top-level committee to examine the differences among the agencies in their figures on manufacturing production and productivity. This committee, he said, should be empowered to recommend steps to reduce or eliminate the differences.

"This subject of rising productivity is altogether too important to the Nation-and particularly to American workers to permit statistical differences among Government technicians to hide the reality." Meany stressed.

"Most key aspects of the overall issue are clear, despite technical differences about the manufacturing sector. Last year, the gross national product rose about $30 billion, but unemployment increased 160,000. National output failed to rise sufficiently in 1963 to generate enough jobs for a growing labor force in an economy whose productivity was rising rapidly. This is beyond dispute ***.” "As for the manufacturing sector, Government technicians may differ about the precise rate of productive advance. But the facts are irrefutable that employment of production and maintenance workers declined 1.5 mililon between 1953 and 1963. For the workers who have been displaced and for those threatened by displacement, automation and rapidly rising productivity are very real."

However, Meany said, technical differences in agency reports on manufacturing have been "translated into confusion about the entire economy." He cited in particular a "misleading" headline in the New York Times of March 16, "Job Losses Overestimated in Automation, United States Finds." The story was based on one of the differences between agency findings.

This confusion is needless," the AFL-CIO leader continued. It should be ended. And it can be ended by a careful examination of the differing series of output and productivity figures published by the various Government agencies.

"The American public has a right to the facts and the Government should be able to provide reasonably reliable statistics on output and productivity in manufacturing. A top-level committee such as I propose can eliminate the statistical differences that cause spreading confusion about a subject of great importance to our Nation."

Among the Federal sources of figures relating to production, productivity and employment are the President's Economic Report, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Departments of Commerce and Labor.

Copies of Meany's letter were sent to Kermit Gordon, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and Walter W. Heller, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

The text of Meany's letter follows: Differences in statistics among Government agencies, relating to the recent rate of productivity advance in manufacturing, are presenting the American public with a confusing picture about the pace of rising productivity and the impact of automation. Technical differences about the manufacturing sector have been blown up into implications for the national economy as a whole, such as the misleading front page headline in the New York Times of March 16, "Job Losses Overestimated in Automation, United States Finds."

This subject of rising productivity is altogether too important to the Nation-and particularly to American workers to permit statistical differences among Government technicians to hide the reality.

Most key aspects of the overall issue are clear, despite technical differences about the manufacturing sector. Last year, the gross national product rose about $30 billion, but unemployment incrased 160,000. National output failed to rise sufficiently in 1963 to generate enough jobs for a growing labor force in an economy whose productivity was rising rapidly. This is beyond dispute.

In addition, the Government's statistics on the pace of rising productivity in the total private economy are also clear. According to the President's Economic Report, output per manhour in the private economy accelerated from an annual rate of 2.2 percent in 1919-47 to a yearly pace of 3.2 percent in the postwar period, 1947-68. Further accelration of the rate of productivity advance is indicated by the Government's report that output per manhour in the private economy rose at a yearly rate of 3.5 percent in 1960-63. These trends are also clear.

This acclerating pace of productivity advance in the private economy as a whole, along with the rapid growth of the labor force, is making is difficult to reduce the high level of unemployment. Public confusion, based on technical differences about the statistics of the manufacturing sector, can only serve to delay the national policy decisions required to achieve and sustain full employment.

As for the manufacturing sector, Government technicians may differ about the precise rate of productivity advance. But the facts are irrefutable that employment of production and maintenance workers declined 1.5 million between 1953 and 1963. For this workers who have been displaced and for those threatened by displacement, automation, and rapily rising productivity are very real.

Actual technical differences relate to the manufacturing sector, alone. But they have been translated into confusion about the entire economy. This confusion is needless. It should be ended. And it can be ended by a careful examination of the differing series of output and productivity figures published by the various Government agencies.

The Government's official monthly figures on manufacturing output are published by the Federal Reserve Board; they imply a very rapid rise of about 4 percent a year in manufacturing productivity in recent years. The Commerce Department publishes at least two different series of figures on manufacturing output, which imply a somewhat lower rate of productivity advance in factories. However, the most recently published figures by the Commerce Department also indicate an acceleration of manufacturing productivity from an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the postwar period, 1947-63, to a yearly pace of 3.7 percent in the most recent years, 196063.

Yet these differences have been enough to create sensational headlines and confusing reports.

These technical differences must not be permitted to obscure an issue as important as the pace of rising productivity.

I urge you to establish a top-level committee to examine the technical differences among Government agencies on the statistics of manufacturing production and productivity, with authority to make recommendations to those agencies for the purpose of reducing or eliminating such statistical differences.

The American public has a right to the facts and the Government should be able to provide reasonably reliable statistics on output and productivity in manufacturing. A top-level committee such as I propose can eliminate the statistical differences that cause spreading confusion about a subject of great importance to our Nation.

Dr. Olds To War on Poverty

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EDWARD P. BOLAND

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Glenn A. Olds, president of Springfield College

in my home city of Springfield, Mass., has been selected to help organize and operate the proposed "Volunteers for America" phase of President Johnson's antipoverty program, Sargent Shriver, chief of staff of the antipoverty program, has announced. Dr. Olds is not only a master administrator and educator, but he is an innovator, and has breathed new life into Springfield College since becoming its president, in July 1858.

I include with my remarks two articles on Dr. Olds from the Springfield Union on March 26 and March 31, and an editorial carried in the Springfield Union on March 27:

[From the Springfield (Mass.) Union, Mar. 26, 1964]

DR. OLDS TO WAR ON POVERTY Dr. Glenn A. Olds, president of Springfield College, has agreed to help organize and operate the proposed "Volunteers for America" phase of the Johnson administration's antipoverty program, it was announced in Washington Wednesday by Sargent Shriver, the President's chief of staff in the antipoverty campaign.

ONE OF THREE NAMED

Dr. Olds, 43, was one of three men enlisted by Shriver to lead in planning three key programs in the war on poverty. Others are Dr. Vernon Roger Alden, 40, president of Ohio University and former associate dean of the Harvard Business School, and Jack T. Conway, 46, executive director of the AFL-CIO'S Industrial Union Department and former Deputy Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency.

Dr. Alden will develop plans for the proposed "Job Corps," a group of up to 100,000 draft rejects and school dropouts which will be given job training, education and work experience. Conway will be responsible for making guideline decisions in the "Community Action" program.

Volunteers for America, a Peace Corpsstyled organization, will be incorporated into helping wipe out pockets of poverty.

STATUS STILL VAGUE

Shriver said the three men are on loan to his planning group. He said he does not know whether their commitments to their institutions will permit them to head the programs if Congress passes the legislation.

Asked about the chances of the poverty program setting through Congress in this session, Shriver said he has only made a “surface reading" on Capitol Hill but is "rather optimistic."

Naming the three men to head different phases of planning, Shriver said, "is an effort to make plans so we can answer some of the questions Congressmen are asking."

A House Education and Labor subcommittee held the first hearings on the bill last week.

Dr. Olds began his duties as the eighth president of Springfield College July 1, 1958, after serving as director of the Cornell United Religious Work at Cornell University.

In October 1961, Dr. Olds declined an offer of a major administrative position with the Peace Corps in this country and abroad. He also declined a second proposal that he take a year's leave to lend his educational administrative experience to the new international agency. He also decided at that time not to accept a third offer by Peace Corps officials to become a senior consultant on a twice-weekly basis.

Springfield College has been an active participant in the international Peace Corps program, notably in training volunteers for work in South America.

Dr. Olds received a bachelor's degree from Willamette University in Salem, Oreg., and

a bachelor of divinity degree from Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill., where he was graduated with highest distinction. He later received a doctorate in philosophy from Yale University.

[From the Springfield (Mass.) Union, Mar. 26, 1964]

DR. OLDS TAKES A CHALLENGE The choice of Dr. Glenn Olds to organize and head the Volunteers of America, one of three key programs in President Johnson's proposed "war on poverty," was not exactly surprising. Over the past 21⁄2 years Dr. Olds had declined three offers of posts with the Peace Corps. He has been close to that program as president of Springfield College, which has done an important training job for the Corps.

It is noteworthy, however, that this time Dr. OOlds agreed to take the post and, hopefully, will be able to put his administrative talent to use in a promising Federal program. The antipoverty measure is currently the subject of congressional hearings, and there is high optimism that it will gain passage this session. The volunteers of America is the phase designed for a domestic Peace Corps type of mission-helping to eliminate poverty where it is concentrated. "Job Corps" and "Community Action" are the names of the other two phases of the program.

Dr. Olds, who came to Springfield College in 1958, has displayed the energy and imagination that makes him an excellent choice for the antipoverty post. He has been credited with revitalizing the curriculum at Springfield College while strengthening the graduate study division and putting new emphasis on the college's international scope. In 6 years Springfield College has gained seven new buildings. Scholarships and annual income have tripled, and the annual budget has doubled. Service programs have been increased, and there have been many other improvements for students, staff and community. And Springfield College's graduates, incidentally, are among the country's outstanding workers with young people from all environments, including the poor environments where inspiration of young lives is vital to self-improvement.

As to the office of Springfield College, Dr. Olds has said, "It is not the coziest spot in the world and it is certainly one of the loneliest. But, man for man, hour for hour, it is surely the liveliest." The job of wiping out poverty is not so different that it can't use what Dr. Olds has to offer.

[From the Springfield (Mass.) Union, Mar. 31, 1964]

IN CHARGE OF VOLUNTEERS-POVERTY WAR ROLE EXCITES DR. OLDS SPRINGFIELD COLLEGE PRESIDENT HOPES STUDENTS GRADUATING FROM COLLEGE, RETIRED FOLK WILL HELP Married women whose children have grown and retired persons were mentioned Monday by Dr. Glenn A. Olds, president of Springfied College as "reservoirs" which could provide volunteers for the "War on Poverty" program.

NAMED TO POST

Dr. Olds, who last week was named by Sargent Shriver, President Johnson's chief of staff in the antipoverty campaign, to lead in the planning and operation of the proposed "Volunteers for America" phase of the program, added that he felt many students graduating from college would be willing to "give up a year" to serve in the program and that returning members of the Peace Corps would be a large source of personnel.

During a press conference at the college, Dr. Olds said he is slated to appear next Tuesday before a House education and labor subcommittee to familiarize Congressmen with the phase of the program he is heading. He said that although Congress has yet to

enact legislation for the antipoverty program, preliminary planning "commenced immediately" after he agreed to be "on loan" to Shriver's group. He termed Shriver "a human dynamo."

Dr. Olds said the plan is designed "to break the back of the cycle of poverty" and that every phase would be staffed in depth.

ROLE IS EXCITING

"My role is not tidy but from my point of view, it is more exciting," Dr. Olds said. He said the Volunteers for America, a PeaceCorps-style organization, will be incorporated into helping to wipe out pockets of poverty and added he would get "immediate exposure" to those pockets.

The Springfield College president noted he is not unfamiliar with poverty as he worked with Indians in Oregon and other States and also did youth work in Chicago's South Side. "I have been battling poverty all my life," he said.

Dr. Olds said that while on loan to the antipoverty program, he would be working 3 days a week on the program and 4 days at the college. He said college trustees "felt on the whole that our responsibility to these programs has been constant and if I felt I could do both jobs, I should be given the opportunity to try."

Dr. Olds said the "magnitude of involvement" will be clearer in a few weeks and that his main loss would be "sleep and my family."

"This is descriptive of most of the people I met in Washington," Dr. Olds said, "but there is a deep conviction that this problem of poverty has to be licked studies correlate that if you are born into poverty, you hardly ever get out."

Dr. Olds said the proposed legislation projects 5,000 volunteers in the phase of the program he is organizing and it is possible States and cities may train more volunteers. Dr. Olds said he hopes to get Stan Musial, recently appointed to head the President's Youth Fitness Council, and other wellknown athletes to become "volunteers" even on a part-time basis, to aid in combating youth problems.

"Our athletes are wonderful human beings and have an impact on youth-I believe they will be ueful in this program," he said.

End Runaround Congress

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. PAUL FINDLEY

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Globe-Democrat of St. Louis in an editorial April 3 put in proper perspective the issue facing Congress on the second effort to get the authorization bill for the International Development Association adopted.

I commend the full text of this editorial to my colleagues:

END RUNAROUND CONGRESS

On February 26, the House voted 208-189 to kill an administration bill authorizing $312 million as our contribution to a proposed $750 million increase in lending funds for the International Development Association. The Representatives sent the measure back to the Banking and Currency Committee for burial, but it didn't die.

Down Pennsylvania Avenue came the firststring ambulance team to rescue this first important casualty of Mr. Johnson's tenure.

The committee held new hearings late in March.

The bill must not be passed by the House; the reasons are numerous and convincing. Essentially, the scheme is an end run around the tight restrictions on foreign aid written by Congress in recent years and an attempt to increase that aid while not advertising it as such.

The IDA is a subsidiary of the World Bank. It now has $1 billion in lending power and it dispenses these loans for 50 years at no interest charge whatever, with a minuscule carrying fee of three-quarters of 1 percent. We are being asked to help underwrite a near doubling of that lending power. We should not.

While we already contribute 42 percent of the funds, our voting power is limited to 26 percent.

The IDA has power to send our dollars to countries which have seized our property without payment and which have been cut off from foreign aid by Congress.

It can lend to Red and quasi-Red states such as Yugoslavia, Ghana, and British Guiana.

The Association can circumvent the congressional requirement that our dollars be used to promote free enterprise, not socialism. As an example, it is possible that India, denied tax dollars by Congress for its big socialistic steel mill at Bokaro, can get them through the IDA.

Some recipients of IDA loans have been going through the chow line twice; first picking up regular foreign aid from the United States and then IDA dollars.

There is no buy-America requirement that our contributions be spent in the United States. This makes any loans to IDA an even greater threat to the gold crisis and balance-of-payments situation than foreign

aid.

In addition, we have no guarantee that we will ever get the money back-even in 50 years.

Abuses have appeared. Both Nehru and Chiang Kai-shek have been found making a killing by relending these no-interest funds to their own people at handsome and sometimes usurious rates-up to 12 percent.

If we are going to give out foreign aid, then we ought to have control over where it goes and to whom and for what. If IDA wants more funds let it get those funds somewhere else. We are already carrying too much of the load.

Enactment of S. 792 Urged

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to permission granted I insert into the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a letter from Mr. O. S. Myers, the distinguished President of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, strongly urging enactment of S. 792, to establish the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Area.

Mr. Myers speaks on behalf of 60,000 devoted, dedicated, and enthusiastic conservationists of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, of which he is an outstanding member.

I feel this is the kind of legislation that deserves and requires the early attention of Congress in the interest of all of the people.

The letter follows:

MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS,
Lansing, Mich., March 25, 1964.
Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,
U.S. Representative,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL: The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Area bill, S. 792, is now being considered by the National Parks Subcommittee of the House Interior Committee. Michigan United Conservation Clubs, a nonprofit organization of some 350 affiliated clubs and 60,000 members, considers this a most important bill, along with scores of other responsible organizations and more than a million citizens.

We understand that S. 792 will be compared in the House with a similar bill introduced by Representative ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, of Michigan, a bill which proposes setting up a lakeshore area of considerably smaller acreage. We urge you to give primary consideration to the Senate bill.

S. 792, after years of work and negotiation, is a compromise bill carefully drawn up to consider all interests involved. Its proposed acreage has been scaled down from original proposals of 96,000 and 77,000 acres to 47,600 acres, with 42,300 acres on the mainland in the northwest corner of Michigan and 5,300 acres on South Manitou Island. Included are 33 miles of mainland shoreline and 13 miles of island shoreline, and a 30mile scenic highway is authorized.

As you are aware, Michigan parks today are overcrowded, and tens of thousands are annually turned away. The proposed acreage of 47,600 acres for the lakeshore area is none too large, and in the very near future, a growing population with increased leisure will use all of that area to the fullest.

In short, Michigan needs the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Area, both recreationally and economically. The area is the apex of a population triangle, with the legs reaching down to the heavy population centers of Detroit and Chicago, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and running up through Lansing, Grand Rapids, and other important centers.

The tourist industry is presently Michigan's third largest industry, and the potential for expansion of tourism in this area is almost unlimited. Over the years, it will provide increasing revenue for growing numbers of persons in that economically limited

area.

Further, the presence of such an area will mean an increased funneling of tourists across the Mackinac Bridge into the Upper Peninsula, an economically distressed area which desperately needs greater tourist trade.

We understand the Sleeping Bear Dunes bill has been referred to as "controversial."

While this was once true, the amended version passed by the Senate has met virtually every objection, and many of those who once opposed the creation of a lakeshore area now favor it.

Much of the earlier opposition came from those who own property in the area around the inland lakes, who feared that the Government would force them out. Thus, there has been left out of the present bill some 30,000 acres around Little Traverse Lake, Glen Lake, and Platte Lake, where occur the heaviest concentrations of residences and from whence came most of the opposition to the plan.

The number of structures within the boundaries was thus reduced from 1,587 to 288. Those few who still remain have every guarantee that they may continue to enjoy their homesites as long as they wish and, indeed, have additional guarantees that the area will never degenerate to a rundown "neon jungle."

We feel it is imperative that S. 792 be approved this year. We understand that Congress is considering a number of other seashore and lakeshore areas, that several prob

ALIANZA

We point out that the Indiana Dunes site cannot compare with Sleeping Bear as a region of unparalleled beauty and capacity for offering many different kinds of recreation to millions of people. However, passage of the Indiana Dunes bill this year would kill the possibility of establishing a lakeshore area at Sleeping Bear at the present, and would seriously endanger its chances in the future.

S. 792 as amended is an excellent compromise bill which would give Michigan badly

needed recreation area and a tremendous economic asset.

We most strongly urge that you contact the chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee with a request that the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Area bill, S. 792, be given highest priority and consideration. Thank you,

O. S. MYERS, President, Michigan United Conservation Clubs.

The 3 Years of Alianza

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DANTE B. FASCELL

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, 36 months ago the charter of the late President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was signed at Punta del Este, Uruguay.

The Alliance for Progress, hailed as a dream plan to cure Latin America's ills, has become a painful process, but in spite of everything it is pushing ahead. Considering the enormous problems to be met, it is not surprising it has had difficulties. Pulling up underdeveloped economies in which people and attitudes in many instances have to be changed is not a job to be done in 3 years, nor in three decades.

Eight nations have developed comprehensive economic plans. Since August 1961, 10 nations have adopted agrarian reform programs, making a total of 13 with effective land reform plans; four other countries have submitted plans to their legislature.

Most of the countries have taken steps toward attainment of the tax reform goals outlined in the Alliance charter. Eleven countries have increased income tax rates, particularly on large income, and two nations, Guatemala and Uruguay, have imposed an income tax for the first time.

The most visible evidence of the Alliance accomplishments has been provided by projects undertaken to further social progress-in housing, public health, and education.

On March 13, the third anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, the Miami Herald, one of the foremost newspapers in our Nation, carried an article entitled, "The 3 Years of Alianza," and I am particularly pleased to bring it to the attention of my colleagues.

The article follows:

It was 3 years ago today that the late President Kennedy, speaking to a group of diplomats at a White House reception, sent a fresh breeze of hope through Latin America.

Mr. Kennedy announced a 10-point program of mutual assistance under which the social and economic structure of a hemisphere would be uplifted.

The grand design, the most sweeping proposal of its kind ever made, was to be known as the Alliance for Progress.

"If we are successful," said the President, "if our effort is bold enough and determined enough, then the close of this decade will mark the beginning of a new era in the American experience. The living standards of every American family will be on the rise-basic education will be available to all-hunger will be a forgotten experience— the need for massive outside help will have passed-most nations will have entered a period of self-sustaining growth and, although there will be much to do, every American republic will be the master of its own revolution and its own hope and progress."

It was a grandiose dream, eloquently presented, and it was greeted with universal acclaim.

Now that 3 of the 10 milestones have been passed, where does the Alliance stand? The way has been marked by disappointments and frustrations. There have been complaints, criticisms of redtape and lack of cooperation. In some countries enthusiasm has waned, in others there is resistance in high places.

Yet it is a serious mistake to emphasize the negative. The Alliance has some notable successes. In some countries it has surpassed the hope.

There have been tax reform, land reform, improvement in housing and schools in almost every country. Almost 500,000 families have been resettled on their own land. More than 160,000 agricultural loans have been

made, 900 hospitals have been built and 700 cities helped to get pure water supplies.

Millions of dollars have been used to devel

op industry, mining and fisheries.

Administrative changes have brought Latin American leaders to posts of decision. The nations have gained valuable experience in working together. This sense of common interest is more widespread than ever be

fore.

The Job has not been done but few expected it to be at this point. If it has not realized its aim, the Alliance at least has demonstrated its potential. It is as much a challenge and an opportunity today as it was on March 13, 1961.

As the diplomats gather in Washington again this weekend to hear another President reaffirm the goals, Mr. Kennedy's 3year-old words have the same moving application:

"Our unfulfilled task is to demonstrate to the entire world that man's unsatisfied aspiration for economic progress and social justice can best be achieved by freemen working within a framework of democratic institutions."

A Tribute to President Kennedy

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EDNA F. KELLY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 6, 1964

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, my sister, Mrs. Charles W. Byrnes, sent me the en

closed poem. It is so expressive that I could not resist having it printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for posterity. You know, as do many others, that the great, great majority of Americans still believe in the words, "For God and Country," in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Bill of Rights. They believe, too, that God should be--and must berevered in the marketplace, in schools, and in our daily lives.

The majority of Americans believe there can be no peace without justice and no justice without God.

The poem follows:

A TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY The traitor's deed is done. The fatal bullet spent.

We can now but deeply mourn our fallen President.

tween the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries.

Fourth. The partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe.

Fifth. The permanent separation of Berlin from West Germany.

Sixth. The infiltration, subversion, and overthrow of constitutional government throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Seventh. The creation of a vested interest in the stability of communistic regimes by expanding trade between the Soviet bloc and the West.

Eighth. The establishment of a firm Soviet beachhead in the Near East in the interest of communistic leadership over the entire area.

Ninth. The control of the three great maritime crossroads in the Suez Canal,

sounds that shook the earth.

For his was greatness seldom known, who now will judge his worth.

O Lord how wrong it seems to take a man so young,

Whose selfless work on earth had only just

begun.

Through our grief and mourning please let us understand;

For being merely mortal we see no master plan.

We only knew our hero. We loved our noble Chief.

His width and breadth foreshadowed all. We sit in futile grief.

God rest you mighty champion, to the halls where good men go, We'll cherish every moment we had you here below.

-AL CARDAMONE

Panama Canal Zone: Key Spot for Control of Round-the-World Strategic Waterways

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. CLAUDE PEPPER

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Red inspired, led, and directed January 9, 1964, mob assaults on the Canal Zone requiring the use of the U.S. Army to protect U.S. citizens, the Canal Zone and Panama Canal from a bath of rape, murder, pillage, and sabotage, the people of our Nation and the Congress have gained a deeper perspective of the long-range strategic aims behind what has been a veritable deluge of communistic revolutionary propaganda for coexistence, disarmament, and peace.

Although many of our citizens have been badly confused by the barrage of words, the real Red aims behind it are clear. They are:

First. The undermining and fatal weakening of NATO, CENTO, and SEATO.

Second. The recognition by the West of the permanent control by the Soviet of European captive nations now behind the Iron Curtain, including the Eastern Zone of Germany.

Third. A nonaggression agreement be

Canal.

The situation in the Caribbean, featured by the securing of revolutionary beachheads in Cuba on the north, and in

Venezuela and British Guiana on the south, with control of the Panama Canal as the key objective, stresses the fact that the crisis in Panama is an important part of the overall revolutionary program for gaining control of such strategic water routes.

In this connection, the Red program is far advanced, with Egypt under pro-Red Nasser controlling the Suez Canal and routes across the Malay Barrier dominated or seriously threatened. Were the United States to surrender control of the Panama Canal, the Red domination of round-the-world water routes would be nearing completion. The conquests so far accomplished in these regards could have been accomplished only through the services of a highly trained general staff of transcendant capacity. In fact,

their performance establishes them as among the most audacious strategists in history.

Mr. Speaker, it is no mere coincidence that the Panama Canal Zone has been chosen for more turmoil in the future Nor than we have had in the past. should it be forgotten that, when Khrushchev delivered his blistering attack on U.S. presence in the Canal Zone on January 17, 1964, at Kalinin, Premier Castro of Cuba was present.

With the United States preoccupied in several key spots in different parts of the world and our leaders absorbed in the coming presidential campaign, it is only natural that certain foreign countries are seeking their own advantages to the distress of our country.

A perceptive article on the behavior of foreign nations at this time by David Lawrence was published in the February 20, 1964, issue of the Evening Star of Washington, D.C.

As this article supplements what my distinguished and scholarly colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FLOOD, and others have repeatedly emphasized in addresses in the Congress, I quote it as part of my remarks: THE BEHAVIOR OF FOREIGN NATIONS SERIES OF CRISES FOR UNITED STATES EXPECTED AFTER NOVEMBER'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(By David Lawrence)

What's going on beneath the surface today in national as well as international affairs can make the year 1965 perhaps the most

critical in this century. During the 8 months before the presidential election, steps will be taken by foreign governments which could involve the United States in a series of crises that may begin to emerge after the presidential election November 3.

What gives most concern at present is the behavior of the foreign governments which have deliberately construed the current election campaign in this country as giving them an opportunity to put into effect policies beneficial to themselves but harmful to the United States.

Unfortunately, presidential elections occur at a fixed time under the American Constitution and cannot be postponed to a more opportune moment, as under the parliamentary system. Foreign governments know that American presidential campaigns are lengthy affairs, and that no President is going to risk his chance for reelection by plunging this country into a military crisis which could demand the drafting of more boys and cause the interruption of the normal lives of many citizens to say nothing of the impact on the economic situation as a whole.

Confident that the President of the United States is virtually stalemated into a posture of inaction, foreign governments feel free to pursue their disturbing policies without fear of reprisals. This not only is true with respect to Castro in Cuba, but is related to the arrogant behavior of Panama and friction in other parts of Latin America.

So far as southeast Asia is concerned, the position of the United States has deteriorated, and there are hints that American military forces will be withdrawn after November. This will be construed as a humiliating defeat for the American Government. Were it not for the presidential election, it is conceivable that the United States would take a more forthright position not only in southeast Asia but toward her own allies who have created ill feeling in the United States by increasing their trade with Red China as well as with Cuba.

The strategy of the Democratic administration appears to be to do nothing which will aggravate or escalate the international

situation. There is a tendency in official

quarters to soft-pedal what is going on behind the scenes in different parts of the world. The press is not being given all the facts about Government moves on the international front or even about the happenings inside Latin America, some of which may well be more threatening than outwardly would appear. Policymaking seems to be predicated on the theory that the Nation wants peace at any price and that this is the way to win a presidential election.

Past experience should, however, have taught a lesson. In 1916, President Wilson was reelected on the campaign slogans "Peace and Prosperity" and "He kept us out of war." But within 6 months after the election, the United States entered World War I.

President Roosevelt campaigned for reelection in 1940 with the cry, "I hate war." But a year after the election, the United States was plunged into World War II.

In both instances, the assumption of the enemy was that the United States, for political reasons, would not enter the war. The Kaiser's government was confident of this and went on torpedoing American ships at sea in the belief that the United States would not take military action. Hitler also was

sure

that this country would not enter World War II in Europe and later persuaded Japan to attack the United States on the supposition that America would become so preoccupied with the conflict in the Pacific Ocean that it would not be able to be of much assistance in fighting the war in Europe.

Throughout these grave periods of history, foreign governments have underestimated the resoluteness of the American people. The Communist policy at the moment is to talk about disarmament and peaceful coexistence, but the Communist drive to take

over Latin America, southeast Asia and Africa continues unabated. The United Nations is powerless to do much about it because Great Britain, France, and United States are in disagreement.

the

But usually these periods of apparent appeasements of a blustering enemy come to a sudden end when the enemy overreaches himself and brings on a situation which simply does not permit the "peace at any price" attitude to be continued. This may produce the big crisis after the American presidential election is over. Many Members of Congress believe the President would be far stronger in the world, and even with his own public opinion, if he manifested a resolute policy rather than a passive and the attitude. Certainly acquiescent months before the election appear to be paving the way for crucial decisions in the year 1965.

8

"I have come to believe," the Governor said, "that charity and relief are not the best answers to human suffering, that the schools are not the answer so long as only a third or a half of our students finish school, that the wealth of America is not the answer

In a thoughtful, thought-provoking address delivered recently in California, the very able and distinguished Under Secretary of Labor, John Henning, has made a major contribution to the discussion which the solution of this problem requires. It is not an address which poses all the answers, nor does it pretend to. But its recommendations are sound. Its approach is searching and

per person for all expenses."

In North Carolina, the Governor went on, "we want to go into a few communities and say to the leaders of schools, government, welfare, health, charity: 'Look, let's work together, let's see if together in a few neighborhoods near here we can't break the cycle of poverty and give these children a better chance.'"

Fifty-one communities, both urban and

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS

OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, while much is heard of the administration's "war on poverty," State and local governments as well as private groups are carrying the burden of the Nation's continuing effort to reduce poverty. An article in the New York Times of March 18 highlighted one such effort-a major assault on poverty by the State of North Carolina developed when the idea of the Federal Government's war on poverty was still a vague concept.

Under unanimous consent, I include the article discussing the North Carolina program in the RECORD:

NORTH CAROLINA PRESSING OWN $14 MILLION WAR ON POVERTY

WASHINGTON, March 17.-The Federal Government's war on poverty was little more than a vague idea when the people of North Carolina decided to act on their own last fall. Now, with the Federal attack on poverty still just getting underway, North Carolina is quietly moving to break the cycle of poverty in which so many children are trapped.

The State's $14 million assault on poverty-the first such State plan in the Nation-has not gone unnoticed by those who have put together President Johnson's program.

The Federal planners, frequently disorganized and arguing among themselves, have turned from time to time to the men who planned the North Carolina program: Gov. Terry Sanford; Paul N. Ylvisaker of the Ford Foundation, the principal contributor to the State's antipoverty campaign; and others.

Copies of the booklet outlining the North Carolina plan have become dog-eared in recent weeks as Federal planners have sought ideas on how best to combat poverty.

PRESIDENT TOOK NOTICE

Even President Johnson has taken notice that North Carolina is ahead of the Federal Government.

"I want to congratulate you on your initiative in mobilizing for an attack on poverty in North Carolina," the President said in a message to State leaders in January.

Months before poverty became the subject of a Federal campaign, plans for the North Carolina program were underway, with funds supplied by the Ford Foundation, the Z.

By mid-April, those administering the program will have chosen 10 of these communities as sites for projects entitled to financial help. The local communities will operate the interracial projects and underwrite part of the cost.

The proposed projects include preschool teaching centers, designed to offset bad home environments; counseling and job training; remedial-education centers; adult-education courses, and services in budgeting and home care for low-income families.

Funds also will be used to establish a learning laboratory, near both the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University at Durham, to study methods of teaching slow learners and problem children and to improve teaching instruction.

The antipoverty planners will also seek to recruit college graduates to work for a year or two in the project communities as part of a sort of domestic Peace Corps.

All of these North Carolina projects-just as the Federal program unveiled today by President Johnson-will focus largely on young people, seeking to help them escape from the poverty in which their families have been trapped for generations.

While generally considered one of the wealthiest and most progressive of Southern States, North Carolina has widespread poverty, particularly among Negroes, who constitute nearly a quarter of the population.

"Definitions of poverty vary," the State antipoverty planners noted in their policy booklet. "But whatever the definition, the record in North Carolina is distressing."

Developing a Sound Domestic Farm Labor Force

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JEFFERY COHELAN

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 12, 1964

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, the major task confronting us in the domestic farm labor field today is a difficult one. It is the task of matching unemployed workers a figure totaling 496,000 in California alone-with the labor requirements of our Nation's agricultural growers and producers. It is a task which has been tragically ignored to date because of the mass importation of braceros-187,000 in 1963-but one which now demands our attention and action.

and careful attention.

The address follows: DEVELOPING A SOUND DOMESTIC FARM LABOR

PROGRAM

(Address by Under Secretary of Labor John F. Henning, before a Conference on the Development of a Domestic Agricultural Labor Force Cosponsored by the State of California and the U.S. Department of Labor, Sacramento, Calif., Friday, March 13, 1964)

I join Governor Brown in cochairing this conference today with a viewpoint shaped from two different sources. The first involves my background as a native Californian; one fully appreciative of the importance of the agricultural industry to this State, one long familiar with the history and application of Public Law 78 here.

The second involves my present role as Under Secretary of Labor and the Department of Labor's Manpower Administrator, in which capacities I am daily forced to deal with the fact that unemployment in our country has been above the 5-percent rate for some 76 consecutive months.

So I am here with two primary considerations in mind. I am deeply interested personally in seeing California make a successful transition from an admixture of foreign and domestic farm labor to a sound and effective program of domestic farm labor alone. And through such a transition, I also want to see-here and elsewhere-how many unemployed Americans can be put to work.

What is the basic situation which has brought us together today? Essentially, three factors are involved. California's major cities continue to be burdened with high levels of unemployment, no fewer than 22 of them according to the Department of Labor's most recent estimate. Secondly, in a State in which agriculture is such a massive economic factor, the truth that no other industry is advancing technologically at a faster rate is becoming more painfully apparent in human terms with each passing year. And following upon this fact, finally, is the consequent rural exodus to the cities, compounding the already existent urban unemployment problem.

Despite this situation, our State has continued over these past years to depend heavily upon the importation of foreign farm labor. Under Public Law 78, last year, the Nation used some 187,000 braceros. Of this total, fully 111,000 came to California.

I don't think that any of us any longer dispute that one of the results of this contradictory farm employment policy has been the persistent maintenance of substandard living conditions for a significant proportion of California's citizens.

Housing is a case in point. Just 3 weeks ago, Governor Brown placed the following revelations before housing subcommittees of both the House and Senate in Washington.

"More than 80 percent of farmworker families live in dwellings which violate standards of health, safety, and comfort.

"Nearly 75 percent of the dwellings occupied by general fieldworkers are dilapidated or deteriorated.

"Pit privies still serve 33 percent of the dwellings occupied by general fieldworkers.