Health-food quackery is bad if it only raids your purse. But gobbling potent vitamins and off-beat nature foods willy-nilly can damage your body, too, warns Dr. Stare: "There are times when persons with real health problems rely on the products of nutritional quackery rather than on sound medical treatment. There are times when people actually create or contribute to their dietary deficiencies by abandoning their normal diets and turning to so-called health foods." One of these was a young secretary. Ordinarily in good health, she began to sense periodic spells of weakness and fatigue. Her friends said she was "probably anemic." When she later heard a television pitchman's smooth spiel for pepping up "tired blood," the secretary convinced herself she had irondeficiency anemia. She swallowed the tonic for 8 months. Meanwhile, she suffered progressive weakness, weight loss, and swollen ankles. Frightened now, she went to a doctor. Diagnosis: chronic nephritis, a kidney disease she had all along. Though she was anemic, too, this stemmed from diseased kidneys-not from causes that could be altered by iron tonic. Luckily, the doctor saved her life, but others who selfdoctor their symptoms with pills, powders, and potions aren't always so fortunate. Slick nutrition peddlers craftily skirt the law just outside of the Goverment's reach. Nutritional quackery is the hardest to prove. Occasionally some are netted. The Federal district court, Detroit, recently gave William L. Abt, naturopath and itinerant health food lecturer, a 1-year suspended jail sentence and fined him $1,000. In 1961 Abt lectured Detroit audiences, sold Health foods, peddled a book on the keys to health and longevity, and offered his products for the treatment and prevention of ailments including cancer, glaucoma, arthritis, heart conditions, and ulcers, FDA said. When he launched a new series last March, FDA inspectors rushed to the scene and obtained criminal information, charging the health foods were misbranded because of lecture statements. Police arrested Abt before he could return to his Canadian home. Later, said FDA, the health-food lecturer changed his plea from innocent to guilty. In truth, most Americans must go out of their way to avoid being overnourished. Then why the fantastic health-fad boom? The experts sum it up: Ignorance, fear, superstition, and hypochondria. All of it exploited by an army of glib health hucksters. Recently, FDA chronicled four myths of nutrition that can help you detect and avoid the health-quack's clutches: Myth No. 1: Impoverished soil produces inferior food leading to malnutrition that can only be offset by natural foods grown by organic farming. Myth No. 2: Our food is devitalized by overprocessing and fails to provide proper nourishment. (This, says the American Medical Association, "is a condemnation of our food industry that is, in fact, supplying us with the most nourishing and wholesome foods in the world.") Myth No. 3: Most, if not all diseases are caused by faulty diet-arthritis, heart disease, anemia, and brittle bones, to name a few. Myth No. 4: Most Americans suffer from "subclinical deficiencies" curable only by dietary supplements. Nonsense, says AMA. Subclinical means without signs or symptoms, unrecognizable with no evidence of disease. By its very definition it cannot exist. FDA, too, has issued warnings against: shotgun vitamin formulas, promising as many as 32 vitamins; expensive "organic" foods that are no more nutritious than gro cery store items: miracle foods alleged to prevent dangerous disease; medically unsupervised diet pills; extravagant mail-order promises; and "health food" lecturers. Alarmed at quackery's spread, authorities are mounting campaigns on many fronts. They look to public education as a means of unmasking the culprits. This is one of the aims of a quackery congress presently to meet in Washington. But there is also the sterner approach. Says Milton P. Duffy of California's Department of Health: "From the vantage point of 47 years of dueling with quacks, I firmly believe there is nothing so educational as a stretch in jailor a stiff fine which takes the profit out of profiteers." TREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, the National Association for Retarded Children recently held its annual convention in Washington. The outcome of this meeting was an indication of great progress in prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of the mentally retarded. Richard J. Hughes, Governor of New Jersey, was the keynote speaker at this convention. Governor Hughes has been vitally interested in the work of this organization. He is chairman of the Governors' Conference Committee on Public Health and Welfare. Within New Jersey he has helped to establish an indisability and has invited the formation terdepartmental committee on lifetime of a Governors' advisory council on the same subject. The Governor's pending bond issue includes provisions for strengthening institutional facilities and developing community centers for group living, sheltered workshops, day care, and other new programs. Governor Hughes' speech is a fine summary of the present efforts to aid retarded children. I ask unanimous consent that this speech be printed in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: ADDRESS OF Gov. RICHARD J. HUGHES TO ANNUAL CONVENTION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN, MAYFLOWER HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 23, 1963 It is indeed a privilege for a fairly recent recruit in the fight against mental retardation to be asked to address a meeting of combat veterans in this field. Despite 10 active years on the New Jersey bench, and numerous civic interests, the tragedy of retardation was but a sad statistic to me until Í became Governor. Then a full confrontation with the dimensions of this problem reshaped my entire outlook. And so, as with most recruits, I expect that I will have to make up in enthusiasm what I lack in knowledge of the complexities of the problem of mental retardation. Yet, I draw a great measure of moral support-as I am sure you do-from the fact that the President of the United States is joined with us in this battle. Truly this must be an exciting time in the life of the National Association for Retarded Children as you review the accomplishments of the past year. After years of struggling in the darkness, you did not despair and in the past year alone you can tally more significant progress than in earlier decades. Among these notable events was the report of the President's Panel on Mental Retarda tion, blueprinting the first national action program for combating mental retardation; the President's message to Congress on mental illness and mental retardation, recommending Federal programs for implementing the report of the President's panel; and the White House Conference on Mental Retardation. I daresay that even the most optimistic among you would not have anticipated this dramatic turn of events. Now your cause is receiving unprecedented attention at the national level. With Dr. Stafford Warren as a Special Assistant to the President for Mental Retardation, you have a spokesman at the highest reaches of Government. And it is your great and good fortune to have as a champion, Mrs. Eunice Kennedy Shriver. But in reciting these instances of recent achievements for the cause of mental retardation, I do not intend to overlook the steady accomplishments over many years of the National Association for Retarded Children and its affiliated State associations and local chapters. Your organization-like the many other voluntary service groups in this country embodies two outstanding characteristics of the American people: the compassionate generosity of the Good Samaritan and the free cooperation of the self-reliant. Let us hope that this tradition of voluntary service shall it adds immeasurably to the health of our prosper for, as demonstrated by your efforts, society. If it were not for the helping hand which you have extended to the mentally retarded, there would be an even greater burden on the conscience of America for the long years of accumulated neglect. My emphasis on the splendid contributions of voluntary associations and the virtues of individual generosity and self-reliance should not be misunderstood as opposition to the social programs of Government rightly responsive to human needs and the demands of social justice. Edmund Burke once observed that "government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants." If we are wise we will recognize that there is a roleproper indeed, I would say, an obligation-for government action, not merely to encourage the activities of private individuals and groups, but to provide for the general welfare when human needs are beyond the competence of individual citizens and their voluntary associations. lem and the demands of social justice necesCertainly, both the dimensions of the probsitate the use of that "contrivance of human wisdom" in the service of the mentally retarded. In his message to Congress on mental illness and mental retardation, President Kennedy clearly stated the reasons for the involvement of Government. In his words: "The fact that mental retardation ordinarily exists from birth or early childhood, the highly specialized medical, psychological, and educational evaluations which are required, and the complex and unique social, educational, and vocational lifetime needs of the retarded individual, all require that there be developed a comprehensive approach to this specific problem." For the first time we have a President who has given full recognition to this Nation's obligation to the afflicted and their families and has initiated a bold new approach to the problems of mental retardation. We all have a duty-every State in the Union-to become involved in the action program set forth in the report of the President's Panel on Mental Retardation. What is needed is a partnership of service to the mentally retarded. And if this partnership is to be successful, if it is to deliver a satisfactory range of services to those afflicted, we must put aside those petty jealousies and parochial concerns which often bog down the bureaucracy. We must put aside the sterile debates over intergovernmental relationships which ignore the actual arrangements of roles and functions of the American system of cooperative federalism. Our focus should be functional-fixed on those persons in need of services. All levels of government, along with private individuals and associations, should work together with each contributing the service of which it is best suited and most capable. This concept assumes no prejudice against any level of government, rather it seeks to reflect the reality of the American system. Americans have fashioned many combinations of intergovernmental programs which are devised not to achieve a single logical pattern of fixed jurisdictions, but to get on with the business of America. Having recognized the practical diversity of intergovernmental arrangements, I would like to call attention to the important role of State government: "State leaders, especially those in public positions, have a particularly useful perspective on the needs of their citizens as well as on the State's resources for meeting those needs. This perspective is denied to the local community because it is too small and too close to the problem. It is likewise denied to the Federal Government because it is too large and too distant, and lacks the authority for direct action which has been reserved to the States." It is clear then that the success or failure of this major national effort will depend upon the response of our States to the recommendations of the President's panel. Speaking as Governor of New Jersey, I fully accept that obligation, that responsibility for leadership in my own State. Speaking as chairman of the Governors' Conference Committee on Public Health and Welfare, I urge that my fellow Governors throughout the country recognize this obligation and their responsibility for leadership in our fight against mental retardation. No elected official should be hesitant to join in partnership with other levels of government and voluntary associations for service to the mentally retarded. Yet, some are reluctant to translate their admitted moral obligation into the necessary facilities and programs. It is up to you-your associations working with other interested individuals and groups-to build the bonfires under your State leaders and your fellow citizens and to keep them burning until you get action. With the full support of the national administration now committed to your cause, there has never been a more opportune time to develop public awareness of the problem of mental retardation so that support for new and improved programs can ben generated in the local communities. I wonder, for instance, how many of our citizens appreciate what might be called the "iceberg factor" of mental retardation, that great body-estimated to be 75 to 85 percent of mildly retarded-who are the products of poverty and the other kinds of social and cultural deprivations found in city tenements and rural slums. The public must be made to realize that such conditions result in a tremendous waste of human resources and a substantial drain on the public treasury. But let no one think that the task will be easy. I can testify to that from my own present campaign to secure the passage of a bond program which in the field of mental retardation would provide funds for strengthening our institutional facilities and developing new programs, including community centers for group living, sheltered workshops and day care. I would alert you to the type of citizen who is immune to the call of conscience, whose sole interest is defined in tax dollars: I recall one such CIX-1324 citizen confronting me with the query"Why don't you worry about the 97 percent of us (taxpayers) who aren't mentally retarded?" Perhaps it might be possible to convince such a person that the financial consequences to the taxpayer of untreated, untrained mentally retarded can be substantial. In this as in any field, preventative action is sound economics as well as humane public policy. Efficient and effective programs of service require comprehensive planning and coordination of effort. There is a critical need for cooperation between the departments and agencies at all levels of government. in New Jersey, working with the New Jersey Association for Retarded Children, have established this year an interdepartmental committee on lifetime disability. It is composed of five cabinet members from the appropriate departments and a representative of the Governor's office, and its function is to plan and coordinate State services to all those with permanent handicap. The aim, of course, is to strengthen our services to the handicapped so that they will be brought out of the shadows and into the world of opportunity for personal growth, self-respect, and independence. To augment the work of the interdepartmental committee, I have invited a broad representation of lay and professional citizens to form a Governor's advisory council on lifetime disability. The council will bring the public, voluntary, and professional efforts into coordination with the planning and the programs developed by the interdepartmental committee. As I see the function of the advisory council, it would operate as a constructive critic and as a consumer's representative, so to speak. For this reason we have insisted on a clear distinction between the government authorities with administrative responsibility and the advisory group comprised of professional people, interested lay leaders, and representatives of the consumers of the services. I would like to think that an advisory council would be in a position to alert the Governor as the watchdog of the State's programs. It does not serve the interest of the handicapped to have an advisory council so closely identified with those planning and administering services that it would fail to exercise a critical function for fear of offending a pleasant, but ineffective government official. And lest I seem to be deserting members of the governmental establishment, let me offer a cautionary word to those interested and single-minded citizens who are apt to be overcritical of the efforts of government authorities. Most such citizens do not feel the broad impact of competing demands upon the scarce resources of their governments. Nothing is quite as sobering as looking down the doubled-barrel of increasing needs and diminishing revenues. This point was well made by the late Commissioner John Tramburg, who many of you in other States admired and respected as we in New Jersey did. In speaking to the 1961 annual convention of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, Commissioner Tramburg warned of professional workers who "ask for program expansion without successfully undertaking broad information policies that might result in the taxpayer and elected representative supporting such programs despite any reflected increase in taxes." Although adding that note of caution, I am not an apostle of patience. Considering that we are faced with what President Kenneedy has called "the tradition of neglect," impatience is clearly required. And we must communicate a sense of impatience to the public as well as the realization that there is much that can be done to eliminate those conditions which cause so much retardation. For as was stated by the President's panel: "Our greatest hope for a major victory over mental retardation lies in the general measures-long-range in character-which are designed to overcome the social and economic ills which plague the underprivileged in our society." The National Association for Retarded Children will undoubtedly join in such a broad spectrum attack. I would hope that you will be found fighting not only for specific programs, such as PKU testing, sheltered work programs and mental retardation facilities construction, but for the kinds of social and economic policies and programs which offer the promise of raising the living level of the underprivileged. While we may never completely eliminate adverse environmental conditions, each advance against the unrealized needs of those who are in want pays the dividends of fewer retarded children. This is a great fight, and one which may in our time never result in total victory; but it is a fight which edifies its participants and permits them to leave on the face of this troubled world a record of noble and high achievement, perhaps the highest within the reach of ordinary mortals. Understanding this, I rejoice in being your companion in this struggle upward toward the light. STAN MUSIAL Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, one of baseball's truly great men has retired this year after 22 years in the sport. Stan Musial, for the full duration of his career, played dedicated and sporting baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals, and has now retired from active playing to become a vice president of the ball club. The Daily Home News, of New Brunswick, N.J., on August 28, 1963, printed an an editorial honoring "Stan, the Man," Musial. I would also like to call your attention to a letter to the editor written by Mr. John J. Wolczanski, executive director, New Jersey Polish-American League. Mr. Wolczanski pays appropriate tribute to Stan Musial, "son of a Polish immigrant." Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial and letter be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the editorial and letter were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New Brunswick (N.J.) Home News, Aug. 28, 1963] LEARNING FROM STAN Stan Musial, no doubt, has taught many people many things. (This includes plenty of pitchers not to serve up a fat pitch to him.) Even so, there's one lesson that all of us-especially the youngsters-can learn from this sterling player, retiring after 22 years of major league play. His great success was compounded on a disappointment. When he broke into baseball in 1938 he wanted to be a pitcher. After 2 years he developed arm trouble and nearly quit the sport. His manager in the minors talked him into trying the outfield and his willingness to stick it out, even though he felt he'd failed, led to fame and records in the book. In Gene Ward's column appearing in the New York Daily News (Sunday edition) on Sunday, September 29, 1963, a notable statement by Hank Sauer, the old Cub and Giant outfielder, summed it up for all of us in one sentence. "Any guy who ever says anything bad about Stan Musial has to have something wrong with him." That said it That said it all. On Sunday, October 6, the color magazine section of the New York Daily News again (God bless them), a picture and story by Stan will be published by Benjamin K. Handel, magazine editor. STAN MUSIAL, "GENTLEMAN OF BASEBALL" AND President, the New Brunswick Home News, DEAR MR. BOYD: As a great admirer of Stanley F. Musial, the great St. Louis Cardinals National League baseball star, I wish to cordially thank you for the excellent editorial you published on "Stan, the Man" in your newspaper on Wednesday, August 28, 1963. It was a never-forgettable thrill for me personally to represent New Jersey Gov. Richard J. Hughes and the people of New Jersey by presenting a citation to Mr. Musial at the New York Polo Grounds, where a "Musial Night" was held in his honor last year. Among other admirers and messages sent that evening was from the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. We, from 8 to 80 can learn many facts of life from the son of a Polish immigrant, who is known as the "Gentleman of Baseball." Among his virtues, he never argues with an umpire or refuses to give his autograph. Baseball will lose a great public relations man. We will miss his happy smile and peculiar stance at the home plate. He is a credit to American sportsdom. JOHN J. WOLCZANSKI, ANTIDUMPING LEGISLATION Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. President, as the first session of the 88th Congress draws into its final weeks, it becomes increasingly difficult to expect any action this year on a piece of legislation that remains, nevertheless, of important and even vital concern to our economy. I am referring to the antidumping amendment, S. 1318, and H.R. 5692, and other related bills in the House, which would tighten loopholes and provide for fairer, more effective procedures in the administration of the Antidumping Act of 1921. What we have proposed is a moderate, constructive amendment which does not alter the act of 1921's basic purpose, philosophy, or function; nor does it conflict with the Trade Expansion Act. This bill has received the enthusiastic bipartisan support of 27 Senators and 50 Representatives, as well as about 2 dozen affected trade associations, industry groups and labor unions. While it appears that time may run out on us this calendar year, with the decision to conduct hearings on the President's medicare bill in the House Ways and Means Committee, I know that the sponsors of the proposed Antidumping Act amendment are deeply hopeful that hearings will be called early next session, and that Congress may proceed to an orderly consideration of this legislation. In the meantime, interest in this amendment remains high, and discussion of the purposes and possible effects of the amendment continues vigorously. This is well, for in the period until hearings are definitely determined and scheduled, wide public discussion may help to bring about a consensus on the need for this legislation. In introducing the amendment, I did not contemplate that the precise language of the proposal would ultimately be adopted. Rather, the proposal was designed to provoke discussion, hearings and ultimately to produce legislation refined in the legislative process which would carry out the general purposes of the proposal. Those purposes I now wish to review briefly. On the basic problem of dumping, I believe there to be very wide agreement. Dumping is an unfair trade practice. The Antidumping Act of 1921 is sound in principle. And there appears to be widespread agreement that only changes in the act can provide for fairer and more effective administration of the act. In its efforts to tighten loopholes that have appeared in the act, this legislation proposes the following: Legal authority for Treasury Department flexibility necessary to meet the problem of dumping from Communist countries. Consolidation of complaints against dumping, so that related complaints may be filed and considered together, rather than being sent to the Tariff Commission country by country. Penalties against filing of false information or failure to file on the part of foreign manufacturers, foreign exporters and importers. Strengthening the Treasury Department's ability to consider appropriate larger margin in evaluating pricing formulas used by "dummy" foreign exporters. Permitting quantity discounts for exporters to the United States only if they actually reflect cost savings, as in the Robinson-Patman Act. In seeking to provide fairer, more effective administration procedures, the amendment would Place a reasonable limitation on amount of time that the Treasury Department can take in dumping cases, with escape valves where necessary. Require the Treasury to publish fuller reports on facts and reasoning behind the Treasury's dumping determinations. Require Treasury to issue proposed reports so that interested parties may have an opportunity to correct any fallacies and to supply additional information. Require that complainants under the act should have disclosed to them nonconfidential cost data used against them. Provide for dismissal by Treasury within 15 days of any unsupportable complaint. Failure to dismiss complaint would not cause automatic withplaint would not cause automatic withholding of appraisement. Clarify the right to judicial review, for both importers and complainants, of Treasury and Tariff Commission findings. Mr. President, these are the general objectives of the amendment. I recognize that the specific proposals may very well be improved or modified in the legislative process. I shall welcome the close attention of the appropriate committees of the Congress, and the opportunity for full public discussion which any good legislation requires prior to enactment. There has been considerable criticism of the Treasury Department relative to its enforcement of the Antidumping Act, and in all fairness, I asked the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, James A. Reed, to comment for the record on some of the major criticism of his Department on this score. The able Assistant Secretary of the Treasury consequently prepared for me a letter which I am pleased to note demonstrates a considerable stepup in the level of enforcement of the Antidumping Act since the advent of the Kennedy administration. In other words, while I believe that the law can be amended to provide for better procedures, we must applaud the action of Treasury in its improvement over the previous administration. At the same time, I am pleased to be informed by Assistant Secretary Reed that the Department is preparing to conduct "a review of the entire procedure in the Treasury Department and the Customs regulations under the Antidumping Act to determine whether there are changes which should be made to improve the administration of the law." This is a constructive, affirmative attitude, and I commend Assistant Secretary Reed and the Department for this decision. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from Assistant Secretary of the Treasury James A. Reed, in which he reviews the recent history of his Department in the antidumping field. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, September 11, 1963. The Honorable HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HUMPHREY: I appreciate very much your giving me the opportunity to present a few comments on behalf of the Treasury Department relative to enforcement of the Antidumping Act. Our job in the Treasury Department is to determine if there is dumping as to pricethat is (in the typical case) if imported goods are sold in the United States below a foreign producer's home price. The Tariff Commission's job is to determine if there is injury to American industry. If both injury and price discrimination are present, a dumping finding is made and dumping duties are assessed. In addition, where price discrimination is found but the foreign producer thereafter makes price revisions to correct the situation and the amounts involved are minimal, Treasury often closes the case without reference to the Tariff Commission upon assurance that the revisions will remain in effect. It should also be noted that while the dumping cases are being processed, Treasury withholds appraisement if there is reason to believe or suspect the presence of price discrimination. In the past 9 years Treasury has found price discrimination and, accordingly, has taken action in protection of U.S. industry in approximately one-third of the cases presented to it. This enforcement record has been considerably stepped up under the Kennedy administration. Whereas, during the period 1955-60, determinations of dumping price by the Treasury or price revisions by foreign producers ending dumping were found in only 27 percent of the cases processed, the figure for 1961 was 40 percent, and the figure for 1962 was 60 percent. Withholding of appraisement, which often brings imports to a stop while cases are being processed, has increased from an average of 10 percent of cases processed in the middle 1950's to 50 percent in the past year. With reference to steel products, the Treasury Department has passed upon five cases involving steel wire rods of which four were sent to the Tariff Commission with determinations of dumping price. Six cases are pending with regard to steel pipe, but no decision has been reached in any of these cases. A year ago an interdepartmental study group was formed to consider in detail what improvements should be made in the administration of the Antidumping Act. Recommendations were formulated, largely de signed to speed up the administration, which have now been placed in effect. Recently a study was completed by an outside consultant on the troublesome question of low-price imports from Japan. Recommendations were made as to how this question should be further explored, and these recommendations are now being followed. It is natural that when the Treasury rejects a complaint the domestic producer often alleges that his position, views on the law, and allegation of fact have been given inadequate or improper consideration. Similarly, when the Treasury finds sales at a dumping price, the foreign exporter, his government, and the American importer are likely to allege that the Antidumping Act is being enforced unfairly in favor of the interest of domestic manufacturers. Accordingly, over the years we have received numerous protests from both sides. Since we endeavor to administer the law with impartiality, this no doubt will continue to be the case. We do not, however, look on the situation with complacency and are about to conduct a review of the entire procedure in the Treasury Department and the customs regulations under the Antidumping Act to determine whether there are changes which should be made to improve the administration of the law. Sincerely yours, JAMES A. REED. COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN LATIN AMERICA Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, before the Senate concludes its business tonight, I wish to comment on one particular aspect of the foreign aid bill which is before the Senate. In my presentation in support of the foreign aid program last week, I referred briefly to the role of the cooperative movement as applied in the development of Latin America. Last week, in my speech on the Alliance for Progress, I referred briefly to the role which the cooperative movement is playing in the development of Latin America. I mentioned that I have of fered an amendment to the existing aid bill to assist in the development in an inter-American cooperative finance system. The amendment was accepted by the Foreign Relations Committee and is incorporated into the bill before the Senate, and also in the committee's report on the bill. I would like to speak briefly today on this section of the bill. A significant breakthrough in expanding the self-help, private enterprise feature of our assistance program in Latin America is made by new provisions in cluded in H.R. 7885 which authorizes the President to "assist in promoting the organization, implementation, and growth of the cooperative movement in Latin America as a fundamental measure toward strengthening of democratic inward strengthening of democratic institutions and practices and economic and social development under the Alliance for Progress." This was the amendment I introduced 2 years ago to encourage giving further attention to the cooperative movement in this hemisphere. There are today nearly 6 million people in Latin America who are already members of more than 16,000 cooperamembers of more than 16,000 cooperatives. These cooperatives are urban and rural. They deal in credit and fishing. rural. They deal in credit and fishing. They are trying to provide housing and transportation. In short, they include people from every walk of life. The charter of Punta del Este and the inauguration of the Alliance for Progress are offering new hope and new expectations among these people and among the milamong these people and among the millions who are not yet a part of any institution or system which permits them to participate in their own economic development and the economic development of their countries. A strong integrated cooperative movement offers one of the finest means through which a significant segment of these masses can organize their own institutions to permit them to participate economically and which, incidentally, will teach them the value of a private enterprise system and the value of practicing democracy. gives them a stake in the stability of their own government since they will, for the first time, own something which can be lost. It A strong cooperative movement provides: First. Locally owned and locally controlled institutions in the hands of the people themselves through which their savings and efforts can be utilized for the improvement of their living standards; Second. A growing private enterprise system; Third. A strengthening of the buying or marketing power of the smallest purchasers or sellers; Fourth. A means through which the untrained can afford to hire the highly untrained can afford to hire the highly trained to work in their interests on a self-sustaining basis; and Fifth. An incentive to save and invest for the future. Equally as important in a strong cooperative movement is the social effect of First. Developing leadership within the institutions and an understanding of the role of leadership in community development; Second. Dramatizing in a practical way the benefits of working together; Third. Dramatizing the meaning of democracy, majority rule, and the equal dignity and worth of the individual since each individual has one vote as a person; and Fourth. A greater appreciation of the value of the free enterprise system in a democracy where people work together democracy where people work together to promote their common ends rather than organizing to oppose or destroy. Great strides have already been undertaken since the Charter of Punta del Este to lay the groundwork and the basis for the kind of developments which the new legislation in H.R. 7885 envisages. In February of this year the cooperative movement of this hemisphere met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to formally establish the Organization of the Cooperatives of America (OCA). Latin American cooperatives are for the first time, now united through their common organization to maximize the principle of self-help. OCA undertook, with a limited staff made possible by AID, a major socioeconomic survey of the status of the cooperative movement in Latin America, the favorable and unfavorable conditions for its development, and guidelines for its future growth. One hundred and thirty-six volunteers from seventeen countries performed this study, the first of its kind ever undertaken in Latin America. Secondly, the leaders of OCA, recognizing the necessity to unite and develop their programs throughout the hemisphere, requested AID and AID had a major feasibility study made to show them how to organize an inter-American cooperative financing system. The proposed cooperative financing system is intended to become a selfsufficient, privately owned credit system which could finance Latin American cooperatives, attracting private capital from the United States, Europe, and Latin America rather than becoming continuingly and increasingly dependent on the U.S. Government. The Inter-American Cooperative Finance Institute-IACFI-would serve the cooperatives of Latin America in much the same way as the U.S. Banks for Cooperatives have served farm cooperatives in this country since 1934. The Central Bank for Cooperatives and its 12 associated regional banks in the United States were organized as a private credit system although the Federal Government contributed all of the initial capital and retained important controls over operations. Borrowing cooperatives have systematically increased their equity in the banks because they have been required to buy stock in proportion to their loans. The Cooperative Banks began to retire the Government capital in 1956; ultimately the U.S. Banks for Cooperatives will be wholly owned by their cooperative borrowers. This private financial system can and does borrow approximately $500 million in Wall Street without the guarantee of the Government at interest rates only slightly higher than those paid by the Federal Government. The proposed IACFI system for Latin American cooperatives would be similarly financed and organized. The lendable resources of the central bank, in Washington, initially would come from the sale of stock to Latin American cooperatives and from external financing from the U.S. Government in local currencies which H.R. 7885 would authorize and some hard currencies from an international lending agency such as AID. The cooperatives of Latin America have recognized that their control of such a system would only be achieved to the extent that their own investment in such a system warrants such control. The proposed system contemplates the borrowing described above over a period of 5 years. It is anticipated that with a history of successful operations, IACFI would be able to borrow in Wall Street and in Europe although probably at a higher interest rate than is paid by the U.S. Banks for Cooperatives. The Inter-American Institute in Washington would generally discount loans to Latin American cooperatives made by other institutions or participate in loans too large for other cooperative finance institutions and only occasionally lend directly to cooperatives. All loans would be accompanied by appropriate technical assistance measures. National Cooperative Finance Institutes-Nacfi's-would be formed in many countries with domestic capital while IACFI would provide technical assistance and discount privileges. There are appropriate cooperative financial institutions in a few countries which could be made more effective by the establishment of IACFI. The cooperative movement in Latin America through the Organization of the Cooperatives of America has endorsed the proposed plans for this system and have indicated a willingness to undertake the obligations of participating in such a system. The cooperatives in several countries are already taking steps looking toward the establishment of the Inter-American Cooperative Finance System. Action is already underway in Chile, Peru, and Ecuador while cooperative banks are already in being in Uruguay and Venezuela. Individual cooperatives have for some time been seeking adequate financing for projects which they cannot initiate for the lack of a financing system. These include food processing; livestock and fishery development; coffee, cacao, and banana marketing and export cooperatives; consumer co-op markets; fertilizer, feed, seed, and other farm supply cooperatives, and so forth. New provisions in H.R. 7885 providing for the expansion and growth of cooperatives in Latin America attack one of the major ills afflicting Latin American growth; namely, rural poverty. The use of local currencies along the lines provided for in this legislation not only makes effective use of local currency resources available to the U.S. Government but stimulates economic activities which will tend to lessen the need for U.S. Government loans and grants of dollars to Latin America. This cooperative financing system will serve well the purposes of another great institution which our Government is participating in. The social projects division of the American Institute for Free Labor Development is carrying out the great task of developing a free and democratic trade union movement. Those social projects rely almost exclusively upon the development of cooperatives sponsored by free trade unions. The AIFLD is supported by the U.S. business community and foundations, by the AFL-CIO, and by AID. The Agency for International Development has made extensive progress in developing a program for the establishment of a wide variety of self-sustaining cooperative institutions. These include credit unions, rural electric co-ops, housing cooperatives, savings and loan associations, marketing cooperatives, farm supply cooperatives, transportation cooperatives, and so forth. It has become increasingly apparent that the ultimate success of these programs depends in large measure upon the development of a proper financing mechanism. This This legislation offers a concrete step for the immediate development of such an institution. The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations very clearly indicates the support which it gives to this proposal by singling it out for special emphasis in this bill. President Kennedy, David Bell, Administrator of the Agency for International Development, and Teodoro Moscoso, the U.S. Coordinator of the Alliance for Progress, have been emphasizing the importance of self-help measures and the role of private enterprise in developing nations. This legislation can be made effective almost immediately to carry out those great objectives. I am sure that I speak for all jectives. I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that we shall look forward to this course of action. AID IMPROVES PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN LATIN Recognizing this, AID has given increasing attention to this area and instituted a number of programs in fiscal year 1963 in Latin America. Success or failure in the long run will hinge upon continuing and expanding this. In this area we must promote rapid but realistic administrative reform. It is not easy to achieve quick and meaningful administrative change, but we cannot wait for any Latinized Hoover Commission to get going. We must train sufficient numbers of local leaders to develop both a nucleus of competence and a better climate for reform. Such are the indispensable ingredients for significant administrative improvement anywhere. The opportunities are limitless, whether we look at the central man agement functions such as budgeting and accounting, the organization for planning, statistical services, personnel and procurement practices, or whether we look at functional fields such as public works, agriculture, and education. It is not only the public administrative section which needs attention. The private sector is also important. Indeed it will have to carry the greatest load in developing Latin America. I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to a summary of the activities carried on in these vital areas in Latin America during the past fiscal year, 1963. This provides a summary on developments in Latin America in the field of public administration, similar to those on land reform, tax reform, housing and private enterprise which I include as appendices to my Alliance for Progress speech delivered in the Senate earlier this week. I ask unanimous consent to have this summary printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION IN LATIN AMERICA-SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES, FISCAL YEAR 1963 I. INTRODUCTION This report highlights AID's activities in the field of development administration during the period July 1, 1962-June 30, 1963. Some of the more significant new activities are summarized first to show changes and increases in the program during fiscal year 1963. This is followed by a review of activities initiated in earlier years which, though limited, provided the indispensable base for this year's developments. The long-term AID staff in the field fell to less than 40 in 14 countries and on re gional assignments during the year, consistent with the total program shift to accelerated use of selected contractors and other Federal agencies such as the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service. During the year, OAS somewhat strengthened its resources in the field of public finance and administration. The Development Administration Division maintained close day-to-day working relationships in the development and execution of programs to assure that AID's activities complemented those of OAS. Similar informal working relationships were maintained with UNTAA which has a limited public administration program in Latin America. II. NEW ACTIVITIES IN FISCAL YEAR 1963 A. Fiscal administration 1. The program to enlist the cooperation of the Internal Revenue Service in tax modernization in Latin America was developed, an an interagency agreement was signed, and the program is in operation. IRS has constituted a 3-man Washington foreign tax assistance staff and during fiscal year 1963 made available 24 men for service in 11 countries in Latin America. 2. The Latin America Tax Assistance Reserve (LATAR) was established under AID financing and is now operational. By September, 25 IRS men will be in training for service in Latin America. The program provides for 16 weeks of special training, including 8 weeks of Spanish, for men who will be assigned directly overseas or will be on call from their regular IRS positions to meet the needs for tax administration advisors in Latin America. 3. Comprehensive surveys were made by AID/W organized teams of fiscal adminis tration in Peru and Ecuador and of tax administration in Guatemala and Honduras. Surveys of customs administration were made in Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Peru. 4. Following the fiscal survey, the first loan for administrative and fiscal reform was developed and approved by AID for Ecuador. Work has been started on a contract between the GOE and the Internal Revenue Service, the first of its type, to be financed through a loan, for modernization of Ecuadorian tax administration. Some 50 Ecuadorian tax auditors were trained in Quito by a USAID |