WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100035-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2006
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: June 27, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100035-6
June 27, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
REPORT ON BRAZIL
(Mr. BUSH (at the request of Mr.
REINECKE) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge
my colleagues to read and study the re-
port on Brazil filed by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. GOODELL] on
Wednesday, June 21.
The substance of the Goodell report is
provocative and timely. Its theme is the
interrelationship between foreign assist-
ance and resolution of the looming world
food crisis. This problem is one in which
I have had an increasing interest in re-
cent years, which has intensified in the
6 months I have served in the Congress.
Our colleague has characterized this
problem as the "greatest challenge to
mankind in this century." His evidence
is persuasive. Moreover, his conclusion
is supported by seemingly unanimous
consensus among the leading agrono-
mists, economists, and demographers in
the world. These same experts tell us that
the problem is immediate. We, of course,
know that but for the massive shipments
of food we are making to India, famine
would be rampant in the subcontinent.
The Paddock brothers in their recent
book, "Famine, 1975," which some re-
viewers find unduly alarming, predict
widespread starvation just 8 years hence.
The report of the President's Science
Advisory Committee, released on June
17, categorically warns that we must re-
verse the Malthusian principle by 1985
to avoid the irreversible onset of this
catastrophe.
In a world as large and complex as
this in which we live, there seems little
alternative to heeding the advice Of the
technologists, especially when their pre-
dictions have a hard scientific base, and
mounting physical evidence supports
their conclusions. However, a problem as
complex as the world food supply is dif-
ficult to accept emotionally in an affluent
society conditioned to agricultural sur-
pluses which cost the taxpayer billions
of dollars each year. Obviously, an urgent
educational task lies before us to make
the Nation aware of the problem we face
together.
The Goodell report is a major first step
to this end. Its scholarly analysis of the
role of education and agriculture assist-
ance programs in developing the pro-
ductive potential of Brazil can serve as
a basis for greater efficiency in the for-
eign assistance program. The report it-
self is a model for the constructive con-
tribution each of us can make to the
fund of knowledge so vital to proper ex-
ercise of the legislative function. It is
perhaps the most comprehensive study
of foreign assistance ever contributed by
a single Member of the House.
I thank the gentleman for the fund of
information he has given us and urge my
colleagues to make the best possible use
of his report in seeking an answer to the
food problem which threatens mankind.
CREATION OF GOVERNMENT PRO-
GRAM EVALUATION COMMISSION
(Mr. BUSH (at the request of Mr.
REINECKE) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, I have today
introduced in the House a bill to evaluate
all existing Federal spending programs
in order to set priorities on those essen-
tial to the national interest.
The bill would create a 12=member, bi-
partisan Government Program Evalua-
tion Commission charged with studying
Government programs and activities and
then reporting to the President and the
Congress.
The Commission would report by Feb-
ruary 1, 1969, on three main areas: First,
the effectiveness of each program in
comparison to its cost; second, at what
level the program should be continued, if
at all; and third, the relative priority the
program should receive when the time
comes around to allocating funds for the
next budget.
With this report, we in the Congress
can review the information and deter-
mine the merits of Federal spending pro-
grams, weed out the ineffective and the
nonessential, and most important of all,
make a congressional decision on what
priorities should be set on those deemed
essential.
There is a limit to the size and number
of Federal programs which the economy
can support without an ever-increasing
public debt and spiraling inflation.
With this Commission we could meas-
ure our real needs against what we know
we can afford.
The distinguished chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentle-
man from Arkansas [Mr. MILLS], origi-
nated and introduced identical legisla-
tion. I am proud to join him and other
Members in fighting for this important
legislation.
THREE-DAY WEEKEND
LEGISLATION
(Mr. CLEVELAND (at the request of
Mr. REINECKE) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have
today introduced legislation which will
reschedule the observance of four na-
tional holidays so that they will all fall
on Mondays. These holidays are Wash-
ington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veter-
ans' Day, and Independence Day.
These 3-day weekends will allow more
families to gather together to observe
these holidays than is the case at present
with so many of them coming in the
middle of the week. They will also de-
crease the disruptions and absenteeism
which these midweek holidays cause in
business and manufacturing plants.
Most significant, Mr. Speaker, is the
tremendous national support which this
legislation has. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce revealed recently that 85 per-
cent of its members favor 3-day week-
ends. Over 200,000 people replied to a
This Week magazine poll on the question,
over 90 percent of them favorably.
In the light of the important benefits
which all will derive from this legislation,
and the overwhelming support which it
has received throughout the Nation, I
H8103
hope my colleagues will join me in urging
its,vassage. -
(Mr. ASHBROOK (at the request of
Mr. REINECKE) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, as is
generally known by those who have been
following the controversial issue of the
deployment of antiballistic missile sys-
tems, our Government has been hoping
that talks with the Soviets would bring
about an agreement wherein both coun-
tries would agree not to develop ABM
systems on a large scale basis. As is also
generally known, the Soviets have already
deployed systems around Moscow and to
a smaller extent around Leningrad, while
our Defense Department has fought with
the Chiefs of Staff and Congress for a
number of years as to why such an ex-
pensive project should not be undertaken.
The hope that the Soviets would stop ex-
panding their facilities was one of the
arguments advanced by Defense.
According to the Washington Post, of
June 27, 1967, the Soviets have rejected
talks on the issue of the ABM facilities.
White House Press Secretary George
Christian, according to the Post article,
has confirmed that the ABM issue did
come up between President Johnson and
Premier Kosygin and that Kosygin's posi-
tion was generally similar to his reply to
the press on television on last Sunday
night. It will be remembered that Kosy-
gin's reply on television discounted the
ABM systems as weapons of aggression
and "what should be considered is the
entire complex of armament-disarma-
ment questions."
Now that the Soviets have dodged the
question of talks on the ABM systems,
it is high time we go ahead with the de-
velopment of these systems as a precau-
tionary measure of national security. As I
have stated in the past, I hope the Amer-
ican people follow this issue closely and
make it an urgent matter for considera-
tion in the 1968 presidential campaign.
I include the editorial, "The Antimis-
sile Gap," from the Chicago Tribune of
June 27, 1967, in the RECORD at this
point:
THE ANTIMISSILE GAP
In an article in Reporter magazine, Han-
son W. Baldwin, military editor of the New
York Times, discusses in alarming terms
our failure to develop a defensive anti-
missile system.
Under the "cost-effective" programs of
Secretary McNamara, Mr. Baldwin says,
our production of intercontinental ballistic
missiles has come nearly to a stop, while
Russia is turning out more and more. And
as Russia closes the gap In offensive mis-
siles, she is also moving ahead in defensive
systems.
According to Mr. Baldwin, the Russians
have deployed an anti-ballistic missile sys-
tem around Moscow and to a lesser extent
around Leningrad. In the rest of the coun-
try they have installed the so-called Tal-
linn dual system of anti-missile missiles,
one with a long range to intercept missiles,
outside the atmosphere and another high-
speed, short-range back-up missile to in-
tercept within the atmosphere.
"There is no doubt," Mr. Baldwin says,
"that the communist powers have made
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100035-6
 118104
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100035-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE June .27, 1967
great gains relative to the United States
in strategic weapons, nuclear delivery, and
nuclear-defense capabilities in the past
three to five years."
The question, as Mr. :Baldwin sees it,
is how long the Johnson administration
can go on talking of friendship with Rus-
sia and of the desirability of a nuclear
"balance," and delaying the development
of an adequate defense system of our own,
without jeopardizing our safety. Our slow-
down in production has not been matched
by Russia. Moratoriums on bomb tests have
been violated by Russia.
Yet there are many in:iuential men in
and out of the administrat.on who continue
to denounce the generals for demanding
faster action, and who regard unilateral
disarmament as a worthy goal. Prominent
among them are Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner,
former science adviser to three adminis-
trations, and Roswell L. ~3ilpatric, former
undersecretary of defense, who headed a
Presidential committee that in 1965 urged
a halt in the production of anti-missile
missiles. To maintain a defense system
superior to Russia's, they said, would "de-
stabilize . the balance of terror."
As Mr. Baldwin says, we had better listen
quickly to the advice of others like Com-
missioner James T. Ramey of the Atomic
Energy commission, Dr. Edward Teller of
the University of California, and Dr. Harold
M. Agnew of the AEC's laboratory at Los
Alamos, N.M., who are urging that wr re-
capture the initiative. If we don't it may
be too late.
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN OEO
(Mr. GARDNER (at the request of Mr.
REINECKE) was granted permission to ex-
tend,his remarks at this point in the REc-
ORD and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, since the
beginning of my investigation into the
political activities of the OEO as have
occurred in Durham, N.C., by Operation
Breakthrough, my office has been
swamped with letters, newspaper clip-
pings, and other articles giving accounts
of OEO activities in other parts of North
Carolina. As I have previously stated, the
political activity, as practiced by Opera-
tion Breakthrough, could set a national
precedent. This same kind of activity
could take place in any city in the United
States.
Under unanimous consent I insert into
the RECORD several newspaper clippings
and a letter, all dealing with OEO politi-
cal activities in North Carolina:
BRIEF SUMMARY OF MR. MONTE'S POSITION ON
THE NORTH CAROLINA Fu:rgu, AS STATED TO
THE GOVERNOR ON OCTOBER 13, 1966
My purpose in seeking an audience with
the Governor is to point out to the State
Government what I consider to be undesir-
able or perhaps even illegal activities of the
North Carolina Fund, a private non-profit
corporation created under the laws of North
Carolina and after operating in affiliation
with political sub-division of the State of
North Carolina. A very brief summary of this
problem and why I felt the State should
closely examine the N.C. Fund's activities
is contained in my letter to Mr. GeorgeEsser
of September 23, 1966, a copy of which was
furnished the Governor's office, (See Attach-
ment "A"); and my letter to Congressman
David N. Henderson of September 13, 1966
(Attachment "B").
Mr. George Esser, wrote me on September
20, 1966, stating in effect that my misgivings
listed in the above letters were unfounded.
Not wishing to bicker forever with Mr. Esser
I Included the following paragraph in my
letter of September 23, 1966 (Attachment
,A") :
"As I have previously stated, I think it best
that the Governor be acquainted with these
facts and that he appoint the Lt. Governor
or some other qualified person to investigate
the Fund's activities in all eleven Community
Action Agencies Sponsored by the Fund. The
State of North Carolina is frequent_y called
upon to participate, through its political sub-
divisions, in programs of the North Carolina
Fund. The North Carolina Fund as well as
Its affiliated CAPs is incorporated under the
laws of North Carolina. I have stated certain
grave and serious misgivings about the Fund
which you have denied. Therefore, I Feel that
it would be in the legislative and public
interest for the State to investigate these
charges."
I furnished a copy of this letter to the
Governor and. then asked for and obtained
this audience for October 13, 1966.
Recognizing that the Governor has very
little time, I intend to merely develop, and
initially document the misgivings expressed
by me. Due to obvious limitations on the
Governor's time, I do not intend to document
these misgivings at this time as fully as in-
formation available to me would permit.
However, I feel that the informatics below
should certainly warrant an inspection by
the State of this State Chartered, supposedly
non-political organization which often oper-
ates with participation of political subdivi-
sions of the State of North Carolina. I am
convinced that such an inspection including
interviews with others who have had con-
tacts with the N.C. Fund would reveal that
it should either be considerably modified or
the State of North Carolina and all its sub-
divisions, and. agencies should withdraw all
support and endorsement of the N.C. Fund.
Article 10(b) of the Articles of Incorpora-
tion of the N.C. Fund expressly forbids the
organization from participating in politics or
from substantially working to influence leg-
islation. I have asserted that the N.C. Fund
has not observed this requirement of its char-
ter. The following matters are examples of
incidents giving rise to this assertion:
(1) At a N.C. Fund sponsored meeting of
CAP Directors on or about February 8, 1966,
at the Holiday Inn in Durham; Mr. Tcm Hart-
man, George Esser's Assistant, stated in Es-
ser's presence! without disavowal by Esser,
that none of N.C.'s Congressmen and Senators
were representatives of the poor and that
therefore the poor should work against them.
Mr. Hartman especially attacked Senator
Jordan. The North Carolina Fund ran a tape
recorder during this meeting and if Mr. Esser
feels that the reference in my letters on this
matter are untrue, he certainly should pro-
duce the tape to clarify this matter.. Other
CAP Directors were present and should be
asked about it.
(2) Miss Barbara Jean Cooper, who was
trained by the N.C. Fund as a "Community
Action Technician" relates that her training
was almost exclusively dedicated to an in-
doctrination of the concept of political exer-
cise of power by the poor under the direction
and control of the paid Community Action
worker. She was even required by her super-
iors to do campaign work for a fund employee,
Mr. Tommy Dial, who was then running, for
office in Robeson County. Miss Cooper com-
plained of this to Mr. Royce Jordan, a Field
Representative, and presumably responsible
official of the N.C. Fund, who told her that
this was a legitimate and even desirable thing
for her to be doing.
. (3) The N.C. Fund through its representa-
tives Mr. Royce Jordan and Mr. Jim McDon-
ald defended Mr. L. R. Morgan and Mrs. Mag-
gie Blow of the Craven Operation Progress
staff for having expended without authoriza-
tion Craven Operation Progress Federally de-
rived funds for Democratic Primary Voter
registration purposes in May of 1966. This
activity was done in deliberate circumven-
tion of and without the knowledge of Craven
Operation Progress's Executive Director.
When Mr. Esser was asked about this action,
he defended it. This defense by Mr. Esser was
made although he was informed by Craven
Operation Progress that that organization
had been :instructed by the Federal Govern-
ment not to expend. monies in the area of
voter registration..
(4) In memorandums listed below, officials
of the N.C. Fund flagrantly solicited efforts
from othe:- supposedly non-political organi-
zations toward influencing enactment of and
the contents of the Economic Opportunity
Act renewal of 1966:
(1) May 5, 1966 from George Esser, Execu-
tive Director.
(2) May 26, 1966 from Mr. Esser.
(3) June 10, 1966 from Mr. Tom Hartman,
former Assistant Director.
(4) July 15, 1966 from Mr. Esser.
I have asserted that the management of the
N.C. Fund has endorsed and supported a doc-
trine of racism or racial polarization which
would fall within t:ae popularized category
of "black rower". The following are some of
the reasons giving rise to this assertion:
(1) At the above mentioned meeting of
"Fund" related CAP Directors Sponsored by
the N.C. Fund held on or about February 8,
1966, in Durham, Mr. James MacDonald of
the "Fund" staff outlined in the presence
of Mr. Esser, what he felt to be the "Fund's"
and each CAP's role in the area of "Human
Relations". Most of us present felt that Mr.
MacDonald's plans called for the implemen-
tation of racial polarization popularly la-
beled "black power". At that time, concern
was expressed by some of those present. Sub-
sequent events have, In my opinion, borne
out the fear that the N.C. Fund's efforts in
"Human Relations" were to be in the nature
of creating a third political force primarily
concerned with "black power".
Examples of these subsequent incidents
are to be found in the widely publicized
"Woodland People's Conference" of this sum-
mer which was sponsored by the N.C. Fund
and the recent N.C. Fund created incidents
in Forsyth County covered in the Winston-
Salem Journal Sentinel of October 2, 1966.
In his letter Of September 20, 1966, Fund
Director, Mr. Esser eeems to be particularly
displeased about my implying that staff mem-
bers of the N.C. Fund "rant". I assert that
staff members of the N.C. Fund do in general
"Rant" which is defined as: "to talk in a loud,
wild, extravagant way; declaim violently;
rave."
In a, news release of April 19, 1966, to the
Winston-Salem Journal, Mr. Esser stated
that the ir.C. Fund supported a study by a
Professor Field of the administration of the
"Fund" affiliate in Forsyth County. On pages
15 through 18 of a "study of organization
and administration" of Experiment in Self-
Reliance (the Forsyth County program) by
Professor Arthur Jordan Field, dated April,
1966, appears a discussion based on extensive
tape-recorded interviews with "Fund" staff
persons which leaves no doubt that Profes-
sor Field concludes that Fund staff "rant" if
the measure of "ranting" is to be at all gov-
erned by irrational and unrealistic relations
between strongly stated and urged methods
and dimly seen goals. My own dealing with
"Fund" staff, and apparently Professor Fields
as well indicate that they do In fact rant.
I reiterate that the above statement is a
brief summary of my misgivings about the
N.C. Fund and the reasons for them. How-
ever, I feel that this statment is sufficient
to justify public statement of concern by the
State Government and an examination by
the State Government as to whether,
(1) The State should participate either
directly or through i;s subdivisions in activ-
ities of the N.C. Fund; and
(2) The N.C..Funcl is operating within its
charter.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100035-6