the human element as the purchasing power at the end of the production line.

In that respect human beings still are and always will be in the driver's seat in our economy. To believe otherwise is to indulge in Model T thinking in a jet-propelled age.

People who work for hire, for hourly wages or salaries, in unions or unorganized, represent all but a relatively minuscule percentage of the entire purchasing power of our Nation. Organized labor itself forms a significant part of the markets which consume and use the goods our industries produce.

Labor's gains have been reflected in increased buying power and translated into a general advance of the Nation as a whole. Many of the objectives for which we struggled and won now are an accepted part of the way of life of most of the Nation-except in those areas where labor has been exploited and general depression has been the result.

We can say that by raising our standards we have contributed to our national economic and social growth. The Nation, as a whole, has benefited, including most of you in this room.

The late Henry Ford is credited with creating the auto assembly line and mass production of the vehicles which put the horse out to pasture and horsepower under the

hood.

But even at what now seems ridiculously low prices, the auto industry didn't really shift into high gear until workers' income standards were raised to the point where ownership of an automobile was within reach of almost everybody.

So it is necessary, for selfish reasons or selfless reasons, that we address ourselves jointly and sincerely to the problem of providing full employment with adequate income to all who desire jobs.

And it is necessary to harness automation to our needs before it runs away with us. I repeat that there is no profit in production without purchase, and those sleek new cars now pouring off your assembly lines are completely valueless unless there is a human being able to pay to climb into the driver's seat.

Opinions on the impact and ultimate effect of automation are as varied as the processes which have been developed. Some economists say technological change will create more jobs than it eradicates. A spokesman for an industry involved in the manufacture of automated processes states flatly that at least 40,000 jobs a week are imperiled.

A research institute noted for its conservation declares that processes in being, or on the planning board, will shake society to its very roots and may ultimately require changes in the college educational system to introduce teaching of new professions to replace those soon to be outmoded.

I don't know the ultimate answer but I do know that we have tried to take positive steps to cushion the shock at a time of negative approaches to the problem. We have been able to do so because industry has recognized the mutual interest and has sented to the changes we sought at a cost it was able to bear.

as

Our approach as demonstrated in the 13week extended vacation plan has been a reduction of work periods on an annual basis because we believe, as organized labor does, that a reduction of work with no loss in pay is a worthy solution to the problem.

We don't claim that this is the only solution, but thus far it is the only answer anyone has come up with.

I know that the mere suggestion of reduced work periods without loss of income strikes an extremely sensitive nerve here. But I assure you that the thought is infinitely less painful than the reality of heavy unemployment and the consequent damage to the economy, in which you as well as the rest of us will suffer.

We cannot endure human displacement indefinitely unless we are prepared to accept the alternative of supporting those so displaced as unwilling wards of the state and assuming the impossible tax burden this entails. We do not want a nation of kept people.

I don't believe our democratic system could survive under such conditions.

Let me underscore this point, by the numbers. By the numbers of steelworkers, if you please.

At the outset we expressed pleasure at the seeming prosperity of the Detroit area because it also meant better times for us.

It has brought better times in steelbut only relatively. While production of steel has gone up steadily over the past year and may hit peaks untouched for years in 1964, employment has not kept pace.

There are some 123,000 fewer workers in basic steel in 1963 than there were in 1957 and 160,000 fewer than were employed only 10 years ago.

Production of more than 150 million ingot tons of steel would be required in 1964 in order to provide jobs for as many steelworkers as were employed in 1953.

Overall our union membership, in steel, aluminum, can, fabricating, mines, smelters, Great Lakes shipping and every other productive phase where we hold contracts, has dwindled since 1956 from more than 1,200,000 to about 950,000 dues-paying members.

Most of these workers have been casualties of technological change which includes closing of obsolete plants as well as the erection of new mills where computer processes replace work crews.

The end is not yet in sight. With new techniques such as oxygen furnaces and continuous casting, more jobs will inevitably be forfeited.

This represents far more than a loss of dues income to a union.

It represents a staggering loss in potential purchasing power to the economy.

Now Detroit likes to sell autos. In fact, it must sell autos.

For Detroit, our loss of members represents a probable loss of customers for new or used cars.

I can think of no more vital reason why Detroit as well as the rest of the Nationshould be awakened to the portent of automated idleness and concerned with the necessity of a mutual effort to solve the problem.

Unemployment for any reason and in any numbers is a terrible deterrent to national growth. Yet it has become chronic in recent years with the prospect that it can only become worse unless we act cohesively and sensibly to check and correct the trend.

There is growing awareness among industrial leaders that a reduction in work periods is an inevitable palliative for unemployment in this highly automated age. And there is a dawning recognition that our labor-management problems must of necessity branch out into sociological fields.

The sociological aspects embrace civil rights as well as unemployment, as they properly should for one problem is irrevocably tied to the other. Detroit like most large cities has felt the pangs of the civil rights crisis as the Negro asserts his American right to equal treatment.

So-called unskilled jobs usually vanish the fastest under the impact of automation. The Negro worker, largely through no fault of his own, is most numerous both in the unskilled job classifications and in the total unemployment percentages.

I believe, and I have so testified before a Senate committee, that many of our civil rights problems would be solved if our problems of full employment first were solved.

By providing job opportunities and training people to fill them, regardless of creed

or color, we hit at the nub of the civil rights problem. We provide a degree of economic freedom to match social freedom.

Beyond the fact that every American is entitled to equality, is the fact that the exercise of prejudice and bigotry is a fearful waste of potential talent and ability. We cannot afford such waste, at home or in our relations with the world.

There is no force on earth which can bury us but our own mistakes. And I believe the most monumental mistake we could make would be to ignore the necessity of insuring equality for all Americans in all respects.

I can say that it is to the everlasting credit of the steel industry that it has joined with us in an effort to eliminate discrimination at the plant level and that the Human Relations Committee is addressing itself continuously, and I hope successfully, to the problem wherever it may exist.

In this and in many other ways, the union and the steel industry have joined in mutual efforts designed to benefit both. The most recent example is a joint effort to insure fair trade practices and to eliminate "dumping" of foreign steel on American markets.

We believe in free world trade and we have no fear of fair competition but we join with the steel industry in opposing any practices which put our own industry at an unfair disadvantage and thus jeopardize the jobs of American workers.

I have dwelt at length on the value of mutual effort, as exemplified in the human relations concept in our relations with 11 of the major steel producers of the land.

I must mention, too, another example of mutual effort which has been closely watched and widely hailed as an unprecedented advance in labor-management relations. That is the long-range sharing plan drafted by our union with the Kaiser Steel Corp.

It is unique in many respects, including the fact that it voluntarily introduces public representation for the first time into labormanagement affairs. It also provides a return to the workers on any savings effected through the use of men, material and machines and, in another precedent for steel. provides a degree of protection against the loss of jobs through automation.

It, like the Human Relations Committee, has been outstandingly successful thus far but it remains an experiment which will require more time to properly evaluate.

We take justifiable pride in these examples of mutual effort. But that is not enough. In this country we need total effort to surmount our problems. And total effort means government participation if we are to achieve our common goals and objectives.

A labor-industry-government effort was instituted by the late President Kennedy and has been continued in good use by President Johnson.

This is the President's Advisory Committee on Labor and Management of which I am a member. So is your illustrious industrialist, Henry Ford II.

I believe, and I am sure that so does he. that this committee has made worthy contributions to the common good, although it is made up of widely divergent personalities holding widely divergent views.

The point to be remembered is that the existence of this committee proves that different philosophies can be put to collective use in the common interest.

And it is surprising, indeed, how such seemingly insurmountable differences can be narrowed down when face to face, free exchanges of ideas and views is possible. whether this be on human relations or presidential committee level.

The involvement of Government is absolutely necessary in affairs of grave concern to our Nation. Certainly neither labor nor management, working apart or together, can

hope to achieve objectives of long-range value to the Nation unless there is Government interest and support.

That applies to fair foreign trade or unemployment.

There is an erroneous impression that we, and other unions, favor Government intervention into and consequent control over our affairs.

This is absolutely absurd.

We recognize that Government has the right to act at any time in what it deems to be the public interest. But we prefer in labor-management relations to work out our own problems, wherever possible, through the processes of free collective bargaining.

I do believe that the chances of solving our common national problems are considerably enhanced when labor, management, and Government all are sighted in on the same target.

There are a few other illusions I would like to correct before I close.

The first of these is the idea that our union blindly insists on imposing some socalled pattern of wage and social benefits upon all and sundry plants with which we hold contracts.

It is true that we seek the best for all of our people, but it is most untrue that we seek the impossible. Our union always is mindful of, and seeks to make reasonable ac

commodations to special problems, where these problems are proven to exist.

Nor do we attempt to exercise a voice in the pricing policies, or the profits of the companies with which we have contract relations. We do not want any part of these, or any other rights of management.

We do want our plants and factories to be profitable. We are very well aware that in our democratic capitalistic system, profitable operation is necessary to keep people at work. There may be one final illusion limited largely to this audience.

And that concerns the idea that I may have something to say about what the United Auto Workers will seek, or perhaps achieve, in the forthcoming negotiations.

The answer is that I do not have anything to say and I will not.

That is a problem which concerns the Auto Workers and the industry.

I hope that it can be resolved amicably and fairly.

Finally, I do not expect to find all acceptance of my ideas in this forum but I do hope that these expressions will generate ideas of your own on the need for solving the common problems.

The time has come for all of us to consider ideas for what they are worth, rather than where they originated.

We must consider that we are in another industrial revolution with the prospect of a social upheaval which may change the world for centuries to come.

In previous eras of great industrial change there always were new lands to settle and cultivate. Today our new frontiers must be established with our brains, rather than with the plow and rifle.

That will take massive intellectual effort. It is time we all put our minds to the task.

Modernization of Federal Salary Systems

SPEECH OF

HON. MORRIS K. UDALL

OF ARIZONA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 11, 1964

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8986) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain

officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, in closing the debate I wish to make two points; then I will yield to the majority whip, who will consume about half of the time remaining.

I hope that on tomorrow we will not hear any more of this facetious, preposterous, non sequitur argument that "there are many candidates back home in my district who want to run for Congress" and therefore we should not raise salaries. This has been said a half dozen times today, and I hope we will not hear it tomorrow.

Are those people who make this argument saying that the office of a Member of Congress ought to go to the lowest bidder-that we should reduce the salary to $20,000, to $15,000, to $12,00, to $5,000, and so long as there is one man who says, "I will run for Congress," we will lower it some more?

Then you might have a social occasion and you say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I want to present your Congressman, the only man we could find in nine counties who would go to Washington for this salary we are offering." Logically, if this argument has only validity, that is what we are saying. I think you could get people to run for Congress, if you would, who would pay the U.S. Government $22.500, and those who want real economy here and to improve the Federal fiscal position maybe believe that is something we ought to do, but I will tell you the kind of people we would get, if that is what you are talking about. You would get the kind of people that we do not want in Congress. So I hope, gentlemen, that we will not hear any more of this argument tomorrow.

I said this was a management bill. We have heard talk about the deficit and we do have a deficit, and I am going to do all I can to balance the budget around here.

But let me tell you why this argument is not particularly valid. Let me cite you a case history: In the Defense Department is a man whose responsibilities include, among others, the detailed examination of all aspects of a major weapons system and he must isolate decisions which will be required in the next 5 budget years and be ready with prudent alternatives. These decisions involve hundreds of millions of dollars. This man is a GS-18, at $20,000 a year. He came here from a top executive position with an aircraft maker where he received about $40,000 a year. Every month or so people from industry come in and say to him, "We want you as vice president at $40,000 a year."

How

So far he has been dedicated. ever, when the day comes for him to go, if we take away the hope that we are going to give him a decent salary, you can send all the Members you want down there to say to him, "Let us tell you about our deficit and let us tell you about the national debt and let us tell you about what great trouble the Government has." This fellow, if he has a family and is going to send his children to college, if he can get a better job, unless he is dedicated, is going to say, "I do not care.

You go and tell that story about that Federal debt and that deficit and all of the rest of the troubles the Government has to someone else."

I have case histories and I have a dozen of them of people who have been presidents of corporations and who are sought after every month by private corporations to leave their jobs at double and triple their salaries. They hang on because they want to serve the Government. Yet we have had more and more turnover in these critical positions and we lose these men at just about the time they begin to produce for the Government. These positions I might add carry very little honor or prestige.

As the National Association of Manufacturers said:

If a business were losing money because costs were too high, it might consider hiring some new department heads to cut costspay them well for doing it and thus balance the budget.

But not Government.

This is a bill that will do something for the taxpayers and help us to get the kind of Federal Establishment we can all be a little more proud of. I hope the Committee of the Whole tomorrow will support our committee in the particular amendments that are going to be offered and, rollcall or no rollcall, that we will pass this bill, because it is a good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time remains to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BOGGS], the majority whip.

Resolution Opposing Civil Rights Legislation

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STROM THURMOND

OF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Thursday, March 12, 1964

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I invite the attention of Senators to a resolution which has been approved by Ward 3 of the South Carolina Democratic Party in Laurens, S.C., in support of the position being taken by those of us who oppose the so-called civil rights legislation. This resolution has been approved by the Laurens County Democratic Convention and is being forwarded to the South Carolina State Democratic Party Convention which will be held on March 25, 1964.

I appreciate, Mr. President and I know I speak for all of us in opposition to this power grab legislation—the strong words of encouragement and support which this resolution lends to our cause.

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that this resolution be printed in the Appendix to the RECORD.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LAURENS, S.C., February 22, 1964. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SOUTHERN SENATORS IN STAND ON CIVIL RIGHTS BILL Whereas it is the prerogative and duty of citizens interested in the common good and welfare of the people to communicate to

their representatives in the Congress their feelings and opinions on far-reaching and momentous proposals, and

Whereas in these troublous times, it is apparent that the workshops of the sociologists and the rampagings of extremists are dictating to our courts and being joined by them in trying to change the very way of life of all men overnight, and

Whereas it is obvious that the so-called civil rights bill soon to be debated by the Senate of the United States is the result of high-pressure motivated by a purpose conceived in venegeance and turmoil, nurtured in a vicious climate of exploitation and promoted by ruthless political maneuvers for personal and group advantages that would strip the people of personal, social, civic, civil, and business freedom and liberties and setup a Gestapo-type of organization of marauders that would run roughshod over the minds and hearts of men and reduce to shambles the very foundation upon which this great Nation was founded and built: Now therefore be it

Resolved, That this Democratic Party convention here assembled in Laurens County voice its condemnation of the so-called civil rights bill; further be it

Resolved, That a communication be sent to each of our United States Senators telling them of our support of their stand against the vicious bill.

To be sent to State Democratic convention.

Vietnam Need: Winning the People

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. E. ROSS ADAIR

OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, March 12, 1964

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, for years now some of us have been saying that the only way to win the war in Vietnam was for the Central Government to win the loyalty and allegiance of the people. An article by Takashi Oka in the March 9 issue of the Christian Science Monitor points this out very well, and I include it herewith:

VIETNAM NEED: WINNING THE PEOPLE
(By Takashi Oka)

SAIGON, VIETNAM.-To gain victory in South Vietnam's frustrating war against the Communist guerrillas, there must be a shift in emphasis from killing Communists to winning the people.

This is a view widely shared by Vietnamese and Americans with long experience in combating the Vietcong, the Communist guerrillas.

Trite and worn as the phrase "winning the people" may sound, and as many times as lipservice has been paid to this slogan, it is still the irreducible minimum for winning victory, these observers say.

"For 3 years the Pentagon has emphasized military measures-killing the Vietcong," one knowledgeable source commented.

"We've killed thousands of Vietcong, according to our statistics, yet those 45 Vietcong battalions still remain.

"What we have got to do is to get the villagers to defend themselves-motivate them to defend themselves. This will take care of the small unit actions that form the bulk of Vietcong attacks today. Then the regular army can concentrate on the large action-the 300- or 400-men attacks-which villagers obviously can't come with."

The problem is how to motivate the vil

lagers. Some months ago a survey was conducted to determine what a villager actually wanted. The list boiled down to four essentials: first, physical security; second, economic opportunity; third, local self-determination; fourth, the rule of law.

It was obvious that the Communists could not provide any of these four requisites except in a limited degree over limited periods of time. It was clear that the Government of South Vietnam as then constituted also failed to perform this task.

But the government was and is in a far better position to do this than the Communists. And when and as it does, it has a legitimate claim on the loyalty of the villagers.

In another, more recent survey, 33,000 people in a single critical province near Saigon were interviewed. Many grievances against the government came to light.

But the surveyors found that the interviewees also had an active antipathy toward the Communist guerrillas in their midst. In some villages, interviewees supplied rosters of resident Communists at considerable risk to themselves.

Potentially, therefore, the villagers were not "attentistes"-fence sitters. They had definite ideas as to how they wanted the government to function. And to the extent that the government actually did function in this manner it could begin to regain ground lost during the final years of the dictatorial Ngo Dinh Diem regime.

As for the argument that the war should be carried to the north, thoughtful observers here say that it sounds like a panacea which does nothing to solve the primary problemwinning the allegiance of the people in the South Vietnamese countryside.

The war must be fought and won in the south, whatever may happen in the north, these observers say. And in their view this war is in the highest sense a political war. Military means are useful only as this basic fact is recognized and applied.

Panama and the Canal

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. J. GLENN BEALL

OF MARYLAND

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, March 12, 1964

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with my good friends of Centreville, Md. This meeting, which was so ably arranged and led by Mrs. David Williamson, evidenced the interest and concern of fellow Marylanders about this country's foreign and domestic policies. While there, an article published in the Queen Anne's Record-Observer was called to my attention. The article, written by Capt. Philip W. Reeves, discusses the timely topic of Panama. The captain, who is a master mariner, has seen the canal many times while sailing from New York to California. Therefore, he speaks from a personal knowledge of the situation and his feelings merit examination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article may be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

In view of the discussions now going on about the Panama Canal, it might be of interest to review, briefly, the canal history.

In 1534 King Charles V of Spain ordered a survey made for a proposed canal across the isthmus.

In 1855 the Panama Railroad across the isthmus from Colon on the Atlantic side to Panama City on the Pacific side, was completed. It is said that a man died for each crosstie in the railroad track. At that time yellow fever was the curse of the tropics. Until the canal was completed passengers and freight were transshipped across the isthmus on this railroad.

Actual construction of the canal was started by the French in January 1880. The French Canal Co. had a concession granted by the Government of Colombia in 1878.

The Panama Railroad, the canal rights and properties of the French Canal Co. were bought by the United States for $40 million in 1904.

The Isthmus of Panama is the principal and most important part of the Republic of Panama. It was originally a part of the Republic of Colombia. Panama was established as an independent Republic at the time when the United States was negotiating for the purchase of the canal properties from the French. The new Republic was made possible by the backing of the United States.

The newly created Republic of Panama granted by treaty, to the United States, the Panama Canal Zone, a right-of-way across the isthmus 10 miles wide and 50 miles long. The Panama Railroad is in this zone. The United States paid the Republic of Panama $10 million and agreed to pay each year, starting 9 years after the treaty was ratified. the sum of $250,000 gold. Since then this sum has been increased until today it is about $2 million.

The treaty with the Republic of Panama was ratified February 26, 1904, and work started on the canal by the U.S. Army Engineers under General Goethals. Panama and the Canal Zone were cleaned up and the yellow fever brought under control. Today sanitary regulations are very strict and the Canal Zone is one of the healthiest places in 'the world.

When the U.S. Engineers took over the construction of the canal they found that a sea level canal was not practical on account of the difference in the height of the tides on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal. On the Pacific side the tides are 28 feet on the Atlantic side, 4 feet. This is why a sea level canal cannot be built across the isthmus here or in any other location.

Thousands of contract laborers, mostly West Indian Negroes, were brought in to work on the canal. A tough crowd who were kept in order by the Canal Zone police.

The population of the Republic of Panama is a mixture of races. Spanish the official language. Population in 1955 was 911,400.

Panama exports some bananas, coffee, and tropical products. Her main source of income of course, is the canal payments and using the canal. what business is brought there by the ships Most of the local merchants are Chinese or East Indians.

The University of Panama is a small college in the city of Panama. It is doubtful if it would be an accredited college by our standards. The teaching staff like so many others is dominated by Communists who are the plotters and instigators of most of the canal troubles. The student riots that we hear so much about are standard Communist procedure in all Latin American colleges.

The Communist professors and politicians believe that they can steal the canal from the United States by following the example set by Suez. That the politicians in Washington will submit peacefully to their takewill be offered in the United Nations to jusover of the canal. All kinds of arguments tify their claim. No doubt the Panamanians are taking into consideration the failure of the United States of America to do more than talk about the so-called nationaliza

tion or the theft of many private U.S. corporations doing business in Cuba, Mexico, and South America. There is, however, a big difference in the Panama situation. The Panama Canal Zone was sold to the United States of America for $10 million. The United States of America also purchased the assets of the French Canal Co. for $40 milion, and then spent many more millions of the U.S. taxpayers' money to build the canal. The canal has been operated successfully now for 50 years. It has been impartial and efficient. It belongs to the people of the United States of America and we intend to keep it, no matter what the Castro-type Communists or the debating society of the United Nations say.

It is time for our Government to call a halt to appeasement. Our appeasers in Washington have caused us to lose the respect of all Latin America, whose cry is "Go home, Yankee."

Let's get rid of the appeasers and keep the canal.

The articles are as follows: [From the Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution, Mar. 3, 1964]

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S FIRST 100 DAYS SHOW LIVELY RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT President Lyndon Johnson observed his first 100 days in office with a press conference Saturday televised to the Nation. He was cautious and restrained in his appearance but the record shows that his achievements have been considerable. Tough battles still lie ahead but it is reasonable to assume that he will be the Democratic nominee to succeed himself.

The President has set a work pace that has amazed official Washington and he has succeeded in breaking the logjam of legislation of a Congress suffering from paralysis. There is justified worry about his ability to hold up physically under the intense activity to which he subjects himself. Thus far, however, he shows no signs of heavy strain.

Since December, the record is impressive. He prevented further cuts in foreign aid appropriations and pushed through two major education bills. The House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly the toughest civil rights bill in a century. It is a good bet he will succeed in getting it through the Senate after a wearying delaying action.

Last week the $11.5 billion tax bill cleared both Houses after more than a year of de

lay and debate. It was initiated by President Kennedy, but Johnson gets credit for pushing it through. Millions of Americans will take note of that this week.

On foreign policy, the President still has not achieved major successes and the GOP is criticizing in generalities. He is wrestling with Cyprus, South Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, Zanzibar and De Gaulle. Problems with our allies must be resolved and the rebellion against foreign aid will be tough in Congress. The House's veto of the U.S. contribution to the International Development Association, an agency dealing in loans, not grants, is a major blow to the Nation's foreign policy.

On the record, the President's first 100 days look good. He is carrying out the Kennedy If program to move the Nation forward. he succeeds, he will be a formidable candidate for any Republican to beat in November.

THE PRESIDENT'S LIVELY 100 DAYS: MR. JOHNSON HAS SCORED SOME SOLID GAINS ON LEGISLATION, IS PLAGUED BY FOREIGN TROUBLES BUT REMAINS FORMIDABLE

(By John W. Kole)

of

WASHINGTON, D.C.-The Presidency Lyndon B. Johnson passed the 100 day mark Saturday. It has been one of the most intense periods of Presidential activity in the Nation's history.

There have been substantial achievements in the form of major legislation passed by Congress, but there also has been a considerable amount of froth emanating from the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Naturally, there is sharp disagreement among Democrats and Republicans on Mr. Johnson's record since he was elevated by tragedy and violence last November 22.

But there is no debate that he certainly will be the 1964 Democratic nominee-if he can hold up physically under the incredible pace he has set during his first 3 months as

President.

He began his campaign Thursday with a literal bang, on a quick trip to Florida where he set off a blast, at Palatka, that began construction of a cross State barge canal, then flew on to Miami Beach to deliver a hard-hitting speech on civil rights to some 3,500 gathered at a Democratic fund-raising dinner.

BIG DAY IN 6 MONTHS

Party chieftains already are planning a huge 56th birthday party for the President in Atlantic City, N.J., 6 months from now on August 27, the day scheduled for acceptance of the Presidential nomination at the 1964 national convention.

Incumbency in itself is enough to establish the President as the favorite against whatever candidate the Republicans nominate in San Francisco in July. Moreover, some GOP pros concede ruefully that they may have a more formidable foe in Mr. Johnson than they had in Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Johnson won his first political campaign--a race for a congressional seat-in 1937 running on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and that political concept, tempered by Texas conservatism, has dominated his philosophy since.

As Mr. Johnson has said many times, Mr. Roosevelt was "like a daddy" to him. Even though F.D.R. has been dead almost 20 years, his continuing strong influence is evident in such Johnson programs as the "unconditional war on poverty."

While it would be an exaggeration to compare the President's first 100 days with that startling bundle of 1933 New Deal achievements in the depth of a massive depression, Mr. Johnson's legislative record has been impressive.

In December, he prevented further deep cuts in foreign aid appropriations and broke

a frustrating logjam over two major education bills.

Early last month, the House overwhelmingly adopted the strongest civil rights bill in almost a century. It still faces a southern filibuster in the Senate, but most congressional observers feel it will pass without drastic revision.

Last week, the $11.5 billion tax cut bill cleared both Houses and was signed by the President. Its economic effects still are being debated, but no one disputes that the political impact of a tax reduction which averages 19 percent for individuals will help Mr. Johnson.

The President has stolen the Republican thunder on economy in Government. Anxious for renewal of their attack on the New Frontier after the holidays, the Republicans were astounded when the President announced that he would submit a reduced budget.

Last week, the 20 GOP Members of the House Appropriations Committee attacked the President's so-called economy drive as a myth and his budget as "a figure juggler's dream that only serves to conceal more and more planned spending."

However, conservatives admit privately that this stance of fiscal responsibility has hurt them.

Yet, there is no question that Mr. Johnson is trying to ride on both sides of the fiscal fence. A phrase from his first economic message demonstrates this. We can, he said, have "efficiency with expansion, frugality with compassion."

LEGITIMATE ECONOMIES

But even in this area the verdict is fuzzy because there are some legitimate cutbacks in defense procurememt-no small task when one considers the power of the military-industrial complex.

Also, the budget makes a meaningful shift of funds to the antipoverty campaign, although liberals contend that it is far from sufficient.

The Johnson froth, along with his extremely sensitive hide, has been partially responsible for some of his problems with the press.

His campaign to save a couple of thousand dollars a month by turning off lights and making the White House look uninhabited in the process has been the butt of dozens of jokes. And the speech in which he complained about "what some of the bellyachers say" was widely regarded as a barrel of platitudes.

For example, he summed up U.S. foreign policy by saying that "all we can do is expect to do what is right, what is honorable, what is enlightened—and that we are doing."

Critics also have noted that Mr. Johnson offended only the atheist vote by urging the construction in Washington of a fitting memorial to God. And, they point out, his pledge to put 50 women in top Government Jobs in 30 days just hasn't been fulfilled.

Recently the Republican attack has centered on Mr. Johnson's handling of foreign policy. Despite the large amount of time and effort the President has spent on foreign matters, his record of achievement on these has not been as good as his domestic record.

SON OF OLD CONFEDERACY Republicans have made much of the problems in Cyprus, South Vietnam, Cuba, and Zanzibar. However, if the administration's defense has left something to be desired, the Republican remedies have lacked specifics,

too

Whatever the judgment on Mr. Johnson's policies, no one disputes the fact that his ascension to the Presidency drastically alters the 1964 campaign.

Before the assassination, GOP conservatives were confidently trotting out theories,

charts, and statistics on how Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, of Arizona, could dethrone Mr. Kennedy.

Although most observers contended that Mr. Kennedy had to be considered a heavy favorite against any Republican in 1964, the conservatives argued that a winning coalition could be forged by sweeping most of the South and holding the Midwest and Far West votes that almost elected Richard M. Nixon in 1960.

Even before the assassination there was substantial doubt whether the Republicans could sweep the so-called solid Democratic South despite the resentment over civil rights which had been focused on the Kennedy brothers.

Since Mr. Johnson is the first full-fledged representative of the old Confederacy to hold the Presidency in almost 100 years, there now is speculation whether the Republicans can get any of the 128 southern electoral votes, even the 33 that Nixon got in 1960.

The President has history in his favor. During this century only two Presidents have been dethroned by the voters. And Mr. Johnson is not expected to face the party splintering that toppled William Howard Taft or the depression which crushed Herbert Hoover. He probably will have peace and prosperity on his side, a tough combination to beat. Mr. Kennedy managed it in 1960, but not against an incumbent.

Despite the magnitude of their problems, the Republican tacticians are plunging ahead and a new strategy is beginning to emerge. It assumes that Mr. Johnson can be cut down in the North by reducing the Democratic pluralities in the cities and piling up margins in the suburbs and outstate areas.

This strategy is designed to mine the rich lodes of New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, and California. These 5 States have 159 electoral votes (270 will be needed to win). Mr. Kennedy took all of them except Callfornia.

One recent poll indicated that Mr. Johnson would get at least 60 percent of the votes against any of the major Republican candidates. In some quarters there is talk of a Democratic landslide.

The major uncertainty at the Democratic convention will be the selection of a VicePresidential candidate and that will be up to Mr. Johnson. The leading possibilities are Peace Corps Director Sargent Shriver, a brother-in-law of President Kennedy; Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the late President's brother; and Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey.

ACTION ABOVE IDEAS

He

Perhaps the most depressing aspect for Republicans is the way Mr. Johnson is dominating both Washington and the news. seems to defy nature with his whirlwind 18hour days. His constant telephoning already is a legend here. Columnist James Reston put tongue in cheek and predicted that the President would give up the instrument for Lent.

Despite his success so far, Mr. Johnson's relations with Congress will be watched closely. It is not unfair to say that he hopes to accomplish many of the things Mr. Kennedy talked about. If Mr. Johnson can't do it with his wealth of congressional experience, observers here wonder whether any

one can.

Mr. Johnson has brought a drastic change to the style of the Presidency and with his homespun manner he never will have quite the Kennedy rapport with the intellectuals. He is more a man of action than of ideas. But he is a hard-nosed politician who is willing to stand or fall on his accomplishments.

"If he finds that a 10-gallon hat helps him ***" a British newspaper commented, "so much the better for 10-gallon hats."

Would We Let George Do It Now?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STROM THURMOND

OF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Thursday, March 12, 1964

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have just had the opportunity to read a most impressive and eloquent address which was delivered on February 26, 1964, before the Pilot Club of South

Carolina by Mr. Julian Metz. Mr. Metz is the executive director of the Greater Charleston (S.C.) Chamber of Com

merce.

The address is entitled "Would We Let George Do It Now?" and is based on some very wise words of advise which the Father of our Country, George Washington, tried to leave with us many years ago.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that Mr. Metz's speech be printed in the Appendix to the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WOULD WE LET GEORGE DO IT Now? When I was invited to speak tonight the suggestion was made that I consider a generally patriotic theme. That suggestion, in itself, gave me encouragement. From what I read, and what I hear on the network programs about the goings-on in our Federal Government and the supergovernment of the United Nations, I was beginning to believe that the terms "patriot" and "old fogey" are

virtually synonymous. I realize, of course, that there are still many red-blooded men and women who thrill at the sight of the Stars and Stripes, and the sound of the Star-Spangled Banner. Their spines tingle as they say with pride the Oath of Allegiance, and their hearts beat a little faster when they read of the heroic struggles of our forebears as they carved a civilization out of a wilderness. It is not uncommon to find a few moist eyes in a gathering when we sing about "America the Beautiful," and we rightfully become reverent when we sing that last stanza of "America" which is in reality a prayer for the survival of our liberty. When I began pondering the possible approaches to such a theme I thought about those courageous men and women who sailed almost uncharted seas, taking with them their few wordly possessions to a new land. They began a new life by chopping down trees to build homes. You see, there were

no FHA loans available and there was no public housing. They planted their crops and managed to survive the rugged winters without the benefit of seed loans, soil banks, and parity payments. When they wanted to move westward their trains of covered wagons moved slowly across the continent without the aid of interstate highways or the Interstate Commerce Commission. When they felt that it was right and proper to throw off the yoke of British tyranny they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. When the going was rough they went to their knees in prayer, and when things were going well they gave thanks to almighty God. In short, they depended upon work and faith to make their dreams come true. Many died in the process but the survivors redoubled their efforts and their determination.

It was in such an environment that George Washington was born. His grandfather had come from England in 1657. When George

was 10 years old his father died, leaving six children to their mother's care. There was no life insurance, no social security, and no aid to the dependent children-but there was land and a desire to work as long as necessary to cultivate it. When he was 15 years old George went to Mount Vernon to live with his half-brother, Lawrence, who had inherited the greater part of his father's estate. There he took advantage of the opportunity to study, and during that first year at the age of 15 he began working as a surveyor. The story of his adult life is well known to all, so I will not dwell on his successes as a military commander and as a statesman.

If I may paraphrase, "I come not to bury Washington or to praise him." Nor do I come before you to entertain you. In fact, I fear that I shall be a little disappointed if you enjoy my remarks tonight, for I believe that the time has come for us to face the facts of our present life. If we face those facts realistically they should make us a bit uncomfortable to say the least.

It is my humble opinion that if George Washington were alive today he would have little or no chance to be nominated, much less elected, to the Presidency. I shall not ask you to agree with me-I simply ask you to listen and I challenge you to form your own opinions.

Of Washington's "110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation," 25 make some reference to the idea that there is some inequality among men. Would either of our political parties tolerate such radical thinking? Suppose at a press conference he followed his rule No. 79-"Be not apt to relate news, if you know not the truth thereof." If he were approached by.

a minority group with a demand for laws requiring their admission to places of private business he might quote his rule No. 68-"Go not thither, where you know not whether you shall be welcome or not." With emotions rising in the wake of a heated demonstration he might even turn to Congress and say as he did in rule No. 58-"In all causes of passion admit reason to govern," and finally, his last rule was "Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."

I submit to you that this man Washington was a conservative, an isolationist, a rightwinger, an extremist, and a superpatriot-hardly regarded as complimentary terms these days.

Let us imagine that we have just turned on our television sets and candidate Washington is making a campaign speech. He is commenting on some subversive propaganda, aimed at an underprivileged group and anonymously distributed. We hear him say:

"That the address is drawn with great art and is designed to answer the most insidious purposes. That it is calculated to impress the mind with an idea of premeditated injustice in the sovereign power of the United States, and rouse all those resentments which must unavoidably flow from such a belief. That the secret mover of this scheme (whoever he may be) intended to take advantage of the passions, while they were warmed by the recollection of the past distresses, without giving time for cool deliberative thinking."

He continues:

"And let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord.