Some of the most delicate and breathtaking sculpture in the history of man comes from Greece, and that sculpture continues today to influence that art form. However, we sometimes forget that Greece's modern minor sculpturewoodcarving, furniture, pottery, jewelry, embroidery-is of a remarkably high quality. The 1821 revolution also brought Greek painting and major sculpture back to the world in a profuse manner. The Greek language, one of the most useful and admirable languages ever devised, continues to contribute poetry to the world.

Here in Washington, one the world's most beautiful cities, one is never far from the Hellenistic influence on architecture. Indeed, the magnificent building which houses this Chamber, the Capitol Building, abounds in examples of Greek architecture. The most famous and most popular memorial in this city, the Lincoln Memorial, has a number of authentic examples of Greek architecture.

So it is with pride and pleasure and a sense of humility that I send to our friends the Hellenes our best wishes on their 143d independence anniversary, and a "thank you" for their contributions to our civilization. Our best wishes also extend to the more than 378,000 first and second generation Greeks living in this country, of which 34,000 live in my own State of Massachusetts. Today we salute the Greek nation.

Alabama Jaycees Battle Communism

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. CARL ELLIOTT

OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 24, 1964

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Alabama State Junior Chamber of Commerce truly concerned by the Communist threat to the Americas-has adopted a resolution calling on Jaycees everywhere to "stand together with reconfirmed faith in God to the end that the security, peace, and freedom of the Western Hemisphere shall forever be secured." I commend this resolution to you, and congratulate the Alabama Junior Chamber of Commerce for adopting it.

Text of the resolution follows: A RESOLUTION BY THE ALABAMA STATE JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Whereas the American states have under such great patriots as Simon Bolivar, George Washington, and Jose San Martin fought to preserve our basic freedoms and to protect our human rights; and

Whereas the American states by their free and independent governments are not to be considered subjects for colonization by any foreign power; and

Whereas the Communist conspiracy in Cuba has denied the Cuban people their basic freedoms and right to govern themselves under law, has obliterated the Jaycee movement in Cuba and has established a base for future Communist intervention in other Latin American countries; and

Whereas we are steadfast in the belief in the soundness of our democratic principles of self-government under law and in the basic human rights of all peoples: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Alabama Junior Chamber of Commerce do hereby encourage all Jaycees of the Western Hemisphere to work in concert through the JCI organization in meeting the Communist challenege, and to stand together with reconfirmed faith in God to the end that the security, peace, and freedom of the Western Hemisphere shall forever be secured; and be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be submitted by the Alabama Jaycees to the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce for adoption at its 1963 national convention.

To be submitted to all international directors of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce to be, in turn, submitted to their State organizations for adoption and active participation.

Bonneville Power Report

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JACK WESTLAND

OF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Speaker, activities of the Bonneville Power Administration continue to be of great concern to the people of my district. As you know, I was one of the sponsors of "Power Preference" legislation designed to give the Pacific Northwest first call on Bonneville power in the event that excess power is at some future date made available to regions outside of the current marketing area. As you are also aware, I later introduced an amendment to require the Secretary of the Interior to get authorization from the Congress before proceeding with the construction of any power transmission lines linking the Bonneville Power Administration with other areas of the country.

Because there has been some confusion about the power preference bill and my amendment, I have made both the subject of a special April newsletter to my constituents. I feel this report will be of interest to Members of the Congress as well. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I insert my newsletter, together with the section entitled "As I See It," in the RECORD:

NORTHWEST POWER PREFERENCE BILL There's been quite a bit of publicity lately about the Bonneville Power Administration and whether or not they were going to raise electric rates. Statements to the effect that if they did, I was the cause and furthermore, that I represented California and not Washington, were made.

Now, let's just "take a look at the record" as Al Smith used to say.

Bonneville sets the rates, nobody else and the rates have been the same for the past 12 years despite the fact Bonneville Power Administration has been operating in the red to the tune of $10-$15 million annually for the past 5 years. Obviously this sort of operation couldn't go on indefinitely because the Federal Government had to be repaid for loans and so it proposed to raise the rates. Now, due to the efforts of a lot of us, Demo

crats and Republicans alike, that's been called off.

One of the ways to help solve Bonneville Power Administration's problem is to sell its surplus power to California, but first we needed protection for Washington industry, a guarantee that the Pacific Northwest would have first call on power over California. Legislation was needed and I and others introduced it.

Now there wasn't much interest in this bill-many Congressmen from other parts of the country opposed it-and particularly those from California. They said I was setting up a "Chinese Wall"-"Balkanizing”"giving preference to Pacific Northwest customers on power which all the taxpayers had paid for."

Then the Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall said, "We'll build these transmission lines to California-we're not sure just where they'll go and we're not sure how much it will cost somewhere between $150 and $600 million-but don't worry we'll take care of that."

So I put in an amendment to the bill which said in effect, "Before you do, come tell us how much money you want, prove that it's economically feasible and how you expect to repay the costs. In other words, get authorization from Congress:"

This amendment passed the Interior Committee by a vote of 23 to 9 including nine Democrats voting for it.

During debate in the House it was freely stated by Members from all over the country that with my amendment they would vote for the bill-without it they would vote against it.

The question as I see it is, Should the executive branch of our Government be given "carte blanche" to spend your tax dollars or should the Congress, as provided in the Constitution, control the purse stringsobviously I believe in the latter course.

Now the Senate could have accepted this bill as it passed the House-but they refused to do so. Had they done so we would now have our regional protection and be selling some of our surplus power to California, thereby helping to eliminate any need for a raise in rates.

Who's representing whom?
Sincerely yours,

Congressman JACK WESTLAND.

AS I SEE IT

(By Helen Westland)

Every congressional wife in Washington, D.C., and your Congressman, of course, has recently had the opportunity of being a guest at the White House in small groups of 150 people. While our husbands were attending a briefing in the State Dining Room, we wives got to visit rooms on the 2d floor of the White House. We saw the famous Treaty Room; the Queen's Bedroom (where five living queens have slept); the Lincoln Bedroom (which I liked the best); and the private bedroom of President and Mrs. Johnson, which incidentally looked lived in and not quite finished, for some pictures were still leaning against the wall waiting to be hung. In addition, I did "dance with the President" and I will certainly say that he is a nice dancer. However, I think your Congressman is a better dancer, but doesn't quite get the same publicity on his ability. It was a lovely evening, and I really wish all of you could one day have the same opportunity.

Panama Canal: Will We Lose It?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JAMES B. UTT

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. UTT. Mr. Speaker, the January 1964 Panamanian mob attacks on the Canal Zone served to stimulate publication in various periodicals informative articles on interoceanic canal problems. A recent article by Edwin McDowell, published in the Ferbuary 11, 1964, issue of National Review, follows.

Special attention is invited to its discussion of the difference between the Suez and Panama Canals in respect to their sovereign control and ownership:

WILL WE LOSE THE CANAL?

(By Edwin McDowell)

What Panama wants is clear: it's the canal. What we've got to decide is whether we intend to keep it, and negotiate on that basis, and that alone.

The mob violence and demonstrations in Panama appeared to catch Washington by surprise, although many observers knew just such a situation was inevitable. In effect, tension in varying degrees has existed between Panamanians and the United States for 60 years; during recent months it was widely reported that this tension had approached the threshold of violence. The root of the tension: Despite two major revisions of the original treaty giving the United States the right "in perpetuity" to use, occupy, and control the Panama Canal, the question remains, Which nation- the United States or Panama-is sovereign there?

Panama President Roberto Chiari insists "Panama does not want control over the canal. But we do want a new treaty. We have not received satisfactory economic compensation." Other Chiari demands: Mixed courts in the zone; use of Panamanian postage in the zone; more Panamanian products sold in the zone; dock and port facilities at U.S. expense; Spanish as an official language, along with English; finally, the United States should withhold Panama taxes of Panamanian citizens who work in the zone.

The Republic of Panama was created by the United States; it survives today because of the benefits derived from its treaty with the United States. (Canal Zone payments to Panama in 1962 amounted to $85.2 million, or $18.4 million more than the country's national budget.) Except for the United States, Panama today might still be a diseased swampland, beset by internal revolution and outside invasions.

For hundreds of years the thin strip of land which is Panama had been thought of as a likely place for a waterway connecting the Caribbean Ocean. Balboa, Columbus, Cortez-all dreamed about a waterway which would allow them to travel westward to the great sea. The French also had dreamed of a canal at Panama, and, thanks to the urging of Napoleon III, were eager to undertake the project. A group headed by de Lesseps, the engineer who shortly before had completed the Suez Canal, obtained canal privileges from Colombia. The combination of waste, inefficiency, and political graft, combined with lack of proper tools and frightening losses to tropical diseases, proved too much for them and they sold out to a second French group.

It wasn't until the Spanish-American War in 1898 that the need for a waterway was brought home to the American public. In 1899, President McKinley appointed an Isth

mian Canal Commission, which reported in favor of a Nicaragua route.

When the second French group learned of the Isthmian Canal Commission's report, it hired a New York lobbyist and lawyer, William Cromwell, to sell Congress on selecting Panama for a waterway and shortly thereafter, the Commission issued a report advoctaing the Panama route. The Spooner bill authorized President Roosevelt to acquire rights and property to the French canal company for $40 million, but Colombia refused to ratify the Hay-Harren pact.

Even before the treaty had been submitted to the Colombian Government, a Cromwell-inspired story appeared in the New York World giving details about a forthcoming revolution in Panama, mentioning the exact date it would occur. Cromwell, together with Philippe Bunau-Varilla, French engineer and principal in the second French canal company, chose five employees of the Panama railroad company to incite the revolution.

The man chosen to be President of Panama was Dr. Manuel Amador, a physician employed by the Panamian railroad company. Dr. Amador visited the United States a few months before the scheduled uprising for a conference with Bunau-Varilla. Two months later he returned to Panama armed with a constitution, a proclamation of independence, $100,000 cash for bribes, and an already composed message to be sent back to Bunau-Varilla after the revolution, asking him to become the first Panamian minister to the United States.

When Colombia learned of the scheme, it dispatched a gunboat with 400 to 500 troops to Colon, intending to quell the uprising. But President Roosevelt, invoking an 1846 treaty with Colombia that bound the United States to "protect the right-of-way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama," dispatched a cruiser with marines "to prevent the landing of any armed force with hostile intent."

With U.S. troops blocking the entrance to Panama from the sea, Colombia was helpless. On November 3, 1903, exactly as the New York World had predicted, the new republic declared its independence. days later, the United States accorded the new nation diplomatic recognition.

Three

On November 18, the United States signed a treaty with Panama (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty) outlining terms for constructing the canal, and the following year the constitution-which had been written in the United States-went into effect and the country was launched on its independent way. Later, the United States negotiated a treaty with Colombia, agreeing to pay $25 million, in settlement of claims for use of Colombian property. In return, Colombia recognized the title to the canal and railroad, and also recognized Panama as an independent nation.

Under the terms of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, the United States would possess and execute "as if it were the sovereign of the territory" control over the canal to the "entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, and authority." This ambiguous wording (especially the words "if it were") is the focal point of the present conflict.

The United States agreed to give the Panamanian Government $10 million, and promised to pay it $250,000 a year. It should be noted that this was not a rental fee, but a guarantee by the U.S. Government to subsidize the Panamanian Government. Later, under terms of a 1946-49 agreement (HullAlfaro Treaty) and a 1955 agreement (Eisenhower-Remon Treaty), the United States increased payments to Panama to $430,000 and then to $1,930,000 a year.

Communist interest in the canal dates back to the early postwar period. In 1946, after Russia charged that American defense

bases around the world were visible evidence of aggression, Alger Hiss-at that time head of the State Department's Office of Political Affairs-submitted to the UN. a list of U.S. "occupied territories." His list included the Panama Canal Zone. Hiss' action was supported by Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Spruille Braden, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, objected to the designation and wrote: "I was infuriated by the stupidity-which I then thought it wasof putting the Panama Canal Zone in the category of occupied territories. But I did not realize its full significance as a play into Russian hands until after Hiss' other activities were exposed."

Zonians were considerably shook up last year when the State Department invited Abdel Hamid Abubakr, Secretary General of the Suez Canal Authority, to visit the canal. And they were even more dismayed when, before a luncheon of engineers and other employees, the United Arab Republic spokesman enthusiastically described the Egyptian seizure of the Suez Canal in 1956.

SUEZ AND PANAMA: THE DIFFERENCE Suez and the United Arab Republic have more to do with Panama than might otherwise be thought. Shortly after Nasser seized the Suez Canal in 1956, the United States joined with Russia in demanding that it be internationalized by the U.N. This move delighted the Communists, for they now argue that if Suez should have been internationalized, Panama should also be. But there is this critical distinction to be made: The Suez Canal was built by a private company on territory leased under contract from Egypt, providing revisionary rights to the Egyptian Government. The Panama Canal was built by the U.S. Government in a zone in which the United States was empowered to govern in perpetuity as if it were soVereign.

It is true that in the past the United States has acted unwisely in imposing petty restrictions, which smack of second-class citizenship, on the approximately 10,000 Panamanians who work in the zone.

The United States has removed the irritating and humiliating "gold" and "silver" lines, which required Panamanians to stand in separate queues to collect their pay. But there is more that can be done to improve U.S.-Panamanian relations while simultaneously protecting U.S. sovereignty.

As of now, private enterprise is forbidden in the zone. The Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government, both headed by the Governor, provide those goods and services which in the United States are furnished by private business. Commonsense dictates that Panamanian merchants should be encouraged to establish shops and businesses in the Canal Zone. More Panamanian children should be allowed to attend Canal Zone schools. In addition, the United States can and probably should substantially raise the $1.9 million annual payment. It should make the Spanish language compulsory in Canal Zone schools. And Canal Zone tests for positions which do not require mastery of the English language should be printed in Spanish.

None of these concessions, however, is likely to quiet Panamanian demands for

more.

It is true that the United States is studying the possibility of building a sea-level canal. Chances are that it will be built in the Darien Province of eastern Panama, where engineers can dig the canal with nuclear explosives in one-half the time of conventional construction at one-seventh the cost of conventional methods. If Congress decides on a new canal, the current controversy over the Panama Canal will become meaningless. A new canal will require a new treaty, and it is unlikely that the United States will agree to a treaty whose

language would ever leave room for doubt or whose terms were opposed to U.S. interests. Until such time, however, the present canal remains a vital defense lifeline in the type of limited warfare military experts predict for the future. During the October 1962 blockade of Cuba, 26 U.S. warships went through in a 12-hour period, underscoring the passageway's importance not only to the United States but to the entire free world.

In any event, the United States must not even consider abandoning the Panama Canal until such time as a new canal becomes operative even if the defense of the canal must be guaranteed by force. For the Panama Canal, no less than Berlin or Taiwan, is considered a barometer for measuring U.S. resolution-from measuring our determination to stand fast, or to pursue a policy solely because it is right and just, regardless of who may disagree.

Omaha, Nebr., Newspaper Opposes Civil Rights Bill

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR.

OF LOUISIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, another of the truly great newspapers of the North has joined the growing parade of newspapers opposed to the unconstitutional Federal power grab hidden in the contents of the so-called civil rights bill.

Senator SPARKMAN, Democrat, of Alabama, deplored the fact that "some people have the idea we read telephone directories, discuss recipes and follow that kind of procedure" in a debate of this kind. Never in his 18 years in the Senate, said Mr. SPARKMAN, had he ever known a Senator "to indulge in anything of that kind."

The debate ranged over all sections of the bill, but strongly indicated that the main battle will center on three of them. One is

the so-called public accommodations section. Another is the sweeping fairemployment provision giving the Federal Government powers over hiring, firing, and promoting. The third, and possibly the most controversial, empowers Federal agencies to cut off funds from States which they decide are practicing racial discrimination.

The whole bill amounts to a vast grant of power to the Federal Government, as friends and foes of the measure agree. And even some of its supporters have reason to be uneasy about what such power may do to the constitutional underpinnings of the American system.

For if Federal strong-arm methods can be justified as a means of righting wrongs to Negroes, why cannot they be justified also to permit Federal intrusions into other areas? Once the Federal bureaucracy intervenes, it has a way of extending its intervention far beyond the boundaries conceived by Congress.

Representative CHELF, Democrat, of Kentucky, a liberal Congressman who supported the House bill and then read it later, said he was horrified to find it will "extend Federal domination over business, industry, and over the individual citizens in a never before attempted since the Constitution of the United States was adopted."

manner

The whole bill amounts to a vast grant of power to the Federal Government, as friends and foes of the measure agree. *** For if the Federal strong-arm methods can be justified as a means of righting wrongs to Negroes, why cannot they be justified also to permit the Federal intrusions into other areas?

We know, of course, that they can be amply justified by using the same unconstitutional power, the same false premises and the same kind of invasion into the personal affairs of the individual and the State.

The parade is on and I welcome the illustrious Omaha World-Herald. Perhaps other newspapers will take courage and speak the truth for their readers to

see.

The editorial follows:

THE WARMUP

The press services and the commentators chose to skim lightly over the Senate's first week of debate on the civil rights bill. There was much talk of filibuster, especially on the part of television pundits, and a broad hint that no Senator said anything of importance.

Technically, the issue before the Senators was whether to consider the bill immediately or refer to the Judiciary Committee for 10 days. Actually, the discussion was on the merits of the bill.

The debate was earnest, and, for the most part, to the point. New York's Senator JAVITS, guiding the bill on behalf of the Republicans who favor it, spoke of the "dignity and sincerity" with which southerners pressed their cause.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE

OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to insert into the RECORD the text of an article on the Honorable John M. Bailey, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and also Democratic State Chairman of Connecticut. It is an excellent profile of a very able leader and responsible party strategist and administrator, and gives us a keen insight of the man and his thinking.

The article, written by Bill Ryan, was published in the Hartford Times of March 24, 1964. I commend it to the attention of all my colleagues. We of Connecticut are proud of John Bailey and the leadership he has given to the Democratic Party of our State and of the Nation as a whole.

The article reads as follows: LONG HOURS, HARD WORK, EASY MANNER: BAILEY EFFECTIVE LEADER IN OLD-FASHIONED WAY

(By Bill Ryan)

John Moran Bailey, the political paradoxthe Harvard man wrapped in the cloak of the old-time boss-was leaning back at his desk at National Democratic Headquarters in Washington.

His knees were propped against the desk, and his horn-rimmed glasses were pushed

up on his high, sloping forehead. He chewed on an unlit cigar because it was still Lent and he never smokes during Lent. His face wore its perpetually-worried expression, as if each day was election day.

The desk itself was a conglomeration of papers, in not very neat piles. "People," said Bailey, "think we sit around here and make political decisions all day."

He riffled through some of the mail on the desk and then let it lay there in inert heaps. "Mail," said Bailey, "is the bane of your existence."

Is most of the mail from people asking for something? He agreed that it was. "But that's why we're here," he said. "We're a service organization."

The "service organization" Bailey heads, the Democratic National Committee, is a complex operation. It is centered on most of the seventh floor of the modern office building at 1730 K Street in Washington, but recently sprawled out to another building up the street. A total of 117 persons at last count worked for the committee in the 2 buildings. All were salaried except one. That is Bailey. He gets no salary.

No one works harder in Washington in all probability than John Bailey. He puts in a long, grinding day and sometimes it extends far into the night. Any day may be a day when some major political decisions are made but, as Bailey says, he and his staff also have a multitude of other jobs. The job of a national political chairman may have its glamor, but it also has lots of hard, tiring work.

It was Tuesday and Bailey, as usual, arrived at his office about 10. His day, however, had started a few hours earlier.

Before he goes to the office he makes sure he has read two newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

John Bailey is an inveterate reader of mystery stories, too. The antics of paperback detectives lull him to sleep at night. The published antics of politicians awaken him in the morning.

This particular Tuesday was not an extraordinary day except for two circumstances. The first was that it was the day of the New Hampshire primary. Mostly it was a Republican primary. Bailey smiled. "Naturally we have a curiosity about Republicans," he said. The second was that Harry Truman was in town and he planned to see the former President.

But the day started in the routine of most business offices. It concerned the Democratic convention next August, a giant conclave planned for Atlantic City that will have little built-in drama because President Johnson is assured of renomination, but which takes a great deal of planning nevertheless.

He and Sam Brightman, the head of press relations for the national committee, talked of hotel accommodations at Atlantic City.

Brightman is the old pro of the committee.

He has been with it since 1946.

Bailey and Brightman and Bailey and most of his other staff members carry on an informal relationship. "What else you got, Sammy Boy?" Bailey asked after they had finished some details on the hotels.

John Bailey has what seems to be a great reluctance to spend money, even if it is not his own and he has a lot of that, too. In his conversations with Brightman he repeatedly checked prices of hotels and motels. He didn't particularly like the prices.

A vice president of the Bell Telephone Co. came in to talk about phone accommodations at Atlantic City. "Can you save us some money?" Bailey asked.

John Bailey went to Catholic University and then to Harvard Law School. He is the national antithesis of the image of the Harvard man, and of the polished, suave politician of today. He neither looks the part, nor speaks the part.

He has a high-pitched voice with the resonance of a file scraping across glass. He is well read and intelligent but can lapse into the language of a longshoreman. He is the fun figure of political caricaturists. He looks like an oldtime political boss, chopping on his cigar.

In some ways the man fits the image of the boss. Political bosses bank on loyalty, alliances, and friendships. Bailey does this. Although he is generally regarded as an unfriendly man by the general public, Bailey has a lot of friends where they count.

He had to attend a luncheon this day, for some communications workers. He arrived late, after the buffet was over, was introduced and then started to make a trip around a huge table so he could meet and shake the hand of each worker there. He knew a lot of them. If he didn't know one personally, he could come up quick with a mutual friend's name. The more modern politician might stand at the head table and take his bow. But not Bailey. He shook everyone's hand.

The image of the tough ogre of politics does not come through from conversations with members of Bailey's staff. Quite the opposite. "Mr. Bailey would never fire anyone," said one secretary. "He hasn't got the

heart to do it." Workers don't seem to hold the boss of the office in any particular awe. His private secretary is Mrs. Mary Francis Sweeney, originally from Alabama who has two children in college.

Bailey, as boss of the office, is not given to intercom systems or electronic marvels. "Mary Francis," he yells, and she arrives from an adjoining room.

He seems to despise paperwork in general. Most of what Bailey knows is not on paper. It is safely in his head. He can rattle off registration statistics, election statistics like an IBM machine.

Over the past few years there have been recurrent rumors that John Bailey would be dumped or quit as national chairman. He scoffs at them. "I was picked by Kennedy and Johnson said, 'I want you to stay.'"

Future plans? Retirement? "For God's sake, don't get into that. That's all they need to start it up again. I just want to win this election right now. My term expires at the end of the convention. Then I have to be reelected."

"Organization wins the close elections, but you can't stop a landslide. In 1954 it was a close election and we won with an organization. We went out and registered people. Now we've got more registered Democrats than Republicans."

Does the label of "boss" bother him? "You know it's awful easy to pin a boss label on someone who's running stiffs. But Ribicoff, Bowles, Benton, McMahon, Jack Dempsey, these are highly qualified men. No one's going to boss them. Dempsey runs his own show. RIBICOFF runs his own show. Take a Jack Kennedy or a Lyndon Johnson, no one's going to boss them."

Bailey over the past decade and a half has been the most criticized man in Connecticut politics. Just once in a while would he prefer to be liked instead of disliked? He shrugged his shoulders. "The family gets upset occasionally, but the kids are used to it now." He has two married daughters and teenage twins, a daughter and a son.

"I play position," said Bailey. "You may not like me, but you're going to recognize me. Popular? You can't be. You've got to make decisions. The guy who is popular is the guy running for office. He's the guy who has to be popular."

Bailey on a few occasions has debated on national television with his Republican counterpart, William Miller. It has been conceded that he has come out second best.

He evidently bears no great spirit of friendship for Miller. "Miller does all the talking. You can't get a word in edgewise. I have responsibility. I can't be as irresponsible as him."

He was back at his office now. As usual people were waiting. Some were important people. John Reynolds, the Governor of Wisconsin, was one of them. He had prob

lems.

Governor Wallace, of Alabama, has filed in the Wisconsin primary. An 80-yearold Negro judge from Atlanta, Ga., stopped in to shake Bailey's hand and converse for a minute. Bailey seemed to enjoy this. "You know he was the first Negro judge in Georgia," he said.

Other people would arrive and depart. "He makes himself too accessible," complained his secretary, Mrs. Sweeney. "He'll see anybody if they're willing to wait. He

restaurant, and had more time to reflect on the life and times of a politician than in the hubbub of his office.

The day was wearing on. Bailey went over to Blair House to pay his respects to Mr. Truman. Ahead lay a dinner that he didn't want to attend. It was a big service organization.

He went back to his suite at the Sheraton

"Those State Republicans, they've run against me a few times. The answer is they always lose. They ought to stop running against me. I'm not on the ballot." Is that his advice to the Connecticut Republicans in this election year? Bailey gave what amounted to a sneer. "I'm not giving them any advice."

The reason for the misfortune of the Re

publicans in Connecticut, Bailey implies, and conversely the election success of the Democrats, just might be in candidates.

"Why am I the State chairman so long?" He repeated the question. "I had the candidates."

"Three things you need in politics. Good candidates, issues, and organization. We and the organization is last. Maybe 50 years ago, organization would be first but today that isn't true. An organization never stopped a landslide. In 1956, Connecticut went for Eisenhower by 307,000 votes. In 1958, we

worried about because he didn't know if it was pressed, and went to the dinner. People from practically every State in the Union had been introduced before they got around to the head table. He finally shook free, went to his suite, changed back to the suit he had previously worn that day.

The Bailey suite at the Sheraton-Park is rather luxurious. It has five rooms, three baths, a balcony. The furniture is French provincial. He and Mrs. Bailey live there during the week, try to be at home to Hartford weekends.

MARGARET CHASE SMITH came on the tele

vision set. She said she would be happier if she had more votes. Bailey gave a great laugh. "I'd be happier if I got more votes," he repeated Mrs. SMITH.

He was driven back to his office. There was more work to do. He had to prepare what he was to say on ABC television shortly

after 11.

000 votes."

The good political organization comes into its own, said the man who is sometimes

it.

He and the entourage went back to the office. It was approaching midnight and the small group sat around and had a drink.

John Bailey pointed to a huge map on the wall behind his desk. "Look at that," he said. "That's a great big playground."

He started to reminisce about the campaign travels over the great playground. "Remember Boise, Idaho?" he asked Brightman. Brightman said he did.

"That lady who came up to me after I made the speech. She wanted to tell me how much she enjoyed it. I asked her how far she had come and she'd been on the bus since 4:30 that morning. She lived 600 miles away."

John Bailey, the man who knows that popularity is not part of his job, gave a little chuckle. "I think that woman was the only one who really appreciated me," he said.

The 46th Anniversary of Byelorussian Independence

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BOB WILSON

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 19, 1964

Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, Americans of Byelorussian descent and Byelorussian emigrants who now live in America and other free nations of the world, will observe the 46th anniversary of the securing and proclaiming of national and state independence by the Byelorussian people.

In these days of appeasement, of accommodation, of "deals" and general kow-towing by our Government to the Communists, it is fortunate that an event such as this comes along. It should shock us into recalling just what communism is. It should shock our leaders who are forgetting the evils of communism and acting as if the Soviet Union is a welltrained bear.

Communism is bloodshed. Communism is tyranny. Communism is enslavement. Communism is atheism. Communism is cunning, vicious, and unending in its goal of taking over the world.

Can we in America, where the blessings of freedom are as natural to us as running water, forget that there are millions who live and toil under the yoke of communism against their wills? Can we justify selling wheat to the Red butchers of the Kremlin who keep people of many nationalities under the tyrant's heel?

The Byelorussian Liberation Front makes this appeal: "We earnestly appeal to all governments of the free world, and especially to the Government of America, and we ask you in the future to support us and annihilate the colonial and aggressive policy of Moscow, which has now become a great menace not only for the one Byelorussian people and the other peoples enslaved by Moscow, but also for the whole world including America itself.”

The group points out "We consider that the negotiations being carried on

by the American Government in Geneva and Moscow on general disarmament can never achieve useful results for the free world, but only serve for propaganda by Moscow and kill the spirit of hope for liberation in the enslaved peoples."

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, perhaps we should glance backward at the brutal lesson of history. Perhaps we should sit down and coldly evaluate just what communism has done, what it is doingsuch as shooting down our unarmed planes in Europe-and what it intends to do bury us. We should observe the Byelorussian anniversary with renewed dedication to liberate these brave people, and should resolve to halt the senseless alding and arming of the Soviet Union by unwise officials of our own Government.

Chicago Tribune Editorial-The Civil Rights Bill and What It Means-Part I

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

business and labor unions, over private establishments and private citizens, over par

ents and pupils, and quite probably over the recipients of a host of Federal financial grants. Thereby, this legislation disrupts or threatens to disrupt the delicate balancing of powers within Government and the delicate balancing of rights as between citizens."

Others who were heard on the subject were

former Senator Knowland, of California, and William H. Rusher, publisher of the magazine National Review. All stated that the general run of citizens were entirely unacquainted with the provisions of the legislation, and that it represented a vast extension of Federal power and enormous danger of Federal dictation to States and citizens.

Defenders of the legislation argued that 22 of 24 members of the Illinois congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for the bill or were paired in favor of it, and that the remaining two Congressmen did not vote. But the problem of getting reelected was certainly in the minds of most of these men, and the near unanimity of the Illinois vote may represent merely a triumph of expediency.

But because of the gravity of the charges brought against the bill, and because of its sweeping provisions, this proposed law deserves the most thorough analysis before it is acted upon by the Senate. Therefore the Tribune proposes to outline the bill, section

OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Speaker, during the period February 18 through March 2, 1964, the Chicago Tribune published a series of editorials dealing with the so-called civil rights bill, H.R. 7152, which passed the House last month and is presently pending in the Senate. The series of editorials discuss in a very forthright manner some of the dangers and pitfalls inherent in this bill. I commend the entire series to the attention of the Members of the Senate and House. The first editorial, entitled, "The Civil Rights Bill and What It Means," is inserted herewith under leave heretofore granted:

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL AND WHAT IT MEANS (The reason for the series)

Last week the administration's civil rights bill swept through the House by a vote of 290 to 130. Such a margin would suggest that the great majority found the bill inoffensive and unobjectionable. Yet Representative LOUIS C. WYMAN, a New Hampshire Republican, said that if the balloting had been conducted in secret it would not have gotten 50 votes.

"This legislation," he said, "makes a mockery of the Constitution. To yield to pressure for an unconstitutional law because of sympathy for social injustice is to say that the end justifies the means.

* I came here to uphold the Constitution, not to destroy it. There is no power in this Congress to legislate as is here proposed in regard to private lives, private business, and individual activity within and among the several States, having nothing to do with interstate commerce and not constituting State action."

Nor is Representative WYMAN alone in this outlook. Last weekend a number of voices were raised on television and radio programs heard in Chicago. Representative AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, of Michigan, said that the omnibus bill incorporates a minimum of eight and perhaps as many as a dozen areas of legislative subject matter, and that it is hardly understood at all among the people as a whole. Mr. JOHANSEN observed:

"It involves broad extensions of Federal power over State and local communities, over

the purposes and implications of the various provisions.

loans, grants, and Public Law 480 projects for the technical and economic development of the country. A recent innovation though has been inaugurated by the Agency for International Dvelopment whereby this Government Agency, under the provisions of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, helps private U.S. organizations in their work in less-developed countries. One such agreement has been signed with the American Organization for Rehabilitation through Training-ORT-last May and enabled $100,000 worth of heavy equipment and metal-working tools, all declared as excess to the needs of the U.S. Government, to be sent to Israel. The equipment, obtained from governmental supply depots and holding agencies, was given to the ORT on an "as is" basis. Cost of shipping the machinery to Israel, and installing and maintaining it there was and is the responsibility of the ORT.

This equipment, which includes lathes, milling machines, drill presses, precision grinders, gear cutters, and accessory machine tools, is, at present, being used by approximately 20,000 students in 30 vocational schools operated by the ORT. In the classes supervised by highly trained technicians, the student learns how to operate these various training tools, how to maintain them, and above all, what may be accomplished and produced on them.

Upon completion of the course, the student will take with him to his future

To these purposes, we propose to address ourselves in coming days. We shall print the various proposals of the bill, and we shall offer the best informed analysis within our capacity.

Foreign Aid-A Joint Project in Israel

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ROBERT R. BARRY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, as the foreign aid bill comes before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this is an opportune time to point out another of the AID efforts which can be considered a great success in assisting less-developed countries toward the goals of self-sufficiency and independence.

One of the big problems that the AID program faces is to encourage greater private investment and private assistance in foreign countries where our AID dollars are designated. A project which serves as an excellent example of what AID inducement to private investment can accomplish is underway in Israel.

Since its independence 16 years ago, U.S. aid programs to Israel have totaled, up to the end of fiscal year 1963, $959.8 million. These programs have included

ply them for the betterment of his work.

Through such a "success" project, it is easily recognized how Israel has progressed so rapidly in its economic development. In fact, this joint effort of a private organization cooperating closely with the U.S. Government in foreign aid development programs has been considered so successful that future shipments of similar equipment have been scheduled for vocational schools in Iran, Tunisia, and Morocco.

UMWA President Boyle Hails New Contract for Soft Coal Industry, Praises Operations

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THOMAS E. MORGAN

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 25, 1964

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, I include the text of a new agreement for soft coal miners between the JMWA and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association, together with the text of remarks made by International President W. A. Boyle, of the United Mine Workers of America made yesterday at a news conference held in the international executive board room President at UMWA headquarters. Boyle's remarks were made following the signing of the new agreement, the text of which follows: