
understand that, but we have approximately $1.9 billion provided for in the
bill. We are saying that approximately
$50 to $60 million, or less than $100
million, would be open for competition in
shipbuilding in England.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. HARTKE. Madam President, I
am saying that there is more than $1,800
million on which the door is left wide
open for the Defense Department. I
thought that was what the Senator
stated a moment ago.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Not the Defense
Department. England is going to place
those orders in the United States. As I
understand, there are firm orders for
$1.5 billion, almost $2 billion worth of
orders, here in the United States.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, the
Buy American Act actually now protects
the situation to which the Senator is
referring because the existing regulations
under the Buy American Act requires the
Secretary of Defense to apply a 50-percent differential in evaluating any foreign bid. Under this proposal they
would be allowed to bid without the
differential.
Mr. HARTKE. I understand that.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, I
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Madam President, there are firm orders that the Brit-
SENATE
ish have placed in the United States for
almost $1 billion, and it would later involve several hundred million more
dollars. The British Prime Minister and
the British Cabinet are involved. They
canceled the British TSR-2 fighter which
cost them 22,000 jobs in the United
Kingdom. The British asked that we
agree to buy a certain amount of products from her defense industries. We
said we could not do it, but we would
allow them to compete. So we agreed
to spend about $60 million for 6 or 8
ships there, but England is spending
over $1 billion in this country. From
my standpoint, it is a good trade.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has expired.
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may have 1
minute to reply.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if the Senator
uses 1 minute, I will not object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may proceed for 1 minute.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if the debate
is resumed, I shall ask for time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the Senator from Oregon is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I
point out to the Senator from Mississippi that this proposal raises a very important legislative policy. It demcnstrates what the Appropriations Com-
mittee is doing legislatively time and
time again in the Senate. I do not believe the interests of the stockholders
of American shipyards should be trading material for the Appropriations
Committee of the Senate.
I believe
this is a good example of why we have to
place restrictions on the Appropriations
CommitteeMr. STENNIS. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. No; I have only 1
minute.
We should not be agreeing to representations by the Appropriations Committee that have all these legislative
implications. What England does is her
business. What we do should be our
business.
We should stop exporting
American jobs to Great Britain, or anywhere else, by adopting the proposed
amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, I
hold in my hand two letters written by
the SE_cretary of Defense, and I ask
unanimous consent to have them printed
in the RECORD for the information of
Senators.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington.
Hon. JOHN STENNIS,
Acting Chairman,Subcommittee on Department of Defense, Committee on Appropriations,U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy
of a letter which I sent to Chairman HAYDEN
yesterday setting forth the reasons why a
prohibition against purchase of ships from
foreign sources would be contrary to the
Nation's interest. I very much hope that
the committee will agree with the views set
21725
forth in the letter and will not seek to incorporate such a prohibition in the appropriations bill.
In accordance wth your request, I have
also issued instructions that the committee
be provided periodically with information on
international purchases and sales of defense
articles involving the United States. Specifically, we propose to provide every 6
months a report indicating the sales of U.S.manufactured defense products to foreign
governments and the purchases by the Defense Department of defense products from
foreign sources. The first report will be
for the period ending December 31, 1965, and
will be submitted as soon after December 31
as the data is available. Further reports
will then be furnished at 6-month intervals.
I hope that this information will prove to
be of value to the committee.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. McNAMARA.
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, August 17, 1965.
Hon. CaRL HAYDEN,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing in connection with your consideration on Wednesday, August 18, of the proposed amendment
to the Defense appropriations bill which
would impose an absolute prohibition on
the purchase of ships abroad.
During the past 4 years, our Government
has taken orders for the sale to foreign governments of over $9 billion of U.S.-manufactured defense products. These orders will
provide over 1 million man-years of employment for U.S. labor and produce almost $1
billion in additional profits to U.S. industry.
Of even greater importance to our Government, the sales will bring $9 billion payments as a partial ofset to our adverse balance of payments. These are unsubsidized
sales: They are the result of actions taken
personally by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and Secretaries Dillon, Fowler, McNamara, and Vance. They are good for U.S.
labor, good for U.S. business, and essential to
our Nation.
Recently, Mr. Vance and I participated in
negotiations with the British Government
which led to firm orders for the sale of almost a billion dollars of U.S.-manufactured
equipment and options for the sale of several
hundred million more. Because these orders
required the approval of the Prime Minister
and the British Cabinet and because they
resulted in the cancellation of the British
TSR-2 fighter aircraft program and the elimination in that one program of over 22,000
jobs in the United Kingdom, the British
asked that we agree to buy a small amount of
defense products from their industries. I
stated we could give no such assurance.
They then modified their request and asked
that we agree, as a matter of principle, to
consider the procurement of certain defense
items from British suppliers when such suppliers were fully competitive in terms of
quality and costs with U.S. manufacturers.
This we agreed to do. To date, under this
arrangement, we have procured nothing from
British firms, and I do not anticipate that
in the future we would procure from the
United Kingdom as much as even 10 percent
of our sales to them. For us to achieve those
sales, however, it is absolutely essential that
we have the right to make such procurements when these can be justified on the
basis of competitive standards of quality and
cost. Such procurements are entirely consistent with the Buy American Act, which
requires the Government to procure from
U.S. manufacturers except where the national interest will be better served by buying abroad. At present, I am insisting that
the iJefense Department procure its equipment and services from U.S. manufacturers
21726
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
whenever this can be done at a price not in
excess of 50 percent above the price offered
by foreign manufacturers-I plan to continue
that policy except in those isolated cases
where the national interest requires other
action. The proposed amendment to the
Defense appropriations bill would prohibit
such exceptions in the national interest and
almost surely would result in the cancellation of British orders from U.S. manufac-
turers.
I strongly urge you to vote against the
amendment.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. McNAMABA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland [Mr.
BREWSTER].
The Chair is in doubt.
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I ask
for a division.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Madam President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
not a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Nelson
Neuberger
Proxmire
Aiken
AUott
Bartlett
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Church
Cooper
Curtis
Dirksen
Dominick
Douglas
Eastland
Ellender
Fannin
Fong
Fulbright
Gore
Anderson
Clark
Dodd
Ribicoff
Russell, S.C.
Scott
NAYS-72
Harris
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Hruska
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Kuchel
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McClellan
McGovern
McNamara
Metcalf
Miller
Mondale
Monroney
Morton
NOT VOTINGErvin
Hart
McCarthy
SENATE
Smith
Tydings
Moss
Mundt
Murphy
Muskie
Pastore
Pearson
Personll
Prouty
Robertson
uSalonstal
Simpson
Smathers
eparman
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
_
cGee
Randolph
So Mr. BREWSTER'S an nendment was
rejected.
Mr. STENNIS. Madar m President, I
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call move that the vote by whi ch the amendment was rejected be recconsidered.
the roll.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Madam PresiMr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order dent, I move that the me otion to reconbe laid on the table.
sider
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The motion to lay on the table was
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
agreed to.
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Maidam President,
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I ask for the yeas and nays on the pend- will the Senator from MIississippi yield
for
a question?
ing amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The from Washington for a q uestion.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Macdam President,
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. I, and several other Sena tors who voted
the Brewster amer .dment in comagainst
The yeas and nays have
BREWSTER].
been ordered, and the clerk will call the mittee did so because we felt, after long
examination of the situati on in great deroll.
tail, that it presented a u nique problem,
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce and that, in considering all the facts, it
that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. pointed to being in the nrational interest
ANDERSON], the Senator from Connecti- not to adopt the amendmlent.
This is the best policy we could adopt
cut [Mr. DODD], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], the Senator from in this particular case.
I was not in the ChamIber to hear all
Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], and the Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] are the colloquy, but I am suire the Senator
from
Mississippi will veriify for me that
absent on official business.
I further announce that the Senator despite the debate, it wias our distinct
from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Sen- understanding, both fron Sthe Secretary
ator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], of Defense and others in volved, that reand the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. jection of this amendmcent in no way
sets a precedent in this particular field,
MCCARTHY] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and and that the situation itself was separate
voting, the Senator from North Carolina and apart and involved the question of
[Mr. ERVIN] and the Senator from Wyo- the national interest, an d we were sure
ming [Mr. McGEE] would each vote that doing what we did was in the best
interests of the country.
"nay."
Let me ask the Senate>r from MissisOn this vote, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD] is paired with the sippi, is that not a fair s tatement?
Mr. STENNIS. Madanm President, the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH]. If present and voting, the Sen- Senator's statement is esitirely fair and
ator from Connecticut would vote "yea," correct. It is an unusua.1 situation and
and the Senator from West Virgina undoubtedly is in the biest interests of
the United States.
would vote "nay."
Before I was acquaintecd with the facts,
The result was announced-yeas 20,
my first impression was that I was opnays 72, as follows:
posed to the purchase of any ships-INo. 237 Leg.]
Mr. MAGNUSON. So was I.
YEAS-20
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, but later I was
Bass
Gruening
Long, La.
strongly in favor of thhe position the
Bayh
Hartke
McIntyre
Senator from Washingiton has just
Brewster
Kennedy, Mass. Montoya
Cotton
taken. I have no doubt about it.
Kennedy, N.Y. Morse
August 25, 1965
Mr. MAGNUSON.
Madam President,
I have one more question to ask the Sen-
ator from Mississippi. I know that the
Senator realizes-and I am sure he has
the same opinion that I have-that if a
matter were to come up in the regular
course of our dealings with those countries, which would involve the same situation, the majority of the Senate, if it
were a normal case and not a peculiar
case, or different from what we are dealing with now, would not vote to do what
we did today. Is that correct?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. The general protection is available
under the Buy American Act, which is
still the law of the land.
Mr. GORE. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. GORE. The Department of Defense recently announced the deactivation of two Reserve air units at Memphis, Tenn. I hope I may make a brief
statement and ask some questions in that
connection of the Senator from MississiPPi.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
on that basis.
Mr. GORE. I hope I may do this without being considered provincial. I know
that if the planes with which pilots are
training are needed in Vietnam, the
planes should be in Vietnam. I do not
question that. It occurs to me that with
a potentially acute need for men trained
to fly large transport aircraft, it is profligate to discontinue or deactivate the
training of a large number of well-trained
competent pilots. It occurred to me that
if the C-123's are needed in Vietnam,
perhaps those men could be trained in
the flying of other planes. I have discussed this matter at length with the
distinguished junior Senator from Mississippi, and he has told me that it is not a
matter of money. I should like to inquire of the Senator what is possible for
us to do under the circumstances.
Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, the
two troop carrier groups at Memphis to
which the Senator has referred were
notified yesterday-at least the announcement has been made, but whether
they have been officially notified or not,
I do not know-that the squadrons will
be deactivated because of the lack of
planes, and will not have any further
existence. I invite the attention of Senators to the fact that these are two of
'the finest squadrons of cargo carrier
planes that we have in the entire Reserve.
They are of exceptional ability. This is
the group which volunteered to do the
cargo carrying work in the Dominician
Republic incident. They flew with ability and distinction. Only last week the
Air Force gave them a special award for
their achievement.
Now they find themselves deactivated.
Last year they had about 23 cargo planes.
That number was reduced to 13. For the
past month or two they have been training with the same planes; one group was
trained one day and the other group the
next day. In other words, the planes
had to do double duty. These planes are
needed in Vietnam, since they are the
type of cargo planes-relatively short
range-that are being used primarily
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
there. Much of our material in that
area is supplied by air. This is a classic
illustration of what happens to a fine
group of men. There are over 1,300 Reserve personnel in the group. In addition there are about 150 technicians and
more than 180 other type personnel.
They were being trained and doing
splendid work in the Reserve. Then suddenly they were kicked in the face and
let out.
primarily the cause is the lack of a
sufficient number of planes. The planes
were needed in Vietnam. There is no
margin.
Mr. GORE. Is it not possible that our
greatest need could be trained pilots?
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. We
have a great investment there. I make
that statement entirely aside from my
personal viewpoint. These men are
trained and ready to go. They perthe
formed outstanding service in
Dominican Republic activity. Now they
are grounded. They are left out of the
picture. I asked the question of the Air
Force: if they take the planes, what are
they going to do with the men? The Air
Force said, "They are in the Reserve."
Mr. BASS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I shall be glad to yield
in a moment. I wish to cover this point
first. There is nothing we can do about
putting more money in the bill to meet
this situation. That kind of amendment I would be glad to accept. Memphis is one of the better cities in north
Mississippi, as the Senator understands.
We claim it in part. Iowever, there is
nothing that we can do about this situation. This is an executive decision by
the Air Force. There is no reason why
this group was selected and put out of
business. There are a great many good
reasons why it should not be put out of
business.
Mr. GORE. As the Senator has
stated, the decision has not been made
for lack of funds.
Mr. STENNIS. No.
Mr. GORE. Funds would be sufficient
to continue this activity if the planes
were available. Is that correct?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GORE. Has the Senator a helpful suggestion? I would be glad to offer
an amendment, if an amendment were
needed. My junior colleague from
Tennessee and the Senator from Arkansas, I am sure, would join me. If that
is not the case, is there some action that
we can take?
Mr. STENNIS. I was very much disturbed by this matter, and yesterday I
had prepared in my office, by my staff,
the basis of a letter to be sent to the
Secretary of Defense, reciting these facts,
and what these men had done, and the
need for continuing the strength which
they represent. We asked him not only
to explain the reasons why these two
squadrons should be deactivated, but
asked him directly to intervene in this
case. We also asked if at all consistent
with the national welfare, that these two
squadrons be reactivated, if not with the
same planes, then with planes of equal or
better quality.
SENATE
Mr. GORE. Will the Senator permit
me to join him in that letter?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to do so.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. STENNIS. I shall be happy to
yield to the Senator from Texas, but
first I should like to yield to the Senator
from Tennessee [Mr. BAss], who previously asked me to yield.
Mr. BASS. I appreciate the courtesy
of the distinguished committee chairman in yielding to me.
I should like to join my senior colleague
from Tennessee in expressing concern
over the deactivation of the two outstanding fighter squadrons in Memphis.
As the Senator from Mississippi knows,
I have personally discussed the question
with him in an effort to see if we could
not arrive at some solution. Along the
lines my colleague has stated, we found
that money is not a problem. Adequate
funds are available if the Defense De-
partment can find a use for these squadrons in the defense effort.
I express my appreciation to the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman
handling the proposed legislation, for
the interest which he has shown in the
problem.
I should also like to join in
the effort to insist that the Secretary
of Defense personally intervene in this
situation, and find whether these meritorious men who have been serving in
the Reserves, and who are well-trained
personnel, cannot be used in the necessary defense effort. I do not believe the
Senator, I, or any of us would ask the
Defense Department to reactivate or to
continue using these squadrons merely
for the purpose of continuing personnel
on a payroll or in jobs.
But, as the Senator has pointed out,
a squadron that has recently received
an award for meritorious service-one
that has been well trained and recently
used in a very important operation of our
Defense Department-could well be used
in the present defense effort. I hope the
Senator from Mississippi will continue
his efforts to assist us in the problem.
Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Senator's remarks, and his joining in the
effort.
I see the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH] is present in the Chamber.
Only yesterday at noontime the Senator
from Texas mentioned to me that a
squadron in his State was involved.
That was the first I knew about it. I am
glad to yield to the Senator from Texas,
for I know he has a deep concern.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for
yielding to me.
Of the four squadrons deactivated in
the Transport Command, one was at Fort
Worth, Tex. It is an extremely efficient
unit. I am sure the record will show
that its performance has been superior.
It has besn either excellent or superior
at all times. Along with two Memphis
units and another, the Fort Worth unit
was inactivated.
As I understand, they were not inactivated because of any deficiency in
the men themselves or any deficiency of
performance. They have demonstrated
excellent performance. Their inactiva-
21727
tion was the result of a certain type
of plane, or something like that. We
read that these men are needed. Transportation is needed. Commonsense tells
us that when there is a great military
buildup in South Vietnam, 8,000 miles
away, supply is a larger problem than the
people on the ground. It requires more
men to supply the fighting men than
there are fighting men in Vietnam.
In Korea, which is not as far away as
Vietnam, the figures show that during
the Korean conflict-and we have studied
the question in relation to the GI billa majority of those in the service never
got into the combat zone-not even
the Air Force and the Navy-because the
problem of supply was so big when they
were so many thousands of miles away.
Those trained men who have kept themselves in a combat ready state all those
years should not be lightly cast aside to
build up some other activity, and to train
others for that purpose.
The Government has a big investment
in keeping those men ready. They are
in Ready Reserve units. Perhaps it
might disprove someone's theory that
the Reserves are not ready, because these
men are ready in the places named.
They have taken training.
I hope that the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi, in presenting the case
to the Department of Defense, as he is so
capable of doing, and as he has so ably
done in relation to so many other questions, as chairman of the vital subcommittee that he heads, in relation to this
vast defense appropriation, will call attention to the fact that there are men
trained, ready to serve, ready to go, and
that money might be saved by using
them rather than starting all over on
some other type of project to fill this air
transport requirement-because that is
what it is-transporting equipment to
the places where the equipment is
needed.
I thank the distinguished Senator. As
he has so generously said, I took this
question up with him privately in the
open session in an effort to get some adjustments for the use of those fine men
at the Fort Worth unit.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his remarks. I share the concern
that he has expressed so well.
I should like to state one additional
fact. There are 75 squadrons in the Air
Force Reserve. Four of them are being
deactivated. Among the four, two are
deactivated in Memphis.
I repeat:
There are two in Memphis deactivated
out of a total of four in the Nation. One
was removed from Fort Worth. No announcement has yet been made as to
location of the fourth one.
Mr. TOWER. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. I commend my distinguished senior colleague from Texas for
his very appropriate and cogent comments on the question, and I desire to
associate myself with his remarks. At
a time when we are facing a really critical point in our sea and air transport,
and when we are confronting what is
tantamount to a wartime need-a need
to anticipate and increase our ability-
21728
COtNGRESSIONAL RECORD -
the important question is not merely
whether the equipment is available, but
whether trained crews are available.
Everyone knows that if the crews are
not maintained, men will have to be retrained later on in order to meet the
need. The action taken certainly is not
a wise move at the present time.
The Department of Defense gave only
the briefest of notice to Congress about
the announced cutback of four Air Force
Reserve troop carrier groups, including
the 923d at Carswell Air Force Base, Fort
Worth, Tex.
This will result in a reduction in the
number of troop carrier aircraft available at a time when our shortcomings
in both sealift and airlift are being
pointed out by the long supply line to
Vietnam.
The worse loss, however, would be in
personnel. Trained troop carrier crews
are hard to come by, and have been
called up in every crisis since World War
I.
In the Dominican crisis many of
the reserve troop carrier groups were
utilized.
Rather than eliminate these groups
and, in effect, end their crew availability, I believe it would be better to simply
reduce the number of aircraft used for
Reserve training purposes, or assign at
least a few newer troop carrier planes
to these reserves so the crews can maintain present proficiency. I do not believe this cutback is wise defense
strategy.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
I appreciate his remarks.
The two groups at Memphis, I understand, have been reduced already from
the 31 aircraft authorized to 13. They
flew almost 400,000 ton-miles and passenger-miles in support of the recent
emergency in the Dominican Republic.
For the record, I wish to state that these
groups have recently been commended
by the Air Force for their outstanding
performance.
Mr. BASS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Tennessee.
Mr. BASS. I wish again to express
my appreciation for the interest the Senator has taken in this problem, and we
hope something can be worked out to
use these two important units.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his remarks.
I am going to ask for a review of the
entire situation with reference to these
Reserve troop carrier units. It is true
that the new ones coming out have a
heavier carrying capacity, some of them
almost twice that of the planes now being
sent to Vietnam. It is true they are
needed in Vietnam. But the preservation
of the skill, ability, and training of these
men will unquestionably be endangered,
unless something is done.
Mr. BASS. Now is not the time to lose
it.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. Madam Presi-
SENATE
Mr. MORSE. Madam President, there
are several points upon which I wish to
comment for the RECORD before we come
to a final vote on the pending proposed
legislation.
The junior Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS] has already inserted in the
RECORD a statement by the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHTI,
which is highly critical of the use of the
Department of Defense research and development funds for investigations
abroad.
On behalf of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, I am privileged to express to the Senator from Mississippi his deep appreciation and
thanks for inserting his prepared speech
in the RECORD.
However, some of us on the Foreign
Relations Committee feel that the speech
deserves more attention than a mere insertion in the RECORD. Therefore, I propose to discuss the speech, and I shall
read most if not all of it in the course
of my remarks on what I consider to be
a very serious subject, and which, may
I say to the Senate, is likewise so considered by other members of the Foreign Relations Committee with whom I
have talked today.
May I say to the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr.
SALTONSTALL],
the
ranking
minority member of the Appropriations
Committee, whom I see on the floor, that
we deeply appreciate the splendid service they have rendered by using their
great prestige and influence in causing
the Camelot research project to be
dropped from this bill.
But dropping it from the bill does not
eliminate the inherent dangers of the
policy that it represented. Neither does
it change the fact that the Defense Department was willing to go along with
such a program. This particular research project is not the only one that
the Department of Defense has been
financing under its research program.
Therefore, some of us who are members of the Committee on Foreign Relations feel that a public hearing on this
problem is due. I propose to give that
public hearing now.
I endorse the statement of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and wish to elaborate upon it because, as chairman of the Subcommittee
on American Republics Affairs, I have
seen the great damage that can be done
by the uncontrolled research activities
of totally incompetent research men operating under the guidance of military
minds.
It was quite by chance that Project
Camelot was discovered. It was canceled only after the protest of Members
of Congress and our very able Ambassador to Chile, Ambassador Dungan.
I predict that other Projects Camelot
dent, so far as the Senator from Missis- will be discovered in other countries in
sippi knows, there is no further question Latin America, and perhaps elsewhere.
now.
In fact, only today I have been adI ask unanimous consent that I may vised that in probably some 40 countries
yield to the Senator from Oregonthe United States, to its discredit, is parMr. MORSE. I prefer the floor in my ticipating in an intervention under the
own right.
guise of conducting research projects in
the field of social sciences.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield the floor.
August 25, 1965
I am at a loss to understand how
bureaucratic minds could have become
so twisted and could have completely
suffered such a lapse of commonsense as
to propose a series of research projects
that are apparently being conducted in
a large number of countries in the field
of social sciences.
This is an intervention that can only
prove to be as damaging to American
prestige abroad as a military intervention. It must be stopped. I call upon
the President to go even beyond the point
he went in connection with Camelot-.
which I shall discuss momentarily-and
make clear to the agencies in the executive branch that this type of U.S. intervention by the United States in the
domestic affairs of any foreign country
must stop.
If the intervention is not stopped, I
predict that the United States will suffer
irreparably in many places in the world.
We shall prove the vicious propaganda
of the Communists, which keeps charging us with imperialistic policies, to have
some basis in fact.
As a member of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, I have spoken on the
floor of the Senate for many years, and
have branded that kind of despicable
Communist propaganda as fabrication,
as it has been, for the most part.
I say to my President that his administration cannot continue this type of
intervention under the name of research
and not find that many non-Communists around the world suspect that perhaps there is a grain of truth in some
of the Communist propaganda.
I predict that more Camelot projects
will be discovered in other countries of
Latin America and elsewhere.
Only recently, our Ambassador to
Brazil was able to stop another of our
militarily sponsored research forays, this
one into Brazil. Have we no sense
whatsoever? How would the American
people react if the Brazilian Government were to sponsor a research project
in the United States to determine why
there have been Negro riots in the South,
in Los Angeles, and in Chicago? I
might add that Brazil has as much right
to advise us in these matters as we have
to advise them.
We have no business and no right to
be conducting, with military research
funds, investigations into the cultural
and social activities in Chile, which
Camelot involved, or in any other
country.
That should be considered off limits
for American foreign policy. We are
now reaping some of the great losses we
are suffering because we have permitted
the CIA to develop its police state tactics,
methods, and procedures within the
framework of the American democracy.
Senators know that a few years ago
the Subcommittee on Latin American
Affairs, of which I was chairman, conducted an investigation into the background of the action at the Bay of Pigs.
I said at that time on the floor of the
Senate, and I say now, that had it not
been for the secrecy under which the
CIA operates, there never would have
been a Bay of Pigs.
This kind of tommyrot that has been
carried on by the Defense Establishment
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
under the name of research is an extension of the police state tactics of the
CIA. That is why the senior Senator
from Oregon, along with other Senators
has for years supported the establishment of a congressional watchdog committee over the CIA. It is most regrettable that Congress has never seen fit to
give the American people the checking
protection that such a watchdog committee would create.
One cannot discuss the research activities in these areas by the Defense Department, or by any other department of
the executive branch of our Government, without recognizing that we are
thought to be guilty of unjustifiably interfering, by way of intervening in the
domestic affairs of a foreign government
in which research studies are being conducted.
Thank goodness, the United States
had a great Ambassador in Chile. When
the protests of the Chilean Government were laid before him, he made perfectly clear to Washington that it was
not in the interests of our country to
permit this kind of research project to
continue. To his everlasting credit, as
I shall show later, when President Johnson became apprised of the facts, he put
a stop to the project.
I plead with President Johnson to see
to it that someone is appointed to conduct a thorough examination in his own
behalf in regard to the research activities of every agency of the executive
branch of the Government, and to put
a stop to anything that resembles the
type of research project the chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[Mr. FULBRIGHT] pointed out in the
speech I shall refer to momentarily.
Military-sponsored research in the
field of the social sciences in foreign
countries has damaged our already much
tarnished image. Only recently there
were strikes in Brazil because, it was alleged, two Fulbright scholars were military agents. Our legitimate scholarly
work was interfered with because of our
own ill-conceived military projects.
I am shocked by the realization that
the Department of Defense can, with the
greatest of ease, obtain vast sums of
money for research in fields of direct
concern to our foreign policymakers. I
would not be a bit surprised to be told
that there may be as many as 40 or 50
military-sponsored research projects in
foreign countries, any one of which could
seriously damage our relations with those
countries if they were to become public.
One of the very competent professional staff members of the Committee
on Foreign Relations told me within the
last 3 hours that their investigation indicates that I probably would be within
the realm of understatement if I were
to use the figures which I just used, of
40 to 50 military-sponsored research
projects in foreign countries.
The Defense Department has a total
budget for research and development of
$6.7 billion, over 1,000 times the $5.9 million appropriated for the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency, the agency
set up to find a way to a peaceful world.
Not only that, but also the total cost of
the research and intelligence operation
CXI-- 1370
SENATE
of the Department of State is from $3.5
million to $4 million, compared with the
defense research budget of $6.7 billion.
The Department of State has the magnificent amount of $125,000 for all outside research. This is scarcely enough
to keep the Department of Defense sponsored social science researchers in coffee
and cigarettes.
As best I can make out, the funds saved
in the Department under this bill by cancelling the ill-conceived Camelot project
is $1.1 million, nearly 10 times as much
as the Department of State spends on
outside research in this area.
The Project Camelot budget alone is
nearly one-third of the total budget for
the entire Bureau of Intelligence and
Research of the Department of State-
$1.1 million versus $3.5 million.
The Defense Department has budgeted
$23 million for research in behavioral and
social sciences, as opposed to $3.5 million
for the research and intelligence operations of the Department of State.
One of the major premises in my argument this afternoon is that the Defense
Department has no business intervening
under the name of research to investigate
matters that falls within the field of foreign policy.
I have been heard to say many times in
the past year, as I have protested McNamara's war in Asia, that McNamara has
become the Secretary of State to all intents and purposes, at least in that part
of the world, if not in most parts of the
world.
Again I say to my President, "It is time
for you to put the leash on your Secretary of Defense and make it perfectly
clear that he ought to stay in his own
backyard, if you have to tie him in his
own backyard down at the Pentagon and
let the Secretary of State operate the
State Department."
That policy happens to be consistent
with our constitutional system, but when
we have a Defense Department engaging
in the kind of foreign policy determinations that are involved in these research
studies, we cannot support the contention that the Secretary of Defense is not
usurping the powers and superseding the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.
In earlier remarks, I have paid my
compliments to the Secretary of State
for what I have believed to be his inclination to bow to the will of the Department
of Defense. When I say that I have paid
my compliments to him, I put the word
"compliments" in quotation marks.
I am glad to see that the President of
the United States has now, by letter, instructed the Secretary of State "to establish executive procedures which will
enable you to assure the propriety of
Government-sponsored social science research in the area of foreign policy."
I interpret that letter to mean-and I
hope that my interpretation is correctthat the President of the United States
has said to the Secretary of State, "You
conduct the affairs of this Government
in the field of foreign policy as they are
related to this matter of Governmentsponsored social science research."
If the Secretary of State conducts
them, we have better assurance that they
will not be conducted in secrecy. If the
21729
Secretary of State becomes interested in
such a project, we can be sure that the
U.S. Ambassador in the country con-
cerned will first find out whether that
country wants such a research project
carried on within its border. That is
the only way we can justify the expenditure of American taxpayer dollars
for these research projects.
I wish the President had gone one step
further and told the Secretary of State
to seek adequate funds for this research.
I wish he had gone even a step further
and demanded that the Bureau of the
Budget exercise its influence to see that
the Department of State gets what it
needs for foreign policy research and
that the Department of Defense is kept
out of this business.
I believe, Madam President, that this
is a good example of the direction in
which this Government tends to move
when we pay so much attention to the
military aspects of our relations with
other nations and so little to the political
aspects of our relations.
Camelot is not the only project that
should be protested. I have an interesting document in my hand which contains 620 pages. The title is: "Special
Warfare Area Handbook for Ethiopia."
It is prepared by the Foreign Areas
Study Division, Special Operations Research Office, the American University,
Washington, D.C., operated under contract with the Department of the Army.
In my judgment, the Department of
the Army had no business conducting
such a research study. This is but another exhibit showing the tendency on
the part of the military minds of this
country to interfere in matters that affect American foreign policy-matters
that ought to be handled 100 percent
under the jurisdiction of the State Department after it has worked out an
understanding with the foreign government concerned.
We have an interesting series of
studies sponsored by the military minds
that have so much to do with American
foreign policy. Let me warn the American people to watch out for the concentration of military power in the
determination of our foreign policy for
civilizations before us have become lost
because military minds took over the
policies of their governments.
Our Founding Fathers wrote a guarantee into our Constitution that sought
to protect the American people from the
operation of the military mind in connection with the civilian affairs of this
Government.
As I have expressed myself for some
years in the Senate, and particularly the
past 2 years, I am becoming increasingly
concerned about the growing entrenchment of power of the military in determining the civilian policies of our Gov-
ernment. I warn the American people,
"Get it out of your head if you think the
military cannot take over in a democracy
in an hour of crisis. Do not forget that
before Hitler, Germany was a democracy, and then the military took over.
Do not forget that other democratic
civilizations have fallen because the
military have been given too much
power."
21730
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
I have before me another interesting
research study; 820 pages, entitled "Special Warfare Area Handbook for Japan,"
prepared by Foreign Areas Study Division, Special Operations Research Office,
The American University, operating under contract with the Department of the
Army.
Madam President, this type of research
should never have been started.
Special Operations Research Office has
been allotted $2,700,000, $1.1 million of
it for Project Camelot. This compares
with some $3.5 million for the State Department's entire intelligence and research operation.
Let me read the names of some other
countries in which this type of study has
been made by the American military.
Various handbooks have been approved by SORO as to these countries:
Sudan,
Ethiopia,
Nigeria,
Ghana,
Guinea, Panama, Cuba, Germany, and
Japan. And there are others.
I read from the transcript of the testimony of the Director of this Armysponsored research group as given before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee:
Our foreign area studies program, the one
which is not funded by the Chief of R. & D.,
has turned out U.S. Army area handbooks
on Brazil, Cyprus, Liberia, and Venezuela
during the past year. Associated with these
new books has been the updating and modest
revision of the previously published handbooks for Egypt, Indonesia, and Korea. Several other books have been reprinted with
new prefaces.
This type of research by the military
ought to be stopped. The Defense Establishment should be instructed to stay
within its own backyard. The State Department owes it to its own jurisdiction
and responsibilities to see to it that the
authority given to it by the President,
in the letter I referred to a few moments
ago, is executed and that the Defense
Establishment is stopped from making
such a shocking waste of the taxpayers'
money.
Of even more importance than
stopping the waste is to stop creating the
growing ill will in country after country
which is created when the people of those
countries discover that the United States
is interfering in their domestic affairs.
I have engaged in uphill battles to
bring reason to bear in the foreign aid
program, to eliminate the hundreds of
millions of dollars of waste which the
Comptroller General of the United States
has said is characteristic of our foreign
aid-more waste, the Comptroller General testified, than in any other agency
of the Government. The excuse given
for this type of research expenditure
falls under the heading of military assistance. That is the peg on which the
Army hangs projects like Camelot. I am
for pulling out the peg.
We find on page 10 of the transcript of
the House hearings:
Dr. VALLANCE. The Army has a major responsibility within the Defense Establishment in military assistance work. Obviously
in Vietnam the Army is deeply involved in
the more active stages of dealing with insurgency. The Army thus, in effect is saying
in order to do our job better, we need to know
the environment in which we are working,
what the problems are, how people's expec-
SENATE
tations may be thwarted by new developments which they are unable to participate
in, how these lead to possible hostility toward
the home government. The Army says in
effect to us then, "Help us to find out more
about the problems of breakdown of social
order, so that we can be better able to assist
in the prevention of breakdown, and in the
orderly development of the society."
Dr. ROSENTHAL. All this is hung on the peg
of military assistance?
Dr. VALLANCE. The military assistance program is the main source.
Mr. FASCELL. They also have a responsibility, do they not in the use of psychological warfare in the event of combat?
Dr. VALLANCE. That is correct, and in advising the indigenous military in their own
programs in that field. Shall I go on? I am
nearly to the end of this.
I suggest that we bring it to an end,
so far as the Department of the Army is
concerned, and deny any funds for this
purpose. I am sorry any funds are in
the bill for this type of research. I am
glad Camelot is out, but I object to any
dollars being made available to the Department of Defense for this kind of
program.
Why do I say that? This kind of intervention cannot go on in any country
without its having an effect on foreign
policy in that country. That is the jurisdiction of the State Department, and not
the Defense Department.
I call attention to some of the major
statements in the great speech of the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT],
which nas been inserted in the RECORD
today. The Senator from Arkansas said
in the speech:
I wish to comment briefly on the action
taken by the Appropriations Committee concerning research financed by the Department
of Defense which touches on foreign policy
matters.
Two months ago, it came to light that the
special operations research office of American
University, an activity which the Army created and supports, was preparing to conduct
research in Chile involving delicate questions
of our relations with that country. Neither
our Ambassador nor the Chilean Government
was consulted in advance about the project,
and both apparently learned of it from an
article in a Chilean newspaper.
(At this point Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts took the chair as Presiding
Officer.)
August 25, 1965
knowledge of the Government in which
country this kind of intervention was
planned.
Mr. President, what has happened to
our commonsense?
What has happened to our dedication
to a system of checks and balances un-
der the Constitution?
What has happened to that safeguard
precious to our liberties under which the
military mind has no business interven-
ing in civilian affairs?
I am glad that the chairman of the
Foreign
Relations
Committee
has
brought out the danger of such projects
as Camelot.
The Senator from Arkansas continues:
The Chilean project, it developed, was only
a small part in a much more ambitious operation called "Project Camelot."
Camelot was described in a fact sheet
provided by the Department of the Army
as a "basic social science research project
on preconditions of internal conflict, and on
effects of indigenous governmental actionseasing, exacerbating or resolving-on those
preconditions."
Mr. President, this language seems to
me to be jargon. We must watch the
Defense Department when it uses jar-
gon, aecause it has semantic experts
who use language to conceal meaning
and deceive the American people. This
is typical of the military mind.
Continuing to try to read meaning
into this jargon, the Senator from Arkansas continues:
This language seems to mean that Camelot
was intended as a study of conditions that
give rise to revolution and what might be
done about them.
This project was but one aspect of this
organization's research work for the Army.
SORO's work was described by Dr. Vallance,
its director, as concerning * * * mainly the
relationships with the peoples of the developing countries and deals with problems
of aiding in the orderly process of social
change and national development which is
of concern to the U.S. Military Establishment. The Army provided $2,463,000 in the
last fiscal year for the operations of this
office.
Project Camelot had a budget of $450,000
for the second half of fiscal year 1965 and
$1.1 million for fiscal 1966. The total
projected . st over
about $6 million.
C t,
4 years was to be
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I digress
I digress to say that money means
from the manuscript of the Senator from nothing in the Defense Establishment.
Arkansas to say that is the policy of se- It demonstrates time and time again
crecy of the Defense Department, and that dollars are but grains of sand on the
that is the procedure of secrecy of SORO. Sbeachhead of the American economy.
That is why the senior Senator from The military mind has no appreciation,
Oregon is warning the American people understanding, or concept of the imto watch out for a development of gov- portance of the dollar. Thus, we have
ernment by secrecy in the United States. such wasteful projects as these research
That is why I have been heard to sayprograms in the field of social science.
and I argued it only yesterday afternoon,
Members of the military should be
as I had on my desk piles of reports from sent back to their social science classes.
the Comptroller General-that the for- Members of the military should take a
eign aid program is honeycombed with refresher course on the American constiwaste and has been a causative factor for tutional system. They need to be recorruption in country after country minded of the limitations placed upon
around the world.
their authority and right to intervene in
That is why I have been protesting the affairs of civilian government as laid
the danger of government by secrecy down by our constitutional fathers.
which is developing. Imagine the DeThe Senator from Arkansas continues:
fense Department planning to proceed
The project was canceled in the wake of
Chile-and
in
with a research study in
protests by Members of Congress and by
other countries-without the knowledge Ambassador Dungan. So far as is known,
of the U.S. Ambassador, and without the SORO has not been required to turn back
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
August 25, 1965
unexpended funds provided for Camelot.
I do not know what the Army plans to do
with any funds available to it for Camelot
but not yet turned over to SORO. I trust we
can take it for granted that any such funds
will not be turned over to SORO.
project Camelot gave great offense to the
Chilean press and intellectual leaders and,
presumably, to the Chilean Government as
The reason for its offensiveness is
well.
obvious to anyone with an iota of commonsense and it seems to me it should also
have been obvious to the highly trained
"scientists" at American University, as well
as to the Army.
The Senator from Arkansas puts quotation marks around the word "scientists"-and appropriately, I believe.
Continuing reading:
At a time when United States-Latin
American relations are complicated by our
intervention in the Dominican Republic, it
is not surprising that a project like Camelot
should be interpreted as having some pertinence to a possible future U.S. military intervention in Chile in the event of a revolution.
In any case, studies of possible insurgency
movements within a country are an exceedingly delicate matter. I can well imagine
how Members of the Senate might react if
it were announced that Chilean or British
or French "scientists"-
In quotation marks, againwere initiating a study of the conditions
that might give rise to racial insurgency in
Los Angeles or any other American city and
what might be done to prevent it.
Although Camelot has been canceled, other Department of Defense research projects
are planned or underway in other Latin
American countries, including Colombia,
Peru, and Venezuela.
I am personally concerned by such projects as Camelot because I believe there
lies beneath the jargon of "science" in
which these studies abound, a reactionary
backward-looking policy opposed to change.
Implicit in Camelot, as in the concept of
"counterinsurgency," is an assumption that
revolutionary movements are dangerous to
the interests of the United States and that
the United States must be prepared to assist, if not acually participate in, measures
to repress them. It may be that I am mistaken in thic interpretation; if so, I would
be greatly reassured to have convincing
evidence to that effect.
I digress from the Fulbright manuscript for a moment to say that I do not
believe he is mistaken at all. The Defense Department does not believe in
social change. The Defense Department
and the United States might just as well
wake up to the fact that there will be
great social changes in the century
ahead, and I wish to see my Government
assist in helping countries in which those
social changes will be taking place in
SENATE
heard to say so often, and will continue
in the RECORD at that point in his remarks
two documents of the Department of the
Army, one a fact sheet, and the other a
bright manuscript to say to that observa-
to say, short of a declaration of war,
that what we ought to be exporting to
southeast Asia is bread, not bullets; what
we ought to be exporting to southeast
Asia is economic freedom, not war.
There will be no peace there or else-
where in the world if we follow the philosophy of the American military mind.
I am glad that the opportunity has
presented itself for the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] to make
what I predict this afternoon will be rec-
ognized as a speech of historic importance for years to come in this Republic.
The Senator from Arkansas requested
unanimous consent that there be inserted
foreign countries, where social changes
may not be to our liking. In my judgment, if we unleash the American military abroad, the effect will be to increase
the Communists in the world by the
millions, just as our military intervention in southeast Asia today is creating
Communists by the hundreds of thousands throughout Asia.
That is why the
senior Senator from Oregon has been
I digress from my reading of the Ful-
task statement on Project Camelot. The tion "Amen." He is so unanswerably
consent which the Senator from Missis- right. The suggestion he makes should
sippi obtained automatically inserted in
the RECORD the material submitted by the
Senator from Arkansas.
The Senator from Arkansas proceeded
to say:
Following disclosure of the ambitious plans
for Camelot and its cancellation by the Department of Defense, the President, by letter, directed the Secretary of State to establish procedures for clearing all Governmentsponsored research involving foreign policy
matters. This letter sets a clear and direct
policy for all agencies, which should insure
that an incident like Project Camelot will
not happen again, to the embarrassment of
the Nation's foreign policy.
Then the Senator from Arkansas asked
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD at that point the President's
letter. That consent was automatically
given when the Senator from Mississippi
courteously asked permission tc insert
the speech of the Senator from Arkansas
and the material he sought to have
inserted.
The Senator from Arkansas proceeded
to say:
This directive accomplishes the purpose
I had in mind in proposing an amendment to
the Defense appropriation bill when it was
pending before the Senate committee.
I
understand that the question was discussed
at length by the committee and I am pleased
that it included language in its report expressing its concern about the need for coordination in keeping with the President's
order.
At the close of my remarks, I should
like to have printed in the RECORD mate-
rial on page 46 of the committee's report on this bill with the heading "Research in Foreign Countries," including
the quotation from the President's letter.
I ask to have that excerpt from the rekeeping with our system of economic and port printed in the RECORD at the conpolitical freedom.
clusion of my remarks.
I am convinced that we must prevent
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withthe military from carrying out this kind out objection, it is so ordered.
of intervention in the domestic affairs of
21731
indeed carrying out the letter and the spirit
of the President's order for coordination.
I can assure the Senate that the Committee on Foreign Relations will have a continuing interest in this problem.
Mr. President, beyond the immediate implications of this incident, broader issues
have been raised concerning Governmentfinanced research generally. The Federal
Government is now spending some $15 billion a year on research and development.
Over $6.7 billion is budgeted for Department
of Defense research in fiscal 1963.
All too often, it seems that research is
used by Government agencies either for
prestige and growth purposes, or as a substitute for positive decisionmaking. This
is both an unhealthy and a costly trend and
I believe the Congress should take a hard
look at all Government research activities.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas continued:
The report makes mention of a directive
issued by the Secretary of Defense, designed
to implement the President's instruction,
and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD following my
statement.
The Committee's expression is reassuring
and I am hopeful that it will follow up to
insure that the Department of Defense is
be quickly implemented by the administration.
Going back to the Fulbright speech,
the Senator from Arkansas states:
I note, for example, that nearly $23 million
is budgeted this year for research on behavorial and social sciences by the Defense
Department, $8.3 million of this amount was
allocated to the Army and out of this, $2.7
million was to finance work of the Special
Operations Research Office. The House and
the Senate committee have reduced the total
of this type of research by about $4 million and I fully support this action. Project
Camelot, I fear, is illustrative of the expendable nature of most of this research.
Mr. President, that is my position, too.
Millions could be saved for the American
taxpayer if we could cut out this boon-
doggle
from
this
already
wasteful
bill.
I hope that we shall be able to reduce
these wasteful aspects of the military
appropriation program.
Going back to the Fulbright speech:
My concern is not limited to this $23 million budget request but goes to the contribution to our society from the $15 billion
spent for Government research. Is this 15
percent of our Federal budget being spent
as wisely and usefully as it should be? This
is a basic problem which the Congress has
allowed to grow to gargantuan proportions
with insufficient consideration and evaluation. The question of sound priorities must
be faced someday but I realize that this
is not the proper time for such a discussion and that we can deal only with the bill
before us. But I am hopeful that before
long the appropriate Senate committee, or
a special committee, will undertake a
thorough study of all our Government's research prcgrams.
Mr. HARRIS.
Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. HARRIS.
I agree with that por-
tion of the statement that he has quoted
from the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
FUB,RIGHT].
I invite his attention to
the fact that in the Government Opera-
tions Committee, headed by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
MCCLELLAN], a special subcommittee has
just been set up on Government research.
of which I have the honor to be chair-
man. It has as its scope the operations
of the entire Government research program carried on by all agencies of Government, which is roughly 15 percent of
the total Federal budget.
Some overall
21732
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
review of that program is definitely long
overdue. That is the subject that this
subcommittee has as its scope of operation.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator. I
feel that the observations of the Senator from Oklahoma are extremely
pertinent.
Later I shall discuss not only with
his subcommittee, but also with the
McClellan committee, the great concern
which exists in the Foreign Relations
Committee on the need for coordinating
the foreign policy activities of the va::ious Senate committees, including the
particular subcommittee the Senator
from Oklahoma has mentioned.
We shall discuss that at a later time.
There must be developed in the Senate
a direct line of jurisdiction in connection with the activities of every committee which may impinge upon the foreign affairs of this country. He will
find me in enthusiastic support of the
issue that he raises. That factfinding
is needed.
I have mentioned my concern about
CIA earlier in my speech. I state for
the RECORD that I am still unable to find
out exactly what CIA is supposed to do.
I am also concerned that the research
facilities of the National Security agency
and other agencies are being duplicated
by the Defense Department. I take note
of the transcript of the House committee
hearing, where Dr. Vallance stated:
Established on July 1, 1964, the Counterinsurgency Information Analysis Center collects, stores, retrieves, and analyzes data pertaining to the human factors involved in
insurgency and counterinsurgency situations in specified geographical areas. This
Center responds to requirements from appropriate U.S. military and civilian agencies by
providing analytical and other advisory services, which supplement those provided by
the rest of SORO in its continuing program
of cross-cultural research. The Center has
developed by this time a strong staff, has
initiated a data base of six countries in Latin
America, middle east Africa and the Far East,
and has responded to a little over 100 inquiries from the Department of Defense and
other governmental agencies.
Later, he stated:
In the last half of 1964, a panel on behavioral sciences of the Defense Science
Board, after reviewing the Defense Establishment's social science research facilities
supporting counterinsurgency, recommended
that SORO increasingly orient its research
activities to the collection of initial primary
data in overseas locations and correspondingly reduce its reliance on library material
and other secondary sources. We have endeavored to do this, for we fully agree that
more refined data for testing hypotheses and
evaluating on-going programs can be obtained if one goes to the contemporary real
world source. Our actions in this direction
have been reflected in the work of the field
offices and in the plans for a number of new
studies, including Project Camelot which I
will now discuss briefly.
Mr. President, there it is. The Department of Defense is intervening in the foreign policy affairs of a foreign government. That is why we have a great
ambassador, such as Ambassador Dungan, vigorously protesting to his Government, when his attention was called
to this type of intervention in Chile. We
SENATE
do not like it when we are charged with
imperialism, but if we permit this, then
the charge of imperialism is proved.
Mr. President, we must insist that all
affairs affecting foreign policy be channelized through the American State
Department, and that the Defense Establishment be put in its place and told
to stay in its place.
I deeply appreciate the fact that the
Senator from Arkansas, as chairman of
the committee on which I have the
honor to serve, prepared this statement
of protest, and I only regret that he could
not be here to present the speech himself, as he intended to do. But he is
indisposed because of a slight illness, and
that is why others have presented this
material for him today. I sincerely hope
that the White House and the State Department will take note that there is
great concern among a number of members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee concerning the disclosures
that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
FULBRIGHT] has brought out.
Mr. President, at a later time I shall
discuss what I think are some of the
problems that face the Senate in regard
to the organization of committee jurisdiction in the Senate in respect to
American foreign policy. Suffice it for
now to point out that the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] has made
perfectly clear that he plans to protect
the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
EXHIBIT No. 1
Recent developments involving the Army's
canceled Camelot project have made it
clear that the Department of Defense must
coordinate its research efforts in foreign
countries with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. On July
12, 1965, the Secretary of Defense issued a
directive requiring that all studies in or for
the Department of Defense, the conduct of
which may affect the relations of the United
States with foreign governments, are to be
cleared with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
This directive will facilitate the coordination
directed by the President in his letter of
August 2, 1965, to the Secretary of State in
which he said: "Therefore I am asking you
to establish effective procedures which will
enable you to assure the propriety of Government-sponsored social science research in
the area of foreign policy."
Mr. President, I now turn to another
concern. I find myself in a very difficult
position in determining my vote on this
bill. The bill contains many items with
which I agree that I find it difficult to
vote against it. But it provides $1,700
million to support what I consider to be
an unconstitutional and illegal American war in southeast Asia, making it
difficult for me to vote for it. I suppose
we can say jocularly, "For once, WAYNE
MORSE is on the spot."
But, Mr. President, I have decided to
vote for the bill, with the RECORD showing my reasons for so doing.
American boys in South Vietnam did
not go there of their own volition. They
went there because they were sent by
their Government. I fully realize that
as long as they are there, they must
have every possible bit of protection that
can be given to them, although I deplore
the fact that, in my opinion, they are sent
August 25, 1965
there to participate in a war that is unwise, unconstitutional, and illegal, in
that the President has no constitutional
power to make war in the absence of a
declaration of war.
It will be said, "You should not vote
money to conduct such a war," and there
is much merit in that.
But as a liberal, I never overlook human values. When I vote for a bill that
includes that $1,700 million-and I will
have a question to ask my good friend
from Mississippi momentarily, as to
where the $1,700 million came from, and
its justification-I am voting still protesting the war, but I am voting to protect the human values of the American
boys who are fighting and dying under
governmental orders in that war.
When I balance the two problems that
I have just outlined, I feel that I can vote
for it in good conscience. I deplore the
action of my Government in conducting
this war without living up, as I have been
heard to say so many times, to its constitutional obligations and its international treaty obligations. I am voting for
it in defense of the men who have been
sent, and not in approval of their being
sent.
But the RECORD should also show my
continued protest of the war itself. The
President of the United States should
make up his mind as to whether or not
he wants to conform to the Constitution,
and the Congress should make up its
mind as to whether or not it wants to
declare war. In the absence of a declaration of war, the President, in my
opinion, has no constitutional right to
send a single American boy to his death
in southeast Asia.
But they are there, and they are dying. They need equipment to protect
themselves. The bill proposes the expenditure of $1.7 billion to give assistance to those boys. I shall vote for it
for that reason.
But I shall vote for it also because of
its many other features with which I
find myself in enthusiastic support;
namely, the long overdue pay increase
for the military; the provision that was
adopted in regard to the so-called 35-65
formula in connection with the building
of ships.
Even though I do not approve of the
reservation attached to that provision,
I believe that if it is wisely followed as
the congressional intent by a Secretary
of Defense, checked by a President of
the United States, what the proponents
of the provision-and I was one of
them-have in mind will be protected.
I ask the Senator from Mississippi if
he can tell us, because I cannot determine it from the committee report, why
$1,700 million was recommended at the
time for the prosecution of the Vietnam
war, by way of supplying our fighting
forces over there. Why $1,700 million?
Why not $2 billion? Why not $1 billion?
Why not any other figure? I cannot
ascertain the reason from the committee
report, if it is there. I would appreciate
having the Senator call my attention to
it if I missed it by oversight. I cannot
find a breakdown of the $1,700 million.
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to respond
to the question of the distinguished Sen-
August 25, 1965
COINGRESSIONAL RECORD -
ator. It is a very good question, indeed.
Earlier this afternoon, in my opening remarks, I first covered the major items
that the $1.7 billion did not include.
Then I spoke briefly on the items that
it includes. I stated then that we had a
breakdown. We insisted on getting a
breakdown from the Department of
Defense.
Mr. MORSE. May I interrupt to
apologize to the Senator from Mississippi. I was trying to handle the education bill, and I missed his opening remarks.
Mr. STENNIS. I know the Senator
was detained elsewhere, but I explained
then, and shall now explain to him, that
we had the breakdown in detail. I
shall be glad to show it to him. It is
classified, so it could not be included in
the report.
Overall, it pertains to planes, particularly for the engines. Engines are the
first units to go into production. The
frames come later. The item also provides for helicopters. We are organizing
more and more helicopter units. We
have had substantial losses of helicopters,
as the Senator knows. The bill provides
for large supplies of ammunition. I use
that term in a broad sense. It includes
rockets and cartridges, and the like.
Ammunition is being used very rapidly.
Bombing has been going on for a good
while. Also, repair parts are a major
item, due to breakage, wear and tear,
and replacements.
About $150 million is provided for
military construction. Most of that is
in the Pacific area. Very little is for use
at home.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STENNIS. In broad outline that
is the nature of the items. The amount
could have been more, because other expenditures are accruing. Of course,
funds can be used from the regular appropriations in the bill.
Mr. MORSE. In other words there
can be an exercise of the transfer power
of the President.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. MORSE. I appreciate the explanation of the Senator from Mississippi.
I shall inspect the specific breakdown
which he has offered to show to any
Senator. The statement of the Senator from Mississippi is somewhat helpful to the Senator from Oregon, but it
does not remove my dilemma, for it is a
dilemma.
I have decided that I shall vote for the
bill because of the human value factor
involved and because I believe our
soldiers who have been sent there, so
long as they are kept there, should be
given the funds necessary to provide
them with the maximum possible protection that can be given to fighting
men.
Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will
yield, I assure him that this item is almost entirely for the military hardware
needed by the men.
Mr. MORSE. That is my understanding.
Mr. STENNIS. In addition, there is
some military construction.
Mr. MORSE. I understand. I shall
continue to pray that my Government
21733
SENATE
will change its course of action and try American military power. We will win
to settle this threat to the peace of the
world by resort to the Security Council of
the United Nations by the filing of a formal resolution on the part of our Government with that body immediately.
The Senate knows that I do not believe that all of the rationalizations that
spokesmen for my Government have advanced, such as Secretary Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, and Ambassador Goldberg sought to present on television the
night before last, can possibly change the
undeniable fact that we have not officially and formally filed a resolution before
the Security Council. That is the procedure that is called for by the charter.
We should proceed to follow it. Until
we do, we are making war in violation
of the U.N. Charter.
I shall also pray that come January 1,
if Congress should mistakenly decide to
adjourn sine die while American boys
are dying in Vietnam, we shall not be
confronted with a situation so serious
that a national emergency will have to
be declared and that we shall find ourselves in a full-scale war.
I say that for the benefit of the ignorance of the editors of the Washington
Star, who published today another of
their misleading propaganda editorials,
this one entitled "Brighter Day in Vietnam." It reads, in part:
Almost nothing is being heard from the
Cassandras who, just a few months ago, were
shouting from the housetops that the United
States was headed for a major disaster
in southeast Asia. They are silent, significantly so. And the reason is not hard to
find.
I wish to say to these alleged journalists of the Washington Star that they
have only convicted themselves again of
being nonreaders. They do not read,
except their own rot.
On behalf of those of us who have been
protesting this illegal war, and have
continued to protest it, I invite them to
be in the Senate gallery on Friday, because I intend to speak at some length
on Friday in protest of this illegal war,
as I have spoken so many times during
the period in which they allege there has
been a silence.
But I expect that from warmongers; I
expect that from editorialists who are
unwilling to face up to the fact that we
are conducting a war in South Vietnam
that a good many of us believe cannot be
reconciled with our constitutional system.
Be that as it may, I say to those editors that if they think military victories
in battle after battle in South Vietnam
spell success for the United States, they
could not be more wrong. For months,
the senior Senator from Oregon has said
that we shall probably win every military
engagement in southeast Asia. What
makes anyone think that the forces that
we are fighting in Asia-which forces
are without any equipment, without airpower, and without the great advantage
which the American military might possesses-can succeed against American
military forces? Of course they cannot.
The South Vietnamese could not whip
them. So, we had to turn the war into
an American war. We had to send over
militarily and lose the war, for what we
are going to do is to build up centuries
of hatred for Americans, and through
Americans, for the white man in Asia.
We and our flunky government in
Saigon will remain in control of South
Vietnam only so long as American troops
stay and fight. The editors of the
Washington Star and the senior Senator
from Oregon and the rest of us will be
gone, but the war will go on until we
change our policy.
We cannot conduct a white man's war
in Asia and eventually win, no matter
how many military victories we win, for
what we are doing is sowing the seed
beds of hatred and vengeance against
the white man, and particularly against
the United States.
Look at the map of Asia. Our enclaves
in South Vietnam, and even in Okinawa,
the Philippines, and Taiwan, are no more
permanent than were the Dutch in the
East Indies, the French in Indochina, or
the British in Malaysia.
Ours have
lasted longer than the others because
right now we have the wealth to maintain them against all comers.
But there is not one single significant
power in Asia that will aid us in our endeavor to maintain those enclaves. In
the years and decades to come, there will
only be a growing unity in Asia to evict
us.
Those of us who have dared to stand
up against the tide and plead for peace
are referred to by what has almost become an unacceptable word in America.
This Christian Nation has almost
reached the point of war hysteria in
which it is almost subversive to talk
about peace.
I have no intention of talking out on
the teachings on which I was brought up,
for there is no more noble enterprise
that man can devote himself to than
seeking to establish a world order of
permanent peace.
We shall never have
a world order of permanent peace with
the American military taking over American foreign policy.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial entitled, "Brighter Day In Vietram," published in the Washington
Evening Star of August 25, 1965, be
printed at this point in the RECORD, for
I want history to know how ignorant
editors can be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
TYDINGS in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
BRIGHTER DAY IN
VIETNAM
There is no reason to doubt that the dominant feeling in Washington official circles
today is one of optimism with respect to
the war in Vietnam.
Almost nothing is being heard from the
Cassandras who, just a few months ago,
were shouting from the housetops that the
United States was headed for a major disaster in southeast Asia. They are silent,
significantly so. And the reason is not hard
to find.
For some weeks now the tide of war has
been slowly turning in South Vietnam.
There have been no spectacular victories of
late for the Vietcong. The monsoon season
21734
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
is approaching its end and the massive Communist assault, which the pessimists feared,
has yet to materialize. Finally, last week's
smashing victory at Chu Lai by the U.S.
Marines has put a new face on the whole
business. It had been accepted as gospel
that a numerical superiority of 10 to 1 was
needed for successful offensive operations
against the guerrillas. But the Marines
with a superiority of less than 3 to 1, trapped
the unit of some 2,000 battle-hardened Vietcong, dug them out of their caves and
tunnels, and decisively defeated them in
the worst setback of the war for the Communists.
The difference probably was in airpower
These are ad"anand superior firepower.
tages, however, which the enemy cannot take
away from us. And the demonstration at
Chu Lai of their effectiveness must be causing serious second thoughts in Hanoi about
the wisdom of any mass attack on United
States positions.
In this connection a word
SENATE
pair with the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. ELLENDER]. Knowing that if he
were here, he would vote "yea," I vote
"yea."
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
DODD], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
ELLENDER], the Senator from Montana
[Mr. MANSFIELD],
the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. MCGEE], and the Senator from
West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] are absent
on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the
Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] are necessarily ab-
might be said about the bombings by the B52's and other aircraft. They have been
ridiculed as attacks which accomplishe-.
nothing except to devastate jungle areas
abandoned by the Vietcong. Yet the evidence is accumulating that these bombings
have kept the Vietcong off balance, prevented any large massing of their forces,
and have seriously depressed their morale.
It is true, of course, that the course of
battle does not necessarily run in one direction all the time. In Vietnam, it may change
again. But for the moment there is plenty
of reason to believe that cautious optimism
is justified, and that mounting pressures and
fading victory hopes may serve before too
long to bring the Communists to the conference table.
sent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. DODD], the Senator
from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN],
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
LAUSCHE], the Senator from Montana
[Mr. MANSFIELD], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], and the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], would each vote "yea."
Mr. STENNIS. Before I conclude, I
wish to thank the members of the committee who have worked so long and so
diligently in the preparation of this bill.
The hearings alone, comprising over
2,100 pages of testimony, attest to their
hard work.
I believe that the bill before you will
provide adequately for our defense needs
for the current fiscal year, within the
limits which I have described above.
Mr. President, may we have the third
reading?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendment to be proposed,
the question is on the engrossment of
the amendments and the third reading
of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want
to state for the RECORD that, with reference to the amendment offered by the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER],
no legislation is contained in this appropriation bill with reference to ships and
other equipment.
It is charged that the committee has
exceeded its authority. That is in error.
No provision concerning that subject
is contained in the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
nois [Mr. DIRKSEN] is detained on official
business at the White House, and if present and voting, would vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 89,
nays 0, as follows:
the roll.
Mr. SALTONSTALL (when his name
was called). On this vote I have a live
Mr. KUCHEL. The Senator from Illi-
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Bass
Bayh
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Church
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Dominick
Douglas
Eastland
Fannin
Pong
Gore
Gruening
Harris
Hart
Hartke
[No. 238 Leg.]
YEAS-89
Muskie
Hayden
Nelson
Hickenlooper
Neuberger
Hill
Holland
Pastore
Hruska
Pearson
Inouye
Pell
Jackson
Prouty
Javits
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho Robertson
Kennedy, Mass. Russell, S.C.
Kennedy, N.Y. Russell, Ga.
Saltonstall
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Scott
Long, La.
Simpson
Magnuson
Smathers
Smith
McClellan
McGovern
Sparkman
Stennis
McIntyre
Symington
McNamara
Talmadge
Metcalf
Miller
Thurmond
Mondale
Tower
Monroney
Tydings
Montoya
Williams, N.J.
Morse
Wlliams, Del.
Morton
Yarborough
Moss
Young, N. Dak.
Mundt
Young, Ohio
Murphy
NAYS-0
August 25, 1965
We had hoped that they could return to
vote. The vote was 89 to nothing. If
they had been here the vote would have
been 91 to nothing.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the
House of Representatives thereon, and
that the Chair appoint the conferees on
the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. STENNIS,
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia, Mr. HAYDEN,
Mr. HILL, Mr. MCCLELLAN, Mr. ELLENDER,
Mr. BYRD Of Virginia, Mr. SALTONSTALL,
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota, and Mrs.
SMITH conferees on the part of the
Senate.
Mr. MANSFIELD subsequently said:
Mr. President, today the Senate approv-d
by a vote of 89 to 0 a $46,756 million appropriation bill to provide funds for the
defense activities of our country. This
vitally important measure covered such
significant items as provision for, first,
military pay, including a raise in that
pay; second, ordinary expenses of operation and maintenance and procurement for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
Air Force, National Guard, and Reserve Forces; third, defense research
and development; and fourth, an emergency fund for southeast Asia.
It is a tribute to every Member of this
body, but especially to the distinguished
and able manager of the bill, the junior
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]
and the distinguished senior Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL],
the ranking Republican member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, that
this major measure was treated by this
body with such thoroughness, yet with
such efficiency and speed. Credit must
also be given to the junior Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] and the senior
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER]
who so ably presented their amendments,
and to the senior Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE] who again ably and forcefully stated his position on a number of
the provisions in the bill.
I thank and congratulate the Senate on
its efficient and thorough treatment of
a vital legislative measure.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN FOREIGN
AID
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I call the
attention of the Senate to a most important event which took place today.
That is the presentation by the Advisory
Committee on Private Enterprise in Foreign Aid of its report to the President,
Congress, and the Administrator of the
Agency for International Development.
I take particular pride in this event
NOT VOTING--11
because the authorization for this ComMcCarthy
Ervin
Clark
mittee was created by an amendment to
McGee
Fulbright
Dirksen
Randolph
Lausche
Dodd
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963 which
Mansfield
Ellender
I introduced with the sponsorship of
the then Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
So the bill (H.R. 9221) was passed.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. So that HUMPHREY], the Senator from Alaska
everyone may understand what has [Mr. GRUENING], and the Senator from
taken place in the byplay here, the ma- Oregon [Mr. MORSE].
The country is growing increasingly
jority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD] and the
minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN] were at critical of the existing approach to forthe White House on official business. eign aid and wants a new idea intro-
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
duced into it. I am convinced that the
Committee's recommendations, if properly implemented and carried through,
would make possible a significant increase in the contribution that our private enterprise system would make in
the success of foreign aid.
Mr. President, the report makes major
recommendations, some of which have to
be implemented by legislation. It is my
desire, and I state this affirmatively to
the Senate, to withhold introduction of
legislation until such time as it can be
presented in one package, indeed, as requested by the administration. This
would be the greatest tribute that could
be paid to the dedicated men and women
who have worked on this report. We
owe a great debt of gratitude to them,
and especially to the Chairman.
I am very proud to call attention to
another fellow New Yorker, Arthur K.
Watson, chairman of the IBM World
Trade Corp., who is Chairman of the
Committee, and to the other members
of the Committee who represent important aspects of our national life-the
universities, trade unions, foundations,
as well as the various professions and
business generally. This Committee has
rendered a most outstanding job of service to the people of the United States.
The Committee had enormous assistance from David Bell, Administrator of
AID, who, in my judgment, showed in
this matter a statesmanship and farsightedness of a most unusual and extraordinary kind, and two of his principal aids, Don Hoagland and Seymour
Peyser.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to
Kenneth A. Lawder, treasurer of the W.
R. Grace & Co., who presided over the
Committee's Subcommittee on Investment Guarantees and to members of his
committee; to Raymond L. Vernon, professor of international trade and investment at Harvard Business School, who
served as consultant to the committee;
and to Harold Hutcheson and Tom
Murphy, of IBM; and Herbert Erf, of
the Ford Foundation, who provided
valuable assistance to developing the
Committee's report.
I should like especially to mention the
name of Harriet S. Crowley, of AID, secretary of the Committee. She did an
extraordinary job.
The report makes 33 very important
recommendations-which
are
appended-as to how our foreign aid program could be improved. I would like to
call attention among these recommendations to the following:
The U.S. Government should accept
in principle the concept of international
arbitration and that it ratify the proposed International Convention for the
Settlement of Disputes and that it seek
to secure its ratification by others.
The U.S. Government should lend its
full support to the principle of the investment code under international sponsorship and that, as part of such a code,
the United States be prepared to accept
a reasonable statement of the obligations
of investors, to accompany a statement
of the obligations of host countries.
In the area of investment guarantees,
the Committee urges the expansion of
SENATE
the extended risk guaranty; relaxation
of statutory limitations on specific risk
guarantees against expropriation, war or
revolution and insurrection, and inconvertibility, and proposed a merging of
the three specific risks into a comprehensive policy; a reduction of the rates
charged for guarantees; and that revenues from such premiums which now
go into the General Treasury funds be
turned back to AID to administer the
program.
In the area of taxation, the Committee recommends the enactment of a 30percent tax credit bill for productive investments in the less developed countries; Senate acceptance of the 70-percent investment credit on added plant
and machinery investments by treaty
and its extension to other selected countries; amendment of the U.S. tax laws
to permit U.S. taxpayers to offset losses
of subsidiaries; and further study of
"tax-sparing proposals" in order that
such exemptions or holidays offered by
the less developed countries should not
be negated by U.S. tax laws.
The Committee urges that in administering the "voluntary" balance-of-payments program, the Federal Reserve
Board recommendations on foreign lending not be allowed to penalize the lessdeveloped
countries.
As noted by
Arthur K. Watson, the distinguished
Chairman of the Advisory Committee, in
his summary of the Committee's report,
indications are that U.S. banks, in complying with the Board's recommendations, are not lending as freely to the
less developed countries as they might
wish. The Committee rightfully believes that development must be given
priority over the balance-of-payments
impact. It does not think that the impact from loans to less developed countries would be very great.
The Committee calls attention to the
need of less-developed countries for a
wide range of modern credit institutions.
In this connection, it recommends that
an international technical assistance
program be created to help establish
these institutions and to help train their
personnel.
The Committee also urges that the
U.S. Government approve a proposal that
would permit the International Finance
Corporation to borrow $400 million from
the World Bank to get more capital into
private hands in the developing countries.
In this same connection, the Committee recommends that careful consideration be given to the proposed Peace by
Investment Corporation which would
cI annel equity funds into less developed
countries using U.S. Government credits
as a source of financing in the initial
stages and relying upon funds from the
private sector in later stages. This concept is incorporated in a bill which I
introduced earlier this year and which is
presently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During the
Senate consideration of the foreign aid
authorization bill, Senator FULBRIGHT,
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, indicated that he will make every
effort to hold hearings on this bill this
year following further refinement of the
21735
bill, which I have agreed to undertake.
Within the next few days, I will have
completed this refinement process at
which time I will reintroduce the bill so
that the Committee may consider it at
the earliest opportunity.
The Committee has done an outstanding job. I gather that the President of
the United States was grateful and expressed his gratitude to the Committee
today for this extraordinary-job which it
has done, and which can be so portentous
for the future of our policy in the whole
foreign aid field.
Mr. President, the administration's
recent experience in the Congress in connection with the foreign aid legislation
should be taken as showing the clear need
that a new direction should be made in
our foreign aid program. The decision
of the conferees on the foreign aid authorization bill to leave this review to
the President rather than to a blueribbon commission provided for by the
Senate passed version of the bill which
I supported, will have proved out only
if the proposed review by the President
will be of a fundamental nature. I believe that the report of this extraordinary Advisory Committee on Private
Enterprise in Foreign Aid provides the
President with an opportunity to
strengthen and change the direction of
the foreign aid program in a very
significant way.
So that Members may be aware of what
has teen accomplished in this exemplary
way, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed at this point in the RECORD the
Chairman's summary of the report of the
Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise in Foreign Aid, together with the
recommendations as extracted from the
report, the names of the Committee
members who, I think, should be honored
by every person in the United States, and
those who have been a tremendous aid to
them in this effort.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FOREIGN Am THROUGH PRIVATE INITIATIVECHAIRMAN'S SUMMARY
(Report of the Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise in Foreign Aid)
Here, in brief form, are the findings of the
Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise
in Foreign Aid. The Committee's full report
includes some 33 recommendations, and this
summary does not detail them all. It does,
I believe, outline the main thrust of the
Committee's thinking and touches on most
of the major recommendations. For a
broader understanding of the Committee's
thinking, reference should be made to the
report itself.
As Chairman of the Committee I offer this
as my own brief statement. I do wish to
emphasize that the report itself is the work
of the full Committee which was aided by
the cooperation of many others. I am grateful to them all.
ARTHUR K. WATSON,
Chairman.
FOREIGN AID THROUGH PRIVATE INITIATIVE
Foreign aid, unless it is amplified by private
initiative, is doomed to be a costly palliative that will go on indefinitely. The fundamental difficulty lies not in the idea of foreign aid, nor its execution by the Agency for
International Development, but in the vast
21736
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
gap between the human and financial resources actually going into the developing
nations and the resources they need to grow
at an acceptable rate.
In overall terms, the Committee's recommendations are directed to two general areas
where Government initiative can stimulate
the private sector:
Capital: Government should seek to stimulate the flow of direct and indirect investment to the developing countries through tax
incentives, expanded insurance coverage plus
various programs recommended to improve
the investment "climate" in these countries.
Human resources: Through organizational
changes and subsidy, AID can tap the vast
reservoir of private technical and institutional skills in the United States.
The capital gap alone has been estimated
at between $5 and $20 billion annually.
Since no conceivable increase in Government
financed foreign aid is likely to fill all of this
gap, the Committee concluded that the
private sector must fill it or it will not be
filled. Our full panoply of the private sector: business, labor, organizations, educational institutions, professional societies and
foundations, must be committed more fully
to economic development. The Agency for
International Development, far more than it
does now, must act as an energizer and
catalyst for private effort.
United States business' commitment in the
less developed countries is extensive. But
most of this is in extractive industries and
the rate at which Americans are investing
fresh capital in the developing countries is
modest. Unless investment is deliberately
stimulated, the Committee sees no reason to
expect this rate to increase very much.
There are reasons, real, and imagined, why
business today is limiting its commitments
in the developing world. For one thing, markets in these countries are small by American
standards. To some degree, also, promising
opportunities are simply overlooked by
American business. The overwhelming reason, however, is that business finds a difficult "climate" for enterprise in the developing world.
Inflation, to greater or lesser degrees, is
common to nearly all developing nations.
Systems of business law and regulation are
outmoded, capital markets are rudimentary,
and there is, nearly everywhere, political risk.
Legend notwithstanding, alleged high profits
are not offsetting these hazards.
Increasing the flow of private capital
Obviously, if business is to augment vastly its investments in the developing countries the odds must change-there must be
less risk of loss and greater prospect of profit.
To some degree, the Committee concluded
international agreements will help. It recommends that the United States ratify the
proposed Convention for Settlement of International Disputes and that it support an investment code under international sponsorship. It is also urged that AID support large
scale feasibility studies and investment promotion programs to interest more American
investors in developing country opportunities.
But, the high risk and relatively low profit
in the developing countries must also be
confronted directly.
To offset the risks, the Committee recommends, among other things, that tax law be
amended so that losses suffered by American-owned subsidiaries in developing countries can be offset against profits earned
elsewhere. The Committee, in addition, endorsed the tax credit proposal which gives
investors a 30-percent credit, applied against
U.S. tax liabilities, on investments made in
developing countries. This credit would apply to portfolio as well as direct investments.
Of great importance, the Committee also
urged that the cost of selected risk guaranties be reduced and that the extended risk
guaranty program be greatly expanded. Both
SENATE
types of insurance would be made available
to portfolio investors as well as direct investors.
Specific risk guaranties insure American
owners against three categories of risk; the
inconvertibility of currencies (though not
devaluation), nationalization and confiscation and losses from war and revolution. Extended risk guaranties offer broader coverage
and can be used, in fact, to insure investors
against nearly all risk. It has been used only
cautiously to date.
Guaranties could be a major inducement
to business and could, for the first time, enable American institutional lenders to use
a portion of the vast sums they manage in
the developing economies.
There are, of course, ideological objections
to full guaranties and the very practical objection that they may one day result in large
claims against the Treasury. Nevertheless,
the guaranties properly administered are
likely, in the judgment of the Committee,
to be less costly than alternative means of
achieving economic progress and are one of
the few tools available that could make a
major difference.
Capital is scarce, and interest rates are
high in developing countries and long-term
loans, at less than the most elevated rates,
are virtually unknown. This impedes the
growth of private enterprise, and the Committee believes the situation can be improved.
For one thing, it urges that the Federal
Reserve Board recommendations on foreign
lending, designed to protect our balance-ofpayments position, not be allowed to penalize the less developed countries. Indications are that U.S. banks, in complying with
the Board's recommendations, are not lending as freely as they might in the less developed countries. The Committee believes that
development must be given priority over the
balance-of-payments impact. It does not
think the impact from loans to less developed
nations will be very great.
The less developed countries need a wide
range of modern credit institutions, from
development banks and credit unions, to
underwriters. It is recommended that an
international technical assistance program
be created to help establish these institutions and train their personnel. American
expertise would be useful, but in many instances the experience of countries such as
Japan and Mexico, which have successfully
established some unorthodox institutions,
will be more relevant to the problems of the
less developed countries than our own.
To get more capital into private hands in
the developing countries, the U.S. Government is also urged to approve a proposal that
would permit the International Finance
Corporation to borrow $400 million from the
World Bank. At the same time, AID is asked
to use more of its surplus local currencies
(money earned mostly from the sale of surplus U.S. food) to broaden the capital bases
of financial intermediaries in the less developed countries.
Human resources
While capital is scarce in the less developed
countries, the more subtle and difficult shortcoming is human and institutional. The
most basic problem in the whole development effort is that of transferring skills and
technology, and to some degree attitudes, to
individuals and institutions in the less developed countries.
One way to expedite this, the Committee
concluded, is to subsidize the export of technical assistance to institutions in the developing countries.
The labor union or
business receiving the help would pay what
would be a reasonable amount by local
standards, and AID, through subsidy, would
make up the difference.
The Committee also recommends that U.S.
exporters of technical and professional services be made eligible for the same financing
August 25, 1965
and guaranteeing facilities from AID and the
Export-Import Bank that exporters of tangible goods now receive.
Special attention was given to the role of
agriculture in less-developed countries because the race between population and food
supply must be won before significant overall
development can begin. In many less-developed countries, up to 80 percent of all workers are in agriculture. The key to progress
in that sector is not only direct transfer of
new production techniques, but a judicious
combination of new technology, capital
transfer, accelerated appropriate public research, and technical assistance in building
institutions in the credit, education, health,
and cooperative marketing and purchasing
fields.
While the Committee did not attempt to
appraise the operating efficency of AID, it
made several suggestions to better integrate
the public and private sectors for more rapid
economic development.
For one, it recommended that AID expand
its staff of private enterprise professionals
in Washington and in the field. It pointed
to the need for a new private sector representative within AID. He would be a man
of sufficient stature to command the respectful attention of the nongovernment community and within the AID organization.
The Committee also recommended that
proposals for one or more quasi-private organizations for technical assistance be formulated for presentation to Congress next
year.
Such institutions, the report suggested,
might receive funds from Congress, on contract from AID, from private sources such
as foundations, and from foreign governments. They would at the outset perform
three specific functions: (1) The administration of technical assistance programs in
countries, such as some of the oil-rich nations, which do not receive foreign aid in the
usual sense or where AID programs are being
terminated but which do need help in the
upgrading of their human resources; (2) the
exchange of plans and information among
U.S. foundations, universities, professional
societies, and charitable and religious organizations regarding their activities in the
less-developed countries; and (3) the maintaining of contacts with nonprofit organizations in these countries.
The job of economic development is vast,
and at times disheartening.
Nevertheless,
the Committee believes that our interests are
best served by building up the productive
capabilities and democratic institutions of
the less-developed countries. What Americans do demand, and what they are entitled
to have, is the assurance that their resources
and support are applied with intelligence,
skill, and dedication.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORYCOMMITTEE ON PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN FOREIGN AID
We recommend that AID select a number
Sof key aid-receiving countries for intensive
study of factors which may improve the investment climate; that such studies enlist
the help and advice of the appropriate business communities concerned; that an explicit
program be developed for the improvement
of the climate in those countries studied;
and that, wherever the foreign aid program
offers some effective opportunity for the improvement of such climate, the opportunity
be used to the full.
We recommend that the U.S. Government
accept in principle the concept of international arbitration; that it ratify the proposed
International Convention for the Settlement
of Investment Disputes; and that it seek to
secure its ratification by others.
We recommend that the U.S. Government
lend its full support to the principle of an
investment code under international sponsorship, and that as part of such a code the
United States be prepared to accept a reasonable statement of the obligations of
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
investors, to accompany a statement of the
obligations of host countries.
We recommend that both the U.S. Government and private organizations assist the less
developed countries in undertaking largescale programs of market studies and feasibility studies, to be used as part of a campaign in engaging the interest of prospective
local and foreign private investors. In view
of the need for persistence and continuity in
the promotion of any given project, the generating of such studies should be the prime
responsibility of local entities, such as a development bank or well-equipped ministry,
motivated and equipped to maintain a follow-up campaign from the stimulation of an
initial interest by investors to the final act of
establishment. If necessary, the contracting
of foreign technical assistance should be included. AID financing should be predicated
on significant contributions by the local institutions but might include the costs of a
substantial effort to "sell" proposals in faceto-face contracts with enterprises in the
United States.
We support the proposals under consideration by the Congress which would: (1) raise
the $2.5 billion statutory ceiling on the guarantees against inconvertibility, expropriation and military hazards to a new level of
$5 billion; (2) relax the statutory requirements for enterprises eligible for guarantee,
to permit the coverage of foreign corporations jointly owned by more than one U.S.
company; (3) relax the 20-year statutory
limitation on the life of guarantees; and (4)
permit AID to use income from the guarantee
program not only for the management and
custody of assets but also for certain other
operational costs associated with the guarantee program.
We urge in addition (5) that enterprises
be permitted to insure comprehensively for
all three categories of risk, rather than for
each risk separately, thereby reducing the
total amount of insurance coverage required;
and (6) that consideration be given to a reduction in the rates applicable to such insurance so that the coverage of two specific
risks costs three-fourths percent rather than
1 percent, and the coverage of three specific
risks costs 1 percent rather than 11/2 percent.
We recommend an expansion of the extended risk guarantee. In undertakings in
which businessmen are willing to risk as
much as 25 percent of the total investment
on a junior basis, an amount not to exceed
75 percent of the investment should be eligible, upon approval by AID, for a 100-percent extended risk guarantee. To permit
adequate opportunity for the development of
such programs, we recommend that the statutory authority to issue housing and extended risk guarantees be prolonged to June
30, 1969. We recommend also that the $25
million guarantee limit in connection with
loans and the $10 million limit in connection
with other investments be removed.
We recommend that the U.S. Government
urge the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to explore further the
feasibility of setting up a guarantee system
which would selectively indemnify both locally owned and foreign-owned enterprises
in the less developed countries against the
effect of a devaluation.
We recommend that the U.S. Government
support both wholly owned and jointly
owned enterprises in the less-developed countries, and that it avoid any doctrinaire position on the issue.
We recommend further that where the
prospective investor has legitimate concerns
regarding the nature of the arrangement proposed by the host government, and wishes to
enlist the support of the U.S. Government
in expressing these concerns to a host government, the U.S. Government should consider sympathetically the possibility of lending such support.
SENATE
We recommend that the U.S. tax laws
and regulations be amended so that the
U.S. taxpayers' right to offset losses in subsidiaries against taxable income from other
sources would be the same for subsidiaries
in less-developed countries as it is for subsidiaries in the United States.
We recommend that the U.S. Senate accept
the provisions of the United States-Thailand
tax treaty which would apply a 7-percent
investment credit to U.S.-owned investment
in Thailand.
We recommend also that the U.S. Government take steps to apply the same treatment
to investment in other selected less-developed
countries, either by legislation or by treaty.
We recommend the enactment of a proposal for a tax credit equal to 30 percent
of the investment by U.S. investors in productive facilities in less-developed areas, to
be applied against the total U.S. tx.liability
of such investors.
We recommend that the encouragement to
investment offered by such tax-sparing measures in less-developed countries should
not be negated by U.S. tax laws.
We recommend that the U.S. Government,
working through its bilateral treaties of establishment, through the mechanisms provided by the OECD, or through other appropriate means, widen and strengthen its collaborative practices with other governments
in the antitrust field. Wherever the activities of such government seem likely to raise
the problem of multiple standards and jurisdictional conflict in the application of
antitrust policies, a major objective of the
collaboration would be to reduce the uncertainty of the businessman concerning the
jurisdictional authority and antitrust standards which apply in his overseas activities.
We recommend that the Federal Reserve
Board amend its recommendations to U.S.
banks so that the restrictive effects on loans
to less-developed countries are eliminated.
We recommend that a large-scale program
of assistance be expanded for the development and improvement of local financial institutions in support of private and cooperative enterprises in the less-developed countries; and that the program draw heavily not
only on the expertise of the United States
and other advanced countries, but also on
expertise in countries whose institutions may
be more relevant to those of the less-developed countries. Presumably, such a program could be conducted not only through
the auspices of public international agencies
such as the Organization of American States
and the United Nations specialized agencies,
but also through private organizations such
as those in the cooperative and labor fields
which have the necessary experience and
interest.
We urge the U.S. Government to approve
a proposal to permit the IFC to borrow up to
$400 million from the World Bank for investment in private enterprise in the less-developed areas; and we urge approval of the provision eliminating the need for the guaranty
of such transactions by governments in the
country of investment.
We recommend that AID review its policies
with a view to widening the use of U.S.-owned
local currencies; and in that connection, that
it give serious consideration to the greater
use of those currencies for increasing the
capital base of financial intermediaries of
both the commercial and cooperative types.
We urge the administration to consider
the possibility that any U.S. tax credits extended by treaty or legislation to the direct
investments of U.S. investors in less-developed countries, such as the 7- and 30percent credits proposed in section 2, also
should be extended to the portfolio investments of U.S. corporate or institutional
investors, wherever such investments meet
the eligibilty criteria which would apply to
direct investments.
21737
We recommend that AID tailor its specific risk guarantie' to permit their easier
availability to U.S. buyers of selected issues
of foreign private enterprises. Among the
possibilities which AID should explore is:
arranging for the application of such guaranties through negotiation and agreement
with the underwriters rather than with the
ultimate buyers, thereby sparing the buyers
the cost and difficulty of direct negotiations
and insuring a wider U.S. market for the
securities involved.
We recommend that AID offer portfolio investors extended risk guaranties, combining
risk-yield features which make selected securities of private enterprises in the less-developed countries competitive with the alternative opportunities of such investors.
We recommend that, in the administration
of its aid programs in the less-developed
countries, U.S. representatives be instructed
to subordinate other objectives to that of
securing the economic and social development of the less-developed nations. In this
connection, it should be recognized that
U.S. interests are usually best served by
testing any project in these terms, rather
than in terms of whether the project would
affect the competitive position of particular
branches of U.S. industry or U.S. agriculture.
We strongly urge AID, in reviewing and
responding to a country's development
strategy, to place major emphasis upon the
planning, host country commitments to, and
the execution of educational programs. In
such programs, we urge AID to use every
means to tap the rich resources in U S.
universities, labor unions, cooperatives, business enterprises, professional societies, and
other nongovernmental entities which have
something to offer to the educational process.
We recommend that, in selected cases,
AID partially finance the sale of technical.
professional or managerial assistance from
U.S. organizations to entities in less developed countries, and that the subsidy contribute not only to the costs of the assisting
enterprise but also to the costs of searching
out and finding the appropriate source of
such assistance.
We urge AID to actively promote the development of management schools and vocational institutions in the less developed
countries capable of generating the manpower needed for the management and operation of a society based on principles of private enterprises, cooperative ventures, and
other noncentralized enterprise forms.
We also recommend that AID survey the
possibilities of more extensive use of facilities
of American-owned subsidiaries and affiliates
in the less developed countries for training
purposes; and that it undertake to provide
financial support, using local currency as
available, for such added training activities
as these enterprises or other organizations
might be willing to undertake with the use
of those facilities.
We recommend that AID and the ExportImport Bank review their present policies for
extending guarantees and export credits to
exports of technical and professional services destined for the less developed areas,
with the object of eliminating any remaining
disparities of treatment between exports of
services and exports of goods.
We recommend that AID finance increased
research imaginatively related to the agricultural, industrial, educational and administrative needs of the less developed
countries. In some of these fields, such as
agriculture, education, and administration,
the research would no doubt have to draw
heavily upon U.S. resources, of the sort that
can be provided by universities, agricultural
research institutions, and the like; but the
experimentation itself would usually take
place in the less developed areas themselves
and should be directed towards strengthening research institutions and capabilities
within these areas. Defining the problems
21738
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
to be studied and identifying qualified research capabilities requires of AID considerably more skill and more effort to involve the
less developed countries than has hereto-
fore been characteristic. Some of this activity might be financed by U.S.-owned local
currency where available.
We recommend that AID assist in financing
the development of appropriate nonprofit
institutions in the less developed countries
and that it finance the development of links
between such organizations and their counterparts in the United States through which
technical assistance could be effectively provided. Assistance of this sort could take
many forms, from such familiar activities as
assisting educational institutions to supporting public forums and discussion groups. We
see this activity, too, as a fruitful possibility
for the expenditure of U.S.-owned local currencies.
We urge the Congress to encourage not only
well-conceived project loans but also wellconceived program loans in the administration of U.S. aid, especially when such program loans would stimulate the local private
sector to a greater contribution in the process
of social and economic development.
We recommend that AID expand and improve its organization both in Washington
and in the principal missions abroad so that
it is appropriately staffed with persons who,
by experience and competence, are capable
of acting as an effective conduit between the
private sector and the official AID organization. In this connection, we urge AID to
take steps to establish a basis for coopting
men from the private sector for rotation
back to their permanent organizations after
a tour with AID.
We commend AID for its increasing use of
contractors in the handling of specialized
tasks and urge the Agency to extend this
practice.
We recommend that the administration
formulate specific proposals aimed at creating one or more organizations which could
increase the technical assistance commitments of private groups and in time more
effectively administer publicly funded technical assistance programs in coordination
with those which are privately funded. In
view of the urgency of the problem, such
proposals should be prepared in time for
consideration and adoption in next year's
AID program.
We commend AID on its initiative in seeking the creation of a binational nonprofit
foundation in India; we urge AID to press
forward with this experiment as a matter
of high priority; and we urge that, if initial
indications are encouraging, the experiment
be repeated in other countries where local
conditions are favorable.
We recommend that AID draw up a plan
for staffing the recommendations proposed
in this report, and that the Congress and
the executive branch give sympathetic consideration to the AID proposals.
SENATE
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
may I ask the acting majority leader
what is the will of the Senate?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. We propose
to lay before the Senate Calendar No.
405, S. 1459, a bill to amend Federal
Power Act as amended, dealing with the
jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission over nonprofit cooperatives.
We hope to be able to pass the bill
without a yea-and-nay vote. If a yeaand-nay vote is insisted upon, it will go
over until tomorrow.
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 405, S. 1459.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 1459)
to amend the Federal Power Act, as
amended, in respect to the jurisdiction
of the Federal Power Commission over
non-profit cooperatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration
of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which had
been reported from the Committee on
Commerce with amendments.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that tomorrow we shall accommodate him with the
yeas and nays, if that is satisfactory.
Mr. PASTORE. This is an important
piece of legislation. It has to do with
the Federal Power Act. It involves the
consumers. I believe we ought to have
a yea-and-nay vote on it. I ask for the
yeas and nays. If it is the desire of the
leadership to put consideration of the
bill over until tomorrow, that is satisfactory.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PASTORE. Do I correctly understand that consideration of the bill will
now go over until tomorrow?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I suggest
that the Senator from Oklahoma may
proceed with an orderly presentation of
the bill. If the managers of the bill care
to accept some amendments that SenCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
ators may wish to offer at this time, or
Committee members are:
make some technical changes in the bill,
Chairman, Arthur K. Watson, chairman,
I would be happy to have that done. The
IBM World Trade Corp.
Ernest C. Arbuckie, dean of the Graduate bill itself will be the subject of a yeaand-nay vote.
School of Business, Stanford University.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I have
Joseph A. Beirne, president of the Communications Workers of America (AFL-CIO).
been busy in a hearing, which started at
William T. Golden, corporate director and 10 o'clock this morning. We finished the
trustee.
hearing at 5 o'clock. I wish to make a
Henry T. Heald, president of the Ford
short statement on the bill, but I am not
Foundation.
prepared to do so tonight. I would preKenneth D. Naden, executive vice" presifer tc do it tomorrow. I shall not prodent of the National Council of Farmer
crastinate. I believe we should decide
Cooperatives.
to have it go over until tomorrow. The
Edith Sampson, judge of the Circuit Court
bill should not be passed at this late
of Cook County, Ill.
Sidney Stein, Jr., partner, Stein, Roe & hour.
Farnham.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
Murray A. Wilson, former president of the should like to make a suggestion. BeNational Society of Professional Engineers.
cause of the lateness of the hour, and in
August 25, 1965
view of certain questions raised by several Members of the Senate as to
whether there would be a yea-and-nay
vote, and the discussion that will be had
on it by all Senators who care to take
part in the debate, it would be appropriate to permit the bill to be the order
of business when the Senate convenes
tomorrow, and to take up the discussion
of it at that time, instead of at this late
hour. Therefore, I ask unanimous consentthat the bill may be the first order
of business following the morning hour
tomorrow.
Mr. HARRIS. It is the order of business now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will
automatically be the pending business
tomorrow.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I had hoped that I would be able to
submit a unanimous-consent request,
but I understand it would be objected to.
Therefore, I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I wish
to make it clear that I would have to
object to such a request, because I cannot foresee what will happen. I am to
testify before a House committee at 10
o'clock tomorrow morning and before a
Senate committee immediately after
lunch tomorrow. I have been waiting
here all day in an effort to make my talk
on the pending bill. I am in perfect
agreement with the distinguished acting
majority leader and the Senator from
Oklahoma. I thought that we would
conclude action on the bill tonight, and
I would be perfectly willing to move
ahead with it. Since that is not the
case, I do not want to cross a bridge
when I cannot see what will happen.
I should like to make my remarks tomorrow. I have made this fact known
to the Senator from Oklahoma. I do
not believe it would be timely to try to
set up a unanimous-consent agreement
when I cannot foresee at what time I
can come to the floor.
I am trying to participate with the
distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] in marking up the
farm bill. We are therefore in a scrambled situation tomorrow so far as I am
concerned. That is the only reason. as
I told my distinguished friend the Senator from Louisiana why I could not agree
to a unanimous-consent agreement. I
cannot possibly see what we will be up
against tomorrow.
. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, the
reasons for my joining with my senior
colleague [Mr. MONRONEY]
s as cospon-
sor of S. 1459, now the pending business,
were set forth in a statement by me before the Senate Commerce Committee on
April 23, 1965. So that it may be printed
overnight and Senators may have an
opportunity to read it tomorrow in advance of the vote on this bill, I ask unanimous consent that my statement before the Commerce Committee may be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATErENT BY SENATOR HARRIS BEFORE THE
COIMMERCE COMMITTEE, U.S. SENATE, APRIL
23, 1965
lMr. Chairman and members of the committee. although it is indeed an honor for
August 25, 1965
21739
COI qGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
me to be a cosponsor with my honored colleague, the senior Senator from Oklahoma,
Mr. MONRONEY, on S. 1459, I nonetheless feel
that the need for this legislation has been
forced upon the Congress through the unwarranted attempt of the Federal Power
Commission to expand and extend its jurisdiction into an area not within the limits of
the existing law.
For nearly 29 years now, the Congress, the
public, the rural electric cooperatives, and
the successive Federal Power Commissions
have assumed that rural electric cooperatives were not within the jurisdiction of the
Federal Power Commission. This historical
absence of jurisdiction has not been the result of unawareness of the existence of the
rural electric cooperatives. On the contrary, it has been recognized on numerous
occasions by our predecessors in the Congress, and was first determined during the
passage of the Rural Electrification Act of
1936, when the regulatory powers of the
Commission over rural electric cooperatives
first became a question.
At that time, it was decided, both by the
drafters of the bill and by the Congress, to
leave the regulation of the cooperatives in
the hands of the Administrator of the Rural
Electrification Administration, thus avoiding any conflicts between two agencies of
the Federal Government.
At that time, an amendment was introduced, which in effect stated that the Rural
Electrification Administration "in cooperation with the Federal Power Commission"
should make, or cause to be made, studies, investigations, and reports concerning the condition and progress of the electrification of
rural areas in the several States and territories. Senator King objected to the phrase
"in cooperation with the Federal Power
Commission," on the grounds that it would
imply some jurisdiction in the Commission,
which was not intended and which it did
not have. The amendment was later rejected by the Senate at the request of Senator Norris, who gave this explanation:
"Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, the Senator
from Utah (Mr. King) requested that the
amendment be passed over, he being opposed
to it. After consultation with the REA, and
considering the question as to whether that
amendment would not have the effect of increasing the authority of the Federal Power
Commission, I concluded, as the REA did not
desire the amendment, anyway, that I would
ask the Senate to reject it." (80th Cong.,
REC. 3212.)
Therefore, there can be no doubt, not
only from the foregoing, but also from many
similar actions which have occurred, that the
Congress has always intended the Commission to be without jurisdiction over the
electric cooperatives. It should be pointed
out that in 1939, Representative McGranery,
of Pennsylvania, introduced H.R. 6292, to
require that a determination be made that
a generating plant would result in lower cost
electricity before a loan could be made by
REA. No action was taken on this bill.
In 1946, Representative HAssIS introduced
H.R. 5555, to require the consent of the
Commission, where there is no State jurisdiction, before an REA generating plant loan
could be made. No action was taken on the
bill.
Also, in 1946, there was an attempt to limit
appropriations to REA,through the requirement of certification by the Commission that
there is not sufficient electric power available in the area before the generating loan
could be made. This recommendation was
a part of Senate Report No. 990 on HR.
5458. This requirement was defeated by a
vote of 52 to 21.
The above cases are only a few of the repeated instances in which the Congress has
refused to extend the Federal Power Commission jurisdiction in REA cases.
Why is it that the Congress has been so
definite in its stand on the limits of the
Federal Power Commission's jurisdiction?
We feel it is probably because of the uniqueA
ness of a rural electric cooperative.
rural electric cooperative provides a servthe
owners
Thus,
own
membership.
ice to its
ere in effect selling to themselves. In fact,
the sellers are also the buyers, and as such,
are in a position through an elected board
of directors to establish the cost at which
they will purchase their product (in this
case electricity) from themselves. A rural
electric cooperative, therefore, is not a "public utility" in the legal sense.
We would like to cite just one of many
cases on this point. In Garkane Power Company v. Public Service Commission, 100 p. 2d
571 (Utah, 1940) the court, in deciding that
a cooperative was not a public utility,
adopted language from State v. Nelson, 65
Utah 457, 238p. 237, and commented upon
it:
"Public Service (is) serving and carrying
all persons indifferently who apply for passage or shipment of goods or freight * * *.
Public Service as distinguished from mere
private service, is thus a necessary factor to
constitute a common carrier * * *. So, if
the business or concern is not public service,
where the public has not a legal right to the
use of it, where the business or operation is
not open to an indefinite public, it is not
subject to the jurisdiction or regulation of
the Commission, and we pointed out that
Nelson handled only a certain restricted
group of people (guests of the resort) and
did not hold himself out as willing to haul
anyone who applied."
The court went on to conclude:
"The distinction thus made is valid, and
is conclusive of this case. Garkane does not
propose to hold itself out to all who apply
and live near its lines; its very charter which
gives it existence restricts its service to a
certain group (members). It does not propose to serve the public generally, but only
to serve its members.
"In a cooperative the principle of mutuality of ownership among all users is substituted for the conflicting interests that dominate the owner vendor-nonowner vendee
relationship. In a cooperative all sell to
each. The owner is the seller and buyer."
A cooperative operates under the provisions and with the approval of the Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration, from whence it obtains its financing.
All capital above the actual operating expenses of the cooperative is to be returned
to the membership. Thus, if the rates are
too high, the membership can, through its
elected board of directors, insist that the
cost of services be reduced accordingly. On
the other hand, a public utility is engaged in
service to the general public, and its facilities are defined in law as being dedicated to
public use and public service.
The Federal Power Act speaks only of
regulating public utilities, and, thus, considering the aforementioned role of a cooperative as compared to a public utility,
does not intend to include electric cooperatives under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Thus, a rural electric cooperative is already under the regulation of its own member-owners, plus the regulation of the Administrator of the Rural Electrification
Administration, acting under the authority
delegated to him in the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936.
Further, the Federal Power Commission, by
law, is authorized to regulate only public
cooperative,
A rural electric
utilities.
through legislative history, and by law, is
not so considered.
Inasmuch as the Federal Power Commission has attempted to expand its jurisdiction, it has become necessary for us to enact
this bill, S. 1459, which will serve to set the
record clear as to the longstanding consistent intention of the Congress.
Thank you.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota.
Mr.
President, I want to make some com-
ments with reference to the pending legislation tonight because it
will not be
possible for me to take part in the debate
on this legislation tomorrow because of
an important meeting of the Senate
Agriculture Committee taking place at
the same time having to do with the new
farm price supports legislation.
Mr. President, I strongly recommend
that my colleagues join me in voting for
passage of S. 1459, which spells out that
Congress never intended-and does not
now intend-that REA-financed nonprofit electric cooperatives be subject to
the jurisdiction of the Federal Power
Commission.
I am cosponsoring this
legislation as I feel it will, once and for
all, make it clear to the Federal Power
Commission that it has no authority over
the rural electric cooperatives.
During the 88th Congress, I was a cosponsor of a similar bill to exempt the
rural electric co-ops from the Federal
Power Commission jurisdiction.
The
Senate Commerce Committee favorably
reported the measure to the Senate, but
unfortunately, the press of other legislation prevented its passage during the
closing days of that Congress. I am very
pleased that the Senate Commerce Com-
mittee held hearings early in this session
on the proposal and has favorably reported S. 1459 to the Senate. The need
for this legislation continues to be as
pressing as it was when the original bill
was introduced.
For the first 28 years of the rural electrification program, the Federal Power
Commission evidenced agreement with
the intent of Congress that the REAfinanced nonprofit rural electric systems
were not under FPC jurisdiction.
Then,
in 1963, the FPC served three cooperatives with orders to show cause why they
should not be required to comply with
the provisions of the Federal Power Act
of 1935. One of the co-ops named in
the "show cause" order was Minnkota
Power Cooperative, which has its headquarters at Grand Forks in my home
State of North Dakota.
Minnkota is owned and controlled by
the 12 rural electric distribution cooperatives which it serves. Since it was
organized in 1940, Minnkota has been
doing an outstanding job of supplying
power to its member cooperatives and
their consumer-members. During those
25 years, there has not been, to my
knowledge, a single complaint against
this cooperative or its operations from
those it serves.
I cannot understand the reasoning behind the efforts of the Federal Power
Commission to bring Minnkota and the
other rural electric cooperatives under
its jurisdiction. There are a number of
very valid reasons why they should be
exempted.
In the first place, as REA-financed
nonprofit cooperatives, their rate structures and operations are subject to the
supervision of the Rural Electrification
Administrator as well as that of their
consumer-members.
21740
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Secondly, no authority exists under
present law for the Federal Power Commission to exert such jurisdiction.
Thirdly, dual regulation by Rural Electrification Administration and Federal
Power Commission would place an additional burden of expense on these cooperatives and result in higher power costs
to their consumer-members.
Last, but not least, the Federal Power
Commission would require an increase in
both staff and appropriations in order
to handle the workload created by such
an expansion of its activities. I see no
reason for wasting the taxpayers' money
for a regulatory activity which is totally
unnecessary.
I would like to point out that the Federal Power Commission undertook its attempt to assert jurisdiction over the
rural electric cooperatives without benefit of congressional sanction. In fact,
the Federal Power Commission openly
pursued this course in the face of language in the Senate report on the fiscal
1964 independent offices appropriation
bill
which
specifically
directed the
agency to proceed no further with these
investigations until Congress had acted
on the matter. Finally, after the Senate
Commerce Committee had held hearings
on the proposed legislation last year and
the Senate Appropriations Committee
had again censured the Federal Power
Commission's continuing action in this
area, the Federal Power Commission ordered its initial decision on the rural
electric co-op jurisdictional matter deferred until after January 1, 1966.
The rural electric cooperatives have
done-and are continuing to do-an outstanding job in providiing adequate and
reasonably priced power to our farmers
and rural residents. They operate under
a number of severe handicaps which
come with the kind of territory they
serve. For example, the rural electrics
in North Dakota average only 1.3 consumers and $264 in revenues per mile of
line. This is very thin service territory,
when you consider that the commercial
power companies which operate in North
Dakota average 29.4 consumers and
$6,036 in revenues per mile of line.
In view of the fine service record of
the cooperatives, and the fact that they
are both self-regulated and supervised by
REA, I see absolutely no justification for
the Federal Power Commission to enter
this field.
S. 1459 will clarify this matter for all
parties concerned. Unless this bill is
enacted into law as soon as possible, the
earlier actions of the Federal Power
Commission will be resumed in an effort
to bring the REA-financed nonprofit cooperatives under FPC jurisdiction. I
urge passage by the Senate of S. 1459 as
reported by the Senate Commerce Committee, without amendment.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I.yield.
Mr. CARLSON. I wish to associate
myself with the remarks of the senior
Senator from North Dakota with regard
to the control of the Federal Power Commission over the REA cooperatives. I
have received some letters from people
in my State in relation to the REA.
SENATE
They are greatly concerned about the
situation, and in view of the fact that
the agreement might expire on January
1, 1966, I believe it is very timely that we
act. I hope that the bill will pass.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I
thank my friend from Kansas for his
very fine statement. There is no justification whatever for the Federal Power
Commission to enter this field. There
has not been a single complaint against
the three power cooperatives now being
sought to be brought under the jurisdiction of the FPC, so far as I know.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, S.
1459 simply nails down the intent which
Congress has had since the passage of
the Federal Power Act in 1935, to exempt
rural power cooperatives from Federal
August 25, 1965
Furthermore, the legislative history of
the Federal Power Act clearly indicates
that it was designed as remedial legislation to control the practices of the investor-owned utilities in order to protect
their customers. Nonprofit and consumer-owned enterprises were excluded
because they are self-regulating.
I am convinced that the Federal Pow-
er Commission, in its present drive to extend jurisdiction over nonprofit rural
electric cooperatives, is misreading its
authority to regulate the sale of energy
for ultimate distribution to the public.
This authority applies only where there
is a substantial diversity of interest between a commercial public utility and its
customers.
In the nonprofit rural electric cooperatives, the owners and the consumers
Power Commission jurisdiction.
years
since
in
the
30
are
the same people. There is no diverNot in 1935, nor
1935, has Congress seen any need to sub- sity of interest or control. If the rates
ject cooperatives, which are already su- are set too high, any surplus is returned
pervised by the Rural Electrification Ad- by the owner-consumers to themselves.
ministration, to duplicate regulation by
I understand that during fiscal 1965,
REA electric borrowers made a total of
the Federal Power Commission.
126
rate reductions which resulted in
and
transmission
cooperaGeneration
tives sell power to their member distri- savings of $5 million to their rural conbution co-ops under low-rate policies. sumer-members. Although the number
They are not operated for profit. They of rate reductions-and the resultant
have few non-co-op customers and we consumer savings-has been steadily
heard no complaints from them. S. 1459 growing over the past 5 fiscal years, the
will leave the Power Commission free to fiscal 1965 figure is a new record high
exercise its zeal for regulation by assur-- for any year of the REA program.
These rate reductions were made
ing that the giant private power, companies are limited to a fair profit in dis- without FPC jurisdiction. The action
tributing power throughout the Nation. taken by the rural electric cooperatives
We, on the Independent Offices Ap- is in keeping with one of their major obpropriations Subcommittee, tried to con- jectives, which is to provide adequate,
vey this message to the Power Commis- dependable electric service to their consion both in our 1964 and 1965 reports, sumer-members at the lowest possible
directing that "no funds be spent by the cost.
FPC to establish regulatory authority
Furthermore, the nonprofit cooperaover REA co-ops."
tives were formed to accomplish rural
Yet, the Commission persisted in pur- electrification through the use of loan
suing its proceeding to exercise jurisdic- funds authorized by Congress under the
tion over the co-ops. That proceeding is Rural Electrification Act. This act of
still pending before the Commission.
Congress gives the REA Administrator
The only course remaining open to us full authority and legal responsibility to
is to pass this bill, making it absolutely set up whatever controls are necessary
clear that cooperatives are beyond the to assure the security of the loans and
reach of the Federal Power Commission. their use in the public interest. Although
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I urge the Rural Electrification Act was passed
the passage of S. 1459, which would a year after the Federal Power Commisamend the Federal Power Act of 1935 to sion was given regulatory jurisdiction
add REA-financed, nonprofit electric over commercial electric utilities, Concooperatives to the list of Federal, State, gress did not deem it necessary or wise
and municipal electric systems which are to divide the authority and responsibility
specifically exempted from FPC juris- for the rural electrification program bediction. I sponsored this legislation in tween two Federal agencies, the REA
the 88th Congress, and again, in the cur- and the FPC.
This intent of Congress has been reafrent Congress, I sponsored a similar
measure, S. 457. I strongly feel that firmed on several occasions. In 1946,
its enactment is essential to clarify the I am sure you will recall, the Senate deintent of Congress in regard to the status feated by a record vote a proposal to put
of the rural electric cooperatives of the REA-financed cooperatives under FPC
Nation, which have done such a magnif- jurisdiction.
Several other bills and
icent job in bringing the benefits of amendments having the same purpose
light and power to the rural people of have also failed to be enacted.
America.
In short, the exemption of REAThe Federal Power Act, in its present financed electric systems from FPC juform, was passed in 1935. It does not risdiction is not a new idea. S. 1459 does
mention the rural electric cooperatives not take from the Federal Power Combecause they did not come into existence, mission any authority which it rightfully
to any degree, until after the Rural Elec- holds. In effect, S. 1459 does no more
trification Act was passed in 1936. How- than clarify in statutory form the de
ever, the Federal Power Act of 1935 did facto exemption for REA-financed sysexempt all of the consumer-owned elec- tems which existed during the 28 years
tric systems known to exist at the time between the passage of the Rural Elecof its passage.
trification Act in 1936 to the move made
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENALTE
by the FPC in 1963 to take jurisdiction
over the nonprofit rural electric cooperatives.
Federal Power Commission jurisdiction would burden our rural electric
cooperatives with dual regulation, needless redtape, and unnecessary expense.
I strongly recommend that S. 1459 be
enacted into law as soon as possible. I
am rigorously opposed to any attempt
which may be made to amend this bill
by attaching the provisions of S. 218,
which would permit many of the investor-owned commercial power companies
to escape FPC jurisdiction. Regulation
of these investor-owned utilities, which
do have a diversity of interest between
owners and customers, was the purpose
of the Federal Power Act of 1935.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I support reaffirmation of Rural Electrification Administration jurisdiction over
rural electric cooperatives. Over the
years, the REA has acquired considerable expertise and experience in dealing
with the particular problems faced by
rural electric co-op systems. For example, in Minnesota, rural electric systems
receiving REA loans have provided service to an estimated 258,554 rural consumers over 86,298 miles of line. Loans
made to this date to the 54 REA electric
borrowers in the State, including 52 electric cooperatives, total 248,090,500. The
first REA loan in the State was approved
in September 1935, with the first REAfinanced line being energized on October
31, 1936, by the Mille Lacs Region Cooperative, Atkin, Minn.
Rural consumer density and low revenue per mile make the service job harder for electric cooperatives. Rural electric co-ops in Minnesota serve only 2.8
consumers per mile and average $480 in
revenues per mile compared with 38.7
consumers and $8,599 per mile for class
A and B commercial utilities.
Although the record of past achievement of the REA is very good, more needs
to be done. Although 99 percent of the
farms in the State of Minnesota were
receiving electric service in 1964, compared with only 6.8 percent when REA
was created in 1935, the time is approaching when these systems will need
more capital than we can reasonably see
available. Power loads in rural areas
are doubling every 7 years, and there is
a constant need for the distribution coops to reinforce their systems and for
the generation and transmission cooperatives to go to higher scale generation and power pooling with the rest of
the industry.
Even as I support the jurisdiction of
the REA over rural electric cooperatives,
I strongly oppose any amendment which
would strip the Federal Power Commission of the authority to regulate interstate transmission and wholesaling of
electric energy. Under present law, the
FPC has authority over some 200 major
power companies to order reasonable and
nondiscriminatory wholesale rates. This
is done because private power companies
operate under monopoly conditions, with
less than normal business risk. They are
guaranteed an opportunity to earn a
reasonable rate of profit, and are granted
special governmental powers. In addi-
21741
tion, wholesale customers of these com- tric cooperatives provide a sound basis
panies usually cannot shop around for for exempting user-owned electric cobulk power supplies. They are often operatives from jurisdiction of the Fedcaptive consumers.
eral Power Commission.
For many
It is vitally important that the FPC years, everyone concerned, Congress,
retain jurisdiction over these companies, the REA, the rural electric cooperatives,
because nearly 1,000 local publicly owned and apparently the FPC itself, had beelectric utilities, of which our co-ops in lieved that cooperatives were beyond the
Minnesota are a part, purchase all or jurisdictional powers of the FPC. Then,
part of their power supply from private suddenly, the FPC reversed its tradipower companies.
tional stand and began moving in the
The outcome of this effort to restrict direction of assuming regulatory juristhe Federal Power Commission in its diction over rural electric cooperatives.
rate regulation authority will, in a large
The hearings held cn S. 1459 have
measure, determine whether the con- produced convincing evidence that Consumers receive the benefits of low-cost gress never intended the FPC to do
power in the years to come or whether what it is now attempting to do.
the result will be excess profits. We are
But original congressional intent
witnessing today an attack upon the en- alone would not be sufficient reason for
tire principle of public regulation of pri- passing a subsequent bill to clarify an
vate utility monopolies.
This is one earlier intent, if that earlier intent were
battle the American people cannot not based upon sound principles. In
afford to lose.
this case the original intent of Congress
The adoption of such an amendment was right.
would mean the end of responsible reguFirst. Congress has conferred upon
lation of interstate electric systems the Administrator of the REA the auwhich the Congress established in the thority to administer the rural electrifiPublic Utility Holding Company Act of cation program. It would not make
1935.
sense to divide this function between two
Under existing law, there is a clear agencies. The successive Administrators
division of responsibility between the of the REA have done good jobs. ConFederal Government and the States. gress earlier wisdom has been proven
The States are given exclusive jurisdic- good by experience.
tion over the sale of electricity at retail,
Second. The REA is a fundamentally
and the Federal Power Commission's different enterprise from the type of elecrate jurisdiction is limited to sales at tric utility that the FPC has traditionally
wholesale in interstate commerce and regulated. The privately owned utility
to the interstate transmission of elec- is a monopoly; it is the only provider
tric energy.
of electricity in the area which it serves.
Congress recognized the need for Fed- Therefore, Congress has authorized a
eral regulation when only a small frac- quasi-judicial body, the FPC, to see to
tion of the Nation's electrical systems it that the investor-owned utilities do
were interconnected in interstate pools. not abuse their monopoly positions.
The recently completed national power Rural electric cooperatives, on the other
survey points out:
hand, are owned by the people whom
Today, 97 percent of the industry's gen- they serve. Thus, with the owner and
erating capacity is to a greater or lesser the customer the same person, there is
degree interconnected in five large networks. such assurance that the rates charged
The largest existing group of inter- will be in the public interest, that reguconnected utilities covers roughly the lation by the FPC is not necessary.
Mr. President, I favor the bill reported
entire Eastern United States as well as
by the Committee on Commerce, and
two Canadian Provinces.
These are matters of national concern hope that Congress will see fit to enact
and it should be immediately clear that this legislation without delay.
no State will have the resources or the
ability to regulate utility operations and THE JOB CORPS CENTER AT CAMP
networks which extend through many
BRECKINRIDGE
States, and through which transactions
are consummated in more than one
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, my
State.
colleagues have read of the unfortunate
Separate State regulatory commis- riots occurring in the job training center
sions cannot deal effectively with private at Camp Breckinridge in Kentucky. I
power companies whose service area is ask that a thoughtful editorial on this
multi-State in scope and whose com- subject, published in the Louisville
plete cost records may be beyond juris- Courier-Journal, may be printed at this
dictional reach. Not only do the activi- point in the RECORD.
ties of individual companies transcend
There being no objection, the editorial
State boundaries, but giant power pools was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
are springing up which intermingle elec- as follows:
tricity on an interstate basis and comMUST THE JOB CORPS CENTER AT CA•MP
plicated transactions to create enormous
BRECKINRIDGE FAIL?
concentrations of financial and ecoIf the Job Corps center at Camp BreckinStates
would
nomic power, which the
ridge is closed because of incidents such as
have extreme difficulty in controlling. last week's riot, it will be a many-sided
tragedy. It will be a tragedy for its comRURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES DO NOT REQUIRE
munity which will lose the economic benefit,
FPC REGULATION
for the Corps whose image will be damaged,
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, and, most importantly, for the boys that the
it is clear that both the original intent center could train for useful, productive
of Congress and the nature of rural elec- lives if it were operated properly.
21742
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
But if the riot did nothing else it brought
to light the serious flaws of organization and
operation that prevent the center from doing its job in a sensible and efficient manner.
And even its most sympathetic supporters
must wonder about the value of continuing
the present operation without significant
corrections.
Much of the trouble that has plagued the
center stems from mistakes at the Federal
level. From their own complaints, it is obvious that boys were recruited for the Corps
with promises-promises that could not, perhaps should not, be kept-that they would
be given private rooms, attractive uniforms,
clothing allowances, facilities for housing
visitors and, most important, immediate,
thorough, and meaningful instruction leading to a paying job.
SENATE
These instructors have charged racial discrimination in nearby towns without supporting evidence (indeed, the record of Morganfield, a small, conservative town which
could be wrecked by rioting center students,
has been exemplary). They have been instrumental in the demonstrations by comedian Dick Gregory and the NAACP against
their own center, demonstrations which
revealed only the error of the demonstrators. The worst of the rioting students have
now been weeded out. But whether the
center will ever operate properly as long as
thece dissident staff members remain is questionable.
August 25, 1965
ized, mentioning them in a departmental
publication constituted "lobbying with
appropriated funds."
The Attorney General has studied this
charge, and has come to the conclusion
that this is not the case, and has so
written Representative SAYLOR.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a copy of this let-
ter so that-as I have stated-the record
may be made complete.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
JULY 29, 1965.
The center will probably never operate well
Hon. JOHN P. SAYLOR,
until it is given a form and discipline as well House of Representatives,
as the machinery to carry out its purpose. Washington, D.C.
Right now, it is neither school nor camp nor
CONDrTIONS AT THE CAMP
DEAR CONGRESSMAN: This is in further refcorrection center, but a little of each. It
What they found was actually not bad, is more like an open school. These are erence to your letter dated June 4, 1965,
but it was a far cry from what they said they young, self-conscious, uncertain boys who concerning the booklet, entitled "Lake
had been promised. They were put into need both the confines and the comfort of Powell: Jewel of the Colorado," issued by the
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of
partly renovated barracks in the middle of a
discipline. Yet they can walk off at will the Interior. You have asked if publication
deserted Army base, given ill-fitting odds and
(and many did when the rioting erupted),
ends of unsuitable clothing for uniforms, and their instructors neither know anything of this booklet might not be in violation of
title 18, United States Code, section 1913,
and fed in fly-blown mess halls. But their
about discipline nor have the authority to
which proscribes lobbying with appropriated
dormitories are quite comfortable, the food
use it.
moneys. In response to your letter, we have
is healthful and well prepared, their recreathe
place
figuratively,
literally
and
Both
carefully studied the booklet and examined
tional facilities are excellent, and the medihas no fences. There is too little to motivate the Department of the Interior documents
cal and dental care is better than satisfacto
youngster,
confused
tough,
restless,
a
pertaining to its publication. It is our view
tory. Somehow, these young men, have been
that no violation of section 1913 appears in
permitted to forget or to underestimate the penalize him for conduct violations or rethis matter.
fact that they are being offered a remedial ward him for effort. The fact that a fullwithin
flourished
racket
fledged
protection
"Lake Powell: Jewel of the Colorado" conto
earn
a
profitable
education and a chance
tains 32 pages of text and photographs deliving free of charge and to be housed, the dormitories beyond the knowledge or
the voted almost entirely to Lake Powell, a manindicates
that
the
officials
control
of
clothed, fed, and paid in the process.
tougher young men have something less than made lake impounded by the Glen Canyon
The big trouble is that they were put into
total respect for their superiors. It is un- Dam. Glen Canyon Dam was authorized by
a camp that was not ready for them, under
likely that they will have until they see that
Congress in 1956 and was completed in 1963,
supervisors who knew little about leadership
their superiors know what is going on, know long before publication of the booklet in
or the training of young men. The instrucwhat they want to do and how to do it, and question. Since no further legislation was
tion courses for which they had come were, have both the ability and the authority to
required in connection with the Glen Canyon
in many instances, not ready for them, and be true leaders.
project, it cannot be said that the booklet
their superiors didn't seem to know when
was designed to affect such legislation.
they would be prepared or what the boys
Further, the Public Works Appropriation Act
should do in the meantime. Many of the
OF
THE
POWELL:
JEWEL
LAKE
of 1965 (78 Stat. 632, at p. 639) appropriates
boys were put on menial renovation work or
COLORADO
funds to the Bureau of Reclamation for the
left in dangerous, trouble-breeding idleness.
"preparation and dissemination of useful
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, my purA DEADENING HANDICAP
information including recordings, photoNot only were officials of the center given pose today is to complete the record on
graphs, and photographic prints; and studies
students before they were prepared to feed a controversy between the Secretary of
of recreational uses of reservoir areas." In
them into an orderly routine, they were the Interior and Representative JOHN our view, the booklet falls within this activity
given incomplete preparation to handle the SAYLOR, of Pennsylvania, over the pub- as authorized by the Congress.
kind of boys they received. Whether this lication by the Department of a booklet,
You have called our attention to the refwas the fault of the University of Southern
entitled "Lake Powell: Jewel of the erences in the booklet at pages 27 and 28
Illinois, which manages the center under
favoring
the proposed projects designated as
Colorado."
contract, or of the antipoverty office in WashMarble Canyon Dam and Bridge Canyon Dam
I entered the controversy because I and have suggested that these references
ington is not clear. But this lack of prepwas amazed that Representative SAYLOR might constitute lobbying with appropriated
aration has been a deadening handicap from
the beginning.
would attack one agency in the Depart- funds. We have been advised by the Acting
For example, the remedial education ment of Interior, the Bureau of ReclamaSolicitor of the Interior that these references
courses were set up for boys with an avertion, for issuing a pamphlet on a scenic accurately set forth the administration's
age of 3 years of school; instead, the instrucattraction in Utah and Arizona, while at position on the proposed projects since, as
tors found that the boys had an average of
the same time another agency of the the booklet states, the administration favors
9 years, and had to undertake a hasty reconsideration of Bridge Canyon Dam and
Department, the National Park Service, construction of Marble Canyon Dam. This
organization of the entire program. More
seriously, a change in Corps policy sent the was publishing a booklet which extolled
Department has previously taken the posithe proposal to establish Tocks Island tion that section 1913 does not contravene
center not only dropouts and boys from
impoverished homes, but boys with police National Recreation Area in Representathe obligation of members of the President's
and delinquency records. And to supervise
tive SAYLOR'S State of Pennsylvania and official family from making the administraand direct these potentially troublesome the neighboring State of New Jersey. tion's views on public issues known to the
young men, they were given a staff of dedi- The only difference I could see was that public.
cated and idealistic people with no expeSincerely,
rience in leadership and neither the ability the Tocks Island booklet was provided
FRED M. VINSON, Jr.,
free, while the Glen Canyon booklet
nor authority to exert discipline.
Assistant Attorney General.
Nor were all the troublemakers students. cost 75 cents.
The controversy continued with a reOn a staff that included a majority of Negroes, and a heavy proportion of civil rights ply by Representative SAYLOR to my comJOHN BIRCH SOCIETY LEADERSHIP
activists, ministers, and idealistic graduate ments, and by correspondence between
IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND
students, it was inevitable that there should Representative SAYLOR and the DepartMr. MOSS. Mr. President, there are
also be a few who were extremist, sensitive
Representative
ment
of
the
Interior.
two ways to combat subversive ideas
or ambitious. A few of these, most of them
SAYLOR had charged that since the Rec- within the United States: one way is to
Negroes, have from the beginning seemed
more concerned with area civil rights and the lamation booklet mentioned both Marble use accusations, half-truths, and fear;
establishment of other antipoverty programs Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams, far- the other is the longer, more difficult
ther down the Colorado River from Glen road of education and objective analysis.
than with the success of the center and support of Director James Hughes, himself a Canyon, and since neither Marble or The American people are deeply comNegro.
Bridge Canyon Dams had been author- mitted to the latter; the leadership of
THE NEED FOR DISCIPLINE
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
the John Birch Society is equally committed to the former.
Seldom do I find myself in agreement
with William F. Buckley, Jr. His views
and mine are poles apart, but I believe
that his recent column on the leadership
of the John Birch Society is worthy of
inclusion in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
In this article, a prominent voice of the
arch conservatives of this country points
up the utter absurdity of the leaders of
the society.
Any group, or its leaders, who thrive
on paranoic accusations as these men
do, make mockery of the faith that democracy can successfully compete for
men's minds by the free exchange of
ideals.
William F. Buckley has recognized
this. Hopefully other members of extremist organizations, both left and
right, will follow suit.
I
ask unanimous consent to have
printed
in
the
RECORD
the
Buckley
column, which was published in the
Desert News on August 18, 1965.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY LEADERSHIP IMPOSSIBLE
To DEFEND
(By William F. Buckley, Jr.)
The John Birch Society is engaged in a nationwide drive to convince the skeptics of this
responsibility.
Thousands of members of the John Birch
Society, who joined it eagerly as a fighting
organization devoted to antisocialism and anticommunism, have been saying for years that
the unfortunate conclusion drawn by Mr.
Robert Welch about Dwight Eisenhower in
1958 are altogether extraneous to the society's
mandate, purposes, and mode of thought, and
should therefore be ignored in assessing the
society, A.D. 1965.
I regret to say that it is in my judgment
impossible to defend the leadership of the
John Birch Society if one reads closely even
its contemporary utterances.
I should like to know how those members
of the society who believe that it long since
departed from the mania of Mr. Welch's conclusions about Dwight Eisenhower can justify
the current issue of American Opinion, the
society's monthly magazine, with its featured
article about the extent ("60-80 percent") of
Communist influence in the United States
(and elsewhere).
It is an unsigned, staff written article,
given especial prominence. And the editor
calls attention to it on the masthead page:
"* * * if you want to know what is going on
in the world, we strongly recommend the next
144 pages to help you find out."
Mental health?
"The attention of the
American people was first drawn to the real
problem of 'mental health' on October 1, 1962,
when, in obedience to the specific demands of
the Communist Party, a gang under the direction of Nicholas Katzenbach (now Attorney General of the United States), kidnaped
Gen. Edwin A. Walker in Oxford, Miss."
Medicare? "The principal object of medicare is to destroy the independence and integrity of American physicians. It will inevitably create a 'pressing shortage' of physicians and nurses. Community provinces are
sure to have a surplus-they will be glad to
export to the United States to relieve the
shortage."
Death of Kennedy?
"The Communists
were able to exploit the assassination of Kennedy."
("It is gossip in Washington that
Earl Warren succeeded in destroying all copies
of the pertinent part of a motion picture film
SENATE
which showed who escorted Jack Ruby
through the police lines so that he could
silence Oswald.")
Civil Rights? Selma: "A horde of termites
from all over the country, led by half-crazed
ministers and professors, swarmed over the
small town of Selma, Ala., in a typical
demonstration of Communist activism."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964: "(It was a)
part of the pattern for the Communist takeover of America, in general: "(it is) an obvious fact that the whole racial agitation was
designed and is directed by the international
Communist conspiracy."
situation? "The
conspiracy
Economic
can now produce a total economic collapse
any time that it decides to pull the chain."
Lower courts? "Do not overlook the fine
contributions made by the criminals whom
the conspiracy has slipped into lower courts."
Supreme Court? "The theory that the
Warren court is working for a domestic, as
distinct from foreign, dictatorship becomes
less tenable every day."
Federal Government? "Communist domination of many of the departments of the
Federal Government is too obvious to require
much comment."
Foreign policy? "As for Vietnam, one
thing is certain; no action really detrimental to the Communists is conceivable or
even possible, so long as Rusk, McNamara,
and Katzenbach remain in power."
Dominican Republic? "The policy that
began with the landing of marines in Santo
Domingo (came) under the direction of what
often seems to be Communist headquarters
in Washington-officially called the State
Department."
Summary? "The important point is that
Americans can expect only defeat so long as
they are commanded by their enemies."
One continues to wonder how it is that
the membership of the John Birch Society
tolerates such drive.
Until the members rise up and demand a
leadership whose programs and analyses are
based other than on the premise that practically every liberal politician, every cLnfused professor, every civil rights demonstrator, every ideologized judge, every bungling diplomat, every avid prosecutor, everyone who wants free medicine, and civil rights
legislation, and government control of the
economy, is an agent of the Communist Conspiracy-until then at least they oughtn't to
go about the country complaining that the
society is consistently misrepresented.
Their own views are undoubtedly misrepresented. But their views aren't the voice
of the John Birch Society. That voice you
have just heard.
UTAH-LAND
OF
RAINBOW
AND
WONDERS
THE SLEEPING
OTHER SCENIC
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, on August
14, 1957, my predecessor in the Senate,
the Honorable Arthur V. Watkins, of
of Utah, asked to have printed in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
an article con-
cerning the "Land of the Sleeping Rainbow," by Joyce Rockwood Muench.
This article was published in "Arizona
Highways," a most excellent magazine,
by
the Arizona Highway Commission.
The June 1965 issue of "Arizona Highways" contains a story about the same
gorgeous area, the article this time being
entitled, "Chasing Rainbows on the
World's Most Colorful Trip" written by
the same Joyce Rockwood Muench. Accompanying this latter article is another
set of glorious colored photographs that
I
wish it were possible for all to see.
Even better, I wish it were possible for
21743
all to see the original scenes of which the
photographs were made.
I ask unanimous consent
to
have
printed in the RECORD the article of Mrs.
Muench of June 1965.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
COME ALONG WITH US CHASING RAINBOWS
ON THE WORLD'S MOST COLORFUL TRIP
(By Joyce Rockwood Muench)
If you can find a 10-day auto tour more
enthralling than the one outlined here.
packed with more soul-satisfying scenery,
through any area whose people are friendlier
or more helpful; the leisurely roads punctuated by bigger surprises where pioneer
past is closed to an expanding present, then
I say, take it.
However, if rainbow-chasing appeals and
you crave a vacation with the most, head
into the Southwest with us. Trip along a
brilliant portion of northern Arizona, wander
into her neighbor Utah's realm of color, and
roil your tires over the newly alined, historic
Rainbow Trail, Utah State 24.
Airborne rainbows are common enough,
but in this region they spread at your feet
and drape over big cliffs as well. No place in
the world has more built-in color, much of
its expanse little visited by the American
vacationer until now. New roads and freshly
laid pavement are currently making it accessible with loop roads and enticing scenic
detours. Along our proposed route are four
national parks, one new national recreational area, half a dozen national monuments, a choice selection of State parks, as
well as some mint-cool national forests. If
people did not need room for towns, fields,
and grazing stock, the entire region might
appropriately be made into one vast reserve
for national recreation. We will back up
that up that claim as the days roll by.
First day-Flagstaff, Ariz., to Lake Powell:
From a pine tree as flagpole and landmark
in pioneer days, Flagstaff has grown into the
de facto capital of northern Arizona. Meeting place for friends, highways, railroad, and
air junction, it can be reached from anywhere easily. Canada-to-Mexico U.S. 89 (528
miles south of Salt Lake City), here crosses
U.S. 66, America's east-west main street.
U.S. 180 from New Mexico takes in the White
Mountains of Arizona and the Painted
Desert on its way to Flagstaff. Alternate
U.S. 89 brings the latest word from the
State's one-time capital, Prescott, and Arizona 79 winds up from Phoenix through
Black Canyon. No, you will have no trouble finding our rendezvous. The difficulty
will be in leaving it.
Flagstaff is ideal as headquarters for a
full-scale vacation.
Even a radius of 40
miles shows an impressive roster of attractions. Seat of a State college, Lowell Astronomical Observatory, and the excellent
Northern Arizona Museum, it is encircled
by the San Francisco Volcanic Field. Humphrey's Peak, at 12,670 feet, the State's highest point, tops the mountains overlooking
the resort town's airy site. Indians have
lived in the area for more than a thousand
years, earlier in prehistoric towns left as
priceless heritages, and still occupying reservations. Nature herself has been prodigal
with beauty spots, from mountain-high
skiing areas down to dazzling, opalescent.
desert stretches.
Some fine morning, at your convenience.
we should leave "Flag" northbound on U.S.
89. Traveling in the wake of 5,105,000 cubic
feet of concrete packed into Glen Canyon
Dam and powerplant, we will go by the entrance to two national monuments fathered
by the ancient San Francisco Peaks which
stand on the western skyline. Sunset Crater,
our only accurately-dated prehistoric volcanic eruption, includes ice caves, lava flows.
21744
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
and a 1,000-foot red-black mound up which
the frisky-footed may walk through shoefilling cinders. The pall of mulch spread
over surrounding lands in 1000 AD. so improved farming as to start America's first
land-rush, sparking erection of some 800
communal dwellings now partof the Wupatki
National Monument.
Already on the Navajo Indian Reservation,
the only habitations along the highway are
apt to be such trading posts as Gray Mountain, modernized to serve you as well as Indians. As we glide down from the shoulders
of the San Francisco Peaks and look off to
the east, the Hopi towns on their three
mesas (oldest communities in the United
States), appear as distant and romatic as
castles in Spain. To the west, a break in
high plateau lands pr-sages the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The south rim
is reached on Arizona 64, The Navajo Trail,
which leaves U.S. 89 here. Just beyond the
junction, Cameron is at the edge of the steepwalled gorge of the Little Colorado River.
This old trading post has kept up with the
times and has everything for the traveler,
from post office and Navajo rugs to motel
rooms and gasoline. You are quite apt to spot
a Navajo family sitting under a tree, drinking pop or gossiping with friends.
For the next hundred miles the Echo Cliffs
seem to race along beside us, while open
desert lifts and falls on the other side. This
is one of my favorite stretches of space,
pricked out with an Indian camp, a flock of
sheep scurrying across the road, an occasional corn patch. The Vermilion Cliffs, far
ahead, beckon, and we sail past more trading
posts: The Gap, Cedar Ridge.
At Bitter
Springs, U.S. 89 develops a split personality.
For the time being, we follow the route of the
cement trucks and switchback up the Echos,
slip through a big V cut, to arrive at our
first night stop, Lake Powell. There are fine
accommodations at the spanking new town of
Page. Across the slender bridge over Glen
Canyon, just beyond, and up apiece, right on
the highway is the Lake Powell Motel. The
larger Wahweap Lodge will sit on a beautiful
point overlooking America's huge new water
playground.
Second Day-at Lake Powell: Things are
a building, where the Colorado River in Glen
Canyon once had its own way. First the
dam had to be far enough along to close the
gates in March of 1963, before the lake
could begin to grow, 800 miles in length with
an 1,800-mile shoreline.
As activity went
into high gear, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area sprouted campgrounds, picnic
areas, trailer park, boat-launching ramps.
Fingerlings dropped from bomber bays, boatslips were laid out on parched desert sands
to await floating, and roads fingered into
unaccustomed canyons as approaches for
facilities which will be scattered from Lee's
Ferry, below the dam, clear up to Hite. Details of the plans and something of the people carrying them out will be found in the
Arizona Highways, January 1964.
The primary concessionaire, Canyon Tours,
Inc. (the Greene family), is preparing
Wahweap Lodge and Marina where, in addition to food and lodging, boats for the boatless, supplies and services are available
whether you want to camp, fish, water-ski,
tour the lake by boat or air, or just sit in
the pleasant Arizona sun. A fabulous 1-day
trip to Rainbow Bridge National Monument
is being offered. The Greenes have been taking boat parties upriver to the Rainbow
Bridge Trail for years, but not in one day,
mind you, until the lake changed things.
There are excursions to the dam, as well,
and even in a short while you can get a
glimpse of this place which bids fair to be
the mecca for a million visitors every year.
Third day-Lake Powell to north rim of
the Grand Canyon: Reluctantly, we leave
Lake Powell as the sun comes up over its
SENATE
blue waters and surrounding red cliffs, to
retrace our steps on U.S. 89 to pick up its
other personality, now Alternate U.S. 89.
We find it at Bitter Springs, below the Echo
Cliffs' switchbacks. After passing a small
settlement there, the road performs a sleightof-hand trick, producing, when least expected, a sudden dip, turn, and cut to run
onto Navajo Bridge. A pretty little roadside
park on the north side will do for parking
while we walk back to look at the now blue
waters of the Colorado River, 467 feet below
in the Marble Gorge.
Another sharp turn and the highway
emerges at Marble Canyon Lodge. On the
right a good gravel road heads down to Lee's
Ferry, historic spot in Mormon annals, riverman's rendezvous, water-gaging station,
mouth of Glen Canyon, the Paria River, and
head of Marble Canyon. Its newest role is
under the aegis of the Glen Canyon National
Recreational Area, providing facilities and
good river fishing. According to an old eastern proverb, Allah does not count the hours
spent fishing, so if you choose to stay here for
a while, it will not have to be taken off our
10-day tour.
Beyond Marble Canyon Lodge, Alternate
US. 89 settles down to a scenic drive along
the ramparts of the Vermilion Cliffs. Several lodges break the 40 miles to Jacob Lake
on the Kaibab Plateau. The one at Soap
Creek, Cliff Dwellers, was formerly headquarters for the Greenes' upriver runs and is still
operated by them. Notice also a road going
south to a State buffalo herd reservation.
Switchbacks and curves, affording widening panoramas over House Rock Valley and
the desert where the rim of the Marble
Gorge corkscrews through the plateau, lift
into virgin pine of the Kaibab National Forest and Jacob Lake. At this friendly resort
of the Bowman family settlement with accommodations, garage, campgrounds, Arizona 67 takes us south to the north rim of
the Grand Canyon. From the edge, at
Bright Angel Point, Cape Royal, Points Sublime and Imperial (understatements in each
case), the panoply of the canyon is laid out.
Most people find it vastly different from the
south rim perspective, which is visible from
here a mere 13 miles across the big ditch,
airline, but 214 miles by road.
In spring the meadows and open parks
are flowers trimmed, late summer brings out
other shades, and autumn paints the whole
drive in the vivid yellow of aspen leaves,
the reds of maple and scrub oak. Intuition
brings deer (I have seen as many as 150 in
one evening drive) into the park, out of
reach of hunters' bullets. Winter closes the
road with snow. During the season (May 15
to October 15) the usual park orientation
programs are offered. If you prefer to be
alone with sunset or sunrise, there are trails
and wonderful drives. The confirmed hiker
is apt to disappear promptly down the
Kaibab Trail.
Fourth day-Grand Canyon to Zion National Park: Driving back to Jacob Lake from
the north rim seems a fresh experience. The
open meadows appear larger, and if you
make an early start, the deer more numerous,
the forest itself more luminous. Watch out
for the Kaibab squirrel and try not to run
over the little fellow. He has tufts in his
ears and no respect for cars, seeming to feel
his very rarity should protect him.
The regret I always feel on leaving this
truly noble forest would be greater, when
alternate U.S. 89 descends from the plateau,
if the view out over the Prismatic Plains were
not so striking. The Vermilion Cliffs stand
like a painted wall from east to west, and
a hint may be had of Zion itself, if you
know just where to look.
At Fredonia, just short of the Utah line,
we turn west to let Arizona 389 lead us to
the Pipe Springs National Monument. The
lovely old fort has a spring inside the stone
August 25, 1965
walls, room for wagons and horses and a
small museum of pioneer effects, plus a cool,
shady pool outside, that will, all in all, take
you farther, right into the past.
Arizona 389 continues through the monument and over open country to the State
line. Two unusual spots accessible from
this highway invite further exploration of
the Grand Canyon region. One involves a
strenuous hike into the Grand Canyon National Monument and Thunder Springs,
which bursts from the rocky walls to tumble
a short distance into Tapeats Creek. The
second leads to Toroweap, considered by
some of the most dramatic of all views of the
Colorado River in a profoundly deep and
narrow gorge.
Utah 59 begins where Arizona 389 ends,
and we continue to Hurricane, taking Utah
17 to La Verkin, east on Utah 15 to Virgin,
Rockville and Springdale, at the gates of
Zion National Park. You will find, even
in passing, that these small Mormon towns
have a quaint and delightful atmosphere.
This is fruit country to which Hurricane
adds turkey-raising, while La Verkin boasts
of almond blossoms in spring and the nuts
in autumn.
By midafternoon you can be driving between soaring walls of the North Fork of
the Virgin River, topped by magnificent natural temples: The East, The West, Lady
Mountain, The Sentinel, The Great White
Throne. Since each national park is selected as the supreme example of its type,
you will have no doubt of Zion's representing
the most accessible of deep, river-eroded
canyons. Sharing the canyon floor with the
stream are park headquarters, lodge, campgrounds, museum, and many trees. There
are invigorating hikes to the rims, bridlepaths, and drives to be taken. The park is
open all year and from November to May,
when the lodge is not, accommodations are
available nearby, outside the park.
Zion has been called a man's park, perhaps for its massiveness, but it offers pleasures to everyone. One of its facets is an
upper story, which visitors coming west from
U.S. 89 take in before dropping down into
the canyon. A mile-long tunnel is part of
the Zion-Mount Carmel Highway which
reaches the floor by a series of 6 switchbacks.
Drive on up to the park entrance and back
again before you leave.
Fifth day-Zion National Park to Bryce
Canyon National Park, Utah: From the Virgin River's deep gorge, our route is first to
the west on Utah 15 to La Verkin, on to a
junction with U.S. 91, north. Interstate 15
offers a stretch of broad, divided pavement,
pleasant as to surface and outlook. On our
west rise to Pine Valley Mountains, topping
10,000 feet and strikingly handsome. When
you note a junction with Utah 144 to New
Harmony, spend the little while to go just
a few miles for a scenic explosion. A glance
in the rearview mirror will tell you when
to stop, dismount, and while breathing in
.the sweet air, give you a quite unexpected
panorama. Above the Hurricane Ridge, at
whose feet you can see the parade of cars
on the highway, rise the cliffs of the Fivefingered Canyons of the Kolob, great rounded
projections from the plateau into which
Zion was cut. This wilderness section of
the national park is destined for future
development, but at present has only trails
and an unimproved road through some of
its spectacular terrain.
Less than half an hour more brings us to
Cedar City, a neat, inviting Mormon town.
We stop only long enough to locate Utah 14
and then head for the high timber, to mount
the Maragaunt Plateau, the highland of trees.
On this 18-mile stretch there is at least one
unexcelled view showing the distant towers
in Zion Park and in autumn, the some 20
miles between are draped in shawls of brilliant colors, red, yellow, burnt umber.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Eight miles north of a signed junction is
Cedar Breaks National Monument at 10,500
feet above sea level, another amphitheater
of eroded color which, particularly at sunset,
can be even more amazing a sight than Bryce
Canyon itself.
Utah 14 continues east, sometimes amid
forest, or open meadows, massive lava flows,
and then beautiful Navajo Lake, laid out below the highway. There are apt to be boats
on the water and other fishermen along the
shores which are trimmed with graceful aspen trees. At Long Valley Junction we meet
U.S. 89 again and turn north for a night
stop at the first town, Hatch, farther on to
Panguitch, or on Utah 12, up through Red
Canyon to reach Bryce Canyon National Park
on the Pausaugunt Plateau. Bryce Canyon
Lodge is open from May 15 to October 15, in
addition to campgrounds and private accommodations nearby.
Twenty miles of road in the park reach to
the most famous rim points on the amphitheater. Trails wind down among delicately
eroded figures.
colored and whimsically
Camera and imagination are requisites here
to get the most enjoyment from the Queen's
Garden (where Victoria holds court), Fairyland, the Silent City, Peek-a-Boo Canyon,
Even Walt Disney never
Wall Street.
thought up anything as full of fantasy as
this place, but then he hasn't had the millions of years at his disposal which Nature
used. If you've always had a yen to be presented at court, this is your chance. Just
ask anyone to make the introduction. Park
rangers stand ready, too, to give all the information you can absorb and views from
Inspiration, Bryce, and Rainbow Points are
literally and figuratively high points of our
tour. Sunrise Point well deserves the name
and Rainbow or Bryce are considered among
the best for sunset coloring in the great
bowl. If winter ever finds you in this region,
don't miss seeing what snow does in adding
contrast to the Pink Cliffs Formation.
Sixth day-Bryce Canyon National Park to
Capitol Reef National Monument: From
Tropic Junction, just north of the park, you
must choose between Utah 22 and Utah 62
to Koosharem to reach Utah 24, the Rainbow
Trail, or the paved Utah 54. This, more
scenic route goes through Tropic and at
Cannonville provides a side trip on good
gravel, to the Grosvenor Arch. Back on 54,
after Henrieville, the Highway climbs to a
7,400-foot summit in the Dixie National
Forest, then drops out of pines to the town
of Escalante in Potato Valley. The next 29
miles, between Escalante and Boulder, are
still more dramatic, swooping up to a hogback from which can be seen the greatest
expanse of rolling and bare white sandstone
anywhere. A glimpse of the Escalante River
is had in a canyon and all of the views are
expansive. They suggest some of the backcountry trips possible for which you need
four-wheel-drive car and a guide. The
Kaiparowitz Plateau, hidden bridges in the
Escalante Canyons, the marvelous Circle
Cliffs, the Devil's Kitchen, the Devil's Backbone (up onto the mountain) are among a
long list of alluring goals.
Leaving the town of Boulder on good gravel,
Utah 117 mounts the shoulders of Boulder
Mountain for one of the finest scenic drives
in Utah. Inquire about the weather first.
Snow or heavy rains can shut the road or
make it quite impossible for the average car.
Few routes can match its autumn dress.
Rivers of golden aspens flow down slopes,
set off by evergreens, and the views off into
the desert are beyond description.
At Torrey, we meet Utah 24 and head east
to the Capitol Reef National Monument.
Utah 24, which certainly merits the title of
The Rainbow Trail, has long been the one
through road in this region, connecting U.S.
89 on the west to U.S. 6 and 50 on the northeast at Green River. Now completely paved
CXI-1371
SENATE
the entire 186 miles, it has variety plus. The
section we missed by entering at Torrey runs
through little towns, intermountain valleys,
as well as the first intimations of the Waterpocket Fold, a portion of which has been
established as the Capitol Reef National
Monument.
If in this whole region we have been
traversing sports rainbows, we might say
that along Utah 24 and the spots to which it
gives access, is the "foot of the rainbow"
where the pot of scenic gold is buried. It is,
in fact, Land of the Sleeping Rainbow. The
Navajo says that the Chinle Formation (most
colorful layer of the earth's crust) is asleep
because it lies on the ground.
The perceptive name seems especially fitting as you drive along the scenic road in the
monument (which takes its title from great
domes on top of the colored cliffs) and at its
end arrives at the Sleeping Rainbow Guest
Ranch. Set on a hill which overlooks the
winding Pleasant Creek, with views of the
Henry Mountains to the east, Boulder Mountain to the west, and with arms of the splendid reef halfway 'round, the modern motel
units, and comfortable lodge, combine to
make the most inviting of headquarters for
1 night or many. More than can be said here
has already appeared in the Arizona Highways for June 1957. You can find it in any
public library, if your own files lack it.
Seventh day-Land of the sleeping rainbow: It always seems hardest to pick a meal
from a crowded menu. In offering no less
than 10 1-day trips, Lurt and Alice Knee
could well play hob with our scheduled tour.
If you pick one and go in the special cars
with driver-guide to explain where you are
as well as getting you there and back safely,
the layaway plan idea will be packed with
others for next time. Around the ranch itself are some pleasant walks. Indian petroglyphs may be photographed, some petrified
trees admired, taking a look at the fine Arabian horses in their pasture on the way.
There is much to see in Capitol Reef, including a large stone arch, special views of
the cliffs and formations like the Egyptian
Temple, Cohab Canyon where Mormons with
extra-legal families were said to hide when
the "Feds" came around. Toward sunset, the
Chimney Rock and Castle are especially
lighted for amateur photographers.
Lurt Knee tells of a Swiss hiker who came
to him after his first day with a confession:
"I meant to surprise you by walking all over
this country. It didn't look so big on the
map. Why you could drop the Alps into it
and have room left over for the Cathedral
Valleys, the Circle Cliffs and the San Rafael
Swell."
It is big and it is fantastically formed,
amazingly tinted. The Waterpocket Fold
stretches for 150 miles from Thousand Lake
Mountain to the Colorado River. The Henry
Mountains surge up to almost 12,000 feet of
lacolith and are still growing an inch a year.
Boulder Mountain wears its ancient volcanic
cap and the highest workable forest in the
world, numbering gray ghosts of beetle-killed
trees in a stand of Englemann spruce. The
Circle Cliffs stand as rocky stumps, 1,000
feet tall, of a mountain which washed away,
revealing among other wonders, whole "forests" of petrified wood. The Valley of the
Goblins (a Utah State park as is the Circle
Cliffs area) shows nature at her most humorous, and the Cathedral Valleys reveal her
in a reverent mood.
All this and heavenly food at the day's end
and the moon rising over the Henry Mountains.
Eighth day-Capitol Reef National Monument to Blanding, Utah: Utah 24, our Rainbow Trail, which we left at headquarters of
Capitol Reef National Monument, makes a
pleasant morning start through pioneer apple and peach orchards, follows a newly
alined route in the rugged Fremont Canyon
21745
through the Reef and emerges onto a broad
desertscape. Early (or late afternoon) sidelight bring out best the color and drama of
the Pinto Hills, the Elephant Gray of Squaw
Skirts of the fiat-topped mesas, building up
to the peaks of the Henry Mountains.
Veteran cottonwood trees add green accents in summer and shining gold trim in
autumn along the Fremont River Valley
where occasional farms seem strangely in
contrast to the desert formation. Fields,
Irrigation ditches, and an emergency airfield
surround Hanksville, where the highway
turns north. A new road is being pushed
southward here, where the Muddy and the
Fremont join forces to make the Dirty Devil
River. Two new bridges will take it over the
Colorado River at the head of Lake Powell.
The route will replace present Utah 95, an
old gravel road that hops, skips, and jumps
over dry (or wet) washes more times than
you can count in 52 miles to Hite's Ferry.
Inquire about its condition if you plan taking, it to see if the ferry is in operation, before trying to reach White Canyon and the
Natural Bridges National Monument on the
south side.
As we head north on Utah 24, more possibilities open. A plateau slopes up to the
right onto the widespread Robbers' Roost
Country, where Land's End and North Point
look off as far as tomorrow, Standing Rock
Basin may be glimpsed, Cleopatra's Chair is
set against the sky, and farther north in Barrier or Horseshoe Canyon, there are prehistoric, painted men, some of them 9 feet tall.
To the west of the highway is an approach
to Goblin Valley State Park, and then, the
long turtle-back form of the San Rafael
Swell, one of the most amazing features in
southern Utah. Temple Mountain rides its
crest.
At the junction with U.S. 6 and 50, we turn
east, go through the busy little town of
Green River and 20 miles beyond, at Crescent
Junction, take U.S. 160 to the south.
Twenty-three miles farther is the turnoff
to a great triangular headland on which you
reach Dead Horse Point State Park, Grand
View Point, Upheaval Dome (jeep road),
as well as a whole new world of scenery
with mountains in three States ringing the
horizon. From Dead Horse Point you see
"Utah's Grand Canyon," the Colorado River
several thousand feet below, part of the
Canyonlands National Park, in one of the
West's finest panoramas.
Even before taking off on this detour, you
will have been aware of strange configurations of rocks above and to the east of U.S.
160. Just outside of Moab, uranium capital
of the world, is the entrance to the Arches
National Monument. Accessible by paved
roads now, is the world's greatest collection
of arches, windows, rock fins, elephants in
stone and what not. The Delicate Arch,
the Landscape and Double "O," Park Avenue,
Courthouse Towers are among them.
We should stop in Moab for days and days.
drive up a mild canyon of the Colorado, peep
into Castle Valley, see the strange Fisher
Towers, and explore each section of the
Arches monument. At the moment we will,
instead, refer you to the Arizona Highways.
September 1961, and the article, "Rounding
the Four Corners."
The next 81 miles to Blanding is full of
interest as canyons give way to open range
and mountain shapes change as we move.
A turnoff is marked to Dugout Ranch (31
miles south of La Sal Junction) and leads
to Squaw Spring, headquarter site for the
Canyonlands National Park. On the way,
by the roadside, is perhaps the most elaborate pictures on rock left by prehistoric man,
anywhere in our country.
Ninth day-Blanding, Utah to Monument
Valley, Arizona and Utah: The Abajo Mountains above Blanding are called the Blues
locally, although they are predominantly
21746
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
white in winter, and in autumn seem covered with yellow aspens and red hunting
jackets. Deer are plentiful as well as wonderfully big views. Four miles south of town,
Utah 95 leads, partway on pavement, through
forest, dramatic Cottonwood Wash, and
plateau to the Natural Bridges National
Monument. A new approach links the three
massive stone bridges in this monument.
They were famous long before any but the
most determined explorers could reach them.
Water worn and standing in an empire of
rock, each has something of the timelessness
of eternity. After several christenings by individuals, the Park Service settled on three
Hopi names for them: Owachoma (for a
bowl-shaped rock on top), Sipapu (the hole
through which man emerged from the underworld long ago), and Kachina (among
the most friendly of Hopi gods).
You can hike from one bridge to another
along trails first used by prehistoric Indians
going from one of their settlements to another, or see them from special lookout points.
Going back on Utah 95 to a junction, Utah
261 branches south over Cedar Mesa. The
Bear's Ears, the Mossbacks, and the Wooden
Shoe can be seen from here. A recent visitor described as well, how he recognized,
clockwise around the horizon, Navajo Mountain in Arizona, the Kaiparowitz Plateau and
the Henry Mountains in Utah, the La Plattes
in Colorado. Closer at hand, every season has
its specialties in flowers, fringing the road
and spreading among the junipers and cedars.
Rim views of the San Juan River go to the
more adventurous who have the time and
energy to seek them out.
We drop off Cedar Mesa on a broad switchbacked roadway, each level offering a sligh-ly
different perspective of the Valley of the
Gods, Alhambra Rock, and the irregular terrain around Mexican Hat. The name applied
first to a strangely shaped rock and has been
adapted for a town on each side of the
deep San Juan River Canyon, joined by a
bridge.
Before quite reaching it, is the road to the
Great Goosenecks of the San Juan, where the
stream does some fancy turning between
sky-high walls. To the south of the river
we are back on the Navajo Indian Reservation, heading on Utah 47's pavement to
Monument Valley. Rock shapes loom ahead,
more and more frequently as we top out
through Monument Pass and take the long
slope to Goulding's Trading Post & Lodge,
where ranch-style dinner may already be on
the table.
Tenth day-Monument Valley, Arizona and
Utah: The old saw that if you build a better
mouse-trap, the world will beat a pathway to
your door, applies to Monument Valley with
some modifications. It was nature who
carved out the 1,000-foot sandstone monuments and set them on an incredible desertscape, the Navajo Indian adding more color
and charm of a pastoral people leading picturesque lives. All Harry and Mike Goulding had to do was spend some 40 years housing, feeding, and showing the people who
came, not alone how splendid was the scenery
but how deserving of help the Indians whose
stronghold it had been for several centuries.
Harry induced the movies to come and in
their wake the world has beaten out and
eventually paved the road to his doorway.
Today the Navajo Tribe has established a
park in the Valley, the Seventh-day Adventists have built a wonderful little hospital and
mission on land the Gouldings leased for 99
years (at, I believe it is $1 a year). .In 1964
Knoxville College (Tennessee)
bought the
Gouldings' holdings and is establishing scholarships in the college for young Navajos.
This tribe is aware that education is the road
to the future and eventually, there will be
no more of "Lo, the poor Indian," to pose for
busy cameras. The architecture of the desert, the way of sun and shadow, cloud and
SENATE
rainbow in Monument Valley will continue
almost forever. There is no place quite like
it.
More of Monument Valley, Mystery Valley,
Hoskinini Mesa, and other specially designated spots to be seen are in Arizona than
in Utah. Neither Indian nor visitor always
knows which State he is in, nor does it matter. You will find accommodations and touring service with driver-guide in either State.
The Hunts at Mexican Hat, and Gouldings
(still under management of Maurice and
Rosemary Knee-Mike's brother and sisterin-law) are in Utah. Kayenta, 25 miles south
on paved road, is in Arizona. There are motels there and Bernie Maher's touring headquarters.
Some 14 miles of "trails" are passable in
your own car, in the Tribal Park. You drive
to the Point, give $1 to a trimly uniformed
Navajo Park Ranger at the visitor's center
to gain access to a spacious campground and
the road down into the Valley. Signs marked
"no road" bar passage to Indian camps, unless you are taken in the touring cars. Their
drivers speak Navajo (may even be Indian)
and the cars are designed to handle sand
dunes and other unimproved roads so that
you can really meet the Indians, photograph
them with their children, goats, sheep, and
their infectious good humor.
You will not see it all in one day, or in
10, but you can come back another time.
That is what I have been doing for the past
25 years. I'm going next September to a
place I'll tell you more about later.
Finale-and homeward bound: If we
haven't lost you somewhere along this rainbow-strewn 10-day route, there are several
choice ways of heading home.
From Kayenta Arizona 64, the Navajo
Trail, angles northeast through the reservation to the Four Corners, where Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah share a
common border. Southwest it makes its
way toward U.S. 89 (near Cameron) passing
the entrance to Navajo National Monument
where three fabulous prehistoric ruins bear
the names of Betatakin, Inscription House,
and Keet-Seel.
The overland trail to the
Rainbow Natural Bridge National Monument
can also be reached on a side road, and 64
passes the Elephant's Feet, Red Lake, and
Tuba City.
Just out of Tuba City, at Moenkopi, Arizona
264 leads across the reservation, via Hopiland to the Navajo capital, Window Rock,
near the New Mexico line.
Flagstaff is about 3/2 hours from Monument Valley in this day of pavement and
cars. We could start all over again for it has
been a most memorable trip.
August 25, 1965
Bryce, Mesa Verde, and national monuments such as Arches, Natural Bridges,
Rainbow Bridge, Waupatki, Walnut
Canyon, Pipe Springs, Cedar Breaks,
Navajo, Hovenweep, and perhaps the
jewel of them all, Capital Reef. Interspersed are State parks such as Dead
Horse Point, Goblin Valley, and the
Goosenecks.
I cannot commend too highly the Ari-
zona Highway Department for its publication of the gorgeous pictures and the
interesting story; nor can I recommend
too highly to all readers of the RECORD
the desirability of seeing America first
and starting with the most colorful and
spectacular part of the United States,
the land of the sleeping rainbow, in the
golden circle.
REQUEST
FOR
REOPENING OF
HEARINGS ON 1965-66 WATERFOWL HUNTING REGULATIONS
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of the Interior
last week issued its 1965-66 waterfowl
hunting regulations, which have subsequently created a great amount of criticism and concern among game manage-
ment specialists and sportsmen throughout the 14-State area included in the
Mississippi flyway, because of drastically
reduced bag and possession limitation
on certain species of ducks.
This decision by the Department of the
Interior, which I assume was recommended by its Fish and Wildlife Service,
was announced immediately following
hearings by the House Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation.
The speed in which the decision was announced, the mailing date of regulations
and accompanying news releases, combined with the detailed manner in which
these regulations were drafted gives the
impression that the decision was made
prior to public hearings and raises serious doubt in the minds of this Senator
and participants in the hearings as to
whether or not they were conducted in
good faith and fairness to the evidence
and opinions of those giving testimony
in opposition to the position of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
The action of the Department of the
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, a great Interior has generated hundreds of prodeal has happened in this gorgeous tests from sportsmen and private waterscenic land since the previous article of fowl management interests, as well as
1957 was printed in the RECORD. Can- State officials charged with the responsiyonlands National Park has been estab- ,bility of game management. These prolished. Glen Canyon Dam has been tests are generally reflected by concern
completed, and Lake Powell has filled. expressed in a communication from LouWithout doubt, Lake Powell, in the Glen isiana Wildlife and Fisheries CommisCanyon Recreation area, is the most sion Director J. D. Hair, Jr., and the
colorful lake in the world. Much im- statement of the commission made to the
provement has been made on the roads hearing conducted by the House subcomin the area, to Natural Bridges National mittee August 17, 1965, in Washington,
Monument,
to
Capitol Reef
National
Monument, to Arches National Monument, and to many, many more scenic
wonders. Secretary Udall, on a trip to
the breathtaking area of the Four Corners coined the phrase, "the golden circle of national parks and monuments."
D.C.
Louisiana is recognized nationally by
sportsmen and game
preservation ex-
perts as one of the outstanding, if not
the finest, waterfowl management and
hunting area in the Nation. Under the
supervision
and
cooperation
of
the
Without question, within a circle of 200 State's excellent department of wildlife
miles, lie the greatest series of scenic
wonders in this country, or perhaps anywhere in the world. Included are national parks like Grand Canyon, Zion,
and fisheries, there are presently approximately 6 million acres of waterfowl
habitat, a large portion of which is privately owned and managed. In contrast,
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
only about 250,000 acres under its control.
Louisiana taxpayers invest over $1 million annually in waterfowl management
to assure a high-quality habitat for an
estimated 5 to 7 million ducks which
migrate each season to the many lakes
and marshlands in Louisiana. In addition, Louisianians contribute about $60,00O yearly to the development and pres-
ervation of waterfowl breeding grounds
in Canada.
On the basis of the intelligent planning
by the State of Louisiana wildlife and
fisheries officials, sportsmen and private
landowners
and their financial contri-
butions, I feel very strongly that their
testimony in this matter should not be
ignored.
I am extremely concerned over this
decision as to its effect in the State I
represent.
Through proper game man-
agement, education, and cooperation of
the approximately 100,000 waterfowl
hunters, we have developed this sport
SENATE
Similar action was taken by the Bureau in
1961 and 1962 and duck stamp sales in Louisiana declined from 106,000 to 39,000, and
this accurately reflects the fact that many
hunters gave up the sport altogether.
We know and we believe that the Bureau
knows that from 5 to 7 million ducks will
come to Louisiana this winter; however, they
still ignore our views and recommendations
and insist upon adopting ridiculous bag
limits on mallards and pintails, which will
be acceptable to no one. This will come as
a tremendous disappointment to the thousands of people in Louisiana who have spent
many thousands of dollars on marsh management and leases this past spring and
early summer in anticipation of what they
expected would be a reasonable duck season.
You will find enclosed copy of a letter
that we have addressed to Congressman
JOHN D. DINGELL Of Michigan.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
J. D. HAIR, Jr.,
Director.
Enclosure.
STATEMENT OF THE LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND
FISHERIES COMMISSION AT THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, AUGUST 17, 1965, WASHINGas well as an excellent opportunity for
TON, D.C.
recreation.
The Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries
It is my sincere belief that this matter Commission appreciates the invitation of the
has not been given the full hearing and House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildfair consideration it deserves, and I urge life Conservation to meet with you here tothat consideration be given to tempo- day for a hearing on waterfowl hunting
rarily rescinding the regulations issued regulations. This is a matter of great imby the Interior Department for the 1965- portance to our agency since extensive efforts
expenditures are made each year at the
66 season and that hearings be reopened. and
State and private level in Louisiana on
I ask unanimous consent to have the behalf of perpetuating the waterfowl retext of both the correspondence from source. We are here also representing the
Louisiana's director of Wildlife and 100,000 waterfowl hunters in our State who
Fisheries Commission and the commis- are tremendously interested in the maintesion's statement before the House Sub- nance and proper utilization of the 5 to 7
committee on Fisheries and Wildlife million ducks that come to Louisiana each
Conservation printed at this point in the fall and winter.
We wish to explain that the tremendous
RECORD.
effort being made in Louisiana on behalf of
There being no objection, the corre- waterfowl management is being undertaken
spondence and the statement were or- principally in exchange for the limited huntdered to be printed in the RECORD, as Ing opportunity that we are able to extract
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service each
follows:
year. Duck hunting is a great outdoor sport
STATE OF LOUISIANA, WILDLIFE AND
in our State and its continuation is essential
FISHERIES COMMISSION,
if support is to be maintained at the State
New Orleans, La., August 20, 1965.
and private level for the preservation of
Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,
habitat essential to the long-range survival
Senate Office Building,
of our waterfowl populations. We believe
Washington, D.C.
that the future size of the continental
DEAR SENATOR LONG: In reference to our
waterfowl population will be controlled by
telephone conversation of this date you will
the quantity of the habitat that we are able
find enclosed a copy of the statement that to preserve.
we presented at the hearing in Washington
We have approximtaely 6 million acres of
Tuesday on waterfowl hunting regulations.
waterfowl habitat in Louisiana, about twoAs you know, we were there principally to
thirds of which is of high quality. Our
complain about the drastic cut in last year's
agency is intensively managing 340,000 acres
duck hunting regulations that was being of marshlands for waterfowl use. Of this
proposed by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries total 186,000 acres are maintained as refuges
and Wildlife.
where no hunting of any kind is allowed.
Yesterday we received the announcement
Controlled hunting is permitted on the reon the duck seasons that had been mailed
mainder. Over 2% million acres of high
out from the Bureau Wednesday, the day
quality wetlands in Louisiana are unoer
after the hearing. From the detailed manprivate management and much of this is
ner in which these regulations were drafted
being retained as waterfowl habitat in exwe presume that they were prepared prior
change for the limited amount of duck
to the hearing.
hunting opportunity that the landowners
Needless to say, we were shocked that our
or lessees are granted each year by the U.S.
hunters would be allowed to take only one Fish and Wildlife Service.
mallard and one pintail daily during the
Nearly 3 million acres are unmanaged wetforthcoming season. This, of course, elimilands, some of which is of high quality. Our
nates duck hunting as a sport in many parts commission is continuously engaged in
of Louisiana. It is a tremendous blow to
efforts to maintain many acres in this classiwaterfowl management at the State and pri- fication for future waterfowl use.
vate level here in Louisiana and we feel that
With the rapid industrialization of our
it will result in a cancellation of many marsh
State this is becoming increasingly difficult
management programs designed to benefit
since incentive and support for preserving
the wintering grounds that ducks must have
such acres on the part of our duck hunters
for turvival.
is being reduced each year by the minimum
into one of the State's finest industries,
21747
seasons and bag limits allocated to our State
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Service has only approximately 250,000 acres
under its control. How it plans to maintain
sufficient wintering ground habitat in
Louisiana to carry duck populations of 5 to
7 million ducks for 7 or 8 months each year
without the support and cooperation of cur
State agency and the private marshland owners has not been fully explained to us.
We are expending over $1 million annually
in our State for waterfowl management.
We are annually contributing approximately
$60,000 to the development and preservation of waterfowl breeding grounds in Canada through Ducks Unlimited. We are also
carrying the principal burden in enforcing migratory bird hunting regulations in
Louisiana.
Our State managed areas are
supporting one-third of the world's population of blue geese. On just one 83,000acre refuge, we have increased the duck
population from 75,000 to 600,000 through
expensive and intensive waterfowl management programs.
We employ six full-time biologists who
work exclusively in researching marsh management techniques, waterfowl population
studies, and a host of other problems relating to waterfowl preservation and management.
We also employ approximately 60
nontechnical personnel who work in our
marshes on behalf of waterfowl.
This is
being brought out to emphasize that our
State is making a major effort on behalf
of waterfowl, and we feel that this entitles our commission to receive at least
some favorable consideration at the time
hunting regulations are adopted to permit
the proper utilization of the resources that
we are working hard to preserve.
In our opinion we will all be hard pressed
to maintain sufficient habitat on this continent to support duck populations in excess of 35 million in view of the rapid conversion of many essential wetland areas to
other types of land use. With the human
population expected to double in this country within the next few years and with the
resultant industrialization and urbanization
taking place in many areas that are now
producing or wintering ducks, the maintenance of sufficient habitat is going to be
an extremely difficult task. We certainly do
not believe the Federal service can do the
job alone.
We believe that we should try to secure
the support of as many individuals in this
country as possible who would be willing to
work for the preservation of our waterfowl resources. In the past, as well as at
present, the principal support comes from
the one and one-half to two million duck
hunters that we have in the United States.
To our knowledge there is no other group
that will be willing to step in and do the
job that the duck hunters are doing now
in the event that waterfowl hunting becc--es so unattractive by unnecessary restriction that the interest of this segment
is destroyed. This almost happened in 1961
and 1962 and much was learned by our
agency at least about how far bag limits
and season lengths could be reduced before duck hunters began to give up this
sport.
As a result of the ridiculously low bag
limits of two and three, and season lengths
of 19½ and 24% days allocated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in those years
nearly 75 percent of our Louisiana duck
hunters gave up the sport in disgust. At
that time many abandoned their support
of waterfowl management programs and
many who had major investments in marsh
management programs at the private level
adopted a "wait and see" attitude in hopes
that the Service would begin to see the
light and again offer reasonable bag limits
and hunting season lengths.
21748
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
We discovered at that time that the absolute minimum bag limit that would be
acceptable to the duck hunters would be
four, and that special bag limits within the
four could be imposed on certain species
that may not be enjoying a favorable population status. We also learned that the
minimum acceptable season that would
maintain major interest in duck management would be 40 days. Duck stamp sales
in Louisiana alone dropped from a high of
106,000 in 1956 to a few over 30,000 in 1962.
The action of the Federal Service was severely criticized by the Louisiana Wild Life
and Fisheries Commission at that time as
being harmful to the best interest of the
waterfowl resource which the Service is
charged with the responsibility of maintaining. At the time these drastic cuts were
made Louisiana alone was wintering 5 to 7
million ducks, one of the highest populations on record. This inconsistency between
duck numbers and drastically restricted
hunting regulations created a highly strained
relationship between the Federal Service and
the sportsmen of Louisiana. At no time in
history had the attitude of our people towards the Service been at such a low ebb.
This situation could hardly be considered as
being healthy or in the best interest of our
waterfowl resources, but the Federal Service
continued to remain adamant in its position.
This, we feel, was partially responsible
for the hearings of the Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, of
which the late Congressman T. A. Thompson
was chairman, that were held July 18 and
19, and August 5, 1963, to discuss wildlife
populations management. The Louisiana
Wild Life and Fisheries Commission presented a statement of its views on hunting
regulations and waterfowl management at
those hearings and our position remains unchanged from the statement and comments
presented +here at that time. There is little
need at this time to reiterate those comments since they are readily available in the
committee hearing transcript that was published by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives,
during the first session of the 88th Congress
in 1963.
Instead we wish to express our views with
a great deal of concern about the hunting
regulations that are to be allocated to the
Mississippi Flyway by the U.S. Department
of Interior within the next few days. Last
week the National Waterfowl Advisory Committee met here in Washington and we understand that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife proposed at that meeting that
drastic cuts be made in the hunting seasons
and bag limits that were in effect during the
fall and winter of 1964. Last year the Mississippi Flyway was allowed a 40-day duck
season with a general bag limit of four ducks,
of which no more than two could be mallards. To drastically curtail this limited
amount of hunting opportunity that was allowed last year, we feel would be a tremendous mistake.
We find it difficult to believe that the Bureau would wish to recreate the situation
that existed in 1961 and 1962 when waterfowl hunters in this country were abandoning the sport of duck hunting in droves. If
it is the intention of the Bureau to change
the status of our ducks from game to nongame species then they should come out and
say that this is their intention-certainly
this is the impression that we in Louisiana
are getting.
We understand that the Bureau proposed
last week that the duck hunters in the Mississippi Flyway be allowed to take only one
mallard per day during the forthcoming season while at the same time allowing the
Central and Atlantic Flyway hunters to take
two mallards per day. We consider that this
sort of a regulation makes nothing more than
August 25, 1965
SENATE
a sham and a farce out of the great outdoor
sport of waterfowl hunting. We believe that
this recommendation could have been
drafted only by someone who has no knowledge whatsoever regarding duck hunting in
the lower Mississippi Flyway and the incentives necessary for a duck hunter to take to
the field.
We also understand that the Bureau proposed a general bag limit of only two ducks
if a State elected a 40-day season, or three
ducks if a State elected a 35 season, or
four ducks if a State elected a 25-day season.
No more than one mallard was to be allowed
in any of these bag limits. In our opinion
these proposals are ridiculous and will generally be totally unacceptable to those interested in waterfowl management in Louisiana. We trust that this proposal will be
reviewed, reconsidered, and abandoned and
that Louisiana and the Mississippi Flyway
will be given a duck season and bag limit of
no less than last year. In essence this also
is the recommendation of the 14-State
Mississippi Flyway Council which met in St.
Louis, Mo., on August 5 and 6.
During the spring and summer we viewed
with much interest the reports coming out
of Canada relative to waterfowl and breeding
ground conditions. Some were highly optimistic and some from the Bureau were, as
usual, pessimistic. In view of the conflicting statements being made concerning
waterfowl conditions the Louisiana Wild
Life and Fisheries Commission had some of
its personnel conduct a 7,500 mile aerial
observation tour over the breeding grounds
during the week of July 18-23, 1965, in order
that it would be properly informed while
participating in the Mississippi Flyway
Council meeting held on August 5 and 6. At
that particular meeting the flyway representatives for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife presented the usual gloomy picture about the current duck situation; This
came as no particular surprise since this report has always been extremely pessimistic
in nature, including in the mid-fifties when
water conditions were probably better than
at any other time in this century.
In contrast our Louisiana observers who
went to Canada found water and marsh conditions tremendously improved over last year.
Conditions appear to be the best in several
years, thousands of broods of young ducks
were observed that were very large in size.
Many downy young were noted indicating a
late but successful hatch. Substantial numbers of lone drakes were observed indicating
that some nesting was still in progress. From
or observations we could not disagree more
with the Bureau's bleak fall flight forecast.
We are convinced that well over 5 million
ducks will come to Louisiana this winter and
we feel that our sportsmen should be given
a reasonable opportunity to enjoy some duck
hunting. With conditions much improved
in Canada from last year we fail to understand the Bureau's proposal that the hunting regulations be drastically curtailed for
this year.
The allocation of a reasonable amount of
hunting opportunity is the main interest
of our waterfowl hunters. They do not
expect or anticipate being guaranteed a bag
limit of ducks when they go afield but they
do desire to be allowed the opportunity. If
duck populations happen to be low in a
given year then it naturally follows that
hunter success will be low but if the sportsmen has had a reasonable opportunity to
go afield with the chance of getting four
ducks this will, in our opinion, maintain
interest and support for waterfowl management programs. We believe that a degree of stability should be built into the
hunting regulations as they are adopted each
year. The confidence of the sportsmen in
Louisiana was largely lost during 1961 and
1962 when seasons and bag limits were dras-
tically cut but it has been restored to a degree
in the last 2 years as indicated by the increase
in duck stamp sales to 85,000 in 1964. This
was brought about by increasing the bag
limit back to four and the season length
to 40 days. If we now turn around and
cut the regulations back from last year this
could cause irrepairable damage to support
for waterfowl management programs at the
State and private level in Louisiana. Since
our State has wintered 20 to 25 percent of
the continental duck populations for the
past 2 or 3 years such a change could be a
catastrophe. More than ever we need to
create a degree of stability in the hunting
regulations that are adopted from year to
year. We feel that our sportsmen are not in
support of the policy of trying to drastically
curtail hunting opportunity for a series of
years in order to have long seasons 1 or 2
years out of 10.
We wish to reiterate that we feel that
the Bureau is overemphasizing the effect of
gun pressure in the maintenance of our
waterfowl populations. We believe that population sizes of small game having high
reproductive capacities are controlled by the
quantity and quality of the available habitat each year and not by making minor
changes in hunting regulations. Such populations cannot be stockpiled and in our
opinion an annual harvest should be allowed.
Taking all of this into consideration we
would like to again recommend that no less
than a 40-day duck season with a general
bag limit of four, of which not more than
two would be mallards, be allocated to Louisiana and the Mississippi Flyway. In view
of the improved conditions in Canada we feel
that this recommendation, which is the same
as last year, is reasonable, conservative, and
in the best interest of the future preservation
of the waterfowl resource.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, if there is no further business to be
transacted, I move that the Senate stand
in adjournment until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 6
o'clock and 12 minutes p.m.) the Senate
adjourned, until tomorrow, Thursday,
August 26, 1965, at 12 o'clock meridian.
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate August 25, 1965:
U.S. ATTORNEY
David G. Bress, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. attorney for the District of
Columbia for a term of 4 years, vice David
G. Acheson.
SSTATE
DEPARTMENT
Charles Frankel, of New York, to be an
Assistant Secretary of State, vice Harry C.
McPherson, Jr.
UNITED NATIONS
Charles W. Yost, of New York, to be the
Deputy Representative of the United States
of America to the United Nations with the
rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary, and a Deputy Representative of the United States of America in
the Security Council of the United Nations,
vice Francis T. P. Plimpton.
James M. Nabrit, Jr., of the District of
Columbia, to be a Deputy Representative of
the United States of America in the Security
Council of the United Nations, vice Charles
W. Yost.
James Roosevelt, of California, to be the
Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of
CO]NGRESSIONAL RECORD -
August 25, 1965
the United Nations, vice Franklin H. Williams.
Mrs. Eugenie Anderson, of Minnesota, to
be the Representative of the United States of
America on the Trusteeship Council of the
United Nations, vice Mrs. Marietta P. Tree.
CONFIRMATION
Executive nomination confirmed by
the Senate August 25, 1965:
U.S. TAX COURT
Charles R. Simpson, of Illinois, to be a
judge of the Tax Court of the United States
for the unexpired term of 12 years from
June 2, 1956.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25,
1965
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D.D., prefaced his prayer with these
words of Scripture: Philippians 3: 1:
Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the
Lord.
Almighty God, we humbly acknowl-
HOUSE
The Clerk read the Senate amendment,
as follows:
H.R. 4750. An act to provide an extension
of the interest equalization tax, and for other
purposes.
Strike out all after the enacting clause and
insert:
"That it is declared to be the policy of
Congress to safeguard the position of the
United States with respect to its international balance of payments. To effectuate
this policy the President shall undertake
continuous surveillance over the private flow
of dollar funds from the United States to
foreign countries, the solicitatibn of cooperation by banks, investment bankers and companies, securities brokers and dealers, insurance
companies, finance
companies,
pension funds, charitable trusts and foundations, and educational institutions, to curtail expansion of such flow, and the authorization of such voluntary agreements or
programs as may be necessary and appropriate to safeguard the position of the United
States with respect to its international balance of payments.
"SEC. 2. (a) The President is authorized
to consult with representatives of persons
described in section 1 to stimulate voluntary efforts to aid in the improvement of the
balance of payments of the United States.
"(b) When the President finds it necessary and appropriate to safeguard the United
States balance-of-payments position, he may
request persons described in section 1 to
discuss the formulation of voluntary agreements or programs to achieve such objective. When such a request is made, a notice
shall be promptly published by the President
in the Federal Register, listing the persons
invited to attend and the time and place at
which the discussion is to be held. If the
President makes such a request, no such discussion nor the formulation of any voluntary agreement or program in the course of
such discussion shall be construed to be
within the prohibitions of the antitrust laws
or the Federal Trade Commission Act of the
United States: Provided, That no act or
omission to act in effectuation of such voluntary agreement or program is approved in
accordance with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) hereof: And provided further, That any meeting or discussion comply
with the requirements of subsection (e).
"(c) The President may approve, subject
to such conditions as he may wish to impose,
any voluntary agreement or program among
persons described in section 1 that he finds
to be necessary and appropriate to safeguard
the United States balance-of-payments position. No act or omission to act which
occurs pursuant to any approved voluntary
agreement or program by a person described
in section 1 who has accepted a request of
the President to participate shall be construed to be within the prohibitions of the
antitrust laws or the Federal Trade Commission Act: Provided, That any meeting or
discussion pursuant to any such agreement
or program comply with the requirements
of subsection (e).
"(d) No voluntary agreement or program
shall be approved except after submission
to the Attorney General for his reviews as
to its effect on competition and a finding by
the Attorney General after consultation with
the delegate of the President that the actual
or potential detriment to competition is
outweighed by the benefits of such agreement or program to the safeguarding of the
posiUnited States balance-of-payments
tion. The finding of the Attorney General,
together with his reasons, shall be published
in the Federal Register not later than the
time required by section 3 for publication of
any approved agreement or program: Provided, however, That where the President
finds that the balance-of-payments position
of the United States requires immediate
approval of an agreement or program he may
waive the requirement for a finding by the
The message also announced that the
Senate insists upon its amendments to
the foregoing bill, requests a conference
with the House upon the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses thereon, and
appoints Mr. BYRD of Virginia, Mr. LONG
of Louisiana, Mr. SMATHERS, Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware, and Mr. CARLSON to
be the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed bills of the following
titles, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested:
S. 356. An act for the relief of Miloye M.
Sokitch; and
S. 2263. An act to establish a Traffic Branch
of the District of Columbia Court of General
Sessions and to provide for the appointment
to such court of five additional judges.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
edge that when we bow together in
prayer the cares and burdens of life
become easier to carry and the loneliness
ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
7750) entitled "An act to amend further
of our hearts, by a sense of Thy companionship, is possessed with a great peace.
amended and for other purposes."
The message also announced that the
May we have a keener awareness of
Thy nearness and inspire us to make
trial of a great trust in Thee. Help us
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
feel that in all of our disappointments
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
Thou art near us, in all our doubts and 8639) entitled "An act making approdarkness Thou art ready to enlighten priations for the Departments of State,
us, and in every temptation, sorrow, and Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary,
weariness Thou art still loving us.
and related agencies for the fiscal year
Give us a practical faith, one that ending June 30, 1966, and for other purtoils in the love of God for the good
poses."
of man. May we realize that our love
The message also announced that the
and labors must extend to all humanity, Senate insists upon its amendment to
changing it into a new world and urging the bill (H.R. 6927) entitled "An act to
mankind to reach out to goals that are establish a Department of Housing and
worthy of its efforts and enterprises.
Urban Development, and for other purGrant that we may never lose hope in
poses," disagreed to by the House; agrees
the bewildering medley of care and to the conference asked by the House
crime, and this tangled tumult, which we on the disagreeing votes of the two
call the world, for Thou wilt not let Houses thereon, and appoints Mr.
humanity go until the law of love and RIBICOFF, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. KENNEDY of
good will rules in the hearts of men.
New York, Mr. MUNDT, and Mr. SIMPSON
Hear us in Christ's name. Amen.
to be the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr.
Arrington, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed, with an
amendment in which the concurrence
of the House is requested, a bill of the
House of the following title:
21749
requested, a bill of the House of the following title:
The message also announced that Mr.
JAVITS had been appointed a conferee on
the bill (H.R. 6927) entitled "An act to
establish a Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and for other purposes," in place of Mr. MUNDT, excused.
EXEMPTIONS
FROM
THE
ANTI-
TRUST LAWS
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from tne
Speaker's desk the bill H.R. 5280, to
H.R. 7596. An act to amend title 10, United provide for exemptions from the antiStates Code, to remove inequities in the trust laws, to assist in safeguarding the
active duty promotion opportunity of cerbalance-of-payments position of the
tain Air Force officers.
United States, together with the Senate
The message also announced that the amendment thereto, and to concur in the
Senate had passed, with amendments in Senate amendment with amendments.
which the concurrence of the House is
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
21750
.CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
Attorney General and may approve such
agreement or program.
"(e) Any meeting of representatives of
persons described in section 1 requested by
the President pursuant to any approved voluntary agreement or program or meetings or
discussions pursuant to a request made in
accordance with subsection (b), shall comply with each of the following conditions:
(1) The Attorney General shall be given
reasonable notice prior to any meeting, with
such notice to include a copy of the agenda,
a list of the participants, and the time and
place of the meeting; (2) meetings shall be
held only at the call of a full-time salaried
officer or employee of such department or
agency as the President shall designate, and
only with an agenda formulated by such
officer or employee; (3) meetings she.ll be
presided over by an officer or employee of the
type mentioned in (2), who shall have the
authority and be required to adjourn any
meeting whenever he or a representative of
the Attorney General considers adjournment
to be in the public interest; (4) a verbatim
transcript shall be kept of all proceedings
at each meeting, including the names of
all persons present, their affiliations, and the
capacity in which they attend; and (5) a
copy of each transcript shall be promptly
provided for retention by the Attorney General.
"(f) The Attorney General shall continuously review the operation of any agreement
or program approved pursuant to this Act,
and shall recommend to the President the
withdrawal or suspension of such approval
if in his judgment after consultation with
the delegate of the President its actual or
potential detriment to competition outweighs its benefits to the safeguarding of
States balance-of-payments
the United
position.
"(g) The Attorney General shall have the
authority to require the production of such
books, records, or other information as shall
have a direct bearing upon such agreement
or program and the implementation thereof
from any participant in a voluntary agreement or program as he may determine reasonably necessary for the performance of his
responsibilities under this Act.
"(h) The President may withdraw any request or finding made hereunder or approval granted hereunder, in which case, or
upon termination of this Act, the provisions
of this section shall not apply to any subsequent act or omission to ant.
"SEc. 3. On or before January 1, 1966, and
at least once every six months thereafter,
the Attorney General shall submit to the
Congress and to the President reports on
the performance of his responsibilities under
this Act. In such reports the Attorney General shall indicate, among other things, the
extent to which his review of approved agreements or programs has disclosed any actual
or potential detriment to competition. The
full text of each voluntary agreement or program approved pursuant to this Act shall
be transmitted to the Attorney General immediately upon the approval thereof, and
shall be published by the President in the
Federal Register not less than three days
prior to its effective date unless the President
finds that publication of the full text of any
agreement or program would be inconsistent
with the national interest in which case only
a summary need be published.
"SEC. 4. The President may require such
reports as he deems necessary to carry out
the policy of this Act from any person, firm,
or corporation within the United States concerning any activities authorized by the provisions of this Act.
"SEC. 5. The President may delegate the
authority granted him by this Act, except
that the authority granted may be delegated
only to officials appointed by the President,
with the advice and consent of the Senate,
HOUSE
whether acting singly or jointly or as a committee or board: Provided, however, That the
President may not delegate his authority
under section 2(d) to waive the requirements for a finding by the Attorney General
and approve an agreement or program where
he has found that the balance-of-payments
position of the United States requires immediate approval.
"SEC. 6. This Act and all authority conferred thereunder shall terminate twenty
months after it becomes law, or on such date
prior thereto as the President shall find that
the authority conferred by this Act is no
longer necessary as a means of safeguarding
the balance-of-payments position and shall
by proclamatior so declare.
At
he word 'per"SEc. 7. As used in ts
son' includes corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and
joint stock companies, as well as individuals,
satisfying the description contained in section i."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, is there only one
Senate amendment?
Mr. CELLER.
Yes, there is one Sen-
ate amendment, a substitute.
Mr. GROSS. That amendment, as
read of course, is germane? And there
are no other Senate amendments in the
bill?
Mr. CELLER. No, sir.
Mr. GROSS.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mlr. CELLER moves to concur in the Senate amendment with the following amendments:
Page 6, line 8, insert after "payments"
the word "position".
Page 6, line 23, insert after "program" the
words "is taken until after such voluntary
agreement or program".
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate amendment, as amended,
was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
SUBCOMMITTEE
ON IRRIGATION
AND RECLAMATION, COMMITTEE
ON
INTERIOR
AND
INSULAR
AFFAIRS
Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs be permitted to sit this
afternoon during general debate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
REHABILITATIOI
CONVICTED
OF
OF
PERSONS
OFFENSES
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
August 25, 1965
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 6964) to
amend section 4082 of title 18, United
States Code, to facilitate the rehabilitation of persons convicted of offenses
against the United States, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and concur in the
Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ment, as follows:
Page 2, strike out all after line 22 over to
and including line 14 on page 3 and insert:
"(2) work at paid employment or participate in a training program in the community
on a voluntary basis while continuing as a
prisoner of the institution or facility to
which he is committed, provided that"(i) representatives of local union central bodies or similar labor union organizations are consulted;
"(ii) such paid employment will not rcsult in the displacement of employed vwrkers, or be applied in skills, crafts, or trades
in which there is a surplus of available gainful labor in the locality, or impair exist:ng
contracts for services; and
"(iii) the rates of pay and other conditions of employment will not be less than
those paid or provided for work of similar
nature in the locality in which the work is to
be performed.
A prisoner authorized to work at paid employment in the community under this subsection may be required to pay, and the
Attorney General is authorized to collect,
such costs incident to the prisoner's confinement as the Attorney General deems appropriate and reasonable. Collections shall
be deposited in the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, and I shall not object,
may I inquire for the purposes of explanation if this is not the same bill
which earlier passed the House by a vote
of 323 to 0? If so, would the gentleman
care to explain in more definitive detail
the amendment adopted in the other
body?
Mr. WILLIS. This bill did pass the
House on August 2 by a vote of 323 to 0.
The Senate amendment simply clarifies
the intent of the bill as expressed in
the House report that work or furlough
releases shall not result in the displacement of employed workers, aggravate unemployment, or undercut local standards
of wages and working conditions. In
other words, the Senate language is vir.tually the same as the language in the
House bill but more detailed.
Mr. POFF. Do I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, that the language adopted in the other body has the approval
of the Department of Justice?
Mr. WILLIS. I understand the language appearing in the Senate bill v:as
either prepared by or certainly done in
collaboration with the Attorney General.
Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman irom
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendment was concurred
in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
DECEDENTS' ESTATES AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONS IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker, I ask
Mr. WILLIS.
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 4465) to
enact part III of the District of Columbia Code, entitled "Decedents' Estates
and Fiduciary Relations," codifying the
general and permanent laws relating to
decedents' estates and fiduciary relations
in the District of Columbia, with Senate
amendments thereto, and concur in the
Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Page 14, line 17, strike out all after "(a)"
21751
HOUSE
the subcommittee which considers all
codification bills, and he knows, of
course, that we do not go into matters
of substance.
Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman and withdraw my reservation
of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third continuing resolution of the session. It merely
extends from August 31 through September 30, existing provisions of law to provide funds for the operation of those
agencies of the Government for which
the regular appropriation bills for the
fiscal year 1966 have not yet been enacted. The terms and conditions of
availability were described in House Report 553, which accompanied House Joint
Resolution 553 at the time of its passage
by the House. The resolution ceases to
apply to an agency or activity concurrent
with approval by the President of the applicable appropriation bill in which provision for such agency or activity is made.
Thus the scope of the continuing resolution constricts as each regular bill is enacted; the resolution would be wholly
inoperative after the last approval.
May I say that so far as I know, we
have only two more appropriation bills
to be reported to the House; namely,
those for foreign assistance and the usual
end-of-session supplementals. The foreign assistance bill has been awaiting
clearance of the necessary authorization,
just recently cleared to the President.
We expect to report it very shortly. And
we expect to handle the supplementals
expeditiously once the President submits
them.
For general information and under
leave to extend, I include a tabulation of
the original and revised committee reporting schedule for the regular appropriation bills for fiscal year 1966, and the
dates actually reported and passed on the
bills thus far processed:
APPROPRIATIONS,
1966
down to and including "marriage,"in line 24
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant
and insert: "The widow of a deceased man, to the unanimous consent agreement of
with respect to parties who intermarried yesterday, I call up the joint resolution
prior to November 29, 1957, or the widow or
(H.J. Res. 639) making continuing apwidower of a deceased person dying after
propriations for the fiscal year 1966, and
March 15, 1962, is entitled to dower and its
for other purposes, and ask unanimous
incidents as the rights thereto were known
at common law with respect to widows, inconsent that it be considered in the
cluding the use, during her or his natural
House as in Committee of the Whole.
life, of one-third part of all the lands on
The Clerk read the title of the joint
which the deceased spouse was seized of an resolution.
estate of inheritance at any time during
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the marriage."
the request of the gentleman from
Page 14, strike out all after line 36 over to
Texas?
and including line 2 on page 15 and insert:
"(c) The right of dower provided for by
There was no objection.
this section does not attach to lands held
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as
by two or more persons as joint tenants
follows:
while the joint tenancy exists. A husband
Resolved
by the Senate and House of
may not claim a right of dower in land
which his wife, during the coverture, con- Representatives of the United States of
veyed or transferred to another person by America in Congress assembled, That the
her sole deed prior to November 29, 1957." joint resolution of July 30, 1965 (Public Law
Page 17, strike out line 5 and insert: "his 89-96), is hereby amended by striking out
or her share in the decedent's estate, and his "August 31, 1965" and inserting in lieu thereof "September 30, 1965".
or her dower rights."
Page 18, line 20, strike out "(b)" and
The regular annual appropriationbills for fiscal year 1966 as of August 25, 1965
insert "(d)".
Page 53, line 2, strike out "suit"and insert:
"sued".
Page 54, line 23, strike out "suit" and
insert: "sued".
Page 54, line 27, after "payment" insert:
"shall".
Page 75, strike out lines 17 and 18, and
insert: "In appointing a guardian of the
estate of an infant, unless said infant be
over 14 years of age as hereinafter directed
in section".
Page 77, line 40, strike out "suit" and
insert: "sued".
Page 78, lines 10 and 11, strike out "to be
put in suit" and insert: "to be sued upon".
Page 97, line 32, strike out "certified or".
Page 103, line 16 after "jurisdiction" insert: ": Provided, however, That in those
cases in which a committee has heretofore
been appointed and the committeeship has
not been terminated by court action, such
committee shall continue to act under the
supervision of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia under its
equity powers".
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, it is my understanding
that this bill is simply a codification of
existing laws and that the amendments
adopted in the other body are technical
and nonsubstantive. Am I correct?
Mr. WILLIS. That is correct; and I
am happy to assure the gentleman that
that is so. The gentleman serves on the
subcommittee which considered this bill,
CONTINUING
Original
reporting
schedule
1Mar.
10.1965)
Bill
Revised
reporting
schedule
(May
18, 1965)
___________________
Mar. 18 ....---...
District of Columbia-.
----------Interior-----------------------------Treasury-Post office-------.......-----------------Labor-HEW--------------------Independent offices..
------------____________
Defense------------------------Agriculture------------------------------Legislative. __
-------------------State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary--....--_
Military construction_.........-------------Public works.-------------------------------Foreign assistance--------.
---___---------_-__ -
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
May
May
May
June
June
June
25
1
29
6
13
20
20
27
3
10
17
Reported
to
House
Mar. 18
.-------..
Mar. 25
__-__-____ Apr. 1
------Apr. 29
May 6
June 18 June 17
-----..... May 20
June 3 June 3
___
May 27
June 10 Aug. 6
June 17 June 17
June 24
(1)
Passed
House
Mar. 23
Mar. 30
Apr. 5
May 4
May 11
June 23
May 26
June 8
Tune 1
ug. Aug
June 22
Passed
Senate
June
May
June
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
July
Aug.
.
Aug.
Final
congressional
action
22 July 13
26 June 15
8 June 28
5 Aug. 17
13 Aug. 5
25
13 ---12 July 21
12 Aug. 24
20 /-|---u
23 ----------
--
1Foreign assistance bill awaiting approval of authorizing legislation.
NOTE.-A special Labor-HEW supplemental, passed by the House on Aug. 24, and the usual "end-of-the session"
supplemental, for which no dates were shown, are not listed.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio,
the ranking minority Member, [Mr.
Bow] is on the floor, and I believe is in
complete accord with this resolution.
It has been reported with the approval
of the full Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I should hope that this
is our last continuing resolution of the
session. It seems to me that there is no
reason why we cannot finish these appropriation bills in less than the time
specified in the pending resolution. I
certainly feel that this is the last one we
are going to have this year; that we will
be out of here before the resolution expires. I am convinced that the committee, under the able direction of the
gentleman from Texas, the chairman of
the committee, will finish the appropriation bills so that we can, from our committee at least, say to the leadership of
the House that insofar as the appropriations are concerned, we are ready to
go home.
Mr. MAHON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
21752
HOUSE
August 25, 1965
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
tion bill. I would suppose that can be
Mr. GROSS. Mr.worked
Speaker,
I thank
the
out,
of course.
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. GROSS. Let us hope that they
Mr. Speaker, in will
addition
to the forrecommend
a vote to overriding the
eign handout appropriation
bill, as I reveto.
call it, there is still the
Mr. conference
MAHON. reMr. Speaker, under
port on the bill for military
leave toconstruction.
extend, and for general inforMr. MAHON. Yes;
thereofwill
be thatand others who may
mation
Members
conference report and
of course Iseveral
be interested,
am including a summary
others. I was speaking
of initialtabulation
House
comparative
of the appropriaction rather thanation
of the
session and the Presithe bills
action
of the
dent's related budget requests.
whole Congress.
Mr. GROSS. And we
have has
to getthus far considered
Thewill
House
a vote to override requests
the veto of
on $96,909,293,255
the aufor the sesthorization bill, thesion
military
construcand has
approved $94,687,559,390,
tion authorization bill
before we can
deal of $2,221,733,865,
a reduction,
overall,
with the conferenceincluding
report; is the
that not
special supplemental
correct?
adopted here yesterday. Foreign aid and
Mr. MAHON. I am
familiar
with
the not
closing
supplementals
will add sevthe procedure which
theadditional
Committeebillions.
on
eral
There are in
Armed Services willaddition,
recommend
to the
of course,
some $12,300 million,
House with respecttentatively,
to that authorizain so-called permanent appropriations-principally for interest on
the public debt-that figure in the total
appropriation picture for the year but
which are not tabulated here for the
reason that they arise from previously
enacted permanent law and thus do not
show up in the annual bills being processed this session.
The other body has now passed all of
the appropriation bills sent to it, except
the special supplemental passed by the
House yesterday, making some changes
as usual. The totals are shown in the
tabulation.
The amounts in the appropriation bills
sent to the president are at this point
somewhat inconclusive as to the probable total change in the President's requests for the whole session. But in the
bills sent to him this session, appropriations total $37,960,958,794, a net reduction of $1,080,977,250 from his budget
requests considered in connection with
those bills.
The summary tabulation follows:
The appropriation bills, 89th Cong., 1st sess., as of Aug. 25, 1965
l
[Does not include back-door appropriations, or permanent appropriations under previous legislation.
Does include indefinite appropriations carried in annual appropriation
bills]
House
Title and bill No.
Budget estimates
to House
1965 SUPPLE_MENTAIS
Agriculture, CCC (H.J. Res. 234) _________
...
.................................................
Second supplemental bill, 1965 (H.R. 7091)-...-.------------.................
Defense (HJ. Res. 447)..
---------------...------------------------------------------Total, 1965 supplementals-..-.........---------.....
----------------
----
1966 APPROPRIATIONS
District of Columbia..---------------.
----------.----Federal payment-------------------------------------------------------------------.................................................................................
Loan authorization ......---------------------------------------------------------------Interior-------------------------------------------------------------------------Loan authorization----------------------------------------------------------------..............
Treasury-Post Office..--.....................- ----------------------------..
Labor-HEW..........--------------------...............................................
Independent offices.......---------------------............................................
Agriculture
__________-------------------------------------Loan authorizations---------------------------------------------------------.......
State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary ....
---
Legislative .---- -----
--------------------
--...--- ....----
-
--
-
--
Labor-HEW Supplemental, 1966
Total, 1966 bills to date .--
--------------------------------------------------------
--------
--------------.----- ----
--------
Total, all appropriations to date
----------- ________________------------------Total, loan authorizations--------------------------------------------------------
_.
...
Senate
Title and bill No.
Budget
estimates
to Senate
Date
passed
Jan. 26
Apr. 6
May 5
4,668,665,933
...---- .
8,293,814,000
14,531,023,000
5,815,134,000
(787,000,000)
May 4
May 11
May 26
2,167,735,600
June
1
204,872,222
June
House action
compared with
budget estinates
$1,600,000,000
-$142,209,000
2,118,333,083
-108,123, 850
700,000,000 -----...
(387,467,800) Mar. 23
53,122,000
..
(26,311,900)-1,240,849,500
Mar. 30
(16,780,000) ....
6,708,510,000
Apr. 5
4, 418, 333,083
-250, 332,850
(356,300,500)
44,122.000
(26,311, 900)
1,184,090,300
(16,000,000)
6, 604,404,000
(-31,167,300)
-9,000,000
7,964,034,000
14,109,908,000
5,717,832,000
(787,000,000)
-56,759,200
(-780, 000)
-104,106,000
-329,780, 000
-421,115,000
-97,302, UG
2,085,689,900)
8
150,589,107
4,373,805,000
45,248,844,000
2,049,000,000
June 22
June 23
Aug. 10
1,553,918,000
4,241,636,500
45,188,244,000
1,755,495,000
-82, 045, 7i(
-54,283,115
-132,160, 00
-60,600
-293, 505,00
Aug. 24
1,223,181,500
-330,736.500
92,240,627, 322 ---------
90,269,226,307
-1,971,401,015
96, 909,293, 255--(830,091,900)
94,687,559,390
(829,311,900)
-- 2,221,733,
380
(-780,000)
-----
Senate action compared with-
Amount as
passed
Amount as passed
$1,742,209,000
2, 226, 456, 933
700,000,000
-
Public Works ...
__-----.
------..._______________.........
..-.-----.----Defense-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Military Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date
passed
Final appropriation
Amount as
approved
Final action
compared
with budget
-______
+$139,536,332
-
$1,600,000,000
2,227,563,977
700,000,000
-$142,209,000
-52,687,350
+139,536,332
4,527,563,977
Budget
estimates
House action
Date
approved
estimates
1965 SUPPLEMENTALS
Agriculture, CCC (H.J. Res. 234)_________Second supplemental bill,
1965(H.R. 7091).__$1,742,209.000
$1,600,000,000
Defense (HJ- Res. 447)-__-________
2, 280, 251, 327
2,257,869,415
700,000,000
Total, 1965supplementals.
_________ 700,000,000
4,722, 460,327
4,557,869,415
1966 APPROPRIATIONS
District of Columbia_ _
------Federal payment_______________-------------(389,346,800)
(364,358,347)
Loan authorization _______________
53,122,000
49,122,000
Interior__________-----------(26,311,900)
(26,311,900)
Loan authorization__-_____________
1,241,549, 500
1,230,802,770
Treasury-Post Office_______________---------------(16,
780.000)
(16, 000,000)
Labor-HEW___-------------------__________________
27, 749, 770, 000
27,698,669,000
Independent offices _________________
8,293,814,000
8,023,101,500
Agriculture-- ___________________-------------------14,566,023,000
14,299,897,980
Loan authorizations.
__-------------_
5, 782,
State. Justice, Commerce,
and634,
the000
Judiciary--____6,713,983,800
(787,
000,
000)
(852,000,000)
Legislative
------------------------2,171,935,600
Public Works___________________-------------------- 2,052, 471,800
243,261,617
4,387,616,000
of table.
See footnotes at end
190,840,167
4,327,589,000
Feb. 3
Apr. 27
-$142,209,000
May 6
-22,381,912
--
--
-
-164,590,912
--
June 22
(+8,057,847)
May 26
June 8
Aug. 5
July 13
July 13
Aug. 12
July 12
Aug. 23
+5,000,000
(-24,988,453)
-4,000,000
-10,746, 730
(-780,000)
+46,712, 470 -51,101,000
712,500
'2+1,094,265,000 -270,
-266,125,020
+59,067,500 +931,349,800
+189,989,980 (+65,000,000)
+996,151,800 -119,463,800
(+65,000,000) -52, 421,450
-33,218,100 -60,027,000
2,057977,150
+40,251,060
189,993, 297
+85,952, 500
---
Feb. 11
Apr. 30
May 7
.--
-194,896.350
(360, 228,500)
46,122,000
(26,311,900)
1, 212, 739, 070
(16, 000,000)
-28,810,430 27,669,
444, 000
(-780.000) 8,011,331,500
-80,326, 000 14,
246,167, 800
(-29,118.300)
-7,000,000
-282,482,500
-319,855.200
-114,338,450
-53,268,320
July 27
July 16
June 23
June 30
Aug. 16
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
HOUSE
21753
The appropriationbills, 89th Cong., 1st sess., as of Aug. 25, 1965-Continued
Senate
Title and bill No.
Defense--
Budget
estimates
to Senate
1966 APPROPRIATIONS-continued
-------------
Military Construction.______-------Total. 1966bills to date ..__-----
- $46,972,844,000
2,049,000,000
1----_
Labor-HEW Supplemental. 1966_
-
---
Total,n977.
all appropriations to date -.. ___-Total, loan authorizations---------
Date
passed
Senate action compared withAmount as
passed
Aug. 25 $46,877,063.000
Aug. 20
-----
1, 759,504,000
93,223,045,017
I Permanent appropriations were tentatively estimated in January budget at about
for fiscal year 1966.
$12,300,000,000
2 Includes $1,035,000,000 supplemental estimate for 1965(S. Doc. No. 31).
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, I call up House Resolution 516 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as
follows:
Resolved, That the further expenses of
conducting the studies, investigations, and
inquiries authorized by H. Res. 133, Eightyninth Congress, incurred by the Committee
on Banking and Currency, not to exceed
$235,500 in addition to the unexpended balance of any sum heretofore made available
for conducting such investigations and
studies, including expenditures for employment, travel, and subsistence of attorneys,
accountants,
experts, investigators, and
clerical, stenographic, and other assistants,
with respect to any matter or matters in the
field of housing coming within the jurisdiction of such committee or subcommittee, including, but not limited to, (1) the status
and adequacy of mortgage credit in the
United States, (2) the terms and availability
of conventional mortgage financing, (3) the
flow of savings in relation to home financing
needs, (4) the operation of the various Government-assisted housing programs, (5) the
current rate of construction of residential
dwelling units in relation to housing requirements and demands (6) the role of
housing construction in the national economy, (7) the requirement of aL-d demand for
Federal assistance in the development of
community facilities, including mass transportation and other related facilities, (8)
urban and suburban problems, including
transportation facilities, as they affect the
availability of adequate housing, (9) the
operation of the slum clearance and urban
renewal programs, and (10) rural housing
and the adequacy of rural housing credit,
shall be paid out of the contingent fund of
the House on vouchers authorized by such
committee or subcommittee, signed by the
chairman of such committee or subcommit-
+$1,688,819.000
+4,009, 000
-
98,234,030,044 ___
_ 97, 780,914,432
(894,311,900)
(830,091,900) ._-___
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, FURTHER EXPENSES OF
CONDUCTING STUDIES, INVESTIGATIONS, AND INQUIRIES
[Houseaction
-- $95,781,000
--29,496,000
.-------
93,511,569,717 -__ _-
The SPEAKER. The question is on
engrossment and third reading of the
joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be
engrossed and read a third time and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Budget
estimates
Final appropriation
Amount as
approved
-- __
---------
Date
approved
Final action
compared
with budget
estimates
-
______
-
333,433,394,817
-- 886.080,900
-288.5 24,700
+4,177,000,210
-453,115.612
(+64, 220,000)
250
-4, 316,536.542 37,3960958.794 -1,080,
(42,311,900)
(-780, 000)-(+65, 000, 000)
NorE.-Bills yet to be reported to the House: foreian assistance; and final supplemental.
tee, and approved by the Committee on
House Administration.
SEC. 2. No part of the funds authorized
by this resolution shall be available for expenditure In connection with the study or
investigation of any subject which is being
investigated for the same purpose by any
other committee of the House, and the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency shall furnish the Committee on House
Administration information with respect to
any study or investigation intended to be
financed from such funds.
With the following committee amendment:
Page 1, line 4, strike out "$235,500" and
insert "$97,000".
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRIEDEL. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Are there copies of the resolution and
the report or the hearings available?
The distinguished gentleman from Maryland showed me a copy of the resolution
for a fleeting moment beforehand.
I just wonder if they are available for
the general membership? If not, what
is the need for haste in regard to this
item?
Mr. FRIEDEL. Well, some of these
subcommittees are out of funds and they
need additional funds to conduct their
investigations. Several of the full committees and some subcommittees do not
have any more funds.
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will yield
further, are there copies of the resolution
that the House has under consideration
available for all of the Members?
Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes, there are.
Mr. HALL. I have inquired at the
desks and the book rooms and I cannot
find one, although, as I say, the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Accounts did show me a copy ahead
of time.
Mr. FRIEDEL. I can give the gentleman my copy. It is available.
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will yield
further, will the distinguished Chairman
tell us-I understand that there is a need
for haste and that the committee is out
of money. I furthermore understand
that, by the committee amendment, they
have cut the request from $325,000 down
to $97,000; is that correct?
Mr. FRIEDEL. The request for the
Banking and Currency's Subcommittee
on Housing was reduced from the
$235,500 requested to $97.000.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. FRIEDEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. I do not know exactly
what the reason for haste is. The committee is not out of money. They have
over half of the money they were allocated. We have given them just this
morning money enough to run them until
March. This could wait until later this
evening or tomorrow or next week, I
would think.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, that really was
in anticipation of my next question. I
wondered if the distinguished Chairman
would tell us how much money was
allocated in the beginning to this particular Committee on Banking and Currency and how much they have remain-
ing?
And the third question is, does this
go through the balance of the 89th Congress, or the first session or the calendar
year?
Mr. FRIEDEL. This provides additional funds through March 31, 1966. By
providing these funds now, the subcommittee should have enough money to
carry on its investigations through the
first 3 months of the next session.
Our committee will then have sufficient
time to review the subcommittee's needs
for the balance of the 89th Congress and
approve any additional funds required.
Mr. HALL. I appreciate the action
of the committee. Does the gentleman
know how much they have on hand, and
what the original request was, the original request at the beginning of the year?
Mr. FRIEDEL. The subcommittee has
a balal :e of $33,000, which is not sufficient for the balance of this year and the
early part of next year while they are
waiting for additional funds to be approved by our committee.
Mr. HALL. This is the amount on
hand. How much did they receive from
the gentleman's committee at the beginning of the year?
Mr. FRIEDEL. $150,000.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
21754
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD CALL OF THE HOUSE
TO AMEND HOUSE RESOLUTION 142
I make the
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker,
RELATING TO EXPENSES OF INpoint of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER.
is not present.
VESTIGATIONS
CONDUCTED BY
ON
PUBLIC
THE
COMMITTEE
a quorum
Evidently
WORKS
Mr. ALBERT.
FRIEDEL.
Mr.a Speaker, by direcMr.
Speaker,
I move
Mr.
call of the House.
tion of the Committee on House Admin-
istration,
I call up House Resolution 514
was ordered.
A call of the House
consideration.
itsthe
immediate
foltheask
roll,for
and
The Clerk calledand
The
Clerk read
to theirthe resolution, as
to answer
lowing Members failed
follows:
names:
Andrews.
George W.
Andrews,
Glenn
Ashley
Baring
Bonner
Burton, Utah
Cabell
Craley
Cramer
Dawson
Fascell
Holifield
Ichord
Karth
Kee
Kornegay
Landrum
Murray
247]
[Roll No.
Resolved,
That the first section of H. Res.
142 of the Eighty-ninth Congress is amended
by striking out "$450,000" and inserting in
lieu thereof "$465,000".
Resnick
Roosevelt
Rumsfeld
Sisk
Talcott
Thomas
Thompson, N.J.
Toll
Vigorito
Willis
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 403
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDS
FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS AND
STUDIES AUTHORIZED BY HOUSE
RESOLUTION 133
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, I call up House Resolution
517 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the further expense of conducting the investigations and studies authorized by H. Res. 133, Eighty-ninth Congress, incurred by the Committee on Banking and Currency, acting as a whole or by
subcommittee appointed by the chairman of
the committee, not to exceed $325,000, in
addition to the unexpended balance of any
sum heretofore made available for conducting such investigations and studies, including expenditures for employment, travel, and
subsistence of accountants, experts, investigators, attorneys, and clerical, stenographic,
and other assistants, shall be paid out of the
contingent fund of the House on vouchers
authorized by such committee, signed by the
chairman of such committee, and approved
by the Committee on House Administration.
SEC. 2. No part of the funds authorized
by this resolution shal be available for expenditure in connection with the study or
investigation of any subject which is being
investigated for the same purpose by any
other committee of the House, and the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency shall furnish the Committee on House
Administration information with respect to
any study or investigation intended to be
financed from such funds.
With the following committee amendment:
Page 1, line 5, strike out "$325,000" and insert "$60,000".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
With the following committee amendment:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and
insert the following:
"That, the further expenses of the studies
and investigations to be conducted pursuant
to H. Res. 141 by the Committee on Public
Works, acting as a whole or by subcommittee,
not to exceed $130,000, including expenditures for the employment of investigators,
attorneys, and experts, and clerical, stenographic, and other assistants and all expenses
necessary for travel and subsistence incurred
by members and employees while engaged in
the activities of the committee or any subcommittee thereof, as the chairman deems
necessary, shall be paid out of the contingent
funds of the House on vouchers authorized
and signed by the chairman of such committee and approved by the Committee on House
Administration.
"SEC. 2. The chairman, with the consent
of the head of the department or agency concerned, is authorized and empowered to utilize the reimbursable services, information,
facilities, and personnel of any other departments or agencies of the Government.
"SEC. 3. No part of the funds authorized
by this resolution shall be available for expenditure in connection with the study or
investigation of any subject which is being
investigated for the same purpose by any
other committee of the House, and the
chairman of the Committee on Public Works
shall furnish the Committee on House Administration information with respect to any
study or investigation intended to be financed from such funds."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The resolution was agreed to.
The title was amended so as to read:
"Resolution to provide for the further expenses of the investigation and study authorized by House Resolution 141."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PROVIDING FOR THE FURTHER EXPENSES OF THE INVESTIGATION
AND STUDY AUTHORIZED
HOUSE RESOLUTION 118
Mr. FRIEDEL.
BY
Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on House Administration I call up House Resolution
526 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the further expenses of the
investigation and study to be conducted pursuant to H: Res. 118, by the Committee on
Armed Services, acting as a whole or by
subcommittee, not to exceed $150,000, including expenditures for the employment of
special counsel, consultants, investigators,
HOUSE
August 25, 1965
attorneys, experts, and clerical, stenographic,
and other assistants appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services,
shall be paid out of the contingent fund of
the House on vouchers authorized by such
committee, or subcommittee, signed by the
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and approved by the Committee on
House Administration.
SEC. 2. The chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services shall furnish the Committee
on House Administration information with
respect to any study or investigation intended to be financed from such funds. No part
of the funds authorized by this resolution
shall be available for expenditure in connection with the study or investigation of any
subject which is being investigated for the
same purpose by any other committee of the
House.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
EXPENSES
OF
INVESTIGATION
AUTHORIZED BY HOUSE RESOLUTION 94
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Administration I call up House Resolution 537
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:
Resolved, That the expenses of an investigation authorized by H. Res. 94, Eighty-ninth
Congress, for the purpose of making a complete evaluation and study of the administration of the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964, incurred by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Poverty War Program of the
Committee on Education and Labor, not to
exceed $100,000. including expenditures for
the employment of clerical, stenographic, and
other assistance, and all expenses necessary
for travel and subsistence incurred by members and employees who will be engaged in
the activities of the subcommittee, shall be
paid out of the contingent fund of the
House. All amounts authorized to be paid
out of the contingent fund by this resolution shall be paid on vouchers authorized
and signed by the chairman of the committee, and approved by the Committee on
House Administration.
Mr. GROSS.
Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FRIEDEL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. This would provide another $100,000 for the Committee on
Education and Labor; is that correct?
Mr. FRIEDEL. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. How much money has
this committee received since January?
I am talking about the full committee.
Mr.
FRIEDEL.
It
has
received
$440,000.
Mr. GROSS. Did I hear the gentleman correctly-$440,000?
Mr. FRIEDEL. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. And now it is proposed to
provide another $100,000.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes, and they justified
it.
Mr. GROSS. What does the committee do with all this money?
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRIEDEL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. The situation in this particular instance has compelled the Com-
August 25, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
mittee on Accounts to approve this appropriation, and it is one that every
Member of the Congress is cognizant of.
We have passed legislation appropriating millions of dollars to the poverty program. Every Member of Congress addresses himself to the Committee on
Education and Labor in reference to
problems arising out of the poverty program. We ourselves cannot make the
necessary investigation and studies of
these particular questions.
Therefore, we are asking that this
Congress support this committee in its
efforts to be able to answer the questions
that he and other Members of the Congress have with reference to the poverty
program. The money is earmarked for
that purpose, and to show the good faith
of this committee in endeavoring to do
this job on a bipartisan basis so that we
can arrive at the proper administration
of this tremendous program, there has
been complete unanimity on this by the
minority and the majority as to how this
money is to be spent and how it is to be
allocated.
Mr. GROSS. This simply means that
the Committee on Education and Labor
is going to have available for spending
in less than 9 months the sum of $540,-
000 or well over a half million dollars.
For the life of me I cannot understand
what you do with all the money that is
appropriated for this committee in such
a short space of time.
Mr. DENT. You are in complete error
on your figures and on the purposes of
the appropriation. The gentleman who
has acted in the operation of the poverty
program is the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. GIBBONS] who will answer your
question.
Mr. GIBBONS. If you add the $440,000 to $100,000, you get $540,000 of
course, but that amount of money has
not been spent I would point out to the
gentleman from Iowa. I have a detailed
breakdown here of the money that has
been actually spent by the Committee on
Education and Labor. The purpose of
asking for this additional authorization
is so that the Committee on Education
and Labor ad hoc subcommittee on the
war on poverty program can tool up
specifically for this one investigation
that must be made to make sure that
the program is being carried out correctly. We have discussed this in the Committee on House Administration. We
have discussed in the Committee on Education and Labor and we are all agreed
that the money is needed and the work
will be done. We are not going to throw
this money away, of course.
Mr. GROSS. I have only this to add:
If this committee is going to continue
spending money at the present rate, the
entire country will be impoverished, and
not just a comparatively few million
citizens.
Mr. GIBBONS. I beg to disagree
with the gentleman but that is not happening. I have a breakdown of the figures here and, of course, they are available to the gentleman as well as to every
Member of the Congress and to the press
as well as to exactly how this money has
been spent.
HOUSE
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
21755
65,000 of the 150,000. Germany got 25,000. Ireland got 17,000. All the rest
of the nations, over 100 nations throughout the world, got only 49,000.
The result was that the Greeks got
only 308. Hungary got 865, Poland got
AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND 6,488, Spain got 250, and Portugal got
438.
NATIONALITY ACT
Naturally, these countries with small
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move quota numbers rebelled.
They often
that the House resolve itself into the inveighed against the immligration polCommittee of the Whole House on the icy of the United States. They comState of the Union for the further con- plained bitterly that they were discrimsideration of the bill (H.R. 2580) to inated against.
amend the Immigration and Nationality
As was indicated in the debate yesAct, and for other purposes.
terday, we ourselves realized inherently
The motion was agreed to.
that there was something wrong in this
IN THE COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE
national origins theory. As conditions
Accordingly, the House resolved itself arose requiring changes, we chipped
into the Committee of the Whole House away here and we chiseled there and cut
on the State of the Union for the further away in another direction from the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2580, with theory of national origWns, so that fiMr. ROONEY of New York in the chair. nally only one out of every three immigrants coming into the land came under
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit- the national origins theory.
Forty years of testing have proven
tee rose on yesterday the gentleman from
New York [Mr. CELLER] had 1 hour 40 that the rigid pattern of discrimination
minutes remaining, and the gentleman has not only produced imbalances that
from Ohio [Mr. MCCULLOCH] had 1 hour have irritated many nations, but Con50 minutes remaining.
gress itself, through a long series of
The Chair recognizes the gentleman enactments forced by the realities of a
from New York.
changing world saw fit to modify this
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield unworkable formula so that today it remyself 15 minutes.
mains on the books primarily as an exMr. Chairman and Members of the pression of gratuitous condescension.
Committee, as I indicated yesterday, over
In fact, the condemned formula apthe years I have made many speeches plies now to only 33 percent of our total
against the so-called national origins annual immigration and even with retheory of immigration, but my speeches gard to that 33 percent it is splintered
apparently fell on deaf ears. My efforts time and time again by legislative patchwere about as useless as trying to make work attempting to prop up a crumbling
a tiger eat grass or a cow eat meat. The structure.
result was a purely abortive effort.
Congress recognized well what it was
But patience is bitter but yields rich doing when it adopted those one-shot
fruit.
acts. This committee is well aware of
The dawn of the national origins how Congress shattered the national
theory has set, and it will be cast into origins pattern, but for whatever the
midnight of darkness by this bill, which reason, we chose not to call a spade a
I am sure will have an overwhelmingly spade. We never admitted the truth of
favorable vote.
what we were doing. Each act, I am
Why did I speak against the national about to enumerate, in a sense has been
origins theory? Why will this Chamber an act of redemption-the slow retreat
vote overwhelmingly to cast it out? Be- from the fears and failures of 1921 and
cause it says that one man is better than 1924 and an open recognition of the
another. It says, in effect, that an Eng- unworkability of this basic principle of
lishman is better than a Spaniard, that our immigration fabric.
a German is better than a Russian, that
As soon as the Nazis surrendered and
an Irishman is better than a Frenchman, the guns were silenced the free world
that a Swede is better than a Pole.
awoke to face the overwhelming task of
Apparently the architects of our im- resettling over 1.5 million victims of Nazi
migration policy in 1921, 1922, and 1923, and Communist terror, the liberated inknowing that our Nation had, in point of mates of concentration camps and
time, been first peopled by immigrants Hitler's slave laborers, the mass of hufrom Northern and Western Europemanity stamped "displaced persons."
namely, English, German, and IrishWe offered hospitality and took a fair
and only subsequently by those of the share of these victims. The 1924 act
Latin and Slavic races-Italians, Greeks, with the national origins principle had
Poles, Czechs, Spaniards, and Russiansto be bypassed. We skirted around it
sought to keep immigrants coming in and passed in the 81st Congress the first
after 1924 as near as possible like the Displaced Persons Act in 1948 and perearly settlers. They then set up the mitted entrance of 200,000 displaced perquota system, handsomely favoring with sons outside of the national origins quota
large quotas the so-called Nordics and limitation. These displaced persons inAryans-that is, the English, Irish and volved a miscellany of nationals and
Germans-and gave small, tiny quotas to races.
all the rest of the nations of the world.
We then passed a second Displaced
Out of an immigration pie of about Persons Act in the 81st Congress spon150,000 authorized immigrants a year, sored by myself-once again we disrethey sliced that pie into huge pieces and garded the national origins quota
tiny minuscule pieces.
England got system.
21756
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
In 1953 a new refugee admission law
was passed, known as the Refugee Relief
Act of 1953. It brought refugees into
our land outside the quota formula.
Again national origins was disregarded.
Since 1957 every Congress through the
87th has been called upon to pass and
did pass laws further bending, chipping
off, whittling away the national origins
idea.
In 1958, the Hungarian emergency
caught the United States again unprepared to cope with the crying need for
offering asylum to victims of Soviet terror. We opened our doors to these un-
affect their ability to earn a living, per-
sons afflicted with tuberculosis, children
unaccompanied by their parents, perand persecution, and accepted 40,000 ref- sons who admitted the commission of a
ugees by special enactment-another crime involving moral turpitude, and
body blow to national origins. The Hun- women coming to the United States for
immoral purposes. Professional actors,
garian quota is only 865 annually.
In 1958 we passed special laws, despite artists, singers, ministers, professors, and
the national-origins pattern, to admit domestic servants were exempted from
Portuguese victims of the earthquake in the provisions of the contract labor law.
the Azores and many Hollanders ex- Authority to deport an alien who had
pelled from Indonesia. The quotas for become a public charge from causes
Portugal and Holland are pitifully small. which existed before the alien's entry
The quota for Portugal is 438, and the was extended to cover a 3-year period
Dutch quota 3,136. Congress again took after entry.
Seventh. The Immigration Act of
a slam at national origins.
The 86th Congress in 1959, granted 1907 also authorized the President to
nonquota status to relatives and perma- refuse admission to certain persons on
nent residents who had been waiting the ground that their immigration was
anxiously at consular offices for visas for detrimental to labor conditions. On the
basis of the 1907 act, the President exfrom 10 to 15 years.
Thus, year after year, Congress con- cluded from the continental United
tinued to tear away bits and pieces of States "Japanese and Korean laborers,
the national-origins system until now skilled or unskilled, who had received
only one out of every three immigrants passports to go to Mexico, Canada, or
are admitted under that national-origins Hawaii and come therefrom."
In 1907 and 1908, a gentleman's agreesystem.
Any system that has caused all this ment was reached between the United
States
and Japan, whereby the Japanese
immigration
our
patchwork-caused
structure to be so jerry-built-should be Government would exercise control over
the immigration of laborers to the United
repealed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the RECORD States.
Eighth. The act of May 6, 1882 was the
to contain the legislative history of imfirst of the so-called Chinese Exclusion
migration.
First. The Alien Act of June 25, 1798, Acts. This provided for suspension of
was the first Federal legislation. It dealt immigration of Chinese laborers for a
with the expulsion of aliens in the United period of 10 years. The 1904 act reStates. This act authorized the Presi- mained in effect until December 17, 1943,
dent to deport any alien whom he deemed when all Chinese exclusion laws were
dangerous to the United States. The act repealed and Chinese persons were made
expired after 2 years and was never re- eligible for immigration and naturalization.
enacted.
Ninth. The Immigration Act of FebruSecond. Other than enacting legislation designed to protect the immigrant, ary 5, 1917, passed as a result of the
no Federal legislation was enacted until growing demand for more effective re1875. The act of March 3, 1875, excluded strictions on immigration, codified all
criminals and prostitutes, and provided previously enacted exclusion provisions
for inspection of immigrants. The act of and added to the inadmissible classes
August 3, 1882, included in the classes of illiterate aliens, persons of constitutional
inadmissible aliens, lunatics, idiots, and psychopathic inferiority, men as well as
persons liable to become a public charge. women entering for immoral purposes,
Third. In 1885 and 1887 Congress chronic alcoholics, stowaways, vagrants,
passed the so-called contract-labor laws and persons who had a previous attack
which made it unlawful to import aliens of insanity. The most controversial prointo the United States under contract for vision of the 1917 act was the so-called
the performance of labor or services of literacy requirement excluding aliens
any kind, and provided for the expulsion over 16 years of age who were unable to
of aliens who violated the contract-labor read. A bill providing for a literacy test
laws. Many exceptions were made to this for immigrants was first passed by Conexpulsion, such as artists, lecturers, serv- gress in 1897 but was vetoed by Presiants, and skilled aliens.
dent Cleveland, and similar bills were
Fourth. In 1891 the inadmissible subsequently vetoed by Presidents Taft
classes included persons suffering from and Wilson. The 1917 act which was
dangerous contagious diseases, felons, passed over President Wilson's veto
persons convicted of infamous crimes, placed the literacy requirement on the
those involving moral turpitude, and statute book. In addition, it laid down
further restrictions on the immigration
polygamists.
fortunate ones fleeing Soviet violence
August 25, 1965
HOUSE
Fifth. The act of March 3, 1903, included in the inadmissible classes epileptics, persons who had been insane within
5 years prior to application, professional
beggars, anarchists, or persons who believe in, or advocate, the overthrow by
force or violence of the Government of
the United States.
Sixth. The act of February 20, 1907,
increased the head tax to $4 and added
to the excludable classes imbeciles,
feebleminded persons, persons with
physical or mental defects which may
of Asian persons by creating the socalled barred zone, natives of which were
declared inadmissible to the United
States. The barred zone roughly included parts of China, all of India,
Burma, Siam, the Malay States, the
Asian part of Russia, part of Arabia, part
of Afghanistan, most of the Polynesian
Islands and the East Indian Islands.
The 1917 act broadened considerably
the classes of aliens deportable from
the United States and introduced the
requirement of deportation without
statute of limitation in more serious
cases.
Tenth. On October 16, 1918, Congress
passed a law excluding alien anarchists
and others believing in or advocating the
overthrow of the government. On May
10, 1920, an act was passed calling for
the deportation of alien enemies and
aliens convicted of violating or conspiracy to violate various war acts.
The act of May 22, 1918, the so-called
Entry and Departure Controls Act, authorized the President to control the departure from, and entry into, the United
States in times of war or national emergency, of any person whose presence was
deemed contrary to public safety. The
act of March 2, 1921, provided that those
provisions of the Entry and Departure
Controls Act relating to passport and
visa requirements of aliens seeking to
come to the United States should continue in force until otherwise provided
by law.
Eleventh. The quota law of 1921: The
first quota law was enacted May 19, 1921.
This limited the number of aliens entering the United States to 3 percent of
foreign-born persons of that nationality
who lived in the United States in 1910.
Under this law approximately 350,000
aliens were permitted to enter each year
as quota immigrants, mostly from
Northern and Western Europe.
Twelfth. Then came the national Immigration Act of 1924, which was the
first permanent Immigration Quota Act.
The 1924 act, as amended, contained
two quota provisions. The first one, in
effect until June 30, 1929, set the annual
quota of any quota nationality at 2 percent of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in continental United States in 1890. The
total quota under this provision was
164,667. The second provision regulating quotas from July 1, 1929, to December 31, 1952, introduced the much-debated national origins quota system.
Under it the annual quota for any country or nationality had the same relation
to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants
in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin had to the total
number of inhabitants in continental
United States in 1920. Since no quota
was to be smaller than 100, the total
quotas
prior
to
January
1,
1953,
amounted annually to 154,277.
By various provisions of the 1924 act
Congress expressed an intent not to
separate families by migration, and to
facilitate the reunion of separated families.
To achieve this end nonquota
status was accorded to the wives and
children of American citizens, and preference quota status to husbands and par-
August 25, 1965.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
ents of American citizens, and to wives
and children of permanent resident
aliens. The law, however, discriminated
against women in that an alien wife preceding her husband could not confer
preference quota status on him, and an
American citizen wife, under the original
version of the act, could only confer
preference quota status on her alien husSubsequent amendments perband.
mitted the American citizen wife to con-
fer nonquota status on her alien husband
if marriage was contracted prior to the
enactment of the respective amendments. These and other provisions of
law discriminating against women remained in effect until the enactment of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Many, many have been the tragedies
and cruelties and hardships of anxious
immigrants waiting months and years
and years at the consular offices throughout the world for visas to bring them to
their dear ones in the United Stateswives to husbands, husbands to wives,
children to parents, parents to children,
brothers to sisters, and sisters to
brothers.
The families remained divided for indefinite periods all during these 40-odd
years that we have had this nationalorigins theory of immigration on our
books.
Now consider the irony of those socalled unused quotas. Britain, for example, as I said before, got some 65,000.
Did she use all 65,000? Emphatically no.
Last year Britain used 29,108. What
happened to the unused quota numbers?
Well, they were just as worthless as last
year's ticket to the world's series. Those
unused numbers just went down the
drain. What a boon those unused numbers would have been to those who, as I
indicated before, were anxiously waiting
for quota numbers at the various consular offices but, because of the minuscule
quotas of their respective countries, could
not get visas. Ireland, allotted 17,756,
last year only used 6,307. The rest of the
numbers? They went down the drain.
The total unused quotas last year were
55,665. They could not be used.
This bill, H.R. 2580, nullifies the
cruelty resulting from these unused
quotas. All unused quotas are to be
placed in a pool during the period of the
phaseout of the national origins theory,
that is, for 3 years, and are to be made
available primarily to unite families and
for the purpose of bringing in skilled and
unskilled labor.
Under the present national origins
theory, for example, if the Dutch quota is
filled and a Dutchman of the type of
Erasmus, the great intellectual who
sparkplugged the Renaissance, would
desire to enter, he would be confronted
with a sign that said, "Verboten. You
cannot enter. It is forbidden-quota is
filled."
Madame Curie was born in Poland.
Despite the fact that she became a
French subject, Madame Curie, the inventor of radium out of pitchblende, one
of the greatest inventors in the whole
world and of all time-if the Polish quota
were filled, as it usually always is filled,
she could not come into this country.
HOUSE
A woman of that marvelous stature
would be denied entrance.
Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Nils
Bohr, who ushered us into the atomic
age-if the quotas of their respective
countries were filled, they could not enter as immigrants into this fair land of
ours despite their wondrous achievements and attainments. Even Pablo
Casals, the famous cellist, who was born
in Spain, because the quota of Spain
is only 250 and is always filled, could not
enter the United States as an immigrant.
Let me tell you something strange.
The grandfather of Barry Goldwater and
the grandfather of Douglas Dillon were
born in Poland. They came over to this
country, those grandfathers did, as pack
peddlers. Luckily they came over before 1924. If they had come over after
1924, they might not have been able to
gain entrance. Then the history of this
country might have been differently
written. We might not have had a Senator Goldwater and we might not have
had a Secretary of the Treasury Douglas
Dillon.
We have become a great nation. We
have the greatest gross national product
of any nation that ever existed. Our
gross national product is approaching
almost $700 billion. One of the reasons
therefore, I think, is that we have siphoned off the best of the brain and
brawn of nations all over the world, of
all races and climes and origins. We are
a nation of nations. Our immigrants, as
Harry Golden says, constitute the gulfstream of our vitality.
If you go to my district you will find
people of all nationalities. And to give
you an idea of the pluralistic character
of my district, which is symptomatic of
many, many districts in the Nation, I
would like to tell you a story.
A man goes into a Chinese restaurant,
and there, to his amazement, he sees a
Negro waiter-a Negro waiter in a Chinese restaurant. And he says to the
waiter, "What is the specialty of the
house?" And the Negro waiter says,
"Pizza pie."
"Pizza pie in a Chinese restaurant?"
And he said, "Yes, this is the Yiddish
neighborhood."
That gives you some idea of what is
happening in this country and what is
happening is good for the land because
all those races are amalgamated and they
are here for a good, common purpose, the
weal and the welfare of our Nation, to
which all these diverse races make contribution.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman spoke of
all the prosperity that this country is
wallowing in, and referred to the gross
national product which, of course, is
pretty much of a phony standard of
economic measurement. Can the gentleman tell me, since he thinks this
country is wallowing in prosperity, why
this Government is spending hundreds
of millions of dollars in a so-called war
on poverty?
Mr. CELLER. Of course, I do not
think that has anything to do with the
21757
bill at hand, and I hope the gentleman
will reserve that question for those who
are specialists and who have an expertise on the antipoverty program.
Mr. GROSS. I only raise the question
because the gentleman referred to the
alleged prosperity and said we could
afford all of this immigration and the
importation of all of this foreign labor
in this country under the circumstances.
Mr. CELLER. I would be glad to
answer the gentleman, but I do not want
to take up the time that would be necessary; it would take a considerable period
of time adequately to answer the gentleman on the question of expenditures of
money for the antipoverty program. I
think our Nation wants to help those who
cannot fend for themselves, those who
are helpless and hopeless, those who live
in the ghettos under various conditions
that do not make for the prosperity of
the land. We try to lift them up, but
that is all quite beside the point of the
debate.
Mr. GROSS. I suppose there are
about 200 million of them in India alone.
are there not?
Mr. CELLER. May I ask a question?
Do we appreciably increase our population, as it were, by the passage of this
bill? The answer is emphatically "No."
The thrust of this bill is no appreciable
increase in numbers. But we provide
for a fair, decent, equitable distribution
of the numbers that are permissible.
The bill places a limit of authorized yearly immigration at 170,000, inclusive of
10,200 refugees; no more than a maximum of 20,000 will be allotted to any
1 country. To this may be added the
spouses and children and parents of the
U.S. citizens. In that latter category
there were something like 35,000 last
year.
The State Department, the Labor Department, the Department of Justice, all
exercise rigid control over those immiExcluding
grants who may come in.
relatives entitled to a preference no one
can be admitted unless the Secretary of
Labor issues an individual certificate that
there will be no displacement of an
American from his job, that there will
be no adverse effect on working conditions, and that there will be no deleterious effect upon American labor in
general.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has the support of our labor organizations, the support of the Lutheran Conference, the
Friends, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 5 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. CELLER. It also has the support
of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Tolstoy Foundation, the
Church World Service, International
Social Services, B'nai B'rith, AHEPA,
and a host of other organizations.
Mr. Chairman, claim has been made
that the bill would bring in hordes of
Africans and Asians. This is the answer
to that false charge: Persons from
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD African and Asian countries would continue to come in as heretofore, but would
be treated like everyone else. With the
end of discrimination due to place of
birth, there will be shifts to countries
other than those of northern and western
Europe. Immigrants from Asia and
Africa will have to compete and qualify
in order to get in, quantitatively and
qualitatively, which, itself, will hold the
HOUSE
peting on the basis of skill. Is that correct?
Mr. CELLER. That is one factor.
Mr. JONAS. Would the gentleman
explain to the committee exactly how
that competition would be brought
about? This i', not an unfriendly question. I am seeking guidance.
The CHAIRMAN.
The time of the
gentleman from New York has again
numbers down. There will not be, com- expired.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
paratively, many Asians or Africans enmyself 5 additional minutes.
tering this country.
Mr. JONAS. John Smith in X counMr. Chairman, there are many factors
that would limit immigration from these try applies to become an immigrant. He
sources. Many countries in Africa do applies to the office of the consulate in
not even use their present quota of 100. that country. Will the applications on
Under this bill those who have preference file in all of the consulates be sent to
would come in first; that is, those coming Washington and simply screened here?
Mr. CELLER. That is correct. Noto fathers, mothers, husbands, wives,
sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, and tice of the application will be sent to
so forth. These preferences would prac- the Department of State.
Mr. JONAS. That would be the only
tically use up most of the numbers auway there could be any competition.
thorized from those countries.
Mr. CELLER. That is correct. NumMr. Chairman, since the peoples of
Africa and Asia have very few relatives bers will be allotted from Washington
here, comparatively few could immigrate to the consulates on a first-come, firstfrom those countries, because they have served basis. No country gets preference.
Mr. JONAS. The petition to which
no family ties in the United States.
Also, Mr. Chairman, no one can come reference was made would be decided by
in without the individual certificate officials in the United States and not in
from the Secretary of Labor guarantee- the offices of the respective consulates
ing that the American workman will not around the world?
Mr. CELLER. That is correct. The
be displaced. They must also prove that
they will not become public charges. As Attorney General will decide if the rea matter of fact, few of the people from quirements for a preference have been
these areas can even pay the cost of the satisfied. Also, the Secretary of Labor
ticket to come here. There is no danger must certify that no American worker
whatsoever of an influx from the coun- will be displaced if the immigrant is
tries of Asia and Africa. If there were, coming to the United States for gainthe AFL-CIO would breathe their hot ful employment, and that is a decided
breath down our necks, we the members change we make in this present act.
Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Chairman,
of the Judiciary Committee, but they
have no objections to the terms under will the gentleman yield?
which Asians and Africans can come in.
Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleThey fear no hordes of people from such man from Minnesota.
countries.
Mr. MACGREGOR. I think it must be
Mr. Chairman, it is claimed that the said to the gentleman from North Carobill would lead to an increase in unem- lina that the statements of the distinployment. There is no evidence to sup- guished chairman of the Committee on
port this claim, and there is much evi- the Judiciary are entirely correct if you
dence to dispute it. Labor organiza- exclude the Western Hemisphere. The
tions, I repeat, approve the bill, as does Western Hemisphere countries and the
the Secretary of Labor. There will be citizens thereof will not be obliged to
practically no increase in authorized im- participate in this competition which
migration. Therefore, there would be will face natives of all of the rest of the
practically no workers coming in beyond countries of the world.
the number that now come in.
Mr. CELLER. Yes; but those who
Mr. Chairman, we have a work force come in from the Western Hemisphere
today in the United States of over 80 must satisfy all of the qualitative tests in
million. Under the present law, the the bill, and the law.
number of additional workers that now
For example, let me read what those
come in is microscopic in relation to the from Latin American countries must
U.S. work force; that is, about 24,000 as comply with. I am reading from page
against 80 million. That is less than 1 14 of the report with reference to the
for each 3,000 workers, hardly a drop in certificate to be issued by the Secretary
the bucket, as a practical matter.
of Labor:
Mr. Chairman, the population will not
The amended section 212(a) (14) reprebe disturbed as it were, by the pending sents a substantial departure from existing
bill and also-law. Presently, the provisions of section
Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the 212(a) (14) operate only when the Secretary
of Labor invokes them by certification which
gentleman yield?
Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle- has the effect of excluding any intending
immigrant, within the scope of the certifiman from North Carolina.
cation, who would likely displace a qualified
Mr. JONAS. I was interested in the American
worker, or whose employment in
comments of the distinguished chair- the United States would adversely affect the
man of the Committee on the Judiciary wages and working conditions of workers
about respective immigrants from one similarly employed in the United States.
country having to compete with others. This procedure is reversed under the amendI assume reference was made to com- ment. Responsibility is placed upon the in-
August 25, 1965
tending immigrant to obtain the Secretary
of Labor's clearance prior to issuance of a
visa. This provision is applicable to immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, nonpreference immigrants, as well as tho;e
preference immigrants who seek entrance
into the United States for the primary purpose of gainful employment whether it be
in a skilled or semiskilled category or as 3
member of the professions or the arts.
The responsibility is placed upon the
intending immigrant to obtain the clearance of the Secretary of Labor prior to
the issuance of a visa. Heretofore and
presently the Secretary of Labor would
issue categories of labor that might involve surplus labor. Under this bill each
individual must obtain a certificate from
the Secretary of Labor which he presents to the consular officer.
If he does not have that certificate
the blame is on him for not getting that
certificate, and he cannot get a visa to
come into this country. In that respect
there is a decided break upon the free
flow of immigrants from any part of the
world, particularly from the Western
Hemisphere into the United States.
The admission of additional workers will
benefit our national economy because
they will have dependents; namely, elderly parents, grandchildren, and so
forth. These children would not weaken
the employment situation. They would,
on the contrary, strengthen the demands
for goods and services and thus create
more jobs.
The bill provides for regulatory discretion which resides with the Secretary
of Labor in imposing conditions to keep
out immigrants who would take the work
away from Americans or depress wages
and working conditions. The restrictions are more severe than in the present
law.
Every immigrant would have to satisfy
the public charge test of the present law
before he could get a visa. This test was
proven to be effective during t