pride a means of lulling us into continuing our "relaxation" while the Soviet Government strengthens its hold on the peoples of Eastern Europe and infiltrates Latin America?

How should America fight the cold war-or any other kind of war? By letting the other fellow pick his own battleground, even as we hold back our real force, the power that is built by the voice of truth? For we must by day and night keep reminding the Soviet people that in the overthrow of their tyrannical leaders lies their only hope and our only hope of world peace. What has happened to our initiative?

Address by Hon. Barry Goldwater Before

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BOB WILSON

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, November 4, 1963

Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, the Republican women of California were thrilled last month to present as their featured speaker our distinguished colleague from the other body, the Honorable BARRY GOLDWATER. Under unanimous consent, I include as a portion of my remarks the text of his speech of October 3, 1963, before the California Federation of Republican Women at the Hotel Del Coronado, in Coronado, Calif., in my congressional district: REMARKS BY SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER, REPUBLICAN, OF ARIZONA, BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN, OCTOBER 3, 1963, CORONADO, CALIF.

I am very glad to be here today and I will tell you why.

Like President Kennedy, I thoroughly enjoy these nonpolitical safaris into the Far West. They give you a chance to get out and meet the people and kiss a few babies. They give you a bright feeling of being able to grind a political ax behind a smokescreen of nonpartisanship.

Of course, if you have been reading the newspapers you know that the President's tour was devoted to the cause of "conservation." Now I hope you got the word correctly. I said "conservation," not "conservatism."

And, even though there is a lot of substance that connects these two words, I think you should know that the President had in mind such things as natural resources, wildlife preserves, waterway systems, and national parks. This, of course, is commendable even though the projects mentioned are the kind that appeal to large blocs of American voters.

Now, I have been making a few appearances, too. And I must confess that my major objective these days is conservation. But it is a different kind of conservation than the one which held the President's nonpolitical attention. My interest is in conserving the basic values of American life, as well as conserving our natural resources and the like.

But I suggest that what really needs conserving today-in the most urgent and important sense-is the freedom of the individual, the military strength of the Nation and the constitutional system of checks and balances and our capitalist economic system.

in and take on the tough chores. You know men are sometimes a little reluctant to do the doorbell ringing, or work on registration, or handle the mailing and telephone campaigns. But never the women. They work with the enthusiasm of dedication to a great

cause.

Frankly, I don't know what we would do in the Republican Party without the women who go in for political action. I shudder to think what might have happened to me in my two campaigns for the U.S. Senate if it hadn't been for the women who worked and, of course, the women who voted.

Let me say that I commend you for your efforts and I salute you for your accomplishments in the field of sound government and individual freedom. You can take it from me, if you will, that the Republican women, not only here in California but all over the country, are an indispensable adjunct to the rough-and-tumble campaign we face next year. And I believe that anyone who has the good fortune to run for public office on the Republican ticket next year will find it highly comforting to wake every morning to the sure knowledge that women like you are backing him and working for him.

While traveling out here I got to thinking about the recent events in the Congress and in the Government and I became more convinced than ever that Washington is the "Wonderland of the World" under the present administration.

Since the end of World War II we've spent billions beefing up our security so that Khrushchev couldn't bury us, only to discover that in the past few weeks what the Kennedys are really working for is a SovietAmerican mutual aid society.

Think it over. In less than a month the New Frontier has offered to pick up the check for half the cost of a joint shot to the moon, stop testing nuclear weapons in the air and, finally, bail out the highly vaunted Soviet farm collective with a lot of what I'm willing to bet will be tons of free American wheat. There is an old line somewhere that goes: "If you can't lick them join them,” but I for one am not quite ready to lay down and play Rover to Kremlin tunes. And I doubt if any of you are either.

I think the trouble is that within the past few years we've been getting a brainwashing on the subject of Soviet capabilities. Some of those who are pushing the hardest for accommodation with the Communists would have us believe that the Soviets are superior to us all the way across the board. They have a better educational system, some professors claim; they have better vocational schools, some planners insist; they have a better agricultural system; better scientists, and so on and so on. In fact, we seem to have been exposed to some kind of Redpainted Utopia where those who once wanted to bury us are now mellowing. We are led to believe that Americans, in distrusting the Russians, are creating world tensions that

must be reduced. We never seem to hear about the world tensions which the Soviets have created. The President, in one of his nonpolitical speeches last week, insisted that under his administration Communists have been stopped.

All I can say is that if they were stopped in Cuba, if they have been stopped in Laos, if they have been stopped in Vietnam, if they have been pushed back in Berlinthen I will eat my babushka. We have, however, prevented them from landing on Miami-they are still 90 miles away.

I think we ought to be proud of America and the fact that throughout the cold war we have not been the instigators of tension between East and West. I think we ought to stick up for America, the only country in the world that I know of that goes around asking everybody what they think of us.

If your husband thought there was something wrong with him, he would probably talk it over with you and not trot around the neighborhood taking a public opinion poll on his faults. But not the New Frontier. The architects of the present administration want to know what Khrushchev's temperature is every morning. They want to know how General deGaulle enjoyed his breakfast. They want to know every last syllable of what Mao Tse-tung had to say about Russia in his latest diatribe.

At the State Department I suppose all of this international gossip is highly interesting. But what to me is vastly more important is what our sworn enemies are doingnot what they say or how they feel.

What today is actually going on in this country in the administration's dealings with foreign nations is a vast campaign to see no difference, hear no difference, and speak no difference. There seems to be a sort of quasi-official feeling that we are engaging in a love feast with the Soviets that only we can disrupt.

Along the New Frontier the idea is to conform or keep quiet. Nothing must be done to ruffle Mr. Khrushchev's feelings or lead him to think that we are superior to the Soviets in any category. We do not hear a tough note out of this administration unless it is directed at one of our tried and proven allies.

Actually the President has my sympathy. Not all of it, but some of it.

Vigor-or vigah-is now a galloping ghost. It is being expended where it doesn't count. The strength which we spent billions to build is no longer used in the fashion that General Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles used to protect freedom against an aggressive enemy. No, today we must sign a treaty with the very people the President went on nationwide television just a year ago to accuse of perfidy in Cuba. What makes these international liars any more trustworthy today than they were 12 months ago when they sat in the President's Office and insisted they had no offensive missiles in Cuba? What makes us accept the idea that this nuclear test ban treaty is different from the dozens and dozens of other treaties which the Soviets have broken?

On the domestic front, the New Frontier is equally disappointing. In Washington right now you are passé unless you agree that Government has got to grow at the same rate as the population. President Kennedy is just as convinced of this today as he is with the idea that without him America would not be going forward.

I suggest there is no logic in trying to connect population growth with Government growth. For example, there are fewer farmers today but there are far more paid employees in the Department of Agriculture. If it keeps up at the present rate there will be a bureaucrat in Washington for every individual engaged in tilling the soil.

Not many years ago a corporation I happen to know about totaled its profits, filed its tax return, and went about its business of sup

plying the American public with goods and services, creating jobs in the process. Today that same corporation has to file 3,600 Government forms every year on tax matters alone. Another firm files 37,683 Government reports annually totaling 48,285 man-hours of work-labor that produces absolutely nothing except an excuse for hiring more file clerks in Washington.

I have heard that it costs the railroads $5 million a year just to file reports with the Interstate Commerce Commission. This, of course, is a sick industry and you can guess why.

Actually, you know, the Government is smothering us with loving kindness and devoted attention to our private affairs. The cost in dollars alone is phenomenal, but it is far more serious when it is counted in

individual liberties.

In the first 6 months of this session of Congress President Kennedy made 207 requests for spending authority and 70 requests for additional executive power.

This, again following the population growth, is an increase of more than 100 money requests and 40 power requests over the requests to the entire session of the previous Congress.

Actually there is scarcely a corner, a niche or a cranny of our lives that isn't covered by some real or proposed edict of government. I don't see how we take it and I hope that, with your help, we won't have to take it much longer.

I say to you that the way to keep this country great is to give it the freedom to breathe, to stop laying hands on our people every time a new child is born, to stop the Government from peering over our shoulders at every juncture of human endeavor.

Sometimes we're inclined to forget that nothing was leaning over the shoulders of our Founding Fathers but loaded muskets when they put together a new governmental experiment in human freedom.

Inventiveness, free enterprise, and a willingness to work and grow in our own way led to the building of the most productive Nation the world has ever known.

The same things will keep it growing, if our people have a chance to display these virtues.

In California you've got problems. We all have problems and we must seize the chance to solve most of them ourselves because unless we keep the door bolted and the windows fastened, somebody from Washington will be out here trying to solve them for usand at double the local cost.

And, of course, when Washington moves in on a local problem, we get far more than help. We get tons of advice and counsel and beneath the well-modulated suggestions will be the mailed fist of centralized government. Now there are cures for these problems.

need them. And I doubt that a single one of them could pollute our party or strain our integrity after the many years we have stood for what is right and just and honorable for our beloved country.

Republicans do not have to be told what will happen to America if we continue down the road the administration is traveling. It is a road that leads to ruin, and you know it as well as I do.

It's a historic road, littered with the bodies of dead governments and wrecked freedom. It's a road that goes nowhere but downhill.

In my mind it's almost a sin when vigorous, intelligent, and economically independent people turn to the Federal Government for aid and succor in solving most of their community and State problems when they

can be solved close to home.

There is a place for the Federal Government in our lives—a big one.

It was conceived by our Founding Fathers as an instrument to raise the militia and the money to support them to protect us from aggression.

That is a function it can do and it is a

function Americans respond to with patriotic willingness.

The blame for our failures in confining the functions of the Federal Government lies not alone with the President or the Presidents who preceded him. Congress must bear an equal burden in creating the climate of centralism that has engulfed us.

I say to you here today, that the remedy is not half as drastic as the disease. The remedy is to elect Republicans in large numbers to the House and Senate next year as you choose a Republican President.

The only pain and suffering will be on the other side, and it will be enlightening to handle the whole problem on an out-patient basis.

Let me repeat, that as Americans we need not offer any apology to any other humans on the face of the earth. Woodrow Wilson said that "only free people can hold their purpose steady to a common end, and prefer the interest of mankind to any narrow interest of their own."

public against the unethical behavior * All America seeks a government which no man holds to his own interest ***. The next President must set the moral tone, and I refer not only to his language."

At his press conference on November 1, 1963, President Kennedy was asked these questions:

Question. Mr. President, do you think the letters that Secretary of the Navy (Fred) Korth wrote made his resignation advisable, and was requested?

Answer. I think the letters which Mr. Korth and I exchanged, I think, explain the situation as I would like to see it explained. Question. Mr. President

Answer. Mr. Korth, I think, worked hard for the Navy and he indicated his desire to return to private life and I accepted that decision. But I think he worked hard for the Navy.

Later in the same press conference, the questioning on the same subject was renewed as follows:

Question. Mr. President, Navy Secretary [Fred] Korth had some correspondence which indicated he worked very hard for the Continental National Bank of Forth Worth while he was in Government, as well as for the Navy, and that during this same period of time that he negotiated, or took part in the decision on a contract involving that bank's one of that bank's best customers, the General Dynamics firm. I wonder if this fulfills the requirements of your code of ethics in Government, and if, in a general way, you think that it is within the law and proper?

Answer. In the case of the contract, the TFX contract, as you know, Mr. Mollenhoff, that matter was referred to the Department

of Justice to see whether there was a conflict of interest and the judgment was that there was not. That is No. 1.

No. 2, the amount of the loan to the company, that bank was one of a number of banks which participated in a line of credit and it was relatively a small amount of money, as bank loans go. So in answer to

We have, however, reached a point where we are obligated as a free people to hold to the purpose of our own way of life.

It is a purpose that is the marvel of the world, the call of freedom to the enslaved, the beacon of eternal hope to the oppressed. It is American and I love it. I am proud of the chance to work for it, to try and make it a better country for us all.

the medicine with our own rancor I'm sure the American people will find the remedies palatable.

You know, as Republicans we wear a pretty proud label. But it sets us apart from our fellow citizens of different political persuasion only in that what we believe we have consistently believed.

Our word is good. We can still spell thrift, honesty, and dedication.

We've never had to apologize for what we've tried to do for America, and we never will.

With this much going for us I don't see how we can lose. And we can't lose if we'll just take a raincheck when the arguments start about what kind of a Republican one or the other of us happens to be.

I'm a Republican right down to my gizzard. I always have been and I will continue to be.

I'm not going to read anyone out of the party. But I will read anyone into the party that I can get my hands on. If they can get to the polls in the right frame of mind we

"Profiles in Courage" in Korth Case?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. H. R. GROSS

OF IOWA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, November 4, 1963

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the veteran correspondent of the New York Times, Mr. Arthur Krock, writes as follows in that newspaper on November 3, 1963:

At Wittenberg College, October 17, 1960, Presidential Candidate Kennedy promised that if elected he would impose "a single, comprehensive code on conflicts of interest drawing a clearer line between propriety and impropriety *** protecting the

Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter. It has nothing to do with any opinion I may have about whether Mr. Korth might have written more letters and been busier than he should have been in one way or another.

The fact of the matter is, I have no evi

dence that Mr. Korth benefited improperly during his term in office in the Navy, and I have no evidence, and you have not, as I understand the press has not produced any, nor the McClellan committee, which I would indicate that in any way he acted improperly in the TFX. I have always believed that in

nuendoes should be justified before they are

made, either by me and the Congress or even the press.

What has happened to the Kennedy "Profiles in Courage?" What has happened with respect to his bold and reassuring words as spoken when he was a candidate for the presidency; when, for political purposes, he was pointing a finger at the Eisenhower administration and the Sherman Adams-Goldfine episode?

As Mr. Krock says:

As soon as he learned of Korth's lapses from this code of official ethics, the President conveyed the word to his Navy Secretary that immediate resignation was in order ***. But by his words at the press conference he strangely diluted his very creditable deed.

Mr. Speaker, at this point and for the information of my colleagues, I submit

for printing in the RECORD the entire article as published in the New York Times on Sunday last:

THE KORTH CASE: KENNEDY'S EXPLANATION OF THE NAVY SECRETARY'S RESIGNATION EXAMINED

(By Arthur Krock) WASHINGTON, November 2.-President Kennedy expressed a desire common to occupants of his office whom a subordinate has embarrassed when asked at his news conference if he thought certain letters written by Navy Secretary Korth made the resignation of this official "advisable" and if the President had requested it. "I think," he replied, "the letters which Mr. Korth and I exchanged are the explain the situation as I would like to see it explained.”

But whether or not Mr. Kennedy's choice of words was inadvertent, no predecessor has arrayed himself with such candor on the side of the proposition that the press should not explore the background of official explanations of events in Government that, on their face and in the attendant circumstances, are plainly a coverup of the actual situation. For the letters the President referred to (which were not, of course, the letters his questioner described) are excellent examples of deliberate concealment.

Secretary Korth's October 11 letter of resignation to the President gave as his only reason the need "to return to private business to attend to my pressing private affairs.” In his prompt reply (October 12) accepting the resignation, Mr. Kennedy made no comment on the reason for it given by Korth, confining his composition to generous-and deserved-praise of the Secretary's "advancement of national security interests," and said these had put "the Nation in your debt." Therefore, the explanation supplied by this exchange, the one the President said he "would like to see" deemed sufficient, stands in the official record merely as this:

Secretary Korth resigned only because the pressure of "private affairs" overcame his dedicated desire to continue to support the leadership of our national defense by the President and Secretary McNamara. * ** Mr. Kennedy's estimate of Korth's service was high and without qualification.

If the press had accommodated the President's stated preference, and let it go at that, the subject would not have been revived by a question later in the news conference. Perhaps the detailed nature of this second inquiry persuaded Mr. Kennedy he must go beyond the official record he previously had said he would like to have accepted as an adequate explanation. However, go beyond it he did, condoning in words a breach of the ethics to which he pledged his administration in the campaign of 1960 that he had already redeemed in action.

SPEEDY RESIGNATION

As soon as he learned of Korth's lapses from this code of official ethics, the President conveyed the word to his Navy Secretary that immediate resignation was in order. In so doing, Mr. Kennedy acted with firmness and promptness in highly favorable contrast to the performances of two previous administrations in comparable circumstances. But by his words at the press conference he strangely diluted his very creditable deed.

The amount of the subscription to TFX loan to General Dynamics by the bank from which Korth had come to public office, said the President, had, after all, "been a relatively small amount of money as bank loans go;" so there was "nothing improper" in the Navy Secretary's participation in the decision to give the contract to General Dynamics. And, as for Korth's letters on Navy stationery, including an offer to the bank to include some of its "best customers * * * in a little party" on the Secretary's official

yacht Sequoia, the President dismissed them by saying: "This [TFX affair] has nothing to do with any opinion I may have about whether Mr. Korth might have written more letters and been busier than he should have been in one way or another.

WHITE HOUSE ATTITUDE

That part of Mr. Kennedy's news conference comments furnishes only another illustration that the stern ethical attitude of presidential candidates is prone to undergo a softening process when they enter the White House.

The admirable quality in President Truman that evoked greater intensity in his friendship when his friends got themselves in trouble was supplemented by his fierce protective instinct for his party when some of these friends got his administration in trouble, too. And President Eisenhower long and stubbornly justified acceptance of gifts by Sherman Adams that engendered the public disapproval which finally persuaded Adams he was seriously injuring the President by retaining his most influential White House post.

On June 18, 1959, 3 months before Adams' resignation, President Eisenhower gave a news conference his views on the ethical issue involved, of which the following are the pertinent excerpts:

"A gift is not necessarily a bribe. One is evil, the other is a tangible expression of friendship.* * Anyone who knows Sherman Adams has never had any doubt of his personal integrity and honesty. But *** *** in not being sufficiently alert in making certain that the gifts of which he was a recipient could be *** misinterpreted *** as attempts to influence his political actions * ** to that extent he was * * 'imprudent.' * * * Personally, I respect him because of his personal and official integrity. I need him."

ETHICAL CLEARANCE

The sponsors of the "shakedowns" for presentation portraits to judges and campaign funds via testimonial dinners, etc., that have attained a peak of frequency in Washington ask no better ethical clearance than this.

At Wittenberg College, October 17, 1960, Presidential Candidate Kennedy promised that, if elected, he would impose "a single, comprehensive code on conflicts of interest * * * drawing a clearer line between propriety and impropriety * * protecting the public against the unethical behavior. * All America seeks a Government which no man holds to his own interest. * * The next President must set the moral tone, and I refer not only to his language."

*

*

This was the part of the pledge which Mr. Kennedy failed to serve by excusing, in words, the official actions he had, by deed, certified as inexcusable.

Washington Report

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BRUCE ALGER

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, November 4, 1963

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the newsletter of November 2, 1963:

DALLAS-PROUD, COURAGEOUS-TRULY THE HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE Dallas is second to none as an American community standing for all the highest ideals

of Americanism. Its people are the finest type of citizens-courageous, courteous, determined, daring, industrious, kind, patriotic-possessing all the qualities which set apart those who founded this Nation and the pioneers who began its development. Through the years Dallas leaders have been unselfish, forward-looking, builders with giant ideas and giant abilities. Dallas has now, and has always had, one of the most effective and respected police forces anywhere in the world. Dallas has enjoyed capable, hard-working, successful administrations.

Dallas is America. Its people are Americans remembering and inspired by the tradition of the Alamo. Dallas contributions to business, industry, art, culture, have been an integral part of the greatness of America.

IS SELF-CRITICISM BECOMING ACTUAL CHARACTER ASSASSINATION?

Why should there be any discrediting of Dallas? Why should all of its people be subjected to abuse because a few express intemperance? Why are good people, with good intentions, taken in and assume a feeling of guilt where no guilt exists, and apologize for a community that has done no wrong? LET'S TAKE A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE CURRENT ATTACKS ON DALLAS

Dallas-What it is-What it stands for 1. Dallas is a community of people who believe in the individual and capitalism.

2. No city in the Nation can outstrip Dallas in growth figures, in job opportunities, in new car registrations, in home building, in tackling slum problems, in rejuvenating its blighted areas, and all on its own through private, individual initative.

3. Dallas has never had racial demonstrations, violence against minorities, bombings, race riots that have plagued so many other communities in both the North and South without apology.

4. Dallas peacefully integrated, quietly and through its own efforts.

5. Dallas citizens of all races, religions, and economic status have joined their talents and their efforts in creating a great, beautiful, dynamic, free community.

Because Dallas is now in the headlines over the United Nations, let's appraise that organization.

1. The original purpose and Charter of the U.N., supported by all peace-loving, freedomloving peoples, has been subverted by the Communists, the godless, the imperialistic Soviet Union, the purveyors of hate, revolutions and destruction of freedom everywhere. 2. The money of U.S. taxpayers has been used to subvert the United States and to strengthen its enemies. We pay 40 percent of the total cost and have 1 vote. The Communists refuse to pay legitimate costs and have many votes.

3. The sovereignty of the United States has been threatened by attacks upon our system of government and the steady attempts to impose the will of the U.N. on the American people, to replace our own Constitution and national institutions. United Nations conventions (agreements) supersede our Constitution.

4. The military head of the U.N. is always a Communist even though the enemy fought by the U.N. has always been Communist supported.

Is it any wonder some citizens verge on intemperance with pent-up concern? One thing the citizens of Dallas and the representatives of the U.N. have in common-they are people. People make mistakes. People become disagree. People intemperate. These are among our human failings. Being people does not excuse nor permit us to condone discourtesy, violence, intemperance, and the suppression of the right of all to express their beliefs.

The vehemence of the attack on Dallas as a city because of the recent incident involving the U.N. Ambassador may be causing some to lose perspective and to forget that many people are fed up with the U.N.

Dallas is not disgraced by the action of an individual, nor even a group of people. The Dallas record for courtesy, for fair treatment, for freedom is all too well known. But by getting the people of Dallas to assume blame for something of which they are not guilty, by having the press and wire services and the commentators castigate Dallas and its people, the real issue is befogged and the cause of the intemperance is not remembered, and the enemies of the United States are encouraged. This all fits in with the Communist objective.

However badly their feelings were expressed, to whatever ungentlemanly and unDallas acts to which these feelings led, the basic fact is that the American people are deeply disturbed over the course this Nation is following and the activities of the U.N.

The U.N. is not keeping the peace. There have been 60 wars since it was founded. There are at least a half dozen wars going on at this moment when the Secretary General of the U.N. says the world is at peace.

In too many cases the U.N. itself is fomenting war.

It is not bringing about better international understanding, but its member nations are undermining free governments everywhere and imperiling our own country.

Imagine the absurdity of the U.N.-run Korean war in which 133,000 American men were killed and injured by Communists while a Communist headed the U.N. military operation.

Can we refuse to forgive the actions of a young man (not a Dallasite by the way) who lost his head because of his resentment against the U.N. that threatens his freedom and his country's freedom, and yet forgive the actions of the U.N.?

Must Dallas hang its head in shame because of the hotheaded actions of a few and yet condone U.N. actions in Katanga, in Laos and Vietnam where American boys are dying? Do you believe that Dallas must apologize as a city for an unhappy and regrettable incident, but accept the brutal facts of Hungary and the glossing over by the U.N. of the murder of men, women, and children there by the Red Army? Do you approve the U.N. buying Russian jeeps with U.S. money to give to Castro? This happened. If you disapprove vocally of such things, are you to be called intemperate?

Dallas will always regret intemperance. Dallas will always glory in its reputation for courtesy and hospitality.

Dallas will continue to fight for the American way of life.

Dallas, the whole city of Dallas, should not accept unjust criticism because of the isolated actions of a few.

Dallas will continue its endeavor to present a welcome to any visitor, afford him the opportunity to be heard and will protect the right of those who disagree to do so within the bounds of good conduct.

Dallas and its people, however, must not be throttled, nor discredited, nor made a party to their own self-destruction by being afraid to stand up and sound off when we feel our city, our State, and our Nation is in danger. We remember well the warning of Abraham Lincoln that, "If destruction be our lot we ourselves must be its author and its finisher."

gestion Advanced by Politician To Sell TVA

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOE L. EVINS

OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, November 4, 1963

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, the press has recently pointed out that a certain presidential aspirant believes strongly that the Tennessee Valley Authority should be sold to private enterprise. The proposal to sell TVA has met with strong and united opposition not only from the Democrats of the Tennessee Valley area, but also from members of the Republican Party.

The Nashville Banner, in a recent story, has pointed out that Tennessee's three Republican Congressmen have come out in direct opposition to this proposal by a member of their party to sell TVA, thus placing every Member of the Tennessee congressional delegation, along with many others, against a sellout of TVA.

Mr. Speaker, I submit press reports containing statements opposing any sale of TVA for the RECORD. These statements follow:

STATE GOP CONGRESSMEN OPPOSED TO SALE OF TVA

Tennessee's three Republican Congressmen, Representative HOWARD BAKER, Knoxville; Representative WILLIAM BROCK III, Chattanooga, and Representative JAMES QUILLEN, Kingsport, have declared they would be against any consideration of the sale of the TVA as discussed by Senator BARRY GOLDWATER earlier this week.

BROCK, a conservative and an ally of GOLDWATER, said that although he endorsed without qualification the principle of maximizing free enterprise, he did not think it would be feasible to turn TVA power operations over to private industry. The freshman Congressman said he would actively oppose any such move.

QUILLEN said "TVA has been with us for many years, and in my judgment, it is not feasible or workable to sell it as much as I believe in the free enterprise system.

"The functions which TVA exercise in respect to flood control, conservation, navigation and electric power production are so interrelated that, in my opinion, they could not economically be divided and operated separately," QUILLEN stated.

"Flood control and navigation are the functions of the Government, and TVA, in the area which it serves, is assuming the leadership in these fields, particularly flood control. TVA must accelerate its leadership in this field, and I am assured that this is their plan," he added.

BAKER said he is unequivocally opposed to the suggestion that TVA be sold to private industry.

He stated TVA was created by Congress to comprehensively develop the Tennessee River and "is a model for watershed developments throughout the world."

Tennessee's two Senators have strong

in many actions harmful to peace, to the Communist captive people, and to U.S. sovereignty.

Dallas must never be discredited.

GORE stated:

I am completely opposed to any proposal to sell the TVA. The idea is wholly impractical and contrary to the public interest.

Senator H. S. WALTERS stated: Recent suggestions that the sale of TVA to private industry would be to the benefit of Tennessee and the Nation is certainly without any basis of fact.

We in the Tennessee Valley are proud of the fine work of TVA and it would be folly to seriously consider the disruptive suggestion put forth by someone unfamiliar with the people and the economy of the seven-State area served by TVA.

From press reports others comment: Representative CLIFFORD DAVIS, Democrat, of Memphis, said the proposal to sell TVA "is absolutely ill-founded, unwise, and will never happen in this country."

DAVIS said that even the private power people in this country admit it [TVA] is efficient and well managed."

"I wholeheartedly disagree," said Repre"He sentative JOE L. EVINS, Smithville. [GOLDWATER] doesn't even have the facts on what TVA means to the Nation."

EVINS, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, called GOLDWATER "very shortsighted and provincial in opposing

TVA."

While the Arizona Senator is doing this, EVINS Said, he often comes to the committee with requests for reclamation projects for his arid West.

Representative TOM MURRAY, Democrat, of Jackson, said of the proposal to sell TVA: "Certainly not-not at all.

"It's operating fine now. We should continue it." Askel in what areas it is operating fine, MURRAY answered:

"All over."

He called it perfect.

Representative ROBERT A. (FATS) EVERETT, Democrat, of Union City, said, "It seems that Senator GOLDWATER should see the benefits that TVA has rendered to the valley before he capitulates to the private power lobby.

"I certainly think the people of the valley appreciate the benefits that have been afforded them from an agency that is paying its own way."

EVERETT said that had it not been for TVA and the Rural Electrification Administration, young men and young women would never have remained in the farm areas to make the contributions they are now making.

"Either Senator GOLDWATER is misinformed," EVERETT said, "or he cares not for the people of the valley."

Tennessee's other Congressmen agreed Saturday that TVA should not be sold, most of them vigorously defending the agency.

GOLDWATER made his statement to FULTON after the fifth district Representative had inquired of the Senator if he was correctly quoted in a magazine article about selling the valley agency.

Representative RICHARD FULTON, Democrat, of Tennessee, said:

During the previous administration TVA was referred to as a form of creeping socialism. It is regrettable that this successful Government service which is of great benefit to a great number of people must come under this attack.

Representative Ross BASS, Democrat, of Tennessee, said:

I am shocked that a man who is supposed to have the basic concept of Government and the intellect to be President of the United States would make such a proposal, to slash up, divide, and destroy an institution that is so important not only to the seven-State area that it serves as a power producing and distributing agency but to all the Nation. To deny the great service it performs to all the people of the United States as a means

of determining the actual cost of producing power; to stop the TVA from providing a yardstick for this purpose for all power-producing agencies in the United States, would be wasteful and foolhardy.

BASS also said:

It is providing a great service to all the Nation in the area of power production, cost analyses, and the yardstick for power cost to all of the citizens of the United States.

Congressman ROBERT E. (BOB) JONES, Democrat, of Alabama, said:

I can think of no more preposterous proposal than to sell TVA to the private power trust.

In view of Mr. GOLDWATER'S long anti-TVA record, it is obvious he is really proposing the death of our most successful model of a free people's cooperative effort with the Government.

Mr. GOLDWATER certainly demonstrates clearly that he is no friend of the South. What he is advocating is that the average TVA power user, who pays slightly less than 1 cent a kilowatt-hour as compared with the national average of 2.4 cents, have his power rates increased.

In other words, he offers more of the same old discrimination against the South which has been so true of his party over the years. This is what he means by conservatism.

JONES, who has been a chief sponsor of TVA legislation during his 17 years in Congress, also said:

Before TVA, the Tennessee Valley was called the Nation's No. 1 economic problem. It has been TVA which not only harnessed the Tennessee River and provided flood control, navigation and power, but promoted the well-being of those in this region as well.

Should TVA be sold to private interests, its numerous services-such as navigation and flood control-would be left high and dry.

He explained that TVA's payments in lieu of taxes to State and local governments are about the same as the taxes paid by other utility systems and that TVA pays no Federal income tax because it makes no profits, just as private industry pays no Federal taxes when it makes no profits.

TVA and its contract distributors have paid more than $210.7 million to State and local governments in lieu of taxes. The agency is required by law to repay to the Treasury in the next 50 years all of the funds appropriated to it for power purposes.

Alabama Congressman CARL ELLIOTT Said GOLDWATER's opposition to TVA is hard to understand when it is remembered that he is now sponsoring legislation (S. 1658) for a $1.1 billion public water and power project-a sort of western TVA-for his own State of

Arizona. He said:

Apparently the junior Senator's position is that if you spend $1.7 billion for a public power project to serve seven Southern States, that is socialism. But, the spending of $1.1 billion for the same purpose in one State is enlightened conservatism—if that State just happens to be Senator GOLDWATER'S.

In a personal letter to GOLDWATER, the Alabama Congressman said:

Since you come from a section of the country 2,000 miles removed from the region served by TVA, it is possible that you are not aware of the extraordinary progress and growth that has been engendered by the great Tennessee Valley Authority.

For your information, Senator, the Tennessee Valley Authority in just 30 years has transformed what was a depressed and eroded valley-the Nation's most urgent economic problem-into what is now one of the most productive and progressive sections of our common country.

The TVA has stimulated the private investment of almost $1 billion on the Tennessee River shoreline, and is providing job opportunities, directly and indirectly, for tens of thousands of Alabamians and other southerners. The great network of 31 dams which make up the Tennessee Valley Authority has tamed and harnessed rivers which once flooded their banks and ran berserk through our region, leaving behind devastation, despair and incalculable human misery and suffering.

I am sure, Senator GOLDWATER, that upon reflection, you would not consider these accomplishments as socialistic, or as a hoax.

From a news clipping we read:

Senator JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Republican, of Kentucky, said the Arizona Republican's idea came as a surprise, "because he hasn't offered anything like that in Congress."

"I don't think," COOPER said, "it [sale of TVA] is going to happen whoever is elected President. There are a number of Senators who have opposed the TVA, but I've never heard of anyone-including GOLDWATER-offering a bill to sell the TVA."

COOPER said he had made the first proposition to require TVA to finance its facilities, and he added, "It is now financing them and is repaying its advances from the Government."

"Utterly ridiculous," said Representative PAT JENNINGS, Democrat, of Virginia, of the Goldwater suggestion.

Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, Democrat, of Alabama, called it entirely impractical and said it would do a great disservice to the taxHe added he payers of the United States. doubted GOLDWATER Would gain any supporters for his proposal, especially in the TVA

area.

Representative FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Democrat, of Kentucky, called the idea "the most asinine, stupid suggestion I've heard since I've been in Congress."

"The TVA," STUBBLEFIELD said, "is the greatest thing that ever happened to the South. I note that GOLDWATER is promoting the central Arizona project, which will cost $1.1 billion. Let him take care of Arizona; we will take care of the TVA area."

Congressman GEORGE HUDDLESTON, JR., Democrat, of Alabama, stated:

The proposal to sell TVA is among the most preposterous that has come to my attention in a long time. For the Government to lose this great asset would certainly not be in the best interest of our country. The sooner the thought is dispelled the better.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this unsound and unwise proposal, I suggest, is costing the distinguished presidential aspirant thousands of votes, as thousands are leaving his banner because of this one unwise and erratic suggestion.

Secretary Dillon Speaks in Arkansas

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE

OF ARKANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, November 4, 1963

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 1, 1963, the Honorable

Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury, spoke before the Second Arkansas Federal Tax Institute at the Hotel Lafayette, Little Rock. He made a masterful address explaining the tax situation which confronts the Nation today and the problems before the Congress concerning tax legislation.

In the address he paid high tribute to our friend and colleague, WILBUR MILLS, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who is one of the best informed men in the House of Representatives on tax legislation. He also paid tribute to Senator FULBRIGHT of Arkansas, who is a member of the Finance Committee of the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I insert the address in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as part of my remarks, because in a few days we will be considering a bill to raise the debt limit:

REMARKS BY THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS DILLON, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, BEFORE THE SECOND ARKANSAS FEDERAL TAX INSTITUTE AT THE HOTEL LAFAYETTE, LITTLE ROCK, ARK., FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1963

I am extremely pleased to be here today in this vigorous State which is engaged in such an intensive effort to breed and attract new industry and to expand its economy. I have the good fortune to be extremely familiar with the great contributions to our national well-being of two of Arkansas' most illustrious citizens-Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Whom I have come to know well both in his capacity as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and as a stalwart member of the Finance Committee, and my good friend WILBUR MILLS, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Today I particularly want to pay tribute to WILBUR MILLS. I am constantly impressed with the skill, the wisdom, and the understanding that Mr. MILLS brings to any issue before him. It is due to his brilliant and inspiring leadership that the President's tax bill has moved successfully through his committee and the House of Representatives.

That tax bill as it now stands-with the single exception of the proposed reductions in capital gains rates-is a sound bill, a fair bill, an effective bill. It provides for twostage reductions in both individual and corporate income tax rates: cutting individual rates from the present scale of 20 to 91 percent to a sharply lower range of 14 to 70 percent, and dropping the overall corporate rate from 52 to 48 percent while the rate on small business falls all the way from 30 to 22 percent. These rate reductions are the single most important reform in the bill. They are vital, not only because they release more than $112 billion into the private economy, but also because they provide a permanent and substantial increase in incentives to work harder and to invest more.

The bill also includes a substantial number of reforms that provide major improvements in the equity of our tax system. They are, to be sure, only a beginning, but don't let anyone tell you that they are not a significant beginning. Revenue-raising reforms in the present bill, plus those contained in the Revenue Act of 1962, total nearly $2 billion. When one considers that the total revenue increases from structural changes in all other revenue acts since 1940 have barely exceeded $600 million, the magnitude of the present accomplishment becomes clearer.

The structural reforms in the present bill contribute markedly to the equitable distribution of the tax reductions. Without those reforms, the tax reductions would unThe duly favor upper income taxpayers. minimum standard deduction, for example, channels more than $300 million in tax relief directly to those in the lowest income groups,