rapid development of needed resource information.

This legislation would transfer the departments of mines and geology which are now in the department of conservation, to the department of natural resources. It would transfer the soils and water conservation committee to the department of agriculture, and would change the name of the department of conservation to the department of water resource conservation. It would outline the objectives of the study and direct that department to conduct the study, and would call for sufficient funds for them to do the job.

The idea of this study is neither new nor original for this session. A number of resolutions have been drafted which would make such a study possible, but have not been introduced, but nowhere has a proposal come before the legislature which is as sweeping in scope and benefits for the State of Washington.

Other legislation introduced this session would have created a board and department of water resources but it was cumbersome, complicated, and nonspecific to the needs of the State. As stated, this need not involve nebulous, nondirected boards, and commissions, or vast sweeping departmental changes. Done in this straightforward fashion there is no reason why both parties cannot join with us and irnmediately get to work on a century of progressive planning for Washington State.

First Lady of Home News

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EDWARD J. PATTEN

OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Home News, of New Brunswick, N.J., is one of New Jersey's great daily newspapers is the fine caliber of its officers and employees.

Recently the Home News published an editorial entitled "First Lady of Home News."

It is with deep pride, pleasure, and honor that I insert in the Appendix of the RECORD this editorial, because Miss Melicent E. Perkins represents the high degrees of competence, character, and dedication that have contributed to the success, progress, and greatness of the Home News.

The editorial follows:

FIRST LADY OF HOME NEWS Today is a day unique in the history of the Home News.

Today Miss Melicent E. Perkins begins her 66th year of association with this newspaper.

It was on March 26th, 1900, that Miss Perkins accepted the position of stenographer for the late William B. Boyd, father of Hugh N. Boyd, who is now publisher. She rose steadily up the ladder holding successively higher positions, becoming secretary of the Home News Publishing Co. in 1923 and later becoming secretary-treasurer, a position she holds today. She is also a director of the company.

Hundreds of reporters and printers have come and gone during Miss Perkins' association with our newspaper. Hundreds of mil.ions of copies of the Home News have been printed and read. And with simple majesty Miss Perkins has been a part of all this.

She has over the years helped four publishers make difficult decisions. She has been a warm friend and wise counselor to hosts of us, present and former members of the Home News family.

Miss Perkins' handclasp is firm, her laugh hearty, her sense of humor strong, her participation in the management of our newspaper active, inspiring, and effective. She's at her desk every day, and on payday her signature is on the checks.

Newspaper people are often slow to praise their own, but we are proud and honored to be able today to salute Miss Melicent Perkins, a fine friend, First Lady of the Home News.

very moment when the entire Johnson administration and a great majority of Congress are engaged upon a historic program to secure Negro voting rights. And it is this man, this holder of the Nobel Prize for Peace, who has so long been presented as the chief voice of responsibility and reason within the Negro

movement.

If his demands were not already being met as fast as elementary orderliness and a decent regard for the minimum rights of dissenters in a free society could possibly meet them, his position might to some extent be understandable, even though wrong. In all existing circumstances, his attitude surely cannot be adopted even by advanced civil rights advocates unless they believe that a single, unelected person, granting him the highest moeconomic strangulation upon a part of the Union.

ing to Totalitarianism?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JAMES D. MARTIN

OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, March 15, 1965

Mr. MARTIN of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, because so many Americans are moved to compassion when it is believed any people suffer injustice, many of our citizens are being misled in the current demonstrations of Martin Luther King. Hailed as nonviolent and strictly for the purpose of securing voting rights for Negroes, the true character of the riots is becoming clearer each day. There is a strong odor of totalitarianism connected with the demands of Martin Luther King. If he has his way, not only the South, but all America will be his victims as we lose our system of Government under a dictatorship made possible by the revolutionary tactics now encouraged and condoned.

A warning of what lies ahead is contained in a column by William S. White which appeared in newspapers this past week.

Mr. White's article follows:

IN WASHINGTON

(By William S. White) WASHINGTON.-An odor of totalitarianism is rising from the supposedly nonviolent leadership in the Negro civil rights movement of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Just as it seemed that the men of reason and restraint, in North and South, were at last to be able to raise their heads in this tragic business, Dr. King's call for an economic boycott of the entire State of Alabama has shocked the sensible North, repelled and sickened the moderate South, and maddened and rearmed those irreconcilable southerners who resist all concessions to the Negro.

It is an act hardly less damaging to the cause of true civil rights than the acts, on the other far end of the stick, of such men as Gov. George Wallace, of Alabama, and former Gov. Ross Barnett, of Mississippi.

For what Dr. King proposes is tactically indefensible and morally intolerable. It is nothing less than the application of the principle of total warfare-against the just as well as the unjust, against Alabama Negro as well as Alabama white. A man who appeals so often to the higher moral law now urges what is in principle the economic bombing of defenseless cities.

Its timing is, moreover, provocative and mischiefmaking beyond ready belief. For Dr. King summons up the forces of unreason and the technique of the general strike at the

Those who sit comfortably and righteously in the North and tirelessly condemn not merely the entire South, but also every man who attempts to raise the smallest word in its defense, will reject all this, as they always do. But what they are doing and what Dr. King is now doing, for the first time in his case, so far as this columnist has seen, endangers the very goals toward which they give such endless lip service. For there is in this, as in every poignant controversy, a human limit of tolerance. Let it be transgressed long enough and harshly enough and irremediable chaos is the only result.

It is not pleasant to be in the middle of such an issue. For such a man becomes the chosen villain on the same day of both sets of extremists, and has no friends any more. When the mail comes each morning, it is like being hit in the face by twin sacks of wet sewage. At one and the same hour a man is a southern Tory Bourbon and a hireling of Yankee carpetbaggers. This is perhaps a too personal way of saying that most Americans are not even remotely aware of the depth of bitterness being fomented in this Nation by the George Wallaces-and also, let northern people recognize, by the Martin Luther Kings.

All the same, the middle way is the only way if justice and national union and national order are to be preserved; for justice never lies with men of passion and violent tongue.

That part of the South which will not submit to fair play for the Negro is demonstrably being forced to its knees by lawful process. Is it not now time, in all conscience, for an end to, or at least a suspension of, the long pilorying of one tortured region of this country? Is it not now time to put a period to marches and demonstrations, and now to end an outright effort to destroy the economy of a whole State, at least until Congress has had a chance to work its will?

A Government Lottery as a RevenueRaising Device

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. PAUL A. FINO

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. FINO. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a resolution to establish a select committee of the House of Representatives to study the advisability of using a Government lottery as a revenueraising device.

I urge the Congress to establish this committee to investigate the lottery.

Surely, the obvious trend toward the lottery device in this country indicates that the national lottery idea is at least worth investigation.

For my part, I am fully convinced that investigation of the lottery mechanism will indisputably prove its merit. I urge the Congress not to shrink from social and financial reality.

First International Hangar Session

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. MORRIS K. UDALL

OF ARIZONA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, during March 19-21 in my congressional district in Arizona, we established a first of which Arizonans and the Nation may be proud. Various aviation groups, the Tucson Airport Authority, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency,

and the Director General of Civil Aeronautics of Mexico cooperated to hold the First International Hangar Session. This project is significant not only because it is the first of its kind on an international basis, but because it should bear fruitful results in terms of our relationships with our Latin American friends.

Mr. Najeeb E. Halaby, Administrator of the FAA and Senor Ramon Perez Morquecho, Director General of Civil Aeronautics in Mexico, met with 500 pilots and representatives of general aviation from Southwestern States and Mexico.

Administrator Halaby inaugurated these fly-in-type hangar sessions soon after taking office. The Tucson meeting provided unprecedented opportunities for those citizens active in aviation in Mexico and the United States to meet face to face with local, State, and Federal public servants charged with the responsibility of regulating aviation. The session was an example of genuine government-to-people and people-to

goverment democracy.

I commend Mr. Halaby and Senor Morquecho for their initiative in making the meeting a success.

Those who attended the fly-in were provided answers to their questions and the reasons and the philosophy of the actions taken by each Government on both routine and controversial matters.

Senor Morquecho paid tribute to the Federal Aviation Agency and Mr. Halaby for contributions toward the advancement of aviation, including establishment of well-equipped airports throughout the United States and development of a common system of air traffic control and navigation aids for both civil and military aircraft. He cited the exemplary safety record of aviation in the face of an ever-increasing load of activity.

Mr. Halaby said in part:

We chose this city as the site of the First International Hangar Session because we believe its symbolizes to a great extent the

spirit of friendship and understanding between nations and between people which we are trying to further here today.

We are grateful to the Tucson Airport Authority also for sponsoring us here today. We have found these hangar fly-in sessions to be extremely effective as a two-way communication vehicle between the Federal Aviation Agency and the public it serves. I might add that I personally have learned a great deal through these give-and-take sessions.

All of our previous sessions, however, have been aimed exclusively, or at least primarily, at U.S. pilots. This is our first venture in the international area.

I trust it is not the last, for I believe meetings such as this can help cement the historic ties of friendship and good will which bind the United States and Latin America.

We are honored to have with us today my counterpart in the Government of Mexico, Senor Ramon Perez Morquecho. His presence here and mine emphasize the importance which both of our Governments place on informal meetings of this kind.

This First International Hangar Session served to resolve many local problems. In addition, it established a rapport between two major Government officials that will serve both countries well.

All of us benefit from better relations and an improved understanding of the problems of our Mexican neighbors. International air travel offers citizens of both countries a way to exchange ideas, learn each other's customs, and broaden understanding.

I congratulate the Tucson Airport Authority and its manager, Mr. Charles H. Broman, and Mr. James Vercellino, director of the Arizona Department of Aeronautics, and all of the Government and industry officials responsible for sponsoring this unique meeting.

Water Pollution Along the Niagara Frontier

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I wish to include the following resolution relative to the prevention and control of water pollution along the Niagara frontier, which was adopted by the Erie County Board of Supervisors, Buffalo, N.Y., on March 13, 1965:

STATE OF NEW YORK, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ERIE COUNTY,
CLERK'S OFFICE,

Buffalo, N.Y., April 1, 1965.

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby certify, that at a session of the Board of Supervisors of Erie County, held in the county hall, in the city of Buffalo, on the 30th day of March 1965, a resolution was adopted, of which the following is a true copy:

"Whereas, Stanley P. Spislak, chairman of the water resources committee of the State conservation council after appearing before a congressional Committee on Pollution, has called for an international investigation public hearing in the city of Buffalo on Lake Erie and Niagara River water pollution. Mr.

Spisiak requested action by the United States-Canadian International Joint Commission 'to analyze and survey the international waters along the Niagara frontier and to hold a public hearing preferably in Buffalo in the near future to gather current information pertaining to the pollution of these waters'; and

"Whereas each year the incidences of water pollution along the Niagara frontier becomes more and more acute causing more and more bathing beaches to be closing on the American side of the waters; and

"Whereas there is a great need for the enactment of more stringent Federal laws preventing and controlling water pollution along the Niagara frontier: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That this board of supervisors express and intent to support Mr. Spisiak and join with him in requesting that a public hearing be held here in Buffalo by the United States-Canadian International Joint Commission concerning water pollution." Attest:

The ballyhooed Selma-to-Montgomery march had been completed without trouble. The Alabama Governor was commending his State for its restraint under heavy pressure from the outsiders. Suspense had faded from the story and the Nation was willing to take the spyglass off of Alabama. Just a few days before, a reporter named Jimmy Breslin had written in the New York Herald Tribune of how New York should be worrying about its own race and crime problems instead of sending pilgrims to Selma.

There things stood. A bit of daylight was showing.

And then a murder and a return to the headlines of the despised name of the Ku Klux Klan.

Not that the slaying of a Detroit woman who had come to Alabama is worse than the brutal subway killing of a New York white youth by Negroes a few days earlier. No excuses can be found, though. Murder is foul and uncivilized whether on a New York subway train or on a desolate stretch of highway in Lowndes County, Ala. And with the attention of the Nation-indeed, of the world-riveted on Alabama at this time, it was an utterly stupid deed.

Admittedly there are low forms of human life, and this was the act of one of the lowest orders.

It will be said that the good people of Alabama deplore such primitive violence. True. Good New Yorkers abhor the city jungle with its disregard for human life.

There are good people and bad. Environment, physical and mental, can lead to the demented hatred that causes murder.

But America, a land that regards itself as blessed with freedom, cannot rest content when city streets or lonely roads are unsafe.

This is not the day of the highwayman or the cutthroat.

Someone has to answer for the slaying of Mrs. Viola Gregg Liuzzo, shot as she drove the highway between Selma and Montgomery. Arrests have been made, and the import of the crime was so great that the President of the United States announced their apprehension. The suspects are identified as Ku Klux Klansmen.

Unfortunately, the murder is a national incident and it serves little purpose to try to place it in the perspective of crime that occurs from day to day in many places.

This, in a sense, is a threat to national security. It widens the gulf in racial under

system. These men are rugged individualists. If you don't think they're rugged, try doing their work. And if you don't think they're individualists, just look at the variety of vehicles they choose for their daily chore. The make and model that suits one carrier isn't likely to suit another. And that's as it should be.

Nobody takes better care of a car, or gets more miles out of it economically, than the car's owner who is paying his own car expenses. Regimentation in such fields is not likely to cut costs but to raise them in the long run.

carriers and clerks have been working as much as 60 hours per week. On top of this the regular employees have been working overtime as well. The normal morning deliveries are arriving at residential homes as late as 5 p.m., and the continued growth in my area will mean added problems to the post offices in meeting the demands for adequate service.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem that if the fine record of our Post Office Department has made in the past is to be continued, additional permanent postal em

tant peoples to the South. But most of all, It drives the spike of insecurity into the heart of any American who drives from State to State. For who can feel secure when he is deeply aware that his out-of-State license plates may invite violence-perhaps death?

Leased Cars for Mailmen?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN R. SCHMIDHAUSER

OF IOWA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the intelligent analysis of the editor of the Washington Evening Journal. I hope that every Member of the House of Representatives will give this fine editorial careful consideration:

LEASED CARS FOR MAILMEN?

Appropriation Bill, 1966

SPEECH

OF

HON. PAUL G. ROGERS

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 5, 1965

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7060) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when this legislation was in committee the request of the Post Office Department for additional permanent employees was reduced from 20,520 to 6,625. While I realize the committee has provided for temporary employees which

maintain current services, the failure of the committee to provide for the necessary permanent employees will be a distinct disservice to our many areas of rapid economic expansion.

Another recent suggestion for cutting mail distribution costs had to do with the cars driven by rural mail carriers. At present, the carrier furnishes his own car and is reimbursed 12 cents a mile for route mileage. The suggestion was that the Department discontinue this practice and, instead, lease cars from large companies which (reportedly) would furnish them at a lower cost per mile.

Frankly, we're suspicious of this suggestion. In the first place, either the leasing contract with the Post Office Department would be profitable, or it wouldn't. If it is profitable we see endless possibilities of graft, favoritism, kickbacks, and payoffs in the awarding of the leases. To think any such system of leases could be kept free of politics is naive.

Further, we suspect that any such leasing system would require the creating of a new postal bureau to oversee and police the system. The presumably lower price per mile would soon be swallowed up in overhead.

(We suspect, also, that the company which had made money leasing cars to businessmen and salesmen at 8 to 10 cents per mile would find leasing cars for service on rural routes a considerably different kettle of fish. It's one thing to drive a hundred miles nonstop on paved highways, and quite another to drive a hundred miles on rural roads, stopping at every mail box.)

Finally, we think the rural mail carriers would have a legitimate beef about such a

The Department's original request was the minimum request and was kept at that minimum figure in order to help with the President's economy in Government program. That 20,000 figure was the minimum figure necessary to maintain the current efficiency of the Post Office Department. If the Department were to eliminate all of the overtime now necessary, it would take twice the request they made in order to maintain adequate service to its 45 million family and 4.1 million business patrons.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite familiar with the problems that the Department faces in areas of rapid economic expansion. In my own district we have had 36 new post offices constructed in the last 11 years. Some of these have been in communities which as short a time ago as 1957 did not even exist. These post offices are making use of the latest equipment and systems for processing the mail but they also need employees.

If the Post Office Department is going to continue to meet the needs of areas of rapid economic expansion, they must have the manpower to do so. The comImittee action cripples the request for that manpower and the Department has attempted to be reasonable in their request.

Several of the communities in my district are so understaffed that substitute

The Need To Improve Working Conditions for Farm Laborers

SPEECH

OF

HON. HENRY B. GONZALEZ

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 5, 1965

Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. Speaker, any reasonable and literate person ought to be able at this late date to read the congressional handwriting on the wall. The 88th Congress, in its wisdom, decided that time had run out on the "temporary" bracero program, and that it should expire at the end of 1964. The President, in his wisdom, signed into law that decision and thereby obligated himself and his administration to carry it out. The 89th Congress, in its wisdom, is not going to buckle under the pressures that have been generated to revive the discredited bracero program. The President is not going to buckle under those pressures, and the Secretary of Labor is not going to buckle under those pres

sures.

The bracero program is as dead as the dodo bird. It is time for the leadership in the farm industry to stop looking for cheap, captive sources of labor. It is time for the leadership in the farm industry to exert itself in a positive and constructive and progressive manner in order to help solve the farm labor problem. It is time to look forward to the day when the farmworker can share in the fruits of his labors. Today, for the sweat off his brow that he leaves in the rich and abundant fields and orchards which he harvests he receives for his part a pittance, a pat on the back, and a passport to nowhere. Justice, decency, and humanity demand that progress not pass him over for yet another generation.

Farmworkers under State and Federal labor laws are relegated to a secondclass citizenship. Millions of Americans are protected by minimum wage, maximum hours, and child-labor laws. Millions of Americans are protected by workmen's compensation and unemployment compensation. Millions of Americans are assured decent housing for their families, good schools for their children, health and medical facilities. Not so the

farmworker.

Historically, labor laws were designed to regulate and set a floor under the

working conditions of employees in industry and trade. At first these laws were limited to specific types or places of employment or to certain industries. Some of these laws have been extended to cover employment generally, but usually agricultural employment is expressly excluded. Even where no specific exclusion exists and the laws could cover farmworkers, they often are not applied.

For example, in only eight States and Puerto Rico are there laws or regulations which specifically regulate farm labor contractors and crew leaders. Only a few States, California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, have laws setting safety standards for vehicles used in the transportation of farmworkers, and for the operation of such vehicles. Farm labor camps are regulated as to housing, location, and construction of the camp in 30 States. But in 20 States there is no such regulation. And even in the States where there are laws on this subject, the standards are very limited in most.

Only 11 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia provide a minimum age for employment of children on farms. This age is 14 in Connecticut, Alaska, Hawaii, Missouri, Texas, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In four States the minimum age is 12. In one State, Utah, the minimum age is 10. Compulsory school attendance requires children to attend school, usually to age 16, in most States. But in many States the laws permit children under 16 or even under 14 to be excused from school in order to work on farms.

In only four States and Puerto Rico do workmen's compensation laws cover all farm employment. Only 17 States have any specific coverage for farmworkers at all. Only Hawaii and Puerto Rico provide any minimum wage covererage for all farmworkers. Hawaii requires a minimum of $1.25 an hour. Six States have wage payment laws and wage collections laws for farmworkers. Only Hawaii and Puerto Rico specifically cover farmworkers in their unemployment insurance laws. In one California, farmworkers are covered by a temporary disability law.

State,

Federal laws supplement these deficiencies somewhat. The 88th Congress enacted more laws for the protection of farmworkers than perhaps any other Congress. The Economic Opportunity Act contains provisions for the assistance of migrant farmworkers and for low-income rural families. The Housing Act of 1964 provides for grants to States or its political subdivisions, or private nonprofit organizations, to assist in providing housing and related facilities for domestic farm labor.

Have these laws been utilized for the benefit for farmworkers? What are we doing now to implement them and to pass additional legislation in the area of minimum wages and workmen's compensation? There are the fruitful areas of work and inquiry where the time and energy of the people and the Congress could be well spent.

The farmworker is the forgotten man in the industrial revolution that has

benefited almost every other class of worker. Part of the evil inherent in the bracero program was that it served to keep the farm industry in a constant state of depression, as far as the workers were concerned. Braceros were a cheap source and a captive source of labor. They stifled competition and formed a crutch on which farmers and growers became accustomed to lean. That crutch is gone. It is now time for the farmer and the grower to walk without it, to seek his labor needs in the competitive market, and to give decent wages and working conditions to their employees.

This afternoon, in the Washington Daily News, John Herling ably reviews some recent events in the struggle to upgrade conditions in the farm industry. With unanimous consent, I am inserting in the RECORD this incisive and enlightening column by John Herling:

W.W.W.'S CRUSADE (By John Herling)

Perhaps it is inaccurate to describe the efforts of Labor Secretary W. Willard Wirtz in the farm labor sector as a crusade. He himself would prefer to say that he sticks to his responsibility under the law and that he is doing only what Congress plainly intended him to do and what President Johnson would want him to do.

Maybe so. But in the administration of any law or policy, the character of the administrator-made up of gutpower plus brainpan-is often decisive, whether his regulatory function is direct or indirect.

Secretary Wirtz, accompanied by Labor Under Secretary John F. Henning, spent an intensive 4 days last week in California on the problems connected with the use of braceros-imported Mexican workers-in American agriculture. While California occupies the central place in the farm labor arch, more than 20 other States also have habituated their farm economies, to a considerable extent, to the use of imported workers from Mexico and the British West Indies.

But as of December 31, 1964, the law which permitted the importation of Mexican workers-Public Law 78-expired. To the shock of many of their employers the growersMr. Wirtz had made it clear that he was not going to shut his eyes to the intent of Congress and permit the growers to keep on bringing in low-paid Mexican workers.

While field trips by Government officials are often a dime a dozen, there was a special quality about this one: Mr. Wirtz flew into the eye of the hurricane-the high-pressure center of the growers' indignant demand for cheap imported labor. His trip appears to have accomplished two things: One, the growers came to know Mr. Wirtz, and while they huffed and puffed, they did not succeed in blowing his house in. And second, within

the space of 1 week the growers who were redeyed ripe for conflict have now apparently come around to the point where, in effect, they adopt the attitude of Isaiah and L.B.J. and say, "Let us reason together."

In short, their attitude has changed because the Labor Secretary made it clear that when he said that Public Law 414 (the existing immigration law) was not going to be used as a subterfuge to do by other means what had been outlawed as of December 31, 1964, he meant it positively.

Boiled down, here is the way Secretary Wirtz finds the situation: "Much clearer now than it was at the start of this trip is that here is a basic, profound movement ahead as far as the agricultural economy of this State and some of the social implications of that change are concerned. The discussion a year ago-even 2 or 3 months ago was in terms of superficial aspects of

this situation. There was the suggestion that U.S. workers won't do stoop labor, and there were other catch phrases of one kind or another that were bandied around. What is now clear as you travel the State, talk to the growers and to the workers and to their representatives, to people of very strong conscience who are leaders in the attempt to meet this problem, to clergymen, to public officials, there is a much more basic development taking place.

"Three aspects of this development stand out: First and fundamental is the fact that Congress, by terminating Public Law 78, changed a situation in which there had previously been a fully assured, guaranteed labor supply for California agriculture. That no longer will be the case. The second change involves the fact that this previously guaranteed and assured labor supply had been provided under terms which included no competitive or bargaining power as between the employer and employees. Employment was solely on terms and conditions which could be dictated, subject only to the application of laws by the employers. From here on there will be a competitive factor in the labor situation which there has not been before. The third element, hardly appreciated or recognized in the public discussion of this matter, is that Public Law 78 had the effect of putting at least a fifth of California agriculture on the basis of its being performed by single individuals, men who lived apart from their families, and who came here alone as individuals, from Mexico.

"In the future, if the families move with the men who do California's agriculture work, there will be problems of schools, housing, churches, and of facilities of one kind or another to be met. With all of these factors taken into account, the changeover will be fundamental."

Overtime in the Post Office Department

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I subscribe to true economies, but oppose vigorously false economies. I do not fuss with the Appropriations Committee for curtailing unnecessary expenditures or for insisting on maximum economies. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Appropriations Committee is infallible in their judgment.

The Post Office Department requested sufficient funds for the Bureau of Operations to eliminate some 15,000 man-years of excess overtime. They proposed to accomplish this by the appointment of regular employees. This approach is nothing less than good management and would produce eventual economies.

Mr. Speaker, experience has proven that it is not efficient to employ excessive temporary employees or to work regular employees excessive overtime. In the first instance, it is a costly process training temporary employees and certainly because their employment is temporary they leave the post office for employment elsewhere whenever they can find permanent jobs. This vicious and costly cycle continues on and on.

In the second instance, it has long been known that employees performing hours of overtime are not as productive as during their regular hours of employment. Cost-conscious and progressive private firms found this to be true, and as a result have taken proper steps to eliminate excessive overtime in their plants. Certainly if this is true in the cases of companies operating for a profit, it is equally true in the case of the Government.

I regret that the Appropriations Committee did not provide sufficient funds to enable the Bureau of Operations in the Post Office Department to convert their temporary employees to a permanent basis.

The report states:

Additional funds will allow about 1,300 positions to be used as an experimental program to reduce the excess overtime work by postal employees.

It is my contention that the time for experimentation has long since passed. The work exists-it is being done either by temporary employees or by the use of excess overtime. Neither course is proper.

The solution is to provide sufficient funds so that regular clerks and carriers can be employed to do the work of the Post Office Department.

Dereliction in Debate

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ARCH A. MOORE, JR.

OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, April 6, 1965

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been asked time and again to accept without change several legislative proposals from the executive branch of Government with the admonition that we in the Congress should not change a comma, or remove a period. The steady cry from the minority side is that "the heavy hand of the executive branch is extracting its pound of flesh." In these legislative proposals, it is demanded that each be passed without amendment. The gentlelady from Oregon, Representative EDITH GREEN, has now made this cry bipartisan.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have supported the motion of the lady from Oregon with respect to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Her amendment meant great benefits to my State of West Virginia and I am truly sorry that I was the only member of my delegation to support her. Under unanimous consent I include an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, "Dereliction in Debate," which forthrightly brings bipartisanship to the complaint that "legislation should not be debated or amended, but should be passed as is," in order that my colleagues may see the same:

DERELICTION IN DEBATE

It's tempting merely to chuckle about partisan politics when Republicans complain, as one of them did the other day, that "the

Great Society has turned into the great steamroller." But when a northern liberal Democrat supports the substance of that complaint, perhaps it's time to listen. To wit, Representative EDITH GREEN's searing commentary on both the administration's primary education bill and the tactics used to speed House approval of that measure. The lady from Oregon noted that while her fellow Democrats brag of guarding minority rights, their benevolence evidently doesn't extend to congressional minorities which question official infallibility. She observed, "It seems to me we have in the House a determined effort to silence those who are in

disagreement."

The debate did seem curiously restricted for a proposal with such far-reaching implications. Also, the bill is such a Rube Goldberg contraption that, as Mrs. GREEN said, more debate was needed simply "to let the House know what is actually in the bill." The measure is so confusing that at one point even its sponsors couldn't agree on what its language allowed. Still, its backers seemed intent on passing it without change, and treated most amendments peremptorily, without record votes and often without discussion.

Such arrogance might be understandable if the amendments were merely political or trifling. Instead, many of them dealt conscientiously with the bill's fundamentals, such as the fact that while its ostensible purpose is helping the disadvantaged, its systems of allocating Federal funds heavily favors already wealthy States..

The majority even brushed aside bipartisan attempts to facilitate judicial tests of the bill's constitutionality. The proposal intentionally walks close to the constitutional line on church-state questions, and Federal courts often evade jurisdiction on this issue by finding that no one is directly enough affected to bring suit. One proposed amendment might have helped simply by encouraging judicial review; another definitely specified who would be eligible to start constitutional tests.

Since the bill fosters a multiplicity of approaches to aiding children in church schools, it has endless opportunity for chaos unless the constitutional questions are resolved quickly. Not surprisingly, the judicial review provision was backed by the National School Board Association, which represent boards covering 95 percent of the Nation's pupils. The House majority chose to avoid the whole constitutional issue.

Simply by closing its ears to serious questions, the Democratic majority achieved the victory of having its measure passed practically untouched. This bit of vanity means, among other things, that some disadvantaged children will get shortchanged, and the Nation's school boards will have to struggle with the tough questions the House was afraid to face. As with so many past Federal programs, the price for dereliction in congressional debate will be paid by those the program purports to help.

voting bill sponsored by the President, I call your attention to the editorial, "Voting Discrimination," which appeared in the Washington Sunday Star, April 4, 1965.

The editorial follows:

VOTING DISCRIMINATION

Our basic objections to the administration's voting rights bill have already been stated. We think there is need for a reasonable literacy test, provided there is no discrimination in its application to would-be voters. The administration's bill, in one aspect, outlaws any and all literacy tests, and is designed to permit total illiterates to vote. The educational voting level is low enough now without enacting a Federal law to push it down even farther.

The second important aspect of this bill imposes its harsh and punitive provisions on any State which has a literacy test, and in which fewer than 50 percent of the residents over 21 are registered or actually voted in the 1964 election.

This bill contains other provisions which are reminiscent of the Reconstruction era following the Civil War. But the two which we have mentioned, taken together, offend one's sense of fairness. If enacted, in its present form, this bill would result in a legislative discrimination as bad or worse than the evil the bill is supposed to remedy.

Let's take the case of Virginia, which is brought under this bill because it requires a literacy test and, though more than 50 percent of its eligibles are registered, fewer than 50 percent voted in 1964.

What is Virginia's literacy test? As spelled out by Senator HARRY BYRD in his recent statement, any person desiring to register must be able, without assistance, to give in writing the following information: His name. The date and place of his birth. His current residence. His occupation. And, if he has voted before, the county and precinct in which he voted. That is all.

Is this a test which opens the door to such obviously discriminatory requirements as being able to interpret to the satisfaction of some ignorant registrar sections of a State constitution? Is it a test which asks too much of a person who wants to vote on the important and complicated issues which face us today? We do not think so. Furthermore, the administration concedes that this is not an unreasonable literacy test, and that there is no evidence that it has been used in Virginia to discriminate against Negroes.

If this is so, why does the bill link a reasonable and nondiscriminatory literacy test to an arbitrary formula with respect to voting or registration percentages?

One explanation is that the statistics on registration are unreliable. But this is said to be true in West Virginia, which is not affected by the bill because it has no literacy test. What nonsense.

In addition to Virginia, the States covered by the bill are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Alaska. We are puzzled by the inclusion of Alaska, in which Negroes certainly are not discriminated against. There are few if any there. As to the others, we haven't enough information to pass judgment.

But it is our firm belief that this is a diecriminatory bill. If its purpose is to protect Negro voting rights, it discriminates in favor of New York, which requires a rather strict literacy test but which has met the voting percentage standards. It also discriminates in the case of Texas, which did not meet the percentage-of-voting standard in 1964, but which does require a literacy test, although it is verbal in character and is called by some other name.

There have been reports that the administration's bill will be changed or modified in some unrevealed aspects. We hope this is true. We also hope that the bill, if modified,