eral agencies and their resources in the development of programs.

A national peace planning board could stimulate national interest and debate regarding alternatives to arms, and part of its function should be educational. While the board would have the authority to propose programs, their adoption and implementation would obviously be left to the Congress and the Executive.

SOFTENING THE SHOCK OF

DEFENSE SPENDING CUTS Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, Business Week magazine of November 2, 1963, carries a significant article on the growing concern about the impact of possible military spending cuts on our economy.

I commend the article to the attention of Senators and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SOFTENING THE SHOCK OF DEFENSE
SPENDING CUTS

The impact on industry and the economy of "a little disarmament every day" is causing some quiet worry in Congress and the administration.

Although there have been no official pronouncements, the cold war thaw, prospects of a decline in defense spending, and the shift away from big missiles to sophisticated electronic gadgetry foreshadow significant changes. Washington already is looking ahead to the possibility that it may have to

years. But it could alert industry to the economic impact for at least the next fiscal year, once Congress has acted on spending requests.

The Pentagon's Office of Economic Adjust

ment has started work on a community alert program in Roswell, N. Mex., to avoid what happened in Wichita, Kans., a few years ago when aircraft production employing 25 percent of the city's work force closed out.

Roswell, with half its economy dependent on Walker Air Force Base, faces the same potentially dangerous situation, although there is no thought of closing down the

facility.

Two weeks ago, Donald E. Bradford, head of the Economic Adjustment Office, visited Roswell with officials of other Federal agencies at the request of the city's civic leaders. They explored what could be done to diversify the city's economy. Suggestions included trying to attract ceramic industries to take advantage of local clay deposits; getting an oil refinery to move into town, rather than ship locally produced crude oil elsewhere; and developing the sugarbeet industry.

CONGRESS AND INDUSTRY

Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Democrat, of South Dakota, will soon introduce a bill to set up a National Economic Conversion Committee to encourage planning by business concerns with 25 percent or more of sales in defense. Senator CLARK'S subcommittee also hopes to recommend ways in which the Defense Department could do more to help companies and communities over the hurdle of sudden withdrawal of defense contracts.

The Electronic Industries Association warns that few companies are doing any planning; most are "just not facing the music." But

might be felt in some industries and communities.

This week, a Senate subcommittee on manpower and employment headed by Senator JOSEPH CLARK, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, began looking into defense spending, what it means now, and what it will mean 2 or 5 years hence.

In the Defense Department, top officials are trying to work out an "early warning system" to alert defense industries and localities to the upheavals ahead from changing patterns of military spending.

Nobody foresees real disarmament, however rosy United States-Soviet relations become. Defense spending will continue hefty, but the buildup that lifted military outlays from $40 billion annually to $50 billion in a few years is over.

PUZZLEMENT

Senator CLARK will find few easy answers. The Pentagon does not even know where all defense money ends up by the time orders are subcontracted out. The Institute for Defense Analysis is just beginning a study to find ways to collect data on the impact of defense spending.

The Defense Department wants to help business, but is handicapped by what it can say. Long-range strategic plans are secret, and efforts to warn one company or an industry could cause panic. Furthermore, today's warnings could be misleading anyhow, since strategic concepts may be scrapped because of tomorrow's technological developments.

Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara has named Special Assistant Adam Yarmolinsky to head a committee that will try to work out an early warning system for industry. The group is just starting to feel its way, but it will probably rely mostly on consultations.

LOOKING AHEAD

Such a system may do little in forecasting where defense changes will fall in 2 or 3

to this problem in intellectual circles in Washington. Because of this, he thinks many companies will be giving more attention to conversion by spring.

WORDS OF CONFIDENCE

Many Washington economists believe a switch out of military spending can bring real growth benefits, if resources are absorbed by the civilian economy without too much dislocation. Military spending, they say, is inherently wasteful. Because of rapid obsolescence and the unpredictability of production and planning, $1 million spent for defense brings less economic good than $1 million spent on civilian goods. One study estimates that if a 20-percent disarmament program had been put in effect in 1958, some 254,000 jobs would have been lost, but 542,000 new jobs would have been created if the money had been spent for civilian purposes instead.

SENATOR MCINTYRE SPEAKS OUT ON DEFENSE AND DISARMAMENT Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER] is recognized.

Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, the junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MCINTYRE] has been a Member of this body for less than 1 year. Yet in that brief span his perceptive eye and conscientious voice have earned him a respectful audience among his colleagues. Senator MCINTYRE has distinguished has distinguished himself as a partisan of the underdog the small businessman, the consumer. He has been an outspoken advocate of sound conservation legislation, and a sound conservation legislation, and a cautious and conscientious analyst of all

legislation affecting the weal of his State and Nation.

It is for these reasons that I read with particular interest the major speech by the Senator from New Hampshire delivered on October 24 at Notre Dame College in Manchester, N.H., setting forth his views on defense policy and the control of nuclear testing. Again, this address is characterized by both those qualities of reason and candor which have marked TOM MCINTYRE'S Senate performance to date. In deft, short strokes, he sketches the complex relationship between nuclear testing and national security. Maintaining that "national security is the strength of our guarantees for freedom, here at home and all over the world," he nonetheless builds an imposing case for the Senate-ratified test

ban treaty.

He speaks of "tough competitive coexistence" as the only acceptable mode of living with, while not giving into, the threat of international communism. We see clearly that to be firm in opposition to the encroachments of communism, we need not deliver ourselves to nuclear conflict or continue the "radioactive contamination of the atmosphere and of our own bodies and those of our children." And he warns that "we have been playing fast and loose with the fragile genetic basis of humanity's future." "We honor our peacemakers" he tells us, "but must remain in readiness for war."

I commend this fine address to those

of our colleagues who may not yet have seen it and I ask unanimous consent that for their benefit it may be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE LIMITED TREATY BANNING NUCLEAR
TESTS

(By U.S. Senator TOM MCINTYRE)

ing and contributing to today's discussions I would like to commend you for attend

of international affairs. We hear more about such subjects than we used to. This is true for several reasons. Unlike most na

tions, we face the two great seas of the world. These oceans used to protect us. In these days of rapid travel they expose us. Second, we led the victorious alliance in a great war. Upon us fell the responsibility to construct the peace from the shattered remains of nations. Our position as a world power has involved us in many crises not of our own making. Third, we have world trade and finance. In the depression become much more exposed to problems of we did not have funds enough to buy foreign products. The war disrupted trade and virtual monopoly on currency and goods. destroyed factories, giving this country a But after 30 years we are again fully exposed to foreign competition, whether for markets overseas or here at home. Fourth, the peoples of the underdeveloped nations have discovered that famine and disease are not inevitable laws of nature. They look to us for the knowledge that will overcome poverty.

The many-sided involvement of the United States with foreign nations might be expressed in one short story. Prime Minister Balewa of Nigeria wished to tour the United States, but to get away from the ordinary Instead, he proposed to tour the Tennessee big city stops made by visiting dignitaries. Valley to inspect dams, power generators, and other improvements which bore a close

relation to his own country's efforts. As the official party made its way, Balewa said he would like to visit a farmhouse. Nervously State Department officials indicated that colored men were not always welcome in that part of the country but the visitor insisted that a request be made. Surprisingly, the farmer said he would be delighted to meet the Prime Minister. So the tall, gaunt official took up a position in the parlor, his white Moslem robes overflowing onto the floor. In faultless English he discussed the farmer's operation and the farmer spoke in simple, direct terms about his problems with his land, his experience with the TVA electric power, and the education of his children. You can readily imagine the questions which preoccupied everyone there that day. What is the proper role of government in developing a region like the Tennessee Valley? How do America's race relations look to the rest of the world in days of concern about human rights? What skills and assistance will a country like Nigeria need to promote its development? I think Prime Minister Balewa's parting remarks bear repeating. He said, "I, too, was a farmer in my own country. I think if I were to change places with you, that I could run a farm much like yours. But, as for your changing places with me, I can readily see that you would not do it, You must truly be the happiest man alive." This comment, and the farflung works of the TVA, and the great uranium plants which the electric power operates at Oak Ridge remind us that America does indeed have much to offer the world. I would like to discuss some of our international relations with you this evening in the light of the overriding concern of the foreign policy of the United States-the attainment of a just and secure peace.

The recent ratification of the limited treaty banning nuclear tests is one event in our foreign policy which I participated in in the U.S. Senate. On July 2 of this year, Nikita Khrushchev announced the willingness of the U.S.S.R. to conclude an agreement banning nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and the oceans. On July 25 an agreed draft was initialed. On August 5 the three great powers signed the treaty in Moscow. Throughout July and August, like most Members of the Senate, I gave my attention to the problems raised by the treaty and its impending ratification. I would like to discuss the treaty, explain why such an agreement has been an overriding concern of U.S. foreign policy for 14 years, and tell you why I believe its ratification was in the national interest. It is a large subject. Many aspects were considered. The points I shall discuss are the ones I found most persuasive.

THE MEANING OF NATIONAL SECURITY Above all other considerations, the test ban had to be evaluated in terms of our national security. This is a term which we often use in a heedless kind of way, without much effort to define it precisely. National security is the strength of our guarantees for freedom, here at home and all over the world. The ruthless philosophy of Leninism, based on the writings of Marx, exalts the work of the state by devaluing human achievement. Our own policy has consistently been to extend strong guarantees of human worth. Communism, throughout most of its history, has based the strength of the state upon a dogmatic political creed. It justifies its regimentation of men by arguing that only strong central governments can discover the meaning of life. The Communists have built an unwieldy structure that weakens if it does not expand. Our mission has been to frustrate that expansion and to strengthen men's ability to choose the ways of life best suited to themselves.

The extension of communism in Europe after the war was carried out under the

guns of the Russian Army. Civil war had broken out in Greece and there was a definable military threat in Turkey and Iran. Relying upon our experience with nuclear weapons we created a system of forward bases for striking forces. The 14 years since have witnessed a spiraling competition in armaments between this country and the U.S.S.R. We have gone from B-47's to B-52's, from atomic bombs to hydrogen bombs of increasing complexity, efficiency, and power. From airplanes we went to guided and ballistic missiles, first of intermediate and then of intercontinental range, to be fired from underwater and underground. During the same period our annual military budget climbed from around $10 billion in 1949 to $50 billion today. The strength of our guarantees for freedom, in the last resort, depends upon the power of these strategic retaliatory forces and our ultimate willingness to use them. Weapons testing has been an integral part of weapons development, upon which the success of the Western deterrent depends. That is why the treaty had to be subjected to a very careful scrutiny, to make sure that our strategic retaliatory forces could continue to function as a shield of freedom. No attack upon us can destroy all of these weapons. Those remaining shall deny the fruits of victory to any aggressor. Our willingness to invoke their awesome power was demonstrated in last year's clash over Cuba. But we have not resorted to the actual use of these engines of destruction in 17 years of contest and I hope we never shall.

There is a point in this progression where more weapons do not necessarily mean more security. It does no good to have more bombs than we could ever need or quantities far out of relation to the number and type of targets which must be destroyed. The purpose of these weapons is to enable this country to threaten unacceptable damage on an aggressor. Both the United States and the U.S.S.R. now have enough nuclear power to inflict enormous destruction on each other. Still, the search for bigger, more destructive weapons goes on. Each generation of major weapons has been more expensive than the last. Each has involved an increas

ing burden, an increasing diversion of resources from the great unfinished business of mankind. The military arts are not a monopoly of any country. The atom yields its secrets to a properly designed experiment regardless of the nationality of the investigator. We cannot improve our weapons in such a way as to deny similar improvements to others. It is undeniable that our destructive strength today is many times what it was 14 years ago. But is our security many times greater? The lesson of the postwar years is that security does not depend on military technology alone. When we sum up the dangers of our situation, including accidental war and the spread of nuclear weapons to irresponsible powers, I believe we are fully justified in concluding that efforts to control the armaments competition are in the interest of our national security.

THE COMPETITION IN ARMAMENTS

I supported the efforts at negotiation because I thought their basic purpose was to give this Nation a more flexible approach to the cold war. I believe flexibility is the essential prerequisite to success. Rather than stake our security only on the ultimate destructive power of thermonucelar weapons, the last trump to play in any hand, we should have a whole series of responses to the bewildering variety of cold war initiatives. In the conflicts between the free and Communist worlds we need an enhanced capacity to win battles, in order to avert wars. This treaty does not change our primary objective, which is to secure the global future of freedom. I do hope that it will increase our emphasis upon the first line defenses which have not always held in the

years of the cold war. An ambassador who can persuade an unruly crowd, a sensitive night landscape scanner for use in jungle warfare, a training agreement with the forces of a country on the frontiers of the Communist empire-these can be decisive "weapons" in our long-range pursuit of freedom. Our failure to master them as fully as we have mastered nuclear technology has led to tragedy in Cuba, the drawn-out conflict in South Vietnam, and a dozen explosive situations around the world.

The test ban treaty does not show that the Soviets have revised their notions about their place in the world. Two weeks after Khrushchev announced that the U.S.S.R. would be willing to sign an agreement, statements in Pravda plainly indicated that the ambitions of communism for world domination were as strong as ever. We must continue our efforts to consolidate the Western alliance, in order to strengthen Western unity on fundamentals in a period when the Communist world is increasingly disunified. We must intensify our efforts to correct the conditions of instability and bleak poverty which communism exploits for empire. We must answer aggression or subversion with dexterity and a practical wisdom that provides a countermove to exact just enough of a cost to discourage further adventuring. By winning these small contests we shall prevail. Yet our power to threaten ultimate war contributes very little to this contest. Nuclear technology is only one science to press into service; agriculture, education, economics, and psychology are going to be increasingly important. The treaty banning nuclear tests should slow the spiraling race in superweapons development. In so doing, let us concentrate on the encounters where we should win, not those where all civilization must lose. Our nuclear forces shall remain in awesome readiness, but the last resort should not be the foremost safeguard in our minds.

In the Cuban crisis a year ago, the curtain rolled back for a moment and we all had to think about the consequences of nuclear war as an imminent possibility. Our President boldly withstood nuclear blackmail and Khrushchev backed down. Few of us want to see such a grim encounter repeated. The road to peace is bound to be a long and difficult one, but the American people must be determined to take every step along that road that opens before us. The treaty banning nuclear tests was such a step.

THE NATURE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The reason for pursuing this long-term goal is clear. We must not forget the nature of the weapons we are considering, although their effects are something we would just as soon not think about. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki today no one has forgotten the overpowering horror of the nuclear holocaust although almost all wish they could forget. And weapons actually carried in our bombers today are literally hundreds of times more powerful. A 10-megaton bomb causes second degree burns at a distance of 25 miles and would destroy houses for 8 miles around by blast effects alone. The fireball and following radiation effects are perhaps best left undescribed, but we must not shrink from them in contemplating this subject.

At the outset I considered the impact of the treaty upon the strength of our deterrent forces. I called officials of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Department to my office. We discussed some of the technical fine points about military strength. It was at once apparent that almost all those concerned with overall defense policy and weapons design supported the treaty. Every technical argument offered against it was answered by careful scientific testimony. The unanimity of the highest intelligence, atomic energy, and defense officials was most impressive.

IS THE AGREEMENT BASED ON TRUST?

Another question, and one on many of your minds I am sure, was whether or not we could trust the Russians to observe the agreement. The answer, quite simply, is that this treaty is not based on trust. We have arrays of sensitive instruments that can detect any atmospheric or underwater test that might be significant for Soviet weapons development. There are now in orbit two out of the planned system of very high altitude earth satellites which would detect radiation from blasts up to at least 20 million miles into space. We remain ready to test again ourselves and the President recently informed Congress that some $18 million is to be spent on new facilities for this purpose. If this treaty, like the famous pie crust of Lenin's

dictum, was made to be broken, we shall neither be surprised nor placed at a disadvantage.

Why

If the treaty were based on trust, it could have been extended to cover all underground tests. But in that environment we do not have sufficiently reliable detection equipment to monitor a ban. It was in 1958 that President Eisenhower first suggested a test ban to cover everything but underground tests. At that time the Russians refused, replying that they would reserve the right to test anywhere they liked and would not permit us to force them to rely on tests underground. Why have they retreated from this position and given in on a point they once regarded as essential to their own security? I do not have the answer, but it is important to notice that they have altered a position. This treaty is not something they have wanted all along. Its advantages for them are not too hard to discover: The treaty stops us from testing where we do have things to learn, it permits them to pose as peacemakers, and it will swing world opinion against Chinese weapons development. It is these ingredients of Soviet self-interest which will cause them to observe the treaty, so long as they do in fact observe it. We should hark back to the warning George Washington addressed to our young Nation, which was not to trust any nation beyond the limits of its own self-interest. That is timely advice today. The history of Russia reveals centuries of treachery on a grand scale. But I do not believe it would be to their advantage to violate this treaty before the open forum of world opinion.

COMPETITIVE COEXISTENCE

The third question was whether we were entering upon some drastically new phase in our relations with the Soviet Union. Many have called this treaty a limited first step toward other agreements which may help to minimize the danger of conflict between the great powers. I agree with that. But it is not an end to the cold war. It does not automatically usher in an age of congenial coexistence. I would prefer to speak of tough competitive coexistence. I don't for a minute believe the Russians have shelved their blueprint for world domination. Nor have we budged an inch in our determination to defend freedom. This treaty frankly recognizes conflicts with the Communists too deep to resolve. As Senator FULBRIGHT, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, so persuasively stated in the opening minutes of the Senate debate, such wide gulfs are usually closed by history, not by the feeble diplomatic machinery of nations.

It is precisely because these divisions are going to be with us for a long time that we ought to try to leave our most awesome weapons at some distance from the various arenas of conflict. This treaty embodies a germ of understanding on this point. We of the free world are not going to sacrifice a heritage of freedom which has been with us since the age of Pericles. The Communists are not going to be reborn next Sunday morning. We of the West should proceed in

the belief that time and reason are on our side so long as we are firm and that if we have the sense to avoid the final nuclear catastrophe, we can sort out the problems of the world in a manner that will prove acceptable to us.

RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT AND CONTAMINATION

A fourth point, which was very persuasive with me, was that a vast concert of nations would agree to halt further radioactive contamination of the atmosphere and of our own bodies and of those of our children. The overwhelming burden of scientific opinion is that we have been playing fast and loose with the fragile genetic basis of humanity's future.

There is disagreement about how much damage, but it would be sheer folly to wait for statistically significant obvious physical damage to reveal itself. Let me point out just how drastic the effects of these weapons can be on the world in which we must live. I observed that the detection satellites have been placed in an orbit about 60,000 miles up. The reason for that is that radioactive bands from earlier tests, now trapped in the earth's magnetic field, would destroy the electronic equipment of the detection satellites if they were any closer to earth. The explosion above Johnston Island in July of 1962 created artificial northern lights at a distance of 3,000 miles in seconds. It lowered the ionospheric layer of the atmosphere above the Eastern United States about 10 seconds later. In succeeding days satellite after satellite fell silent. Within the heart of that artificial electron belt, since strengthened by later Soviet tests, an astronaut 1,000 miles up would receive a lethal dose of radiation in about 1 day spent orbiting the earth. It may be too technical to say the Johnston Island blast was 1.4 megatons, or 70 times as strong as the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. But these widespread effects for thousands of miles out into space show the immensity of the force that mankind has set free. The treaty places a limit upon these artificial radiation belts and a limit upon increasing fallout which contaminates milk and clouds the future of the human race.

Those, then are the principal points that weighed on my mind. One, the exceptional nature of nuclear weapons and their threat to mankind. Two, the fact that the treaty does not weaken our military position. Three, violations can be detected by our equipment so the agreement is not based on trust. Four, it is a step that makes sense in the cold war situation. Five, it will help to end the contamination of fallout and other dramatic effects upon our environment.

And so, on September 24, 1963, the Senate ratified the limited treaty banning nuclear tests by a vote of 80 to 19. To the extent that reason may be our guide, I believe it confirmed a vote for ratification. But international affairs offer few certainties. We are adventuring upon uncertain seas if we look to the future. How right Robert Frost was to observe that most of the change we think we see is due to truths being in and out of favor. There is no shortage of armchair strategists to claim that this treaty is the beginning of something or the end of something else. I suspect that it is neither. It is one moment in America's long history. We honor our peacemakers but must remain in readiness for war. We are strongly determined to steer a resolute course toward our destiny, free from illusions but unafraid of hope.

GOLDWATER AND THE GREEK
ELECTIONS

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, President Kennedy in his press conference on Thursday, October 31, said our distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Arizona, had been "involving him

self" in the Greek elections. There was no elaboration by Mr. Kennedy, reporters sought none and most people were mysti

fied.

The enterprising Baltimore Sun in its issue of November 3, 1963, goes to considerable effort and probable expense to solve the mystery. It is interesting to note that the implications of the President's press conference remarks are not sustained by the interview with the Senator whose position against meddling in the Greek election is clearly established.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Baltimore Sun article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

GOLDWATER AND THE GREEK ELECTIONS

In his press conference on Thursday President Kennedy said that Senator GOLDWATER had "had a busy week selling TVA *** suggesting that military commanders overseas be permitted to use nuclear weapons; attacking the President of Bolivia while he was here in the United States; involving himself in the Greek elections." The reference to the Greek elections, which take place today, was not elaborated upon by the President, and he was not questioned about it. The background:

Today's voting finds Constantine Karamanlis ERE (National Radical Union Party) opposed chiefly by George Papandreou's Center Union Party. Mr. Karamanlis opponents have repeatedly charged that the American Embassy in Athens exerted pressure on behalf of Karamanlis in the 1961 elections, which returned him to the Premiership. The charge has been just as repeatedly denied by the American Embassy, and was denied once more, emphatically and categorically, by Ambassador by Ambassador Henry R. Labouisse after the recent publication in Athens of on interview granted by Senator GOLDWATER to Elias Demetrakopoulos, political correspondent of the Athenian Englishlanguage Daily Post.

One version of the import of that interview is given here in translation from the October 14 issue of the Athens News, an allout supporter of the Center Union Party, whose leaders, including Papandreou, are quoted in the same issue as finding Senator GOLDWATER'S view of the Greek political situation forthright and perceptive.

"The revelations by Mr. BARRY GOLDWATER, Republican Senator, concerning intervention by the American Embassy in Athens in the

1961 elections, and the soundings of elements

of the ERE (National Radical Union Party) regarding creation of dictatorship and of American State Department efforts in the Balkans endangering Greek interests have created a sharp impression in political circles and among public opinion here.

"In an interview with Mr. Elias Demetrakopoulos, Mr. GOLDWATER, a top Republican leader, and President Kennedy's most likely opponent:

"1. Verified that reports concerning the trip of Mr. Farmakis, prominent ERE politician, to the United States several months ago were correct. He emphasized a dictatorial regime in Greece would definitely be a step backward.

"2. Admitted there was interference by the American Embassy in the 1961 Greek elections and disclosed that since he has not, as yet, seen the conclusions of an inquiry into the Embassy's electoral role, he was not sure whether disciplinary measures would be necessary. He further asserted that the current Greek elections must be absolutely free and that 'our Embassy in Athens must this time remain absolutely neutral, avoiding any interference whatsoever.'

"3. Said he shared fears expressed in Athens that increasing American Government contact with Eastern bloc nations, particularly Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, could seriously damage vital Greek interests. He especially singled out sinister Bulgarian and Yugoslavian initiatives at the expense of Greece and assigned responsibility for this official policy to 'a clique in the State Department.'

"In detail:

"Question. There are reports currently cir

Taylor's descendants among my friends and join with them in honoring the memory of their great ancestor.

The story of President Taylor is, in its earlier chapters, the story of the founding of the Mormon Church. In his middle years, John Taylor's history becomes the history of the founding of Utah, and later his life story traces the emergence of Salt Lake City and the sur

opposed suggestions made to you that creation of a dictatorship in Greece would provide a final solution to Greece's problems. Would you care to comment on these reports? "Answer. I am against dictatorships in any country and this is why I severely attacked suggestions that creation of a dictatorship in Greece would finally solve her problems. My God, No! Greece is one of the most civilized nations in the world. Our own democratic methods of government have their root in Greece. It would be tragic if Greece, the first democracy, would retrogress into a dictatorship. I just can't understand why any Greeks would have such ideas. "Question. Do you share current fears about the tense Greek political situation and what are the results of your investigation of last year denouncing the role of the American Embassy in Athens during the 1961 Greek elections?

"Answer. I am very upset about the disturbing political situation in Greece and I was particularly nettled by the London riots of last July during the Greek royal trip there. I have not yet reviewed the final results of the study investigating the American Embassy's role in the last elections. We must, however, take proper action that this meddling will not take place again. First I would like to see the investigation's conclusions and then I could say what disciplinary measures would be required.

The Greek

people, among all other nations, deserve free elections and I sincerely hope that the forthcoming elections will be conducted in a free atmosphere and that our embassy in Greece will remain this time absolutely neutral, avoiding any meddling.

"Question. Do you share the fears expressed in Athens that current American active concern and increasing contact with Communist nations in Eastern Europe, particularly Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, constitute a threat to basic Greek interests?

"Answer. Certainly I share these fears. And the American Congress is also very upset with these recent contacts. Bulgarian and Yugoslavian aims with regard to Greek Macedonia prove their long-term intentions to harm Greece, one of our most faithful allies. These unprincipled Bulgarian and Yugoslavian policies designed to violate your nation's territorial integrity justify the aforementioned fears which are also shared by Congress."

TRIBUTE TO JOHN TAYLOR

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, on November 1, 1963, the descendants of President John Taylor, third president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints-Mormon, commemorated the 144th anniversary of his birth.

President Taylor has thousands of living descendants. Among them are men and women who have who have distinguished themselves in wide ranges of human endeavors, including religion, government and public affairs, medicine, business, education, science, literature, engineering, law, and the Armed Forces. I am privileged to count many of President

largest and most civilized community between the Missouri and the Pacific coast. He was with Joseph and Hyrum Smith when they were killed in the Carthage, Ill., jail. He was one of the pioneers to reach the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, and he was associated with almost every significant decision and in almost every important event in Utah from then until his death in 1887.

I ask unanimous consent that a tribute to President Taylor, written recently by one of his descendants, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the tribute was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JOHN TAYLOR, CHURCHMAN AND UTAH
PIONEER

John Taylor was born in England in 1808. At the age of 17 he was made a Methodist preacher, and at 20 he started a business for himself as a turner. When he was 24 he emigrated to Canada and subsequently he became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, joining the main body of the church in the United States. At the age of 30 he was ordained one of the Twelve Apostles of the church. From then until his death, nearly 50 years later, President Taylor served as an apostle and prophet and was president of the church during the last 7 years of his life. His life and activities were intertwined with the development of both the church and the State of Utah.

In 1839 the main body of the church was expelled from Missouri and found a temHowever, porary resting place in Illinois. subsequently, President Taylor and othersin secrecy for fear of mobs-met at a dedicated temple site in Far West, Mo., and there, after solemn discussions and prayers, departed on missions to Europe.

Five years later President Taylor was with the prophet, Joseph Smith, and his brother, Hyrum Smith, when those two leaders were killed by mobs in the Carthage, Ill., jail. President Taylor was severely wounded, but his life was saved from a bullet, meant for his heart, by a watch worn in his vest pocket.

The expulsion of the church from Illinois in 1845-46 presented new problems and trials. Brigham Young with the assistance of John Taylor and others organized and directed the most historic exodus of modern time: the migration of tens of thousands of church members from the Missouri River to the heart of the Rocky Mountains. Some had wagons, others traveled the thousand miles of uncharted wilderness with only handcarts. History can never forget this Mormon trek and the over 7,000 unmarked graves along the Mormon trail from Council Bluffs to Salt Lake City.

President Taylor arrived in Salt Lake in 1847 with his family. When their first crops were ready to harvest, clouds of crickets descended upon them. All prayed earnestly to the Lord to save their crops from the crickets, and John Taylor was among those who witnessed the miracle of the seagulls. These birds arrived in huge flocks and proceeded to devour the crickets. Some of the gulls were observed disgorging crickets in Great

Salt Lake and then returning to the fields

to devour more of them.

In 1857 President Buchanan (based on erroneous reports) ordered a contingent of the U.S. Army to Salt Lake City. This aroused strong resentment among the people, some of whom had been driven out of Missouri in 1838-39, and Illinois in 1845–46 and had endured extreme hardships during the migration to Utah and the establishment of their homes. Their feelings are illustrated in quoting from a church meet

ing in Salt Lake City, September 1857:

"Elder TAYLOR. What would be your feelings if the United States wanted to have the honor of driving us from our homes? * * * Would you, if necessary, brethren, put the torch to your buildings and lay them in

ashes and wander houseless into these mountains? I know what you would say and what you would do.

"President BRIGHAM YOUNG. Try the vote. "Elder TAYLOR. All you that are willing to set fire to your property and lay it in ashes rather than submit to their military rule and oppression, manifest it by raising your hands.

"The congregation, numbering more than 4,000, unanimously raised their hands.

are.

"Elder TAYLOR. I know what your feelings We have been persecuted and robbed long enough; and in the name of Israel's God, we will be free.

"Congregation responded, 'Amen.' "President YOUNG. I say amen all the time to that.

"Elder TAYLOR. 'I feel to thank God that I am associated with such men, with such people, where honesty and truth dwell in the heart-where men have a religion that they are not afraid to live by, and that they are not afraid to die by; and I would not give a straw for anything short of that.'"

By June of 1858, various settlements in northern Utah were deserted, save by those left to destroy them. However, in conferences with church leaders, President Taylor among them, and President Buchanan's representatives, the problem was amicably

solved.

The last 50 years of John Taylor's life were devoted almost exclusively to the benefits of his fellowmen: as a leader of his people, as a missionary who converted hundreds to the church in America, England, France and other countries, as a journalist and editor, as a legislator, and as a devoted husband and father. But further, he was a strong and determined defender of human liberty. He wrote:

"We say we are the children of God. That is true, we are. We are sparks struck from the blaze of His eternal fire. But what of the rest of the world-whose children are they? They are also the children of our Heavenly Father, and He is interested in their welfare as He is in ours; and as a kind, beneficent Father toward His children, He has been seeking from generation to generation to promote the welfare, the happiness and the exaltation of the human family.

"We sometimes talk about the hand of God being over us. Of course it is, and will be over us forever, if we will only serve Him, for He is always true. But His hand is over the nations of the earth also. He is interested in the welfare of this Nation, and all other nations, and all other people, as well as in our welfare.

"I believe in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the exaltation of the human family, and consequently have acted and do act in accordance with that belief. If others choose to do otherwise, that is their business. 'But,' says one, 'don't you want to send them all to hell?' No, I don't; but I would be glad to get them out of it; and if I could do them any good, I would do it with pleasure. I do not believe in this wrath and dread,

but if a man acts meanly I will tell him that he is a poor, mean cur. Then if I find him hungry, I would feed him or if I found him naked, I would clothe him; for the Gospel teaches me to do good and benefit mankind

as far as lies in my power."

It has become proverbial that all great movements must produce their own leaders. It is recognized that leaders in established institutions, political, social, religious, whatever, are rarely converted to innovations. Perhaps they consider it to their in

terest to oppose changes, or perhaps they fear that changes may cast doubt upon the correctness of the whole with which they

are connected.

So it was that the leaders who arose out of the Mormon movement were unfettered by prejudices and personal ambitions.

AGED

There being no objection, the editorial

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, the Special Committee on Aging's Subcommittee on Health of the Elderly has completed a carefully detailed analysis of the operation and effects of the KerrMills Act since its beginning 3 years ago. The subcommittee, under the chairmanship of the able senior Senator from Michigan Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], has performed a valuable service in putting the Kerr-Mills law in the proper perspective.

The report states:

After 3 years of operation, the Kerr-Mills

a giant among men of any generation.

THE COMPETITION IN SPACE Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, immediately following Premier Khrushchev's recent statement that Russia had no immediate plans to put men on the moon the general interpretation was that the Soviet Union had pulled out of the so-called moon race. This interpretation is unwarranted by the facts of the case. The competition in space between the United States and the Soviet Union is still intense. It would be foolish indeed if this country were to attempt to reorient its vast space program each time the Soviet Union made some pronouncement about its goals. We should take cognizance of Russian statements but we should not let ourselves be diverted from sound objectives on the grounds that competition no longer exists. I ask unanimous consent that a portion of the interview between newspapermen and Khrushchev in which the Russian leader made his statement about the moon be inserted at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the portion of the interview was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

KHRUSHCHEV'S STATEMENT

Journalist Leopold Vargas, of Colombia, asks: "Can you tell us whether a flight to the moon by Soviet cosmonauts is planned

for the not too distant future?"

Mr. Khrushchev: "It would be very interesting to take a trip to the moon. But I cannot at present say when this will be done. We are not at present planning flights by cosmonauts to the moon. Soviet scientists

are working on this problem. It is being

studied as a scientific problem and the neces

sary research is being done. I have a report

to the effect that the Americans want to land a man on the moon by 1970-80. Well, let's

wish them success. We shall see how they will fly there, how they will land on the moon and, more important, how they will start off and return home. We shall take their experience into account. We do not want to compete with the sending of people to the moon without careful preparation. It is clear that no benefits would be derived from such a competition. On the contrary, it would be harmful as it might result in the destruction of people. We have a frequently quoted joke: He who cannot bear it any longer on earth may fly to the moon. But we are all right on earth, to speak seriously, much work will have to be done and good preparations made for a successful flight to the moon by man."

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that an ex

as follows:

TO THE MOON

Russia's newest venture in space has come at exactly the right time. Although not so intended, it pulls the rug from under those among us such as economizing Congressmen and excessively zealous scientists like Linus Pauling-who have been clamoring for an end to our country's program to place Americans on the moon by 1970.

These people, with much naivete (to use a polite word), have attached an extravagant degree of importance to Premier Khrushchev's recent remarks vaguely suggesting that he may be withdrawing the Soviets from the lunar race. Actually, as President Kennedy observed at his Thursday news conference, the remarks were so "very guarded and careful and cautious" that he himself intentions." Instead, as he proposes to do, "would not make any bets at all on Soviet he would carry out the American moon program as fast as possible and without letup. He would do this not just for prestige purposes, but because the whole awesome undertaking has a vital bearing on national security. Further, it holds out the promise of great intellectual and material rewards to ploitation of what might be called the heavenly seas, the boundless oceans of the universe around us.

be wrested from the exploration and ex

Certainly, if Moscow has not exaggerated, the new Soviet spatial experiment spectacularly supports Mr. Kennedy. For the that it is said to be maneuverable in all vehicle involved is extraordinary in the sense directions-horizontally, to to the left and right, and perpendicularly, up and down-so

that it can make vast and swift orbital

changes at command from the ground. If the Russians really have achieved such maneuverability in space, then the United

States has a lot of catching up to do. More

specifically, their latest space shot plainly, and disturbingly, indicates that they are well ahead of us with the kind of rendezvous capability that is essential to efforts to place

men on the moon and bring them back safe

ly. This is one of the many reasons why all

Americans should share in the President's strong doubt that Mr. Khrushchev has even the slightest intention of withdrawing from the lunar race.

Clearly, we must run this race as swiftly as we possibly can. D. Brainerd Holmes, former chief of our lunar project, has summed it all up rather well: "If we do not make these efforts, we will not be first on the moon, we will not be first in space and, one day soon, we will not be first on earth. With the

support of the American people, and with the help of God, we will not be second."

President Kennedy obviously feels the same way. That is why he has warned against the shallow and potentially dangerous views of people like Dr. Pauling. As a nation, we must keep on going forward, to the moon and beyond.

gram has proved to be at best an ineffective and piecemeal approach to the health problems of the Nation's 18 million older citizens.

Senators will find the report of great use as the time approaches for action on the administration's proposal to provide hospital insurance for the aged through social security.

The New York Times commented editorially yesterday on the subcommittee's report, and I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed at the conclusion of my remarks. I disagree with the editorial's conclusion that the problem of the elderly in financing their health needs is "one of the great forgotten issues of 1963." Millions of Americans have a very strong interest in seeing a solution to this problem, and those of us who support the administration's approach certainly have not forgotten either the aged or the need to find an answer. The House Ways and Means Committee will begin hearings on this subject on November 18, and I firmly believe that we are going to see a resolution of the problem before this Congress ends.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SHORTCHANGING THE AGED

Three years after its adoption the KerrMills program of medical assistance for the aged is proving a meager answer to financing care for elderly persons too poor to pay their own hospital and medical bills.

dicates that only 2 percent of the Nation's The report of a Senate subcommittee in

18 million aged received aid under the pro

gram in any part of the last fiscal year. Even this tiny proportion is an exaggeration, since many thousands were persons who had received care under public relief programs before the Federal system of matching grants

for the medically indigent was enacted.

Only 28 States have yet put plans in operation; the duration and types of benefits vary widely; stringent eligibility tests and the humiliating means test discourage participation, and the great bulk of the funds go to the wealthiest States. Administrative costs eat up much of the Federal allocation, partly because of the newness of the program but even more because of the complexity of the rules governing enforcement.

The concept that a combination of KerrMills and private health insurance will give America's older citizens adequate protection against the economic hazards of ill health is plainly an illusion. Until the Kennedy administration makes a real fight for its program of hospital care for the aged under the social security system, tens of thousands of the elderly will lack the safeguards they need