STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE AND JUDICIARY, 1965 APPROPRIATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 22, 1999
• Sequence Number: 25
• Publication Date: May 6, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

May 6, 1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
against the Nazis in Warsaw, and were
slaiin by the thousands while Red armies
paused and regrouped before driving for-
ward in a new offensive. It was too late
then for them to aid in the Warsaw
rising.
Polish div is f
Polish peo a slill%oo big a mouthful
not yet free. Their religion
cuted, their lives as amen
continual Pressure f f- tl4t the
.tyranny, is simply id c that Their
spirit has not been ro d that the
desire of full freedo s 1 burns bright.
Let is remember land when we
speak of the right of a men everywhere
to freedom and the natural guarantees of
mankind-life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, we in
Illinois are the proud producers of
America's finest bourbon-a whisky
distinctly American, a product which
has won worldwide acclaim with con-
noisseurs of the world's finest food and
drink.
I will. not repeat the historical back-
ground of the origin of the word "bour-
bon," for my colleagues from other
States have already dwelt on this.
Suffice it to say that we, in Illinois,
have t;.le finest natural resources, the
most progressive of producers and the
most intense interest in preserving to
America the proper and undenied recog-
nition that bourbon belongs to America:
Although I was speaking in Colorado
on. Monday, May 4, and not present to
vote, I was very pleased that Senate
Concurrent Resolution 19, designating
"bourbon whiskey" as a distinctive prod-
uct ` of the United States, passed the
House.
THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF J. ED-
GAR HOOVER AS DIRECTOR OF
THE, FBI
(Mr. SMITH of California asked and
wi3 s given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, Sunday, May 10, will mark the 40th
aniliversary of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover as
Director of the Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation.
Mr, Speaker, last week the gentleman
from Louisiana, [Mr. WILLIS] introduced
a yesol>ltion commending Mr. Hoover on
this lop erioa o_ f outstanding service.
Theenteman from Louisiana [Mr.
WILLIS ' checked the matter with` me.
He had planned to ask to have the resolu-
I asked the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. WILLIS if he would place it over
until-this week so thajfmorr Members
FOIAb3
Mr. Speaker, I hope the resolution can
be broixh*up tomorrow.
the Members of the House,
ember of the House who de-
so will be able to extend his
chefult#1 business of the House has been
ompleted on tomorrow and all previous
special orders have been completed, that
I be permitted to address the House for
1 hour, the purpose of which will be to
commemorate Mr. Hoover's long years of
service. However, if we do handle the
resolution then, of course. I will not
take that time. However, I make that
unanimous-consent request at this time.
. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT
AT WORK
(Mr. BOB WILSON asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to call to the attention of my
colleagues an example of big brother
government at work in my home area of
San Diego.
A large naval repair facility is being
phased out. The elllployees are nat-
urally not pleased. Some of them have
come up with a bumper sticker which
reads "Phase Out McNamara." I re-
gret that security police yesterday tore
these stickers off the workers' cars, and
threatened to bar any cars carrying
these stickers from the naval facility.
Our Constitution guarantees individ-
uals the rights of redress of grievances
against their Government. I feel this
arbitrary, highhanded action by they
security police is an infringement on the!
civil rights of individuals who work at';
the plant. Secretary of Defense Mc-
Namara is not a candidate for any of-
fice, hence there is no conflict with the
Hatch Act or any other Federal regula-
tion.
We 'do not intend to tolerate Govern-
ment censorship of free citizens action.
I have wired the commanding officer of
the establishment in protest of this ac-
tion. --It is time American citizens spoke
out and made their feelings known on
these and other issues which face our
country. I feel that Federal workers in
San Diego have a full and just right to
protest what they believe is an unwar-
ranted action by their Government. To
deprive them of this right by police ac-
tion is not in accord with the Consti-
tution.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Appropriations may have until mid-
night Friday night to file a report on
two bills, the deficiency appropriation
bill and the agricultural appropriation
bill for 1965.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
There was no objection.
Mr. HORAN reserved all points of or-
der on both bills.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Obviously a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move
a call cf the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
[Roll No. 1201
Andrews, Ala. Fulton, Tenn. Mills
Ashley Garmatz Montoya
Ashmore Gibbous Morris
Avery Gill Morrison
Baring Grant Norblad
Bass Hagan, Ga. Olsen, Mont,
Bates Halpern Passman
Bennett, Mich. Harvey, Mich. Pllcher
Blatnik Hawkins Pool
Bonner Herlong Powell
Brademas Hoffman Rains
Buckley Huddleston Roberts, Ala.
Burleson Jensen Scott
Burton, Calif. Johnson, Pa. Selden
Chelf Jones, Ala. Senner
Colmer Kee Sheppard
Cramer King, Calif. Taft
Davis, Tenn. Kirwan Teague, Tex.
Denton Lankford Udall
Diggs Libonati Ullman
Dorn Lloyd Vanik
Dowdy Mailliard White
Edmondson Martin, Calif. Whitten
Elliott Mathias Wickersham
Feighan May Wilson, Ind.
Finnegan Meader Winstead
Fisher Miller, Calif.
Forrester Miller, N.Y.
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 352
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
wig.. tom.
STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND
JUDICIARY, 1965 APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Speaker, I move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 11134)
making appropriations for the Depart-
ments of State, Justice, and Commerce,
the judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and
for other purposes; and pending that mo-
tion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-
sent that general debate be limited to 2
hours, the time to be equally divided and
controlled by the distinguished gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. Bow] and myself.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
-Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
Sanitized Approved;FoMIlesofinA-
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8;
9894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
New York.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con
sideratiol3 of the bill H.R. 11134, with
Mr. FASCELL in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani-
mous-consent agreement the gentleman
from New York [Mr. ROONEY] will be
recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Bowl will be recognized
for 1 hour.
'The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York [Mr. ROONEY].
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself such time as I.
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this bill contains pro-
posed appropriations in the coming fis-
cal year, to wit, fiscal year 1965, for the
Departments of State, Justice, and Com-
merce, the judiciary, and related agen-
cies.
The pending bill would appropriate
the amount $1,702,627,800. This amount
compares with budget estimates sub-
mitted for 1965, as amended, and 1964
supplemental requests, in the amount
$1,957,764,700, which would mean a re-
duction In the budget estimates in the
amount $255,136,900.
The amount carried in the bill now
pending before the Committee of the
Whole for Its consideration is $135,839,-
200 below the total amount appropriated
to date for these agencies in the present
fiscal year.
I should point out, however, that a
large part of this reduction I have re-
ferred to is due to the fact that the new
authorization bill for the Area Redevel-
opment Administration has not as yet
been enacted into law. The amount pro-
vided also includes $450,000 for a number
of supplemental requests in the current
fiscal year 1964 which totaled $42,675,-
000.
I should also point out that in a few
Instances some of the additional perma-
nent positions requested have been al-
lowed, but these increases are offset by
other decreases, with the result that the
number of permanent positions provided
In the accompanying bill for fiscal year
1965 is the same number as the number
of authorized positions for the present
fiscal year, just under 96,000 permanent
positions.
In this connection I should commend
the Secretary of State, the Honorable
Dean Rusk, for the fact that this year
he came before the committee for the
second time without a request for a
single additional position in the regular
annual "Salaries and Expense" item.
I should also commend the distinguished
Attorney General, Hon. Robert F. Ken-
nedy, for his appearance before the com-
mittee during the course of which he re-
quested 50 less permanent positions than
he has In the current fiscal year. If we
could get the Department of Commerce
to approach their budget on the same
basis as the Departments of State and
Justice we would have an even better
bill here today than we have for you.
This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and
the fact it is a good bill is due to the
courtesy and cooperation I have received
from the learned members of the sub-
committee, as well as from the clerk
of this subcommittee, Mr. Jay B. Howe,
who is seated alongside of me. This is
the 16th annual supply bill for these
agencies that Mr. Howe and I have
wored together on, of which 14 bear my
name. I could not have succeeded in the
reduction of Government expenditures
proposed. in the pending bill were it not
May 6
for the cooperation of the members of the
subcommittee, the distinguished gen-
tleman from Florida [Mr. SIXES), the
distinguished gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. SLACK], the distinguished gen-
tleman from Iowa [Mr. SMITH], the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Bowl, the distinguished gentleman from
California [Mr. Ln'scoMBl, and the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. CEDERBERG]. I am sincerely in-
debted to each of them for their co-
operation in bringing this bill to the
floor for consideration.
The following table summarizes the
amounts recommended in the bill in com-
parison with the corresponding budget
estimates and the 1964 appropriations:
Budget
estimates,
1965, as -
Recom-
Budget
Appropria-
tions, 1964
amended,
and 1964
mended in
the bill
Appropria-
estimates,
1965 (includ-
supple-
tions, 1964
ing 1964
mentals
supple-
mentals)
Department of State --____-____
$341,070,000
$401,712.000
$343,837,000
+$2767,000
-$57,875,000
Department of Justice---_---_-_
343,899, 000
367, 887, 000
364, 036.000
+20:137,000
-3, 851, 000
Department of Commerce------
804, 500,100
911,969,000,
730, 080, 000
-74.414,100
-181,883,000
Bureau of Public Roads
(trust fund) ______________
(3,249,150,000)
(3, 650, 000, 000)
(3,648 000000)
(+398, 850, 000)
(-2,000,000)
The judiciary__________________
65, 927,900
70, 762, 700
68:830:800
+2,902,900
-1,931,900
Related agencies________________
283, 070, 000
205, 434,000
105,838,000
-87,232,000
-9,696,000
Total------------------------
Consisting of-
Related to 1964 supple-
mental appropriations__
42, 675, 000
450,000
+450, 000
-42,225,000
Related to 1965 appropri-
ations------------------
1, 915, 089, 700
1,702,177,800
-136,289,200
-212,911,900
I shall first refer to the Department of
State. The total amount recommended
for the Departmentof State is $343,837,-
000, which would be a reduction of $57,-
875,000 below the total amount of the
budget requests. However, four supple-
mental budget estimates for fiscal year
1964 are included In these figures. The
total requested in the four supplemental
estimates was $42,400,000, of which the
committee allowed $400,000.
The largest item of appropriation for
the Department of State is entitled "Sal-
aries and Expenses." In connection with
this there Is an increase over the amount
provided in the present fiscal year a large
part of which is due to some substantial
amounts required to improve their com-
munications facilities. The committee
felt their facilities needed imporvement
and that the Department should go
ahead with such improvement.
The second item in this bill is entitled
"Representation Allowances," that the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GROSS] and I discuss annually. I can
assure the distinguished gentleman from
Iowa that there is only enough of an
increase in this item in the pending bill,
to wit, $20,000, to keep them all in good
spirits.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I am glad
to yield to my distinguished friend from
Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. This is the item that the
gentleman is pleased to call the tools of
the trade; is that it?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. This year
it is called good spirits..
Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman just
project this a little bit further? How
much would he say there is In toto in
this bill for the representation allow-
ances, tools of the trade, for this and
other departments?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. In the
pending bill there is no increase in any
one item for the purpose of entertain-
ment except in this instance and, as I
say, this is to keep them all in good
spirits. This amount, the $20,000 in-
crease, compares with a total decrease
of $143,150 in the amounts requested
throughout the bill for entertainment
and representation allowances.
Mr. GROSS. I will have to say to the
gentleman, as he has said to witnesses
before his committee, that that has not
quite answered the question. The ques-
tion was, How much is in the bill in toto?
if he can give me some estimate, for
representation allowances; in other
words, the booze fund.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I had as-
sumed the gentleman was thoroughly
familiat with this subject, knowing how
assiduously he peruses the printed hear-
ings.,. I did not propose to take the time
to go into detail, but in this instance, does
the gentleman want the amounts of the
1964 appropriations, the 1965 requests, or
the committee allowances?
Mr. GROSS. Just what you are ap-
propriating in your bill for this purpose.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Very well.
In the item that we are talking about,
"Representation allowances" for the De-
partment of State, the amount is $993,-
000. There is $75,000 here in the contin-
gency fund. There is $18,000 in the item,
Sanitized - Approved For Release :.-CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDPT5-00149R000400510025-8
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
"Mutual educational and cultural ex-
change activities." There is $10,000 in
"International activities," Department of
Commerce. There is $3,500 for the Trav-
el Service. There is $110,000 for the
NSIA to use overseas all over the world.
There is $11,750 in connection with the
item, "Special international exhibits."
Have I sufficiently answered the gentle-
man's question?
Mr. GROSS. if the gentleman has
listed them all, he has sufficiently an-
swered my question.
The next question would be, Does the
gentleman think the $10,000 for enter-
tainment, or whatever it is, to Mr. Herter
.will help resolve the chicken war over in
Geneva?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I think
the gentleman will find a discussion of
his chicken war in the printed committee
hearings. We had the distinguished gen-
tleman from Massachusetts, the former
Governor of that Commonwealth, the
former Secretary of State, before the
committee. We trimmed the operation
down a bit. The State Department
wanted to move 142 people over to Geneva
for this parley. They wanted to take the
wives and dependents along with them
and have the Government pay to take
along their automobiles so they could
ride throughout the beautiful Swiss
countryside. So we trimmed down this
ambitious operation.
Mr. GROSS. I want to compliment
the gentleman. The hearings very well
bear him out in that respect. May I say
to the gentleman that if he had given Mr.
Christian Herter all the automobile hire
he wanted for himself and others, I think
they would still be coming out at the
small end of the horn insofar as the
settlement of trade relations is con-
cerned. I want to compliment the
gentleman.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I am an
optimist in this regard. I do not think
this Nation can afford to ignore such
trade negotiations. I think it is best that
we be properly represented there. I
think our people should have sufficient
tools of the trade, and I do not refer only
to representation allowances, to carry on,
and maybe something might be worked
out for our best interests.
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LINDSAY. I just want to ask the
gentleman whether the so-called booze
allowance is used only for bourbon; we
would not want to send anything over
there except our national drink; would
we?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I find that
inpst of our embassies whisky and
soda is the popular drink.
Mr. LINDSAY., . But bourbon is the
national drink of the United States.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Evidently,
the gentleman is not a continental trav-
eler If he does not know that scotch
whisky and soda is the popular drink.
Mr. L'INM'A t Hots, could a. U.S. em-
bassy serve anything other than our na-
tional drink-bourbon?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Well, we
also serve tomato juice and fruit drinks.
Mr. LINDSAY. All kidding aside, Mr.
Chairman, I feel that our embassy per-
sonnel are.entitled to everything they get
by way of representation allowances, in-
cluding the "booze allowance." Too of-
ten our embassy people must dip into
their own pockets to cover their require-
ments. They are deserving of all sup-
port.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The next
item is entitled "Acquisition, Operation,
and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad."
For this we have provided $22,125,000 of
which $4 million is contained in the
special foreign currency program.
We have substantially reduced this
item and deleted entirely the amount of
$2,050,000 requested for two projects in
Paris, France; $2 million of which was
to buy a lot upon which to build a new
office annex. I think it would take about
40 or 45 minutes to drive from the Place
de la Concorde where the present Em-
bassy office building is to get to the site
of the proposed office annex during the
day when traffic is very heavy in Paris.
The committee has also deleted the
request for $50,000 for plans to initiate
the alteration, improvement, and reno-
vation of the property on the Rue du
Faubourg St. Honore in Paris, known as
the Rothschild mansion. This piece of
property as it stands is worth at least
$3 million in American money. If al-
lowed to go ahead, with the present
thinking of the foreign building office
and the Department of State, our Am-
bassador in Paris would have a $5 mil-
lion residence. We did not think we
should do this, particularly at the pres-
ent time.
The next item to which I shall refer
is entitled "Mutual Educational and Cul-
tural Exchange Activities." There the
committee has allowed $44,125,000. In-
cluded in this is an additional $1.5 mil-
lion in connection with a treaty made
not too long ago with Japan. This treaty
resulted in our being requested to ap-
propriate $25 million worth of our Japa-
nese yen, to remain available until ex-
pended.
The committee looked this over care-
fully and decided to appropriate the
equivalept of the interest that could
be generated from $25 million, worth of
yen, at 6 percent or $1.5 million.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the distinguished gentleman.
'Mr. BOW. Just so that this may be
clear for the record. What the gentle-
man is saying is that we are making
payments of that amount, but we are
not paying interest on this $25 million.
Actually, we are making a payment which
would be equal to the interest rate; is
that not correct?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. That is
absolutely correct.
Mr. BOW. We are paying no interest
on $25 million.
Mr. ILQONEY of New York. No, we
merely arrived at the $1.5 million figure
by comput=ing the interest at 6 percent
on $25 million.
Mr. BOW. In other words, that Is
what we would have been paying.
9895
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I was astounded to read
in the hearings that any American of-
ficial, and I have forgotten which one
it was, would say that this was a good
settlement-this settlement of the $1,-
800 million obligation owed to us by the
Japanese for $490 million of which $25
million was earmarked for cultural pur-
poses. Then they have the colossal gall
to come before a committee of the Con-
gress and say that this was a debt set-
tlement.
Mr: ROONEY of New York. It is very
seldom that the distinguished gentle-
man from Iowa and I agree, but in this
instance I am in accord with the gen-
tleman's statement that this was not a
good settlement. I think we should have
obtained a better settlement, but I would
not want to press for a better settle-
ment to the extent of disrupting the
amicable relations presently existing be-
tween the Japanese people and the Amer-
ican people and their Governments.
Mr. GROSS. I cannot agree with the
gentleman in his latter premise. I think
it was wrong to earmark $25 million in
view of the fact that we only got $490
million out of the $1,800 million oper-
ation. I think it is wrong. I think it is
wrong in this bill to make any kind of
settlement such as that.
. Mr. ROONEY of New York. One of
the usual difficulties is that every time
our diplomats make a settlement on any-
thing with another nation, our cultural
people have to get into the act and ear-
mark so much of the settlement for all
these alleged cultural programs which
are not of great benefit to the American
taxpayers.
Mr. GROSS. I thoroughly agree with
the gentleman.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Coming
to the Department of Justice, you will
find that the bill contains $364,036,000
for that highly important branch of
Government.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield, before he takes up the
items for the Department of Justice, for
an inquiry?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. I should like to inquire as
to whether there is anything in the ap-
propriation bill which would limit our
contributions to the United Nations. I
believe that would be under the contri-
butions to international organizations.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. That is
provided in basic law.
Mr. HALL. Is there anything which
would limit our contributions to the U.N.
Special Fund and to the U.N. Technical
Assistance Fund, the Middle East Ref-
ugee Relief, and so on, to the 32.06,per-
cent which is generally applicable?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The gen-
tleman is referring to items which are
not in this bill but which I assume will
be In the foreign aid bill. Those items,
to which the gentleman refers have
nothing to do with the pending bill.
Mr. ' HALL. The bill has nothing to
do with that?
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP7,5-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8.
9896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Mr. ROONEY of New York. There is
nothing here, insofar as International
organizations are concerned, not author-
ized by law.
Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman ad-
vise us as to what the contributions to
International organizations of more than
$87 million consist of, in general?
Mr. ROONEY of New York, Those
are very succinctly set forth at pages 4
and 5 of the committee report. Has
the gentleman read the committee re-
port?
Mr. HALL. Yes; I have.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Then
the gentleman will find each organiza-
tion listed, by name, and the amount
of contribution; the total being $87,-
168,000.
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will-
yield further, the first item is for the
United Nations and specialized agencies,
under which is the item for the United
Nations, the item for UNESCO, and so
forth.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The
gentleman is reading correctly.
Mr. HALL. My query is whether or
not there are any contributions to the
Special Fund or to the Technical Assist-
ance Fund above the 32.06 percent. -
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The an-
swer, as I said a while ago, is "No." The
gentleman will not find the Special Fund
listed in these items.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will. the
gentleman yield briefly before he pro-
ceeds to the next department's items?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Are there any funds
available under the terms .of the bill to
be spent for getting summer jobs for
foreign students?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. We were
requested to supply such funds, but we
have taken them out of the bill.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ROONEY of New York.. We do
not have that sort of thing for Ameri-
can students.
Mr. GROSS. That is exactly correct.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Consider-
ing that we go to the expense of bring-
ing the foreign students here, pay for
their travel, keep them, and give them an
education, why should we also and at
the same time run a Federal agency to
get them summer jobs?
Mr. GROSS. Again I agree with the
gentleman.
Mr. ROONEY of New York..' I am for
our American students first.
Mr. GROSS. Are there any funds for
travel expenses for exchange lecturers,
if the gentleman recalls?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Yes;
there are some. That would be under
the educational exchange activities.
This program has been going on for
years.
Mr. GROSS. I understand that, but
I believe that some of this stuff ought to
stop.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Well,
they want to bring their dependents with
them and to enlarge the taxpayers' ex-
penditure further and further. The
committee balked at doing this.
Mr. GROSS. I understand.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The
House has approved the committee action
in this regard on previous occasions.
Mr. GROSS. I commend the commit-
tee for going as far as it did, but I be-
lieve we ought to stop some of this spend-
ing. It makes quite a bit of interesting
reading, to learn about these exchange
lecturers.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I am
gratified to learn that the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa approves this bill
and its provisions.
Mr. GROSS. Oh, oh; I did not say
that.
?Mr. ROONEY of New York. If I may
continue, I shall now refer to the items
for the Department of Justice.
As I started to say, the bill contains
$364,036,000 for the very important De-
partment of Justice, which would be an
increase of $20,137,000 over the amounts
appropriated for the current fiscal year
and a reduction of $3,851,000 compared
to the total budget requests.
The various activities include the Of-
fice of the Solicitor General, the Tax
Division, the Criminal Division, the Civil
May 6
truly dedicated servant who has done
yeoman service in immigration and na-
tionality matters. He has rendered fine
work as head of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and too much
praise cannot be heaped upon him be-
cause of this.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I thank
the distinguished gentleman for his
contribution.
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
LINDSAY].
Mr. LINDSAY. I would like to join
the gentleman in his praise of the Com-
missioner, Mr. Farrell. He is a first-class
public servant. I should like to add,
however, that the good job Commis-
sioner Farrell is doing was made possible
by the really extraordinary job that was
done by Joseph Swing, who was his
predecessor.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. He is a
fine gentleman also.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Division, and others. the distinguished gentleman from Illi-
You will find the Antitrust Division nois [Mr. O'HARA].
listed as a separate item. The committee
has recommended an appropriation of
the full amount requested for antitrust
activities. The increase is in the amount
of $254,000 over the appropriation for
the current fiscal year. This $254,000 is
merely to provide for mandatory or stat-
utory items such as pay act increases
and within grade promotions.
Now we get to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. This is the 14th year, as I
said a while ago, that this bill has borne
my name-in all these years there has
not been a 5-cent reduction in the re-
quests for the Federal Bureau of Inves- -
tigation. The Honorable J. Edgar
Hoover, the Director of this organization,
is one of the finest, if not the finest, ad-
ministrators in the Federal Government.
I should like to take this occasion to re-
mind us all of the fact that he took over
as Director of the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation on May 10, 1924. Accord-
ingly, Mir. Hoover will celebrate his 40th
anniversary as Director of the agency
this coming Sunday and I know we all
extend him our compliments and wish
him further successes in his position for
many years to come.
With regard to the Immigration and
Naturalization $ervice, the committee
recommends the sum of $71.1 million.
At this point I should like to say that that
organization has the greatest Commis-
sioner it has ever had in the course of
its existence. Today we find the morale
of the people in the Immigration and
Naturalization Service who work on im-
migration and nationality matters and
the border patrol down on the Mexican
border in the best shape it has ever been.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr, ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the distinguished gentleman from New
York [Mr. CELLER], the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.,
Mr. CELLER. I would say that Ray
Farrell, to who you made reference, is a
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I wish to
add my word to what has been said
about Ray Farrell. I think all of us in
Illinois and all of the Members from
Illinois, both Republican and Democrat,
think he is one of the greatest public
servants America has ever had.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I thank
the gentleman for his statement.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
FARBSTEIN].
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I, too, would like
to raise my voice to compliment the
present Commissioner of Immigration
and Naturalization, Ray Farrell. Not
only is he a very fine public servant,
but his staff in the city of New York is
an excellent organization and a very
courteous organization to Members of
Congress who have occasion to inquire
of them and seek their aid and assist-
ance.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I thank
the gentleman for his statement.
Now to get to the Department of Com-
merce. Let me say that the revised
budget request for that department to-
taled $911,969,000, The committee in-
cluded in the bill $730,086,000, a reduc-
tion of $181,883,000 in the total request
and $74,414,100 below the appropriation
for the current fiscal year. The largest
decrease, however, $148,735,000, is in the
Area Redevelopment Administratiqq~. and
is due to the fact that legislation author-
izing additional appropriations has not
yet been enacted by the Congress.
The bill also includes $3,648 million
for the Bureau of Public Roads, which is
derived from the highway trust fund.
There is not much that the committee
can do with regard to money expended
out of this trust fund which is generated
as the result of the collection of Federal
gasoline and excise taxes and is then
committed in advance of the time that It
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 196.E
Sanitized - Approved For Release: CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 497
gets to the committee, for the highway John P. Kennedy in conducting this re- industries that are being deflated by vir-
construction program, search? tue of foreign imports.
I should like to refer to the fact that in Mr. ROONEY of New York. If I were Mr. ROONEY of New York. I suspect
the Bureau of the Census the commit- to answer that question honestly I would that he really is.
tee considered a $210,000 supplemental have to say that we may have Included Mr. GROSS. Well, I question that.
request for tiie item "Salaries and ex- too much in this bill for that purpose. Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will the
penses" for the fiscal year 1964 con- The gentleman realizes that they asked gentleman yield to me?
tained in House Document No. 174 to for $210,000 in the fiscal year 1964. This Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
provide for the collection of additional bill carries $223,000 for customs and the, distinguished gentleman from Vir-
information on footwear imports. In- commerce. ginia.
asmuch as there is every indication that Mr. BURKE. I realize how prudent Mr. GARY. I want to say that the
this bill will not become law before July is the gentleman from New York. I want purpose of collecting the statistics is to
1 and that a supplemental appropriation to point out to the gentleman that we give Mr. Herter more accurate informa-
would not become available early enough are appreciative of the amount that he tion upon which to conduct his negotia-
for the Bureau of the Census to proceed has in this bill. Also we wish to thank tions. Ibelieve they will be of great help
during the present fiscal year which ex- the distinguished chairman of the Sub- to Mr. Herter and his entire program, as
pires on June 301, the supplemental re- committee for Post Office and Treasury well as the industries affected.
quest was not approved. for the amount included there. We feel Mr. ROONEY of New York. Of course,
However, the committee has included that this is sufficient from the informa- as I understand. it, this information will
$135,000, the full amount of the request' tion we have received from the Depart- also be gathered for the benefit of the
by the Department of Commerce, in the ment of Commerce and the Bureau of Tariff Commission.
item "Salaries and expenses' to carry Customs. We thank each of these gen- Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
out this footwear imports research dur- tlemen. gentleman yield?
ing fiscal year 1965. Mr. ROONEY of New 'York. Mr. Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
The House of Representatives has al- Chairman, permit me to tell the gentle- to the distinguished gentleman from
ready passed the bill making appropria- man from Massachusetts where we get New Hampshire.
tions for the fiscal year 1965 for the our information. We received the figure Mr. WYMAN. I would like to ex-
Treasury and Post Office Departments from the Bureau of Census for $135,000, press my appreciation on behalf of the
and included therein as passed, by the which they say they need, for their part congressional district it is my privilege
House was the full amount, $88,000, re- of this research. From the Bureau of to represent of the gentleman's efforts
quested by the Bureau of Customs for customs we have a figure of $88,000 along this line. As the gentleman knows,
their activities in connection with this which they say they need. We did not the largest single employer in my dis-
research program. just take these figures out of the air. trict is the shoe industry.
We have presently on the floor with Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, I ap- I thank the gentleman from New York
us the distinguished gentleman and my preciate that and I compliment the gen- for all that he has done to give us this
longtime friend and colleague from Vir- tleman for the fine job he is doing. I survey of statistics on imports. The
ginia, the Honorable J. VAUGHAN GARY, know that the footwear people of Amer- gentleman has done a very fine job and
who is chairman of the Subcommittee on ica are thankful to him and to the 235 we are all most appreciative. I hope
Appropriations, which makes appropria- Members of the House who signed the pe- that out of it will come some benefit.
tions for the Departments of Treasury tition asking. for these sums. Mr. ROONEY of New York: I might
and Post Office. I should like to ask the Mr. Chairman, I say again that we remark to my distinguished friend, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GARY] If thank him as do the employees in the gentleman from New Hampshire, that
It is not the. fact, as I have recited, that footwear industry of America as well as this is the first observation I have had
there is included in the amount for the the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GARYI. of the distinguished gentleman's inter-
Bureau of Custom , Department of the Mr. ROONFrY of New York. Mr. est in Government spending.
Treasury, already 'passed by this House, Chairman, I am now hoping and praying Mr. WYMAN. If the gentleman will
$88,000 to specifically carry out the ac- that with, the expenditure of this $223,000 yield further, I am very interested in
tivities of the Bureau of Customs in con- the American taxpayer will benefit, and Government spending, but on the con-
nection with this footwear -research In that the research will produce something servative side.
fiscal year 1965. which will be of consequence both to the Mr. ROONEY of New York. Well, on
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I will say, taxpayer and to the shoe industry. the minus side.
to my distinguished friend from New Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. WYMAN. That is right in, the
York that that is correct. This is a joint gentleman yield further? sense that I believe that unless we are
enterprise between the Department of Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield confronted with a national emergency
Commerce and the Bureau of Customs. further to the distinguished gentleman the Government should not spend more
They have agreed on a distribution of from Virginia. than it receives in revenues, particularly
the amount to be appropriated between Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, may I say with a national debt of $315 billion. I
the two in order that each may bear its that this gathering of more accurate think Congress should make such a pol-
proper share of this appropriation. The statistics, not only relates to the shoe in- icy mandatory.
purpose of the project is to get more dustry but relates to many other indus- The shoe statistical study should help
accurate figures as a basis upon which tries in the United States. Our commit- to protect this important domestic in-
those who are negotiating these trade tee was convinced, and certainly hope, dustry against the floods of cheap for-
agreements can operate. In our com- that the expenditure of the funds will eign imports by furnishing a firm foun-
mittee we have not only allowed the inure to the benefit of practically all the dation for relief by executive action
amount but we actually visited New York taxpayers of the United States rather through quota limitations. It will help
to discuss the probleips of the Bureau than,to any partciular industry. to prove to the doubting Thomases that
of Customs with them and we viewed this Mr. ROONEY of New York. I am in a huge domestic industry and tens of
activity while we were there. thorough agreement with the distin- thousands of American jobs are at stake.
We were convinced that it was a proper guished. gentleman from Virginia in his Mr. ROONEY, of New York. 'Mr.
activity and allowed the full amount that allQwa#cg of. $88,000 for the imported Chairman, continuing, we.now come to
they require for the fiscal year 1965. shoe research program. an item in the Department of Commerce
Mr. -ROOT EY of New York. Mr. Mr,. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the budget entitled "U.S. Travel Service."
Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I now gentleman yield? The committee has allowed $3 million
yield to the distinguished gentleman Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield for their activities in fiscal year 1965
from Massachusetts [Mr. BURKE]. to the distinguished gentleman from which represents", decrease of $950,000
Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, I would Iowa [Mr. GROSS]: in the amount of the budget request.
like to Inquire of the distinguished gen- Mr. GROSS. I am a' little surprised Mr. Chairman, I might say in passing
t emanfrom'new '`Qrk if he feels 'hat that the cftizen'from Massachusetts, Mr., in connection with this outfit that in all
these sums are suMcient to carry out the Herter, is not more interested Tin the ' my years of experience this has been
recommendations of the late beloved shoe industry and in a great many other about the worst-run agency I have ever
No. 90-13
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8 ?
9898 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
come across in Government. This is the
outfit, without any authority in law,
that went out and bought ladies' brace-
lets and men's cuff links to give away
free of charge to representatives of travel
agencies, and so forth. This is the agency
that I pointed out a year ago or even
2 years ago which was making illegal
contracts with Madison Avenue adver-
tising firms. Since I made these state-
ments with regard to this agency, the
Comptroller General's office has found
that the purchase of the cuff links and
bracelets was strictly illegal and that
its contracts running into millions of
dollars with Madison Avenue advertis-
ing concerns, privately negotiated, were
illegal.
Now, gentlemen, I think that the ac-
tion of the committee in reducing this
request-since there is no proof that this
agency even with the past expenditure
of funds has succeeded in increasing
foreign travel to the United States-was
proper., As far as I can see, the increases
in travel since it has been in existence
would have happened anyhow in the
normal course of the annual increases in
travel, both out of the United States and
into the United States.
Mr. Chairman, in connection with the
items for the National Bureau of Stand-
ards I should like to point out that the
committee has stated that none of the
funds requested for the so-called civilian
industrial technology program has been
approved. The direct request for such
funds was denied by the Congress last
year and any and all attempts to obtain
such funds by reorganization, diffusiop~
or attempted confusion must now be
clearly unsuccessful.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the distinguished, gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOW. As the gentleman knows,
I am in complete agreement with this
language of the report. So that we may
make the record clear, this means none
of these funds are to be used for any of
those that are set up in the civilian tech-
nology part last year except the com-
pletion of the textile industry?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. That is
correct. The new fire research program
of last year would be out. Nearly every
fire insurance company in America and
in that industry has complained about
the Government getting into this busi-
ness. The same refers to the building
construction industry as well.
Mr. BOW. To the building construe-
tion industry?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. That is
correct.
Mr. BOW. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FOREMAN. As I understand it,
for the U.S. Travel Service the 1964 ap-
propriation was $2.6 million. Recom-
mended in the bill was $3 million. Is
this the agency the gentleman was re-
f erring to?
Mr. ROONEY of New York It is. It
will now have a new Director.
Mr. FOREMAN. I believe the gentle-
man stated, he did not think we had any
increased :foreign travel since we had
this agency?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. We are
hoping that maybe with a new Director
and these additional moneys the result
may be successful.
Mr. FOREMAN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I do not know what else I
need to explain in connection with the
pending bill. It is a long bill and it re-
fers to many agencies stretched across
the Government. The Federal judiciary
from the Supreme Court down to the
district courts, the referees in bank-
ruptcy, and their expenses, are included.
Also included are the U.S. Information
Agency, the U.S. Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency, the Tariff Commis-
sion, the Subversive Activities Control
Board, the Small Business Administra-
tion, the Federal Maritime Commission,
the Foreign Claims Settlement Commis-
sion, the Commission on Civil Rights, and
the American Battle Monuments Com-
mission.
Mr. Chairman, if there are no further
questions, this concludes my remarks.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. LiPscoMsl.
(Mr. LIPSCOMB asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY],
has covered this bill very adequately. As
is generally the case in appropriation
measures, there are differences of opin-
ion on this particular bill.
There are some items I would person-
ally have liked to see reduced even more,
and there are some items that perhaps we
could have raised, which would have been
helpful in accomplishing its purposes.
I want to assure my colleagues in the
House that the gentleman from New
York [Mr. ROONEY], chairman of the
subcommittee, lets very little escape his
attention. The same applies to the
ranking minority member, the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. Bow].
Mr. Chairman, as so ably explained
by the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. ROONEY], the total amount in
the Departments of State, Justice, and
Commerce, the judiciary, and related
agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year
1965, exclusive of the Bureau of Public
Roads Trust Fund, is $1,702,627,800.
This amount is $255,136,900 below the
total amount of the budget estimates.
However, a, large part of this reduction
in the amount of $148,325,000 is due to
the fact that no added authorization ex-
ists for the Rural Redevelopment Ad-
ministration and new legislation has not
been enacted into law.
The amount provided in this bill for
fiscal year 1965 is $135,839,200 below the
total appropriated to date for the cur-
rent fiscal year.
The President requested a total of
$42,675,000 for fiscal year 1964 supple-
May 6
mental items of which only $450,000 is
approved by the committee.
The principal supplemental items re-
quested by the President and disap-
proved by the committee included $25
million request for education and cul-
tural exchange with Japan; $12 million
request for preservation of ancient Nu-
bian monuments; and $5 million request
for State Department communications.
As is generally the case in appropria-
tion bills, there are differences of opinion
in regard to various items and amounts
contained in he overall bill. This bill
is no exception. There are items I would
like to see reduced or even eliminated.
There are items that additional amounts
could well be used to advantage. How-
ever, after numerous days and hours of
hearings, listening to scores of witnesses,
the bill before the House today repre-
sents the considered judgment of the
subcommittee. From my experience as
a member of the subcommittee I can as-
sure you that my colleague from New
York [Mr. ROONEY], the chairman of
the subcommittee, lets very little escape
his attention and I can say the same for
the distinguished ranking minority
member of the committee, the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. Bowl.
With a few exceptions, principally the
amount recommended for the Arms
Control and `Disarmament Agency and
the continued and expanding of requests
for international organization, I am in
support of this bill, H.R. 11134.
Mr. Chairman, time does not permit
a detailed analysis of the bill item by
item. The report accompanying the bill
covers the items very well. There are
some comments I would like to make on
a few matters of concern to me.
However, before proceeding to these
matters, I would like to commend the
Director of the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation, the Honorable J. Edgar
Hoover, who will, on May 10, observe
his 40th anniversary of his elevation to
his post. And his associates for the fine
manner in which they perform their re-
sponsibilities in administering this great
Bureau. If every agency presented its
budget justifications and documented
the background to support its requests
as effectively and efficiently as Mr.
Hoover and his associates, there would
be fewer questions raised as to the qual-
ity and accuracy of the various budget
requests before us today. The commit-
tee's confidence in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation is reflected by the fE3ct
that we have again recommended the
full FBI budget request in the amount of
$150,445,000.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Chairman, the total amount rec-
ommended in this bill for the Department
of State is $343,837,000. This amount
is an increase of $2,767,000 over the total
for this Department in the current fiscal
year and is a reduction of $57,875,000
below the proposed budget estimates.
This reduction is both reasonable and
necessary. Reasonable in a sense that
it will not harm any operation or func-
tion which the Department of State is
performing, and necessary in the sense
that it is our committee and this body
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release-: cIA-RDP75-00j49R000400510025-8
1:964'
CONGRMIONAL I REG`ORD L16tSE
as a whole which have the responsity
of imposing certain curbs necessary to
prevent unnecessary spending and
growth which would otherwise take
place in such a large- and bureaucratic
organization.
It is not enough to look at the total
dollars being ,proposed in this bill for
the Department of State, but rather how
these 4ollars will be used in the Interest
of the people and as intended by Con-
gress when it appropriated the funds.
Based on some, past performances of our
Department of State, the funds, even
with the reduction recommended may
be excessiye, if past performance and re-
salts are any criteria.
It would be irresponsible on our part,
however, to reduce this budget to -an un-
reasonably low, figure because of pres-
e:nt policies and administrative actions.
We need a strong State Department,,
particularly nowadays in these troubled
times. There are within the agency one,
competent, dedicated Federal servants
who deserve our wholehearted support.
The answer is not a simple one which
says we can cut so many dollars in order
to produce an .effective, coordinated De-
partment of State geared for efficient
operation for the formulation and execu-
tion of the foreign policy of the `United
States,
It is apparent, in my opinion, that the
Department of State needs a complete
reorganization of the whole machinery
from top to bottom, The apparent layer
upon layer of officials, _ the numerous
Comiulttees, the interrelation with other
agencies such as the Defense Depart-
Mont, the Agency for International De-
velopment, the U.S. Information Agency,
Central Intelligence Agency, the Depart-
ment of Commerce, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and so
forth create at best a completely un-
wleldly situation. The wonder is that
any. Policy can be- implemented at all.
Mr. Chairman, I , would like to cite
some examples in our foreign policy that
are being practiced by our State Depart-
ment which prompted these remarks.
A few weeks ago the Committee on
Foreign, Affairs of this . House released
the hearings entitled "Winning the Cold
War: the U.S. Ideological Offensive." In
part 7 there is a report, submitted by the
Department of State, which gives an ac-
counting of what has happened in the
cold- war for the past 3 years. The gen-
eral conclusion cited by the Department
of State is:
Overall, there appear to have been larger
gains than losses for the free world. The
major U.S. confrontations with the Soviet
Union have turned out. favorably.
The, report then goes on to cite the
major United States-Soviet confronta-
mt.igns which occurred during this period
c~l.1 {he interpret as being failures to
ttle.SSiv et 1, amnd jherefore Xictorles for
our slle. 'f"h se victories consist o#:
1. 71ie confr9iitatign in 1961: "with, Soviet
and Zr~st German efforts tto, reduce or elim-
1nate the`Western Allies' position in iierlln."
drl this area the State_Department con-
cludes that,:
-'` Access tQ Berlin was maintained, the So-
viets 41d not eign a peace treaty with East
Germany, and the allied military presence
remained intact. The principal change was
the building of the wall between East and
West Berlin, a practical aid to the security
of the East German regime but a public ad-
mission of failure for Ulbrieht and the whole
Communist caa' p?
Mr. Chairman, since we are in Berlin
by right and are living up to the agree-
ments of the treaty, to say that merely
maintaining this position is a victory
really stretches the imagination. This
is the type of response and behavior
which should be commonplace in our
foreign affairs. To go on, however, and
say that the wall is a victory for us is
flagrant distortion-it points up the im-
potence of our State Department policy
in allowing this to happen which is a di-
rect affront to our position and to our
allies, the West German people.
'Second. The second Communist fail-
ure, or our victory, was the Soviet failure
in their effort to undermine the func-
tioning of the United Nations Secretary
General by the "troika" proposal. Again,
the "troika" concept was completely con-
trary to the existing U.N. agreement and
we merely defended the status quo. How-
ever, I wonder if there were any conces-
sions made in order to achieve this end.
Third. The third Communist failure
and U.S. victory was the removal of :
"Offensive missiles in Cuba in October
1962."
It is admitted that this was a good
and proper move on our part. I do be-
lieve, however, that it cannot be accepted
as a substantial victory because on one
hand we allowed this to happen and on
the other we now have a Communist state
existing 90 miles from our shores which
was not there before.
As a clear indication of our State De-
partment orientation to such matters as
this, there is a statement in the report
relative to the Cuban situation as fol-
lows :
Although Cuba has become a Communist
state, it is well to remember that the Com-
munists, far from playing a major part in
the success of the Castro revolution, were
as, surprised as we by the turn of events in
that country in the period 1959.
There' are times I am sure when each
of us has difficulty in finding words to
express a particular situation. After the
statement I just quoted, I am afraid I am
in that position.
Fourth. The fourth Soviet failure,
and again I presume U.S. victory, was
the nuclear test ban treaty agreement.
The State Department reasoning is:
The United -States succeeded in bringing
"Moscow to accept terms that it had turned
down when we offered them previously.
This is certainly a true statement, as
far as it goes, but like many things
emanating from the State Department it
does not go 'far enough. A review of
the negotiations shows that we altered
our position far more significantly than
the Soviets and that the major risks
involved in this agreement are being as-
sumed by -the United States, not the
Soviet Union.
The above four "victories" are what
our State Department summarizes as
their major successes of 'the past 3 years.
If these represent "major victories," and
we have had only four, even of this kind,
9899
you can readily see why our foreign af-
fairs have deteriorated.
Mr. Chairman, these are only a few
examples to illustrate the fallacious rea-
soning which our State Department is
.utilizing in U.S. foreign policy. I be-
lieve the above illustrations are suffi-
cient to illustrate the gravity of the sit-
uation.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
The upward trend in contributions to
32 international organizations is contin-
uing for fiscal year 1965.
The total contained in the bill for con-
tributions to international organizations
to meet obligations not otherwise pro-
vided for is $87,168,000.
This amount represents a decrease
from the current fiscal year, estimated at
$99,679,000, only because it does not in-
clude appropriations for the United Na-
tions Congo operation and the working
capital fund as was the case last year.
Increased appropriations were re-
quested in effect for the United Nations,
and for all but one of the U.N. special-
ized agencies. This includes the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul-
tural Organizations, the International
Civil Aviation Organization, the World
Health Organization, the International
Labor Organization, and the Interna-
tional Tele-Communication Union, and
for the Governmental Maritime Con-
sultative Organization.
There are also increased requests for a
good share of the inter-American re-
gional and other international organiza-
tions for which appropriations are con-
tained in this section of the bill.
The Appropriations Committee report
on this bill for fiscal year 1963, 2 years
ago, stated that the cost of U.S. mem-
bership in international organizations
had nearly doubled in the previous 5
years and stated that efforts must be
made to hold the annual budget in line.
Last year for the fiscal year 1964 budg-
et the committee report again carried
an expression of concern over the in-
creasing cost of our membership in in-
ternational organizations and called for
renewed efforts.
In this year's report you will find the
following language:
Except for isolated instances, the requests
for the various organizations are larger than
for the current fiscal year. The committee
has repeatedly admonished the responsible
officials of the,Department of State to make
every effort to see that our annual contribu-
tions to these organizations are held to a
minimum. The results to date have been
most discouraging.
Despite claims by State Department
spokesmen to the effect that an economy
move was underway, when the details of
the budget were' actually discussed dur-
ing'the hearings most of the items came
up as proposals for an increase in the
'U.S. contributions.
Mr. Chairman, I feel quite sure that
t_he fact that called Appropriations Com-
mittee has caged for a tightening down
on expenditures in this area has had
helpful effects. But I am also completely
convinced that a lot more should and
could be done.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-R.DP75-00149R000400510025-8
 9900
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R00040051-0025-8 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE May 6
In the area of international organiza-
tions, potential exists for expenditures to
really get out of hand and our repre-
sentatives must get used to speaking
more forcefully and effectively in behalf
of the U.S. taxpayer. Our representa-
tives must cease pushing for new, ex-
panded activities by these international
Organizations. We should also have a
halt in what seems to have been involved
all too often over the years and that Is
the tendency to commit the United
States in advance. In such cases the
committee is presented with claims that,
if the appropriations are not granted, we
would be backing down on our word, that
our prestige would suffer, and so forth.
For the Appropriations Committee to be
presented with such situations makes a
mockery of the appropriations process.
The overall financial situation in the
United Nations continues to be open to
serious duestion. At the end of 1963, the
United Nations had a net deficit of
$130.7 million, as compared with a net
deficit of $72.4 million at the end of
1962, representing an increase of ap-
proximately $58 million for the year.
This, however, excludes unpaid balances
on United Nations bonds, the United
States loan for the United Nations build-
ing, and credits due on transfer of
League of Nations assets, which it is
estimated amount to over $190 million
additional debt.
The United Nations general fund was
in arrears to the tune of $20.8 million
as of December 31, 1963, as compared
with arrears of $17.8 million the year
previously.
Included in the U.N. deficit is the
continuing indebtedness to the United
States for supplies and services the
United Nations received from the U.S.
Department of Defense. These supplies
and services were rendered mainly for
the United Nations Congo operation, and
include a small amount for the United
Nations Emergency Force in its Middle
East peacekeeping operations.
As of December 31, 1963, the amount
owing the United States by the United
Nations in connection with its peace-
keeping operations was $33,304,000,
which included amounts billed to the
U.N. but unpaid, unbilled amounts, and
estimated amounts being or to be per-
formed by the Department of Defense
for the United-Nations. While a $7.3
million repayment was made by the
U.N. In January of this year, these debts
have been owing for a long time and
It is time they are completely paid up.
It Is difficult to know at this point
whether or to what extent supplies and
services are being furnished to the
United Nations by the Department of
Defense relating to the Cyprus situation
which would further increase the size of
the tab picked up by the American tax-
payer, but it is a matter that must be
watched closely.
We have no new information, accord-
ing to testimony presented at the hear-
ings, concerning the use and control of
the jeeps in Cuba supplied by the Pan
American Health Organization. Lack of
information concerning activities to
which we contribute, lack of control, and
related problems such as the need for
Improved coordinating and direction of
our overall effort in the area of inter-
national organizations continues to be
one of the serious shortcomings. There
is no reason why our Nation should con-
tribute the lion's share year after year
and not assume a commensurate role in
directing policy and operations.
U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY
Mr. Chairman, there is included in this
bill the sum of $11 million for the U.S.
Arius Control and Disarmament Agency.
This is a substantial increase of $3,-
500,000 over the current fiscal year funds.
The increase is primarily for outside con-
tract research.
In my opinion this substantial increase
is too large and the amount could well
be reduced. A reduction would not harm
the program and the Agency's growth
would develop in a more stabilized man-
ner. On the surface an $11 million total
request does not appear too unreason-
able, though a 46-percent Increase in 1
year certainly is significant and unusual.
This is not the complete picture of our
Government's arms control and disarma-
ment activity as many people believe.
There is significantly more activity be-
ing performed outside of the Arms Con-
trol and Disarmament Agency that must
be weighed in when we consider their
budget requests. Specifically requested
for fiscal year 1965 in the arms control
and disarmament field for outside con-
tracts are the following:
Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency ----------------------- $7,400,' 00
Atomic Energy Commission----
500, 000
Department of Defense --------
660, 000
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration_______________
-140,000
U.S. Information Agency-total
amount not available, but
probably upward of ----------
200, 000
This totals close to $9 million.
In ad-
dition, there is Project Vela, for which
funds for 1965 include $2,500,000 for the
Atomic Energy Commission and $60,-
900,000 for the Department of Defense.
The admitted grand total therefore is
over $72 million for arms control and
disarmament requested for fiscal year
1965.
And that is not all. The above figures
were supplied to the committee as a re-
sult of questioning, but they do not ap-
pear to be complete. Specifically, in the
Department of Defense 1965 fiscal year
budget it is known that in addition to
the $660,000 mentioned above there is at
least $3 million more for Project Cloud
Gap which is an Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency test program. While
on the subject of the Department of De-
fense I should like to point out an incon-
sistency. During the Department of De-
fense hearings the question was asked of
that agency as to how much contract
activity they have in this field. They
responded $3 million for Project Cloud
Gap and $275,000 for other studies. You
can see none of these figures can be cor-
related with the figures supplied by the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
In addition, there is $203,000 included
in the Department of State 1965 budget
for the 18 Nation Disarmament Con-
ference in Geneva. There are also activi-
ties in the arms control and disarma-
meat area going on in the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Labor,
and the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
It should be borne in mind that these
figures mentioned are the outside con-
tracts for research and besides this there
is work being dope In-house in the
various agencies and bureaus.
In order to complete the fiscal picture
I believe it is necessary to quickly sum-
marize the amounts of funds already
committed in this same contracts area.
The report of the Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency submitted to the Bu-
reau of the Budget as of March 15, 1964,
shows the following: These dollars, I
should point out, reflect programs that
were completed, initiated, or active dur-
ing the period June 1 to November 1963.
We can assume, therefore, that it is not
complete as of this date and the figures
are probably now much higher.
Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency ----------------------- $3,400,000
Department of Defense_________ 614,000
Joint Arms Control and Disarma-
ment Agency and Department
of Defense___________________ 1,442,000
Atomic Energy Commission---__ 17, 399, 000
Department of Commerce-no .
dollars available______________ __________
U.S. Information Agency_______ 194,000
Department of Labor-no dollars
available--------------------- -`--------
Project Vela: Department of De-
fense, $52,000,000; Atomic En-
ergy Commission, $6,100,000___ 58, 100, 000
The above figures add up to over $81
million. Therefore, if you consider the
fiscal year 1965 requests and those funds
already committed there is over $150 mil-
lion allocated to arms control and dis-
armament activities, not counting the in-
house effort of these Departments and
Agencies.
In view of the above extensive effort,
which in itself is questionable, the in-
creased request of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency does not appear to
be warranted. My position is also being
influenced by the apparent lack of forth-
rightness on the presentation in some of
these figures.
As I have stated before on the subject
of appropriations, dollars themselves are
not the whole criteria for how well or ef-
fectively a particular agency or depart-
ment performs or can perform. It is
true this agency is new, but nevertheless
they hold a most vital position In our
Government due to the nature of their
assignment. They have used the recent
test ban agreement as the epitome of
their success in their field of arms con-
trol and disarmament. Among us are
those who favored this test ban and those
who opposed it, but I believe this agree-
ment was entered into with the United
States taking most, if not all, the risks.
That it was we who moved the farthest
from our original starting position. Only
history will be able to say finally whether
or not this was a truly significant
achievement by this Agency. I prefer to
hold reservations about its classifica-
tion. Another aspect that disturbs me
about this agreement is that it was vir-
tually fait accompli before it was intro-
duced in the Senate. There were a few
who opposed it, but a climate had been
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-001: 49R000400510025-8
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
developed and nurtured by this Agency
so that the legislative branch practically
had no choice. Whether ' the particular
instance is considered favorable or un-
favorable Congress cannot allow itself to
be put in this untenable position.
It should also be particularly noted
that during the course of the Defense
Department hearings we had a witness
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was
asked if there has been any influence
by the Disarmament Agency on the De-
partment of Defense. His answer is as
follows:
Well, I do not think they are having any
influence yet. The Joint Chiefs are keeping
fairly close track on the activities of the Dis-
armament Agency. One of the things that
has worried us in the past and one of the
things we have discussed with Mr. Foster is
that a lot of proposals come over and we
have maybe 1'2 or 24 hours to comment on
very complicated problems. As a matter of
fact, I was going to say most, but quite a
sizable portion of the proposals they have
sent over have not been looked on with very
much favor by the Joint Chiefs.
Disarmament is ' a very, very complicated
Subject and one you have to watch very care-
fully. It seems to us that we are making too
many proposals. This is my personal opin-
ion, now, that we are making a lot of pro-
posals., We are trying to make progress and
giving away a little bit too much, possibly.
(Discussion off the record.)
This statement further supports the
prudent position of going a bit slower and
is one more reason, therefore, for re-
ducing the proposed budget as Indicated.
For example, their request included a
proposal for new language in the bill to
permit $4,000 for "official reception and
representation expenses" which was not
approved by the subcommittee and is not
included In the bill.
Besides the growth of their contract
research, the Agency is coming up with
the usual frills which all agencies seem
to require in order to expand with
prestige.
From July 1, 1963, to January 31,
1964, the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency authorized 127 speaking trips by
Agency personnel throughout the Nation.
Twenty-three were at a cost to the tax-
payer for travel expense of $3,138.71 and
84 were engagements at no travel cost;
however, salaries were paid by the tax-
payer. _ For an agency which people like
to call a small program, it seems a good
share of the time was spent on the road
'by some of their personnel, for the 7-
month period reported in the hearings. I
would suggest my colleagues take a look
at the list of speaking dates which appear
on pages 860-863 of the hearings.
When questioned by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. ROONEY] about the
reasoning for spending taxpayers' money
in this fashion, Mr. Foster, Director of
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl
answered:
Yes, sir.
A close reading of the hearing would
lead you to the conclusion that the total
request of $11 million could be reduced
without harm to the program.
In view of what has been pointed out,
I question the need for an additional
total increase of $3,500,000 which is pro-
posed in the bill before the House.
It is my hope the subcommittee will
follow the activities and growth of this
Agency.
U.B. INFORMATION AGENCY
Mr. Chairman, during the U.S. In-
formation Agency hearings on their In-
formation Service Center budget request,
the question was raised as to the alleged
necessity for an increase from $90,000
to $195,000 in the coming year for their
program entitled "Book Development."
Mr. Reed Harris, Director, Informa-
tion Service Center, replied as follows:
Mr. HARRis. That is a program under
which we can have books written to our own
specifications, books that would not other-
wise be put out, especially those books that
have strong anti-Communist content, and
follow other themes that are particularly
useful for our purposes. Under the book
development program, we control the thing
from the very idea down to the final edited
manuscript.
As an example of USIA accomplish-
ment in this type of activity, Mr. Harris
called to the attention of the subcom-
mittee a book he had with him on the
study of worldwide Communist tactics.
USIA paid $14,952 to have it written,
edited, and prepared. According to Mr.
Harris, this book was developed at USIA
instigation. The book was prepared, ac-
cording to Mr. Harris, by an:
Organization, as you know, sir, was an
organization, I suppose we would call it a
Socialist-type organization, that appealed
to the leftwing people overseas whom the
Communists have been approaching and
who have led the fight among the Socialists
against the Communists.
Mr. Harris also expressed pleasure
with the book on the basis that the book
also seems to have come to the attention
of people in this country, and has been
selected by some for distribution in the
United States.
To me this was new information, that
the USIA contracted to have books writ-
ten, edited, and prepared and then
turned the publishing rights over to pri-
vate publishers to sell and distribute in
the United States. When I inquired as
to how many books the USIA had which
were financed by the USIA and are now
being put out by American publishers
for sale in the United States, Mr. Harris
replied :
Sir, that is a slightly difficult question be-
Mr. Chairman, that is consistent with one cause the books which are developed this
of the four functions with which our Agency way, which we intend primarily for oversee
is, ollarged? namely, of disseminating in- use, are also put out independently by the
formation about arms control. publishers with whom we have dealings in
e ork
M
f
tl
h
[
r.
rom i.
e gen
eman
ROONEY] replied: Mr. Louis A. Fanget, Chief, Publica-
Not this way. That is not my understand- tions Division, expanded this statement
ing. This 1s about the most expensive list as follows:
I have seen in any of the agencies in this Mr. FANGET. Sir, It Is our intent to have
entire bill as we went through the budget. all the books published by the American
Do you agree with me, Mr. Bow? publisher for sale commercially not only in
the united States but we hope overseas so
that the book has the credibility we want
it to have. It is likely in every case the book
will _be -published commercially. However,
the copies we would get for use in the pro-
gram would vary from book to book depend-
ing on the support. For example, we have
a program where we support book titles on
America Today, where we get 4,000 copies for
use in the program, and the publisher pub-
lishes 5,000 more copies for use in this coun-
try. Every book we support is published
commercially.
Mr. Chairman, with just a review of
these few statements serious questions
are raised.
When a Government agency such as
the USIA finds that:
There are great advantages in having cer-
tain few books prepared for very special
specifications because they can get to these
foreign people more effectively.
When it is their full intent to have
the books published by the American
publisher for sale commercially in the
United States.
When the USIA must subsidize pub-
lishers to get:
A slant that would directly support the
foreign policy of the United States in the
opinion of the people who have selected
these topics.
When the USIA must follow this prac-
tice so:
Tailorings permit the insertion of material
that is particularly effective in getting sup-
port.
When USIA believes the fact that their
interest in certain of these books should
not become a matter of general public
information because it would harm the
books, credibility overseas, yet it is USIA's
intent to have all the books published by
the American publisher for sale commer-
cially in the United States.
Then, Mr. Chairman, USIA, in my
opinion, is exceeding the bounds of their
authority and directly making an effort
to propagandize the American people.
If the American taxpayers are reading
books they themselves subsidize with
their tax dollars-books which are writ-
ten, edited and prepared with the proper
"slant" to U.S. Information Agency spec-
ifications-the taxpayer is entitled to
know he is reading Government sub-
sidized material developed specifically
for USIA's oversea 'mission.
The Government, the USIA, and, in
fact, the publisher should so designate
this fact. In my opinion, the U.S. In-
formation Agency should call a halt to
this practice and concentrate on their
.prime target overseas and not U.S. citi-
zens.
The Honorable Robert J. Manning,
Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, in
an address which he made before the Na-
tional Editorial Association on March 13
of this year, set forth a policy that should
be basic. He stated:
The separation of journalism and govern-
ment is as basic and as advisable as separa-
tion of church and state. Government in-
trusion into the functioning of journalism-
whether by censorship, by regulatory con-
trols, by economic penetration, or political
manipulation-would represent serious jeo-
pardy to our political system.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
9902 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
The U.S. Information Agency should
heed these remarks.
This practice assumes even greater
significance and gravity when you also
consider the actions of other agencies
and departments which parallel these
efforts. As already cited on the floor of
the House, the Department of. Defense
controlling news illustrated by the TFX
memo of Assistant Secretary of Defense
A. Sylvester-the deletions from the ap-
propriations hearings for "political"
security reasons-the use of previously
classified security information to defend
a particular partisan position-the pub-
lishing of books from materials originally
financed by the Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency, but not so identified-
the publishing of a pamphlet by the ARA
supporting the ARA position, again with-
out the source being identified. These
are just a few examples but I believe
they serve to show the scope of the prac-
tice and the exceedingly dangerous con-
dition It represents to this legislative
body and the American people as a
whole.
Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that no
part of this appropriation which we are
considering today in this bill should be
used for the development of books or any
other similar material for the USIA
worldwide programs which would also be
distributed by sale or otherwise within
the continental United States.
Mr. Chairman, the questions and ob-
jections which I have raised are made to
generate concern by all of us in the prob-
lems we are facing in the conduct of our
affairs and to point up, in my opinion,
the questionable policies being pursued
by the agencies included in this bill.
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr.,FOREMAN. I wish to commend
the gentleman on his very good summary
of this bill and to join him in many of
his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, there are many good
and commendable features in this ap-
propriations bill, H.R. 11134. Among
those are such efficiently administered
departments as the International
Boundry and Water Commission, United
States and Mexico, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and others. I com-
mend the committee upon bringing us a
bill that is $135,839,200 less than in fiscal
year 1964. This is a good step,in the
right direction.
However, it is indeed difficult for me
to support such increases that are in-
cluded in this bill such as: $3,500,000 in-
crease for Arms Control and Disarma-
Ment activities; $400,000 increase for
the very badly administered U.S. Travel
Service, which department, the chair-
man of the subcommittee has stated, has
served no useful purpose in increasing
foreign travelers within our country;
$11,670,000 increase for the State De-
partment, $10 million of which is an in-
crease for salaries and expenses in'this
very loosely run Department. Further,
this bill includes $73,500,000 in new ap-
propriations for the Area Redevelopment
Administration, an agency that has, in
instance after instance, put folks out of
work and business, and has actually
helped to create new pockets of poverty
rather than eliminating poverty. These
kinds of increases and appropriations are
not in our overall best interests, and for
these reasons I cannot, in good con-
science, support this kind of spending
program.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I thank the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. LAIRD. I would like to state that
the gentleman from California who now
has the floor is the most conscientious
and best informed member of the House
Committee on Appropriations. His re-
view of this bill and the points which
were just outlined in his remarks today
should be heeded by every Member of
the House. I commend him on his usual
very fine presentation.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I thank the gentle-
man for his comments.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. GUBSER. I, too, would like to
commend the gentleman for his usual
fine and scholarly work in gathering in-
formation. It is a great service for this
information to be available to not only
the House but to the American public.
I would like to ask if during the course
of the hearings any information was
brought out which shows that the State
Department or the USIA follows the
practice of. distributing commercially
made American films in foreign coun-
tries or perhaps in some form subsidizes
the distribution of certain select com-
mercially made films in foreign coun-
tries. Was there any information re-
vealed along those lines?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. There is a program
which is called the Informational Media
Guarantee Fund program whereby com-
mercial distributors within the United
States distribute films in foreign coun-
tries. Because of the lack of foreign
exchange the Informational Media
Guarantee Fund makes up a certain
monetary difference.
Mr. GUBSER. I received a letter
from a constituent this morning which
made the claim that the film "Seven
Days in May" is being distributed in
India partially at the expense of the
U.S. Government and that one of the
leading actors in this film, Mr. Kirk
Douglas, is touring India partially at
Government expense. I have inquired
of the State Department regarding this,
and naturally have not had a chance to
receive an answer as yet. But I might
gratuitously offer the thought that if
this is the case, I seriously question if
such a film, which does not place our
military men in a very fine light, is a
proper type of film for distribution in
countries like India by the U.S. Govern-
ment.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I thank the gentle-
man from California for his comment.
I believe the matter the gentleman has
May 6
brought to the attention of the House is
worth following through on because I
have found most anything can happen
within this agency.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield the
gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield to the gen-
tleman from West Virginia.
Mr. HECHLER. I was just reading
the hearings and I simply wish to com-
pliment and commend the gentleman
from California for calling attention to
the great tourist potential of the State
of West Virginia when he referred to it
as "the Switzerland of America." I want
to thank the gentleman for the good ad-
vertising which he gave to West Virginia.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I thank the gentle-
man for his statement. I might tell the
gentleman that I obtained that quote
from a Government-subsidized pamphlet
that was being put out without any at-
tribution to the Department of Com-
merce, or the Area Redevelopment Ad-
ministration.
Mr. HECHLER. Of course, the gentle-
man's statement was a 2-day wonder
in the newspapers of West Virginia and
it was a great boost to our morale. I
hope that tourists from many States will
visit West Virginia as a result. We ap-
preciate the gentleman's calling atten-
tion to it.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I wish you luck.
Thank you.
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. LAIRD. The gentleman from
California [Mr. GUSSEe] raised a ques-
tion about the film "Seven Days in May."
I have seen this film, and it is a very fine
film. Is there any way we can insure
that the exported copies of this film are
clearly identified as "fictional"? There
have been serious questions raised by in-
dividuals seeing this film under the
promotion and suggestion of the USIA.
It has been misleading, I think, for many
foreigners because it has not been clearly
labeled. Is there any method by which
we could control or help in this problem?
Mr. LIPSCOMB. I truthfully know of
no method whereby we can control it if
it is being distributed by private distrib-
utors. I should think they would make
an effort themselves, if they are inter-
ested in the welfare of America, so to
label it. If the Federal Government in
any way is subsidizing or moving this
film around overseas under any of their
programs, I think they would be ob-
ligated to point out that the film is fic-
tional.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such time as he may
require to the distinguished gentleman
from West Virginia lMr. SLACK].
(Mr. SLACK asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SLACK. Mr. Chairman, the ap-
propriations bill before the House today
presents a splendid opportunity to bring
forward certain conclusions which I have
Sanitized - Approved For Release : C.IA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved ' For Release CIA-RbP75-00' 49R000400510025-8
.1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - DOUSE 9903
reached during service as a member of
the Committee on Appropriations and
the subcommittee chaired by the distin-
guished gentleman from New York [Mr.
Root',zY].
These major appropriation bills pro-
vide the backbone of the work in each
congressional session. They are the end
product of an enormous amount of the
dedicated activity by interested persons
on bath sides of the aisle.
Very often, as in the case of the bill
before us today, there is no great drama
involved,_ and there is no point from
which large newspaper headlines can be
written. The measure comes to the
House simply as a bill of 'particulars cre-
ated out of the consensus of the commit-
tee members who conducted intensive
explorations during hearings which last-
ed several months. It represents the
designated cost of continuing authorized
functions of certain Federal agencies for
another year.
The proposals contained in a bill of
this kind represent nothing more nor less
than the same factors each of us must
consider individually when we calculate
our personal and family expenditures for
a particular year. The very absence of
headline attention, however, tends to ob-
scure the most important aspect of a bill
of this kind.
I refer to the determined effort to pro-
vide .,continuing scrutiny of budget re-
quests, to establish controlled and realis-
tic expenditures as a way of life, without
weakening the capacity of the agencies
to perform their rightful functions.
One of the great strengths of our sys-
tem of government is the element of con-
tinuity of operational standards which
arise out of a necessity for the agencies
to justify before the Appropriations
Subcommittee the manner in which Fed-
eral funds are to be used.
A line must always be drawn between
the amount of funds an agency myst
have to perform successfully ahd those
larger totals which are perhaps not
necessary at this time, or are not ade-
quately justified from the standpoint of
the taxpayer's interest in sound fiscal
practices.
It is frequently a judgment question,
and the-judgment must be exercised on
the basis . of past experience. This is
true because most funds are requested
for continuing programs, but the pro-
grams are not always administered by
the same men with the same depth of
experience and range of convictions.
Continuity of purpose and practice
must, therefore, be established by those
who accept the responsibility of recom-
mending to the Congress the amounts to
be appropriated.
The bill before us is an excellent ex-
ample of a product which has emerged
after, long and careful consideration in
a committee. guided by proven experi-
ence`. In this instance, the experience
of Chairman JOHN ROONEY, whose knowl-
edge of the actual needs of agencies and
their limitations, provides us with ade-
quate.assurance that this is a sound and
practical approach to the fiscal require-
ments of these agencies for the next
year.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. GROSS].
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have a
few questions of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. ROONEY]. Do I under-
stand that this Government tossed
$82,000 into a mountain-climbing expe-
dition, the excuse being that the funds
were available and ought to be spent?
Does the gentleman recall that?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, the gentleman has read the
printed hearings correctly. Of course,
they never asked the committee for the
money for this particular purpose but
they did use funds for such purpose in
their educational exchange activity.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to,, compliment the gentleman and the
members of his committee for the job
they did in this regard. They served
notice in the hearings that they did not
look kindly upon expenditures for this
purpose; is that not correct?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I beg the gentleman's par-
don; what was his question?
Mr. GROSS. I say that the commit-
tee made it plain that the members of
the committee and of the Congress did
not look favorably upon the -use of
money for this purpose for the reasons
given.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. That is
absolutely correct.
Mr. GROSS. I cannot help asking
how much was spent on Secretary of the
Interior Udall's mountain climbing of
Mount Fuji in Japan.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. It is quite
a feat to climb Fuji. Has the gentleman
ever attempted it?
Mr. GROSS. No. Has the gentleman
from New York ever attempted it?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I just
looked at it. To me it looks like a big
beautiful ball of vanilla ice cream.
Mr. GROSS. I have never seen it. If
my memory serves me correctly, an Aus-
tralian or a New Zealand mountain
climber was on the Interior Department
payroll a year or so ago as some kind of
teacher of mountain climbing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the gen-
tleman if we have had any more Tom
Two Feathers?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. That was
Tom Two Arrows.
Mr. GROSS. Well, Two Arrows.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. And then
he had an alias, as I recall-what was
that? Does the gentleman from Iowa
recall? I think we discussed Tom about
10 years ago.
Mr. GROSS. No, it has been more re-
cent than 10 years ago. But I do notice
that the Government has had on the
payroll a Jazzy Cole or a Cozy Cole revue,
or something of that kind.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Would
that be Cozy Cole?
Mr. GROSS. I do not know who he
is. I do not believe he was identified.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I must
confess that I am not as thoroughly con-
versant with these theatrical performers
as is the distinguished gentleman from
Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I am relying upon the
gentleman's hearings to some extent.
And, then, I suppose Martha Graham's
dancers have been taken out of circu-
lation, have they not? They are no
longer parading them around the world
at a cost of thousands of dollars? That
comedian that got us into trouble over in
the Far East-I have forgotten his
name-
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Please do
not mention his name. He has been hit
over the head often enough.
Mr. GROSS. And, somewhere-I guess
it was in your hearings-I read or heard
that the reception for Jose Limon-is
that the way you pronounce it?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I believe
it is.
Mr. GROSS. Cost some 10 or 12 dip-
lomatic posts more than $2,000 for re-
ceptions for his entertainment when he
was sent about the world.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Well, they
want to keep the dancers in a fluid State.
Mr. GROSS. Now I want to go back
to the business of lecturers on the Fed-
eral payroll, if I may, for just a minute.
I believe the hearings relating to this
are found on page 1065-but before I do
that is the gentleman from New York
and his committee still having problems
with Foreign Service officers who are
brought back to Washington and who
are unassigned? I know he has been
working on this problem for several
years.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Yes; and
we have discussed it here a number of
times and previously reported that we
found they had as many as 40 or 50 high-
cost Foreign Service officers on a definite
day who were being paid at rates for duty
overseas but back here in Washington at
the State Department and USIA. Sad to
relate, this situation has not been en-
tirely cured, for it is only within the
last few days I learned that they cate-
gorized these idle, unassigned Foreign
Service officers who are brought back to
the State Department in Washington.
They are known officially as the "loose
pack".
Mr. GROSS. Did I understand the
gentleman to say "loose pack"?
Mr. ROONEY of New York.. Loose as
can be.
Mr. GROSS. Well, I am afraid that
is a part of the State Department opera-
tions in all too many cases
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Well, they
have too many in the loose pack and we
are doing the best we can to rectify the
situation.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
I hope he stays with this problem, no
matter by what name it is called. I do
not know how many pages there are
here-I have not counted them, but there
must be 15 pages in fine print-of lec-
turers that we are apparently paying
salaries and transporting all over the
world. I understand there were 876 of
them in 1963 and the committee made
a whopping cut to 862 for fiscal year
1965. I would be glad to be corrected
Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510625-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8 =
9904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
if I am wrong. For instance, there was
someone from the Juilliard School of
Music in New York. She is lecturing on
piano at the University of Chile. Then,
there is an assistant professor of busi-
ness administration from the University
of California. He is lecturing on mar-
keting in France. I hope that he tells
them that we do not like what is going
on over in the Common Market. I hope
he can lend something to the settlement
of the chicken war.
Then, there is a lecturer from Wasl:l-
ington, D.C., who is over at the Univer-
sity of Leiden in the Netherlands lec-
turing on Soviet law.
There is another lecturer, a professor
of Greek at Bryn Mawr College in Penn-
sylvania, who is over at the University
of Oxford lecturing on the Greek tragedy.
There is a professor of poultry science
at Purdue University who is in the United
Kingdom lecturing on population dy-
namics and genetics. I do not know
what a professor of poultry science has
to do with population dynamics and
genetics. Maybe that, too, is related to
chickens.
There is a professor from the Univer-
sity of Illinois lecturing in Russia on
agricultural economics. Whether he has
been helping them get their wheat from
us or just what his mission, I do not
know.
Then there is a member of the staff of
the Housing and Home Finance Agency
who is over in Aus~ralia lecturing on
urban renewal. I suppose he can give
the Australians a nice hand on that. I
only hope we are not called on to put up
the money for Australia's urban renewal.
Here is an assistant conductor of a
little orchestra society in New York over
in the Republic of China lecturing on
music. There are scores of others, too
numerous to mention, including India
and Japan which has apparently been
saturated with American lecturers. I
hope the committee will take a long and
hard look at this expenditure. The fail-
ure to cut much deeper in many items
of this bill will cause me to vote against
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. LINDSAY].
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio for yielding to me. I take this time
to ask the gentleman from New York
[Mr. ROONEY], about the controversy
surrounding the administration's re-
quest for $12 million for the rescue of the
ancient temples at Abu Simbel that are
doomed to drowning once the flooding
from Aswan Dam is complete. As I un-
derstand it, the administration asked for
$12 million as the U.S. share of the $36
million United Nations fund to rescue
these ancient temples from destruction.
I am wondering what consideration led
the distinguished committee to deny the
administration's request?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I think
the gentleman from New York should be
very readily able to ascertain the answer
to that himself. This item was denied
and such denial was approved without
objection by the full committee. The
full committee consists of 50 members.
I should not talk too much about these
temples. Suffice it to say that we had
allegedly cultured people up here who did
not know whether Abu Simbel was an
early Egyptian ruler or a place.
The committee evidently just does not
think that we should spend $12 million
of valuable currency which we receive at
face value. The British, according to
the New York Times of Monday, May 4,
made their contribution to the temples at
Abu Simbel, but in the following manner.
The New York Times of that date said:
The problem arose after the death of Sir
Robert Greg, the former British Commis-
sioner for the Egyptian Public Debt, at his
home in Cairo in 1953. He left about
$188,000 to be shared by the Fitzwllliam
Museum in Cambridge and the National Art
Collections Fund. But for 10 years the
Egyptian Government refused to release the
funds.
After protracted argument, the govern-
ments reached an agreement. Last week the
Foreign Office (British) sent out check for
#33,515 17s. 6d. each for the Fitzwilliam Mu-
seum and the NACF.
Then it informed President Nasser that he
could regard the money as Britain's official
contribution toward saving the Abu Simbel
temples from. the advancing waters of the
Aswan Dam.
Let me say to the gentleman from New
York that this is another instance where
the British are far smarter than we are.
I think their pledge was in the amount of
nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
They settled it- for $188,000 in wooden
money while we are fools enough to offer
to contribute $12 million, one-third of the
total. cost.
Mr. LINDSAY. Was the $12 million
supposed to be funded out of counterpart
funds?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The pro-
posal was to fund them out of the pro-
ceeds of Public Law 480 sales of agricul-
tural commodities.
Mr. LINDSAY. Was the committee
unanimous in the decision not to rec-
ommend the appropriation?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. There was
no action except in favor of taking it out
completely in the full committee.
Mr. LINDSAY. The subcommittee had
approved this amount?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. It had
not approved it.
Mir. LINDSAY. What was the testi-
mony in support of the appropriation?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. If the
gentleman will refer to the printed De-
partment of State hearings, he will find
that the committee went into the mat-
ter in some detail, starting at page 1236
of the Department of State hearings.
There is a list at page 1243 in which
the gentleman may be interested, as well
as one on page 1249. It occurs to the
present speaker that the United States
is being asked to contribute an inordi-
nate amount, to wit, $12 million, as
compared with $210,000 for the United
Kingdom, which the British Foreign Of-
fice has just settled for wooden money
to the tune of $188,000. France has
agreed to contribute only $1 million to-
ward saving these temples. I am not
too concerned that these temples might
be inundated by the waters created as
the result of Khrushchev building the
May 6
Aswan Dam, and I think the people in
my district feel the same way.
Mr. LINDSAY. Did the testimony in-
dicate that in the absence of this $12
million the temples would not be saved,
or is there still some hope that they will
be rescued from flooding in the absence
of this appropriation?
Mr. ROONEY of New - York. Of
course, Mr. Nasser can proceed to move
at any time to save his temples. How
does the gentleman from New York [Mr.
LINDSAY] feel about this requested ap-
propriation?
Mr. LINDSAY. I regard these tem-
ples as a worldwide heritage. I think
they ought to be saved. It is neither an
Egyptian nor a national matter. It is
international.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Does the
gentleman think they ought to be saved
with American taxliayers' money?
Mr. LINDSAY. I would agree with
the gentleman that it should not be the
United States obligation to save them.
We should only carry a fair share.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. May' I
remind the distinguished gentleman
from New 'York that this is the very
project that the late Aly Khan, the great
international playboy, was concerned
with. This is the project on which he
was supposed to travel all over the
world and collect funds to save these
temples. I might say to the gentleman
that I have some highly cultured peo-
ple, Egyptologists, if you please, who feel
that this project ab initio should have
been carried out by private subscription
and not with the Government's, the tax-
payers', money.
Mr. LINDSAY. The question I was
leading up to was. Would some sum
short of $12 million be an appropriate
share on the part of the United States?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I think
it would only disrupt the arrangement.
I think the way to handle the matter is
to take the action suggested by the com-
mittee and leave it to Mr. Nasser.
Mr. LINDSAY. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GROSS].
Mr. GROSS. I am glad the gentle-
man and his committee struck the $12
million out of this bill, and for the
added reason that our share of $12 mil-
lion was what UNESCO said we must
put into it, according to your hearings.
Why should UNESCO tell us what we
have to put into a deal of this kind or
any other deal?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I am
afraid the fault lies with the educational
and cultural people in the Department
of State. This proposal was made before
the present Assistant Secretary of State
for Educational and Cultural Affairs took
his office. The fault lies with the State
Department originally going into these
sort of agreements and committing us
beforehand to unusual and lopsided
sums such as the one we are talking
about here.
Mr. GROSS. That is right.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved- For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R0004005100'25-8
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Mr. Chairman, I rise to defend a great
American, a distinguished former Mem-
ber of this House, a former Governor of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
axid former Secretary of State of the
United'Sta'tes and t'ie President's Special
Representative for Trade Negotiations,
the Honorable Christian A. Herter. The
gentleman from Iowa referred to the
poultry war-the chicken war. I should
like to, report to the gentleman from
Iowa,, if. he does not already know so,
that it is shown at page 921 of the
printed hearings that Chris Herter re-
taliated against the French and Ger-
mans by recommending to the President
increases ,in the tariffs on four different
items-brandy, buses, starches and one
other item which escapes me at the
`monie1)t. He recommended that on
these four items we should set up tariff
restrictions to'the amount of $26 million
which would offset' the amount that
these countries who opposed us in the
so-called poultry war gained by refusing
us the opportunity to sell our chickens.
Mr. GROSS. That is only the hope of
Christian ]erter according to your
hearings, that we are going to get this
offset,, He does not .promise us anything
or assure us of anything,
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I con-
sitler Christian Herter's remarks insofar
as action on these items is concerned to
Inean'that it is a fait accompli and that
we were going to collect the $26 million
In taxes as a result.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from
New York in the hearings indicated his
doubt that Herter. is going to get this
offset. Moreover, Herter raised the
-tariff on the highest priced brandy, as
I understand it, that France makes.
low many people are going to pay that
price for a bottle of French brandy in
this country?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I think
that is the problem. But if I know the
American public, they are going to cut
down on their after-dinner brandy. If
this tariff is put on brandy, it will be an
offset against the chicken loss. ,
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. KYLI.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I would like
to address one question to the distin-
guished gentleman from New York in the
interest of the legislative history. The
gentleman from California spoke about
the V$IA bookwriting process and the
subsequent profit arrangement for the
distribution of these books. Does the
gentleman from 'New York who so. ably
chairs this pQTnmittee think this book-
Writing process Is wise in the first in-
stance; or that it is legal?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I think
that is a matter. for the General Account-
ing Office to decide. I expect they will
soon decide this. It is my understand-
ii}g that the iasic'law does not~erm'it
the U.S. Information Agency to conduct
on any propaganda activities aimed at
tl a American public.
Wit'} that in mind, the gentleman can
readily ascertain my mentality with re-
gard to this situation.
Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman.
No. 90-14
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Generally, I have spoken on this bill
prior to this time during debate in pre-
vious years, but the bill has been so well.
covered that I shall have little more to
say about It. I believe the gentleman
from New York [Mr. RooNEY] has done
an excellent job in explaining the bill.
The gentleman from California [Mr.
LIPSCOMB] covered many important mat-
ters in the bill.
I rise simply to say that I support the
bill in its entirety as it comes to the floor.
I believe it is a good bill. A great deal
of work has been done on it. There
are some compromises in some places,
where I believe further cuts could have
been made, and perhaps there are some
places where we have cut a little deep.
But, of course, all of this can be worked
out.
The gentleman from Iowa was con-
cerned about lecturers who have been
going around the world speaking at var-
ious colleges throughtout the world. I
would invite the attention of the commit-
tee to the volume of testimony on the
Department of Justice, page 331, on
which there is a listing of colleges of the
United States which also have lecturers
on their campuses. This is a listing of
Communists who have been speaking on
the campuses of colleges of the United
States. It would seem to me to be of
Interest to the Members to take a look
at this to learn of the colleges in this
Country which are permitting known and
leading Communists to come to speak to
the student bodies.
I am as much concerned, and perhaps
more so, about this as I am about lec-
turers who have gone abroad to speak
on some of the ridiculous things the
gentleman from Iowa pointed out.
I believe the gentleman from New
York overlooked one Important aspect
of the bill. We have seen a new defini-
tion arise, I believe, on a question in-
volving the Department of Justice. That
Is shown on page 247 of the hearings.
It relates to the Bureau of Prisons.
As Members know, we have spent a
lot of money to build a new prison in
the State of Illinois, at Marion. This
Is supposed to be a top security prison,
to take the place of Alcatraz.
The gentleman from New York, in his
'usual prodding manner, asked about
escapes there. He asked, about Marion,
Now many escapes did you have?"
It was very interesting that we were
told there had been no escapes at the
Marion prison, ,but I ask Members to
listen to What was said 'by the witness:
We have not had more, I think, than per-
haps 5 or 6 walkaways; no escapes, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. ROONEY then said:
In other words, if they walk away, it is
.not an escape. Is that the idea?
'So we have a new definition. If the
prisoners in that great total security
prison merely walk away-and they have
had some do so-that Is not an escape
but just a walkaway.
The gentleman from New York
brought that out clearly in regard to the
9905
question of escapes from this total secu-
rity prison.
On the question of the monuments, I
believe the gentleman has been more
than fair in his discussion of the matter.
I would say, in defense of the committee,
that some of us on it were quite strongly
opposed to the monuments and to the
spending of $12 million for, the purpose
requested. I know the feeling of the
gentleman from New York about this.
Others of us were even stronger in our
feelings about this matter, feeling that
many other countries are paying only a
small amount-the rich oil countries, the
Arab countries Mr. Nasser is now going
into-and that they can certainly pay a
great' deal more for the preservation of
these monuments than we should be
called upon to pay.
I should like to point out that though
the counterpart funds are generated
under Public Law 480, they cost us dol-
lars just the same. I believe that too
many people at times are led to believe
that counterpart funds are a Mickey
Mouse sort of money and that they do
not mean anything. They do. Believe
me when I say that when we get coun-
terpart funds we pay 100 cents on the
dollar. They are important. We can
use them for the operation of our em-
bassies abroad. I do not believe that we
should be lulled Into the idea that many
people have, that merely because we
have counterpart funds available we
should use them for any purpose which
might come along, in this manner. I
believe that other countries should be
contributing more.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr..
Chairman, will the distinguished gentle-
man yield?
Mr. BOW. I would be delighted to
yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Would
my good friend, the gentleman from
Ohio, agree with me that if we had a
more sensible agreement made by the
Department of State in this particular
instance with the United Arab Republic,
we could sell these Egyptian pounds gen-
erated by the Public Law 480 program
for American dollars?
Mr. BOW. The gentleman is correct,
and I brought this out in the hearings, as
the record will show. I asked why we
could not sell these pounds to people who
might be interested in preserving them,
even if we did this at some discount. Let
private investors come in who would be
interested in preserving these monu-
ments. When you think of the great
sums of money that museums have avail-
able to them in. America, this occurs to
you. I am a member of the Board of
Regehts of the Smithsonian Institution,
and I am very interested in this work. I
know there are many groups in this
country who can raise great amounts of
money in the private sector for things of
this nature. Why do we have to come to
the Federal Government for all of these
things when we recognize that we have
a $315 billion deficit and at the end of
this year we will have a further deficit
and will have gone further into debt?
If you got $12 million, of course, you
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 9906
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149P,000400510025-8`"'
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE May 6
would have to borrow more money to get
the funds out of the Treasury,,
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. I would be happy to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MICHEL. I want to commend the
gentleman from Ohio for pointing up the
issue here very clearly, as he has. I
might allude to the sale of surplus grain
under the Public Law 480 program in
generating local currencies in these
various countries, because next week
when the agriculture appropriation bill
comes onto the floor of this House, Mem-
bers will be called upon to appropriate
several hundreds of millions of dollars
to replenish the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation because' of those sales
that were made from local currencies
which in effect we cannot use for any
other purpose other than some function
such as this might be, if it could be done.
I want to ask the gentleman one ques-
tion: Since this was a $12 million item
request, was there any thought given at
all to a token contribution of something
less than that $12 million?
Mr. BOW. No, because just as in
other things they said that this is sup-
posed to be the amount of money we are
to pay. I do not think we should get
into that system of making token con-
tributions. When we deny it, we serve
notice on the State Department that we
do not approve of it and it is too much.
Let them go back and renegotiate with
the other countries. If we give a token
sum to them, it is just getting the camel's
nose under the tent. We should not
allow that and should wait until they
come back with a proper agreement.
If I have one more minute, I would
like to say what the gentleman from
New York said; namely, that this was
done before the present Assistant Secre-
tary for Cultural Affairs, Mr. Battle, was
in office, is so. I would like to observe
that Mr. Battle, as the Assistant Secre-
tary for Cultural Affairs, is doing one of
the best jobs in the 14 years that I have
been serving on this committee that I
have ever seen done in this field. 'Ile is
trying to straighten out that division and
is doing an excellent job and, given a
little more time, there will be some more
improvement.
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. LINDSAY. First I would like to
agree completely with what the distin-
guished gentleman has said about Mr.
Battle. He is a first-class public servant
and is doing a very fine job.
Correct me if I am wrong in this: Do
I understand that the United Nations
set aside a total of $36 million for the
preservation of the temples? That was
my understanding of it.
Mr. BOW. This is correct.
Mr. LINDSAY. Having done that, is
not the United States rightfully called
upon to contribute some share of the $36
million? That share couJd be less than
$12 million and it could be less than $10
million or less than $5 million, but would
not the United States in all good faith
have to support the United Nations in
making some contribution?
Mr. BOW. I think the gentleman will
agree with me that the United Nations
having done this, in the contributions we
make to the United Nations, we have al-
ready American taxpayers contributing
to this. We are being called on now for
this additional amount. I do not think
that we should have any token appro-
priation but should have an understand-
ing as to what it will be and then make it.
. Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, will th_ a gentleman yield to
me?
Mr. BOW. I yield to the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Apropos
of my earlier remarks that I had con-
versed with people on whose judgment
I would rely and became convinced that
this should be entirely a matter of pri-
vate subscription, I would like to join
right now with the distinguished gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY]
in starting a drive for private subscrip-
tions to save the temples at Abu Sinbel.
I will be the first to contribute $50 to-
ward the gentleman's collection.
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Indiana.
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise on this occasion to compli-
ment the action of the committee with
regard to this item. I want to say,
though, with regard to Public Law 480,
as one who helped to sponsor the origi-
nal bill, that in my judgment the original
intent; to a very large degree, has been
perverted? In its original state the bill
had a pretty good motive. We were
looking forward to the eventual reduc-
tion and if possible elimination of sur-
pluses so that we could be rid of this very
expensive program. In the beginning
the Department of State opposed it.
Suddenly they concluded that this was
about the best cold war weapons any-
body could think of and they imme-
diately embraced it. Today they are
running the show. They want us to con-
tinue to generate surpluses so that they
can continue to use them all over the
world as a boondoggle program. I do
not approve the way they have used these
funds in many instances. Of course I
think it has done some good. I believe
everybody would concur in that opinion.
But we have run into so many in-
stances where there is really not too
much justification for the way they have
permitted these surpluses to be traded
for foreign currencies which are frozen
in tremendous quantities abroad.
Egypt is an example. I think the rec-
ord will show that we have nearly $100
million frozen in Egypt. The gentleman
from New York [Mr. ROONEY] said that
eventually we could use it to pay our
embassy expenses, and I suppose we
could, but that is going to take a long,
long time, to use that much money in
this fashion.
In India, for example, we have in ex-
cess of $300 million which has been ac-
cumulated and which has been frozen
in the currency of that country, and ap-
parently we cannot retrieve that. To
me that is just the same as lost.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the com-
mittee particularly on their effort to try
to use some device to unfreeze these
funds. I agree with their program
wholeheartedly and I hope that they will
be able finally to bring it to a successful
conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, I want to set the record
straight so far as the Committee on Agri-
culture is concerned. We feel that to a
large extent the purpose that we had in
mind originally in enacting this law has
been, as I stated earlier, perverted.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Indiana and reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such time as he may
desire to the distinguished gentleman
from Florida [Mr. SixEs].
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. SIKES addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
this appropriation bill represents hun-
dreds of hours of work both in the prep-
aration of the budget requests and in
the screening of the requests by the sub-
committee. These hearings are not
glamorous and in fact get to be a sort
of grind; but these long days of hearings
are absolutely necessary in the attempt
to find ways to reduce spending without
eliminating necessary or valuable serv-
ices. The report which is available to
all Members is so well detailed that fur-
ther comments on each item is unneces-
sary.
The resulting bill is not a perfect bill
and I am sure improvements can al-
ways be made to these bills but this
unanimously recommended bill is, gen-
erally speaking, a good bill. I am glad
that as a member of the subcommittee
which developed this bill, I can urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the appropriation con-
tained in this bill for the Center for
Cultural and Technical Interchange Be-
tween East and West.
The East-West Center, as it is gen-
erally called, was created to achieve a
national interest under the Mutual Se-
curity Act of 1960. Its primary objec-
tive is the promotion of better relations
through mutual understanding between
the United States and the nations of
Asia and the Pacific.
In May of 1961, President Johnson,
then Vice President, dedicated the site
of the Center on the University of Hawaii
campus with these words:
The purpose * * ? is to bring together
proud . and honorable cultures whose
strengths are drawn from antiquity and to
fuse a new strength for freedom that will
last through eternity.
Hawaii was chosen as the site for the
Center because there peoples of many
backgrounds, many of whom are of Asian
and Pacific races, live in harmony de-
spite their cultural differences.
Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-ROP75-00149R000400510025-8
19 e.4 , CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD - flOLJSt 9907
Among our national leaders who had meteorology and in seismology,) special- s1'b111ties have been blurred and its ad-
the foresight to :recognize the need for ist each. A conference on tsunamis was ministrations unstable and uncertain.
such an institution in Hawaii and who attended by 39 delegates from 7 coun- These problems are not necessarily the
may in every sense be termed "fathers tries, and' a bibliography and other fault of any particular individual or
of the East-West Center" are our Pres- tsunami data were translated into Eng- group, but stem from the growing pains
ident, Lyndon B. Johnson; Governor- lisp from Japanese. Another major con- of a youthful organization. In spite of
formerly delegate-John A. Burns, and ference, one on Asian-Pacific Science In- these handicaps, the Center has contin-
the able chairman of the subcommittee formation Centers, was cosponsored in ued to move ahead and demonstrate its
which reported this bill, Congressman Hong Kong with 26 delegates from 13 potential contributions in the promotion
JOHN J. ROONEY. countries. " of mutual understanding and interna-
In. making appropriations for any Other areas of study included philoso- tional cooperation.
project the question should be whether phy, history, drama, music, the social Fortunately, the recognition of these
or not the intended objectives are being sciences, and public health. Problems by the committee and by the
achieved. The question here then is "Is If the future program of the Center Department of State has given to the
the goal of promoting better relations is soundly planned by its administrators Center the opportunity it needs for re-
through mutual understanding between' and officials and adequately supported medial action and subsequent growth.
the United States and the nations of by Congress, within the next 10 years First of all, the State Department, with
Asia and the Pacific, as enunciated by its the effective leadership political, scien- the attention of Assistant Secretary Bat-
founders being achieved?" There is im- tific, and technical-of Asia and the Pa- tie, has given the Center the interest,
pressive evidence that it is. The East- cific areas will have received its train- guidance, and support it has previously
West. Center has even been called a ing there. lacked from the Federal Government.
modern miracle in education by edu- Mr. Chairman, the East-West Center The sincerity of this interest in the Cen-
cators and writers who have reviewed in Hawaii is fast proving to be one of ter has been. demonstrated with the sp-
it. In an article entitled "E-W Center: the greatest investments in peace that pointment of a full-time special assistant
Educational Miracle," published in the the-United States has ever made. Cer- for East-West Center Affairs. In the
March 21, 1964, issue of the Saturday tainly a project which has proven itself second place, the congressional commit-
Review of Literature, Norman Cousins, as worthy and effective as the East-West tees that deal with the Center have had
the president and editor of that publica- Center deserves the support of Congress, the opportunity, denied them at the in-
tion, observed that: even to the extent of expanding its pro- ception, to examine the Center with some
The Center is both a headquarters for gritifn: care. In the third place, the release of
cultural interchange and a generating agen- Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise the recently completed study of the Cen-
cy for new ideas and approaches in'a world 'to commend the gentleman from New ter by the U.S. Advisory Commission on
fumbling for ways to accommodate its di- York [Mr. ROONEY] for the outstanding International Educational and Cultural
versity and pluralism. job which he and his committee always Affairs should provide the guidelines for
The East-West Center at Honolulu is not accomplish with the State, Justice, Corn- a hopefully harmonious administrative
quite a world university but it is the closest merce bill. relatonship between the Center, the
deserves to be I trust that sufficient funds may be in- University of Hawaii, the State, and Fed-
encouraaogedd, , suthatpported exists. and It enlarged. .
eluded to enable the weather station at eral Governments.
Although the Center has been in actual Parkersburg, W. Va., to operate on an The time has arrived for the quiet
operation Only a little over 3 years, it 8-hour day basis. This station is re- and uninterrupted development and
has made a tremendous impact. . sponsible for weather predictions and in- growth of the Center. The confidence in
As of the beginning of 1964, 129 men formation over a wide area' of West Vir- the ability of the Center to achieve this
and women representing 28 countries ginia and Ohio. Being on the Ohio development and growth is reflected in
have studied public administration, a River, the weather station can also be the recommendation by the committee
most vital area of developing nations- helpful in connection with flood warn- and approval by the House of the funds
37 Americans have studied admiii sera- ings and predictions. For the farmers, needed to continue the Center's pro-
tion in the light of the problems of Asian businessmen, river traders, and many grams at a level higher than that ap-
and Pacific countries so that they can people in a great, expanding area, it is proved for fiscal year 1964. I hope that
be more effective later in work overseas. not unreasonable to hope that morning all of those who are concerned with the
The study of agriculture-soil science, weather service at Parkersburg may be success of the Center will now give it the
horticulture, and
agricultural econom- extended to an 8-hour day basis. time to develop. There is no sense in
ks-has been -ndertaken by 112 per- Mr. GILL. Mr. Speaker, I am very continually pulling up a plant just to
sons from 20 countries. In addition, pleased to note the consideration-
onsideration given see whether it is growing.
writings on plant and food quarantine by the appropriations committee and by Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
and coffee inspection had been translated the gentleman from New York [Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
into Japanese, Visayan and Ilocano. ROONEY] subcommittee to the Center for time.
One hundred and eighty-nine students Cultural and Technical Interchange Be- Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I have no
have participated in the 1-year teacher tween East and West. The appropria- further requests for time.
interchange program and in the teach- tion of $5,300,000 for the Center for fis- The CHAIRMAN. There being no
tug of English as a second language. cal year 1965 is an act of confidence of further requests for time, the Clerk will
Thirty-two of the technical program the committee and by the House in the read the bill for amendment.
-participants took part in training courses worth of the Center as an institution de- The Clerk read as follows:
in education subjects. These people will signed to promote mutual understanding ? Page 3, line 17:
return to their respective nations as between the peoples of the Pacific re- REPRESENTATION ALLOWANCES
school administrators, curriculum direc- gion. While the appropriation repre- For representation allowances as author-
tqrs, principals, and university instruc- sents an amount substantially less than ized by section 901 of the Foreign Service Act
tors. Their influence will be felt the sum requested in the budget, and of 1946 (22 U.S.C. 1131), $993,000.
throughout their countries. The new while I,believe it should be increased
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I mmethods, materials, and insights gained closer to the original request, a read- to.strike out the requisite number , move
of
at the Center will be-spread to many dis- justment of the Center's planned level of
taut lands. operations will allow it to continue its words.
In the, scientific fields, 20 grantees valuable work. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given
majored in civil, electrical, or general I am particularly pleased to note that permission to revise and extend his re-
engineering, including grantees from the committee has indicated its :confa- marks.)
Cbins, 6; India, 4; and Japan, 3. The dence in the Center even though the in- Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, there is
r nee ryas extensive in other fields, such stitution has nt been without its prob- altogether too much for entertainment
at 1~} Chemistry, 14 students; 2, special- lems; and these- problems have been real. and liquor allowances in this bill, For
ists; botany, 12 students; biochemistry, Unclear administrative relationships the State Department alone, as I see the
2 specialists; genetic, 3 specialists; mi- and lack of communication have been line items, set forth, there is more than
crobiology, 10 students; physics, 2 substantial stumbling blocks to a clear $1 million. Mr. Chairman, I am not go-
specialists; zoology, 13, students; and in understanding of the Center. Its respon- ing to offer an amendment. I have of-
Sanitized - Approved For Release :'CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 9908
Sanitized -Approved, For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE May 6 Is
fered them in the past. And it has been
an exercise in futility to try to cut this
spending for liquor. I am not going to
offer an amendment to reduce the $993,-
000 for this purpose as found on page 3
of the bill and the $75,000 for the same
purpose for "International conferences
and contingencies" to be found on page
6 of the bill. There are numerous other
entertainment allowances in the bill.
I say again, as I have found in the
past, it is merely an exercise in futility
to offer amendments to strike out or re-
duce these liquor funds. I protest it and
want the RECORD to show my protest of
the huge amounts to be spent for this
purpose as found in this bill.
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
11134 calls for over a million dollars for
"representation." Representation is just
a fancy name for entertainment.
With all the poverty we have in this
country, I cannot justify voting for this
lavish liquor spending by the State De-
partment. If they consume a little less
alcohol at the State Department, per-
haps we would not be having so many
problems around the world.
Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
. (Mr. MATTHEWS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I
want to congratulate the distinguished
chairman of this committee and the oth-
er members of the committee for the ex-
cellent work they have done on this bill.
I take this time to call the attention
of the Cominittee to a statement that
was made on, January 28 this year by
Mr. Burke Marshall, Assistant Attorney
General of the Civil Rights Division, in
the Department of Justice, who appeared
before the committee to justify his budg-
et and made a statement that I put in the
RECORD` on April 29.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this statement
allegedly inferred that there were two
counties In my congressional district in
Florida where Negroes may have been
denied their voting rights because of dis-
crimination by voting registrars or
through intimidation by private indi-
viduals or public officials. The two coun-
ties that he mentioned were Flagler
County and Union County.
The citizens of these two counties
naturally are concerned about this mis-
statement of fact. That is one reason,
Mr. Chairman, why I do not have too
much confidence in the Civil Rights
Commission. I believe this Commis-
sion is guilty of making a conclusion be-
fore It makes an investigation.
Mr. Chairman, it just so happens that
the secretary of state of Florida can
make available to Mr. Marshall or to the
Civil Rights Commission the voting facts
about the State of Florida. They do
not need any money to get these facts.
In Florida our citizens do not have to
ply a poll tax in order to vote. There
are no literacy tests in Florida.
This last year we had hundreds of
thousands, of course, of our citizens to
qualify to vote and included in that num-
ber were 240,000 colored citizens qualified
to vote in Florida.
In these two counties I just mentioned,
In Flagler County, let us take that one
county as an example, there were 293
Democrats, colored Democrats, who were
registered and only 1 colored Republican.
,Now, it just may be that Mr. Marshall
and the Civil Rights Commission were
getting a little mixed up with the fact
that there was just one Republican who
was qualified. But, that is not unusual in
southern counties in our areas not to
have too many Republicans qualify.
Mr. Chairman, Flagler County is a
small county insofar as the number of
people is concerned. It is one of the great
counties of Florida, with a beautiful
coastline and it is a county of indus-
trious, good people. We have wonderful
Irish potatoes grown there. The mur-
muring pine trees invite a visitor and give
industry to the community.
In this small county, 1,820 white Demo-
crats were registered as of April 4, 1964,
and 293 colored Democrats.
Please keep in mind that It is a small
county.
In the other county, Union County,
permit me to point out, there was also
only one colored Republican in that coun-
ty who was registered. But in this small
county only 2,251 white Democrats were
registered and there were 127 colored
Democrats who were registered.
So, Mr. Chairman, I take this time to
say to this great committee that next
year I believe I can save it a little money
if It wants to check on whether or not
any voters are being discriminated
against in my Eighth Congressional Dis-
trict in Florida. For just a 5-cent postage
stamp we can get that information.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MATTHEWS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. SIKES. My distinguished col-
league from Florida is making a very
valuable contribution. However, there Is
one point In which he leaves the issue a
little cloudy insofar as I am concerned.
He brought up the question of Repub-
licans qualifying, I am not sure whether
he is talking about the scarcity of Repub-
licans qualifying or qualified Republicans
In. Florida.
Mr. MATTHEWS. The gentleman's
point is very well taken.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MATTHEWS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I trust the gentleman
has read the hearings with respect to
requests for funds for the Civil Rights
Commission wherein he will find they
have 55 attorneys over there. They
spent more than $100,000 on travel in the
last fiscal year, as I recall it. I think he
will be surprised if he has not read the
hearings to note how few cases they have
brought to a conclusion out of the total
number.
Mr. MATTHEWS. I thank the gentle-
man for his contribution.
The Clerk read as follows:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the detection
and prosecution of crimes against the United
States; protection of the person of the Presi-
dent of the United States; acquisition, col-
lection, classification and preservation of
identification and other records and their
exchange with, and for the official use of, the
duly authorized officials of the Federal Gov-
ernment, of States, cities, and other insti-
tutions, such exchange to be subject to can-
cellation if dissemination is made outside
the receiving departments or related agen-
cies; and such other investigations regarding
official matters under the control of the De-
partment of Justice and the Department of
State as may be directed by the Attorney
General, including purchase for police-type
use without regard to the general purchase
price limitation for the current fiscal year
(not to exceed five hundred and one, includ-
ing one armored vehicle, for replacement
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles;
firearms and ammunition; not to exceed
$10,000 for taxicab hire to be used exclusively
for the purposes set forth in this paragraph;
payment of rewards; and not to exceed
$70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of the Attorney General, and to
be accounted for solely on his certificate;
$150,445,000; Provided, That the compensa-
tion of the Director of the Bureau shall be
$22,000 per annum so long as the position is
held by the present incumbent.
None of the funds appropriated for the
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be
used to pay the compensation of any civil-
service employee.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in reading the hear-
ings on the questioning of Mr. Hoover
about the Communist Ii fluence in civil
rights agitation organizations, I notice
the reply of Mr. Hoover was given off the
record.
All of us know that there is, as has
been verified by Mr. Hoover, a very se-
rious Communist Infiltration in these or-
ganizations, such as CORE, the National
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Com-
mittee, and numerous other similar out-
fits. We know that W. E. B. duBois, a
longtime leader of the NAACP, was an
old Communist. We know that Phillip
Randolph belongs to numerous Commu-
nist-front organizations. We know that
Bayard Rustin, who led the notorious
march on Washington, has been a known
Communist, and a convicted sex pervert.
Martin Luther King attended the
Highlander Folk School In Monteagle,
Tenn., a notorious Communist establish-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, nearly every time a so-
called civil rights demonstration occurs,
there are Communists or Communist
sympathizers leading the parade.
Just the other day, on March 30, a
white man was arrested in Jackson,
Miss., in a Negro section of town, for be-
ing drunk and disorderly and for resist-
ing arrest. This man's name was Rich-
ard A. Jewett. He said he was a grad-
uate of one of the large engineering col-
leges in the East. He volunteered to the
Jackson City police that he was a Com-
munist, a member of the Communist
Party.
When this CORE organization, with
whom he was employed on salary, made
their usual spurious complaint to the
Justice Department that Jewett had been
a victim of police brutality, the FBI came
down and Jewett admitted to the FBI,
also, that he was a Communist. Yet this
man Is on the payroll of CORE, and he is
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 P 1964
Sanitized -Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R00040.0510025-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I cannot
say that this will be the last payment, I
must say to my distinguished friend from
Iowa. There are additional moneys
authorized.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. BOW. I must confess on previous
bills, I have made the statement on this
floor that this was the last amount. I
have had witnesses tell me "This is the
last amount that will be appropriated for
this purpose." But this seems to be end-
less. I asked again=Is this to be the
end? And I have received some assur-
ance that it was. I will say to the gen-
tleman, this is like so many other things
that we find here in Washington where
we think that some day we will come to
the end of it, but I do not think anybody
on this floor can give you the assurance
today as to when we will see the end of
this program.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, will the distinguished gentle-
man yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Now the
gentleman from Iowa will, I am sure, un-
derstand after hearing what the distin-
guished gentleman from Ohio has just
said, why I could not answer categori-
cally that this would be the last payment.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I think it should
be pointed out, however, that since this
road construction started and since the
original authorization was made and the
original statements were made that there
have been added to this system some ad-
ditional specifications and additional
mileage and so forth.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
I still hope this is the last drag out of
our pockets. But I am beginning to be-
lieve this will go on in perpetuity.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. We can
give the distinguished gentleman from
Iowa no assurance whatever in this re-
gard, because additional contract author-
ity is outstanding. When that is exer-
cised, the committee will have nothing to
do but to pay the amount of money con-
tracted for.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman,
and I yield back the remainder of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS
going throughout the South stirring up
trouble between the white and the
colored people.
I just wanted to ask the chairman of
the committee if, in this off-the-record
conversation, Mr. Hoover gave any de=
tails regarding Communist activities In
this movement.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I should
say to the gentleman that I must respect
the distinguished Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and follow the
record In this regard. He went into the
subject of Communist activities with the
members of the committee in minute de-
tail. But beyond that I cannot answer
the distinguished gentleman from Mis-
sissippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that if the
Justice Department spent half the time
and money trying to ferret out the Com-
munists that are at work trying to de-
stroy this country as they do in harassing
the people of the Southern States, there
would be much less trouble in this coun-
try.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Perhaps
if my friend from Mississippi had heard
the testimony of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, I
am sure he would agree with the mem-
bers of the subcommittee and myself
when I say he has been a splendid Direc-
tor and is, doing a fine job. The gentle-
man from Mississippi need have no fear
so far as the internal security of this
country Is concerned.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I quite agree with
the gentleman that Mr. Hoover has done
a magnificent job. I have nothing but
praise for Mr. Hoover. I would remind
you, however, that Mr. Hoover is in an
agency of the Justice Department, and
thus must act in accordance with policies
laid down by the Attorney General. It
could be that the Attorney General wants
this information withheld from the pub-
lic.
The Clerk read as follows:
INTER-AMERICAN HIGHWAY
For necessary expenses for construction of
the Inter-American Highway, in accordance
with the provisions of section 212 of title 23
of the United States Code, to remain avail-
able until expended, $4,000,000.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to ask someone if this is the item, the
Inter-American Highway, on which the
U.S. contribution was supposed to have
ended several years ago? Are they back
here again asking for $4 million for this
highway?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I must
say the gentleman is correct. We felt
this road would have been completed long
before now. But there has been an addi-
tional authorization and as construction
proceeds they have run into some diffi-
culties in the construction of the high-
way.
Mr. GROSS. Can this be said to be
the last payment out of the American
taxpayer's pockets for this road or is it
going to go on interminably?
For such expenditures as may be neces-
sary to enable the Architect of the Capitol
to carry out the duties imposed upon him
by, the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C.
13a-13b), including improvements, mainte-
nance, repairs, equipment, supplies, 'mate-
rials, and appurtenances; special clothing
for workmen; and personal and other serv-
ices (including temporary labor without
reference to the Classification and Retire-
ment Acts, as amended), and for snow
removal by hire of men and equipment or
under contract without compliance with sec-
tion 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended (41 U.S.C. 6); $304,600. .
9909
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I ,move
to'strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to ask the gentleman if by
any chance there are any funds in the
bill for the purchase of the parking lot
the Supreme Court wants to acquire east
of the Supreme Court Building itself?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The an-
swer is definitely no.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman,
because I know that is not authorized.
While I have the floor, and in order
to avoid obtaining recognition again al-
most immediately, I note the fact that
the next item in the bill is for an $8,100
automobile for the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Is the price of auto-
mobiles going up? What is happening in
the field of Cadillacs and Lincoln Con-
tinentals?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I should
explain to the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa that the Chief Justice's car
was formerly one of those Cadillac $500-
a-year rental cars. As an examination
of the printed testimony will disclose, we
were utterly surprised to learn that Gen-
eral Motors has upped the annual rental
fee from $500 to $1,000 on the Chief Jus-
tice's car.
Included in the $8,100, in addition to
this $1,000, are the wages for the chauf-
fer, the money for gas and oil, the
money for repairs, and so forth.. In
other words, it is for the complete cost
of the operation of the limousine for the
Chief Justice.
Mr. GROSS. I say to the gentleman
that I have always been mystified by
this business of General Motors or any
other automobile company leasing auto-
mobiles to certain Members of Congress
and others in the executive branch for
$500 a year. Can the gentleman from
New York lease a Cadillac for $500 a
year? How is that done?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I cannot.
I do not know exactly how it is done, but
I never heard of it being done until Eisen-
hower became President. This is one of
the few things I give President Eisen-
hower credit for, because it saved the
taxpayers a lot of money, as a result
of being able to get a car for the .$500-a-
year rental fee
Mr. GROSS. I cannot help but wonder
what the consideration is, as between the
$500 a year for the use of a Cadillac and
the $6,000 or more price tag to others.
What happened? Who is making up the
difference between the going price of say
$7,000 for a Cadillac and the $500 a
year?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I believe
it is commonly known that General Mo-
tors and the other car manufacturers let
certain high Government officials have
these automobiles at such rentals as an
advertising gesture.
Mr. GROSS. They are getting to be
so common around here in official circles
that I believe they have lost some of their
advertising value.
Sanitized Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8,-
9910 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I say to
the distinguished gentleman from Iowa
that it has not gotten to the point where
either of us would be able to get one for
$500 a year. I had to buy my automo-
bile.
Mr. GROSS. Since the gentleman In-
jected a little politics into this discus-
sion-
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Oh, I
never inject politics.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman referred
to this procedure as taking place under
the Eisenhower administration.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. If I were
to inject politics, I should say that the
gentleman whose automobile we are dis-
cussing is a distinguished member of the
gentleman's party. He is the Chief Jus-
tice of the United States.
Mr. GROSS. I appreciate your re-
marks concerning the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, but let me proceed.
This intrigues me because Eisenhower
had a Secretary of Defense who said, as
the gentleman will remember, that what
was good for General Motors was good
for the country. The Democrats raised
all kinds of hell over that when the state-
ment was made. Yet I see this galaxy
of Cadillacs on both sides of the Capitol
and some are operated by the most out-
spoken critics of that statement. Now,
apparently, what is good for General
Motors is also good for some Members of
Congress, including Democrats. Is that
not about right?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Is the
gentleman referring to the Ford auto-
mobile known as a Galaxie?
Mr. GROSS. No. I am referring to
all of these Cadillacs we see around here
and the fact that the Democrats claimed
they did not like them when Wilson made
his remark.
. Mr. ROONEY of New York. I well re-
member back before we had Dwight D.
Eisenhower as President and when the
late distinguished Speaker Sam Ray-
burn, of Texas, was deposed as Speaker
and became majority leader in the'80th
Congress. It became incumbent upon all
of us Democratic Members of the
House-and I am proud to say with the
assistance of certain Republican Mem-
bers who also chipped in $100 apiece--to
buy him a Cadillac automobile such as he
had when Speaker.
Mr. GROSS. The point I want to
make, if the gentleman will let me is
that I just cannot understand how those
Democrats who were so critical of "En-
gine Charley" Wilson's statement can
now stoop to ride around in a General
Motors product and one costing $8,000.
I do not get this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
VNTTED STATES ARMS CONTROL AND DkSARMA-
MENT AGENCY
Arms control and disarmament activities
For necessary expenses, not otherwise pro-
vided for, for arms control and disarmament
activities authorized by the Act of Septem-
ber 26, 1961, as amended (75 Stat. e31; 77
Stat. 341). $11,000,000.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GROSS
Mr. GROSS. Mn Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GROS&: On
page 53, line 20, strike out the figure "$11,-
000,000" and insert "$7,500,000".
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I am
sure that every Member of the House
wants peace and wants arms control.
But I say to you that to boost this super-
duper agency to $11 million a year is
beyond reason. What peace we have in
this world is going to be maintained not
by disarming, but by maintaining the
forces we have in being and their ability
to deliver nuclear warheads anywhere
in the world. This is what preserves the
peace of the world and not the existence
of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would
cut $31/2 million from this appropria-
tion, It would reduce it to the expendi-
ture of the past year. I think it ought
to be cut much further to $1 million or
$2 million. I am perfectly willing to
maintain an organization with sufficient
personnel versed in arms control and dis-
armLament matters to carry on conversa-
tions and conferences, but I know of no
reason why we should expend this kind
of money on this kind of an agency. Un-
der the law the Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency even has the authority
to construct laboratories to carry on re-
search even though billions are already
being spent by the Government for this
purpose. If you will read the hearings
you will also find that the payroll of this
organization is one of the fattest in Gov-
ernment in terms of high salaries.
You will also note, if you read the
hearings, that it employs consultants and
contract firms all over the map in addi-
tion to the direct hire personnel. Let me
add that I am not convinced that the
present head of the Disarmament
Agency, Mr. William C. Foster, is one on
whom I would want to rely in this ,mat-
ter.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read to
the House a statement that Mr. Foster
made on June 13, 1950. He was then
Deputy Director of the Economic Co-
operation Administration and testified
on behalf of the foreign aid appropria-
tions bill before the Senate Appropria-
tions Committee. Listen to what he
said on June 13, 1950:
I am happy to tell the Appropriations
Committee that, in my judgment the trend
of events in South Korea is more favorable
than it has been at any time since the liber-
ation of that country in 1945. The reasons
for optimism are military, political and eco-
nomic. It is my considered opinion that in
the face of great difficulty the ,Government
of the Republic of Korea is now steadily
gaining strength in each of these three
sections.
He goes on to say that:
A rigorous training program has built up
a well-disciplined army of 100,000 soldiers;
one that is prepared to meet any challenge
May6 1
by North Korean forces; and one that has
cleaned out the guerilla bands in South
Korea in one area after another.
Two weeks later American blood was
being spilled all over the rice paddies
and mountains in South Korea, This is
the man who is today the head of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
the Government official who knew no
more about what was about to take place
in Korea than the man in the moon.
Mr. Chairman, I am not willing to
turn over the disarmament of this coun-
try and the creation of an international
army to this man in the light of the
statement he so freely made before a
committee of Congress. Mr. Chairman,
there is no reason in the world why we
cannot save $31/2 million here and now..
The cut ought to be deeper than that,
but this is a first step and a reasonable
compromise.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
pending amendment. I think the issue
here is very simple. In this very Con-
gress last year this House and the Con-
gress authorized $20 million to be ex-
pended over a period of 2 years for an
arms control and disarmament pro-
gram. The amount of $7.5 million was
approved last year for such purpose. The
$11 million in the bill is still $1.5 million
short of the total authorization approved
here in the House of Representatives for
the activities of this agency.
The issue in effect is, if we are spend-
ing $47 billion on a defense program what
is wrong with spending $11 million to
investigate what avenues there might be
to peace and arms control?
The gentleman in charge of this
agency is one of the most respected in
Government; a good Republican, if you
please, the Honorable William C. Foster.
He is a former Under Secretary of Com-
merce, a former Under Secretary of De-
fense, a fine, distinguished gentleman,
who I am sure will carry on this agency
with sageness and with safety.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the pending
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa be voted down.
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield to
the gentleman briefly for a question.
Mr. STINSON. Can the gentleman
from New York name a situation in which
a major power disarmed and did not find
itself in an armed conflict?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I am not
an expert on this subject, I will say to
the distinguished gentleman. I do know
that this agency had something to do
with the nuclear test ban treaty. I be-
lieve that was a step toward peace. Per-
haps the gentleman does not agree with
me in this regard, but I am one who be-
lieves that.
Mr. STINSON. Will the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
further to the gentleman.
Mr. STINSON. I would like to re-
mind the gentleman that any time a
major nation disarms it finds itself in a
weakened position and then invites at-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510026-8
'' :1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9911
tack from ' an aggressor. If we remain
stronger than the Communists we do not
have to fear attack.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. The
gentleman should understand that this
Agency studies the matter of arms con-
trol and disarmament. by way of re-
search contracts. The final decision is
up not only to the Pentagon and the
Defense Department, but is up to the
President of the United States and every-
one else concerned. This Agency is not
the Agency that is going to disarm us.
It may merely make recommendations.
We do not propose to disarm until and
unless it is the right and safe thing to
do.
Mr. PTINSON. Will the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
further to the gentleman.
Mr. STINSON. Which agency then is
going to disarm our country and invite
attack by some foreign aggressor?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I believe
the Congress of the United States will
have a. great deal to say about that.
The gentleman voted, I assume, for the
appropriation of $47 billion in support
of the defense budget not too may weeks
ago, did he not?
Mr. STINSON. But that was not for
disarmament.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. This is
$11 million to investigate the situation
in case the situation were such that we
were to proceed toward arms control and
disarmament and how this would affect
the economy and employment here in
the United States.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
to the distinguished gentleman from
Iowa, a member of the committee.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I am sure the
chairman will agree too that this Agency
also studies the harm that can come
from disarmament proposals as well as
the benefits?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Exactly,
exactly. The Agency is not headed to-
ward disarmament. This is an agency
which by way of research contracts
studies the consequences of disarma-
ment.
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I yield
further to the gentleman, but the gentle-
man Is monopolizing a good bit of the
time here, I will say to the gentleman.
Mr. STINSON. Can the gentleman
from New York tell me of a study that
this organization has made where it rec-
ommended against disarmament? If so,
none of these have been called to my
attention.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I do not
believe they have made any such recom-
mendations as yet.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr, ROONEY of New York. I yield
to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HOSMER. I would like to get
my own time on this amendment and I
hope the gentleman from New York will
not move for a vote on it before I can
speak to It.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the pending amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 10
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN.. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. STINSON. I object.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I ob-
ject.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the pending amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 15
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. FULTON].
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment to reduce the Disarmament
Agency funds. I believe disarmament
should be a bipartisan policy. Disarm-
ament and arms control rank equally
with U.S. foreign policy and U.S.
defense. These are major national se-
curity programs which should be handled
across party lines and by cooperation
and agreement.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that
when the United States spends $47 billion
for defense, we should at least spend $11
million for planning for arms reduction
by agreement with inspection, to see that
we live in a safer world.
Mr. Chairman, as I am sure the mem-
bers of the committee know, I am one of
the representatives of the city of Pitts-
burgh, Pa. Our city is probably one
of the prime targets in the country.
We do not like to live under the
fear that we have various missiles and
other types of nuclear weapons trained
at us. I am sure that citizens of
countries all over the world share our
feelings in Pittsburgh. We must work
for mutual agreements for arms control
with adequate inspection.
I believe it would be a fine world if we
could come to the universal point of
view where we could In all the cities of
the world know that we by inspection
are safe in our homes, in our jobs, and
with our families. Killing instead of
agreements for universal security, is un-
thinkable. Lying In wait to destroy
another man and his family is a ghastly
policy. Bigger armaments cause bigger
fears, which combine to make bigger
dangers for all peoples.
My second point is this: I served for
14 years,on the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House, and was on that
committee during the year 1950. I was
one of those who Friday before the Sun-
day of the North Korean attack, with
several other members of the committee
attended a special briefing session that
was deeply serious and unofficial, held
in the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Room. We asked for and heard General
LeMay, of the Air Force, also the head
of the Central Intelligence Agency, an
admiral assigned from the Navy, among
others. Unbelievably, my special point
was I was worried about Korea. There
were many other serious trouble spots
discussed around the world. We were
reassured by various people that we
would be able to hold South Korea.
Previously I had objected to reducing
our U.S. troops and support, so I was
deeply concerned. From North Korea
there had been feints and attacks. We
did not know whether they were
preludes to big, or just little, isolated
attacks that came from the north at the
time. But many of us including myself,
gave South Korea strong support.
There was no one in this country, there
was nobody an this House floor or the
floor of the other body who knew that an
attack very definitely was coming. So to
lay responsibility at the feet of one man,
Mr. William Foster, who has been a fine
public servant, is a little less than giving
full responsibility where it should lie.
There is no doubt South Korea had, and
now has, a fine patriotic army, and we
should be proud of their standing with
us, for which I am deeply grateful.
There is no doubt that William Foster
was right in his statement just before
the North Korean attack that South
Korea was strong, and getting stronger-
that is one of the reasons for the quick,
hard, and swift attack, in my opinion.
I ,do rise in defense of William Foster,
Administrator of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency because I have
known him as a long time Republican
and stanch patriot with devoted public
service. I have known his family, I have
known him in business, and I have known
him as an attorney. I have known Wil-
liam Foster in my service on the House
Foreign Affairs Committee in the various
capacities in which he has served our U.S.
Government. I have followed closely
the work of the Disarmament Agency,
both in this country and at the ses-
sions in Geneva. My considered opinion
favors continuance of the good bipartisan
work on arms control and disarmament.
In my estimation, this country would
be wrong, if it simply emphasizes arma-
ment, more armament. We are piling
up armament and nuclear weapons so
that we not only scare everybody abroad,
but we also scare ourselves. How much
overkill do we need In this country?
Ten, 15, 20 times, and we do not feel
secure. Therefore I think we need a bet-
ter balance in work for disarmament and
arms control with adequate inspection.
Therefore I recommend defeat of the
amendment. The course of arms races,
bigger and bigger armaments, bigger and
bigger taxes, bigger and bigger burdens
on every family in the United States and
throughout the world, is sheer folly. A
good defense does not need to continue
to the point of such folly. Many of these
same people on this House floor who ad-
vocate bigger and bigger useless arma-
ments and oppose arms control, are the
same people who beat their breasts and
loudly call for U.S. budget reduction and
isolation policies.
Let us be sensible citizens of a peace-
ful world. Let us work for arms reduc-
tion, disarmament, and support this good
work.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA.RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 9912
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 6
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
O'HARA ] .
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I always wonder when some col-
league of mine votes for $47 billion for
war and then quarrels with himself
when the vote is on $11 million to search
for the path to peace. Why should the
lure to bring on the destruction of all
mankind be of such irresistible force as
to close the mind of any human being
to even a fleeting hope?
Dr. Foster appeared before the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, of which I
am a member, and he made a most fa-
vorable impression. Other witnesses of
the highest standing and international
prestige said there never would have
been an arms ban treaty if it had not
been for Dr. Foster and the Agency he
so ably directs. I must accept their
evaluation, and on this testimony and
that information it would appear clear
and plain that Dr. Foster and his Agency
have made one of the largest contribu-
tions to the United States in the se-
curity of the present and the future in
the history of our great Republic.
I did not know that Dr. Foster was a
Republican. The matter of his politics
never entered my mind. But I saw in
Dr. Foster a great and dedicated public
servant, the goal of whose efforts is the
peace for which I and most American
men and women pray, and, as a Demo-
crat, now that I know his politics, I give
credit to the Republican Party for pro-
ducing such an outstanding American.
Politics, Mr. Chairman, always should
end at the. waterline. Republican hearts
and Democratic hearts alike are atuned
to the love of peace on earth, good will
among men' and nations. Even while we
vote billions to keep our Nation strong
and to assure our security under any and
all circumstances, we shall continue
courageously in the quest for peace and
the hope that someday there will be no
more wars nor rumors of wars.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment
will be crushingly defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. HOSMER].
(Mr. HOSMER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, we are
being told anyone who is for this amend-
meet is against peace. Actually, if you
want to cut this appropriation down to
the $7.5 million that the Agency has
spent this year, you are supposed to be a
warmonger, I guess, even if you are only
against giving it $31/2 million more to be
wasted because the Disarmament Agency
is doing a very poor job and just giving it
more money will not improve things.
The charter of this Agency should be
amended before it gets another cent of
money. We should not waste time or
money on its activities until this is done
because they can, in fact, bungle around
and make war more likely, not less likely.
This Congress should pass amendments
which will bar the Agency from building
up a giant in-house, in-bred research or-
ganization; it should be barred from per-
mitting its director to engage in interna-
tional negotiations; it should be barred
from propagandizing the citizens of the
United States with their own tax money;
it should be taken out from under the
wings of the State Department; it should
be made to report its activities to Con-
gress and Its proposals to reduce the
armaments of this country; and it should
stop the frightful escalation of its own
expenditures. There is legislation now
pigeonhold `by the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee that would do all this.
Why do I say this Agency is doing a
bad job? Because in the Moscow treaty
last year it took a part in surrendering
the one weapon in our peace arsenal
which is, or was, the most powerful and
had the best chance to give the world
some peace. That was our dogged in-
stance at the conference tables and be-
fore the so-called court of world opinion
that the U.S.S.R. should lower the Iron
Curtain and permit the inspection of its
territory necessary to make sure it is
not cheating in secret against other
countries. Until that is permitted, no
treaty is worth the paper it is written on.
Now, with the Disarmament Agency's
participation, that principle is gone with
the wind. We gave it up in order to get
the Russians to consent to the treaty of
Moscow. We gave up the chance to
achieve binding agreements. They gave
up nothing and all this was done with the
advice and consent of the Disarmament
Agency. That is why I say it is doing a
poor job. That is why I say it is bung-
ling, and that it is more likely taking us
away from peace in the world than
toward it, and leading us into much
trouble in the future.
The second thing evidencing its bun-
gling is this dramatic exhibition of so-
called unilateral interlocking arms con-
trol which was put on a couple or three
Mondays ago. At 1 o'clock on a Monday
afternoon Khrushchev makes a state-
ment saying he is going to cut fissionable
materials production, then at 2 o'clock
Johnson makes a statement saying he
is going to do so, too-unilateral state-
ments, interlocking in time and subject
matter-tacit agreements, secretly ne-
gotiated, and publicly announced. These
are agreements not subject to the Sen-
ate's advice and consent, yet they are
solemnly binding on the United States
by our President's word. What is Khru-
shchev's word worth? Do you trust him
enough to trust him with your life?
Your children's lives?
How good a deal did Johnson make
with Khrushchev? It turns out he is
cutting U.S. plutonium production 20
percent and. by the' man's own words
Khrushchev is cutting U.S.S.R. produc-
tion 0 percent. It turns out we are
going to cut our uranium production 40
percent in return for whatever ambig-
uous amount Khrushchev calls a "sub-
stantial" cut in his own production. It
also turns out the whole deal is not to be
policed by anybody. We are to trust Mr.
Khrushchev to keep the deal; we are to
trust his unknown successor to do like-
wise.
That is the kind of deals the U.S. Dis-
armament Agency is letting us get into.
Yet, anyone who ,wants to give them less
money to do it is charged with being a
warmonger. How topsy-turvy can this
debate get? If you want to put up $3.5
million more than you did last year, I
say you are not voting for peace, you are
voting to throw your money and the U.S.
taxpayers' money away on something
that could be very dangerous. The Gross
amendment should be adopted and no
bill to amend the Disarmament Agency
Charter, H.R. 10311, should be passed
before we pull any more booboos. The
Agency is supposed to keep us from losing
our shirts to the Russians, not help us
to do so.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. HOLIFIELD]..
(Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to this amendment to
cut the disarmament appropriation from
$11 million back to what it was last year.
I am not going to try in the few min-
utes I have here to answer the charges
that my friend and colleague from Cal-
ifornia [Mr. HosMER] has made. I just
want to say that I disagree thoroughly
with him.
I want to go back to what the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. ROONEY] said.
If we can spend $47 to $50 billion an-
nually in preparation for war, certainly
we can spend $10 or $11 million annually
to explore the possibilities, the ap-
proaches, and the methods and the dan-
gers that may be involved in any type of
disarmament or any type of a lessening
of tension between the two great nu-
clear powers of the world.
I have sat on the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy for 18 years, and I have
had as much to do with the building up
of the nuclear strength of the United
States as any man in this House. I voted
for every dollar of defense appropria-
tions, and I voted for every dollar that
we have authorized in the Committee on
Atomic Energy. So nobody can say to
me that I am muddleheaded on the
problem of nuclear power in war, because
I have supported the strength of the
United States and intend to continue to
support it. But I am also going to sup-
port any kind of effort we can make to
pursue some logical method of lessening
the likelihood of nuclear war. I say that
these cuts-I could go into this at some
length-in the production of plutonium
and uranium 235 were not made as a
quid pro quo with the Russians for do-
ing likewise. We did this on the basis
of our own judgment that we had ade-
quate nuclear strength in the world and
that there was no use in going ahead and
continuing to multiply that strength ad
infinitum.
The administration was proceeding on
the principle that there was a limit to
the kind of destruction that you want to
turn loose in this world. We do have an
adequate inventory of nuclear weapons
within the scope of the arrangement that
has been made and within the scope of
the continued production that will con-
tinue to be made, notwithstanding the
cuts that have been planned, to maintain
this Nation strong.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 9913
In the meantime I say with all the sin- (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
cerity at my command, we must study mission to revise and extend his re-
and plan for the day \:!hen we will not marks.)
need tg use these nuclear weapons and, Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want
if possible, we must find the path to to get one or two things clear. It is said
peace. That path is obscure at this time. I laid at the door of William C. Foster
It is a devious and complicated maze. the responsibility for the war in Korea.
We must find our way by studying every I did no such thing. I said he did not
possible avenue of approach. exercise good judgment when he went
We are fortunate to have a great and before the Appropriations Committee of
wise citizen, Mr. William Foster, as the the other body in 1950 asking foreign aid
guiding administrator of this young funds for South Korea, asserting that
Agency. Notwithstanding the criticism Government to be strong and having
we have heard today, Mr. Foster is enough trained troops to meet any threat
worthy of confidence and support. from North Korea. Only 2 weeks later
The- CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- the war was on in Korea, resulting in
nizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. 35,000 Americans killed and another
ROONEY). - 100,000 wounded. I say his judgment
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr. was not good. [repeat it. Then politics
Chairman and members'of the Commit- was Injected Into the debate when it
tee of the Whole, may I say that the ar- was stated that Foster is a Republican.
guments advanced by my distinguished I do not know whether he is or not. He
friend, the gentleman from California certainly has gone to his reward with
(Mr. HOSMERI remind me of his "ba- the Democrats. Maybe he wears the
nanas on Pike's Peak." Perhaps many of label-I do not know. But he is your boy
my colleagues may not know what we now.
are talking about, but the gentleman Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
who coined the expression "bananas on Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Pike's Peak" was the distinguished Mr. GROSS. No, I do not yield at this
gentleman from California [Mr. Hos- minute. I did not use your name. I
MERI-and I say that, of course, affec- will yield to you if I have the time.
tionately. But, Mr. Chairman, I am sur- Now, Mr. Chairman, it is said this $11
prised at the gentleman from California million is only a small percent of the de-
being so expertly uninformed or misin- fense budget. This is a timeworn argu-
formedl on this subject, that he should ment. Any item of spending can be
criticise a man of the stature of Hill Fos- broken down into small units-any item
ter, a distinguished member of his own of Federal spending that you want to
party. choose-where compared with other
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will the spending.
gentleman yield? Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, will
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I. yield to the gentleman yield?
the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
Mr. HOSMER. I thought I made it from California.
clear that thg President's Arms Control Mr. LIPSCOMB. All through the de-
and Disarmament Agency is doing a poor bate on this particular item it has been
job-and he was doing a poor job be- mentioned that if we can spend $47 bil-
cause= lion on defense we can spend $11 million
Mr. ROONEY of New York. . The on arms control and disarmament. The
gentleman is criticising Bill Foster who Agency's records, which are contained in
is the head of this Agency. It was Bill the hearings both on this bill and in the
Poster who came before this committee Department of Defense bill, show that
and requested the funds recommended the requests for outside contracts only
in this bill. Among his other achieve- on disarmament and arms control for
ments as the result of research contracts fiscal year 1965 are estimated at ap-
gone into by this Agency which has not proximately $75 million for the agencies
been in existence so long, we now have of Government doing work in this area.
the so-called "hot line" agreement and I referred to this in my remarks during
the limited nuclear test ban agreement. the general debate. This $11 million is
We also now have a U.N. resolution call- just for the Arms Control and Disarma-
Ing upon all nations to refrain from plac- ment Agency, and could easily be re-
Ing weapons of mass destruction in orbit. duced the $3.5 million the gentleman
I say if de did nothing else but achieve recommends, without any harm to the
these three things, it is well worthwhile program.
spending the small sum of $11 ' million Mr. GROSS. Members have made
when compared with sending $47 billion emotional speeches about buying peace
Mrfor defense. through disarmament. I have voted for
Mr. Chairman, I ask for the defeat of every dollar that was asked for the Mili-
Mr. GROSS. amendment. Mr. Chairman- tary Establishment. Yet we do not have
Mr.
The C13ATRMAN. For what purposes peace in the world today, even though
does the gentleman from Iowa rise? we are spending $50 billion a year in the
Mi. GROSS. Mr, chairman, i offer a Defense Department.
preferential motion. Everyone knows that we are not going
The Clerk read as follows: to disarm in the foreseeable future, so
Cdr. CROSS moves that the Camm[btee aio why should we continue this fiction?
now rise and; report the bill to tii? 'Rouse Why should we continue this Agency at
with the recommendation that the enacting the rate of $11 million a year? I say
clause be stricken out. again that with an annual expenditure
z4Q:'9 _i5
of $1 million or $2 million this Govern-
ment could maintain an organization
capable of discussing arms control and
disarmament with the Russians or any-
one else. For many years just as much
was accomplished in this field with an
expenditure of $1 million or less each
year.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. HOSMER. What is often over-
looked is that if we are to have peace we
must have tools to arrive at it, not merely
an agency for which we vote some funds,
which we call a disarmament agency,
and then go away to say, "What good
boys we are."
It takes good, hard, solid work to at-
tain peace.
One of the most important tools there
is, in the work toward peace of the world,
is the force which the United States did
at one time have to force the lowering of
the Iron Curtain and to force inspection
and detection procedures behind the
Iron Curtain, so that there could be some
assurance to the world that preparations
were not being made surreptitiously to
disturb the peace of the world.
That has been given up. That has
been surrendered. That has been en-
tirely eliminated by this Disarmament
Agency which we are asked to reward
by allowing the $11 million.
Mr. GROSS. Someone mentioned the
test ban treaty. I ask the gentleman
from California If, before this super-
duper agency came into being, we did not
have a moratorium on testing?
Mr. HOSMER. That was the very
treaty that gave up this principal part in
our arsenal of peace, which we should
be sorry about losing.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
pending pro forma amendment.
I must take advantage of this time,
since my distinguished friend from Iowa
refused to yield to me for a question. I
did want to point out to him that Bill
Foster was not our boy. Bill Foster was
Under Secretary of Defense in what ad-
ministration? In the Eisenhower Re-
publican administration. He was no
more our boy than is Christian Herter,
who I trust is presently doing a fine job
at Geneva on our tariff negotiations.
What about Henry Cabot Lodge, in
Vietnam?
Are these our boys? No. They are
distinguished Americans who are doing
a job for the American people. I wish
we had more of the Henry Cabot Lodges,
Christian Herters, and Bill Fosters.
Who was Bill Foster? Was he a Re-
publican, asked the gentleman from
Iowa? Bill Foster had to be a Republi-
can, did he not, to be the president of
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.? That
does not sound like a Democratic concern
to me.
I do not know whose campaign they
contribute to. I would be surprised if it
were in the Democratic area.
The point is-and you cannot get away
from it, I say to my distinguished friend
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 9914
Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE May 6
not too far from Pike's Peak the issue
is whether we are going to spend $47
billion for defense and not spend $11
million to study how we can control
arms. Is it not worthwhile to study and
research the subject of controlling arms
all over the world at a cost of $11
million?
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote reject-
ing the pending amendment of the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS].
The preferential motion was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Iowa.
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. Gaoss) there
were-ayes 28, noes 69.
So the amendment was rejected.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 702. No part of any appropriation
contained in this Act shall be used to ad-
minister any program which is funded in
whole or in part from foreign currencies or
credits for which a specific dollar appropria-
tion therefor has not been made.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GROSS
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment by Mr. GROSS. On page 61,
after line 9, insert:
"SEC. 703. No part of any appropriation
contained in this Act shall be used to con-
duct or assist in conducting any program
(including but not limited to the payment
of salaries, administrative expenses, and the
conduct of research activities) related di-
rectly or indirectly to the establishment of a
National Service Corps or similar domestic
Peace Corps type of program."
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, this is
the amendment that has been included
in every appropriation bill, with the pos-
sible exception of the legislative appro-
priation bill, thus far in this session. I
believe it was in all appropriation bills
last year, including this one. I would
like to invite the chairman of the sub-
committee, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. ROONEY), to accept the
amendment this year.
Mr. ROONEY of New York Has the
gentleman concluded?
Mr. GROSS Will the gentleman ac-
cept the amendment?
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I. am
going to rise to oppose the amendment.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, then I
shall continue to point out that I now
have an inquiry underway dealing with
an organization which is apparently us-
ing some $84,000 of the taxpayers' funds
allegedly in contravention of the amend-
ment adopted to the Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriation bill of last
year, and it is exactly the same amend-
ment as I have offered here. I hope to
find out whether there has been a viola-
tion of this provision in the Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare bill as enacted last
year.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
pending amendment.
You might recall that I was foolish
enough last year to not too vigorously
oppose this amendment, which was then
offered by the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Gaoss. Since then I
have found out that this is a costly
amendment to the taxpayers. There is
not 15 cents in this bill in connection
with the establishment of a National
Service Corps or similar domestic Peace
Corps type of program, none whatever.,
The gentleman from Iowa knows that
as well as does the gentleman from New
York. But the point is that the amend-
ment was offered last year and was
printed in every copy of.every bill last
year. I am told that this runs into
thousands of dollars. So for that reason,
and in the interest of economy, it is time
to discontinue this useles amendment of
the gentleman from Iowa. He has not
saved the taxpayer 15 cents with it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that the pend-
ing amendment be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Gaoss].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. GROSS) there
were-ayes 42, noes 50.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered; and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers Mr. GROSS and
Mr. ROONEY of New York.
The Committee again divided, and the
tellers reported that there were-ayes
55, noes 64.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the bill.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise and report the bill back to
the House, with the recommendation
that the bill do pass.
The motion was argreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. FASCEtL, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 11134) making appropria-
tions for the Departments of State,
Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary,
and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1965, and for other pur-
poses, had directed him to report the
bill back to the House with a recom-
mendation that the bill do pass.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Speaker, I move the previous question on
the bill to final passage.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. MICHEL., I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re-
port the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Micum moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 11134 to the Committee on Appropria-
tions.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the "ayes" ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 312, nays 40, answered "pres-
-ent" 1, not voting 78, as follows:
[Roll No. 121]
YEAS-312
Adair
Cunningham
Holifield
Addabbo
Curtin
Holland
Albert
Curtis
Horan
Anderson
Daddario
Hosmer
Andrews,
Dague
Hull
N. Dak.
Daniels
Hutchinson
Arends
Davis, Ga.
Ichord
Aspinall
Dawson
Jarman
Auchincloss
Delaney
Jennings
Ayres
Dent
Joelson
Baker
Denton
Johnson, Calif.
Baldwin
Derounian
Johnson., Wis.
Barrett
Diggs
Jonas
Barry
Dingell
Jones, Mo.
Bates
Dole
Karsten
Battin
Donohue
Karth
Becker
Downing
Kastenmeler
Beckworth
Dulski
Keith
Belcher
Duncan
Kelly
Bell
Dwyer
Keogh
Berry
Edwards
Kilgore
Betts
Ellsworth
Kluczynaki
Blatnik
Evins
Knox
Boggs
Fallon
Kornegay
Boland
Fascell
Kunkel
Bolton,
Findley
Laird
Frances P.
Fisher
Langan
Bolton,
Flood
Leggett
Oliver P.
Fogarty
Leslnski
Bow
Ford
Lindsay
Brademas
Fountain
Lipscomb
Bray
Fraser
Long, La.
Brock
Frelinghuysen
Long, Md.
Bramwell
Friedel
McClory
Brooks
Fulton, Pa.
McCulloch
Broomfield
Fulton, Tenn.
McDade
Brotzman
Gary
McDowell
Brown, Calif.
Giaimo
McFall
Brown, Ohio
Gibbons
McIntire
Broyhill, N.C.
Gilbert
McLoskey
Broyhill, Va.
Glenn
Macdonald
Burke
Gonzalez
MacGregor
Burkhalter
Goodling
Madden
Burton, Calif.
Grabowski
Mahon
Burton, Utah
Gray
Marsh
Byrne, Pa.
Green, Oreg.
Martin, Mass.
Byrnes, Wis.
Griffin
Martin, Nebr.
Cahill
Griffiths
Mathias
Cameron
Grover
Matsunaga
Cannon
Gubser
Milliken
Carey
Gurney
Minish
Casey
Hagen, Calif.
Minshall
Cederberg
Halleck
Monagan
Cellar
Halpern
Moorhead
Chamberlain
Hansen
Morgan
Chelf
Harding
Morrison
Chenoweth
Hardy
Morse
Clark
Harris
Mosher
Clausen,
Harrison
Moss
Don H.
Harsha
Multer
Clawson, Del
Harvey, Ind.
Murphy, Ill.
Cleveland
Hays
Murphy, N.Y.
Cahalan
Healey
Murray
Conte
Hebert
Natcher
Cooley
Hechler
Nedzi
Corbett
Henderson
Nelsen
Carman
Hoeven
Nix
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 ,."Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
1964 CONGRES9IONAL RECORD HOUSE 9913
O'Brien, N.Y.
Rogers, Fla.
Stratton
O'Hara, 111.
Rogers, Tex.
Stubblefield
O'Hara Mich.
Rooney, N.Y.
Sullivan
Q'Sons
gooney, Pa.
Taft
Olson, Minn
Roosevelt
Talcott
O'Neili
Rosenthal
Taylor
Osmers
Rostenkowski
Teague, Calif.
Ostertag
Roudebush
Thomas
Passman
Roush
Thompson; La.
Patten
Roybal
Thompson, N.J.
Polly
Rumsfeld
Thompson, Tax.
Perkins
Ryan, Mich.
Thomson, Wis.
Pickle
Ryan, N.Y.
Toll
Pike
St. George
Tollefson
Pillion
St Germain
Trimble
Pirnie
at. Onge
Tupper
Poage
Schadeberg
Tuten
Poff
Schenck
Van Deerlin
Pool
Schneebeli
Vinson
Price
Schweiker
Wallhauser
Pucinski
9chwengel
Watts
Purcell
Becrest
Weaver
Quie
Benner
Weltner
Quillen
Short
Westland
Randall
Shriver
Whalley
Reid, Ill.
Sibal
Whitener
Reid, N.Y.
Sickles
Widnalt
Reifel
Slier
Willis
Reuss
Sisk
Wilson, Bob
Rhodes, Ariz.
Skubitz
Wilson,
Rhodes, Pa.
Slack
Charles H.
Rich
Smith, Iowa
Wilson,
Rielhman
Smith, Va.
Wright
Rivers, Alaska
Springer
Wydler
Roberts, Ala.
Staebler
. Wyman
Roberts, Tex.
Stafford
Young
Robison
Staggers
Younger
Rodino
Steed
Zablocki
Rogers, Colo.
Stephens
NAYS-40
Abbitt
Gathings
Rivers, S.C.
Abernethy
Goodell
Saylor
Alger
Gross
Sikes
Beermann
Haley
Smith, Calif.
Bennett, Fla.
Hall
Snyder
Bruce
Johansen
Stinson
Clancy
Kilburn
Tuck
Collier
King, N.Y.
Utt
Derwinski
Kyl
an Pelt
Van
p ovine evine
Latta
a
Everett
Lennon
Wharton
Flynt
McMillan
Williams
Foreman
Matthews
Fuqua
Moore
Until further notice:
Mr. Montoya with Mr. Avery.
Mr. Feighan with Mr. Fino.
Mr. Gill with Mrs. May.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Morton.
Mr. Baring with Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Andrews of Alabama with Mr. Abele.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Rains with Mr. Norblad.
Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Martin
of California.
Mr. Herlong with Mr. Ashbrook.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Mailliard.
Mr. Ullman with Mr. Harvey of Michigan.
Mr. Mills with Mr. Meader.
Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Miller of New York.
Mr. Sheppard with Mr. Bennett of Mich-
igan.
Mr.Shipley with Mrs. Kee.
Mr. Libonati with Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mr. Bass.
Mr. Elliott with Mr. Dowdy.
Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Grant.
Mr. Belden with Mr. Udall.
Mr. White with Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Wickersham with Mr. Vanik.
Mr. Forrester with Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Huddleston with Mr. Olsen of Mon-
tana.
Mr. Patman with Mr. Watson.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Finnegan.
Mr. Hagan of Georgia with Mr. Scott.
Mr. Morris with Mr. Powell.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Bonner. _
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a
live pair with the gentleman from New
York [Mr. HORTON]. Had he been pres-
ent, he would have voted "yea." I voted
"nay." Therefore, I withdraw my vote
and vote "present."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Evangelical Lutheran -Church from 1936
to 1942 and was national vice president
of the federation from 1942 to 1946.
She has lent her talents to music
groups and the Association of Univer-
sity Women throughout all of her adult
life. She is a lecturer, a writer, a book
reviewer and counts among her host of
friends thousands of students, many of
them from foreign countries.
Mrs. Stavig is the mother of four sons,
all of whom have been successful in var-
ious professional fields. Two of her sons
have followed in the family tradition and
are successful college faculty members,
another is serving his country as a hos-
pital commander at Otis Air Force Base,
Mass., and the fourth is an industrial
engineer for the John Morrell & Co., in
Sioux Falls.
All the sons attended Augustana Col-
lege, of which their father, Dr. Lawrence
M. Stavig, has been president since 1943.
I am sure that Mrs. Stavig would be the
first to admit that much of the credit for
her great achievements belongs to her
outstanding husband.
I am sure that the Nation joins all
South Dakota and the many friends of
Mrs. Stavig in extending sincere con-
gratulations to this fine woman and out-
standing mother.
FINO URGES INCREASE IN SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS
(Mr. FINO asked and was given per-
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-l
Michel
NOT VOTING-78
Abele
Garmatz
Miller, N.Y.
Andrews, Ala.
Gill
Mills
Ashbrook
Grant
Montoya
Ashley
Hagan, Ga.
Morris
Ashmore
Hanna
Morton
Avery
Harvey, Mich.
Norblad
Baring
Hawkins
Olsen, Mont.
,Bass
Herlong
Patman
Bennett, Mich.
Hoffman
Pepper
Bolling
Horton
Philbin
Bonner
Huddleston
Pilcber
Buckley
Jensen
Powell
Burleson
Johnson, Pa.
Rains
Colmer
Jones, Ala.
Scott
Cramer
Kee
Belden
Davis, Tenn.
King, Calif.
Sheppard
Dorn
Kirwan
Shipley
Dowdy
Landrum
Teague, Tex.
Edmondson
Lankford
Udall
Elliott
Libonati
Ullman
Farbstein
Lloyd
Vanik
Feighan
Mailliard
Watson
:Finnegan
Martin, Calif.
White
Fino
May
Whitten
Forrester
Meader
Wickersham
Gallagher
Miller, Calif.
Winstead
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
MT. Horton for, with Mr. Michel against.
Mr..Johnson of Pennsylvania for, with Mr.
Hoffman against.
Mr. King of California for, with Mr. Win-
stead against.
Mr. Buckley for, with Mr. Colmer against.
Mr. Garmatz for, with Mr. Dorn against.
Mr. Kirwan for, with Mr. Whitten against.
Mr. Philbia for, with Mr. Ashmore against.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days
in which to revise and extend their re-
marks on the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL-
BERT). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
SOUTH DAKOTA WOMAN NAMED
"NATIONAL MOTHER OF THE YEAR"
(Mr. REIFEL asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. REIFEL. Mr. Speaker, next Sun-
day, May 10, is Mother's Day. This year
Mother's Day will have an extra special
meaning for us in South Dakota. We
are extremely proud of the fact that
South Dakota's "Mother of the Year,"
Mrs. L. M. Stavig, has been named to-
day as "National American Mother of
the Year."
It is not only a great honor for Mrs.
Stavig, but also a compliment to the
State of South Dakota and the fine peo-
ple who make the State their home.
Mrs. Stavig Is the wife of the president
of Augustana College in Sioux Falls,
S.D., and has been active in church and
civic affairs. She was national chair-
man of the Literature Committee of the
Women's Missionary Federation of the
introduce today a measure providing
a 10-percent across-the-board in-
crease in social security benefits. This
bill is designed to give our senior citizens
a share in the United States' increased
national wealth, to lift them out of the
morass of actual poverty or off the nar-
row edge of dreary subsistence living.
An increase in benefits is overdue. We
should act today, at a time when the
whole Nation has focused attention on
President Johnson's war on poverty.
Poverty hurts not only those who are
poor: it hurts every one of us"who have
seen poverty in any of its manifestations;
it hurts this country which has prided
itself for so.many years on generosity,
largeness of spirit, and sympathy for the
oppressed. We are all aware today that
one-fifth of this Nation does not share
in the general abundance. We have be-
gun the fight to eliminate poverty, to end
this evil which throws a dark shadow
over all of us. President Johnson's Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act of 1964, with its
companion measures, will do much to
lift the poor out of hopeless misery. But
we must not forget other segments of the
population who will not be directly bene-
fited by results of the war on poverty.
The aged make up a great proportion
of the poor. Families headed by persons
aged 65 or over make up one-third of all
families below the poverty line; but the
frequency of these aged families in the
population is only one in seven. We
must ask ourselves the reason for this
high incidence of poverty among a group
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
 9916
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 6
which has given so much to our country
and deserves at least a comfortable old
age in return.
A few statistics, Mr. Speaker, will help
pinpoint the causes of this poverty. So-
cial security payments are practically the
sole source of cash income for almost
one-fifth of aged couples and one-third
of the 'uWmarried aged, those who are
widowed, divorced, or who have never
married. ~' a average monthly pay-
ment fora red worker is little more
than $76 a mo , or $912 a year. Mar-
ried couples li g on social security
alone received an erage income of $129
1,548 year! Thirty per-
a month, or $1,54N.1
cent of all aged coup , or 3 families out
of every 10, had incom less than $2,000
a year. And economy have taken
$3,000 as a figure denot the poverty
Cold statistics do not to the whole
story. They do not describ the lives
of these social security benefit ies who
are trying to live on less that $80 a
month per person with constantl 'sing
expenses. - Statistics can not cony any
impression of the constant fear of it - ess
and unforeseen emergencies which co d
of the monthly benefit check to buy
enough food.
Nearly two-fifths of the persons who
are receiving old age assistance already
have social security benefits. Three-
fifths of all new applications for old age
assistance are from individuals who have
social security protection. They have
found that social security cannot give
them the bare necessities of life. This
Is a picture of poverty, a clear portrait
of inadequate benefits under social se-
curity.
Obviously my bill will not solve all the
financial problems which beset the aged.
No increase in social security could do
that, because social security is not de-
signed to serve as a fund for unexpected
emergency expenses. But a 10-percent
across-the-board Increase in benefits
would at least allow the aged, the widows,
and the disabled to buy the necessities of
life, to eat enough food and enjoy a few
of the small -luxuries which the rest of
us take for granted.
The increase in social security benefits
would not only help the aged but it
would pour more funds into the economy
In the same way that the tax cut did.
The extra money each month would be
spent. Furthermore, a portion of the
one and a half million people over 65
might be able to retire if benefits were
raised. Too many today want to retire,
but do not feel that they can afford the
loss of steady wages. The jobs released
by more retirement would be available
to the unemployed.
A 10-percent increase in benefits is not
only a moral duty, but a logical correc-
tion of an inequity. It has been an es-
tablished principle, both in original con-
cept and in operation to maintain the
purchasing power of social security bene-
fits. Benefits have not been increased
since 1958: during that time, the Con-
sumer Price Index has risen by over 6
percent. It is obvious that benefit still
paid in 1964 dollars but at a 1958 rate
will not buy as much as they once did.
The aged, who cannot rely on wage In-
creases or greater profit margins, are
left far behind in the growing prosperity.
Not only has the cost of living in-
creased since 1958 but the general stand-
ard of living has gone up. American
families are better off than ever before.
We are able to spend more on education,
recreation, and the other benefits of a
material civilization. But the aged, who
helped to bring about this prosperity, do
not share in its blessings. Their budgets
do not include sums for recreation, en-
tertainment and travel. Too many of
the aged must rely on old age assistance,
medical assistance for the aged, and the
charity of those who love them. This
is not right, when a 10-percent increase
in benefits will do much to relieve their
financial difficulties.
An increase in the general level of
benefits would almost Immediately reach
almost 80 percent of the retired aged
population. It is not difficult to imagine
the increased spending this would en-
gender: and let me emphasize once again
that this spending would not be for
luxuries, but for the necessities of life.
We can no longer feel complacent about
our social security system when so many
elder citizens need outside assistance, or
flts would help some who do not need
prosperous elder citi-
the crease. But
zens not make up a large proportion
of the tal, and there appears no justi-
fiable a rnative to a general rise in
An incre a in benefits, Mr. Speaker,
will not pei% t the social security sys-
tem. I have i oduced other legislation
designed to in rnize the social secu-
rity system and it of the anomalies
and inequities wh make it unfair in
operation. I would uce the retirement
age, thus providing fu er jobs for those
who need them despera y and releasing
older workers who woul enefit from a
few more years of leisure e. I would
remove the penalty for a ings after
retirement age is reached an , ive bene-
fits to dependent children ove 18 until
their schooling is finished. I Id al-
low Federal employees to enter the ocial
security benefits. The aged form too
great a portion of the poor; they also
must gain new hope from the war on
poverty. Increased benefits will give
them this hope, and lessen their finan-
cial burdens. I hope that the Ways and
Means Committee will give this legisla-
tion serious, immediate, and favorable
consideration.
WAR ON POVERTY TO CONVERT
'.`HIS REPUBLIC INTO A SOCIALIST
WELFARE STATE
(Mr. UTT asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute, to revise and extend his remarks
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. UTT. Mr. Speaker,, President
Johnson's announced war on proverty
appears to be the final step in convert-
ing this Republic into a Socialist welfare
state. It is an admission that the Demo-
cratic Party since 1933 has been unable
to attain the goals of economic growth
through the free enterprise system,
which is the American way of life.
President Johnson is very adept at deal-
ing with opposites. He appears on na-
tional television with a glowing report
of prosperity and great economic gains,
and, with only' a change of scenery, he
reappears from the wings of the theater
with a devastating presentation of ab-
ject poverty.
You can rest assured that the Euro-
pean press, both in the free countries
and the Communist countries, is picking
up only the story of "America, the land
of poverty," and is using it to prove that
the capitalistic system is a failure and
that Marxism is the only answer to the
fulfillment of happiness.
The President returned from a 2-day
trip to Appalachia where great unem-
ployment and much poverty does in fact
exist. He announced that he was
amazed at the crowds that came out to
great him. He apparently did not real-
ize that he was regarded as Santa Claus
with a pack on his back, overflowing
with taxpayers' money to be given away
for the asking. The President's eco-
nomic adviser, Walter Heller, says that
poverty is a national disgrace. Poverty
is not a disgrace. It is a misfortune, but
it cannot be resolved by a national dole.
The only disgrace is that our Govern-
ment has been unable to .create a favor-
able climate in which business can have
confidence in Government and can ex-
pand.
Examining some of the legislation
passed by Congress, it appears that we
have done much to curtail economic
growth and create unemployment.
Among these is the refusal to grant a
tax deduction for salaries paid to domes-
tic help and caretakers. A million jobs
would be immediately available to the
lowest economic segment of unskilled
labor, without any capital investment,
if such a deduction were permitted.
Minimum wage has created unemploy-
ment for those persons unskilled and un-
able to perform work at the minimum
wage, even though they would like to
work for less but are forced to go on
welfare. Our uncontrolled imports from
low-wage countries have caused wide-
spread unemployment. For example,
pig iron is coming into America from
East Germany at $35 a ton, as against
$70 a ton for American-produced pig
iron. Imported fabricated steel from
modern mills, built with our foreign aid
money, is also causing unemployment in
our steel centers.
The welfare state is not a Utopia. It
is a condition bordering upon slavery,
and can only be maintained by external
force. As proof of this, I suggest you
examine the welfare state which'exists
in your State penitentiaries where the
unfortunate inmates are supplied with
food, clothing, lodging, medical care, and
free burials. The only thing that is
lacking is liberty. There are bars on
the windows and a 24-hour guard-not
to keep the people out of this Utopia,
but to keep them In.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000400510025-8