and tobacco products. It is my judgment that the Federal Government has a responsibility to use $5 million to $10 million, of the $2 billion-plus it collects each year on tobacco, to finance a crash research program into the health factors of tobacco.

Our Committee on Agriculture has reported the research resolution. As an indication of our desire to be completely fair and impartial the first witness we called to testify on this resolution was the Surgeon General and he was followed by the Director of the National Cancer Research Institute. Both supported the research embraced in the resolution. Not a single witness appeared in opposition nor did a single member of our 35-member committee vote against the resolution. Research is our answer, and our only answer, to the indictments that have been made against this great American industry.

And now, in conclusion, I will say to the House that it is my hope that this body will promptly pass the research resolution and that the tobacco industry will participate in this research to the extent of building and equipping the laboratory facilities, for the use of impartial scientists under the direction of Federal and State agencies, with the cooperation of the scientists of our colleges.

Mr. Speaker, we have a job to do where the health of our citizens is paramount. Let us have done with recriminations and get on with this job.

Floating Firetraps

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, the N.M.U. Pilot, published by the National Maritime Union, in an article on January 9, 1964, outlined a serious problem concerning safety measures on foreign passenger ships.

The tragic fire on the Greek liner Lakonia last December called attention to the inadequacy of international safety regulations.

I urge my colleagues to read the following article which points out the need for revision of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948.

The article follows:

[From the N.M.U. Pilot, Jan. 9, 1964]
FLOATING FIRETRAPS

The American public must be alerted to the hazards of booking passage on substandard foreign flag cruise ships that operate from U.S. ports.

Thousands of unsuspecting Americans place their lives in jeopardy every day on cruises aboard foreign flag floating firetraps. "Take a glamorous Caribbean cruise, at far less than you'd expect to pay, aboard the incomparably luxurious SS LeHarve Monarch 14 fun-filled days-7 exotic ports swim, dance, daze in the sun-gourmet food-gracious staff."

So read dozens of cruise advertisements in the travel section of any Sunday newspaper. Too often, however, included in these glowing inducements to "fun and frolic" at sea is a dread bonus-a ticket in a sweepstakes whose grim payoff could result in unspeakable horror and death.

All too often the ad writer's "incomparably luxurious SS LeHarve Monarch" to turns out be a revamped over-age freighter, converted overnight coaster or a wornout passenger liner, painted and patched against her long overdue date at the scrap yard.

She looks fine to the landsman, who didn't know, and now perhaps has noticed for the first time that she doesn't fly the U.S. flag. But if the LeHarve Monarch was under U.S. registry she would be ruled unseaworthy by the U.S. Coast Guard.

There is a vast difference in the safety regulations which apply to ships of different

countries. It can be a difference of life or death.

The safety regulations of the United States are the most stringent in the world. They set up strict design rules covering bulkheading and compartmentation. Cables and other electrical installations are required to meet high insulation standards. Fire doors, loadlines, sprinkler and detection systems are closely specified. Extensive firefighting equipment is required.

Draperies and furnishings must be of fireresistant materials. The use of wood is rigidly restricted.

U.S. ship designers have virtually eliminated the use of wood as a construction material. A prime example is the superliner SS United States. Her only two fixed wooden installations are the butcher's block in the galley and the grand piano in the lounge.

A traveler who takes passage on a foreign ship, especially one of the many older vessels which are still in service, will find rich, often handsome but highly flammable *** wood paneling throughout the ship.

Such was the case with the Greek liner Lakonia which caught fire last month in the east Atlantic with a loss of 129 lives while on an 11-day Christmas cruise from England to Madeira and the Canary Islands.

The Lakonia, built in 1930 as the SS Johan Van Oldenbarnevelt for service to the East Indies, had great quantities of solid Dutch woodwork common to ships of that era. When political troubles developed in Dutch Far East colonies, her run was changed to Australia.

She later sailed out of New York and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., carrying groups of students on round-the-world voyages and passengers on cruise runs.

She had six fires in a row in 1950 which proved to be the work of a firebug. Some of the ship's officers were reportedly so apprehensive of a holocaust at sea that they secretly contacted the Coast Guard to insure the holding of shipboard fire drills.

The ship was sold in 1962 to Greek owners who changed her name to Lakonia and put her into cruise service out of England. In 1963 the odds caught up with the Lakonia. She foundered as her burning hulk was being towed to port. Rescue ships picked up most of her 1,029 passengers and crew-living, injured, and dead.

The U.S. Coast Guard does what is generally acknowledged as a fine job of enforcing the rigid construction and operating standards that make U.S. ships the safest in the world. It is nearly helpless, however, to protect Americans from the hazards of traveling on unseaworthy foreign-flag ships which operate out of U.S. ports.

Each nation has its own safety code and only the nation itself can enforce compliance. Basic sea safety standards on the international level are at the subminimum

levels outlined in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948.

A more recent, but still wholly inadequate, set of international maritime safety regulations were drafted in 1960, 4 years after the Andrea Doria-Stockholm disaster. But even this inadequate safety convention has yet to be ratified by a majority of maritime nations.

Federal law in this country empowers the Coast Guard to inspect foreign vessels serving U.S. ports and even to deny them the right to carry passengers out of this port.

In practice, however, Coast Guard efforts to enforce any vestige of decent safety practice on foreign ships are hamstrung by vast loopholes in the international safety codes and by the U.S. State Department which is sensitive to complaints from foreign shipping interests who protest any attempts at the enforcement of safety regulations.

In many respects, the international safety conventions serve not as a safeguard for the ship passenger and seaman, but as a convenient legal barrier behind which foreign shipowners are enabled to operate vessels with little or no genuine regard for safety of life at sea.

This was graphically demonstrated a few years ago when the Italian-owned Liberianflag passenger liner SS Nassau was sold to Mexican interests and renamed SS Acapulco. The ship, a tired old P. & O. steamer built in Britain in 1923, ran out of New York as a cruise ship where her low rates attracted many passengers.

Flying the flag of Liberia, a signatory nation to the International Safety Convention of 1948, her owners operated under what amounted to a legal waiver from U.S. safety inspections.

On her transfer to the Mexican flag, she was immediately declared unseaworthy by the Coast Guard and prohibited from sailing in and out of U.S. ports. Not that she was less seaworthy than when sailing out of New York under the Liberian flag; she became subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction because Mexico was not a signatory nation to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea.

This was soon remedied by the scratch of a pen. Mexico became a signatory nation and the 40-year-old Acapulco was enabled to rejoin the growing fleet of foreign-flag vessels in varying stages of seaworthiness which offer cruise and transoceanic services out of U.S. ports.

There are many famous foreign ocean liners today that could not get Coast Guard clearance as American ships. Fortunately, not many are put to the test of a severe emergency.

There's general agreement that the Italian liner Andrea Doria would not have sunk after colliding with the Stockholm in 1956 if she had been constructed to U.S. standards of compartmentation. American ships are built to survive the flooding of any two compartments without danger and without causing the ship to list.

Few passengers on the Liberte, formerly the German liner Europa, which was operated by the French Line for years after World War II, realized they were traveling on a ship that caused marine experts to speculate on "how the ship ever hung together."

The ship, designed to be a smaller, slower vessel, was lengthened during her construction. As a result she twice developed serious cracks. She was also plagued by fires caused by inadequate electrical installations. Nevertheless, she was operated by the French until they could replace her.

When the popular British liner Mauretania was finally scrapped she was revealed to be a "floating tinderbox" with shavings and sawdust up to 3 and 4 feet deep between her bulkheads as a result of a succession of conversions made in her wood-paneled quarters during her lifespan.

The cruise operations of so-called "shoestring" or "fly-by-night" shiplines put the unsuspecting passenger in the way of even more serious hazards.

A notorious example was Bernstein Line's Silver Star, a former Canadian corvette rebuilt into a passenger ship, which until recently ran out of New York, in the summer, that is. She was not certified for winter service in the Atlantic and therefore shifted operations to Fort Lauderdale in that season.

The Ariadne, now advertised as a luxury steamship, running from Miami to the West Indies, was formerly in ferry service between Sweden and England.

Two other foreign-flag ships billed as luxury cruise ships out of Florida are the former coastwise overnight boats to New England, the Yarmouth and Evangeline. A Greek line now operates the venerable old Monarch of Bermuda in cruise service under the name Arkadia. The Monarch was sold to her new owner after she was nearly destroyed in a shipyard fire.

Swiss

Perhaps the strangest foreign-flag ship transportation offered to unwary tourists in recent years was the Arosa Kulm. speculators bought the American Banker, a vintage freighter built in the First World War and later converted to carry a hundred passengers. They rebuilt her to carry 985 passengers and ran her out of New York.

Shipping men, including Coast Guard inspectors who can't be quoted, are still shaking their heads at the old Mallory Line coastwise freighter Medina which was converted into one of the "luxury cruise liners" now running out of Florida.

In this ship the newly installed air-conditioning vents reportedly go through the fire doors for the length of the ship. This means that instead of being barred by the fire doors, a blaze could roar through the entire ship as in a giant flue.

Many fast-buck cruise ships still carry nested life boats, stacking two or three smaller boats inside a single large boat to save deck space. This type of life-saving apparatus has long been outlawed on ships under the registry of responsible maritime nations.

The ship cruise business is booming beyond all expectations as greater segments of the American population get more leisure time and more money to spend. The grim prospect of still more disasters at sea will also grow greater unless the public is alerted to the hazards of traveling on the increasing number of substandard and unsafe foreignflag ships.

What Are Fads?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the RECORD an editorial from the Desplaines Valley News, a weekly publication in Argo, Ill., discussing in a most fascinating fashion the forms of present-day expansion.

In view of continued debate on the national scene over the expansion or erosion of our personal liberties, this editorial casts an interesting light. The editorial follows:

WHAT ARE FADS?

One hears a lot today about fads. Some fads will come along and few people will attempt to follow the pattern, while other fads appear and practically all persons follow it to some degree.

In our society, people are trying to find their place in the scheme of things, at all times searching for their collective place, while as individuals seeking identity or individual place.

Society, after all, is a compatible group relationship. Little leeway is left the nonconformist, for mass psychology is rather a powerful force in human affairs. It builds up from the squealing crowds at the record hops to the roars in the bleachers during baseball or football games, or in watching title boxing matches.

Young people, particularly, are eager to follow fads, to fit in with their group, to conform and to experiment. They will conform to the trivial and bizarre as much as to the stable and constructive.

In order to retain identity with his peers, the teenager must find joys of friendship, the happiness of doing something together plus the feeling that all is right if the collective group all participate in the same behavior. Stray from the path of conformity and one becomes labeled eccentric or oddball, if not worse. Work together and imitate the team, then you mingle and belong.

Fads, in a sense, are a means of selfexpression. They express the desire of the individual to experiment, yet conform to his ideals.

Fad with shortcomings die a natural death. Only those which express the dignity of a person usually remain. Teenage fads are merely ripples in the sea of life. They begin to express rebellion, but are really expressions of cooperation within their group.

In a sense, one can mold this urge to a pattern of good and harmony as unity and harmony is the desire of most people.

While the world has probably never before experienced such bitterness and discord as appears among mankind today, it is becoming obvious that the various groups are really seeking identity-a desire to be like someone else.

Khrushchev and other Russian leaders believe they will bury the Nation with the largest achievements. Yet, what these leaders really seek is to foster the same ideal or concept widespread in our American people in their own citizens.

What they are missing, in other words, is the freedom of expression in their attempts to force mass conformity. When a nation attempts to regiment freedom of expression, it flounders in confusion, for it binds the solution in chains.

For to limit freedom of expression is to limit experimentation. Virtually all progress within our civilization today was the result of fads and experimentation. When the motorcar was invented, it first was a fad. When the airplane was introduced, it was a fad to take a short hop in one of the machines.

When radio and telephones were introduced, they were first fads, then later became essential to modern life. Color television today is a fad, but is already on its way to becoming a necessity.

Television programs were limited to 12 channels until high-frequency waves allowed double the channels. Now, everyone will have a choice to twist the dial to something he individually likes not something that three or four broadcasting systems decide he should watch.

Dictatorship can never hold down for long that freedom of expression. The very challenge of being chained results in attempts to escape.

Someone is always trying to experiment, to transform, to attempt something new. There always remains the desire to become unique in the mass; to contribute a bit toward the total progress.

The fad is the response of genuine community action. Know its attraction, its appeal, and its place in conformity.

Panama Canal Crisis: Zone Residents Shun Panama

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM H. HARSHA

OF OHIO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress who has tried to follow the current crisis on the Isthmus of Panama closely, I have found that the absence of objective reporting in the mass news media of the United States truly appalling.

Thus it was indeed refreshing to read in the March 7, 1964, issue of the Christian Science Monitor a factual and forthright news story by Ralph K. Skinner, special correspondent of the Monitor. As this news story contains important information and provides reliable documentation on the normal working pattern of 13,000 to 16,000 Panamanians who are employed in the Canal Zone and on recent actions and views of certain Panamanian leaders, I quote it as a part of my remarks:

ZONE RESIDENTS SHUN PANAMA

(By Ralph K. Skinner)

BALBOA, C.Z.-An estimated 13,000 to 16,000 Panamanians enter the Canal Zone each day to work. The majority are employed by the Panama Canal Company or a component of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Others may be employed in clubs, unofficial service organizations, or as domestics and gardeners.

These Panamanians enter and leave the Canal Zone without hindrance, because there is no bar whatsoever to traffic in or out of the zone.

Commercial trucks from Panama, buses from Panama, and private cars from Panama are all seen throughout the Canal Zone daily.

But U.S. citizens from the Canal Zone are not entering Panama-especially not in cars with Canal Zone license plates. This broad statement is backed by a careful estimate made by officials here that 95 percent of the Americans living in the Canal Zone have not entered Panama since January 9.

Even Panamanians who live in the Canal Zone do not take their cars into their own country with Canal Zone plates on them.

The relatively few North Americans venturing out of the Canal Zone into Panama is due to a feeling that Panama is not safe for U.S. residents of the Canal Zone.

This feeling persists because the Panamanian people have been filled with antiU.S. propoganda so strong that acts against Americans are considered patriotic.

EDITORIAL PRINTED

The newspapers and radio stations have not slacked their tempo of propaganda since January 10. There is continuing pressure to convince the Panamanian people that the United States is guilty of aggression, physical and economic, although impartial hemisphere investigators find no evidence of it.

As late as February 19, La Prensa, owned by President Chiiari and his brother, printed in an editorial that Panamanians have not much faith in the Organization of American States (OAS) investigating group. The editorial continues, "We should not lose time in taking the case to the United Nations. We cannot forget that the diplomatic power of the United States will use all its means to convince, pressure, or buy the al

lies it needs to influence the verdict relative to her criminal acts in the Canal Zone."

Former President T. Gabriel Duque attacks the United States consistently in his normally conservative daily, La Estrella. This paper reported that American troops machinegunned defenseless Panamanians on January 9 in a plaza far removed from the Panama City-Canal Zone border which U.S. troops never crossed. This palpable falsehood has never been corrected.

COMMUNIST ROLE STUDIED

Harmodio Arias, Jr., Deputy in the National Assembly and a principal in the control of four major newspapers and a radio chain, has not denied the report published twice in the local press that he told 50 newsmen, "We should lynch the savage Zon

ians."

The Panama Government has continued

to deny that the violence, rioting, burning of cars and property, looting, and killing done by Panamanians during the disturbances starting January 9 were incited by Communists or Castro-type agitators.

On this point, OAS investigators now back in Washington tend to agree, although they state that while Communists may not have incited the crowds that surged through parts of Panama City close to the Canal Zone boundary, they did play a part in their activities.

The mob actions have been termed by Government officials to be the patriotic indignation of a people angry at the United States.

But U.S. observers of the mobs along the Canal Zone boundary saw well-known Cuban-trained and Soviet-trained agitators leading the action.

The Real Man Comes Through

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JULIA BUTLER HANSEN

OF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the millions of Americans who watched President Johnson being interviewed on television by a team of brilliant reporters no doubt will agree with the comment below that "the performance was flawless because it was the man and not a performance at all."

The comments below were made in T. A. McInerny's authoritative newsletter for Independent Editorial Services, Ltd. I hope we will have more of these "visits" with the American people. Here is the McInerny comment:

WASHINGTON.-There had been sneering and wisecracking about President Johnson's handling of television until the hour-long interview last Sunday night, March 15. In that hour a new personality emerged upon the Nation. From Republican and Democrats alike it was confirmed that this was probably the most human, most honest appearance any President has ever made on the relentless, searching medium of television. The performance was flawless because it was the man and not a performance at all. This is the Johnson that his friends know, his family knows and the Johnson who will probably be known to the world for many years to come. The calm, strong and compassionate man was interviewed by the sharpest performers in the business. Upon them seemed to settle a calm, in the realization that here, a new and great leader was being seen.

Our Meaningful Heritage of Freedom

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. FRED SCHWENGEL

OF IOWA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Elbert B. Rose, of Bridgeton, N.J., historian and Lincoln scholar, has been awarded the top essay award again this year by Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge for his essay, "Our Meaningful Heritage of Freedom."

Mr. Rose is a consistent winner of Freedom Foundation Essay Awards. He has entered in the competition 10 times and has received awards 10 times, 2 of which, including this year's, have been the best in their field.

It is a real privilege for me to call his award-winning essay for 1964 to the attention of my colleagues. Under leave to extend my remarks, I insert "Our Meaningful Heritage of Freedom," by Elbert Rose in the Appendix of the RECORD.

OUR MEANINGFUL HERITAGE OF FREEDOM

Despite all that has occurred in the past 325 years, the heritage left to us by our forefathers has meaning in the world today.

Liberty, patriotism, courage, industry, and initiative-these are the principles that have made America great. These are the principles that have will continue to sustain us in the years to come.

It does not minimize the problems faced by our forefathers to say that the world in which we find ourselves is in a state of chaos and confusion.

Everywhere the evil forces of communism press against the frontiers of the free world, Crisis follows crisis. What the future may hold for us and for those unborn cannot be foretold.

Of one thing, however, we may be certain, The eternal verities by which men live will not lose their luster. In the critical days ahead the values that are so essentially a part of the American tradition will be those that have always guided man in his long journey

from darkness to light.

We have seen in the history of our country how, in generations past, this Nation has repeatedly been brought out of confusion because patriotic heroes stood fast.

They were not ordinary men. They were men who shared with Patrick Henry the noble sentiment, "Give me liberty or give me death."

They were men who would have

scorned the shareful motto, "Better Red than

dead."

They held in their keeping the safety and progress of the Republic. They kept alight the lamp of liberty because they refused to betray their spiritual heritage by abandoning the eternal values embodied in the concepts of truth, justice, mercy, and high regard for the integrity of their fellow men.

I know that I do not need to point out the value of perpetuating our American heritage. I am certain that we agree on the need to inculcate in the younger generation a sound knowledge of American history.

I fear the privilege of living in the United States in an atmosphere of liberty often suffers the same fate as many of the other good things in our lives. They are often taken for granted and treated with indiffer

ence.

We must reawaken to the meaning of citizenship in this land of ours. We are put on notice that we owe our country a firmer loy

alty, a more active patriotism. This recognition is a stimulant for all of us.

The danger to America lies in certain attitudes that have become too common.

First, there is the attitude of certain sophisticates and pseudointellectuals who ridicule the idea of patriotism and the feeling of reverence for our great charters of freedom.

Second, there is the ignorance of the American tradition on the part of a large body of our countrymen.

Third, there is the apathy toward our national traditions by those who have knowledge of them but think of them as true but trite.

Patriotism must mean more than merely cheering when the flag goes by. It must be active, not passive, deep rooted, not super

ficial.

As American citizens we must be vigilant and unwavering in defending our form of Government and our way of life.

Civilizations have perished because individuals ceased to have a fighting faith in their cause and in themselves.

Our abundance and power among nations is attributable only to the principles that all men of this land should be forever free and be allowed to pursue happiness in their own manner, with the least possible interference or direction from government.

These principles were set down in the Declaration of Independence and were made legal guarantees in our Federal Constitution. In the composition of the latter document, painstaking care was taken to preserve its meaning and intent. A system of checks

and balances was decreed for our Government to forever eliminate the possibility of dictatorial rule by the executive, the judiciary. or the legislative branch.

The most specific language was employed to protect the individual freedoms of all Americans, and the right of redress for wrong, whether by Government, individuals, or private groups, was made amply clear.

It is paradoxical that many of the attacks on our Constitution have been launched in the name of the very freedoms it guaranteed.

It is on these grounds today that the Communists, who have pledged to destroy our form of government, insist in the courts that freedom of speech, assembly and press, which are our heritage, guarantees them the right to go about, quite openly, with their seditious and traitorous programs.

It should be sufficient to say that our constitutional liberties are constantly under attack and the enemy is winning. He is winning because the average American either is apathetic to the patriotism which burned so brightly in our society during the first 150 years of our independence or because he accepts at face value the false promises of those who hold alien philosophies.

When I was a boy, I was taught that just about everyone who fought for American

independence was a patriot, and it was im

plied, at least, that the superpatriots were those who made the extra sacrifice in the cause of freedom, such as Nathan Hale.

Today, this term is being used in application to everyone who believes in our Constitution and an assorted lot of extremists who don't. The inclusion of crackpot elements under the same covering term as is applied to those who are truly patriotic is a studied and calculated attempt to discredit those of us who sincerely believe in our constitutional system.

But there is one certain way to defeat such not-so-subtle attempts to discredit true patriotism. That is through the avenues still left open to us by the existing guarantees of our Constitution-the ballot. Your vote in behalf of patriotic candidates can and should be as powerful as the muskets in the hands of the minutemen.

In addition, it would be well if all Americans were a little prouder of their patriotism. as you are. I think former President Eisen

hower expressed this belief best when he said recently:

"Too many of us Americans have become so sophisticated that we are inclined to think of any honest emotion, including a public display of patriotism, as corny. It is hard for me to imagine anyone being ashamed of patriotism, yet there it is. And this attitude can scarcely fail to seep down to our children."

General Eisenhower also recommended that American parents spend more time with their children in discussions of the proud and idealistic traditions of our country.

All of us, particularly you and I who are so aware of the dangers America faces, must work toward a rebirth of patriotism if we are to halt the erosion of our constitutional rights and restore the freedoms which our forefathers meant us to have.

Let us explain to our children the importance of historical events. Let's point out the significance of our national holidays. Let's make sure they understand the why of American history.

The history of America is the record of the experiences upon which our institutions are built. If we are to keep and develop these institutions, we must learn the names, dates, places, sacrifices, and splendors that make up the story of human experience in America.

Today America is challenged by history. We can meet that challenge only if we understand that heritage.

The challenge can neither be declined nor ignored. The forfeit is freedom-national and personal alike.

Let's think of the cherished principles that are enunicated in founding documents when we observe the anniversary of our independdence. Let us remind ourselves that if our constitutional freedoms are destroyed, then all freedom itself will vanish from the earth. Let us not forget that it was our revolution, our beliefs and courage, which set the pattern followed by other nations throughout the world in winning their own independence.

And let us always keep in mind that what made our forefathers sacrifice their lives for this country was patriotism, but not of the simple type which has been exhibited in a thousand wars and revolutions since the beginning of time. It was the true and dedicated patriotism which is so firmly rooted in human rights, individual liberties and personal freedoms.

We cannot, indeed we shall not desecrate the graves of those great patriots who died that we may be free by supinely abandoning the fruits of their victory.

It is your fight, and mine, and our children's. With firm dedication to the principles of our historic heritage, we will win.

Limitations on Meat Imports EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. E. Y. BERRY

OF SOUTH DAKOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have asked consent to insert in the RECORD the statement I prepared for presentation to the House Rules Committee in support of my request to make germane the provisions of H.R. 10345 to the cotton-wheat bill, H.R. 6196.

The statement follows:

Mr. Chairman, my purpose in appearing is to ask the committee, when granting the rule on the cotton-wheat bill, H.R. 6196,

to make germane the provisions of H.R. 10345 or any of the identical bills introduced on March 11, 1964. All of these bills are similar to the bill offered by Senator MANSFIELD and others in the Senate, placing a limit on beef imports.

These bills, introduced in both the House and the Senate, do not go as far as most of us feel they should go in the limitation of beef imports, but they are a step in the right direction-they are a compromise between what the State Department has given to the importing nations and what the beef producers of this country feel they should be required to live with. As a compromise they have the approval of most livestock organizations.

At the outset, I should point out that while it is absolutely essential that Congress immediately assume jurisdiction over the subject of meat import quotas if American agriculture is to be saved from further ruination (and I shall dwell upon this need later) there is no other way that this problem can be met, except as an amendment to this cotton and wheat bill.

An amendment similar to this was rejected by the other body on a final vote of 44 to 46. Had two votes been changed in the Senate this provision would be before the House in regular form. Under the circumstances, however, only this committee can remedy this serious error. The Senate subcommittee has been holding hearings on this problem and have heard the testimony of a number of witnesses, but, that body has now gone into continuous session on civil rights and the hearings have been discontinued. Only the Lord and MIKE MANSFIELD know when hearings can be resumedwhen legislation which the Senate committee may sponsor may be considered and passed-probably not this session. The result will be that the beef market will continue to be flooded-agricultural income will be further reduced-more farmers will be driven from the land-more land will have to be rented or purchased by the Government and the war on poverty will have lost its first and most important battle.

If, however, this committee makes this amendment germane to the bill under consideration today-the cotton-wheat billthen this bill, as amended, can go back to the Senate, the amendment can be adopted without delay and this farm legislation can immediately become law. Otherwise there is no chance for passage this year,

NEED

Livestock is the basic industry of a great part of our country. Stockmen are confronted with a kind of competition they cannot hope to meet. They do not ask to have all imports of beef cut off, but they do believe they have the primary claim to the American market.

In 1963 beef imports amounted to 1.8 billion pounds, carcass weight equivalent, on about 4 billion pounds live weight. Translating this into 1,000 pound beef, imports were equal to 4 million head. Not only does this represent 11 percent of all the beef consumed domestically-but it was more beef than was produced and marketed in the States of North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado combined in the year of 1962. These four States are recognized as great beef-producing areas. The American farmer is required to reduce production, in this country, by an area the size of these four States in order to accommodate these beef imports.

Putting it another way-the USDA estimates that nationwide it required the production of 28 acres to produce and market a 1,000-pound beef. Using the figure of 20 acres, however, we find that beef imports alone displaced the production of 80 million We have before us today a bill intended to establish acreage limitations on

acres.

wheat. The entire wheat allotment in the Nation is only 55 million acres. Suppose some of these acres, frozen into wheat production, could be used for meat production-would the U.S. Treasury have to guarantee price supports and reduce grain acreages of course not-that acreage could go into beef production and the 270,000 families who were forced from the farm in the past 3 years would still be producing and earning and using the land for the purpose for which God intended-instead of being squeezed out of business through imports.

Det's put it another way-if the 4 million head which came into this country and onto American tables at full market value had been produced in this country, instead of being imported, they would have consumed 20 billion pounds of feed grain in addition to the roughage production of millions of acres, which is a complete waste to the national economy if not harvested by livestock. In terms of corn it would have required 350 million bushels. Certainly this would have made a tremendous difference in the amount of feed grain the Government has been required to purchase and place in storage or give away all over the world under Public Law 480.

Mr. Chairman, 1963 was a year of disaster for the American livestock industry. Prices dropped 25 to 30 percent. Gross cash income from cattle marketings fell more than $350 million last year and helped account for a decline of 3 percent in net farm income in 1963. This figure of loss was partially, at least, responsible for the farm parity ratio droppnig to 76 percent in December of 1963, the lowest since the depression days of the 1930's.

CAUSE

Many today are asking about the cause of this great increase in imports into this country. They are saying why have they jumped from 2.2 million pounds in 1959 and 1.7 million pounds in 1960, and 2.4 million pounds in 1961 to 3.9 million pounds in 1962 and 4.1 million pounds in 1963?

The answer is because of a protectionist attitude displayed by other trading countries of the world who close their own doors to imports while getting free access to ours. Until 1960 and 1961 England and the Common Market countries were a good outlet for free world beef. They raised their tariff rates, either by direct tariff hikes or by some method of import tax. The United States has done none of this with the result that this become country has "dumping ground" for 60 percent of all beef offered for export by the rest of the world.

а

Some of the principal importers into this country completely ban any beef imports into their countries. This is true of Australia and New Zealand, the two countries responsible for 70 percent of our imports, and yet not one pound of beef can be exported to either of these countries.

WHY LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY

Acting under authority granted them in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 the State Department has entered into an agreement with Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland to reduce beef imports in 1964 by 6 percent under the 1963 level. A reduction of 6 percent of the 11 percent of domestic consumption that was imported means that the 1964 imports would equal 10.4 percent of our domestic consumption.

The agreement, however, exempts such items as canned, cured, and cooked beef, veal and mutton. All exporting nations have to do is to increase their exports of these items and they can more than make up the difference. Actually, we may well see imports increased because of this exemption.

In addition to the loopholes in the agreement itself, the agreement hands to importing nations the 3.7-percent growth factor in the United States.

Beef imports have glutted the American market at the 1962 and 1963 levels. How can this surplus be reduced if we give to importers the growth factor in addition to the surpluses which already have broken our market?

In conclusion-the executive branch has failed the American farmer and stockman, On January 28, Mr. Ronald R. Renne, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture said, "Today the United States is the only major beef market without any quantitative restrictions and with a very nominal fixed import duty." We have become the "dumping ground" of the free world. The agreement with Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland will not materially reduce imports. Imports must be reduced to prevent a more serious price bust in beef prices and to prevent agricultural chaos. Agriculture is a basic industry, and our national economy cannot be strong if this basic industry is weak. H.R. 10345, imposing effective quotas on meat imports, will be effective and is absolutely essential to promote an optimistic economic climate in which the meat producers of this Nation can operate.

H.R. 10345 can only be considered and passed if this committee in granting the rule on this legislation makes the provisions of this bill, or similar bills, germane.

Addendum: The March 30 issue of U.S. News & World Report in describing the war on poverty says, among other things, "Under the new plan, the Government would give the farmer up to $1,500 as a gift. This would buy seed, fertilizer and 10 beef cows-and raise his net farm income to $2,000 a year, according to officials." This is fine-but this program will increase domestic beef production. Where will this beef go unless imports are curtailed?

On March 20, Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Senate majority whip, is quoted by the AP as calling "for curtailment of beef imports and predicted President Johnson will act to offset declining cattle prices." He was quoted as saying "This is the No. 1 economic farm issue in the country right now." If Senator HUMPHREY'S statement is true

then certainly President Johnson would support this beef import limitation as part of the cotton-wheat bill.

usually applied to malpractices, real or fancied, in the realms of race or religion.

There is, however, another form of discrimination that has come into being; the discrimination of an organized, articulate minority as directed against a single segment of an unorganized majority. It is a form of discrimination in which government, State, or Nation, too frequently joins with the organized minority at the expense of the unorganized majority.

The recent ruling in the Motorola case by Examiner Robert E. Bryant of the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission is a prime example of organized minority discrimination, aided and abetted by government, aided an unorganized majority-if, in fact, there is such a thing as a majority in this country.

Bryant held that a general ability test used by Motorola in selecting prospective employees was inequitable in that, in his judgment, it discriminated against Negroes. Some Negro applicants, lacking in educational and cultural advantages possessed by some white applicants, were assumed by him to be the object of discrimination. He ordered the company to stop using the test.

The examiner's ruling will probably be reversed by the full commission. Nonetheless, it illustrates a trend. An employer is supposed to conduct his business as a social welfare institution. He is to be required to provide employment for individuals, merely because they belong to a so-called minority group, irrespective of the abilities possessed by them.

Who is being discriminated against? The employer? Yes. But so, too, are applicants, whether white or colored, who possess ability and aptitude.

Society is responsible, in many such cases, for the fact that some applicants lack the cultural and educational background to pass such tests. But is that sufficient reason to require an employer to make up for the failures of society?

Is Motorola responsible for the fact that some applicants, irrespective of race, lack requisite education and aptitude required in specific jobs?

The responsibility for such lacks, whether found in a white or a colored applicant, is not that of industry. Sometimes it is the fault of the applicant himself. Many times society and government are responsible.

Why then should business firms be penalized for the failures of others? Why then should qualified applicants be penalized for

the failures of others?

The Motorola case illustrates discrimination; the discrimination engaged in by those who would correct the evils and shortcomings found in our society by discrimination against others.

There has been far too much talk about

discrimination. The tyranny of a minority is as bad as the tyranny of a majority.

We need to be more concerned in this

country with justice; justice for the minorities and justice for the so-called majority as well. For there is no majority in the United States in the sense the word is ordinarily employed. A majority, even in the political sense, is a temporary grouping of

minorities.

The Negro is entitled to justice. Justice demands he have equal opportunity. Justice doesn't require that he have preferential treatment; justice, in fact, should deny preferential treatment to any individual or group. It should also preclude discrimination against any individual or group, including industry.

A society or a government that has failed to provide equal opportunities for its citizens-opportunities which, if availed of, would correct many inequities-shouldn't penalize others for its failures. It should tackle the root cause of those failures.

Today's trend, as illustrated in the Mo

torola case, is toward the welfare state: an economic and social system which stifies incentive by reducing all to a common denominator. Aptitude and ability, the characteristics which the Motorola test sought to determine in individuals, would be disregarded. The self-sufficient, the able and the creative will be reduced in status to that of the dependent, the ill qualified and the mediocre. For in the idyllic welfare state envisioned by the social planners all must be reduced to a common denominator; none permitted to rise as a consequence of ability, aptitude or motivation.

There has been too much emphasis on discrimination, as the term is employed today, and not enough seeking after equal justice.

Greece and Cyprus

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, for months the situation in Cyprus has teetered on the edge of catastrophe. Each new day brings the chance of more violence, and the chance that the result will have a serious effect on the solidity of the NATO Alliance. The bloodshed must be stopped. Reason must be maintained. A solution must be found.

My friend and distinguished colleague, Senator KENNETH B. KEATING, of New York, recently made a forceful and forthright presentation of his views on this serious situation. Mr. KEATING'S remarks deserve notice, and I present them here in the hopes that my colleagues and others can give them careful consideration. The remarks were made at the biennial meeting of the Order of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association-an organization very much concerned with developments in Cyprus:

KEATING URGES MAJORITY RULE GUARANTEES IN CYPRUS

I am happy and honored to be here with you tonight and I know I speak for all colleagues in expressing gratitude to you for this tribute to Congress. I am particularly pleased also to join with you in honoring the eminent publisher and one of the great figures of our time, one who has done so

much to illustrate to all the people of America the cultural glory and achievements of Greece-Henry Luce.

I, like you, look upon Greece as a homeland, not because I was born there but because my culture was. Greece is the mother country of freedom and knowledge-and each of us in the Western World is her son or daughter no matter what our national origin may be for Greece has taught us-as no other nation has the dignity of the human character, the truth of learning, the inspiration of art, and the glory of freedom

The people of America mourn with the people of Greece the passing of King Paul— who was an embodiment of the spirit of the Greek people and the ceaseless striving for peace, honor, and freedom, which are so much a part of Greek heritage. In deepest loyalty to his homeland through its days of adversity, and in sincere dedication and humility, King Paul served his nation. And in a larger measure he served the entire free world.