Page images
PDF
EPUB

trade restrictionism. And, on the other hand, the prospect of increased productivity rekindles the desire of many countries of finally becoming self-sufficient.

3. Has the emergence of the EEC changed things in regard to agricultural trade? The EEC, or Common Market, is an economic union of six western European countries. It aims eventually to eliminate barriers to trade between its members. It must harmonize different economic systems and price levels. When this is done, the EEC on economic matters will look and act as a single nation. In the trade negotiations, they will act as one in negotiating with the rest of the world, including the United States. They are trying to do what we did when we adopted a common constitution-they want to be six in one. Clearly, the EEC has changed things, and we need to take account of the new problems which have resulted.

4. Do we oppose the European Economic Community or obstruct it? Does the United States seek to undermine its agriculture? Absolutely not. The United States has supported and nourished the European Economic Community. In principle, the countries of the European Economic Community and the United States have agreed that we can improve the welfare of our farm people and improve our trading relations with one another at the same time. We all subscribe to the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the GATT. We work together for a stronger free world.

But as so often happens in human affairs, it is easier to agree upon objectives than it is to agree upon ways to attain them. It is difficult to accomplish all we seek. As a result, certain practices and new systems have come into existence, and others are being discussed which would not appear to further the trade objectives we seek.

The United States, and particularly the Secretary of Agriculture, has often been charged with unreasonable demands upon other trading countries and especially on the European Economic Community. It has been said in Europe that we seek to flood their markets with the products of U.S. farms, and to replace European farmers. This is simply not true. Let us look briefly at what the United States really wants in the agricultural negotiations.

What we have asked for is exactly what we are willing to give, namely, fair access to the markets of the world based on trade in a recent representative period. Our present negotiations on beef imports are an example of this. United States beef imports have climbed spectacularly in the last several years. They are influencing domestic prices and farm income. But the United States is not arbitrarily slamming shut its door on imports. We are negotiating with our principal suppliers access arrangements which will recognize our situation and their market needs. These market share arrangements will allow imports to continue to enter the United States up to recent representative levels, and to expand as our total market grows.

The United States and other exporters now supply a share of Europe's markets and the markets of the other trading nations. What we ask in the future is that the agricultural trade policies being undertaken not be designed to reduce our opportunities to share in those markets on a fair and reasonable competitive basis. We ask that the interests of the efficient agricultural producers of the world be accounted for in the agricultural and trade policies of other countries.

We have the greatest sympathy for the problems of European farmers. Our farmers have much in common with the farmers of Europe. We hope that Europe's farmers will prosper and that their markets will expand and their income rise along with the income of U.S. farmers. We seek an oppor

tunity to show, therefore, that it is to the mutual advantage of importing countries and exporting countries to share the world's agricultural markets and that the end result would be better farm incomes and higher living standards throughout the world.

5. Do some of the European Economic Community's current practices and proposals represent a serious threat to the American farmer and his market?

The only possible answer to this question is "yes." Some of the erosion of the American market has already begun. Exports of wheat flour to the EEC countries dropped by 40 percent in 1963; exports of poultry and poultry products declined by 64 percent in 1963. Import restrictions for grains which are under discussion within the European Economic Community could seriously damage our markets for wheat and feed grains. And a negotiating plan has been proposed which would have the effect of basing the agricultural trade negotiations upon a system of agricultural policies and levies which would seriously threaten markets we have served for many years.

6. What is this plan and why does it threaten our legitimate markets?

The newspapers in recent weeks have written a great deal about a negotiating plan for agriculture developed by the European Economic Community. Our knowledge of this plan is in many respects incomplete but we know enough about it to be very concerned about its effect upon the United States and upon the trade negotiations generally.

In essence this plan seeks to turn all import duties or other import barriers on agricultural products, in all negotiating countries, into variable levies of the kind now applicable in the Eureopean Economic Community. It would seriously alter the present system of agreements and practices worked out over many years, and replace them with a new system.

As I understand it, this is not the kind of negotiating proposal which would make for progress. Instead we need a more practical proposal which recognizes and respects the different kinds of farm support systems in the world and the different kind of import barriers which protect them. It is not reasonable to expect to impose one system on all countries of the world, no matter how appealing that system may be to those who have devised it. We need a plan which can result in the reduction of fixed import duties, in greater access to markets, and in reduction or elimination of discrimination among supplying countries where it is practiced.

The rights of third countries of access to markets have been painfully negotiated over the years. They are the starting point for further negotiations. If they are swept away, the fair and legitimate trade interests of the rest of the trading world will go with them. This must not be allowed to happen.

7. Do we have a negotiating proposal? I do not approach these matters in a negative way to obstruct progress. It is useless to point our finger at others if we have no proposals of our own. Instead, we must approach these important trade negotiations positively, recognizing the problems of others sympathetically and not rejecting out of hand the needs of other countries for a sound domestic farm policy which meets their needs.

To do this, we must first find a way to negotiate under the new circumstances resulting from the EEC; then we must actually negotiate. As realistic people, we are not trying to redesign the world's commercial trading system; instead we are searching for a negotiating plan, recognizing the differing needs of all countries to protect their farm income programs.

In my considered judgment there is such a practical workable system. We in the USDA have worked long and hard on such a

plan. Its basis is very simple. Its aim is fair market sharing based on long-standing practices, adjusted to new conditions resulting from the European Economic Community and recognizing her problems but also the interests of third countries as well. Such a negotiating plan recognizes that all countries have rights. It would embody certain well-established international trading principles and goals.

Here are its elements:

1. Fixed import duties should be reduced substantially. If the negotiating countries adopt a general rule for reducing fixed duties, that rule should cover agricultural products as well as industrial. Any items too sensitive to permit lower duties would qualify for an exception for farm products as for any type of product.

2. Variable import levies-a new device widely used in the European Economic Community and in some other European countries should be included in the negotiations in a meaningful way. But variable levies cannot be reduced as fixed import duties can, so we must find an alternative means of trade liberalization. Negotiated trade access through arrangements for both domestic producers and exporters to share equitably in expanding markets would be the basic approach for grains, meats, and certain other variable fee items.

3. For certain products, quantitative restrictions or state trading impede trade. Where these barriers are used for the protection of farm income programs, improved access for imports should be negotiated again through fair market share arrangements similar to those which would be negotiated for variable levies. Where the nontariff barrier does not perform a critical function in the protection of farm income, however, we believe the barrier should be removed as quickly as possible.

These proposals are already before the world. They are in fact a part of the common language of trade liberalization aimed at creating balance between the legitimate protection of domestic farm income by various countries on one hand, and expanded. international trade in agriculture products on the other.

Let me explain in a little more detail what I have in mind. The fixed import duty is the most common form of protection in the world. It is still the prevalent form of protection here in the United States. We are willing to consider reducing our fixed import duties on agricultural products if we can get adequate payment for them abroad-we don't intend to give anything away-and if the domestic situation permits a cut. We think other countries should be willing to do the same.

We recognize, however, that for many commodities the fixed import duty is not the principal form of protection used. Variable levies, quantitative restrictions, and state trading are different, and they require different methods. There are these and a host of other devices which, singly or in combination, give the protection which was once required and which we all seek to reduce in these negotiations for our common good. Nontariff barriers cannot be excluded from negotiations simply because they are not tariffs. The most sensible way to include them in the negotiations is to negotiate market-share arrangements for products covered by such systems. Even here I see no need for any one form of arrangement. It should fit the needs of the countries and commodity with which we are dealing. The International Wheat Agreement and the marketsharing arrangements proposed by the United Kingdom in meats and cereals are important precedents.

The essence of each arrangement, however, would be an assurance given by the importers to efficient outside countries that these producers would have the opportunity to

compete with domestic producers for a fair

share of the domestic market. This market share would be based upon imports in a recent representative period, and it would provide for expanded imports as the total market grows. It does not admit exclusion from markets, either by direct quotas or by adoption of domestic policies which have that effect.

For some commodities-cereals and meat and dairy products come immediately to mind-these market-share arrangements may have to be quite elaborate. They may require new multilateral agreements involving all major importers and exporters. They may cover areas of national policy not now subject to international commitments-such as support prices or noncommercial sales. They might require all the developed countries of the world to make substantial contributions to the less developed countries by way of food aid.

The core of such arrangements, however, would be the assurance given by importers to exporters that they will not be shut out of the dollar import markets through the application of restrictions at the frontier. I repeat that agricultural markets can grow, as they must, only if the agricultural negotiations can make progress-only if the key can be found to a liberal and progressive negotiating plan.

I have set before you tonight such a negotiating plan: to reduce tariffs; to guarantee fair and reasonable access to markets where tariff reduction is not applicable or possible; to remove nontariff restrictions at every opportunity.

This is a negotiating plan the world can understand. It does not involve the writing of a new language for the agricultural talks. It does not build the trade negotiations around any particular domestic agricultural system, but rather adapts the trade negotiation plan to the main systems of protection and duties of all the trading partners in the world. It starts from where we are. It builds on the successful negotiations of the past. It benefits all nations-developed and less developed alike.

Finally, it is a plan for trade liberalization, and that is what the trade negotiations are all about.

It would require tariff cuts; it is not at all clear that other proposals would do this.

It would assure markets to efficient producers and would require some limit to the measures encouraging inefficient production.

It would expose the trading practices and the domestic farm policies of the free world to the test of the high principles under which the trade negotiations were launched.

It would inject new strength and vigor into the world's established commercial trading system, a system which has served man well through the ages and which continues to offer best promise for effective and rewarding distribution of his production.

As we move forward in trade talks, we need and want the advice and the support of farm groups in the United States. I assure you of the strongest possible representation of your interests, from the President on down. I have high hopes for a successful outcome, for expanded markets, and for better farm incomes as a result.

Never before in trade negotiations has agriculture received so much attention and consideration. Agricultural trade had the vigorous attention of President Kennedy; it now has the vigorous attention of President Johnson. As a result, agriculture and industry are together in the trade talks. This is the policy of the U.S. Government. With the help and support of agriculture and industry, I am optimistic that this united front can be turned into the most successful trade negotiations in history.

Address by Hon. Wilbur D. Mills at Ap-milestone after legislative milestone according recognition to the significance and impreciation Dinner for Hon. Clark W. Thompson, Houston, Tex., January 31,

1964

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JIM WRIGHT

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, another principal speaker that evening was to be our colleague, the Honorable WILBUR MILLS, the distinguished chairman of our Ways and Means Committee. Regretfully, he had to miss the dinner due to illness in his family. The able general counsel of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Leo Irwin, delivered the speech in the absence of Chairman MILLS. Under previous consent I also insert it in the RECORD:

ADDRESS OF HON. WILBUR D. MILLS, AT APPRECIATION DINNER FOR HON. CLARK W. THOMPSON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1964, AT RICE HOTEL, HOUSTON, TEX.

Mr. Toastmaster, Clark and Mrs. ThompSON, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

This occasion which brings me to the great State of Texas is surely one of the most welcomed and pleasant privileges which I have experienced in many, many years. It is said-and with some wisdom-that politicians always enjoy talking to people. This is more particularly true when the subject is one which is deemed important to our fellow citizens; when the people to whom we are talking are our friends and neighbors; and when the person about whom we are talking is an admired and respected friend and colleague.

The situation here tonight has all of these ingredients. Next to my native Arkansans, there are no friends to whom I would rather talk than my neighboring Texans. There is no farm product of more importance to our economy-both locally and nationally-than rice. And, above all, there is no Member of the Congress more deserving of commendation and tribute, and whom I would rather honor, than my dear and good friend, CLARK THOMPSON.

I can well understand why there are so many distinguished leaders from both business and agriculture here tonight, because I know the very high esteem in which CLARK THOMPSON is held by all those who know him or have been associated with him. I have personal knowledge of his high standing among his colleagues in the Congress; your presence attests to the regard in which he is held by his constituents and neighbors. My own presence here gives me the opportunity and the privilege to review and pay tribute to some of the more outstanding contributions which CLARK has made to the economic and political strength of this part of the country and to the Nation as a whole.

It has been my very high good fortune in the years past to have become extremely familiar with the exemplary works and deeds of our beloved and admired friend. For a long time, while CLARK was a leader in the Agriculture Committee of the House, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Rice, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Family Farms, I watched and admired the quiet and modest, but inspiring, and effective way in which he secured enactment of legislative

portance of rice in the farm sector and in the food sector of our total economy.

Those of you here tonight whose primary concern is with the rice economy of your area and mine need not be reminded that agriculture legislation relating to rice has come a long way in the past decade and a half. We have traversed this road largely because of the sustained efforts of the gentleman from Texas, CLARK THOMPSON. It is not merely happenchance that the historic legislative enactments which have advanced the cause of rice, and all those many individuals, families, and businesses which benefit from it, bear the name of CLARK THOMPSON.

in

A glance at the program announcing this dinner discloses a very brief review of some of the more recent measures which he authored and steered through the Congress. It is there indicated that 2 years ago, largely because of his efforts with the President, the national rice acreage allotment was creased by 10 percent, and since that time, he has led the fight in maintaining this increase. He was also instrumental in having the national acreage rice support price increased, and just a few days ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill permitting the transfer of acreage allotments in the case of the death of an individual.

Going back even further, I recall his sponsorship of the bill in the 84th Congress which increased the then existing rice acreage allotments by 5 percent and which made other beneficial changes relating to rice in the Agriculture Agreement Act; the bill in the 85th Congress in 1957; the Rice Marketing Quotas Act of 1959; and I could continue to list these for a long time. Truly, Clark Thompson is the "architect" of our agricultural policy with respect to rice, and it is with good reason and justification that he is recognized as the spokesman for the rice industry in the U.S. Congress.

Now what is this product which has merited so much of the time and energy of our friend, CLARK? What is its status in the farm economy and the total economy? And of what significance is it to this section and to the entire United States? I am sure that you here tonight know the answers to these questions far better than I because while I have been closely associated with activities with respect to rice for many years, you are the real experts on this subject. Even so, Mr. Toastmaster, I believe there might be some interest in recounting just a few brief facts which have come to my attention in refreshing my recollection on the significance and importance of this great farm product to our part of the Nation.

We can well begin with the fact that rice is a major crop of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas and the major food crop of Texas. The Department of Agriculture reported that in 1962 more than 11 million hundredweight of rice was produced in that district, which represented 71.7 percent of the total production of the State of Texas.

And Texas in 1962 was tied with my own State of Arkansas for the top production State of that year, each having produced 16,401,000 bags. However, in the year just closed, the State of Texas led the Nation in rice production, with 18,394,000 bags out of a total production of 70 million bags.

It is interesting to observe that rice, which is the most extensively grown food crop in the world, is also, in our own country, the most highly mechanized crop in the world. The yield per acre in the United States for 1963 was 3,962 pounds, but in the State of Texas it was 4,025 pounds. The total U.S. production of 70-plus million bags for 1963 was a record high for the second consecutive year, representing 6 percent above the pre

vious record and 40 percent above the 195761 average. This larger crop was the result of higher yields, since the acreage harvested was less than last year. The yield per acre for the United States in 1963 was 236 pounds above the previous record and 645 pounds above the 1957-61 average. These statistics show how our efficiency in the production of this most important food crop continues to improve year by year.

The cash return to the United States and to the rice producing States is evidence of the significance of this increasingly important food crop in our total economy. In 1962, farm marketings of rice in the United States amounted to over $332 million, and the marketing of the Texas crop was over $82 million, or about 6 percent of total receipts from all crops in the State. However, these overall marketing figures do not show the total picture by any means, since they do not indicate the thousands and thousands of families and businesses which depend upon the production, milling, and marketing of rice for their livelihood.

We are all, of course, vitally interested in the outlook in the 1963-64 rice situation and in what might be expected on both the domestic and the international front. As just reported by the Outlook and Situation Board of the Department of Agriculture about a week ago, the dominant features in the 1963-64 rice situation are, first, the record large crop and, second, some uncertainty in the export outlook. Domestic demand for rice in 1963-64 is expected to continue its upward trend, and we are told it may total about 29.5 million bags. But while it is expected that exports might set a new record of 38 million bags, the export estimates are subject to more than usual uncertainty. This is because of several factors, including the situation in Indonesia-which is normally a major buyer of the United States rice and as to what might be expected with respect to rice purchases by the Soviet Union and the Eastern European bloc countries.

We are told by the Outlook and Situation Board that the worldwide purchases of grains by the Soviet Union and the bloc countries recently has led to speculation that they may also be potential rice buyers. A further, but more long-term, factor with respect to the export outlook has to do with regulations recently promulgated by the Euro: pean Economic Community (EEC) which are to go into operation on July 1, 1964. While these regulations probably will not have any pronounced effect on U.S. exports during the current marketing year, they will undoubtedly give preferential treatment to rice-producing countries in the Common Marketmeaning France and Italy-when they do become effective.

A look at the total statistics for 1963 with respect to supply, domestic use, and exports of rice shows in bold relief the importance to the US. ricegrower of exports. Thus, of the total supply for 1963 of 77.9 million bags, which consists of 70.1 million of new production and 7.7 million of carryover, the domestic consumption, including that for food, for seed, and for industry, accounted for 29.5 million bags while the exports accounted for 38 million bags. I cite these figures to indicate the vital stake which the rice-producing section of the United States has in our total international trade picture.

It will be recalled that one of the major policy objectives of the Kennedy administration was enactment of legislation which would give the President the authority which he would need to deal with the EEC in the next several years. The Committee on Ways and Means reported and the Congress passed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which not only gives the President authority which he will need in this regard, but also gives to him weapons which he can use to help prevent discrimination by foreign countries against U.S. farm products in foreign mar

kets. Very strong language was written into that act in section 252, with respect to such matters. Our distinguished honoree here tonight played a major part in helping to shape the trade expansion legislation which was reported from the Committee on Ways and Means and which I think will prove to be of marked significance to this Nation in its trade relationships with other nations during the years to come.

Mr. Toastmaster, this was just one of the many highly significant pieces of legislation which the Committee on Ways and Means has reported since CLARK THOMPSON became a member in January 1962. I know that it was as a result of a great deal of thought and careful consideration that CLARK decided to shift from the Committee on Agriculture to the Committee on Ways and Means. I am extremely glad that he decided to make this move. He has been one of the stalwart members of the committee and has rendered outstanding service in the several fields of our endeavor during the past 2 years.

I do not know of any time in the recent history of the United States that the Committee on Ways and Means has been busier with high-priority legislation than has been the case during these 2 years. Major revenue legislation has been enacted in each of the years since CLARK became a member and particularly important in that regard are the Revenue Act of 1962 and the pending revenue reduction act, H.R. 8363, which has now been reported by the Senate Finance

to one of his administrative assistants. He said, "Whenever you get in real trouble, you look up, and there will be CLARK THOMPSON coming to you." Mr. Toastmaster, I could have made the same statement as our late beloved Speaker-whenever we have had real difficult issues in the committee, CLARK THOMPSON always stands fast for what is right.

Mr. Toastmaster, I have always thought that it was a great gift to an individual to be possessed of a ready wit, a keen wit, and the ability to use it at crucial times. I can say without reservation that CLARK's keen wit and high good humor have often brought the Committee on Ways and Means "back to earth," so to speak, when tempers were on edge over some difficult point on which convictions on both sides ran strong.

As I have indicated, I could go on and on over the virtues and the accomplishments of our esteemed, admired, and respected friend and colleague. I need not do so, however, because those of you whom he has represented so well and so faithfully for so many years are aware of these many fine virtues. I consider it a high honor to have attended this dinner this evening, and I know that CLARK will continue to merit your confidence and your support and that he will serve you, the Ninth District, and the Nation faithfully and effectively for many years to

come.

Committee and which is expected to pass the Independence Day Celebration of Morocco

Senate and go to conference very shortly. Many sections of this bill, which will provide the largest tax reduction in the history of the United States, bear the handiwork of our distinguished friend, CLARK THOMPSON.

Other measures which the committee reported and which became law and which CLARK has helped to shape are the Tariff Classification Act of 1962, which reworked our 30-year-old, outmoded classification schedules; the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, which revised our welfare legislation and gave the States more power to deal with abuses; the Tax Rate Extension Acts of 1962 and 1963, and a very broad variety of other measures. So it is that when CLARK moved from the Agriculture Committee to the Committee on Ways and Means, he moved into an area where his many talents and qualifications outside the area of agriculture could be brought to bear on fiscal, tax, tariff, and social security problems intimately affecting his own district and the entire United States.

However, CLARK did not by any means lose his interest in agriculture when he came to the Committee on Ways and Means. On the contrary, that interest has continued to manifest itself, as evidenced by the fact that the most recent rice bills to pass the Congress continue to bear his name. On those very few occasions when CLARK has not been in attendance at the almost continuous sessions of the Committee on Ways and Meansand I must say he is one of our most conscientious members-it has usually been because he was appearing before the Agriculture Committee or was at the Department of Agriculture conferring with either the Secretary or other officials in behalf of the rice industry and the other agricultural interests of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas.

Mr. Toastmaster, I could go on at length about the virtues of our mutual close friend. His quiet and gentle manner and his big heart might be misleading to one who did not know him well. These virtues might be taken by the uninitiated as a mark of an easy-going man. However, those of us who have had the privilege of working with him know that he stands like the Rock of Gibraltar when the going gets rough. I recall a comment made by the late Speaker Rayburn

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ADAM C. POWELL

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, today marks the eighth anniversary of the independence of the Kingdom of Morocco, and on this memorable occasion, we wish to send warm felicitations to His Majesty, King Hassan II; and His Excellency, the Moroccan Ambassador to the United States, Ali Bengelloun.

Strategically situated, with coastlines on both the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, Morocco has played throughout the centuries an important role in world politics. The Arabs conquered Spain and threatened Europe through Morocco in the eighth century. Both Spain and France considered this land of high mountains, fertile valleys, and arid steppes important enough to occupy. Even American forces in World War II found it the gateway to North Africa and Europe. Now independent, Morocco continues to be a nation of consequences, linking African affairs with those of Europe. Furthermore, its Atlantic coastline is considered as one of the boundaries of the Arab world, which stretches from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf.

Morocco, granted sovereignty by the Protectorate States in 1956, has steadily progressed with its development in the intervening 8 years. Because 70 percent of the 12 million people derive their living directly or indirectly from the soil, emphasis has been placed on agricultural projects. With the help of American foreign aid, the Moroccan Government has combated insects, is building a large irrigation project in the

northeast which will, by 1975, irrigate 140,000 acres, and has trained many in agriculture, engineering, and industrial development. Because of severe droughts in 1960 and 1961 and the devastating earthquake in 1960, the United States has also provided surplus foodstuffs to a grateful people. Most of this wheat, though, is doled out, not as relief, but as wages. In a joint effort between our Government and Morocco, development projects are initiated to provide jobs for the unemployed, projects beneficial to the nation as well as to alleviate immediate hardships of the people. These laborers then receive, as salaries, cash from the Moroccan Government, and wheat from the United States, thus assuring them food as well as money to buy other necessary commodities.

The Moroccan Government has also initiated a development scheme to provide accommodations for the hundreds of thousands of tourists who are now discovering this exotic land. Morocco is rich in antiquities and picturesque scenery to satisfy all visitors. Fez, one of the traditional capitals, contains many structures of the Arab and Berber dynasties of old. Rabat, on the other hand, is modern, with skyscrapers and a European culture. For the photographer, the Atlas Mountains afford exquisite shots, with its snowcapped tops and deep ravines, silhouetted against magnificent sunrises and sunsets.

The land of Morocco also contains abundant minerals. For this reason, a new 3-year plan will be inaugurated this year, designed to process these natural resources for export and domestic consumption. One such project will be an industrial combine which will manufacture annually 400,000 tons of fertilizer, 350,000 tons of iron-ore pellets, 25,000 tons of sulphuric acid, and 2,700 tons of

copper.

Progress, then, is apparent everywhere. Its rapidly expanding cities and towns, its industrial plants, its agricultural schemes, all denote a prosperous future for the Moroccan people. I am proud, therefore, to be able to extend my congratulations to the Moroccan Government and people on their eighth anniversary of independence.

Line of Succession for the Presidency

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, many suggestions have been advanced on the matter of line of succession for the Presidency. A simple, ingenious, and downto-earth proposal has been advanced by a very good friend of mine, Mr. L. E. Sellers, of Chipley, Fla. Mr. Sellers is a distinguished newspaper man and a civic leader. I am pleased to submit his letter for reprinting in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

L. E. SELLERS,

Chipley, Fla., February 18, 1964.

Hon. BOB SIKES,
Member of Congress,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR BOB: Service organizations (American Legion, VFW, etc.), elect more than one vice president. So do many other clubs and civic groups.

If the plan has merit for such organizations, it should likewise have merit for the United States to elect more than one Vice President.

The first Vice President could serve in the same capacity as the Vice President now serves, with the second Vice President moving up in succession should the President die or become incapacitated.

This would end, once and for all time, all this talk about who would serve.

All three candidates could be chosen in the usual manner, at the conventions and at the polls.

Should the third man ever become "second in line" so to speak, he at least would be an officeholder elected by all the people and not by a segment vote or be a political appointee.

Perhaps the idea has merit, maybe not. Perhaps it has been suggested many times already and rejected equally as many times. Sincerely,

EARL.

Resolution of Lithuanian Council of Miami

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. CLAUDE PEPPER

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Soviet seizure of Lithuania and the other Baltic States, and rightly does not recognize the illegal annexation and Moscow-imposed rule of these countries; and

Whereas with the attention of the world focused on the new African and Asian nations which were liberated from colonialism with the aid of the United Nations and have

joined the community of free and independent States, the plight of Lithuania and the other Soviet-occupied nations has largely been neglected: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we request and urge our Government to instruct the U.S. delegation of the United Nations to place the case of occupied Lithuania and the other Sovietcaptive nations before the committee on the abolition of colonialism and the liberation of all nation's and peoples from foreign rule and oppression, principles for which the Soviet Union avowedly stands, the necessary evidence for presentation of this case is complete and ready in the report of the Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression and Forced Incorporation of the Baltic States Into the U.S.S.R., United States House of Representatives; be it also

Resolved, To urge our Senators and the Members of Congress from our districts to support the introduction by the United States of the case of the Baltic States and other Soviet-enslaved nations before the appropriate body of the United Nations; be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be sent to the Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States; and copies thereof to the Honorable Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; the Senators from our State; the Congressmen from our districts; and the local press. Done this 16th day of February 1964 at Miami, Fla. A. D. KAULAKIS,

Chairman.

Mrs. J. BUKAVECKAS,

Secretary.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BOB WILSON

OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, we have Tobacco Smoking as It Affects Advertising in America, many citizens of Lithuanian descent, who are rightfully concerned over the plight of their relatives and the country of their origin presently under the yoke of Communist tyranny. The Baltic countries generally have been encouraged by the Presidential proclamations on their behalf and with our captive nations resolutions here in the Congress but we must not allow Russia to add more to her captives. The world must be reminded of the tyranny and oppression upon these captive nations.

On February 16, 1964, the Lithuanian Council of Miami adopted a resolution which I feel I should commend to my colleagues in the House:

LITHUANIAN COUNCIL OF MIAMI, Miami, Fla., February 16, 1964. RESOLUTION OF LITHUANIAN COUNCIL OF MIAMI (Resolution adopted by a meeting of Americans of Lithuanian descent, sponsored by the Lithuanian Council of Miami, on February 16, 1964, at Miami Lithuanian American Citizens Club in Miami, Fla., to commemorate the 46th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence of Lithuania on February 16, 1918) Whereas Lithuania, the land of our ancestors, enjoyed a free and independent existence from 1918 until June 1940 when the Soviet Union by chicanery, subversion, and force invaded and occupied the country, and still rules and oppresses the Lithuanian nation to this day; and

Whereas the Government of the United States strongly denounced the unlawful

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, the Advertising Association of the West, meeting recently at Bakersfield, Calif., adopted a resolution concerning the recent widely publicized report on tobacco smoking as it affects advertising.

I believe this group took a very timely and realistic stand on this matter. Their attitude is mature and in the public interest and they should be commended for it. I am therefore inserting a copy of their resolution into the RECORD:

RESOLUTION CONCERNING USE OF TOBACCO Whereas national attention has recently been given to the report of the U.S. Surgeon General on the subject of cigarette smoking and the uses of tobacco; and

Whereas the members of this association, collectively and individually, are always most interested in public welfare and the health of the public; and

Whereas the Federal Trade Commission is now considering certain steps that will affect the advertising of these products: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Advertising Association of the West does recommend that advertisers of tobacco products should immediately take steps to prepare and put into use a code of

advertising practice, which will insure that all such advertising as is prepared and as is shown will subscribe to the best interests of the health of the American people and the American economy.

Further we recommend to the Federal Trade Commission that no precipitate action be taken, which might limit the right of advertisers of such products to tell their story with full regard for truth in advertising, good taste in advertising, and in recognition of the fact that the consumer or user, as an American citizen, does enjoy the privilege of freedom of choice on what he buys and what he uses.

The Mounting Scandal of Urban Renewal

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN DOWDY

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Speaker, following the publication in the March issue of Reader's Digest of an article by me pointing out abuses in the administration of the urban renewal program, I have received a large volume of mail from all parts of the United States revealing additional abuses of the rights of people, similar in nature to those mentioned in the article.

Further, a news item in today's paper states that the head of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, in testifying about urban renewal before a Senate committee, referred to the "digestibility" of this "disruptive and dramatic" program; and one of the committee members expressed the hope that the "ruthlessness of some planners and local urban renewal groups" can be restrained.

Because of the widespread interest in this issue, I place the Reader's Digest article in the RECORD as a part of my remarks:

THE MOUNTING SCANDAL OF URBAN RENEWAL (By JOHN DOWDY, U.S. Representative, of Texas)

(NOTE.-Representative JOHN DOWDY, Democrat, of Texas, has been studying urban problems-including redevelopment-for 10 years. And this past year, as chairman of Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, he has been investigating Washington, D.C.'s own urbanrenewal program. He has also conducted independent surveys of the program as it operates in other cities.)

Before you vote to accept Federal aid to, improve your city, consider the extravagance, favoritism, and misuse of power that have attended urban renewal elsewhere in the Nation.

More than a decade ago Congress created our Federal urban-redevelopment program, which pledges the U.S. Government to pay two-thirds of the net project cost of buying up and clearing slums and rundown business areas, then building anew.

Under the program more than 1,300 renewal projects have been started in 679 cities.

Many big projects have been carried out competently, but in a shockingly large number, costs have skyrocketed. Charges of graft, favoritism, waste, arbitrary and illegal use of power have risen to a roar. Two congressional committees are investigating. And there is plenty to investigate as the program

continues to grow. The U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA), having swallowed up $4 billion already, is asking Congress this year for authority to spend $3 billion more for urban renewal.

The handling of Erieview project No. 1 in Cleveland touched off much of the furor and shows the proportions of the mess. When this 96-acre project was proposed, almost everybody in Cleveland found it appealing. The project would, it was argued, provide an immense number of jobs, eradicate slums, diminish crime, straighten out traffic, renew Cleveland's famous old Euclid Avenue business section, and add new buildings and enterprises to the tax rolls-mostly at the expense of the American taxpayer.

By law, the HHFA in Washington would pay planning costs. After the old buildings had been bought up and razed, after the land had been regraded and new services installed, Cleveland could sell or lease the cleared tract to a private redeveloper of its own choice. Such a sale would inevitably be at far less than the cost of buying and clearing the condemned area-but the HHFA would absorb the lion's share of the resulting loss. It would even pay for relocating displaced families. With an offer like thata standing offer to any city under the urbanrenewal law-how could Cleveland lose?

There was, however, one hitch. Urbanrenewal regulations state that Federal aid in demolition jobs can be given only to areas containing structures not worth saving. Most of the 118 buildings in the Erieview area had been judged sound by Cleveland housing inspectors. Some were new. So how could the project be made eligible for $33 million in Federal aid? Cleveland officials hoped they had an answer. According to testimony before the House

District of Columbia Subcommittee of which I am chairman, they arbitrarily reclassified 84 of the 118 buildings as "substandard”— including 3 valued at $900,000, $840,000, and $660,000.

Then, in the autumn of 1960, a party of Government employees from the regional Urban Renewal Agency office in Chicago briefly toured the Erieview project site. According to a later report by Congress official watchdog, the General Accounting Office, they did not look inside any of the buildings, but when they left they had endorsed the city's reclassifications and thereby sealed the doom of 105 buildings worth $26 million.

Property owners were stunned. How could buildings previously certified as sound suddenly be branded hazardous? For example, as the GAO report shows, Cleveland housing inspectors had found only minor violations of the city code in an eight-story masonry building valued at $660,000-principally, certain doors lacked self-closing devices and the cellar needed to be cleaned up. But at once, before the owner could act, the property was classified "substandard" and scheduled for acquisition and demolition. A sound 12-year-old, one-story brick-andblock building valued at $80,000 and having only a few minor violations (for example, in "the pointing of the chimney and the venting of the toilets") met the same fate. Many such rulings were made.

One of the property owners, Mrs. Teresa Grisanti, went to court. She said her doomed building was sound (a local housing inspector had said so just 2 months earlier); her lawyer stated that the claim that the "area was blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating is contrary to fact, arbitrary, capricious, and constitutes a gross abuse of discretion." He further asked in what way her building was detrimental to the public health, welfare, or safety of the area. The city's lawyer objected to this question, and the objection was sustained by the judge, who ruled that since the city council had approved the Erieview plan there was nothing he could do. The Ohio Supreme Court found "no debatable

constitutional question" and refused to hear the appeal.

It was as a result of the Cleveland uproar that Congress sent the General Accounting Office to check for waste in the $33 million of Federal grants and loans already poured into the city. The GAO report was devastating: "Our review shows that only 24 buildings in the project were substandard because of building deficiencies which could not be corrected through normal maintenance. The URA's criteria are so vague that a city may designate any of its buildings for demolition, even though far less costly methods may accomplish the objectives of urban-renewal legislation."

The pattern was a familiar one to our subcommittee, which for 9 months had been investigating the local urban-renewal program in Washington, D.C. This is the largest such program in the country-under it, 60 percent of the city is scheduled for long-range redevelopment. One slice of this vast venture is the $20 million Columbia Plaza project. Consider this story as it unfolded in our subcommittee's official findings:

By January 1959, the contracting firm of Antonelli & Gould had bought more than half of a valuable 9-acre tract of downtown Washington property near the State Department, intending to develop it with private funds. Old residential and business structures were demolished; plans were drawn for a diplomatic city, combining much-needed chancery offices with residential apartment dwellings. But, meanwhile, the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) had other ideas. Working backstage with the National Capital Planning Commission, the RLA produced an agreement that the area should not be privately developed. All appeals were ignored.

Instead, the RLA had selected another group of redevelopers, the Columbia Plaza Corp. Faced with having its land condemned (by then it owned 90 percent of the area), Antonelli & Gould sold out. Then, the moment the Columbia Plaza Corp. took over in November 1961, the RLA applied for and received a $6 million Federal loan and grantyour tax dollars and mine-for the execution of what private industry had long been willing to do without Federal subsidy.

This deal brazenly ignored the law's requirements as to what kind of property can be taken over by urban renewal. When our subcommittee challenged the RLA to justify its actions, five men gave contradictory testimony. For example: The RLA appraiser had said the property contained 68 buildings. But a subcommittee investigator produced dated aerial photos showing that 15 percent of the buildings had already been razed on the day the RLA appraiser claimed to have examined them. Somebody obviously was not telling the truth, so we turned the case over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

Urban renewal abuses in Washington and Cleveland raise questions that touch on countless projects throughout the Nation.

1. The program is prodigal in its spending of Federal taxpayers' money. As in Cleveland, if a city council votes to go ahead with a renewal plan, URA puts up additional money to buy and clear the property, grade the land, and install services. Then the city sells or leases the prepared tract to a private redeveloper, usually without competitive bids and almost always at a loss. The URA makes the city an outright grant of twothirds of the loss (three-fourths, if the city is small).

The city is supposed to pay the other third, but rarely pays in cash. URA credits it with the cost of schools, streets, sewers, and other work linked with the project. Often the link is remote. New York City, for example, was allowed a credit of $2,718,908 for a plaza at the Lincoln Center for the Per

« PreviousContinue »