on January 14, 1963-to take full advantage of time in the drawn-out process of making a bill into law.

Hearings were held on S. 5 during April and May before the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs. It was reported out of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee on July 2 and has been on the Senate Calendar since that time.

S. 5 has not yet been called up for floor action, but in a recent letter to the Daily Iowan, Senator YARBOROUGH said, "I shall continue to press the Policy Committee to schedule S. 5 for consideration at the earliest possible time." Currently 39 Senators are cosponsoring the cold war GI bill.

In introducing the cold war GI bill to the Senate, Senator YARBOROUGH succinctly stated the case for the bill's enactment: "I for one, do not believe that the day has yet arrived when citizens who make up our Armed Forces must suffer for their loyalty and willingness to serve. We must begin a program that tells America that the draft law does not cause certain of our sons to lose 2 or more years from their competitive civilian lives, but instead, provides a challenging opportunity for honorable and patriotic service-service that will be suitably recognized and not be a lifetime burden."

[From the Iowa City (Iowa) Daily Iowan, Oct. 24, 1963]

CURRENT LEGISLATIVE INTEREST IN GI BILL (By Dennis Binning) Congressional Representatives, since the 84th Congress, have sought to extend the history of veterans' readjustment assistance legislation. Currently there is a bill in the Senate (S. 5, the cold war GI bill) and there are two similar bills in the House that show that efforts to reestablish such legislation is being intensified.

Since the earliest days of America's sovereignty, this country has provided readjustment assistance to its military veterans when they return to civilian life.

In George Washington's day, the Revolutionary War veterans were given land grants in the area west of the Allegheny Mountains. After the Civil War, Union veterans were given certificates to 160 acres of their choice on federally owned land.

The "Rough Riders" and their SpanishAmerican War contemporaries were provided with mustering-out pay for their military services. World War I veterans were provided expanded hospital care, scholarships for dependent children, insurance, and other considerations.

The most revolutionary veterans' readjustment assistance legislation, however, was passed during the waning days of World War II. Under the Roosevelt administration, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (Public Law 346, 78th Cong.) was passed. This act, commonly referred to as the World War II GI bill, did more to upgrade the average level of education in this country and to stabilize our postwar economy than any other single legislation.

The history of veterans' readjustment assistance ends with the Korean "police action" veterans. The Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 (Public Law 55, 82d Cong.) built upon the World War II GI bill experiment and provided an even wider assortment of benefits to the returning servicemen. Military men who had seen active duty since the termination date of the Korean GI bill on January 31, 1955, receive no benefits or assistance for their service.

One need only look at the benefits accrued by this Nation through such legislation in the past to see that its continuation into the present cold war era is not only advisable, but imperative.

The land-grant benefits of the early days made possible a fast expansion of this Na

tion into the western territories. Without the land-grant catalyst, settlement of these lands might have been delayed a decade, perhaps more.

But the real benefits to this Nation, the benefits that are vitally important to us today in the cold war era, were accrued through the World War II and Korean GI bills.

Senator HIRAM L. FONG, Republican, of Hawaii, testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, pointed out that "under the GI bills of World War II and the Korean war, nearly 10 million veterans received educational training, adding greatly to our Nation's welfare and productivity by giving us 180,000 doctors, nurses, and medical personnel; 113,000 physicists and research scientists; 450,000 engineers; and 230,000 schoolteachers."

In addition, a parade of witnesses told much more to the subcommittee about the widespread effects of the GI bills. For instance, over 1 million men received on-farm training, about 6 million veterans purchased homes under the loan provisions of the bills (it has been said that one out of every five homes built since World War II was GI-bill financed), a total of $54.6 billion was loaned by the Veterans' Administration under the bills' provisions.

Under the World War II bill alone more than 700,000 valuable technicians were trained. In an age when about 11 technicians are needed to support 1 scientist or engineer, we can see the applicability of such legislation in meeting the needs of our technological warfare age. It might be noted that we are currently producing only about 20 percent of the technicians needed in this country.

Benefits are still being received by this Nation, as many Korean war veterans are still using their readjustment assistance.

Veterans' readjustment assistance has never been thought of as being a reward for combat duty, but rather as a means of restoring lost opportunities to the returning servicemen and, more importantly, as a direct agent for strengthening this Nation's education, economic, and defense posture.

A cold war GI bill, if passed, can continue this history of strengthening the United States into the tense and volatile period of the 1960's. If S. 5-the cold war GI billis passed, it is expected that as many as 3 million veterans would be trained under its provisions through 1973. Many of those 3 million veterans will come from homes where it is economically impossible to send the children to college.

[From the Iowa City (Iowa) Daily Iowan, Oct. 25, 1963]

THE COLD WAR GI BILL-EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR PEACETIME GI's?

(By Dennis Binning)

The cold war GI bill (Senate bill 5) is now marking time in the Senate, waiting to be placed on the calendar for floor debate and action. This bill is designed to provide two major types of readjustment assistance to cold war veterans-education and vocational training assistance; and guarantee and direct loan assistance for the purchase of homes and farms.

Approximately 5 million cold war veterans would be eligible for assistance under this legislation. Eligibility criteria are that the serviceman must have seen active military duty for a period of more than 180 days between the dates of January 31, 1955, and July 1, 1963, and have in his possession a discharge other than dishonorable.

Under the two previous GI bills, eligibility for benefits was based upon a 60-day activeduty requirement.

The cold war GI bill would allow 12 days of education assistance to veterans for each day of active military service with a maximum of 36 months of benefits allowable.

This education assistance would take the form of an outright monthly payment to the serviceman. For a veteran undertaking fulltime study, this payment would amount to $110 a month if he had no dependents, $135 a month if he had one dependent and $160 a month if he had more than one dependent. These figures are the same as those provided under the Korean GI bill, although there has been a rise in the cost of living of over 25 percent since 1952.

The student veteran would be required to use these funds to pay for all expenses of his education-subsistence, books, and tuition-although he would be permitted to work if his grade point average remained above the minimum set by the institution at which he is studying.

A wide range of educational pursuits would be allowed under the bill's provisions: college level study, below college level study, full-time cooperative courses which alternate school and on-the-job training, correspondence courses, flight training, on-the-job training on a full-time basis, and institutional on-farm training on a full-time basis.

Eligible veterans would have to start their education or training within 3 years after discharge and would have to complete that training within 8 years after discharge.

Career personnel on active duty whose terms of service go beyond the termination date for training benefits-June 30, 1977are protected by being able to begin eligibility upon retirement.

Currently many thousands of career veterans are in danger of not qualifying for readjustment assistance although many have served in both World War II and the Korean conflict. Their retirement dates come after the termination date of the provisions of all previous GI bills.

Eligibility for loans would be the same as for educational assistance. The loan provisions of S. 5 are for the purpose of assisting eligible veterans to purchase homes and farms. Banks or other lending institutions would make the loans with the Government guaranteeing 60 percent of a loan for residential real estate, or 50 percent for other real estate loans.

The Government's guarantee could not exceed $7,500 for real estate home loans or the ceiling of $4,000 set on other real estate loans.

The interest rate on loans could not exceed the 5.5 percent per annum limit set under previous GI bill loan programs. The loans would have final payoff dates of not more than 30 years, with 40 years available in certain instances for farms.

No direct loan could be made after June 30, 1977.

One unique provision of this bill is that veterans obtaining loans would have to pay one-half of 1 percent of the total loan. amount as a guaranty fee. This money would then be used in the accumulation of a reserve fund sufficient to cover losses that might arise under the program.

Based on the experience of previous GI bills, however, veterans have proven themselves to be the safest loan risks in the Nation. The Veterans' Administration reports that of $54.6 billion loaned or guaranteed, only $11.2 million has been lost (this is two-hundredths of 1 percent loss). The Government in fact has made a profit on the loan program from interest-about $118 million to date.

The average annual cost for the education program through 1973 is expected to run about $289 million. In the long run it is felt that the cost of the program will be entirely self-liquidating. Again we can look for the success of the World War II bill as an indication that this is true.

The Census Bureau reports that World War II veterans who took advantage of the World War II GI bill are currently paying over $1 billion a year more in taxes by reason

of their increased earning power. The total $15 billion cost of the World War II bill is expected to be paid off within the next 5 to 6 years.

Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Democrat, of Texas, who introduced Senate bill 5, said "the bill is not an expense to the taxpaying public; it is an investment of the taxpayer's money on which we can guarantee them a profitable dividend, because education is the one certain method of strengthening the taxpaying public."

The loan program would, of course, be completely self-liquidating, perhaps even paying a profit in guaranty fees and interest.

What these two types of assistance could do for the education of a wide selection of American youth and for the economic development of this Nation is staggering in scope.

Based upon the performance of previous GI bill legislation, we have a graphic image of what Senate bill 5 is capable of doing for this Nation.

[From the Iowa City (Iowa) Daily Iowan, Oct. 26, 1963]

(By Dennis Binning)

ON GI BILL-OPPOSING SIDES STUDIED On the first day of hearings on Senate bill 5-the cold war GI bill-before the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, officers from six organizations with a total membership of 17,580,000 went on record favoring this legislation.

Those organizations were: National Student Association; AFL-CIO labor union; Veterans of Foreign Wars; National Education Association; National Farmers Union, and the American Vocational Association.

U.S. Senators, prominent educators and a parade of others representing the widest

career fields which require the greatest degree of training.

Army Col. Winston G. Whall, speaking for the Defense Department, admitted that the biggest factors determining reenlistment on an individual basis were the comparative wage scales between military and industry, and the very basic factor of whether the man liked military service.

The extent to which retention of career men will be affected by such legislation as Senate bill 5 has never been adequately determined.

NOT SAME CONDITIONS

Far different grounds are cited in the Veterans' Administration's adamant opposition to the cold war GI bill.

A policy letter sent to Senator HILL by John S. Gleason, Jr., Administrator, Veterans' Administration, said in part: "We [feel] that service under current conditions does not present, on a widespread basis, the same rigors and hazards as does wartime service; that the specific period of service is known in advance and generally is of shorter duration than service during wartime; and that it has a much less disruptive effect upon the veteran's educational plans and his career than did extended wartime service."

NATURE OF COLD WAR

The thing to consider then is the nature of the cold war.

Our war-the war of the generation now sitting in the Nation's college classroomsis the cold war. It is a sophisticated war of psychology, of guess and outguess. It is a war of protracted guerilla techniques operating with brush-fire ferocity under an ominous thermonuclear shield. It is fraught with tension and fear. It is a war of well

Opposition to the bill, however, is centered in three Government agencies: Bureau of the Budget, Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration. The American Legion is the largest non-Government organization on record opposing this legislation.

NOT IN PROGRAM

The Budget Bureau opposes Senate bill 5 because it does not fall within the President's current or projected program.

President Kennedy is hoping to aid education through a 24-part aid to education bill. Only the first of that bill-a bill for $1.9 billion in grants and loans for college construction-has successfully passed the House and Senate. A controversial Senate amendment which would allow a taxpayer's suit to be filed to test the constitutionality of any grant or loan made to a religious college will make a drawn-out compromise measure likely.

It is interesting to note, however, that while still a Senator, President Kennedy voted in favor of a cold war GI bill. In 1960, cold war GI bill legislation was made a strong plank in the Democratic platform during that presidential election year.

MAY LOSE CAREER MEN

The Defense Department bases its opposition on one point-possible loss of career personnel. In a letter of policy sent to Senator LISTER HILL, Democrat, of Alabama, chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, the Defense Department stated it was opposed because "this type of benefit tends to encourage members to leave military service immediately after accruing the maximum entitlement to educational benefits *** This results in a serious handicap to the Armed Forces in their efforts to retain qualified personnel on a career basis."

Despite two major pay increase bills in the past 5 years, the Armed Forces still have a major problem of retaining men in the

World War.

Our war has its casualty list-the number of deaths to servicemen during the cold war period have exceeded the total number of American losses produced by World War I. The Defense Department reports 80,787 servicemen have died as a result of accidents, violence, instruments of war and disease from 1946 to February of 1963 (not including Korean conflict losses).

A little research will show that this Nation has had a "hot" confronation every year since the end of World War II. So long as the Communist nations pursue a protracted war strategy, these confrontations will continue.

Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Democrat, of Texas, who introduced the cold war GI bill, put it this way: "Areas where this limbo between outright war and outright peace exists will increase as the cold war struggle proceeds from crisis to crisis.

"Berlin, Vietnam, and the Sino-Indian conflict are tinderboxes which contain

high potential for the involvement of American manpower in a shooting war. When today's youth enter the service, they have no assurance that they will spend their time in garrison duty * * * they have considerable assurance that a new crisis, a new guerrilla war, another country threatened by Communist aggression, will bring them into the middle of a hot war."

The minority report on Senate bill 5 advanced an amendment that would limit benefits only to those veterans who served in an area of hostility as designated by the President.

This amendment was rejected on grounds that it contradicted the underlying philosophy of the two previous GI bills. Never had veterans' benefits been "an award" for combat. In fact, eligibity for benefits continued for almost 2 years after the Korean armistice of July 27, 1953. The bulk of servicemen have always served in areas other than actual combat zones.

[From the Iowa City (Iowa) Daily Iowan, Oct. 29, 1963]

GI COLD WAR BILL-NEVER ONE WAY BEFORE (By Dennis Binning)

Iowa could expect $36 million in education assistance payments to some 20,000 of its cold war veterans during the first 5 years of operation of the cold war GI bill-Senate bill 5-if passed by Congress this session, according to projected figures made available by the Veterans' Administration (VA).

A total of 73,000 cold war veterans from Iowa are expected by the VA through fiscal year 1973, proposed termination date of eligibility under Senate bill 5). We could easily expect another 10,000 Iowa cold war veterans to use the bill's education provisions in the second 5-year period, although that figure was not projected by the VA.

Over 26,000 Iowans received educational training assistance under the World War II and Korean war GI bills.

Expected participation by Iowa cold war veterans under the loan provisions of the cold war GI bill was not projected by the VA, but it did report that 78,741 Iowans received loans under provisions of previous GI bills. The total loaned amount went over the half billion dollar mark-$565,890,855.

About $534 million was loaned to 69,501 Iowa veterans for building, buying or remodeling homes. Almost $20 million in farm loans went to 5,572 Iowans and another 3,668 Iowans received over $12 million in business loans.

Any way you look at it participation by Iowa cold war veterans under provisions of Senate bill 5 is going to benefit Iowa and Iowans in greatly expanded educational development and economic growth.

Iowa Senators BOURKE HICKENLOOPER and JACK MILLER were queried by letter about their feelings toward the pending cold war GI bill legislation and their voting position on it.

Senator HICKENLOOPER replied in a letter to the Daily Iowan that he would not vote for the bill as it now stands. He said he favored the minority amendment which would limit eligibility for readjustment assistance only to those cold war veterans' "who, in significant numbers, encounter

* foreign armed opposition, or are otherwise placed, or have been placed, in such position that, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by foreign armed force was imminent even though it did not materialize."

This amendment was rejected by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee because it was not in keeping with the philosophy of previous GI bills and because it was tantamount to an announcement of war, albeit undeclared.

Senator HICKENLOOPER also wrote that, "The original bill, as reported out of committee, would seem to go much too far. The liberal draft policies in peacetime usually permit eligible draftees to complete their schooling before being inducted and thus there does not exist the disruptive and precipitous induction which occurs in time of emergency."

The senior Iowa Senator also stated he did not believe cold war military service, except in isolated incidents, could be considered hazardous enough to warrant such widespread provisions as those of Senate bill 5.

"As the bill now stands," wrote Senator HICKENLOOPER, "I doubt that I could support it, but I could support the amendment providing for the benefits for those actually sent to theaters of armed conflict and extrahazardous conditions."

Senator JACK MILLER did not reply to the query letter.

In past articles of this series, we have seen that there is a history of diverse vet

erans assistance legislation from the founding of our Nation until 1955.

We have seen that over 10 million American servicemen have received over $20 billion in education assistance and more than $54 billion in home, business, and other loans under provisions of previous GI bills.

The inequities in our draft laws make only 45 percent of our draft eligible young men serve in the Armed Forces with resulting lost opportunities and years for those who do

serve.

Since the 84th Congress there has been an ever-growing interest in the private and government spheres to provide a cold war GI bill. Several such bills have been introduced in the past and with persistence. Today public sentiment largely favors such legislation in the face of opposition from the Department of Defense, Bureau of the Budget, and the Veterans' Administration.

The provisions of Senate bill 5 are far more restrictive than previous GI bill provisions, yet they are ample enough to provide a valuable impetus to some 5 million cold war veterans to either continue their education or to purchase homes or farms.

Certainly the cold war veteran needs an assistance program as much as this Nation sorely needed him in the Armed Forces. Unemployment figures for the cold war veterans group is just about the highest in the Nation. As this Nation's global military commitments grow, the protracted and uncertain nature of the cold war makes it a certainty that "hot" conflagrations will also increase.

Is there not a reciprocal responsibility needed between Government and serviceman? Is it a one-way street for the serviceman only? This nation never thought of it as a one-way street before.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Texas has expired. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to comment on the remarks of the Senator from Texas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

tion than those who went to school in the normal way.

It is readily demonstrable that the bill will not in the long run really cost anything, because those who receive the additional training will have a greater earning capacity and will return the cost of the training to the Treasury in the form of income taxes. This legislation is indeed an investment.

I hope the persistent efforts of the Senator from Texas will bear fruit. I know of no other legislation I consider to be more desirable. The Senator from Texas is to be heartily commended for pursuing the bill. I hope the Senator continues his efforts until the bill is enacted.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska. His dedication to the cause of justice for these 5 million servicemen is not exceeded by that of any other Senator. There is an obligation on our Government to help educate the 5 million men who were called on to leave their homes in the interest of our national survival, instead of denying them the opportunity that the 55 percent who do not serve received. The denial of this opportunity to this 45 percent, the 5 million men, when the opportunity was available to those who did not serve, is one of the grossest injustices that has ever been perpetrated by the Government of the United States. Mr. GRUENING. In addition to being an education measure, it is also an antiunemployment measure, because many of these men, when they leave the service, have inadequate training and will not find jobs. But if those men were trained for a year or two, they will be employable, which they are not now except on unskilled jobs. That group of young men has one of the highest unemployment rates in our Nation. In fact while the draft awaits them they cannot find employment easily. With a steady unemployment rate of 52 percent, it is not going to be decreased with further not going to be decreased with further automation.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. As shown by the articles, there is a higher unemployed percentage in that group than in any other group.

INCREASE SUBSIDIES ΤΟ

BUSINESS?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Banking and CurSenate Committee on Banking and Currency will shortly report two bills to the Senate. One is S. 1309, increasing the Senate. One is S. 1309, increasing the authorizations of the Small Business Administration by $34.3 million.

With our budget still unbalanced, our defense costs continuing at a high rate, and a large tax cut likely to be passed and a large tax cut likely to be passed early next year, Congress should not increase the size of these authorizations. The SBIC program can and should be The SBIC program can and should be operated within its present authorization limits.

The other bill to be reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency is S. 298, which provides for $18 million of the $34.3 million increase in the authorization in the first bill.

The Small Business Investment Act, as enacted in 1958, provided that the Small Business Administration could purchase up to $150,000 of the subordinated debentures of a small business investment company. The Small Business Investment Act amendments of 1961 increased this amount to $400,000, an increase of over two and a half times the original amount.

S. 298 proposes to raise this amount to $700,000, or almost five times the original $150,000. This fivefold increase in the available amount of Federal funds which may be obtained by SBIC's under this bill is completely unwarranted.

There is another provision in the bill to which I object. It completely knocks out the so-called Proxmire amendment, which was adopted 2 years ago, limiting to $500,000 the size of loans any small business investment company could make. The SBA had interpreted this amendment over my protests to permit SBIC's to invest half their portfolios in excess of $500,000.

The committee even refused to provide a $12 million limit or the Treasury's recommended $2 million limit unless I would agree to permit the present regulation to remain in effect, which would permit one-half of an SBIC's portfolio to be in loans in excess of $12 million or $2 million. The bill provides no limit whatsoever, and is a violation of the recommendations of the Treasury Department.

The bigger companies can obtain financing from banks, insurance companies, and other regular lending institutions. This country is well banked, and the Government should not support a program with subsidies and rich tax privileges to supply funds to companies that can obtain financing in regular commercial banking channels.

It was almost a unanimous Committee on Banking and Currency that decided against my wishes, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee, to report the bill. It was done by a coalition of Republicans and conservative and liberal Democrats, who in this case favor an increase in spending of more than $34 million. Under the circumstances this is wholly unjustified.

When the bill comes to the floor, after the foreign aid bill debate is concluded, I hope to discuss this bill. It is one thing to spend for welfare and foreign aid, but it is another to increase these business subsidies expenditures. subsidies expenditures. These are the most rapidly increasing expenditures we have.

I ask unanimous consent that an excellent editorial on this subject, published in the Journal of Commerce, entitled "The Greener Pastures" be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

[From the Journal of Commerce, Nov. 5, 1963]

THE GREENER PASTURES

When C. Northcote Parkinson promulgated his law of public administration in 1955, many were stirred by the outrageous truth of

his assertion that, save for war periods, officials tend (1) to multiply subordinates, not rivals, and (2) to make work for each other. He did not say specifically that the less a bureau has to do the more personnel it ac

cumulates to do it, though this implication was present. Even public organizations that have completed the tasks for which they were created tend to hold themselves intact, if necessary by moving into new and perhaps greener pastures. The Rural Electrification Administration provides one example. Having largely achieved its mission of bringing electricity to the American farm, it is now seeking a more permanent footing for itself as a supplier of energy to country towns and perhaps even small cities.

Is the Small Business Administration likewise inclined? We don't know for sure, but of late it has been acting that way.

own sake? Does not the whole project underline once again the validity of Parkinson's law?

We would suggest, at the very least, that

Congress ought to wait until the SBIC's

have carved out a respectable niche for themselves and employed more of their abundant uncommitted capital before pumping any more money into an enterprise that either doesn't need it or can't yet find enough opportunities to invest it prudently and purposefully.

If and when the need becomes demonstrably real, it will be time enough to consider whether more funds should be supplied and whether the SBIC program should function not only as a stimulus to small business but to larger forms of enterprise as well.

DEDICATION OF THE BIG THICKET SCENIC AREA IN SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, SAN JACINTO COUNTY, TEX.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, on Friday, November 1, 1963, I participated in a stirring dedication of the 1,130-acre Big Thicket Scenic Area, which is a part of Sam Houston National Forest in San Jacinto County, Tex. The Big Thicket area of southeast Texas,

arbitrary about the time-honored assumption that whether a business was small or big depended on whether its resources added up to more or less than $5 million. Meaningful definitions cannot be that sharp. Some companies with more than that rate are very small in their field. Some with less carry a good deal of weight.

But SBA Administrator Eugene P. Foley

now appears bent on carrying his organization's activities into the area of larger business while simultaneously expanding on the scope, and consequently on the cost, of SBA's general program. He is citing with approval certain amendments proposed by the Small Business Subcommittee of the Senate Bank

ing and Currency Committee-amendments at which the full committee should take a hard look before giving them its approval. One would increase from $400,000 to $700,000 the amount of small business investment company debentures which SBA could buy on a dollar-matching basis; it would also increase from 3 to 5 years the time in which such a company could take down this Government money. (A small business investment company (SBIC) is an entity through which the Government puts up funds, together with private capital, to finance small business ventures of all kinds.)

Also recommended is an increase from $4 to $5 million in what an SBIC can borrow from SBA as operating loans. Still another recommendation is that the $500,000 limit on which an SBIC may invest in a small business enterprise be eliminated, leaving as the

outside limit an amount equal to 20 percent

of its capital and surplus.

We would have no objection to the lastmentioned amendment were it not for the

consideration that the removal of this dollars-and-cents limit could very well carry SBA into the financing of larger business enterprises and could even mark a first step in a very considerable movement in that direction. We don't see it yet as a move to create another Reconstruction Finance Corporation. But in view of the assumption under which SBA was created-namely that the larger companies would finance themselves we wonder just how far the line between small and big can be bent without breaking.

As for the SBIC's there are already hundreds federally chartered, and it seems their numbers may be quite near to the saturation point. Desirable as they may be in principle, most of them have had a rather dismal record in earning something on their stockholders' investments. And most still have large amounts of uncommitted funds on tap.

Why should the Government's funds be drawn down further to replenish the coffers of an SBIC network that can't seem to find employment for the money it now has available? Is there any real reason other than the perpetuation and expansion of SBA for its

U.S. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, last August 7 I offered an amendment which would have reduced the appropriation to the USES from $425 to $400 million. I offered the amendment on the basis that the U.S. Employment Service was entering into fields never intended by the original law to be its domain. It was going into the universities of the Nation, attempting to act as a placement agency of graduating students, thus doing work that was being done already by the universities. It adopted a program of extensive advertising in the newspapers, not for the purpose of finding employment for the unemployed but serving those who were employed.

To my great amazement, those advertisements pointed out that jobs paying $20,000 a year were available. The law never intended service to that type of

person.

I now come to the point that causes me to discuss this subject today. It has been disclosed in Cleveland that the employment service agency, financed by the U.S. Government, in order to build up a record which would entitle it to more money for the operation of its office, falsified records to show placements that never were made. The record, however, as revealed in Cleveland, shows that there is one supervisor for six caseworkers. There will soon be more officers than men working in the ranks. The Cleveland situation may be reflective of what is happening in the country. To get more money the agency must show that it has placed more people in jobs, and to prove that it placed more people in jobs, it has begun to falsify the record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. LAUSCHE. I ask for 1 additional minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional

minute.

cut back to about 4 counties and about 400,000 acres in extent. Its flora and fauna are unusual-it is a tangled jungle land of ferns, vines, trees, shrubs, mosses, herbs, and plants, furnishing a wonderful habitat for many species of birds and animals. Giant magnolias grow wild, along with tall bay trees and large wild peach trees, with palmetto plants underneath.

The Big Thicket Scenic Area, dedicated last Friday, is to be preserved in its wilderness state for present and future generations to enjoy.

The Sam Houston National Forest was initiated by act of the Texas Legislature in 1933. It covers 158,000 acres and is

one of four national forests in Texas.

The Big Thicket Scenic Area is a further example of what the National Government, in cooperation with State and local persons dedicated to conservation of our natural resources, can do in setting aside areas for public enjoyment. The work in this case was under the leadership of John W. Cooper, former forest supervisor of the Texas National Forests, San Jacinto County officials, and many interested citizens, and I am very pleased to have had a part in initiating this project in 1961. This is a feather in the cap of the U.S. Forest Service. I ask unanimous consent that the program of the citizens of San Jacinto County and the national forests in Texas for

this dedication and an excerpt from my remarks at the dedication be placed in

the RECORD.

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

PROGRAM, BIG THICKET SCENIC AREA DEDICATION, SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST, NOVEMBER 1, 1963

9:30-Music, Prison Band.

10:00-Opening remarks and introduction of special guests, R. L. "Bob" Hunt, master of ceremonies; Extension Service, College Station.

10:20-Welcome to San Jacinto County, J. R. Page, county judge, San Jacinto County. 10:30 Welcome to Big Thicket, Jack W. McElroy, Forest Supervisor National Forests

in Texas.

10:35-History and purpose of Big Thicket scenic area, John W. Cooper, Assistant Chief, Division of Information and Education, U.S.

Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga.

10:45 Dedication of area, unveil sign, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH,

11:15-Hike scenic trail (short loop). 11:45-Depart for Double Lake recreation

area.

12:00-Lunch and tour, Double Lake recreation area.

1:30 Optional tours.

3:30 Free guided service.

A. Historical sites, conducted by San Jacinto Historical Society.

B. Sam Houston National Forest, conducted by Forest Service.

PRESERVING THE BIG THICKET Judge Page, Chairman Sims, distinguished guests, fellow Texans, it is a singular privilege for me to be invited to take part in this dedication of the Big Thicket scenic area in Sam Houston National Forest in San Jacinto County and to meet all of you in what proves to be one of my most pleasant visits to Texas.

As a native of Henderson County, east Texas, in that part of east Texas where my people have lived for long more than a century, I am proud to come back home to the land of pine and hickory, of swamp and slough, of hardwood and shrub and underbrush, of birds and animals, fish and reptiles in this woodland area to help in its preservation for all generations. This timbered thicket area of the southeast Texas Gulf Coastal Plains, between the San Jacinto and the Trinity Rivers, is blessed by nature with a rich and varied flora and fauna. Within this 1,130-acre scenic area we are dedicating today, with markers and trails for access, are found 66 species of trees, 21 species of small shrubs, 22 vines, 10 ferns and mosses, and 45 herbs and other plants. Among them live many species of bright colored birds; colonies of waterfowl nest on the margins

of the small lakes.

The Big Thicket Texans love is described by a native, Solomon Alexander Wright, in "My Rambles as East Texas Cowboy, Hunter, Fisherman, Tie-cutter" and by another native, Mary Lasswell, in "I'll Take Texas." And some Big Thicket people who live in it still and love it more, like Lance Rosier, describe its beauties with oral words not yet

written down.

Let Sol Wright, Big Thicket born and raised, describe its wild life a minute:

"I never have, in all my rambles, been to a place where there was as many small animals: coons, possums, rabbits and squirrels and birds owls, hawks, crows, quail, meadowlarks, woodpeckers, blue jays, redbirds, whip-poor-wills and mockingbirds. Sometimes hoot owls will talk and laugh like people."

And the Big Thicket is a land of deer, wild turkeys, alligators and wildcats.

This 1,130 wilderness acres we dedicate is a beginning, but only a beginning, not enough yet to preserve the flora and fauna of this exceptional area. But at last and at least, we have begun.

In 1961, I inquired about the possibility of saving some of this area in its natural state, and the U.S. Forestry Service under the leadership of Mr. John W. Cooper, former forest supervisor of the Texas National Forests, and the entire San Jacinto County Commissioner Court, under the leadership of Judge J. R. Page have worked to bring about this result we proudly celebrate today.

So the opportunity to preserve and make available for viewing one of the world's great remaining unspoiled scenic areas in my native east Texas means a great deal to me. The Big Thicket that once extended over 12 southeast Texas counties has shrunk to about 4 in the face of advancing civilization. I hope that not another inch of this magnificent forest of sandy soil and rolling terrain with its wildlife, varieties of trees, flowers and other native plants will be given up to man's relentless tendency to destroy that which is beautiful, in order to pile up more unmarketable surpluses.

For many years America has been counting its blessings in bounteous natural resources.

CIX- -1342

They have been the firm foundation for the Nation's marvelous industrial structure which is the wonder of the entire world, and a standard of living the envy of all,

However, we are learning now that there is a limit to all good things. Some of our natural resources are seen not to be limitless, but in some cases to be reaching the stringent limitations of scarcity. The population explosion has 190 million Americans crowding the parks, lakes, rivers and scenic areas gasping for fresh air and a view of the primitive America that was.

It is up to us to exercise due caution to see that our natural resources are sufficient not only for our generation, but for those yet to come in this glorious land of ours.

The great forests that once covered almost the entire Nation are dwindling. True conservation measures such as reforestation, protection from damaging fires and pest control will not only preserve timber resources but maintain and protect the vital watersheds of our great water rivers and ground waters.

Water in some places is becoming a scarce commodity. Much is being done to cope with the ever-increasing water and land demands of agriculture, industry, transportation and municipalities. A great deal must still be done to conserve water, to utilize it for the most beneficial use, preserve the quality, and prevent it from creating disastrous floods. This necessity has given rise to the great civil works, reclamation and watershed protection and flood prevention programs of the Federal Government. From this has evolved the multiplepurpose project which develops and conserves many related resources. Navigation, hydroelectric power, flood control, irrigation, wildlife and fish enhancement, pollution

abatement and control, water supply and recreational opportunities are resulting benefits of these activities.

The present administration and the 87th and 88th Congresses have contributed greatly to the conservation of the Nation's natural

resources.

The first substantial additions to the national park system in 16 years were approved during the 87th Congress. These were the Padre Island, Cape Cod, and Point Reyes national seashores. I am proud to have played a part in bringing this about. These

three areas increase the total American seashore freely available to the public by 285 miles or by over one-third. I was moved to author the Padre Island bill and to support all the others, realizing how little of the thousands of miles of America's seashores were open to the public, free of commercial changes for their use and enjoyment. Even more should be acquired by the Government. Padre Island national seashore recreation area, 81 miles long, is the longest public seashore area in the Nation.

The Wetlands Acquisition Act makes it possible to establish, over a 7-year period new waterfowl refuges to the extent of 100,000 acres. This is badly needed as many of the places naturally frequented by migrating waterfowl have disappeared in recent years due to the advances of civilization; that is, drainage, real estate development, airport runways, super highways, and other encroachment. The millions of duck and geese that formerly came over the Big Thicket in clouds have dwindled to small flocks. The wetlands program will help bring them back.

The Water Pollution Control Act has been extended and strengthened. More funds have been made available for research grants in aid, administrative and technological assistance to State and local agencies and real enforcement provisions have been provided for abatement of sources of pollution.

An omnibus river and harbor-flood control act was approved which will go far to step up the development of the national water

resources protection from floods and providing industrial and municipal water supplies and provide many additional recreational facilities at Federal reservoir projects.

The watershed development and flood prevention program of the Department of Agriculture has been continued as a program of major caliber.

Eight other additions were made to the national park system in these 21⁄2 years in widely spaced portions of the country-from Hawaii to New York and the Virgin Islands, including the Old Fort Davis historic site at Fort Davis in the Davis Mountains of Texas, which I sponsored in the Senate.

Now before the Senate after House passage is the clean air bill. This would accelerate and strengthen the Federal program for the prevention and abatement of air pollution.

A number of additions to the national parks systems are under consideration in the Congress.

I have proposed the Lorenzo De Zavala Park in Harris County. My bill would involve transfer of surplus Federal land on Buffalo Bayou in Harris County opposite the San Jacinto Battlefield to either the State of Texas or Harris County to preserve the home and burial place of the first vice president of the Republic of Texas and great patriot, Lorenzo De Zavala. This bill has passed the Senate and is pending in the House.

Also in the Senate I have introduced a bill for creation of a national monument at the Alibates Flint Quarries and pueblo ruins in Potter County, near the Canadian River in the panhandle. This would preserve the source of flint for weapons and tools for pre

Columbian Indians, and the easternmost

pueblo settlement.

In the Senate I have introduced a resolution calling for the United States to take the lead in convening an international conference for conserving the world's wildlife.

Mankind has in recent years rendered extinct by its cupidity and carelessness over 200 species of wildlife-over 250 others are nearly extinct or in danger of becoming so. Something must be done to prevent this, to preserve a source of food and leather, particularly in the undeveloped nations of the world. Wildlife is a true natural resource and important to all nations.

Creation of a Guadalupe Mountains National Park in the Trans-Pecos and recreational developments at the Amistad Reservoir on the Rio Grande are also projects worth prosecuting, and on which I am working.

Here this big thicket area is unique in character, but is in danger of losing its identity.

This area, now about 340,000 acres, of sandy soil and rolling terrain includes some virgin forest, many varieties of trees, innumerable flowers and other native plant life which are found nowhere else. Its soil and weather conditions favor rapid and dense growth, particularly of pine. Many interesting and historical events have taken place within the region and its beauty and uniqueness make more than these 1,130 acres worthy of preservation as a national park or monument.

America is becoming increasingly conscious of the need for conservation of its natural resources. It is indeed fortunate that the present Congress and administration are acutely aware of it and are proceeding vigorously with a broad program of such activity and will continue to. Growing up 1 mile from the Neches River, I grew up with a love of nature and will continue to support conservation in all its aspects.

Congratulations to all of you on what you have done here. Let us resolve with this dedication, to advance this good work much further.