RULE CHANGE RELATING TO INTRODUCTION OF IMMIGRATION BILLS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 2, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 12, 1969
• Content Type: OPEN

It
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
March 12, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
would put an end to the rising mood of tax-
payer distrust and discontent. Former Secre-
tary of the Treasury Barr, in what has be-
come a widely quoted remark, spoke of a po-
tential taxpayers' revolt. Such a rebellion
would come not from the poor but from the
middle-class, and it would be in reaction to
the widespread avoidance of taxes by wealthy
individuals and wealthy corporations.
Those citizens earning between $7,000 and
$20,000 who pay the great proportion of our
taxes do not, it seems to me, expect to have
their own tax burdens significantly lightened
by any reforms which would impose mini-
mum income taxes on wealthy individuals
paying at present no or virtually no federal
income taxes. What these people want in-
stead is to feel that the tax laws are .not
instruments designed to favor the rich at
the expense of middle-income earners. No
right-thinking citizen can fail to condemn
as unjust and wasteful a tax system which
allowed 155 individuals with adjusted gross
incomes in excess of $200,000 and 21 individ-
uals with adjusted gross incomes in excess of
$1 million to pay no Federal incomes what-
soever in 1968.
My minimum income tax bill is designed
to close down those "tax shelters" most com-
monly used by wealthy individuals and
wealthy corporations to avoid paying a full
share of the Federal income tax burden. Yet,
recognizing that these tax deduction and
tax exemption provisions serve valuable eco-
nomic and social functions, I believe that
the minimum tax rate should be a moderate
one, substantially less than the much steeper
rate which would be levied on large net in-
dividual and corporate incomes under the
current tax rate schedules.
Accordingly, I recommend a minimum tax
rate of 20% for both individuals and corpo-
rations.
An effective minimum income tax must be
a broad gauge one. The "tax shelters" which
are most commonly used and most often
abused by the wealthy must be brought un-
der the jurisdiction of this minimum tax.
A narrowly constructed minimum tax might
serve only to drive untaxed income from one
tax shelter to another tax shelter.
Accordingly, an effective minimum income
tax should serve to neutralize those provi-
sions in our tax laws which wealthy individ-
uals and corporations utilize to avoid tax
liability. These are:
1. The unlimited charitable contribution
deduction.
2. The exclusion of interest on tax-exempt
State and municipal bonds.
3. Charitable contributions of appreciated
property where the contribution deduction
includes gains which have not been taxed to
the individual.
4. Percentage depletion derived from in-
come from the extractive industries.
5. Large amounts of income taxed at capi-
tal gains rates.
6. Depreciation on real estate making use
of the accelerated depreciation rates as op-
posed to the straight line method of de-
preciation.
7. Farm losses which have been offset
against non-farm income by individuals or
corporations only peripherally involved in
farming.
8. Credits allowed individuals and corpo-
rations for taxes imposed by foreign coun-
tries.
I recommend to the Committee my own
minimum income tax bill (H.R.7744) as a
bill incorporating the two ingredients most
essential to any effective and equitable min-
isnuni income tax bill: a moderate tax rate
and a broad income base.
IT. I support the recommendations of the
Treasury Department regarding individual
income tax relief for persons in poverty.
Under today's law single individuals and
all but the largest families may be subject
to income tax even though they are living
in poverty. This results from the fact that
the present Individual exemptions and stand-
ard deductions are lower than the poverty
income levels. There is thus a clear case of
the need for tax relief at these income levels.
The most effective way to provide relief at
low income levels and to concentrate the
associated revenue loss at such levels is
through an increase in the minimum stand-
ard deduction.
Accordingly, I support the Treasury rec-
ommendation that the minimum standard
deduction be increased from the present $200
plus $100 for each allowable exemption to
$600 plus $100 for each allowable exemption
(subject to the same overall limit of $1,000
that exists under present law). Out of the
2.2 million families in poverty who are sub-
ject to Federal income tax under present law,
about 1.2 million would become nontaxable
and the remaining 1 million would receive
tax reductions.
PRAISE FOR REPRESENTATIVE
RICHARD POFF'S DAUGHTER
(Mr. WAMPLER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Speaker, when
the news is headlined by stories of dem-
onstrations on college campuses, I think
the recent article about Representative
P0FF's daughter Becky is particularly re-
freshing. I submit it for reprinting in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from the Roanoke
World-News of March 7, 1969, so that
my colleagues may also enjoy it.
No LIMELIGHT FOR BECKY POFF
(By Sandra Kelly)
"Just a politician's daughter" is the way
Becky Poff, 21, likes to think of herself.
The psychology senior at Roanoke College,
daughter of Rep. Richard Poff and newly
engaged, prefers to "stand back and be
proud of Daddy because about the only ex-
citing thing I've done is be his daughter."
Becky says her father always tried to pro-
tect the family and keep it out of the lime-
light as much as possible. "We cherish our
hours together and our idea of real fun is
bouncing around Fairfax County in Daddy's
old jeep. It's a man's jeep . no springs in
the back ... but we're really a family when
we get those moments together."
And Rep. "Daddy" Poll has kept out of
Becky's domain as much as possible too-
except for fairly strict rules ("I was the only
high school senior who had to be in by
midnight.")
Until he accepted an invitation to speak
at Roanoke College's commencement exer-
cise this year. Rep. Poff had "never spoken
anywhere" for his daughter mainly because
she'd "never asked him. I wouldn't want to
take credit for anything he had done."
Becky, who recently announced her en-
gagement to Jay Marshall, descendant of
Chief Justice John Marshall and a young
man "who didn't impress me much at first,"
is a quiet young woman who sees herself as
the calm, college type as opposed to the pro-
tester of today.
She has been spending her college time
working at the local rehabilitation center
and the Veteran's Hospital "to help with
tuition" and taking part in Young Republi-
can activities where she's "always embar-
rassed if I'm recognized."
Her only protest was toward fiancee Jay
who confidently said the first time he spied
Becky, "Someday, you're going to be mine."
"All I could think was well, what is this?"
she laughs now.
Becky is "surprised" by protesting on
campuses. She's surprised that students go
to such extremes. "If they really feel this
that's excellent, but I don't like the way
they're going about it."
"You can't swing the pendulum all the
H 1629
way," she says, "and you can't get to the
older generation by demonstrations. Fuss-
ing, screaming and yelling get you nowhere.
It's sitting down and talking that helps.
"It would frighten me," she adds, "if some
of these young people (the extreme pro-
testers) get into major offices someday."
The Radford native would never like to be
"active" in politics; probably, she admits,
because she is a politician's daughter. "I'd
rather listen to a man than a woman politi-
cian and I could never comprehend a woman
president.
"I'm going to be a homebody and raise
children," Becky says.
She believes her fear of politics goes back
to when she would attend debates and meet-
ings with her father "and listen to the heck-
lers."
"It bothered me," she says, "and I had to
grow up to accept it."
Becky believes that when you miss things
you cherish them all the more when they
are available. She never spent a whole year
in the same school-having to move to the
Washington area when Congress was in ses-
sion. Her family had little time together
because of Rep. Poll's busy life.
So now, she works at school and family
togetherness, cares nothing for Washington's
political and social life and likes a quiet
date sitting at home talking.
Becky admits she's "old fashioned," and
she was delighted that Jay followed an al-
most forgotten tradition and asked her
father for permission to marry her before he
asked her.
"In fact, he didn't ask me for sometime.
He lost his nerve when it came to me,"
she says.
Becky, who holds a "senior key" giving
freedom of leaving and entering the domi-
tory at odd hours, says she has no trouble
"regulating" herself. "I'm so scared I'll lose
my key that I pin it to my sweater with a
safety pin."
And she has no sympathy for those who
are expelled from college for misuse of priv-
ileges.
Becky has now had the opportunity of
casting her vote for the first time. She
doesn't believe she was ready to vote at 18,
but agrees that "maybe the boys who are
drafted should be able to."
She is a member of Chi Omega, the Good-
win Society and was section editor for the
yearbook at the college.
But Becky has had little chance to talk
politics with her father. "We don't discuss
issues," she explains. "He does talk to my
friends about youth, trying to understand
the problems of today.
"But he doesn't understand because of the
generation gap," she adds. "He can say,
though, that I don't know but I can tell
you what the young people say."
That's one of the reasons she likes being
"just Daddy's daughter."
RULE CHANGE RELATING TO INTRO-
DUCTION OF IMMIGRATION BILLS
(Mr. CAHILL asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to explain to the Congress
a change in the rules of the Immigration
and Nationality Subcommittee of Uiie
Judiciary"-Comm,i ee- WTfi-cH" iii have a
sub=aitiaTfc upon private immigra-
tion legislation.
This change has become necessary to
protect the integrity of our immigration
system. I am firmly convinced that the
new rule will be welcomed by the Mem-
bers as an important measure of relief
from increasingly heavy pressure to in-
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
troduce private bills without merit and
lacking in the equities necessary for
ultimate enactment into law.
The new rule approved yesterday by
the House Committee on the Judiciary
simply provides that hereafter the in-
troduction of private bills for visitors,
exchange visitors and students, will not
stay deportation. In other words, alien
visitors will no longer be permitted to
remain in the United States pending a
final decision upon a private bill in-
troduced to grant them immigrant
status, unless the subcommittee finds
justifiable grounds for an exception. I
assure you Members with meritorious
cases will always be able to petition the
Subcommittee on Immigration for a
waiver of the rule. However, thousands
of aliens whose private bills have no
chance for ultimate favorable decision
will no longer be able to remain in the
United States for long periods taking em-
ployment opportunities away from U.S.
citizens, and subverting our immigra-
tion program.
The abuses to the corrected by this
rule change have multiplied in the last
few years. Initially, the introduction of
a private bill automatically stayed de-
portation in all cases. In 1947, a rule was
adopted that the subcommittee would
not request reports from the Attorney
General-thus staying deportation-on
bills for stowaways, deserting seamen,
and border jumpers. This rule was ini-
tially resisted by some Congressmen but
soon became accepted and actually re-
lieved Congressmen of embarrassing re-
quests for private legislation in weak
cases. In 1967, the rule was broadened to
include those who entered the United
States as transients enroute to third
countries and illegally remain in this
country.
The agreement between the House
committee and the Commissioner of Im-
migration and Naturalization has been
that the Immigration and Naturalization
Service will stay deportation in the case
of any alien-other than a stowaway,
deserting crewman, border crosser, or
transient-who is the subject of a pri-
vate bill introduced in the House on
which the committee has requested a
departmental report. The stay has not
applied in the case of an alien in whose
behalf legislation has been disapproved
by either the House or the Senate com-
mittee unless the disapproving commit-
tee notified the Commissioner that fur-
ther consideration would be given to that
case. Reports were automatically re-
quested, upon receipt of information as
required by rule 4 of the Committee
Rules of Procedure, in all cases except
those as outlined in rules 6 and 11. If
a case was not reached during the Con-
gress in which it was first introduced, the
reintroduction of that bill acted as a
further stay of deportation until such
time as the new Congress has had an
opportunity to consider the case.
In recent years the number of private
immigration bills to grant immigrant
status to aliens who entered the United
States as nonimmigrant visitors has inul-
tiplied to such an extent that the Im-
migration Subcommittee has been unable
to remain current. In the 90th Congress,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1969
6,278 private immigration bills were in-
troduced-the largest number ever in-
troduced in a single Congress. Of this
number, only 216 were found meritorious
and enacted into law. A total of 5,968 pri-
vate bills were introduced in the House
alone and 4,846 were pending-unable
to be reached for decision-when the sec-
ond session ended. At least 85 percent of
these bills were for visitors, exchange
visitors, and students.
Hundreds of those bills were first in-
troduced in the 89th Congress and conse-
quently the subjects have been permitted
to remain in the United States for as
much as 4 years under the protection of
the bill-in most cases after approxi-
mately 1 to 2 years of temporary resi-
dence in this country prior to introduc-
tion. In almost all cases, they are sepa-
rated from the closest members of their
family. Many have wives or husbands
and children residing abroad. Others,
single beneficiaries, have parents abroad
as well as brothers or sisters both here
and abroad.
As you can see, the introduction of
such large numbers of private immigra-
tion raises questions and has significant
consequences.
First, with a total immigration of
170,000 per year authorized by general
law-outside the Western Hemisphere
which had unlimited immigration until
July 1, 1968-to have over 6,000 private
bills-many involving more than one
person-in a 2-year period is a rather
high number of proposed exceptions to
the general law.
Second, unfortunately, it has be-
come increasingly obvious that a large
number of aliens are coming to this
country under the false claim that they
are nonimmigrant visitors when, in fact,
they intend to seek employment and re-
main here permanently. When they are
detected violating their visitor status by
overstaying their authorized stay, and
by taking employment, they importune
Congressmen to introduce a private bill
to grant them immigrant status.
The fact is that, except for a very, very
few, these bills are of a nature that could
not possibly receive favorable action un-
der almost any circumstances. You may
be interested to know that the 90th Con-
gress enacted private immigration bills
benefiting only 10 persons in the catego-
ries of nonimmigrant aliens affected by
the rule change.
Most bills merely buy time for benefici-
aries to stay in the United States and
build up equities or qualify administra-
tively for admission while the subcomit-
tee falls further and further behind in
its docket. That is, a large proportion of
the bills have no chance for ultimate fa-
vorable consideration under established
policies-but by reason of their introduc-
tion they permit some aliens to stay in
the United States, marry U.S. citizens
and take employment, raise U.S. chil-
dren, and as a result, gain preferred
positions for admission under general
law. A situation exists where the intro-
duction of private bills is being used pri-
marily as a delaying tactic to prevent
deportation-bills with no chance of fa-
vorable action but which, by their intro-
duction, buy time during which the ben-
eficiary may qualify under the general
law. The subcommittee has always
looked with disfavor upon such bills since
they would benefit those who violate the
law over aliens who apply for immigrant
status in the home country under the
general law and patiently wait their turn
for admittance.
A final unhappy consequence of the
huge volume of private immigration bills
is that the Immigration Subcommittee
is delayed and obstructed in its consider-
ation of the good and meritorious private
bills and the important task of dealing
with needed changes in the general law.
I suggest that the reasons for the rule
change are obvious and new policy has
been long overdue. Members need have
no fear that the new rule will prejudice
them with respect to private immigra-
tion bills of merit. The rule can be
waived upon showing a good cause. Thus,
if an alien, by reason of an unusual set
of circumstances, has valid and equitable
grounds justifying a private bill, the sub-
committee has procedures whereby de-
portation can be stayed and the member
heard. I can assure you that for my part,
and I am confident I speak for all minor-
ity members, the rights of every member
will be fully protected.
BILL TO LIMIT FARM PAYMENTS
(Mr. FINDLEY asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I
have introduced a bill to redirect toward
more constructive uses some of the tax
money now being invested in farm pro-
gram payments.
My bill has three sections:
First, a provision limiting to $20,000
the aggregate annual payments under
the various farm programs which can be
made to any single farm, and limiting to
$10,000 the annual payment for any
single program.
According to a study completed in the
final months of his administration by
Agricultural Under Secretary John A.
Schnittker, these limitations would
achieve budget savings of about $300 mil-
lion a year "without serious adverse
effects on production or on the effective-
ness of production adjustment pro-
grams."
Second, a provision increasing by $100
million annually the authorization for
food stamps. The present ceiling is $340
million, and my proposal would bring the
total to $440 million for fiscal year 1970
under a comparable increase for the first
6 months of 1971.
Third, a provision increasing by $100
million annually the authorization for
water and sewer system grants to rural
communities under the Farmers Home
Administration. The present ceiling is $50
million annually, and my proposal would
bring the total to $150 million.
If my district is typical, and I believe
it is, every congressional district with
rural areas has many small towns and
villages where water and sewer facilities
are substandard. In fact, several in my
district have been declared by health
authorities to be unfit, but because of
the financial position of the population,
and rising construction costs, modern fa-
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
March 12, 1969
cilities simply cannot be built without
some grant money.
In effect, my bill would take some of
the money now going to millionaire
farmers and spend it in ways more con-
structive to the economic health of rural
America. The money invested in food
stamps would not only help to meet the
nutritional needs of low-income people
throughout the United States. It would
benefit farmers by creating additional
cash markets for their produce.
The money invested in rural com-
munities through grant assistance in
water and sewer improvement would
help meet basic needs for people living
in those communities-many of whom
are elderly and attempting to survive
on social security income. Equally im-
portant, it would make these smaller
communities more attractive as places
for younger people to live and work, and
hopefully attract industrial growth,
which in turn will help to reverse the
trend which concentrates people in ex-
plosive big-city circumstances.
The diversion of funds by the testi-
mony of no less an authority than for-
mer Under Secretary Schnittker will not
impair seriously the effectiveness of exist-
ing commodity programs. At the same
time it will eliminate the anomoly under
some farming interests have collected
annual payments as high as $1 million a
year.
Last year, in connection with my ef-
forts to establish a $20,000 limitation on
payments, I inserted in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD-page H8362, September
9, 1968-a list of each farmer in the
United States receiving in 1967 payments
exceeding $20,000.
Under my bill, these farmers would
continue to be eligible for $20,000 a year
but no more. In my view, it makes sense
to shift some of the above $20,000 in
payments from these individuals to Food
Stamps and rural community develop-
ment.
My proposal also provides relief for
the U.S. Treasury and the citizens who
support it. The limitation would yield a
budget saving of about $300 million, and
after $100 million each is diverted to
Food Stamps and rural community devel-
opment, approximately $100 million a
year would remain for net budget reduc-
tion.
Information concerning the USDA
study of the effect of payment limita-
tions and the attitude of Dr. Schnittker
are set forth in the attached articles, the
first being an Associated Press report
dated Monday, and the second an article
by Burt Schorr which appeared in the
March 3 issue of the Wall Street Journal:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 3, 1969]
BATTLE ON LIMITING U.S. FARM PAYMENTS
LIKELY To BE REVIVED BY AGENCY PROPOSAL
(By Burt Schorr)
WASHINGTON.-The ceiling on Government
payments to farmers could be set as low as
$5,000 per crop program and $10,000 per farm
"without serious adverse effects on produc-
tion or on the effectiveness of production ad-
justment programs."
That's the gist of a proposal worked up by
Agriculture Department Democrats a few
weeks before they left office. It's likely to re-
vive a heated wrangle over limiting Govern-
ment payments to farmers.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1631
The proposal never got beyond a draft pol-
icy statement polished by then Under Secre-
tary John A. Schnittker. The reasons: White
House enthusiasm for a payment-ceiling
study apparently evaporated after the No-
vember election, and Mr. Schnittker's boss,
Secretary Orville Freeman, found it difficult
to reverse his prior public position that pay-
ment limitations would destroy the supply-
management effectiveness of major crop pro-
grams.
But the draft is currently being read with
interest in Congressional and Executive
Branch offices here and seems to offer the
sharpest blade yet for Capitol Hill liberals
bent on cutting back big crop payments to
well-off farmers. The case for payment lids
seems likely to get far wider attention if, as
expected, Mr. Schnittker is called as a Con-
gressional hearing witness later this year.
BREAKDOWN BY CROPS
For one thing, a table appended to the draft
statement supplies the department's first
payment breakdown on producers getting
$10,000 or more under each of the cotton,
feed-grain and wheat programs. Federal pay-
ments to individuals of $5,000 and up from
all the programs combined have been avail-
able for two years. But a breakdown by
crops-considered an essential step in limi-
tations planning-had been lacking.
In 1967-the year on which the Agriculture
Department's calculations were based-cot-
ton payments exceeding $10,000 each went to
nearly 8,200 growers, who accounted for al-
most half of total U.S. cotton production.
The overall cotton payments in excess of the
hypothetical $10,000 ceiling amounted to
$262 million, or more than five times the ex-
cess for wheat and feed grains combined.
Among the recipients was Sen. Eastland; the
Mississippi Democrat and members of his
family collected a total of $211,000 in crop
payments that year, mostly for cotton-pro-
gram participation.
By comparison, only 850 wheat growers,
producing a mere 1% of total U.S. wheat in
1967, received more than $10,000 each in
wheat payments. Similarly, fewer than 4,600
producers of feed grains (primarily corn and
grain sorghums), with about 10% of overall
U.S. production, got more than $10,000.
Based on the findings of this new com-
puter analysis, the Schnittker draft con-
cludes that a payment ceiling as low as
$5,000 per program and $10,000 per farm
could be imposed. But it suggests that a
limit of $10,000 per program or $20,000 per
farm is a more realistic objective.
Budget savings of perhaps $300 million
annually could be expected on the more than
$3 billion Uncle Sam currently pours into
direct farm payments, the Schnittker draft
contends. Advocates of payment limitations
envision money saved in this manner being
reallocated to fatten Government food aid
to the poor or to job training and land re-
tirement for low-income farmers.
As might be expected, top Republican
newcomers pt the Agriculture agency are re-
serving judgment until the Nixon Adminis-
tration has time to investigate payment
ceilings on its own; nonetheless, one of them
confides that if limitations worked as touted,
"we could all be heroes." Even if benefits
from such a program don't live up to expec-
tations, one department economist believes
a limit on payments would be an important
transitional step toward reduced Govern-
ment intervention in commodity market-
ing-a long-term objective of the new Ad-
ministration.
A HANDY TARGET
Whatever the practical arguments, fat
Federal payments, particularly to big cotton
and sugar planters, clearly have become a
handy target for those who charge that farm
subsidies make the rich richer and dont do
enough for poor rural residents. There al-
ready is a $2,500 ceiling on conservation pay-
ments, while the sugar program has a sliding
scale weighted to smaller growers, but no
top limit. Of the five payees receiving more
than $1 million from Uncle Sam in 1967, two
were in the sugar program and three in
cotton.
Last summer, liberal Republicans and
Democrats in the House joined forces to tack
a $20,000 payment ceiling on the bill ex-
tending major crop legislation for one year.
The amendment later was eliminated from
the final House-Senate version, but leaders
in the ceiling fight made it plain they will
raise the issue again. When they do, the
Schnittker draft policy and the crop-by-crop
payments breakdown it discloses are bound
to be wielded as one of their biggest
weapons.
Supporters of the Schnittker draft con-
tend a $10,000 ceiling would affect so few
wheat farmers that there wouldn't be any
significant harm if some of them dropped
out of the program to produce their crop
without regard to Government acreage re-
strictions. The threat of a surplus buildup
resulting from ceilings for feed-grains pay-
ments is somewhat greater, but proponents
of the $10,000 limit contend this can be off-
set by sweetening acreage-diversion induce-
ments for smaller growers.
To make payment limitations as painless
as possible under all three programs, the
draft suggests imposing them gradually over
a three-year period. Wheat and cotton pro-
ducers also might be allowed increases in
their acreage allotments commensurate with
their payment decrease, while feed-grain
producers could be permitted similar reduc-
tions in land diversion required under the
Government program.
Mr. Schnittker believes that, given such
an opportunity, producers of high-quality
cotton in the Mississippi River delta, Arizona
and California, where farms tend to be big
and efficient, would elect to expand acreage.
This is sharply disputed by payment-ceiling
foes. Horace D. Godfrey, former Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service ad-
ministrator who now is Washington repre-
sentative for domestic sugar cane growers, as-
serts total cotton production costs simply are
too high for this to happen.
The counter argument for some depart-
ment economists is that such calculations
are distorted by inflated cotton land values;
they say operating costs, which include fer-
tilizer, seed and labor, would be a better
guide-a view bolstered by continuing pres-
sure from Western growers for increased cot-
ton acreage allotments.
What both sides agree on is that intensive
computer studies are needed to determine
what cotton growers would do when faced
with a ceiling-turn to livestock, perhaps
causing still more rural unemployment;
switch to alternative crops like soybeans or
vegetables, and maybe soften prices for
those commodities; or remain in cotton.
One Government cotton expert believes
there would be a tendency for big landowners
to lease or sell their cotton tracts to bring
payments within any ceiling. Others predict
more troublesome methods of avoiding the
ceiling's effect would develop. Even a $20,000
limitation would produce an "absolute ad-
ministrativee monstrosity," warns Mr. God-
frey, who as ASCS chief oversaw compliance
with crop programs. One of his predictions:
Landowners who lease cotton acres to
tenants and take the Federal payments as
rental might instead opt to give each tenant
the Government cash-thus keeping indi-
vidual payments within the ceiling-and take
all fiber raised as rental.
The Schnittker draft acknowledges that
ceiling-evasion tactics would present "serious
administrative problems." Any ceiling "would
need to be backed up by a firm policy against
such farm-splitting," it adds. "There would
need to be strict, uniformly administrated
regulations to back up the law. As much as
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
H 1632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
one-third to one-half of the potential savings
might otherwise be lost," the draft warns.
Even without such calculated evasion,
farmers who serve on the ASCS committees
in each county might be hard-pressed to de-
termine bone fide changes in family farm
partnerships and small corporations. "It
would be impossible for Washington, for a
state administrative committee, and espe-
cially for a farmer-elected county committee
to distinguish changes for causes other than
those which would be a direct result of pay-
ment limits," the draft states.
But the draft concludes that such prob-
lems aren't decisive and "are not good reasons
for opposing payment lillrits."
SCHNITTKER WOULD LIMIT FARMER AID
Dr. John A. Schnittker, former Under Sec-
retary of Agriculture, says he favored some
type of limitation on Government payments
to farmers during the later years of the John-
son Administration. But he said he kept si-
lent because it would have been against
Democratic policy to speak out.
Johnson farm policies, spearheaded by for-
mer Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Free-
man, were strongly opposed to any ceilings
on direct farm payments, which last year
totaled about $3.5 billion.
Schnittker, an agricultural economist, is
now with the Alfred P. Sloan School of Man-
agement at Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, Mass.
He said in a telephone interview yesterday
that when large surpluses of major crops such
as wheat, cotton and feed grains existed in
the early 1960s "there was some merit in op-
posing payment limitations," but that after
1964 or so when stockpiles were reduced
"that's when I came around to having some
thoughts about limitations."
Schnittker said he dissented privately with
the Johnson Administration on this subject,
but now, he said, there is need for a public
airing. He said he would be glad to testify at
any Congressional hearings if asked.
Schnittker said that for the first time Con-
gress has enough facts to determine the ques-
tion and that he "would try to show that
limitations would not wreck farm programs."
Freeman and other Johnson farm leaders
contended that restricting payments would
force large-scale farmers from Federal pro-
duction control programs.
SENATOR MILTON YOUNG MARKS
HISTORIC ANNIVERSARY
(Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota
asked and was given permission to ad-
dress the House for 1 minute and to
revise and extend his remarks and in-
clude extraneous matter.)
Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. Mr.
Speaker, on March 12, 1945, MILTON R.
YOUNG, of LaMoure, N. Dak., was ap-
pointed to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Fred
G. Aandahl to fill the vacancy caused
by the death of John Moses.
Prior to that time, he served on the
school township and on his county AAA
boards and was elected to the State house
of representatives in 1932, the State
senate in 1934; was elected president
pro tempore of that body in 1941, and
majority floor leader in 1943.
"Mr. Wheat," as he is affectionately
referred to by the Members of the other
body and by our fellow farmers in North
Dakota, was elected to the U.S. Senate
in 1946 and relected in 1950, 1956, 1962,
and 1968, each time by a large majority
reflecting the love and respect his fellow
North Dakotans have for him.
He is now the second ranking Repub-
lican in the Senate in terms of seniority,
ranking minority member of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and second
ranking on the Agriculture and Forestry
Committee, as well as secretary to the
Republican conference.
Today, on his 24th anniversary in the
Senate, MILTON YOUNG has now served
North Dakota in Congress longer than
any other man in the history of our State.
I am pleased to call to the attention of
my colleagues MILTON YOUNG's distin-
guished record of service to our State and
to the Nation.
ANTITRUST LAWS MUST BE
AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR NEW
COMPETITION
(Mr. BELCHER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BELCHER. Mr. Speaker, it is the
purpose and intent of the antitrust laws
to foster and preserve competition
wherever possible. This admirable goal
has been perverted, however, in the ap-
plication of the antitrust laws to news-
papers, and more particularly to joint
operating arrangements. Newspapers
have entered into joint operating ar-
rangements, that is a merging of their
coirunercial functions, when there is not
enough of a market to support com-
mercial competition between them. By
entering such an arrangement, the two
papers are able to preserve two separate
news and editorial voices for the cities
involved.
Obviously, the ideal would be to have
both commercial and editorial competi-
tion. We must recognize, however, the
economic facts of life as they apply to
newspapers. In city after city across the
country newspapers have died and are
dying. They compete for advertising with
TV, radio, weekly shopping guides, maga-
zines, and billboards. There just is not
enough of a market to support full com-
mercial competition by two papers in all
but a very few cities. This economic law
can be neither repealed nor amended.
We still have the opportunity of pro-
viding competition in news and editorial
services. Through the use of joint operat-
ing arrangements, 22 cities today have
such competition, and the "newspaper
preservation bill" would assure that this
competition will continue.
This Nation can ill afford to have a
news voice stilled. Yet, the clear result
of the Supreme Court's decision in the
Tucson newspaper case would be to still
22 such voices. Such a result is contrary
to the intent and purposes of the anti-
trust laws, which must be amended to
provide for news competition.
CHANGES IN RULES OF PROCEDURE
AFFECTING PRIVATE IMMIGRA-
TION BILLS
(Mr. FEIGHAN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, the rules
of procedure for Subcommittee No. IJ-
migration and-Nat' lit , were adopted
ye`ster`day by the Commi ee on the Ju-
March 12, 1969
diciary. There is a significant change in
the rules which I wish to bring to the
attention of the Members of the House.
Prior to the adoption of the new rules,
rule 6 of the rules of procedure stated:
The Subcommittee shall not address to the
Attorney General communications designed
to defer deportation of beneficiaries of private
bills who have entered the United States as
stowaways, in transit, or deserting seamen,
or by surreptiously entering without inspec-
tion through the land or sea borders of the
United States.
Rule 6 has now been amended to in-
clude visitors, exchange visitors, and stu-
dents within the purview of this rule.
Consequently, the introduction of private
immigration legislation in behalf of a
visitor, exchange visitor, and student,
will no longer automatically stay depor-
tation of an alien who has violated the
terms of his admission to the United
States.
This change in the rules was necessi-
tated by the increasing number of private
immigration bills obviously lacking in
merit and introduced merely to stay de-
portation. The subcommittee unani-
mously agreed that it cannot condone
the actions of nonimmigrants who vio-
late their status and then exert every
possible pressure on Members of Con-
gress to have private legislation intro-
duced to stay their deportation.
At this point, let me assure the House
that the rules of procedure furthermore
provide for an exemption from this rule
if the subcommittee determines that the
consideration of a private bill is solely
designed to prevent an extreme hard-
ship. As we have in the past, we shall
continue in the future to give every pos-
sible consideration where the author
submits evidence establishing a need for
private legislation to alleviate or avoid
extreme hardship.
The private immigration bill, as an
extraordinary remedy, should be re-
sorted to only after every possible ad-
ministrative remedy has been exhausted
and there still remains sufficient hard-
ship or unusual circumstances to justify
action by the Congress. During the 90th
Congress, 6,278 private immigration bills
were introduced-the largest in any Con-
gress-and of this number only 216 be-
came private law, 915 were adversely
acted upon for lack of merit or because
they were unnecessary, and 4,846 bills
were left pending.
Eighty-five percent of the private
bills introduced in the last Congress were
in behalf of students, exchange visitors,
and visitors.
The committee has consistently ad-
hered to the policy of not acting favor-
ably on private bills designed to take
one intending immigrant out of turn for
permanent residence to the obvious det-
riment of other immigrants who are
patiently waiting abroad for the issu-
ance of a visa. If there are more aliens
desirous of immigrating to the United
States than the law provides, the only
orderly procedure is to get a place in line
and await the proper turn.
The overload of private immigration
bills, although the committee has dili-
gently considered private bills week after
week, makes it impossible to consider
every bill .introduced during the session
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
March 12, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
of Congress and delays consideration of
worthwhile private bills which the com-
mittee is prone to approve. The consid-
eration of dilatory private bills sacrifices
valuable time of the subcommittee, the
full committee, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Depart-
ment of State as well. The delay in de-
portation that a private bill might have
given to a visitor who has violated the
terms of his admission is not justified
by the great expense both in time and
money.
Private bills have over the course of
the years demonstrated a need to amend
the general law. The committee has re-
sponded to the need and legislation has
been recommended to Congress. Exam-
ples of public legislation enacted as a
result of private bills have been waivers
of the grounds of excludability based
upon tuberculosis, convictions of crime,
mental retardation, misrepresentation,
and the admission of adopted children.
Such examples have perfected the gen-
eral law and carry out the policy of re-
uniting families. Bills designed to take
an alien out of turn circumvent the law
and violate the basic immigration policy
of first come, first served.
The committee is ever cognizant of the
fact that there are areas in the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act which may
require amendment. The committee has
studied these areas and will continue to
hold hearings on possible amendments to
the law.
THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF HA-
WAIIAN STATEHOOD
The SPEAKER. Under previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Ha-
waii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) is recognized for
60 minutes.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, ex-
actly 10 years ago, on March 12, 1969, by
an overwhelming vote of 323 to 89, this
great House of Representatives approved
"an act to provide for the admission of
the State of Hawaii into the Union." The
Senate had approved the same measure
on the previous day by a 76-to-15 vote.
How vividly I can recall that momen-
tous occasion. The Hawaii Territorial
Legislature was then in session. In ex-
pectation of a final vote in the U.S. House
of Representatives, the Hawaiian legis-
lators had declared a recess and gathered
in the throne room of Iolani Palace,
which was then serving as the house
chamber. I was the majority leader of
the house at that time. The Honorable
John A. Burns, Hawaii's Delegate to Con-
gress, was in direct telephone communi-
cation with us from the cloak room and
was relaying to us a blow-by-blow de-
scription of the events on the floor of
this House. The receiver at the other
end of the line was hooked up to an
amplifying system in the throne room of
Iolani Palace.
When the final vote was announced,
there followed a spontaneous deafening
cheer which must have lifted the rafters
of the throne room-but only for a mo-
ment, for a strange and almost unbe-
lievable thing happened. Every member
of that tumultuous gathering suddenly
found himself gripped by a mystic si-
lence, and, as if guided by an unseen
hand, all present joined in silent prayer,
with heads bowed, some kneeling, many
with tears welling in their eyes, to thank
God for the great blessing He had seen
fit to bestow upon Hawaii's citizens and
to ask Him for His divine guidance in
their new and heavier responsibilities. I
can never forget the excitement and the
gaiety, topped by the overpowering so-
lemnity of that great occasion.
Mr. Speaker, when we of Hawaii were
knocking at the congressional door, ask-
ing to be admitted into the Union, we
contended that as a State we could make
greater contributions to the Nation than
as an incorporated territory; that we
would serve as a showcase of American
democracy in the vast Pacific region;
that we would help to bridge the gap
of understanding between the East and
the West; that we would develop a viable
State economy and become an asset
rather than a liabiilty to the Nation as
a whole.
After only a decade of statehood, we
believe we can now safely ask "Did we
not tell you so" and expect an uncon-
ditional affirmation.
That Hawaii continues to be, as Mark
Twain described it, "the loveliest fleet of
islands anchored in any ocean," is ob-
vious to anyone who has enjoyed its
eternal spring climate, its swaying palms,
its white beaches, and emerald lagoons.
Our lovely hula maidens beckon to our
shores peoples from all parts of the
world-over a million of them last year.
Fortunately, statehood has not changed
this.
The people too have not changed, for
they have continued to assume their re-
sponsibilities as full fledged American
citizens. We of Hawaii realize that Ha-
waii today represents a bridge between
the East and the West for international
cooperation and world peace, and we ac-
cept that responsibility.
Working together in harmony and in
concert toward their own social, political,
economic, and cultural betterment, the
people of Hawaii, people of diverse cul-
tural origins, have proven that Hawaii
is indeed the showcase of American
demoracy. All the anthropologists, so-
ciologists, poets, and romanticists who
have written about Hawaii agree on this
point.
In delivering his first major civil
rights speech on June 8, 1963, our late
beloved President, John F. Kennedy,
stated that he had chosen to speak in
Hawaii, because "Hawaii is what the
United States is striving to be."
In our struggle to maintain our friend-
ship with the Afro-Asian nations, we
must as a nation, exploit Hawaii's of-
ferings to the fullest. We must take full
advantage of Hawaii's great human re-
source. One of the greatest investments
we have ever made in peace is represent-
ed in the East-West Center, brought into
being by the principal efforts of the then
Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, the then
Delegate to Congress from Hawaii, John
A. Burns, and Congressman JOHN J.
ROONEY, of New York. At this great in-
stitution Asians and Americans have
been granted, and continue to have, an
opportunity to meet one another in an
academic and social environment which
lends itself to a dynamic program of
H 1633
interchange in which the participants
begin better to understand one another's
problems, and to work out mutually ac-
ceptable solutions. How much better this
is than deciding issues on the battlefield.
That most Americans realize this, is evi-
denced by the nationwide support which
the East-West Center has received. We
must continue and expand this support
if we are to retain our leadership in
man's quest for international coopera-
tion and world peace.
Mr. Speaker, on this 10th anniversary
of the passage of the Hawaii statehood
bill by the Congress, I rise to thank those
147 Members who voted to approve that
measure and who are still Members of
this august House. I wish to thank also
those who voted against Hawaii's admis-
sion, but who have since realized their
mistake and helped in different ways to
make Hawaii the great State that it is
today. As one of Hawaii's Representatives
to Congress, I assure you that the peo-
ple I represent are a truly grateful peo-
ple. They are resolved to continue to
prove to their fellow Americans that
their gratitude is only exceeded by their
willingness to contribute their full share
toward a greater America in a better
world.
In the words of Hawaii's able Gover-
nor, John A. Burns, in its first decade
of statehood:
Hawaii has become the young living,
throbbing Heart of the Pacific-no longer
merely the inanimate hub, or step-stone, or
bridge, or tropical resort-but an example of
vibrant life at its best, and an inspiration
for millions. In this Heart-small in size but
pulsating with the vitality of many Pacific,
Asian, American and European races and cul-
tures-there lies a deep empathy for the
many moods of the world and an intuitive
appreciation of the yearnings and desires of
all mankind.
I yield to my colleague, the Congress-
woman from Hawaii, Mrs. MINK.
Mrs. MINK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to commemorate an historic event that
occurred in this House 10 years ago. On
the morning of March 12, 1959, this
House passed the bill granting state-
hood to the American Territory of Ha-
waii. The vote was overwhelming-323
to 89-the bill having passed the Senate
the previous night. Three hundred and
twenty-three Members of this House
voted to make Hawaii the 50th State of
the American Union, and many of them
had worked hard toward that goal for
a long time before that final vote.
On behalf of the people of my State,
I wish again this year to offer our com-
mendations and expressions of great
gratitude to those 323 Members who
voted in our favor, though not all are
still here. They placed a great confidence
in the people of Hawaii, and the people
of Hawaii have fully justified that con-
fidence.
The first decade of Hawaiian state-
hood has been dynamic years of great
accomplishment and progress. Statehood
created a new awareness of Hawaii by
the people of the mainland States, and
many more came to visit our shores than
ever before. Ten of thousands who came
as visitors to the new State fell in love
with it and stayed; they are there now-
the new citizens of Hawaii.
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
 Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9
H 1634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1969
The decade of statehood has seen Ha- No alien land in all the world has any quality of the representation in both the
waii grow in every way that a State can dee other land charm of for but that one; other body and in this body has been
grow. We have more people, and so, more longingly and be- excellent, although, of course, I have dif-
homes and schools, more business ac- seechingly haunt me, sleeping and waking,
tivity and more new industries thave through half a lifetime, as that one has done. fered with Hawaii's Representatives at
to the ew in
newest that State. Other things leave me, but it abides; other times. I naturally have wanted more rep-
been att mor n
things change, but it remains the same. resentation on our side of the aisle, and
The decade of statehood has been a For me its balmy airs are always blowing, we are hopeful that might materialize
story of continuing success, year after its summer seas flashing in the sun; the at some future date.
year. This is clearly indicated by all the pulsing of its surfbeat is in my ears; I can I say again, however, as I said a mo-
indices used to measure economic ac- see its garlanded crags, its leaping cascades, ment ago, that those who serve Hawaii
tivity. Population, employment, personal its plumy palms drowsing by the shore, its
inc, me, construction, agricultural premote summits floating like islands above in the other body and those who serve
incretail str, manufactured product, prod- rod , the cloud rack; I can feel the spirit of its her here have done an outstanding job uct retail sales, manufactured product, for, woodland solitudes; I can hear the plash of in representing the viewpoints that ex-
its brooks; in my nostrils still lives the breath ist in the 50th State.
eign trade, and government expenditures of flowers that perished twenty years ago. May I wish for all the residents of the
have all increased yearly during the last State of Hawaii the very best in the fu-
glowing decade. And all the economic And now that beautiful chain of is-
prognosticators agree that the Hawaii lands has become an integral part of our ture. They have had 10 grand and glori-
boom has but begun. Many of the coun- great Nation espousing and defending ous years, and I believe all Americans
try's most astute businessmen seem to its ideals of freedom and of liberty. are happy and delighted that Hawaii be-
agree, for they are investing in Hawaii in Several things make Hawaii a distinct came a State and has been such a great
increasing numbers and in growing dollar and different State. Outside of Okla- State in its first decade.
volume. The homa, when it was admitted to the Union, Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the minor-
reason to feel people of economically Hawaii have its people existed in greater number than ity leader. I appreciate his words, espe-
But business activity secure. any other territory. As a territory and cially in view of the fact that we have
is s not the only
measure of a comunity's life, and in a State it has peacefully integrated the two on the opposite side of the aisle from Hawaii, there is much more to be proud races of the earth. Eugene Fodor is au- him. But statehood was a bipartisan
of. The cultural and political life of our thority for the statement that no less matter, and I thank the gentleman for
State is vibrant and exciting. The Uni- than 64 possible racial combinations can his vote 10 years ago.
versity of Hawaii is a vigorous and grow- be found in Hawaii. It might also be Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
ing institution with an enrollment of noted that Hawaii is the only American gentleman .yield?
nearly 20,000. The East-West Center State that is entirely tropical. Again I Mr. MATSUNAGA. I yield to the gen-
shares the university campus and at quote from Mr. Fodor: tleman from Illinois.
tracts students and scholars from all over The islands have a tropical beauty of daz- Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I should
the world; and the cultural and intellec- sung flowers, bright red soil, pineapples and like to join my colleagues in paying trib-
tual exchange at the center is most wind swept storms that cannot be matched ute today on this 10th anniversary of
in the other 49 States. It serves an unparal- Hawaiian statehood. I remember well the
stimulating to all involved. The Honolulu leled function as America's gateway both to day, the debate, and the vote.
Symphony Orchestra has attained such the South Pacific and to Asia. I certainly should like to join the
stature that Igor Stravinsky was recently others in saying it was one of the finest
a guest conductor, and Van Cliburn, When we admitted Hawaii as a State
Mischa Erman, and Leonard Pennario we partially repaid its heroic warriors of votes I have ever cast, and one I am
have appeared as featured artists. World War II. They were soldiers of always proud of.
Hawaii has come a long way since the which this Nation is immensely proud. There is no question that in the 10
advent of statehood, and we are pleased They became the most decorated units in years the people of Hawaii have proven
with our accomplishments. But we are American military history. No Americans time and time again how well deserving
not resting on them, we have pledged were braver. None were more steadfast. they were of statehood and the honor
ourselves to the continuing pursuit of None were stronger in the teeth of ad- and glory they bring to this great Re-
excellence. versity. public of ours.
When this House voted on the question Now, after 10 years of statehood, Ha- I am particularly grateful to the people
of statehood 10 years ago, the vote was waii is making superb progress. Its peo- of Hawaii for the good judgment they
overwhelming, but not unanimous. To- ple live in. peace and in prosperity. Each have demonstrated in sending us the two
day I believe it would be. passing year marks the increase of its outstanding and gifted legislators, the
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I wealth. At the end of its first decade, gentleman in the well, the gentleman
thank my colleague for her contribution. we can all rejodce in this great State, and from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNACA) and the
I yield now to the great majority lead- as we welcomed her 10 years ago, we gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. MINK).
er, a friend of Hawaii and one who voted proudly recognize her greatness and her It is my great pleasure to work on the
for the admission of Hawaii. growth. All hail Hawaii, our gem in the Education and Labor Committee with
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I appre- west, the "paradise of the Pacific"-the Mrs. MINK, and I never cease to be
date the gentleman yielding. 50th star in Old Glory. amazed at the thorough knowledge she
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given has of the educational needs of her own
I congratulate the gentleman from permission to revise and State and of this country.
Hawaii on his fine speech, and I con- extend his re-
gratulate the gentlewoman from Hawaii marks.) So we are grateful to the people of
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, Hawaii for sending us these excellent
on her fine speech. I congratulate Hawaii legislators.
on the outstanding representation it has will the gentleman yield? I might add one postscript. The State
in the House of Representatives. I also Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield of Hawaii has a particularly warm spot
congratulate the State of Hawaii on its to the gentleman from Michigan, the in my heart, because when the 50-star
10th birthday, and above all, I congrat- minority leader. flag became official on July 4, 1960, I
elate our country for being able to num- Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, made arrangements to have the Federal
brr Hawaii as one of the 50 States. It is I appreciate the gentleman from Hawaii official flag flown over the Nation's Capi-
truly one of our greatest States. yielding on this very auspicious occasion, tol for every school, every church, and
Mr. Speaker, it is with deep satisfac- the 10th anniversary of statehood for every hospital in my district. I believe
tion that I recall my support 10 years the State of Hawaii. I share all of the some 240 flags were flown on that day
,it -o of the bill which when passed ad- views expressed by the gentleman from and night. Throughout my district today
rn;tted Hawaii as the 50th State of the Hawaii and the gentlewoman from many of those institutions preserve these
uion. With that action we strengthen- Hawaii. I consider it one of the best votes historic flags as beautiful mementos of
(-Cl the United States beyond our power I ever cast when I supported statehood the day when America became a Repub-
tc measure. I believe that of all Ameri- for Hawaii--and also statehood for lie of 50 States.
cans, Mark Twain would find greater joy Alaska. It seemed to me that both, on the I wish you well, and I wish the people
in the success story of this wonderful basis of all criteria, fully warranted and of Hawaii well on this very auspicious oc-
land that stretches 300 miles across the deserved statehood. casion of her 10th birthday.
Pacific. Written long years ago, these are I might add there has been no disap- Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the gen-
words he used to describe it: pointment from my point of view. The tleman from Illinois. His State has given
Approved For Release 2002/01/22 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200060001-9