reluctant to give it another try. They would be wise to reconsider. Shorn of its embarrassing provision for House and Senate pay boosts, the bill might stand up more sturdily the next time around.

[From the Portland (Oreg.) Reporter, Mar. 16, 1964]

PAY BILL REFLECTIONS

The critical point in defeat of the congressional pay raise bill came when Representative H. R. GROSS of Iowa got more than one-fifth of the Members of the House to support his demand for a rollcall vote.

This meant that every Congressman saying "yes" would have to be listed on a permanent record as voting a $10,000 pay boost for himself. It meant that the Congressman had to decide not on the merits of the pay proposal but on whether he could be reelected after voting himself the $10,000 jump.

It is unfortunate that the defeat also meant that lower paid Government employees must lose. Our Government wage scales are not especially lavish. Having once delivered mail briefly, we are quite sure that our postmen are entitled to more pay than they get.

It is noteworthy, however, that every salary proposal in the measure sailed through the House of Representatives without a hitch, so long as there was a voice vote which didn't identify the voter. As soon as the vote was recorded, 37 "no" voters were joined by 185 others for a total vote of 222 to 184 against the measure.

We feel more respect for the original 37 opponents than the 185 who joined them later, and more respect for the 184 Representatives who stayed true to their beliefs even though they went no record for all to behold.

For the information of all, Representative ULLMAN, of eastern Oregon, voted for the bill. Representative WALTER NORBLAD of Stayton voted against it. We don't know how he voted previous to the showdown, Representatives EDITH GREEN and ROBERT DUNCAN were absent.

There is scant possibility, the political experts say, that the measure will be revived. It would be an act of maturity if the sections of the bill not dealing with Congress could be recalled and passed. The congressional pay then could be considered alone, on its own merits.

But it probably would be expecting too much of mere mortals to ask our Representatives to pass impartially on their own pay scale, without camouflage all along the line to help the undecided swing over to the positive side.

[From the Philadelphia (Pa.) Evening
Bulletin, Mar. 14, 1964]

NO RAISE JUST JITTERS
The U.S. House of Representatives has done
itself little credit with its handling of the
Federal pay rise issue.

The House voted down the whole proposition this week; but only as the confused finish of a muddleheaded story.

Its first blunder came when the Congressmen insisted on cutting themselves in on raises proposed for two quite different groups of Federal employees.

In the first of these groups were postal workers and thousands of generally lower paid clerical career people. The second group included top-bracket men in the judiciary, the Cabinet, etc.

Valid arguments could be presented for each of these groups. The upper bracket men are normally of the sort who might double their present income in private industry; the raise was meant as an inducement to attract top-caliber personnel into Government service. In the second group, postal and other lower paid workers not only

need extra money to stay somewhere near their equals who work for private firms, but have for years suffered from an imbalance created by too many flat across-the-board percentage increments. This year's bill was designed to put jobs and salaries into a more orderly relationship.

But the Congressmen jumped in with a $10,000-a-year raise for themselves as part of the package. This took brass, and on second thought many Congressmen grew nervous, caught between their wish to be fair to themselves (or their greed) and fear of reprisals from voters who think some Congressmen are overpaid even at the present $22,500 a year.

As the confusion rolled on, the House voted down an effort to separate its own pay boost from the rest. Then, forced to stand and be counted in a rollcall, the Congressmen voted down the whole deal.

This presumably is supposed to win admiration from the taxpayers in the name of self-sacrificing economy. What it really sacrificed is a great number of people working

for the National Government-the mailman,

the secretary, the scientist-who had big plans for another $450 a year.

[From the Minneapolis (Minn.) Morning Tribune, Mar. 19, 1964]

THE NEED FOR FEDERAL PAY INCREASES President Johnson has not given up hope that Congress will pass a pay raise bill at the present session. The House defeated such a bill last week, one that included a $10,000 a year salary increase for Members of Congress-from $22,500 to $32,500. This was a case of election year jitters not an exercise in humility and self-disparagement.

Now the President asks Congress to try again, even if it must exclude a pay raise for itself. We agree with him that "It is false economy to offer salaries that will attract the mediocre and repel the talented." If the Federal Government is to recruit and hold officials of outstanding competence in top policy positions, it must offer pay comparable to that received in private industry. But the gap between Federal and private pay scales has been growing, rather than lessening, and the President properly considers this a matter of serious concern.

A new bill introduced in the House provides no increase at all for Representatives and Senators but gives substantial pay raises to a wide range of high-level officials, including Cabinet members, deputy and under secretaries, heads of principal services, judges, etc. Other increases are stipulated for civil service and postal workers.

There are difficulties in store for this bill. Many of the new salaries would exceed those paid Members of Congress, a fact not likely to ease the bill's passage. Prolonged in-fighting over the civil rights bill may prove to be another adverse factor.

But the pay increases are plainly needed and President Johnson says that every cent required for them is included in his budget for the next fiscal year. Congress should not hesitate to enact them at the present session.

[From the Worthington (Minn.) Daily Globe, Mar. 16, 1964]

IF WE CAN'T HAVE MORE PAY NO ONE ELSE CAN EITHER

Congressmen decided during the weekend that their proposed $10,000 per year pay increase, justified or not, would be inexpedient to adopt in the spring of an election year. All was going well for the bill and favorable action was predicted until Iowa's Representative, H. R. GROSS, demanded a rollcall vote which would put every Representative on record. At that point supporters of the proposal seemed to vanish into the very desks and walls of the House Chamber and the measure was rejected.

It seemed a valid case could be made for

the salary increases. But finally, this becomes a matter of great concern only to the lawmakers themselves. If they are satisfied that income is meeting expenses and that a pay increase cannot be justified then certainly no taxpayer will complain. The Congressmen themselves are the best judges of their own financial needs.

The unfortunate thing about the lawmakers' decision was their dog-in-the-manger attitude-"If we can't have a pay increase then no one else can have one either." The proposal for increasing the Representatives'

salaries was tied to an authorization which would have granted pay increases to 1.7 mil. lion Federal Government employees. It included, for example, a $37.50 monthly pay hike (on the average) for the Nation's mail carriers and $37.50 each month for Government secretaries. The proposal had the strong endorsement of the House leadership and of the administration.

These pay increase proposals were not something pulled out of a hat. They were arrived at by months of tedious study and examination of pay scales and they represented the first hope for salary adjustments in behalf of the Federal workers in a long period. The evidence that Government salaries across the Nation were lagging far behind cost-of-living increases in recent years and behind salary adjustments in all other areas of the economy stirred an impressive list of endorsements for the proposed pay increases.

Whether there may be too many Government employees and whether there may be persons employed to perform unnecessary jobs is a legitimate concern of economizers and of all citizens. But that is not the question at this juncture.

The question now is whether those persons employed by the Federal Government should receive a salary which is adequate and justified compensation for the work performed and for the needs of the worker in the present economy-a living wage. It is grossly unfair to suggest that because an individual agrees to work at a Government job he should receive a substandard wage.

If any given job is unnecessary then of course it should be eliminated. But if the job is counted essential, if the worker is performing a necessary and useful service, certainly he should be adequately compensated.

Senator EVERETT DIRKSEN, Republican Senate minority leader, announced during the weekend that he proposes to revive the pay bill which the House has now killed. DIRKSEN recognizes the unfair position which the House has taken.

If the Congressmen are convinced their own salaries are adequate, well and good. But 1.7 million other Americans should not have to make a sacrifice for that reason.

[From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Mar. 15, 1964] JOHNSON'S MONEY PROBLEMS AND OTHER

THINGS

(By James Reston)

WASHINGTON, March 14.-One of the persistently awkward things about the people who work for the Government in Washington is that they like to eat and have children and be paid for their hire like other members of the human race.

This has created a problem for every President since General Washington, and Lyndon Johnson is no exception. His appointments so far have been good, but he has lost several brilliant men from the old Kennedy team, including Ted Sorensen, Kenneth Galbraith, Jerome Wiesner, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and the Congress has added to the brain drain by refusing to pass the administration's pay-raise bill.

Some of this drift of talent was inevitable and some of it was desirable. There is al

ways an evacuation in every election year, and President Johnson should and will have his own men if he wins in November. But holding or recruiting talented and experienced men who are tough enough to stand up to Lyndon Johnson 18 hours a day, 7 days in the week has been made all the more difficult by freezing wages even below academic, let alone industrial or commercial levels.

PROBLEM OF PRIORITIES

Part of the difficulty is that Congress has refused to raise the pay of one group of public servants unless it can raise them all. It draws no distinction between a secretary who wrestles with letters and an Under Seccretary who wrestles with De Gaulle. short, it has ignored the fact that there are too many drones at the bottom of the Government and too few brains at the top.

In

Also, the Congress, not unnaturally, feels that if the executives in the Government get more money, Congressmen, who also pay rent and have children, should get more too, and this would bring the across-the-board pay hike to $545 million a year, which is more than some Congressmen think the voters would be in a mood to approve after the Bobby Baker case in an election year.

So long as Congress refuses to distinguish between a postman and a scientist and between the shortage of brains and the surplus of bodies in Washington, the problem is insoluble, but there is a way to reconcile sanity with solvency.

[From the Milwaukee Journal, Mar. 21, 1964] A SENATOR'S SALARY

Senator DOUGLAS, Democrat, of Illinois, followed the lead of a number of his colleagues in making public his personal finances the other day. And in doing so he made a pretty good case for those who say that the $22,500 annual salary Members of Congress get doesn't go very far. In Senator DOUGLAS' case it shrinks to nearly $7,000 before he gets it home.

During 1963, the Senator reports, he had to spend $2,515 of his own money-over and above his annual $307 mileage allowance-to travel back and forth to Illinois. He spent another $2,254 for radio and television tapes to keep in touch with constituents and let them know his thoughts on legislation. Constituents who came to Washington and called on him cost him $1,560 more, mainly for lunches he bought them. Another $1,276 went for advertising, telegrams, various memberships and subscriptions. And he gave $1,731 in contributions to political organizations-which he considers as much of a duty as contributions to churches and charity. Then he paid $3,830 in income taxes on his base salary and $1,687 for an annuity fund contribution.

The Senator could obviously not live in Washington as a Senator must on what was left. But he did pick up $5,000 for lectures, $1,587 in dividends, $1,378 in capital gains, $231 in interest, $2,270 in annuities from the University of Chicago, where he had been a professor; $1,261 in other annuities, $750 for magazine and other writings and $30 in royalties on a book he wrote earlier.

That is pinpoint accounting for a Senator. But it does show how deeply a man without sizable outside means must cut into his congressional salary to pay expenses necessary to his public position-and why, for men like this at any rate, a salary raise is needed. It's a good argument for reviving the pay bill just killed by the House-particularly when added to the convincing argument other civil servants have for pay raises under that bill.

[From the Buffalo (N.Y.) Courier Express, Mar. 20, 1964]

MORE PAY FOR BETTER U.S. SERVICE When the House of Representatives defeated & bill to give Members of Congress a $10,000 boost in pay because it was reluctant to risk a rollcall vote in an election year, it also killed proposed pay boosts for 1.7 million employees in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. President Johnson now has made a good case for restoration of the latter increases. A bill to that effect but leaving out Members of Congress has been introduced.

The President, in letters to House Speaker

JOHN W. MCCORMACK and Senate President Pro Tempore CARL HAYDEN, wrote that failure to enact the pay bill would impair his efforts to achieve true economy in Government. He added that it would make it "harder than ever to recruit and hold the outstanding people who need for our top policy jobs." He made these pertinent points:

"It is false economy to offer salaries that will attract the mediocre but repel the talented. They (outstanding people) already earn less often far less-than they did earn, or could earn, in private jobs. This salary gap has been growing. The proposed bill will not close it, but it will reverse a dangerous trend."

We agree that the Government needs the best people it can get to staff its offices. And we are not disposed to debate President Johnson's contention that congressional membership is most deserving of a pay increase, although we don't like to see legislators vote raises for themselves while in office.

We endorse the President's statement that he needs first-class managers who can tighten organizations, trim simplify procedures, waste, and inspire maximum effort. And we see reason to accept his assurances that "the dollars paid to attract brains and ability to the Federal service will come back to the American people many times over in more economical and effective government."

What's more, every cent for the proposed increases to Federal employees is already included in the administration's budget which takes effect July 1. Favorable action is indicated.

[From the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Mar. 18, 1964]

FEDERAL PAY POINT

If Federal employes generally deserve a pay increase and Congress seems agreed this is the case-then it should be granted regardless of whether the Representatives and Senators wish to vote higher salaries for themselves. Fair and reasonable pay scales for 2 million Government workers should not be dependent on whether 435 Representatives and 100 Senators believe the political climate is favorable for their own personal objectives.

President Johnson was well justified in raising this point in his letter to Speaker JOHN MCCORMACK and other Congressional leaders.

Funds needed for the general Federal pay increase were included in the President's budget for fiscal 1965. Congress stood ready to approve the program, but then tacked on a $10,000-a-year raise for its own Members. House Members got cold feet on this item when it came to a record vote, and the whole pay program was killed, at least temporarily. It may be revived in the Senate.

Members of Congress probably could vote themselves a $5,000 increase without great public reaction. Or they could skip action on their own payrolls entirely. But if they are convinced the Federal Government would

operate better by raising the salaries of the ordinary workers and those in administrative positions, then that part of the program should be approved.

Running the Government is a big business operation. Pay of Government employes should be commensurate to that in private business for comparable work.

[From the Providence (R.I.) Journal] A WARY CONGRESS SHORTCHANGES FEDERAL

EMPLOYEES

In the interests of capably run Governgranting pay raises to Federal employees. ment, the House should reconsider the bill

The other day the House turned down this $545 million increase including a 44-percent increase for House Members—in a rollcall vote that lacked full-hearted assertion or conviction. It was clear that because the Members would be voting themselves a hefty raise by voice vote, they had little heart to face the public for the sake of the rest of the legislation. Thus the fate of such a vast expenditure affecting pay envelopes of some 1.7 million Federal civil service workers and clerks was obviously not decided through any thorough survey of Federal pay scales. Rather, it was the survival instinct of the officeholder that shaped the decision.

Earlier in the debate when no one was required to stand up and be counted, an attempt to put off the raises until the national budget was balanced was turned down easily. So was the suggestion that the whole matter be deferred until a Government study was completed and the lawmakers had time to analyze it. An attempt by Representative GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Republican, of Nebraska, to strike the congressional pay increase from the measure also was voted down.

But then came the shattering rollcall vote on the entire bill. It was as though House Members suddenly comprehended the wisdom of the administration's economy drive or saw their constituents face to face. More likely, the vote merely accentuated the hazards of an election year, and for many Congressmen, conscious of job security, it was hardly the time to boost the size of their salaries. Certainly after the votes were counted, many Congressmen were rueful, having missed out on a pay hike from the present $22,500 to $32,500.

But it's a regrettable blow to civil service morale that the bill was rejected out of narrow concerns. Such decisionmaking offers precious little satisfaction to the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who look to Congress to act responsibly with intelligent grasp of the scope of pay raise proposals and to consider the consequences of their decision. These workers are hardly overpaid. Further, there is the continuing need to furbish the civil service with improved salaries; there are few other ways to draw competent recruits. The same imperatives apply to adequate salaries for Federal judgeships, also treated highhandedly by the House.

A solution might be in the new bill submitted by Representative JAMES H. MORRISON, Democrat, of Louisiana; it doesn't inIclude the $10,000 annual increase for Members of Congress, and this sensitive feature could be put off until a nonelection year.

[From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
Mar. 16, 1964]

PAY RAISES FOR CONGRESSMEN

To us, it seems a shame that Members of the House of Representatives did not have the courage of their convictions and go through with their proposal to raise the pay

of Members of Congress from $22,500 to $32,500.

Their proposal to do so had been thoroughly aired in committee hearings without raising any public outcry. Their argument sounded logical: To enable the Government to compete with private industry and get capable men for public service, Congress had to raise their salaries.

Why shouldn't the elected representatives of the people, men and women chosen to run the Government of the United States, be paid at a corresponding rate, and more, than the people who work in the various departments under them?

Once a rollcall vote was demanded, however, many Members didn't want to put themselves on record as voting themselves such a large increase in an election year. Their opponents would be sure to make it a campaign issue, and many voters might fall for their demagogery.

But Members of the House have to run for reelection every 2 years anyway. That is why they go along for years without getting an increase as they vote pay raises for other Government employees.

In our opinion, the laborer should be worthy of his hire, and we believe most Americans would prefer to think Members of Congress were worth more than men holding lesser jobs both in government and private industry. And got it.

[From the Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, La., Mar. 25, 1964]

LOGIC ON THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL PAY RATES

The Federal pay raise bill was defeated for the reason that most Members of the House of Representatives simply did not have the nerve to vote themselves a substantial pay increase in an election year. So, when Representative H. R. GROSS, Republican, of Iowa, demanded a rollcall vote, the pay raise measure, which might have passed on any other With it went the kind of vote, went down. proposed $10,000 a year increase for Representatives, Senators, Federal judges, and Cabinet members, the $450 a year boost for letter carriers and others, and the 3-percent raise for the lowest paid civil service work

ers.

There were strong arguments against the bill as it came before the House, one being that it was topheavy with large pay raises for those already the best paid, and another being that it was ill timed from the viewpoint of the election and of President Johnson's economy drive. But the fact remains that this time, as in the past, much of what was said and written on the subject was shortsighted and ill considered. A case can be made for better pay for many Government workers.

Governmental pay rates in the lower brackets, especially, are badly out of line, and on the low side, not the high side. The mailmen, among many others, deserve a pay raise. Higher pay for stenographers and clerical workers would be a lifesaver for many governmental agencies, enabling them to find and keep a higher percentage of more competent employees instead of serving, as many of them do, as training schools and way stations for youngsters and other workers interested only in moving to jobs in industry and business after they have acquired a little experience.

The same thing is true of pay for State and many other civil service employees. Salaries are lower than in business and industry for comparable work. Raises are small and infrequent, advancement and recognition sometimes are almost impossible.

As for the salaries of those in the higher echelons, it must be said that if the Government wants to get and keep topnotch people-and surely it is hard to argue that the Government should want any other kind-it

is going to have to pay something approximating what these same people would make in business or industry for the same work. The logic of that seems incontrovertible.

[From the La Porte (Ind.) Herald-Argus, Mar. 23, 1964]

SALARY MEASURE

There is new legislation in the House which would furnish pay raises for a million and a half or so Federal employees, all of whom saw their chances for more money go down the drain when the House on March 12 defeated on a rollcall vote the pay increase measure which included higher salaries for Congressmen. The new measure, embodying a number of compromises and carrying no pay hikes for Senators and Representatives, should be enacted in some form.

The reasons are several, as President Johnson outlined in a letter the other day to Speaker McCORMACK in the House. The Chief Executive argues that the Federal Government must compete in employing competence with industry, business, education, research agencies, foundations, and private professions. These areas of employment attract the best brains and most able individuals because they pay well; Government because it does not meet the salary scales of these other areas find itself increasingly hard pressed to engage and retain competent people.

Contrary to what may be common impression, Federal employment is not increasing as rapidly as private and State and local government employment. During the past decade while the Nation's population arose 17 percent and nongovernment employment ascended by 10 percent, Federal civil employees increased by only 7 percent. In State and local governments the percentage of increase was 65. Granted there are overstaffed bureaucracies in some Federal Government areas and that there could be sizable trimmings without any loss of effectiveness, still the need for the best brains at the top and in the higher levels of Federal functioning is much more pressing today than ever.

In trying to make his program for greater economy work, President Johnson wrote, "I need first-class managers who can tighten organizations, simplify procedures, trim waste, and inspire maximum effort. It is false economy to offer salaries that will attract the mediocre but repel the talented." And so it is.

In other words, Congress should come to embrace the principle that comparable pay must be the Federal Government's policy in employment; comparable pay if the necessary competence and ability to operate an increasingly complex Government is to be induced and retained.

And for those individuals who insist that Federal Government is getting too big and too costly, a reminder: There are now 13 Federal employees for every 1,000 Americans and 10 years ago the proportion was 14 for every 1,000. And as the President suggests, if more able people are hired the way is open for still further reduction of the ratio.

[From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Mar. 25, 1964]

APPEASEMENT BY APOLOGY

Now that Secretary of State Dean Rusk has expressed the U.S. Government's profound regret over a South Vietnamese attack on a Cambodian border village last week, American foreign policy seems launched on a program of retreat by apology.

Foggy Bottom again shows a syndrome of abnormality in its policy structure: No backbone.

Tiny Red Cambodia, to which we contributed more than $150 million in aid before it went lock-stock to Communist China, not only blamed South Vietnam for what was no doubt an accidental attack on a Cambodian village. It blasted the United States because a few Americans were present during the assault, although they took no part. Cambodia's demand for apologies and reparations immediately should have been ignored. At most a statement should have explained a mapreading error led to the fracas.

To rush with an immediate apology is part of the accommodation policy that plagues State Department thinking. It's getting so any nation, whether a major power or powerless upstart, can extort concessions from Washington just by blustering loudly enough.

Why apologize to Cambodia, when it is furnishing Red Vietcong guerillas with staging areas and passage to South Vietnam in a war for survival of freedom, to which the United States has dedicated 16,000 training troops and more than $500 million of arms and economic assistance?

It would make more sense if we were to warn Cambodia and North Vietnam that, if they did not cease helping the Viet Cong invaders, we would carry attack to the north and bomb Cambodian Red staging grounds. A corollary instance of State's apology penchant is suggested by conduct in the case of the American flyers most recently shot down in East Germany, where they strayed by accident. Their RB-66 was destroyed by Red gunfire. One of the three flyers was hurt and has been returned to the West.

In demanding return of the other two from Russia, Secretary Rusk warned failure to restore the flyers to America would strain East-West co-operation (to whatever meager extent that exists).

On getting word the other twe would be returned, Dean Rusk declared President Johnson has issued orders to make sure our pilots don't wander into Communist air again.

If this is not an apology, it comes thinly close. Report from Bonn is that Soviet pilots have strayed or deliberately flown over Allied territory 95 times in the last several years. Not one was shot down. Yet Mr. Rusk said nothing about Russian violations of Western air space.

We appear almost-not quite-in a position of apologizing for Reds shooting down our own plane and men. Incidentally, the two Air Force officers have not yet been returned by the Soviets.

Our manifest tendency to backtrack and apologize for our actions, even when clearly Justified by U.S. right, is making a mockery of American prestige.

No one wants America to hurl its weight around indiscriminately. But power and leadership demand we stand for justice, respect and defense of national interests. We are steadily retreating from such posture. Wealthy, powerful, a global leader, we need not expect to be loved by the rest of the world. This is a truism of history, whenever a great nation emerges.

But we must be respected, not merely in American interests but for preservation of peace and the free world.

This respect is dwindling fast because of a policy that abides insults and extortion, and by that very posture invites worse.

Mrs. Helen Kocan: Slovak Leader

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. RAY J. MADDEN

OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, northern Indiana and the Nation lost one of its outstanding civic and religious leaders when Mrs. Helen Kocan, of 1823 LaPorte Avenue, in Whiting, Ind., the supreme president of the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union of America, passed away at her home Wednesday.

Mrs. Kocan was the recipient in 1963 of the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice medal and citation from Pope Paul VI in recognition of her Catholic fraternal work. It was presented to her by Bishop Andrew G. Grutka at the National Convention of the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union in Milwaukee, Wis. In 1907, Mrs. Kocan organized the Whiting Branch of the Junior Branch of the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union with 34 members. The present membership is 1,053. She was elected supreme auditor in 1917, later was named supreme vice president, and elected supreme president in 1933. She organized a new district of the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union in 1940 and it is now named for her.

The Villa Sancta Anna Home for the Aged in Cleveland, Ohio, was established under her guidance in 1960. She also organized the St. Ann Guild, an affiliate of the home in 1961. Mrs. Kocan was organizer and president for 30 years of St. Theresa Club in the St. John Parish of Whiting, Ind. She is honorary vice president of the Slovak Catholic Federation of America, and an honorary officer of the Slovak League of America.

Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent I submit excerpts from a tribute written in January 1961 by John C. Sciranka, American Slovak journalist of Passaic, N.J., which I placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on that date, setting out a few of the accomplishments of this great American woman of Slovak descent:

On Sunday, January 22, 1961, Mrs. Helen Kocan, supreme president of the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union, largest Slovak fraternal organization in the world, will observe her Diamond (75th) birthday in the city of Whiting, Lake County, Ind., where she has been a resident for the past half a century.

The membership of this Slovak ladies organization, numbering over 90,000 with assets over $31 million, has in the city of Whiting, Ind., the largest local branch, numbering some 1,400 members.

When Mrs. Kocan took over the reins of the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union, our country was in history's worst depression. That was 3 months after Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in 1933. With her supreme officers, she guided the organization to its present high standing, enjoying eminent prestige among the American fraternals. Last January 1960 it opened its million and

At Mrs. Kocan's suggestion a Slovak-American cookbook was published which enjoys its ninth edition and realized from sales over $75,000 for the home of the aged. Scholarships to students are awarded in its junior order.

The organization under her leadership gained the reputation as the most generous American Slovak fraternal, contributing large sums to religious and cultural causes. It aided the publishing of various books and supported authors. It modernized its official organ the Zenska Jednota (Ladies Union) making it one of the most attractive American Slovak fraternal magazines. Mrs. Kocan is held in high esteem by her supreme officers, 90,000 members and her fellow

American Slovaks.

In her duties as supreme president, she often said that she hates to see a thing done by halves and agreed with a teacher who said: "If it be right, do it boldly; if it be wrong, leave it undone."

Mrs. Kocan throughout her 75 years has been mindful of the old teaching that Christianity has lifted woman to a new place in the world.

Realizing the present plight of the women in her native Slovakia, Mrs. Kocan besides her many official duties is doing all she can for the freedom of the people of her native country, now enslaved by the Communists. Her rise to the highest position among her countrymen in America is the best proof of the great opportunities this country offers.

We conclude our felicitations to this our Mrs. American Slovak Fraternalist with this verse of George Eliot:

And rank for her meant duty, various

Yet equal in its worth, done worthily. Command was service; humblest service done By willing and discerning souls was glory. Happy birthday, Mrs. Kocan.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Opposes Secretary Udall's Modified Pacific Southwest Water Plan

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. CRAIG HOSMER

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California bears the heavy responsibility for meeting the water needs of 9 million southern Californians. Population increases every year boost that number of residents by the hundreds of thousands.

The board of directors of that district has carefully analyzed Secretary Udall's modified Pacific Southwest water plan and finds it wanting. Although the needs of Arizona are taken care of in the plan by means of immediate construction of the central Arizona project at Federal expense, the replacement of waters vitally needed to keep southern California alive are left hanging in air. The Secretary only suggests that these needs be met under future legislation of a nature which he concedes could not pass Congress if it were sought for the central Arizona project.

This is a matter of deep concern not only to Californians, but should be to the

one of the Nation's most vital geographic areas, and its citizens and businesses who pay such a large share of the Federal tax bill, surely should not, at best be left in limbo, and, at worst, threatened with strangulation, by a plan conceived by a prominent official of the Government like Secretary Udall.

On March 17 the board of directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California expressed their views on the revised Udall plan as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ON SECRETARY OF INTERIOR UDALL'S MODIFIED PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN, MARCH 17, 1964

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California opposes Secretary of the Interior Udall's modified Pacific Southwest water plan because it would result in the abandonment of the district's Colorado River aqueduct.

It is unthinkable that any Federal or State administration should advance, as part of a regional water plan, a proposal which would render useless an aqueduct now providing an indispensable source of water for the 9 million people of this district.

The district fully concurs in the principle that the water problems of the arid Southwest can best be solved by the cooperative action of all interests in the area.

Further, it approves of the concept of a regional water development fund dedicated to the complete utilization and conservation of the water resources of all the Pacific Southwest.

It believes that, instead of the proposal by the Secretary for enlarging a section of the California aqueduct, the first Federal moneys spent in California under any regional plan should contribute support to the State water plan and be used for the development of the water resources of this State's north coastal area for California's future growth.

The Pacific Southwest water plan in its present form offers the district at most only

feasibility studies for 550,000 acre-feet of

northern California water annually as a replacement for part of its present Colorado River supply. This would be replacement of less than half of the 1,212,000 acre-feet per year which the Secretary as heretofore contracted to deliver to this district and upon which the district relied in constructing its aqueduct. The plan offers nothing to make up this shortage or to provide for the greater future needs of the district. To really accomplish what its name implies, the Pacific Southwest water plan should be expanding

to require present authorization of projects providing for the future water supply of southern California.

The district endorses the program incorporated in the plan for the conservation and salvage of water along the lower Colorado. However, it urges that this entire program be instituted at once.

The district believes the proposed plan is seriously deficient because of the absence of any consideration of the possibilities of transporting water into the Pacific Southwest from sources other than northern California, such as the Snake River. The district urges that such studies be made.

The plan is critically defective because it fails to recognize and preserve the rights of existing projects in the State of California to priorities to the annual consumptive use of 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. To put this another way. California is asking for only the same protection that the State of Arizona by statute in 1961 recognized, under the basic, 100year-old principle of western water law, for

its own existing projects against the proposed central Arizona project.

In place of protection for California's valid water rights, the plan proposes that the Metropolitan Water District surrender its rights to Colorado River water in reliance upon promises of substitute water. These promises depend upon the actions of future Congresses and the doubtful sufficiency of the regional water development fund, as presently proposed, to accomplish all its objectives.

It is the conviction of the Metropolian Water District that those who desire new works diverting water from the Lower Colorado River should face the hazards of such promises rather than the taxpayers of this district who have built an aqueduct system representing an investment of more than a half-billion dollars.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is determined to carry out its obligations to its people to provide them with water and to do all in its power to protect their huge investment in this existing and functioning water supply system.

Are We Too Civilized?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. PAGE BELCHER

OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. BELCHER. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted, I insert in the RECORD the following editorial entitled "Are We Too Civilized" which appeared in the Tulsa Tribune, on March 7, 1964:

ARE WE TOO CIVILIZED?

(By Jenkin Lloyd Jones)

Is America approaching that degree of gentleness and irresolution that will render her incapable of surviving in a jungle world?

Have we grown so tolerant of misbehavior among the neutrals, so ready to turn the other cheek to our rampaging enemies, and so intent on peace at any price that we are nudging the world toward a climactic war, a war we may not win?

In short, are we suffering from an overdose of civilization?

It

A world in which highly civilized men are safe is, of course, devoutly to be wished. is nice to think that the meek will inherit the earth at this particular time. But the meek haven't been doing so well recently.

The brutal truth is that gutty aggressors can lick the pants off defensive sportsmen. The Marquis of Queensberry rules aren't worth a whoop against the man coming at you with a broken bottle.

It is now being admitted, even in Washington, that America's foreign policy is in "disarray." "Disarray" is a precious bit of Harvardese meaning "a mess." It is in a mess not because the framers of our foreign policy were stupid, but because they suffered from a very persistent illusion.

The illusion was that if we consistently out-do-gooded ourselves the nations of the world would flock to our banner out of gratitude and admiration. This miscalculation may have had its genesis in one of the noblest and wrongest political theorists of all time-Woodrow Wilson.

"There is such a thing," wrote Wilson, "as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right." Were we wrong in our treatment of Cuba? We delivered her. We were her best customer.

Were we wrong in our treatment of Panama? We delivered her, too. Before we came, the only asset the isthmus had was a

40-mile railroad over which apprehensive passengers hurried through swarms of anopheles mosquitoes.

What evil had we done to Zanzibar? The Americans were booted out, including our diplomatic personnel. And we turned right around and recognized the new regime at the suggestion of that master of tribal psychology, Soapy Williams.

All over the world mobs are descending on American embassies. They used to simply attack the U.S. Information libraries. But now our Ambassadors flee for their lives. Is

this part of a pattern? You bet your sweet

boots.

The pattern is the systematic humiliation of America. It is humiliation in progressive degrees, from little humiliations to steadily larger ones. The aim is to convince our friends that we are weak and irresolute, the uncommitted that we are a paper tiger, and the people of the Communist countries that worldwide victory for their leaders is inevitable. The campaign has been doing fine.

Why have we behaved so feebly? Because we are so civilized that the possibility of atomic war fills us with horror.

We

There is another popular piece of Washington gobbledygookery-"escalate." threw away victory in Korea because we were afraid a bombing above the Yalu would "escalate" into world war III. For the same reason we didn't push a corridor through to Berlin, although the Russians were acting in defiance of all solemn agreements. And in the fall of 1962 we pulled our punch in Cuba and thus junked the Monroe Doctrine.

Has no one in Washington been reading history? Hitler was permitted to remilitarize the Rhineland because the timid British and French feared that if they opposed it matters might "escalate" into World War II. At that time, militarily, Hitler had practically nothing.

Hitler claimed that each new aggressive move would be his last, but he stressed that any opposition would bring total war. So he murdered Dolfuss, took over Austria, grabbed Sudetenland and the Polish corridor. Each time Britain and France fell back, fearing escalation. And when the inevitable breaking point came Hitler was strong and they were weak.

If we don't stand up for our rights pretty soon world war III will be a cinch. Because by perpetually showing weakness we won't end the possibility of incidents. We will simply insure larger and more outrageous incidents until we must choose war or total surrender.

The time has come to say the Panamanian: "Look, Pedro, we have done you much good and no harm. We are here as a result of the most solemn treaties. If you come across that fence we'll return the body."

The time has come to say to Ghana's Nkrumah:

"The fleet will be in tomorrow. The Marines will march down to our Embassy behind the bands. You be there to tell us whether you want the place closed. You've already seen your last gift dollar. And if

we lock the Embassy you've seen your last trade dollar."

If we do not start saying these things we will be in total war in 10 years-without any friends.

Quality Stabilization Legislation

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. CHET HOLIFIELD

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, a recent article in the Daily News Record,

trade journal of the men's retail clothing industry, once again points up the widespread support for quality stabilization existing among people who are most directly concerned with the future of the American retail economy.

Those whose economic well-being depends on a strong American retail system recognize quality stabilization as a constructive legislative step toward preserving that system. Opponents of the bill may perhaps confuse some persons who do not know the facts concerning conditions in our retail marketplace and what quality stabilization would do to correct that situation. But propaganda cannot fool those who know best-the businessmen whose livelihoods are threatened by chaos currently existing in the retail marketplace.

Let me quote here from a number of such leaders in the men's clothing industry, as reported in the Daily News Record of February 7, 1964:

Charles F. Hyde, president, Oshkosh B'Gosh, Inc., Oshkosh, Wis.: "The future of the free enterprise system for brand manufacturers such as we depends upon our being able to exercise complete control over our brand merchandising plans and practices in the market area."

Stanley Goldman, president, Eagle Clothes, Inc., New York: "It is imperative for the protection of branded merchandise that favorable action be taken on this bill at the earliest possible moment."

Arthur L. Bowman, Jr., executive vice president, the H. A. Seinsheimer Co., Cincinnati: "The unauthorized use of brand names by disreputable retailers is dangerously on the ascendancy. The consumer is being dishonestly attracted to these stores so for the protection of the fine retailers of the country, brand names must be protected."

WEAPON OF SURVIVAL

Leo A. Haspel, president, Haspel Bros., Inc., New Orleans: "Any bill that Congress can pass to protect owners of brand names would not only be to the best interest of the consumer but would also keep brand names from being used as leaders to entice the consuming public into a store where the number of units with the brand name would be insufficient to supply even the smallest proportion of these consumers attracted by whatever medium of advertising is used."

*

Lawrence S. Phillips, executive vice president, Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., New York: "The brands and the stability of the brands that independent retailers carry are their main weapon of survival in their violent jungle of competition with the retailing giants and the unscrupulous merchants we assure you of the urgency we attach to passage of the quality stabilization bill." John D. Gray, president, Hart Schaffner & Marx, Chicago: "The bill is urgently needed to protect consumers against the alarming spread of sharp and deceptive practices by unscrupulous retailers, and to strengthen the position of reputable retailers."

PROTECTS CONSUMER

Harold S. Hirsch, president, White Stag Manufacturing Co., Portland, Oreg.: "Our main interest is to check disastrous price cutting and the deliberate misrepresentation of merchandise to the unsuspecting American public who, of necessity, gets substitute merchandise foisted upon it, which is the bait-and-switch tool of the price cutter *** we seek a national act which will make it unlawful to misrepresent or bootleg merchandise proclaimed to be the same or similar, but at lower prices."

Elmer L. Ward, president and board chairman, Palm Beach Co., Cincinnati: "We urge Congress to give the worthy manufacturers who think enough of a product to give it a