EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. F. EDWARD HEBERT OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1960

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000400280001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2003
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 30, 1960
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2003/10/16: CIA-R R000400280001-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - AP A2859
duces are enjoyed not only by thousands
of Utah families but by their neighbors
in many States.
Second, the Utah dairy industry has
achieved standards of purity, flavor, and
quality by which it makes an important
contribution to the general excellence
and and the steady improvement of the
dairy foods which nourish this Nation.
In recent years the grade A milk sup-
plied the Provo, Salt Lake, Ogden, and
Logan markets has consistently placed
upon the honor roll of the United States
Public Health Service. Right now the
grade A milk supplied Salt Lake, Ogden,
and Logan is on this honor roll, and the
milk in the Provo market is in the process
of being rated.
In the tabulations which the Public
Health Service makes on the milk which
interstate shippers produce and distrib-
ute, Utah's pasteurized milk has ranked,
and today, ranks with the finest in the
Nation.
In 1957, all 48 fluid milk processing plants
in Utah achieved an honor roll rating by
standards of the U.S. Public Health Service.
At the time of that rating, Guy P. Stevens,
supervisor of dairying for the agricultural
department of the State of Utah, observed:
"So far as we have been able to deter-
mine, Utah is the first State in the Union
to complete ratings for all its fluid milk
plants and their supplying farms." A score
of 90 or better is necessary to achieve honor
roll status.
Items considered in the rating include:
Quality of milk received from the farms,
and milk quality after processing; type of
processing; sanitation on farms and in
plants; type and condition of equipment
used; processing records; and the quality of
administration and enforcement being ap-
plied in each area.
At that time Mr. Stevens said further:
"Utahans can be very proud of their milk
Utah's cheese has become a growing fa-
vorite from coast to coast, and for some
years has been served at the famed Waldorf
Astoria Hotel in New York City.
The State's evaporated milk is sent to
broad markets in the Western States, and
traditionally has been of superior quality.
Utah's ice cream and butter similarly have
scored high in tests for flavor and. texture.
While Utah's dairy products have won na-
tional acclaim, the State's dairy leaders have
also been known for their progressiveness
and for their major roles on the national
dairy scene. Merrill N. Warnick of Pleasant
Grove, Utah, served two terms as national
president of the American Dairy Association,
which represents approximately a million
American dairy farmers.
In March 1959 Mr. Warnick was appointed
by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to a
3-year term on the 18-man National Agri-
cultural Advisory Commission.
Welby W. Young of Heber, Utah, currently
president of the American Dairy Association
of Utah, was recently named to the national
bpard of directors of the National Dairy
Council. He is also chairman of the impor-
tant national research committee of the
American Dairy Association.
Walter R. Holdaway of Provo is a member
of the board of directors National Milk Pro-
ducers Federation, and is also president of
Federated Milk Producers Association,
Utah's largest grade A dairy farmer associa-
tion.
Utah's dairymen have been among the
Nation's leaders in cooperative public rela-
tions and advertising. For approximately
10 years they have had an aggressive coop-
erative plan in Utah, in addition to giving
full support to the national program of the
American Dairy Association.
In conclusion, I would like to point out
that the performance of the Utah dairy
industry and its members reflects the
best traditions of my State. The dili-
gence, the perseverence, and the desire
to excel which have been hallmarks of
Nation's finest and is in heavy demand both
in and out of the State. While tests are
based primarily on safety and sanitation, the
flavor quality of our milk is outstanding.
We found milk plants across the State spot-
lessly clean. These ratings are not only a
tribute to our fluid milk processing plants,
but also to Utah's dairy farms."
During Utah's June Dairy Month com-
memoration in 1959, George S. Bulkley, of
Los Angeles, chairman, national June Dairy
Month committee, visited Utah. Mr. Bulk-
ley at this time was chairman of the board
of directors of the National Dairy Council.
This statement was made by Mr. Bulkley
during his visit: "America's dairymen are
now milking only 77 percent as many cows
as they were in 1944 when the cow popu-
lation reached its peak. Yet, the fewer cows
are producing a total milk output 7 percent
greater than in 1944. In Utah, your average
cow yields 17 percent more milk than the
national average."
According to figures released by Welby
W. Young, president of the American Dairy
Association of Utah, there are now approxi-
mately 8,000 dairy farm families in Utah,
with a total of 100,000 milking cows. These
cows last year produced approximately 750
million pounds of milk. Approximately 80
percent of Utah's milk production last year
was from grade A farms. In 1959, 20 percent
of Utah?'s milk output went into the manu-
facture of cheese, and the balance of the
State's milk production was made into high-
score butter, cottage cheese, evaporated
milk or dry milk powder, and ice cream.
farms, homes, and industries from the
mountain wilderness more than a cen-
tury ago are demonstrated in the
achievements and high standards of
Utah's dairy industry.
Retired Officers and Selling
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
of
'HON. F. EDWARD HEBERT
OF LOUISIANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 30, 1960
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer
this splendid news article by Jack Steele
of the Scripps-Howard papers and an
editorial which accompanied the story
in the Washington News.
There is no necessity to comment on
either piece, but I do take the occassion
to say that I am quoted accurately and
correctly by Mr. Steele and that I sub-
scribe in the fullest to the editorial.
This is an issue the House. will be
given the opportunity of resolving next
Wednesday when this bill is called to the
floor for action.
Here is the article and editorial:
[From the Washington Daily News, Mar. 30,
? 1980]
HEBERT WILL FIGHT HOUSE BILL ON MILITARY
SELLING-WOULD ENCOURAGE INFLUENCE
PEDDLING
(By Jack Steele)
Representative F. EDWARD HEBERT, Demo-
crat, Louisiana, charged today that a pro-
posed House bill would legalize and en-
courage influence peddling by retired mili-
tary officers.
The measure denounced by HEBERT has
approval of the Armed Services Committee,
but faces a fight on the House floor next
Monday.
Representative HEBERT heads the Armed
Services Investigations Subcommittee which
last year inquired into the role of retired
officers in the munitions lobby and drafted
a tough bill to curb their selling to the
military services.
But Chairman CARL VInson, Democrat,
Georgia, and other committee members-
apparently as a result of objections from
the Pentagon and retired officers-insisted
on watering down the bill before sending it
to the House.
AMENDMENTS
Representative HEBERT announced today
that he will offer amendments Monday to
restore criminal provisions to the bill so as
to bar officers from selling anything to the
Defense Department within 2 years after
they retire.
His amendments would provide penalties
of up to $10,000 in fines and a year in jail
both for retired officers who violated this
2-year ban and for defense contractors who
hired them.
Representative HEBERT pointed out that
the committee-approved bill provides only
one penalty for officers who take selling jobs
with defense contractors within 2 years after
they retire-temporarily loss of their retire-
ment pay.
He said this loss of retirement pay would
become, in effect, the fee that a retired offi-
cer would pay for the privilege of selling
to the Defense Department for 2 years.
PROFITABLE
And he noted that many officers would
find it profitable to give up a few thousand
dollars of retirement pay temporarily to take
$26,000 to $60,000 a year jobs with defense
contractors.
"The commitee-approved bill simply would
not prohibit retired officers from selling
their influence to these contractors," he said.
"Instead, it would legalize, encourage, and
promote such influence peddling.
"A high ranking officer, within 24 hours
after he retired, could be right back in the
Pentagon using his influence on behalf of a
contractor. As long as he was willing to give
up his retirement pay, the committee bill
would not touch him."
Representative HEBERT also noted that
laws already on the books provide the same
pay-loss penalties for retired Army and Air
Force officers as the committee bill, and re-
quire the Navy to deprive its officers of re-
tirement pay if they sell to the Navy any-
time after they retire.
EX-OFFICERS AND INFLUENCE
When a House subcommittee headed by
Representative F. EDWARD HEBERT, was in-
vestigating the "munitions lobby" last year,
it turned up the names of 1,453 retired mili-
tary officers who had taken jobs with the 100
biggest contractors doing business with the -
Pentagon.
On the other side of the Capitol, Senator
DOUGLAS of Illinois revealed similar findings.
This year, as a result, Representative
HEBERT sponsored a bill to bar all military
Approved For Release 2003/10/16 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400280001-6
 A280 Approved. For ReLI+ ft /Mf .%iC& 1101$$W1 K9 280001-6 March 30
officers from selling anything to the Penta-
gon within 2 years of their retirement. He
put some teeth in the bill.
The Armed Services Committee, headed by
Representative CARL VINSON, extracted the
teeth and reported a bill Representative HE-
BERT says would curb none of these practices,
but actually would "legalize and encourage"
influence peddling by retired officers.
Representative HEBERT will try to get the
fangs put back in his bill when it goes be-
fore the House next week. He will be up
against a potent lobby. The Pentagon in
general has opposed the bill, and the re-
tired officers-although they also are draw-
ing retirement pay from the taxpayers' till-
naturally are against it. We hope the House
agrees with Representative HEBERT.
Even the Vinson committee, in its report,
concedes that influence can be "prejudicial
to the free and unfettered decisions of the
Government," although the bill it recom-
mends does nothing toprevent it.
The Defense Department is planning to
spend nearly 25 billion taxpayer dollars on
procurement next year. If the zeal of con-
tractors hungry for huge slices of this cake
influences the decisions which lead to this
vast spending, rather than the strict merits
of the projects, the taxpayers are bound to
take a licking. And the defense program to
suffer in proportion.
House Members voting next week on the
influence bill shouldn't be permitted to for-
get this.
Funds for Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
of
HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN
OF MISSOURI
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, March 28, 1960 ,
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. -Speaker, under
unanimous consent, I am submitting for
inclusion in the Appendix of the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD one of the best state-
ments I have ever read on the impor-
tance and significance of the Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial being
constructed jointly by the Federal Gov-
ernment and the city of St. Louis on
our great riverfront park along the Mis-
sissippi River in the Third Congressional
District of Missouri.
The statement I am referring to is an
editorial which appeared Sunday in the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch entitled "Gate-
way of the West."
It is most encouraging to know that
the Senate in passing the Department
of Interior appropriation bill for the
coming fiscal year has agreed to provide
the funds needed to maintain an effec-
tive rate of progress in coflstruction of
the memorial. Thanks to the efforts of
our two Missouri Senators, the bill con-
tains $4,663,125. This is a substantial
increaseover the amount provided in the
President's budget. It is an amount,
however, which can be spent efficiently
and which must be available for dis-
bursement in the coming fiscal year if
we are to have any chance at all of com-
pleting this project by the target date
set by the Secretary of Interior and the
Director of the National Park Service,
as well as by the mayor of St. Louis, that
is, by 1964 when the city observes the
200th anniversary of its beginning. I
am very hopef al that the conferees from
the House of Iepresentatives on the ap-
propriations ball will agree to the amount
provided by tie Senate.
I am sure i' they read the following
editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dis-
patch they will see and recognize why
this money is so important:
[From. the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 27,
1960]
GATEWAY OF THE WEST
"We're going 'vest tomorrow, where the
promises can't fail.
O'er the hills in legions, boys, and crowd
the dusty trail."
-Stephen Vincent Benet.
"Napoleon Bonaparte, like Milton's Satan
on his throne, sat unapproachable in his bad
eminence." So Henry Adams begins his
characterization of the enemy who "had to
be faced and overawed by the gentle opti-
mism of President Jefferson." Talleyrand,
"who never forgave himself for having once
believed in a popular revolution," had per-
suaded Napoleon ( to "pacify Europe and turn
the energiesof France toward the creation of
an empire in the New World and was the
more sure of success because, in the re-
actionary spirit of the time, he commanded
the sympathies of all Europe in checking the
power of republicanism in its last refuge."
It seemed that "10,000 French soldiers,
trained in the s ;hool- of Hoche and Moreau,
and commander) by a future marshal of
France, might have occupied New Orleans
and St. Louis before Jefferson could have
collected a brigade of militia in Nashville."
The Federalists blindly cried for a war
against France- a war which probably would
have reestablish 3d French power along the
whole length of he Mississippi, which might
have brought ab )ut the secession of the ter-
ritory between the Appalachians and the
river, and which would have entrenched
British and Spanish power on the young
nation's flanks.
Americans, to, rarely recall how their
country was almost confined to the Original
Thirteen States--divided by slavery-on a
continent under European control. The pru-
dence, the vision, and the daring of Jefferson
overcame this (lark threat. Through the
Louisiana Purchase he made possible the ex-
pansion of the United States from ocean to
ocean as a worlI power. This work must
stand in the first rank of American accom-
plishments. Su ^ely the people, especially
western people, will insist that it be com-
memorated by th 3 national monument which
has been started on the St. Louis riverfront.
The riverfront national park-to be domi-
nated by a 619-frot stainless steel arch sym-
bolic of the Gate way of the West-was - sug-
gested by a committee of St. Louis citizens
appointed December 15, 1933, by Mayor Ber-
nard F. Dickmar.n and headed by the late
Luther Ely Smi-;h. Franklin D. Roosevelt
responded with enthusiasm. On June 15,
1934, he signed r congressional joint reso-
lution establishing the U.S. Territorial Ex-
pansion Memorial Commission to formulate
plans for the r Ionument. St. Louis was
proud to join in financing it on the basis of
$1 for each $3 o?' Federal money. On Sep-
tember 10, 1935, the .voters approved a
$7,500,000 bond i;ue. And on December 21,
1935, the President made available $6,760,-
000, matched by :32,250,000 in city funds, for
the acquisition o' the 41-block site.
From the begs fining this was a national
project. Three Ssnators and three Members
of the House of Representatives had to be
among the nine members of the Memorial
Commission. Title to the site was given to
the Government. The development was put
in charge of the National Park Service. St.
Louis made its bargain with Washington be-
cause, after all, it was on the St. Louis river-
front that Capt. Amos Stoddard took over
the Louisiana Territory from the French.
Here was the starting point of Lewis and
Clark, Pike, Ashley, Fremont and the "moun-
tain men" who blazed trails to Oregon, to
Santa Fe, and to California. And it was the
jumping-off point for the settlers who went
west in their mover wagons.
Enthusiasm was high a quarter of a cen-
tury ago. The preliminary work was pushed
along rapidly. By May 1942, all buildings
had been cleared from the site and from the
city's tax books. The beautiful old court-
house-in which Dred Scott started his suit
for freedom-was added to the site by the
city. The war, however, forced a halt until
1945 when St. Louis citizens raised $225,000
for an architectural competition for the de-
sign of the memorial. The winner was the
conception of Eero Saarinen which Aline B.
Loucheim praised in the New York Times as
"a noble, symbolic monument, fitting, beau-
tiful, and impressive."
The arch and the other elements in the
Saarinen design were approved by the Fed-
eral authorities on May 25, 1948. But the
war's delay, the use of the area as a vast
parking lot, and the reluctance of the rail-
roads to relocate their riverfront tracks gave
objectors in Congress and elsewhere their op-
portunity. President Truman did dedicate
the site on June 10, 1950, butit was not until
May 17, 1954, that Congress authorized con-
struction. And it was not until 1956 that it
voted $2,640,000 for preliminary work. But
slowly enthusiasm was rekindled, and the
National Park Service set 1964, the bicen-
tenary of St. Louis, as its target for com-
pletion of the arch.
With this assurance that the Government
would keep its part of the bargain, public and
private interests in St. Louis committed
themselves to the enhancement of the areas
adjacent to thenational memorial. Almost
50 additional blocks are to be cleared. New
approaches have been built. A new bridge
across the Mississippi, a stadium and accom-
modations for visitors to the memorial have
been given the green light. In all, St. Louis
will expend far more in the neighborhood
than it will cost the Government to finish
the memorial. Yet now Washington again
threatens to allow the work to come to a -
money-wasting halt. The administration's
budget includes only $1,650,000 for the proj-
ect. A minimum of $4,603,125-to be sup-
plemented by $1,534,375 in city funds-is
needed to keep the work on schedule.
The St. Louis delegation in Congress is
making a fight for this appropriation. This
is not a grab for "pork." It is a request that
the Government honor its pledge. And St.
Louis, we trust, will have the support espe-
cially of all the Representatives in Congress
of the trans-Mississippi West. The national
park is a memorial to those who made the
West a part of the Nation. It seems incon-
ceivable that Congress-which has freely
commemorated.- lesser men and lesser
events-will not raise this monument to
Jefferson and those others who laid the
foundation of the grandeur and the power
of the United States.
Another Member of the Eisenhower Clean
as a Hound's Tooth Club
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. MELVIN PRICE
OF ILLINOIS - -
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 16,1960
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, under leave
to extend my remarks in the RECORD,-I
- Approved For Release 2003/10/16 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400280001-6