The indications of the survey data are encouraging to the degree that they show recent progress towards increasing Negro involvement in apprenticeship programs. The District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council is to be commended for its efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in local apprenticeship programs. Similarly, labor groups and employers utilizing apprentices are increasingly demonstrating an enlightened approach to this subject and are deserving of recognition for this indication of concern for equal employment opportunity.

In all fairness and objectivity, however, it is necessary to comment upon the relative progress of individual employers as contrasted to the labor-management Joint Apprenticeship Committees (JAC). The fact that nearly a third of apprentices registered with individual employers are Negro, as compared with 8.5 percent of those registered under the Joint Apprenticeship Committees, is a particularly distressing comment regarding the JAC programs. The 5.5 percent figure representing Negro involvement in building trades apprenticeship programs under Joint Labor-Management Committees is inexcusably low and represents tokenism of a most

ineffectual and effete character.

While the selected trades of bricklayers, printer-compositors, bookbinders, operating engineers, cement masons, bindery workers, auto mechanics, pastry cooks, and optical technicians have made a relatively impressive record, other trades as, for example, carelectrical pentry, workers, pipefitters, plumbers, sheet metal workers, asbestos workers, painters, and stationary engineers have an abysmal record. The progress since July 1, 1963 among the JAC programs of the electrical workers, plumbers, and carpenters should not be ignored, but must proceed much further along this path to avoid the epithet of "tokenism."

The obvious conclusion to be gained from this survey, which indicates that 11.7 percent of the apprentices in the District of Columbia, registered under the Bridges-Randolph District of Columbia Apprenticeship Act of 1946, are Negro, is that there is both room

and necessity for considerable improvement.

It is my firm hope that this report will be used as a point of departure for much greater integration of apprenticeship programs in the District of Columbia through efforts of the Apprenticeship Council, labor unions, and employers.

With best wishes.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES ROOSEVELT,

Chairman.

[From Government of the District of Columbia, Commissioners' Council on Human Relations, District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council] NUMBER OF NEGRO APPRENTICES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INCREASE Approximately 11.7 percent of the apprentices in the District of Columbia, registered under the Bridges-Randolph District of Columbia Apprenticeship Act of 1946, are Negro, according to a survey just completed by a joint committee of the District of Columbia Commissioners' Council on Human Relations and the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.

The survey, undertaken to determine the extent of Negro involvement in apprenticeship programs, shows the status of apprentices as of July 1, 1963. The survey covered 1,844 of the 1,893 apprentices who were registered as of that date. Of the total of 1,844 included in the survey, 216 or 11.7 percent were Negro.

Members of the joint committee that supervised the study were Dr. R. Frank Jones, chairman, Dr. C. J. Nuesse, and George E. C. Hayes, members of the Commissioners'

Council on Human Relations; William F. Nelson, vice chairman, Malcolm C. MacKinnon, and Robert L. Wearring, members of the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.

Assisting in the study were Gino J. Simi, executive secretary of the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council, Paul M. Rilling, Executive Director of the Commissioners' Council on Human Relations, and their staffs.

The survey data indicates a more widespread use of Negro apprentices by individual employers than by labor-management Joint Apprenticeship Committees. Most of the individual employers covered are nonunion shops.

Nearly a third, 29.2 percent, of apprentices registered with individual employers were Negro, as compared with 8.5 percent of those registered under the Joint Apprenticeship Committees. The exact figures show 74 of 253 apprentices in individual shops as with Joint Apprenticeship Committees. Negro; 142 Negroes among 1,591 registered

In the building construction trades, the target of recent apprenticeship desegregation efforts by the Department of Labor, a total of 96 of 1,230 apprentices were Negro, or 7.8 percent. Building trade apprentices under Joint Labor-Management Committees, however, numbered 62 Negroes out of a total of 1,128 apprentices for a percentage figure of 5.5 percent.

total of 54 Negro apprentices trained during the same period.

FINAL REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE SURVEY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPRENTICES AS OF JULY 1, 1963

Herewith final report on special survey of apprentices under the Bridges-Randolph District of Columbia Apprenticeship Act of 1946 by color, conducted by a joint committee composed of representatives of the Commissioners Council on Human Relations and the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council, between April 1 and July 1, 1963.

The joint survey was proposed at the November 21, 1962, meeting of the Commissioners Council on Human Relations at which representatives of the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council had been invited to review mutual problems.

At the Apprenticeship Council's quarterly meeting of February 16, 1963, the council agreed to the survey if approval could be obtained from the Secretary of Labor and the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners. The Apprenticeship Council Chairman, John R. Evans, designated Vice Chairman M. C. MacKinnon, Robert L. Wearring, William F. Nelson, and Gino J. Simi, secretary, as the Apprenticeship Council members to meet with Vice Chairman R. Frank Jones, Francis H. McGuigan and Prof. C. J. Nuesse, and Paul M. Rilling, director, appointed by

Chairman Aaron Goldman for the Council on Human Relations to draft plans for the survey as soon as approval had been granted by the Commissioners and the Secretary of

Labor.

JAC has registered two additional Negro apprentices, making a total of four.

Trades showing a relatively high propor

tion of Negro apprentices were bricklayers

(with 14 Negroes of 52 apprentices), printercompositors (299 apprentices, 50 Negroes), bookbinders (6 Negroes of 15), operating engineers (95 apprentices, 18 Negroes), cement masons (21 apprentices, 10 Negroes), bindery workers (40 apprentices, 10 Negroes), auto mechanics (37 apprentices, 9 Negroes), pastry cooks (2 apprentices, both Negroes), optical technicians (8 apprentices, 5 Negroes).

Individual employers reported that they had trained a total of 278 Negroes during the 5 years prior to 1963. The JAC's reported a

Individual shops.

Total.....

By letter dated February 26, the joint survey was approved by Walter N. Tobriner, president, District of Columbia Board of Commissioners, and on March 4, similar approval came from Under Secretary of Labor John F. Henning.

On May 21, the joint committee met, elected Dr. Jones chairman, Mr. Nelson vice

approved a questionnaire and a press release announcing the joint survey. On April 1,

questionnaires with a letter from Aaron Gold

man (chairman, Commissioners Council on Human Relations) were mailed to 55 joint apprenticeship committees with programs approved by the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.

from Chairman Goldman were sent to 917 On April 26, questionnaires with a letter individual employers with certified programs. On June 21, additional questionnaires were mailed to JAC's and employers who had not responded. The final figures were reviewed and approved by the Joint Survey Committee on October 3, 1963, and released to the public. The final results:

26. Iron Shopmen No. 486..

27. Machinists No. 193.

28. Mailers No. 29-.-.

29. Auto Mechanics No. 1486..

30. Tile Setters No. 3...

31. Sign Painters No. 1129_.

32. Stone Cutters of North America...

33. Electrotypers No. 17..

34. Barbers No. 239----

35. Pressmen No. 1..

36. Stereotypers No. 19..

37. Meatcutters No. 393.

38. Lithographers No. 13 (Independ

1521

1,591

12

44. Maintenance mechanics..

Total....

NOTE.-Total apprentices reported by individual employers, 253, of whom 74 or 29.2 percent. were Negro. These employers also reported that 278 Negroes were registered as apprentices with them during the period 1957 through 1962.

FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GONZALEZ] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have previously made statements from the floor of this House pointing out the general fiscal irresponsibility of the Federal 142 Aviation Agency. Specifically, on October 16, 1963, I made a speech in this House in which I submitted certain statements made by Mr. S. B. Poritzky showing the waste in the FAA. These statements were quoted in an article in the publication Aviation Daily in its June 6, 1963, issue. The gist of this article is that the cost of navigational aids is rising sharply and most of the blame can be attributed to FAA's methods of procurement and construction. In this article Mr. Poritzky pointed out that the FAA costs are in some cases 10 times more than industry costs for the same equipment.

1. Electricians.

Trade

Total Negro appren- apprentices tices

Now another trade publication has cited these same statistics to point out 7 the almost unbelievable skyrocketing costs, overspending and poor judgment in the FAA's airways program. The text of this article which was printed in the September 1963 issue of Flying follows: NAVAID COSTS

1229

36

7

3

5. Machinists..

17

Some examples of current FAA policy for the purchasing and housing of airways equipment which were cited by Poritzky are:

The FAA is now paying a total of $18,200 for a runway end identification light system (REIL) consisting of two light fixtures, with appropriate housings and two flashing lights inside. The State of Minnesota spends $3,000 for lights to serve exactly the same purpose. A 75-m.c. fan marker, with its building and antenna, costs the FAA $25,800. A dualequipment, commercial, 75-m.c. marker, sold by Wilcox Electric and mounted on two ordinary telephone poles, costs the State of Nebraska about $3,250.

The FAA, in 1962, budgeted more than $60,000 for one of its limited remote communications outlets. A commercial facility, built by ARINC, serving a similar function for an airline, costs less than $15,000, including its building and all auxiliary equipment.

The total available operating time for FAA communications facilities of the type described just above was listed by the agency as 99.08 percent in 1962. The ARINC equipment was available 99.4 percent of the time. The FAA operates a single TVOR station at Riverton, Wyo., which cost $115,340 total. The State of Nebraska operates a single TVOR facility at Ainsworth for which it paid $15,941 total. The FAA facility last year had an availability of 98.17 percent while the State facility was in operation 98.14 percent of the time. An astounding rise has also been experienced in the cost of larger FAA facilities in the last 2 years. In fiscal year 1960, the agency estimated that an ILS facility, all electronic equipment and buildings, cost $194,000 to get into operation. In this fiscal year the FAA sets the price at $276,460, an increase of 42 percent in only 3 years. There has been no radical improvement or change in ILS equipment which can account for the cost jump, and the overall U.S. commodity price index has risen only 2.7 percent in the same length of time. It is a difficult matter to contend that Poritzky has no understanding of, or sympathy for the Government engineer and manager. In his talk, he pointed out time and again, that he knew of no FAA employee working on the airways who was not dedicated to providing a superior system with the highest possible reliability. He pointed out many reasons why he believed that costs had risen as they have. These included: the Federal Government's elaborate procurement policies which are intended to be fair to all contractors, yet to protect the Government from the unscrupulous bidder: Government personnel policies which are enlightened and good for the individuals involved, but which unfortunately cost money; split design responsibilities in which the engineer who writes the specifications for electronic equipment is not responsible for its operation or maintenance-his only task is to get the "best" possible equipment without consideration for cost in other areas; and, over the years conservative specifications often are laid upon conservative specification and the cost inevitably rises.

The best summation of Poritzky's remarks is that the FAA suffers from the lack of a "boss" when it comes to buying airways equipment and housing it. A number of groups within FAA are at liberty to add to the specifications lists for equipment and buildings and the result is a "gold-plated" job. For instance, the trimmings in the FAA's navigation aids buildings have run the buildings up to about 50 percent of the total facility cost, and in some cases the cost of constructing the building is 75 percent of the total. This compares to a building cost of less than 20 percent in commercial facilities.

It will be difficult to understand if Poritzky's alarming yet reasoned and temperate discussion does not bring some positive action from the FAA to overhaul its sys

tem and to institute a stronger central management control over the building of the airways.

These figures are truly astounding. Is it not curious that the FAA pays a total of $18,200 for a runway end identification light system, while the State of Minnesota pays only $3,000 for a light system serving exactly the same purpose? Is it not curious that the FAA pays $25,800 for a 75-m.c. marker, with its building and antenna, while the State of Nebraska pays $3,250 for exactly the same thing? Is it not curious that the FAA paid $115,340 for a single TVOR station at Riverton, Wyo., while the State of Nebraska paid only $15,941 for a TVOR facility at Ainsworth?

Appar

These charges have been made before. They have been made by responsible persons and associations intimately related to the air industry. To my knowledge they have never been refuted. ently, the Administrator chooses to ignore these criticisms. What are we to assume from the fact that the Administrator ignores the charges that he is wasting the taxpayers' money, that FAA costs are skyrocketing, that his administration is spending too much, that he himself is exercising poor judgment? In view of his position as a servant of the people, presumably answerable for his actions in office, I can only conclude that the charges are true. He refuses to answer or deny the charges. I conclude that if he had the answers he would

present them.

Mr. Speaker, these facts illustrates not only that the Administrator has exercised poor judgment in the instances mentioned. These facts when taken together, show a propensity for poor judgment. They show that there is something wrong with the decisionmaking mechanism within the FAA. They indicate that the Administrator either is unable or unwilling to exercise good judgment.

An example of this is contained in the facts relating to the agreement announced on October 23, 1963, between the Federal Government, United Airlines and Trans World Airlines in connection with the midair collision of December 16, 1960, over New York City. Under the terms of the agreement, the U.S. Government agreed to pay 24 percent of whatever damages are fixed in lawsuits growing out of the crash. United Air Lines and Trans World Airlines will pay 61 and 15 percent, respectively.

The significance of this agreement is, in the words of the New York Times, that it represents "a reluctant about-face" for the U.S. Government. It will be recalled that the tragedy of December 16, 1960, was the worst civil air disaster of all times. All 128 persons in the 2 planes were killed, as well as 6 persons on the ground where the wreckage came down.

It will also be recalled that the FAA made its own immediate investigation of the accident, under the direction of Najeeb E. Halaby, who became the Administrator of the FAA soon after the accident occurred. Whether this internal investigation was a sincere attempt to pinpoint the cause of the tragedy so as

These FAA findings should be contrasted with the following admissions by FAA air traffic control personnel made under oath during the 7 months of depositions that were taken immediately preceding the three-way agreement described above. These depositions were taken in connection with the lawsuits that were filed against the two airlines and the Federal Government by the families of the victims of the crash. Among the departures from the rules on how air traffic should be handled, as reported by the New York Times, were:

1. Failure to make proper use of codes that make it easier to match planes with radar blips.

2. Failure to make proper use of signal lights by which one controller notifies another that a plane is being instructed to call him by radio.

3. Relaying an incorrect routing for the DC-8 jet from one controller to another.

4. Failing to instruct the crew to turn the

jet's radar-beacon equipment to the code

number for jets bound for Idlewild.

5. Failure of the area controller in handling the GRS (general railway signal) lights. These lights were used to notify approach control that a particular plane was being told to change radio contact from area control to approach control.

6. Failure of the area controller in turning his radar-beacon equipment to the wrong code.

7. Failure of the area controller in not radioing ahead to the approach control that the jet would arrive at Preston via Colts Neck rather than along V-123.

Yet, the FAA internal report would have us believe that none of these failures actually occurred. And for many months the Administrator_has steadfastly maintained that the FAA is completely without fault in the accident and that therefore the Federal Government should not agree to pay any of the damages ultimately fixed in the lawsuits growing out of the crash.

This has been the position of the Administrator: the FAA is completely without fault; the FAA did nothing wrong in connection with the accident; the Federal Government should under no circumstances agree to pay any percentage of the damages which will ultimately have to be paid to the families of the victims of the crash.

Such stubbornness must be condemned for at least two reasons:

First, it caused the Government to waste over $100,000 of the people's money.

Second, it suggests that the Administrator is too proud to admit a mistake. It would be bad enough if such pride went only before a personal fall on the part of the Administrator. I fear that such pride and inflexibility has already

led to the fall of a good many aircraft and that it will lead to a good many more.

Mr. Speaker, the recently announced agreement was actually identical to the one proposed many months ago and which was vetoed by the Administrator. His refusal to heed the advice of the Government recomattorneys who mended that the Government agree to fixed in the lawsuits arising out of the pay 24 percent of whatever damages are

crash caused the taking of 15,000 pages of depositions over a period of 7 months and the expenditure of more than $100,000 of taxpayers' money. Finally the Attorney General himself had to override the Administrator's decision and it is reported that the agreement was signed by the Attorney General.

The article in Flying says that the FAA

suffers from the lack of a "boss." I agree that the FAA as well as the air traffic program suffers from the lack of something. In my opinion, it is the lack of good judgment.

CONGRESSIONAL ETIQUETTE

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GONZALEZ] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, since my name has again been mentioned in a highly personal manner, I am submitting the following editorials and newspaper columns:

[From Roll Call, Oct. 30, 1963]
CONGRESSIONAL ETIQUETTE

It appears as though every time the Republicans have a fair chance to make some gains in the Congress, they do everything in their power to blow it.

A return to the dread days of McCarthyism seems to be one unfortunate strategy being employed, and deplorable development it is. A freshman Republican from Texas, the

youngest Member of the House, has been

engaged in a speaking tour of vilification against his colleagues. The gist of the hatchet man's attacks is the old McCarthy line that because they voted contrary to his views, they are "pinkos"-and, by insinuation, probably worse.

Despite his standing as the youngest legislator in the legislature, he cannot be excused on grounds of immaturity. He is old enough to know better.

This ill becomes a Member of Congress.

In the Congress itself, etiquette and courtesy prohibit the reference to any Member by name. A colleague is referred to as "the gentleman from such-and-such a State." Personal attacks are frowned upon and seldom occur.

The young Congressman, Representative ED FOREMAN of Texas, yesterday was the recipient of a powerful punch in the shoulder just outside the House Chamber. The donor, Representative HENRY GONZALEZ, also of Texas, had been verbally attacked by FOREMAN in a speech in Houston, GONZALEZ' home grounds.

FOREMAN did not strike back, but was quoted as saying, "I can't imagine an intelligent adult and a Member of Congress doing a thing like that."

Representative GONZALEZ well could have replied with the same words.

Invading a colleague's home ground and playing footsie with the John Birch Society in efforts to discredit the colleague is certainly no more commendable than slugging a fellow legislator in a defense of principle.

More reprehensible is the letter of apology which the junketing Congressman wrote to another of his victims, Representative DON EDWARDS, a liberal Democrat. Said FOREMAN, "I regret that the news people reported me as describing you as a pinko. I retract the statement regarding your voting record."

After sending this letter, FOREMAN then explained, "I wrote the retraction to keep from being sued by EDWARDS. But I still say he is a pinko."

FOREMAN also labeled another 20 colleagues as "pinko," to date without physical repercussions.

Perhaps Representative GONZALEZ, in physically rebuking young FOREMAN, believed he would "let the punishment fit the crime."

But who will be hurt most by this type of irresponsible campaigning is the Republican Party.

[From the Miami (Fla.) Herald, Oct. 31, 1963] THE HOT COLLAR OF REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ

It's comforting to find out there is enough spirit left in Washington for a Congressman to throw a punch at a fellow lawmaker and call him a yellow-livered sissy.

Representative HENRY GONZALEZ got sore when he was accused of helping the Communist cause. So he caught Representative ED FOREMAN Out in the hall and let him have one. It's too bad they are both Texans because there will be a tendency to dismiss the incident as just another of those hot air jokes you hear about that great State.

This was no hot air, but a good oldfashioned American hot collar. Most of our Congressmen would have called on their public relations staff to release heated statements to the press, TV, and radio. Representative GONZALEZ may have affronted the imagemakers with his punch, but the rest of us thought it was great.

In the first place, FOREMAN had no business calling GONZALEZ anything that could brand him a Communist or a pinko. Since he did which apparently is becoming FOREMAN'S habit when he wants to disagree with a fellow Congressman-GONZALEZ felt obliged to take a swing. Fortunately for dignity of the House of Representatives, the punch came just outside the Chamber rather than before a nonpaying audience.

Perhaps there's a personal feeling favoring this fellow, GONZALEZ. Just a week ago yesterday, while enjoying a Wickersham-bought steak in the Capitol House restaurant, a smiling, pleasant sort of man walked by the table. He patted our victorious Congressman on the shoulder and was seated with two companions at an adjoining table. Introductions were exchanged and Congressman GONZALEZ beamed with pleasure when I recalled hearing some of his "reports to constituents" on our favorite nighttime car-radio station, WOAI, San Antonio.

Liking GONZALEZ or not liking him is beside the point. He was born in San Antonio 47 years ago. His father, one of the original colonists of the State of Durango in northern Mexico, fled to the United States during a revolution. GONZALEZ' background, his education and law degree, his service as mayor pro tem of San Antonio and his other public actions are completely contrary to communism. There is quick understanding of his aroused anger when his voting record was described by younger and bigger ED FOREMAN as helping the Socialist-Communist cause.

FOREMAN is typical of some of the socalled "super patriots" who stir up Texas dust with a platform of "think as I and be American; think differently and you're Communist." Recently he called another Member of Congress a "pinko" but withdrew his remark after facing threat of a damage suit. GONZALEZ apparently isn't the courting type. He feels strongly about his American rights. If it takes some man-to-man decisions, he's ready.

So it's in the GONZALEZ corner we'll be

whammo.

1963]

NOT ALL COMEDY

The Capitol Hill encounter between two Texas Congressmen, Representatives ED FOREMAN and HENRY B. GONZALEZ, is not without comedy. We think especially of the grandiose explanations given the press.

We don't know, of course, what these Lone Star stalwarts really said to each other. And we aren't sure that either is as tough as he sounds-physically, that is.

However, the trouble between the Texas Representatives has a serious side that should be pondered by all Americans.

Regardless of what FOREMAN might have said or meant or implied in commenting on the GONZALEZ voting record, the word "Communist" is much overworked today in discussions of the motives of American citizens-in both public and private life.

To loosely use the word is unfair, ungentlemanly and un-American. Some of our concepts of patriotism have become pretty

ridiculous.

AMBLIN' AROUND

(With Jim Glasscock)

When is Congressman ED FOREMAN going to start representing the people of the 16th District of Texas and stop meddling in the affairs of Representative HENRY GONZALEZ of San Antonio and Representative DON EDWARDS, of California?

FOREMAN is such a super-self-styled patriot that if you don't agree with his particular political philosophy, he labels you a "pinko."

ED apparently has forgotten the words of that great Republican, Abraham Lincolnthis is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

It seems to us that it is the voters of GONZALEZ' congressional district who should dictate how the San Antonian votes and not

FOREMAN. If GONZALEZ' constituents don't like his voting record, then they can vote

NOT KIDDING

(By Wallace Kidd)

I'm for this fellow, HENRY B. GONZALEZ, the Democratic Congressman from San Antonio, Tex. If ED FOREMAN, a Republican Congressman from Odessa, accepts GONZALEZ' challenge to go to fist-city, I may even apply for the job as ring sponge boy.

Although FOREMAN did not apologize to GONZALEZ after their fisticuffs in Washington

earlier this week, he did write a letter of retraction to Representative EDWARDS, Democrat, of California, a former FBI agent and

a millionaire businessman.

FOREMAN, in a speech in San Diego, was quoted by Scripps-Howard newspapers as saying:

"If you had an outright Leftist, avowed Communist (in Congress) you wouldn't be getting any different kind of votes than you're getting from DON EDWARDS.”

FOREMAN, threatened with a law suit by EDWARDS, wrote the following letter to the California Congressman:

"In view of the publicity given my remarks in San Jose, Calif., last weekend, causing embarrassment to you personally, I regret that the news people reported me as describing you as a pinko. I retract the statement regarding your voting record.

"Although we strongly disagree philosophically, a description of this sort was not in the best taste or good manners."

FOREMAN has become the Westbrook Pegler of Congress. He constantly has failed to present a constructive program for either his district or the Nation.

He's simply an "aginner" and even if it was "good he wouldn't like it."

ED is an affable young man, but he is not the man to represent all of the people of the 16th Congressional District of west Texas.

You'll find that a bunch of people out here who voted against ED are pretty good Americans, too.

[From the Pensacola (Fla.) Journal, Nov. 1, 1963]

NATURAL RESENTMENT

Fisticuffs are not the best way to settle an argument, on or off the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, yet we cannot blame Representative HENRY GONZALEZ for righteous indignation and desire to vent such indignation upon his loose-tongued, young Republican colleague, ED FOREMAN. Both are from Texas, GONZALEZ from San Antonio and FOREMAN from Odessa.

GONZALEZ naturally resented FOREMAN saying in an interview that GONZALEZ by voting as a liberal was furthering "the SocialisticCommunist cause."

This fallacious contention that liberalism means softness of communism is one which is

flung about recklessly by many conservatives to smear rather than to voice solid arguments against their opponents and it should be halted, even if one has to resort to the manly

art.

We applaud GONZALEZ for issuing the challenge.

KENNEDY-RUSSIAN WHEAT DEAL A TRAGIC MISTAKE FOR AMERICA

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa.

There was no objection.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement, together with some extraneous matter which will be found complete in the RECORD.

I do not intend to take all of the time and want to yield to those of my colleagues who are interested in the sale of wheat to Russia.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the proposed sale of wheat to Russia has now become a moot question because the tickertape tells me today, under a Moscow heading, as follows:

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev declared tonight he has ordered Soviet wheat

negotiators in the United States "to break off talks and leave," if the Americans insist on discriminatory conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States recently announced a profound change in our export and foreign policy toward Communist Russia and her European satellites.

President Kennedy has told the Nation that from now on he will allow the Commerce Department to issue export licenses to grain companies and other exporters for the shipment of U.S. wheat to the Soviet Union and the Eastern European bloc nations. The President also stated that he would permit the Commodity Credit Corporation to subsidize these sales to the Communists by selling surplus wheat to the private U.S. grain trade at a substantial loss in replacement of wheat sold directly to the Soviets. The Department of Agriculture apparently will also continue to make export subsidy payments in cash and in kind to exporters shipping wheat to the Communists.

Needless to say, this decision by President Kennedy has precipitated the beginning of a long and serious national debate. Members of Congress have expressed their support or opposition to the decision. This issue is not a partisan matter as evidence by the fact that a number of Members of Congress who belong to the President's own party have joined the growing chorus of opposition to this deal. Farm organizations, the press, and the public are still in the most part not fully decided as to the wisdom of the decision.

In order to describe my position on this important question and to present the opportunity for my colleagues in the House to present their views, I have asked for this special order. Let me say at this point that I feel it would be most unfortunate for a logical and intelligent discussion of this important matter if emotional and unreasonable questions concerning the integrity or patriotism of those persons either supporting or criticizing the President's decision were raised. I am sure that such a situation will not develop here in the House and I hope it will not develop in the debate within our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the President's decision to sell wheat to the Communists on the grounds of both policy and execution. I believe he made I believe he made the decision in the wrong manner by flouting the declared policy of Congress and I believe his decision was wrong on its merits. In any event he should have consulted the Congress.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

The question of selling subsidized farm commodities to the Soviets is not a new one. It has been with us for a number of years. Argument in support of such a policy was persuasively made within the administration 21⁄2 years ago when the Department of Commerce issued a statement on June 22, 1961, that it would issue export licenses for the export of subsidized farm commodities to Russia and the European bloc nations. The 1961 Commerce Department action was described in the following press release

from the U.S. Department of Commerce and news article from the Wall Street Journal.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE EXPORT LICENSING OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES TO EASTERN EUROPE SOVIET BLOC EASED

A change in U.S. export licensing policy to permit the sale of subsidized surplus agricultural commodities to the Eastern European Soviet bloc was announced today by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Under the new policy, BFC will consider for approval export license applications to ship U.S.-subsidized surplus agricultural commodities to the U.S.S.R. and other Eastern European countries provided they are sold for convertible currency. The new polrectly or indirectly from Commodity Credit icy also applies to commodities acquired diCorporation stock and to agricultural products shipped in substitution for such CCC commodities. Previously only those surplus commodities which were not subsidized and were not obtained from previously owned governmental stock were approved for export to Eastern Europe.

The change in licensing policy toward Eastern Europe does not affect the total embargo against exports of U.S. goods to Communist China, North Korea, and North Vietnam.

It also does not affect the present licensing policy toward Cuba which, except for shipments of wheat and wheat flour, is to generally deny applications to export surplus commodities to that destination.

ship subsidized surplus commodities to all In submitting applications for license to Eastern European Soviet bloc countries, exporters will be required to supply commitments from the importers in the bloc countries that the commodities will not be reexported to another destination.

Some of the subsidized commodities which

could now be considered for licensing to Eastern Europe under the new policy include

feed grains, wheat and wheat flour, cotton and cotton textiles, rice, and nonfat dry milk.

All subsidized agricultural commodities are exportable under general license to Poland and free world countries regardless of price or method of payment.

Some international financial experts in Washington noted the Soviet Union lately has been selling gold in Western Europe for convertible currencies, which are used to pay for imported merchandise. These officials said the Soviet gold reserve probably gives that country plenty of financial resources to buy U.S. farm goods under the new licensing rule. But they expressed doubt over the financial ability of some Eastern European satellite nations to make heavy purchases without Russian help.

CONSIDERED FOR SOME TIME

Officials said revision of the trade restrictions had been under consideration for some time, and is designed to increase U.S. farm exports as a means of surplus disposal.

Poland and Yugoslavia were not included in the new export order because they have been major customers for U.S. surpluses for the past several years. Yugoslavia, which broke with Stalin in 1948, is not regarded as a Communist satellite country insofar as U.S. export licensers are concerned. And because the Poznan riots of 1956-57 led to a more liberal Communist rule in Poland, the U.S. lowered trade barriers in an effort to woo Poland away from Russia and to obtain an observation post behind the Iron Curtain via an exchange of trade attachés with Poland.

U.S. exports to Russia have been largely nonagricultural. In 1960 only $38 million worth of goods were sold by U.S. traders to the Soviet Union, and of that amount only $2 million represented farm goods.

OUTCRY CAUSED RESTRICTION Restriction on agricultural trade with the Communist nations were clamped on in 1954 as a result of public and congressional outcry over a U.S. proposal to sell a portion of its 900-million-pound hoard of butter and cheese to Russia. The objection was that because exports of dairy products are subsidized, the Communists could buy American butter and cheese at lower prices than U.S. consumers.

The Government pays exporters a subsidy on many U.S. farm products to make up the difference between price-propped domestic prices and lower world market prices. Thus, U.S. people pay one price and recipient nations a lower price for subsidized commodities sold abroad.

of

The new trade policy will allow U.S. traders to compete with such countries as Canada and Australia for grain deals with European Communist nations. Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and others have been shopping in the free world for grain to take the place of normal shipments from Russia, known to be in short supply. Additionally, all Europe ordinarily buys quantities of grain, soybeans, and rice from China, but China is suffering farm production difficulties for the third year in a row and has reduced exports sharply. U.S. officials declined to speculate on the export potential which might result from the trade policy revision.

Please note that the news story alludes to a previous unsuccessful attempt to sell surplus farm commodities to Russia in 1954.

The reaction of Congress to this policy was immediate and adverse. Some 22 bills were introduced to prevent these subsidized sales. Authors included the following Members of Congress: Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Latta, Mr. Chamberlain, Mrs. St. George, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Harsha, Mr. Norblad, Mr. Scherer, Mr. Findley, Mr. Devine, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Thomson of Wisconsin, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Derwinski, Mr. Harvey of Indiana, Mr. Roudebush, Mr. Teague of California, Mr. Goodell, Mr. Moorehead of Ohio,