UNTITLED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: March 16, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

March X 6, Agpr ved For Rele OK REA-SI& l RECORDB00 HOUSE0300160018-3 y - 9$7
only significant consumers of coal are
the electric utilities. Coal has provided
between 70 and 80 percent of the fuel
need for electric power generation in our
State for the past 10 years. Coal's share
has been unaffected by the imposition of
import controls in 1959 and could not
and.would not be affected by the removal
of these controls given the limtiations of
existing conversion facilities. Thus, in
Rhode Island the coal industry has not
been helped by the import controls and
it would not be hurt if the controls were
removed. However, the people of Rhode
Island have been seriously hurt by the
controls. According to a study by Pe-
troleum Industry Research Foundation,
Inc., with which most oil importers
agree, the price on residual fuel oil on the
east coast would decline by more than
20 cents a barrel if the restrictions were
lifted. For the small State of Rhode
Island, which consumes 6.3 million bar-
rels of residual fuel oil-in 1963-for in-
dustrial, commercial, and residential
purposes, this would have meant a sav-
ings of about $1.25 million in just that
year, and more in future years, as the
demand for this product rises. The lower
fuel costs would also make the State's
industry more competitive. This applies
particularly to the hard-pressed textile
industry, Rhode Island's largest indus-
trial consumer of residual fuel oil.
There is absolutely no justification for
continuing this restriction which helps
no one but hurts many. Certainly the
coal industry, whose domestic and export
sales have been rising very rapidly since
1961, does not need it since the great bulk
of its markets are located in areas beyond
the reach of imported residual fuel oil.
The Interior Department, which is' ad-
ministering the oil import restrictions;
has called public hearings on the subject
for March 10 and 11. It is to be hoped
that fact and reason will prevail over
mispropaganda at this hearing and that
the administration will finally see fit to
remove the wasteful and burdensome re-
strictions on the importation of this
essential commodity.
In closing, I want to go on record by
saying that we in New England are sick
and tired of being taken advantage of on
the overall subject of the vital supplies
of energy that we need for our economy.
While I have confined most of flay re-
marks to my State, Rhode Island, ac-
cording to my calculations residual fuel
oil import restrictions are causing every
New England consumer of electric
power and energy to pay higher costs.
A conservative annual estimate of the
tribute being paid to the selfish and pros-
perous coal mine owners by New England
is in excess of $15 million per year. At
a time when we are fighting for our
economic life, not only in the domestic
United States of America, but also in
world markets, there is no justification
for this, tribute. Also, the taxpayers of
New England will now have to help
finance the Appalachia program. While
I have,the greatest sympathy for the
unemployed people in that area, the basic
cause of their unemployment is the
automation program adopted by the
Coal ,ii it a owners, the result of which is
that one miner can now do the work
that three miners did 10 years ago.
While we are on this subject of tribute,
according to the report to the President
by the Petroleum Study Committee dated
September 4, 1962:
It has been estimated that complete
abandonment of controls could lead to a
reduction in the price of domestic crude oil
of $1 per barrel (approximately the world
price) since the total demand for petroleum
products in the United States is approxi-
mately 3.5 billion barrels annually, it is
apparent that the present system of con-
trols involves a large cost to consumers.
New England consumers are being
forced to share this burden. Finally,
even though residual fuel is a byproduct
of the domestic oil industry, some mis-
guided domestic producers have joined
forces with the coal industry and are
fighting the importation of residual fuel
oil which is in such dire short supply in
this country. These same producers are
all fat cats because of the 271/2-percent
depletion allowances.
I think it is about time that we in New
England stood up and fought for our
rights. If we do not get at least some
relief by the elimination of residual fuel
oil import restrictions, then we all should
take a second look at the subsidies that
are being given to both domestic coal
and oil by the long-suffering New
Englander taxpayer.
(Mr. YATES (at the request of Mr.
GIBBONS) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
[Mr. YATES' remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
PLACING AGRICULTURE ON MORE
EQUAL FOOTING WITH OTHER
SEGMENTS IN THE ECONOMY
(Mr. REDLIN (at the request of Mr.
GIBBONS) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. REDLIN. Mr. Speaker, unlike
other producers, the individual farmer
cannot control the supply or the price
of his commodity, because he is one of
millions producing a homogeneous prod-
uct. This economic fact is painfully
typical of the wheatgrower, who watches
helplessly as supplies mount and prices
drop, while the cost of living soars up-
ward.
In the farm program we have devised
a mechanism to achieve supply adjust-
ment and a more equitable return for the
farmer. We have a duty to review the
farm programs constantly, with an eye
toward improvement.
Under existing programs, the farmer
is falling behind the general prosperity
pace. As a grain- and livestock-farm op-
erator, I have experienced the cost-price
squeeze. I have watched farm income
remain the same or decrease, and at the
same time, have observed the upward
trend of real estate taxes, labor cosst, and
prices for machinery and supplies.
Today, I am joining with the_ gentle-
man from Texas, Congressman GRAHAM
PURCELL, ' chairman of my Wheat Sub-
committee, in introducing legislation that
focuses attention on the cost-price
squeeze. The bill writes into the law an
"escalator" to link price supports with
the general price level. Each year, auto-
matic adjustment would be made to re-
flect changes in the economy.
Mr. Speaker, in industry many labor
contracts provide for salaries to follow
the cost-of-living index. The farmer
should be entitled to similar considera-
tion.
In extending the voluntary wheat cer-
tificate program, the legislation we are
introducing today would insure the
wheatgrowers a $2.50 return on the
share of his production consumed in the
United States for food, restoring the
principle that the farmer is entitled to
full parity. The bill provides for a 25-
cent certificate on his share of export
wheat for a minimum of 500 million
bushels.
In addition, the "escalator" adjust-
ments would be made automatically each
year to key wheat income to the rhythm
of the general economy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this proposal has
good potential for meeting the cost-price
squeeze and placing agriculture on a
more equal footing with other segments
in the economy.
THE LATE TIM CONWAY
(Mr. SWEENEY (at the request of
Mr. GIBBONS) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, it is
with deep humility and sadness that I
speak of a man who was known to all
in our hometown of Cleveland, Ohio, as
Tim Conway.
Timothy J. Conway has passed from
this life and his going has left a void in
the community and in the hearts of his
friends and fellow citizens.
We all knew Tim Conway as a man of
great spirit and deep faith. He was a
man in the great American tradition
who, through his own drive and ambi-
tion, attained success in life and who,
through his sense of obligation and re-
sponsibility, devoted his outstanding
talents to the betterment of his commu-
nity and fellow man.
Tim was a dedicated Christian and
leading Catholic layman who was award-
ed papal honors as a knight of St.
Gregory in 1963. He found great satis-
faction in helping hundreds of needy
through his position as director of Catho-
lic Charities Corp. of the diocese of Cleve-
land.
As a civic leader, Tim Conway utilized
his talent for organization in many ways.
He was director for years of our fine
Cleveland zoo and an active supporter in
its development.
Tim's interest in sports was well
known. From a youthful sandlot player
he became treasurer of the arena and of
the Cleveland Hockey Club. He was a
major stockholder in the Indians, and it
pleased his fine Irish humor to note that
he could again get into the games free,
referring to the days as a boy that he
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 16, 1965
and his pals would sneak into the old
league park. His concern in helping the
youth of Cleveland was evident in his
support of a sandlot team, which was
called the terror of the leagues.
Tim Conway displayed his ambition
and business acumen early in life when
he joined the Fisher Foods Co. 50 years
ago as a $16-a-year clerk, and his great
drive and energy brought many improve-
ments in the operations of his company,
which grew to become a $100 million
business as he rose to become president
of the company.
This man, Timothy J. Conway, was
one of those rare persons who whole-
heartedly gave of himself. Thousands
of those whose lives he touched, directly
or indirectly,, join in paying homage to
him and in extending heartfelt sym-
pathy to his family, whom we hope will
take comfort inthe knowledge that their
grief and loss is shared by many.
barely the average of the past 10 years.
It is painfully apparent that that aver-
age is too low. Thousands of wheat-
growers are on the verge of losing their
farms.
If we are to continue to enjoy the
fruits of abundance produced at low
cost through our system of efficient fam-
ily farms, we are going to have to pay
an American price for the wheat we eat.
Much of the world regards American
agriculture as the supreme achievement
of our people and Government working
together. We can no longer afford to
see efficient farm producers short-
changed in our marketplaces.
Today, the parity level at which wheat
should be selling is in excess of $2.50
per bushel. We can no longer afford to
pay less for wheat for domestic use.
Wheatgrowers can no longer afford to
subsidize consumers to the extent they
have in the past.
The time has come that we must pay
that price. If that price is translated
into an increase of 1 cent per loaf in the
price of bread, it will mean each of us
paying only $1.35 per year to continue
to buy food at less real cost than the
people of any other country pay. It will
be the financial salvation for thousands
of family farms.
The alternative Is clear in the financial
statements of wheatgrowers, and in the
analysis of the men who lend them
money with which to farm.
Farmers have made a supreme effort
to meet the financial challenge of a con-
stant price level for their production.
They have increased yields per acre of
wheat by 50 percent since 1950. The
gains they might have made have been
offset by increased costs for almost
everything they buy in increased quan-
tities in order to raise production.
Without an American price for an Amer-
ican farm product, thousands of efficient,
hard-working wheatgrowers can no
longer survive.
The mechanism to accomplish this
imperative need Is already in existence.
A few simple changes in the voluntary
wheat certificate plan in effect for 1964
and 1965 can provide the price wheat-
growers must have to survive.
than offset by the increased value of the
domestic wheat marketing certificates.
The price support for wheat not, ac-
companied by marketing certificates
would be at a level to be set in considera-
tion of two factors, the world price of
wheat, and the feeding value of wheat
in relation to support levels for feed
grains.
The cost in terms of prices to consum-
ers would be small. The savings in costs
of Government operation of the program
would be substantial.
With these changes, the program can
provide farmers cooperating in the vol-
untary certificate plan a price they must
have to continue producing. It will be
THE WHEAT ACT OF 1965
(Mr. PURCELL (at the request of Mr.
GIBBONS) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Speaker, during
most of the past 20 years, America's
wheatgrowers have been subsidizing
those of us who eat bread. Last year,
as almost 20 years ago, the farmer's re-
turn on the wheat in the bread we eat
was less than 3 cents a loaf.
But during that period, the price of
bread has climbed steadily. The mar-
keting spread has increased over 80 per-
cent. Had farmers received an equal
share in that increase, they would be
receiving nearly $4 per bushel for the
wheat in the bread Americans eat.
That price-for wheat covered by do-
mestic wheat marketing certificates-
stands instead at barely $2 per bushel.
It is clearly apparent that farmer's prices
have not governed bread prices.
Without a wheat program it is prob-
able that the farmer's average price
would be near 90 cents per bushel for the
wheat he could market.
Over 50 percent of all wheatgrowers,
with about 75 percent of the Nation's
wheat acreage have chosen to partici-
pate in the voluntary wheat certificate
plan during the 2 years it has been
available.
The merits of the voluntary program
are widely recognized. The concepts of
the program are more acceptable to
farmers than were those of the manda-
tory control plan, which was rejected in
the last wheat referendum.
The cost to the Government of oper-
ating this program is about $300 million
less per year than we have been paying
in recent years. The certificate pro-
visions raised farm income by $450 mil-
lion above the level otherwise in pros-
pect for 1964. Similar results are In
prospect for the 1965 crop. Through
voluntary acreage diversion and in-
creased exports we have cut the burden-
some surplus of wheat by 36 percent
since 1961.
Farm income from wheat at a level of
$2.2 billion again this year as last, Is
Today, I am introducing a bill that can
effect those vital and imperative changes.
The bill is proposed as the Wheat Act of
1965 to continue, indefinitely, the volun-
tary wheat certificate plan along the
lines of the program we have had for the
past 2 years.
Important changes in the present leg-
islation would, however, be provided.
First, the price of wheat for domestic
use would be set at $2.50 per bushel for
1966. Thereafter, adjustment would be
made as the Secretary determined to be
appropriate, taking into consideration
any change in the gross average hourly
earnings for manufacturing labor.
In addition, a 25-cent export certifi-
cate on a minimum of 500 million bushels
would be available to growers participat-
ing in the program.
There would be one other major
change, in that the diversion payment
plan would be eliminated. This would
result in a further cut in Government
costs for the program but would be more
STATEMENT ON VIETNAM
(Mr. NIX (at the request of Mr. GIB-
BoNs) was granted permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to Include extraneous matter.)
Mr. NIX. Mr. Speaker, I feel it incum-
bent upon me to bring certain pertinent
observations to the attention of my col-
leagues and to the citizens of our coun-
try who are deeply interested in our rela-
tionship with Vietnam.
There are many loyal and outstanding
Americans in my district, which is the
Second District of Pennsylvania, who feel
that immediate negotiations is the proper
method of solving one of the most serious
situations that the world faces today.
I. therefore, incorporate their views as
a part of my own statement.
The explosive situation in Vietnam
which now threatens the peace of the
world grew out of the failure to stabilize
the area along the lines proposed by the
Geneva Agreements of 1954. Following
the French defeat, the country was di-
vided along the 17th parallel and an ex-
change of populations took place. The
Geneva agreements provided for free
elections to be held in South Vietnam in
1956 and ruled that no foreign troops
were to be introduced. While the United
States was not a signatory, we agreed to
abide by these conditions.
It was in the hope of encouraging the
development of a popular, democratic,
and stable government in South Vietnam
that the United States took up Its role in
that blood-soaked country, supporting
Ngo Dinh Diem as its Premier.
Historical, political, religious, and sec-
tional factors have prevented the devel-
opment we sought. It is clear now that
the Diem government was an obstacle
to the political and economic reforms
the South Vietnam people desperately
needed. Had these reforms been insti-
tuted, it is unlikely that the Vietcong
could have developed their present
strength, nor gained the popular support
they now obviously command.
Because of opposition by the Diem
government, the free elections scheduled
for 1956 did not take place. For the first
6 years after 1954, despite the develop-
ment of civil war, we limited ourselves to
the small number of advisers permitted
under the Geneva agreement. But be-
tween 1961 and 1964, the character of our
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3
 Mach f6, 19fi5 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4989
and quantitatively, until now there are
23,000 American troops in Vietnam-a
clear violation of the prohibitions we
agreed to in supporting the Geneva
agreement. By whatever name we call
it, we are now involved in an undeclared
war in Vietnam whose potentialities for
escalation and for involvement with both
the Chinese and Russians must make
every thinking person pause to reflect.
Senator FRANK CHURCH, of Idaho, re-
minded us in a speech in the Senate, Feb-
ruary 17, that even in Korea, where the
United. States lost 157,000 dead and
wounded and spent $18 billion, we had to
go to the conference table.
We have learned in Europe that there
are sharp and specific differences be-
tween the Communist and Socialist
states, although all were once considered
mobile satellites of Russia. Yet, we have
made no such considerations or deduc-
tions relevant to southeast Asia. We
must realize that the Vietnamese, as well
as citizens of other countries on the Chi-
nese border, have feared and mistrusted
the Chinese for centuries and that their
desire to become dominated by China is
hinged only to the last resort: they must
have China to side with them in a war.
Nowhere in the world today is it realis-
tic to generalize about the Communists
in a brush stroke, or to think of com-
munism only in terms of the power plays
made by Stalin after World War II.
Senator CHURCH stated in his February
17 speech:
The reasons why our policy has tailed to
produce the desired results in so many parts
of Asia and Africa is that there is so different
an attitude in Asia and Africa toward the
Western World. These continents have just
emerged from centuries of colonial bondage.
We must reconcile ourselves to this
fact.
We have expressed fear that accom-
modation to the natural forces that ex-
ist in Vietnam would mean "losing face."
We must very soon realize'that this no-
tion is incorrect, that accommodating a
Vietnam deciding its own destiny is the
only way to save face. I think French
Premier .Charles de Gaulle offers us the
best example of 'graceful withdrawal.
Certainly no ally of ours is more can-
scious of prestige and saving face. He
did know when it was time to free France
from a bloody and costly war, and to al-
low Algeria to work out its own system
of self-government. Among our lead-
ers who were aware of the realistic neces-
sity for France to face up to its respon-
sibility and negotiate a settlement in Al-
geria was Senator John Kennedy, whose
speech for a free Algeria could be ap-
plicableto Vietnam today.
Is it possible that Ho Chi Minh could
control 5,000 Vietcong troops who have
moved into South Vietnam, even if he
wanted , to? And what of the 35,000
harC-eo;e fighters of the Vietcong? It
was they who fought the French before
and are now fighting us. Can we con-
sider them so tightly tied to Hanoi or to
Peiping or to Moscow? I think not.
This is a guerrilla war and the guerrilla
troops are Vietnamese.
To these who think that now is not,
the time to negotiate a peace settlement,
No. 4e---8
Secretary General U Thant, February
24. In his plea for negotiations now, he
asserted, the American public does not
know all the facts, stating that "in times
of war and of hostilities the first casualty
is truth." In urging negotiations, he
did not advocate an immediate with-
drawal of American troops from South
Vietnam. He said that stability had
to be established first. Nevertheless,
chances for a settlement grow dimmer
with each passing day, for no talk of set-
tlement is brought to the conference
table.
As our bombing moves into the north,
it becomes more likely that Vietnam will
have to respond militarily. Our business
of reprisal raids which destroy a greater
amount of human life and property than
were destroyed in the Vietcong raid orig-
inally, unfortunately lead us to think of
the retaliation of the Nazis during World
War II, when they killed 10 members of
the French resistance whenever a Ger-
man soldier was killed. I am not saying
that our responses recently were even
nearly as inhumane in intent as the
Nazi's retaliations, but I do remind you
that this kind of total retaliation to peo-
ple fighting for a cause can only intensify
the struggle materially and psychologi-
cally and, in this case, when a settlement
must inevitably be hoped for in the
hearts of all of us, this procedure only
lessens the chances for peace.
In response to bombings, the Vietcong
is best able to strike on the ground, and
very possibly is able to successfully strike
the capital, Saigon. And if we send in
American troops, we can expect Chinese
troops. Then we must contend with
China, whether on the battlefield or at
the conference table. With a spreading
war, negotiation becomes more difficult
and use of nuclear weapons becomes a
more likely and monstrous possibility.
We who want peace, and who refuse to
admit that a major war is inevitable,
must see that now is the point in time
when we must come to grips with the
possibilities for peace. Conference table
sessions have never been so eminently
needed.
A cease-fire should not require an im-
mediate withdrawal of troops, until such
time as the United Nations can shoulder
more of the existing responsibilities. A
peace with these conditions, retention of
Americans in South Vietnam, should be
negotiated now and the troops must be
the emissaries of this peace. This is the
way to save face.
RACIAL BIAS, BRUTALITY IS A
NATIONAL TRAGEDY
(Mr. MOELLER (at the request of Mr.
GIBBONS) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter
Mr. MOELLER. 'Mr. Speaker, ' the
President of the United States spoke last
night for all responsible Americans when
he declared that there must be no fur-
ther delay or compromise in the struggle
to extend full voting rights to those of
dark.
I support the proposed legislation to
insure equal voting rights for all qualified
men and women. I support it line by
line, paragraph by paragraph and sec-
tion by section. I support the spirit and
substance of this long overdue and
critically needed measure. And I stand
ready, willing, and anxious to accept the
President's challenge that we work long
hours, nights, and weekends to pass it
into law.
It is a national tragedy that legislation
of this kind is required at all. The Con-
stitution of the United States already
guarantees our people the right to vote,
regardless of color and regardless of place
of residency. The Constitution does not
say that the State of Alabama or the
State of Mississippi, for example, are ac-
corded special dispensation to trample
on the rights of Negro citizens.
Article 15 of the Constitution does
specifically state, in language easy to un-
derstand: that
1. The right of the citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State on ac-
count of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
2. The Congress shall have the power to
enforce this article by appropriate legisla-
tion.
Let Congress heed the command of the
Constitution. For the right to vote has
been denied to Negro citizens for decade
after decade, for generation after gen-
eration. It has been denied them by sub-
terfuge and by trickery. It has been
denied them through naked aggression
and soul-searing repression. It is being
denied them today in Selma, Ala., and all
the other Selmas of America.
I have nothing but admiration for the
wave after wave of Negroes that have
marched resolutely against tear gas
bombs and police dogs, who have will-
ingly risked death, injury, and Imprison-
ment to secure what is already theirs-
the right to vote.
And I have nothing but contempt, last-
ing and utter contempt for the bitter and
cruel little men, the rabble-rousers and
spreaders of hate and dissension who
have drawn the line in the dust and de-
creed that come hell or high water the
Negro will go on being treated as little
more than cattle.
The United States is one nation, in-
divisible. The entire country suffers
when a good man is beaten to death in
Alabama, when three young Americans
are murdered in Mississippi for the
"crime" of practicing Americanism,
when the civil liberties of a whole race
are violated.
The United States, as a whole; suffers
when the Wallaces and the Barnetts and
other men of their ilk defy the Constitu-
tion and all that it stands for.
These "ugly Americans" glibly try to
defend their irresponsible actions by cry-
ing "States rights" and by charging that
the civil rights movement is a "Commu-
nist Plot." But there is no defense
against the deliberate provocation of
hate and dissension, there is no defense
against wanton brutality, there is no de-
fense against the systematic enslavement
of an entire race of people.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Marc'16, 1965'
The outright falsehood that the civil
rights movement is being, directed by the
Communists has been demolished by no
less an authority than the Honorable J.
Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and this Nation's
foremost expert on the workings of com-
munism. He said this in a speech as
recently as December 12, 1964, in New
York City:
Let me emphasize that the American civil
rights movement Is not, has never been,
dominated by the Communists-because the
overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders
in this country, both Negro and white, have
recognized and rejected communism as a
menace to the freedoms of all.
But Mr. Hoover did say, in the same
speech:
We must be ever alert to the activities of
the Klu Klux Klan and the racist groups
that would trample upon the rights of their
fellow man. These cowardly jackals, who
attack only the weak and the outnumbered,
have earned the contempt of every genuine
American. * * * Concerted effort, under-
standing, logic, and reason must prevail over
hate, bigotry, and intolerance.
Mr. Speaker, I subscribe to every word
said by Mr. Hoover in this connection.
I say myself that the Wallaces and the
Barnetts are doing more to aid the cause
of communism than all the imaginary
Communist agents that they profess to
see in the civil rights movement.
Now, I repeat my strong support of the
administration's voter registration bill.
I think also that the time has long since
come when the Federal Government
must move and move promptly to guar-
antee the safety of all our people.
I think that the murder or beating of
any American exercising his right of
petition under the Constitution should be
made a Federal crime. It is obvious
that some States have no intention of
prosecuting the "cowardly jackal" that
Mr. Hoover referred to in his speech of
December 12.
I think that State officials themselves
who maliciously and willfully defy the
Constitution and the Courts should be
dealt with in the same manner as any
other individual who commits crimes
against the Government.
In short, the time has come to serve
unmistakable notice that the greatest
government on earth no longer will per-
mit the subjugation and degradation of
the citizens it is sworn to protect.
The racial issue has been fanned, en-
flamed, and kept alive for more than 100
years now by self-serving extremists
and "supremacy" organizations. They
have succeeded in pitting race against
race and region against region. They
have made a mockery of the only reason
this country was founded-wand that
reason, unique in history, was to
"establish justice, insure domestic tran-
quility, and secure the blessings of liber-
ty to ourselves and our posterity."
But a full 20 percent of our people are
strangers to equal justice; 20 percent of
our people do not live in tranquility; 20
percent of our people have been rigidly
denied the blessings of liberty.
This Nation has been able to find ways
to plumb the ocean depths and explore
the mysteries of the universe; it has dis-
covered cures formany "incurable" dis-
eases and has succeeded in harnessing
the energy of nature and putting it to
work for the good of mankind. Our
America has grown and progressed
and prospered as no other country has
since the dawn of history.
But, we still have not learned the sim-
ple truth of the Golden Rule; we still
have not learned to live in peace and
harmony with our fellow citizens; we
still blindly refuse to recognize the dig-
nity of man.
I am convinced, however, that the
darkness of intolerance and bigotry is
waning. I think that good people every-
where-North and South-are just plain
sick and tired of the bate and suspicion
and disunity that comes in unending
torrents from sick and twisted minds.
America has accomplished much in the
last 180 years. But its greatest and
most desirable accomplishment still lies
ahead, just over the horizon. And that
accomplishment will be the binding up of
the wounds that split and divide our
country. Then we can get on about the
business of making this truly the land
of liberty and opportunity. Most Amer-
icans will settle for nothing less.
SITUS PICKETING BILL
(Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey (at
the request of Mr. GIBBONS) was granted
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include extra-
neous matter.)
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, the situs picketing bill which I
have introduced today has been pending
before the Congress`of the United States
for many years. The problem to which it
is addressed arose in April 1949, when
the National Labor Relations Board made
its unfortunate decision in the Denver
Building and Construction Trades case
(82 NLRB 1195). From that date, some
16 years ago, the injunctive processes of
the courts have been employed to limit
seriously the economic rights of the trade
unions in the building and construction
industry.
A situs picketing bill to restore the eco-
nomic rights of the building and con-
struction trades unions has been pending
before the Congress for many years.
Such legislation has received strong sup-
port from both sides of the aisle. I refer
to the message of President Eisenhower
dated January 11, 1954, in which he rec-
ommended "that the act be clarified by
making it explicit that concerted action
against an employer on a construc-
tion project who, together with other
employers, is engaged in work on the site
of the project, will not be treated as a
secondary boycott." Similar messages
were sent on January 23, 1958, and Jan-
uary 28, 1959.
'rhe bill has, of course, had the strong
support of both the Kennedy and John-
son administrations.
It will be recalled that a commitment
was made during the course of the en-
actment of Landrum-Griffin for the con-
sideration of this legislation by the
House and the Senate. This commit-
ment was made formally on the pages
of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Septem-
ber 3, 1959, when then Senator Kennedy,
our late President, stated:
I have received the assurances of the ma-
jority leader [Mr. Johnson] and the minority
leader [Mr. D1nKSEN] that if the Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare reports the bill
[aitus picketing bill] they will schedule it.
Likewise, both the Speaker of the House [the
late Mr. Rayburn] and Representative HAL-
LEcx have said that they will use their in-
fluence to secure a rule for the consideration
of the bill if the House Committee on Edu-
cation and Labor reports it. (Dally Cox-
GRESIONAL RECORD, Thursday, Sept. 3, 1959,
p. 16416.)
The bill came on for consideration by
the House Committee on Education and
Labor which favorably reported the bill
in report No. 1556 of the 86th Congress,.
2d session-parts 1 and 2. The legisla-
tion did not proceed further, however,
because of a difference within the labor
movement concerning the drafting of
certain words in the bill.
I am pleased to state that at the recent
Executive Council Meeting of the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor-Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations an agreement
was reached between the various groups
in the labor movement on the drafting of
the bill. Specifically, the Building and
Construction Trades Department has
agreed with the Industrial Union De-
partment on the resolution of the issue
and the executive council of the AFL-
CIO has approved the agreement and
stated its support for the legislation.
There is substantial opinion that the
Supreme Court of the United States may
have relied too heavily on the adminis-
trative expertise of the National Labor
Relations Board in its decision of the
Denver Building Trades case. It must
be remembered that the Denver Building
Trades case arose early in the adminis-
tration of the act by the National Labor
Relations Board.
Perhaps the clearest legal justification
for the bill is to be found in the excellent
legal reasoning stated by Judge Fahy, a
former General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and a former
Solicitor General of the United States,
who wrote the unanimous opinion of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in this very Denver Building
and Construction Trades Council case
wherein Judge Fahy concluded that the
picketing at the site of construction was
not a true secondary boycott. Judge
Fahy stated the issue and its appro-
priate resolution as follows:
The final problem, therefore, is to deter-
mine whether the action here was of a sec-
ondary or primary character. If the former
the Board properly ordered its cessation. If
the latter its order should not be approved.
The usual secondary boycott or strike is
against one who is not a party to the original
dispute. It is designed to cause a neutral
to cease doing business with, or to bring
pressure upon the one with whom labor has
the dispute. It seeks to enlist this outside
influence to force an employer to make peace
with the employees or labor organization
contesting with him. The situation before
us is not of this character. The picketing
and resulting strike were at the premises
of the contractor where the subcontractor's
men were at work... It grew out of a contro-
versy over the conduct of the contractor
in participating in the bringing of the non-
union men onto the job as well as over the
conduct of the electrical subcontractor in
employing them. The purpose of the council
was to render the particular job all union.
It was not to require [electrical subcon-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160018-3