up of inventories, no decline in consumer confidence-in other words, no clear indications of an oncoming recession. As a matter of fact, we have a very strong suspicion-and I suppose nothing reveals our optimistic bias more clearly than this—that the country can look for considerably more economic stability in the future than in the past, and considerably fewer sharp ups and downs.

In the foreseeable future we think there is a good chance that the economy can roll right on through the period when, on the basis of past experience, we might expect a recession. There is no law of nature that says we must have recessions at regular and predictable intervals. Western Europe has demonstrated this quite convincingly by going 5 years now without one, and there is no reason why it isn't possible-with the right combination of sound public policy and vigorous private enterprise-for us to do the same in this country.

It is certainly true that too much talk about the use of tax reduction as an antidote to a hypothetical recession could actually help to bring about an undue public preoccupation with the possibility of recession and result in helping to bring one into being. If we are going to indulge in self-fulfilling prophecies, I say let's prophesy in an optimistic vein. Let us continue to talk about the dynamics of growth in the private sector and keep our eye on the main element in that growth-the unshackling of incentives, on the part of consumers as well as busi

nessmen.

Now here is my second suggestion. When we talk about the virtues of tax reduction, let us never forget for a minute the necessity for insisting on the highest degree of fiscal responsibility on the part of government. And at the same time, let us keep reminding ourselves and others of the tremendous growth possibilities for the future that can emerge from a combination of frugal, efficient government and the unthrottling of private enterprise.

I hope you are as encouraged as I have been to note the many clear signs of growing insistence on the part of the public-and on the part of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle that the Federal Government hold new spending down to a minimum and make its present operations more efficient. This is all to the good. And this new emphasis has not come about by accident. It is the result of continuous work by organizations like yours that know the need for putting restraint upon the natural tendency of people in politics to want to please their constituents through increased spending.

These constant reminders of the need for frugality in government operations should be continued. But in my opinion they will get the desired result more effectively if they are presented in a positive rather than a negative spirit.

Suppose, for example, that businessmen and business organizations should begin to talk in public about the economic growth away out ahead that might result from lower income taxes when combined with a stable or even declining rate of government expenditures. This combination would constitute a vitally important improvement in the climate for business. And as a result we could logically expect an accelerating rate of economic growth and a substantial broadening of the base of national income from which all tax revenues are derived.

Now if this process works out in that logical way, what is to prevent our looking ahead to the time when the greatly increased tax revenues from that substantially broadened base of national income might put our Government in a position to use the taxreduction stimulus again to give the private economy another solid incentive for still further growth?

This possibility can become a reality if the business community of this country-en

couraged by a climate of increased incentives-uses enough ingenuity in filling the needs of the American people and in creating new goods and services that are not even dreamed of at the present time—and if our Federal Government exercises genuine and substantial restraint in spending.

Now for a third suggestion. When we talk about the great stimulus to business activity in the United States that will result from a more sensible structure of income taxes, we should emphasize the way in which this stimulus will make us stronger as competitors in the rapidly expanding world economy.

With all the discussions of the balanceof-payments deficits this country has been running and of the ways in which we can correct those deficits and stop the drain on our gold reserves, there is entirely too little discussion of the basic importance of doing everything possible to improve the competitive strength of American business on the world scene. This is not to suggest that American business has been putting up a weak performance against the businessmen of other countries. If our balance-of-payments problem were merely a matter of balancing our international trade account, we would be adding substantially to our gold reserves year after year. The present problem is caused principally, as we all know, by the heavy commitments of funds for economic and military aid which we have taken on as a matter of national policy. But I am certainly not going to get involved in a discussion of the pros and cons of foreign aid here tonight.

It is my optimistic belief that if American business does an increasingly good competitive job in world trade and investment, before the end of the present decade, and possibly even sooner, the seriousness of this situation can be substantially reduced. But that happy outcome will not be automatic. It will be realized only if, through the proper public policy regarding business incentives at home and abroad, American business is given the right conditions for operating successfully against its increasingly tough competition in other countries.

That will require, for one thing, the kind of encouragement to investment in more efficient plants and equipment that can result from the current Federal income tax bill. With all of the billions that have been invested in plant and equipment since the end of World War II, we are still in need of much more capital investment in this country to keep ourselves competitive and to make further gains in our exports.

We also need a somewhat more farsighted policy in Washington with regard to direct or portfolio investments by American businessmen in foreign countries. It is true, of course, that investments of this kind put a certain amount of pressure on the country's balance-of-payments position over the short pull, but eventually these American investments are going to generate a return flow of income that will be one of the major balancing factors in our international accounts. It is shortsighted indeed to improvise the kind of hastily drafted and confusing legislation that was passed in 1962 for the purpose of taxing foreign source income of American companies—and to make proposals for penalizing the purchase of foreign securities, proposals that create an almost inescapable impression of frantic alarm.

From the businessman's point of view, what we need most in the way of action by the Federal Government is a sound, longrange program aimed at giving American business a powerful assist in its competition with the investors of other countries. The key elements in such a program would be steps to remove the risk of double taxation of the earnings on foreign investments-to clarify the outlook for tax liabilities on future foreign investments-and to provide in

creased incentives, such as credits on investments in underdeveloped areas.

As we move into the year of political struggle that lies ahead, it might be well for all of us to remind ourselves of the need to retain our perspective and our equanimityand above all, to remember, through all the noise and confusion, that our country is stronger and greater than ever-and that those of us who work as businessmen have contributed to that strength and will continue to contribute to that strength by doing the best possible job as competitors.

We should also remember that with all the real differences of opinion that exist on matters of public policy affecting business, a healthy consensus has been developing with regard to the need to put our main reliance for economic growth upon encouraging our profit energized, profit disciplined, free enterprise business system.

I am confident that our country is going to see to it that a constant stream of new discoveries and new ideas is kept flowing into useful applications through the instrumentality of private, profitmaking enterprise. This free enterprise, free choice, free market system of ours has served America and the world well for 200 years. And what it has accomplished in the past two centuries is as nothing compared with what lies ahead.

It is your privilege and mine to be living and working at a time when many strong and creative currents are merging into the potential for an entirely new and better and more exciting kind of world. That kind of potential lies out ahead-asking you and me as businessmen to turn it into reality.

I say let's accept the challenge and get the job done.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW GRANTED BY SENATOR GOLDWATER TO MR. ELIAS P. DEMETRACOPOULOS, POLITICAL EDITOR OF ATHENS DAILY POST, AUGUST 14, 1963

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, yesterday there was printed in the RECORD a statement under the caption, "GOLDWATER and the Greek Elections." In conformity with that statement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks a statement by Senator GOLDWATER in the nature of a release on October 24, 1963, bearing on the same subject together with the interview with Mr. Demetracopoulos.

There being no objection, the statement and the interview were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT BY U.S. SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER

Elias P. Demetracopoulos, political editor of the Athens Daily Post, interviewed me in my Washington office on August 14, 1963. The interview, granted because of my lifelong esteem and regard for the Greek people, was not published until October 13, 1963, less than 3 weeks before the scheduled national elections in that country. As a result of the timing on release of the interview, it was construed in some quarters that I and other American public figures, whose interviews had been similarly withheld from publication, had attempted to influence the political affairs of Greece. Such interference would have been inimical to the democratic interests of Greece and contrary to my principles. In addition, certain Greek newspapers misinterpreted and distorted my statements to imply things which patently are false. Because of the misinterpretations, distortions, and untimely release of the interview, I wish to make the following points

of clarification, all based upon the original transcript of my conversation with Mr. Demetracopoulos, as taken down by a member of my staff:

1. I at no time stated that there had been any attempt by members of E.R.E. (the Karamanlis Party), for which I have the deepest respect, to persuade the United States to assist in the establishment of a dictatorship in Greece. The transcript of the interview shows, to the contrary, that I specifically stated it would be inconceivable that such a proposal would come from a nation "where democracy itself was founded." also stated in the interview that I had "strongly attacked" reports that such a proposal had been made.

I

2. At no time did I state that the U.S. Embassy had intervened in the election of 1961 or any other year, although I was asked by Mr. Demetracopoulos to comment on such reports. The charges that there had been intervention were originated by certain political groups in Greece for the purpose of casting suspicion on the legitimacy of the election of the Karamanlis government. At the time of the interview, I stated categorically that I did not wish to comment on the charges that the U.S. Embassy had been involved in the election until they had been investigated. Shortly thereafter, the reports were proved to be groundless. The withholding of the interview for 2 months gave the impression that an investigation then was currently underway, and therefore implied that, because of the time elapsed, the charges did indeed have some foundation in fact. Nothing, of course, could have been further from the truth.

3. I did not say, nor did I imply, that the United States was attempting to exert pressure on Greece to obtain an agreement whereby Bulgaria would be given a portion of Greek Macedonia for an access route to the sea. I did express my own concern, however, over historic Yugoslavian and Bulgarian designs for territorial expansion into Greece.

4. I did not say or imply that the ERE party of Mr. Karamanlis was elected by fraud or other than democratic means. Everything I have ever said about the Greek Government, its people, the ERE party and the Karamanlis government has been highly laudatory. The present Government's record of accomplishment in economic and domestic matters as well as its relentless battle against international communism stands unchallenged.

In conclusion, I wish to state that I consider it unfortunate for the cause of Greek freedom that the combination of the untimely release of my interview and deliberate distortions of my quoted statements by certain elements of the Greek press may have lessened the chances of any political group or groups committed to the struggle against world communism.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW GRANTED BY THE HONORABLE BARRY GOLDWATER, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, TO MR. ELIAS P. DEMETRACOPOULOS, POLITICAL EDITOR OF ATHENS, GREECE, ON AUGUST 14, 1963

1. How do you feel about the test ban treaty and President de Gaulle's views on this vital matter and in which way this treaty may affect countries along the Soviet bloc perimeter like Germany and Greece?

Well, I am very apprehensive about the test ban treaty. I'm keeping an open mind on it, but frankly, I can't find any advantage to the United States as of yet, and I can find lots of advantages to the Soviet Union. Now, relative to President de Gaulle's position, I have always been sympathetic toward his position. I don't know how he could take any other position. In fact, I think it would strengthen all of NATO if the United States would be clearer in what it would do if nu

clear weapons were needed in any engagement that NATO might become engaged in. One of the reasons I am apprehensive about this treaty is that it's not clear in my mind whether or not East Germany's signing of this treaty wouldn't mean recognition. Now, the lawyers in the State Department say that this isn't so, but I'm still a little fuzzy about it myself and I want some more legal advice. My fear is that-well, for example, let's see what can be done. All that Cuba would have to do after this treaty is deposited with the three countries, would be to inform Russia that she wants to become a signator. Then under the terms of the treaty Russia could give Cuba fissionable materials. True, she couldn't give her weapons, but she could give her the know-how, and by agreement we would be allowing Cuba to develop nuclear weapons 90 miles from our shores. So we'll have to see. Greece also has to be very careful about the long-range repercussions of this treaty in the Balkans. Of course, Greece is not a nuclear power yet. It probably some day will be, if she wants to be. But if France doesn't sign this treaty, I don't think the treaty will be any good. Red China is not going to sign it, so what good does it do to have two nuclear powers outside of the treaty?

2. What are your views on the question of civil rights to the Negro population of America and do you think this racial strife can weaken dangerously the U.S. position and prestige abroad?

There is no question that the Negro in the United States has been abused, not just in the South but in the North as well. But I have very serious doubts that you can solve the problem of discrimination, whether it is between Greek and Greek or white and white or white and black or Greek and American or the other way, by law. I think law can help in some areas, but I don't think we are going to really solve this problem by law-and it is not an American problem. Discrimination is a problem all over this world; from the lowest tribes to the highest civilized people we have discrimination. So I don't think we are going to solve it by law, but we are going to help it.

Now, the Negro's problem in America is not one that can be solved as rapidly as he would like. And, again, this isn't his fault; this is the white man's fault. To get job equality, which is what he wants, and this is an economic problem basically, he has to be able to compete better. Now, this is difficult for most Negroes, because they lack the education. This is being taken care of. Integration is taking place in the schools, and I think in another 10 years when you have the chance to get this generation through high school and college, you will see many, many more Negroes employed. Now, as to what it would do to our image across the world, if the Communists play this up as being peculiar only to America, it could affect our image. But if we point up that their discrimination problems in Russia are just as bad as ours and that they have them all over the world, then I think we could lessen whatever this impact might be.

3. Are you satisfied with the present status of affairs between the United States and the NATO allies on defense and economic matters?

I think that we ought to clarify to our NATO allies precisely what we will do when and if tactical nuclear weapons are needed. I think it is very clear in this country-it is clear to me that the President intends to use these weapons if they are needed, but I don't believe that our allies are as confident as that. Now, the economic side of it-I happen to be a believer in the Common Market concept. But here President Kennedy failed to tell the whole truth to the American people when he said that he needed the Trade Expansion Act, it was a valuable eco

nomic weapon. It is, but he didn't tell our people that this act would create dislocations in this country. Now, we see this big hassle about chickens between Germany and the United States and we're going to find it in the fields of the fabric mills where we'll run into competition. In other words, many Americans are going to be displaced because of the activities of the Common Market, but that doesn't disturb me if our country gets off the backs of businessmen to the point that they can invest their money in new machines and new ideas and then they can easily employ these displaced people.

4. Are you optimistic about the creation of a NATO multilateral nuclear force?

No, because I think it fails before it starts. I have been in the military, in and out of it, most of my life and I've often wondered what it would be like, say, as an American, the captain of one of these ships, and let's say that I had a Greek first mate and a French second mate and an Italian engineer and the crew was made up of people from all of the NATO countries-look at the problems I'd have just with keeping house. The matter of foods that different countries eat in different ways; they eat at different times; the British have to have their tea every afternoon. And then there comes the question of obeying command. How do they understand my command, especially when I am in a hurry and when battle stations have to get going? I just don't think it will work.

Now look at the difficulties, the basic difficulties, that we have in the field when we have combined forces. We haven't been able to integrate. In the Korean war, the Greeks were very fine fighters, but they fought by themselves. They're examples of how people will fight together shoulder to shoulder. That's all right. But I can't imagine a multilateral force working.

5. Does America have sufficient military and missile strength on earth and space to defend successfully her own mainland plus the one of her allies and could a possible aggressor, in some way, carry out a deadly "Pearl Harbor" against you which would provide him with the necessary time element to win a global war?

Well, to answer the first part of your question-yes. As of now, we have a great abundance of weaponry, all kinds of weapons, to handle any combination of aggression against ourselves or our allies including Greece and ourselves. To answer the second part, the only way this could be done is by the Soviets launching a nuclear attack on the United States unannounced. In other words, it is hard to believe that they would do it without having gone through some stages of war, and an attack like this would come, in my opinion, only when either of the great powers, of the West or the East, decided they were going to be defeated so they might as well let the weapons go; even then, they might not do it. I know what can happen in nuclear war, but I don't think either side will resort to strategic nuclear weapons.

6. The termination of the U.S. grant aid to Greece last year and the existing indications that also the U.S. military assistance to Greece follows a downward trend are matters of serious concern. Are you in favor of revising the U.S. grant aid decision for Greece and increasing for the next few years the U.S. military assistance given to Greece?

As long as we are going to maintain military forces in Europe, I don't see how we can exclude Greece from our military and economic aid programs because Greece to me is part of what could become the soft underbelly of NATO if the Communists are ever successful in taking North Africa. Then, you see, they have built a complete ring around NATO and then Greece would take on even more importance.

Now on the matter of aid, again, I don't believe that any country wins friendship by cash. I believe in the wise use of it where a country can justify a program, then I think it is better done on a loan basis or a partialloan or partial-grant basis. Foreign aid is going to receive this year a very close scrutiny. Frankly, it won't be because of countries like Greece, but by action of countries that have really misused the money to the point that we've won no friends at all. But I think Greece must receive special favorable consideration in our economic and military assistance programs of the next few years in order to reach a satisfactory level of economic development and cope effectively with her heavy defense expenses.

7. Do you share fears expressed in Athens that your recent active interest and increased contacts with the Eastern European Communist countries, especially Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, can damage basic Greek interests?

I certainly do share these fears. The U.S. Congress is very upset with these recent

moves of the administration in these Eastern European Communist countries. What the Communist regimes of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria are now trying to do to Greek Macedonia speaks clearly of their long-range intentions at the expense of one of our best and loyal allies like Greece. These unspeakable activities of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia against the territorial integrity of your country justify completely my aboveexpressed fears and concern, which are also shared by the Congress.

8. The recent signing of the United States-Bulgaria war claims agreement was strongly criticized in Greece as an unfriendly action, from your part, hurting basic Greek interests and making extremely difficult for Greece to reach, afterward, a satisfactory settlement with Bulgaria on the same issue of war reparations. Reports were also published to the effect that you did not care to have prior consultations with Greece on this vital matter, regardless of existing understanding since 1959 between the United States and Greek Governments through which you recognized a special Greek interest in all developments in the Balkans. Would you care to comment on these matters?

Well, this is similar to the question before.

There is much concern in the United States about this. You see, the State Department in our Government acts in a different way than in other governments. I don't know if your people understand the tripartite nature of our Government where we have the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. And each one of us is supposed to keep pretty much in our own yard. Now, the State Department comes under the executive branch, and the President is charged with the responsibilities of foreign policy. The only place that the Congress touches on foreign policy is in treatymaking where we advise and consent or in appropriations where we appropriate money for the operation of the State Department and its projects. So the State Department is able to get away with these things. They happen before we know it. So I hope the Greek people understand that this is not the action of the people of the United States. It is the action of a handful of people in the State Department.

9. Reports were published recently in the Greek press that you strongly attacked a suggestion made to you to the effect that the establishment of dictatorship in Greece would be an effective solution for Greece's problems. Can you comment on these reports?

I am against the establishment of a dictator anyplace. That is why I strongly attacked the suggestion made that the establishment of dictatorship in Greece would be an effective solution to Greece's problems. Oh, Lord, no. Greece is the most sophisti

cated, civilized country in the world. Our democratic way of government came from Greece. Most of our ideas of our own civilization came from Greece. It would be tragic if Greece, where democracy itself was first founded, were to go back to a dictatorship. I can't even imagine the Greeks thinking about it.

10. Do you share fears expressed about the tense political situation in Greece, the London demonstrations during the Greek royal state visit last July, what have been the results of your last year's investigation on the accusations by the Greek Nationalistic Parties against the role of the American Embassy in Athens during the last Greek elections and generally how do you feel on the question of free elections in a democratic society?

I am concerned about the tense political situation existing in Greece and disturbed about what happened in London last July during the Greek royal state visit. I haven't seen yet the final results of the investigation

about the role of the American Embassy in the last Greek elections. But we must take all necessary steps that this will not happen again. I would want to see first what the final results of this investigation are.

I can say whether any disciplinary action would be necessary. The Greeks, of all people, certainly are entitled to democratic free elections. I certainly hope that the next Greek elections will be absolutely free and that our Embassy over there this time will stay completely neutral and out of them. I noticed that the former U.S. Ambassador, Ellis Briggs, complained recently in a Senate Government Operations Subcommittee about his 70 attaché military personnel he had in Athens. Speaking from personal experience while I was in Greece, I wouldn't agree at all with the Ambassador's statement that they are wasted. I think on the contrary that our military personnel in Greece is doing an excellent job.

11. What are the prospects of future United States-Greek economic cooperation?

These prospects are excellent especially in the private sector. I like to see countries like Greece develop economically and offer their people a better way of life. We must help you in this effort all the way. The recently signed agreement between Tom Pappas, of Boston, and the Greek Government for the investment of U.S. private capital of $160 million in Greece is an important beginning toward this direction. I know Tom Pappas very well. He is one of my closest friends. Tom Pappas is just one of literally hundreds of Greeks in this country who have made fortunes, and not only made money but they have made contributions to their communities. I think in my own hometown of Phoenix, Ariz., there is a large number of Greeks out there, and I was surprised at the number of them-all of them successful businessmen.

The implementation of this agreement will create jobs. Now, foreign economic aid doesn't always create jobs. And what Greece is concerned with is not the profits of the corporation, but how many jobs. Let's say that Standard Oil-Pappas, for argument sake, can go into Greece and create a thousand new jobs, probably many more than that. What this will do to the economy of Greece is significant. Over there, I know your problems. You don't have greatly developed industry. You have your tourist industry, but that's not enough. So, I would say that any foreign investment, like the Pappas-Standard Oil of New Jersey, that could come into Greece would be welcome, and then let the Greeks work in it. This is the kind of foreign economic aid that I like.

There are many Tom Pappases in the United States. Their loyalty is to the United States, but their love is still Greece. I know these people well. I spoke at the annual Order of Aheppa in Chicago last year along

12. Do you agree with the evaluation of the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr. Per Hockkerup, and the vice president of the Export Association of Sweden, Ambassador Kurt-Allan Belfrage, that Greece could become an excellent base of operations for foreign businessmen interested in the Middle East and Africa?

I am in complete agreement with this evaluation of the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr. Per Hockkerup, and the vice president of the Export Association of Sweden, Ambassador Kurt-Allan Belfrage, that Greece can become an excellent base of operations for foreign businessmen interested in the Middle East and Africa.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL

MEMORIAL PARK

Minot Daily News, Minot, N. Dak., in the Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, the October 26 edition, carried two excellent articles tracing the genesis of the now famous Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park in North Dakota. The park which is situated in the rugged Badlands of North Dakota, perpetuates the name of that North Dakota cowboy, pioneer, conservationist, "big stick" trust buster and President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen a more complete historical chronicle of the events that led to the establishment of the park in 1947. The next event, I hope, will be the passage of my bill, S. 1618, which would connect the three units of the park with a scenic parkway.

I commend these articles to your attention, because they clearly illustrate the untiring efforts of North Dakota to establish this memorial to that great American, Theodore Roosevelt.

I ask unanimous consent that the articles be included at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THEODORE ROOSEVELT PARK GOES BACK TO 1919-LARGER AREA INCLUDED

The movement to establish a Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota actually had its beginnings in 1919, according to records in the Omaha, Nebr., regional office of the National Park Service.

At the request of the News, Fred J. Novak, acting regional director, chronicles the events that led to the establishment of the park in 1947. While the files in the Omaha office prior to 1947 are incomplete, Novak said the information in the earlier years was compiled from references in the files and from the recollection of a member of the staff who was stationed in the area from 1934 to 1946. Novak's report follows:

"In 1919: On July 14 and 21, respectively, North Dakota Congressman J. H. Sinclair and Senator Porter J. McCumber introduced H.R. 7286 and S. 2558. We do not have details but we understand that these bills were for the establishment of a park in the North Dakota Badlands. It is also understood that the area suffered severe drought that year and some of the ranchers thought a park would enhance prospects for dude ranch operations to improve their economy.

"In 1921: Resolutions of the North Dakota Legislature prayed for establishment of Roosevelt Park and petitioned the Congress to purchase and establish a national park and game preserve. On August 4, Senator McCumber introduced S. 2355 to establish

a Roosevelt National Park in Billings County, on a tract of land containing the petrified forest and lying on both sides of the Little Missouri River, not exceeding 22,000 acres. On August 12, Congressman Sinclair introduced H.R. 8210, a similar bill.

"In 1923: On December 5, Congressman Sinclair introduced H.R. 161, a bill similar to those introduced in 1921.

"In 1924: Roosevelt Memorial National Park Association was organized in August. W. F. Cushing, of Beach, was named president.

"In 1925: Promotional efforts of the above association resulted in an inspection trip of several days beginning Sunday, June 14. The trip was primarily to acquaint Raymond H. Torrey with the park potentials of the Badlands in the Medora and Elkhorn Ranch vicinity. Torrey, a member of the recently created National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, had been requested by Stephen T. Mather, Director of the National Park Service, to report on possible uses of the Badlands for recreation and conservation. A large group of prominent persons participated, including Gov. A. G. Sorlie and Congressman Sinclair.

"Prominent local proponents at the time were Carl B. Olsen, proprietor of the Peaceful Valley Ranch which later became park headquarters, and Walter J. Ray, who still lives in Medora and whose former Buddy Ranch is now partly within the park. On December 7 and December 16, respectively, Congressman Sinclair nad Senator Lynn J. Frazier introduced H.R. 3942 and S. 1766 to establish the Roosevelt National Park in Billings County within a limitation of 671,120 acres. A concurrent resolution in the State legislature memorialized Congress to establish a Roosevelt National Park embracing the Wonderland Petrified Forest.

"In 1927: On December 5, Congressman Sinclair introduced H.R. 208, a bill that appears identical to those introduced in 1925 except that the title did not limit it to Billings County. A concurrent resolution in the State legislature memorialized Congress to establish the Roosevelt National Park and **to provide for substitution of public lands of the United States for State school lands located in the proposed area.

"In 1928: On April 21, Senator Gerald P. Nye introduced S. 4171, a bill which appears identical to Congressman Sinclair's. Another inspection trip was conducted July 13-15 under the auspices of the Greater North Dakota Association. The group included a subcommittee of the Senate Land Committee, Director Mather of the National Park Service and Roger W. Toll, superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park.

"In 1929-33: On April 14, 1929, December 8, 1931, and March 9, 1933, respectively, Congressman Sinclair introduced H.R. 235, 482, and 90, all similar to his 1927 bill. Several acts of the State legislature in March 1929 authorized (1) Golden Valley, Billings, and McKenzie Counties to convey certain county lands to the United States for national park purposes, (2) the board of university and school lands to acquire certain lands within those counties, with an appropriation made therefore, and (3) to reconvey those lands to the United States for national park pur

poses.

"In 1934: Among Federal relief programs,

the Rural Resettlement Administration started acquiring submarginal lands in the Badlands area throughout Billings and McKenzie Counties to help adjust the pattern of land uses in a manner that would improve the agricultural economy. The bulk of lands optioned and gradually acquired over a period of 3 or 4 years became a part of a land utilization project of the Department of Agriculture and are now administered by the U.S. Forest Service as national grasslands. In cooperation with the National Park Service and State of North Dakota, smaller areas of

resettlement-acquired lands were designated for inclusion in the North Roosevelt Regional Park and South Roosevelt Regional Park.

"The total area within administratively established land purchase boundaries of the two park units was approximately 92,740 acres (28,080 in the north unit and 64,660 in the south unit). The area of the south unit, however, was subsequently reduced to about 54,550 acres making a total of 82,630 acres within the combined park units. This includes the 8,580 acres of U.S.-owned public domain tracts which were intermingled among other lands within the units. It also includes 1,795 acres of unpatented land on which the Federal Government purchased whatever homestead rights had been established.

"In 1934-41: In cooperation with the Army and the National Park Service, the North Dakota Historical Society (as the agency in charge of State parks) established Civilian Conservation Corps camps in the north and south units in August 1934 to commence the development of park roads and other facilities. As a sponsoring agency, the society purchased 1,174 acres (two sections) of State school lands and 173 acres of private land in the north unit and a 640-acre State school section in the south unit, to provide locations for the CCC camps and to facilitate commencement of work. Later, for park purposes, the society purchased an additional 40 acres of private land located just outside the boundary of the Federal purchasing area to provide a feasible location for the main park road in the south unit.

"As title to other lands transferred to the United States during the Rural Resettlement Administration's land acquisition program, they became available for park development in addition to the intermingled public domain. When the purchase program ended, the United States owned all but approximately 3,735 acres of private land, 680 of State historical society land and 3,390 of State school land in the south unit. In the north unit, it owned all but approximately 1,707 acres of private land and 1,346 of State historical society land.

"These Federal and State historical society lands were administered by the National Park Service as a recreation demonstration area project, the largest of 46 such areas in the United States which were established under a Federal land classification permitting assistance to the States in demonstrating how lands of submarginal agricultural value could be put to valuable use for recreation.

"At the end of June 1937, the CCC camp in the south unit was vacated. The camp in the north unit was continued until October 1939, when it was transferred to the south unit at a new location on Federal land east of the river, replacing the former location on State Historical Society land west of the river. In addition to its work within the Roosevelt Regional Park, this camp restored the chateau and constructed other improvements on land west of Medora and outside the park known as the De Mores Historic Site and operated by the State historical society. The camp remained in operation through October 1941 when, because of approaching World War II, it closed along with the gradual termination of the CCC program throughout the Nation.

"During this CCC period, other Federal work relief agencies also were engaged in park development projects, using labor mostly from local communities. One project operated in both park units in 1935-36 under the Emergency Relief Administration. Other projects operated in the south unit into 1942 under the Works Progress Administration.

"In 1941: On January 3, Congressman Usher L. Burdick introduced H.R. 536 to provide for the acquisition and preservation

as a memorial to Theodore Roosevelt of the Maltese Cross Ranch, Billings County. This ranch, containing 2,405 acres, lies south of Medora and involved no property within the Roosevelt Regional Park or the present memorial park.

"In 1942-45: After closing of the WPA project in June 1942, no further development work was undertaken and only a custodian and handyman-mechanic were stationed in the south unit to administer and maintain the park. maintain the park. During this period the park become more generally known by its official title as the Roosevelt Recreation Demonstration Area. On January 25, 1943, Congressman Burdick introduced H.R. 1478, identical to his 1941 bill but again not enacted.

"In July 1944, Congressman William Lemke, of North Dakota and Congressman J. Hardin Peterson, of Florida, chairman of the Public Lands Committee, visited the park and held hearings at which local persons expressed ideas regarding the future of the park. Resolutions were sent to North Dakota Congressmen and the Department of the Interior favoring establishment of a Theodore Roosevelt National Monument, subject to revision of boundaries, on lands in the south unit of the Roosevelt RDA. The resolutions were from the Commercial Club of Medora, Civic and Commerce Association of Valley City and Lions Club of Steele and Mandan.

"On October 18, 1945, Congressman Lemke introduced H.R. 4435 to establish the Theodore Roosevelt National Park and to erect a monument in the village of Medora. This bill included only a portion of the lands in the south unit of the RDA and none of the north unit. It did, however, include petrified forestlands which had been in the original submarginal land purchase unit but excluded from the later reduced boundaries of the unit. The President's approval was withheld.

"In 1946: On February 26, Acting Secretary of Interior Oscar L. Chapman signed an order transferring administration of Roosevelt RDA lands from the National Park Service to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Representatives of the latter service assumed administrative duties in April and the area became known as the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge.

"In 1947: On January 9, Congressman Lemke introduced H.R. 731, similar to his 1945 bill but adding the Elkhorn Ranch site. This bill was enacted on April 25, after minor amendment, to become Public Law 38. A provision of the bill authorized the exchange of former Roosevelt RDA lands lying outside the new park boundary to be exchanged for private lands remaining within the boundary. Through such exchanges, a big majority of the private lands have since been acquired. The National Park Service officially assumed jurisdiction of the new National Memorial Park on August 1.

"In 1948: On February 2, Congressman Charles R. Robertson introduced H.R. 5250 to provide for acquisition and preservation as a memorial to Theodore Roosevelt of the Maltese Cross Ranch, south of the park. This was similar to the bill introduced by Congressman Burdick in 1943 but the size was reduced to 582.76 acres. The bill was not enacted.

"On February 26, Congressman Lemke introduced H.R. 5586 to amend Public Law 38. However, this was revised by the substitution of H.R. 5816. This latter bill was introduced by Congressman Lemke on March 11 and, with certain amendments, enacted on June 10 as Public Law 620. This act adjusted boundaries of the south unit to conform more closely with topographic conditions, and added certain lands needed to form a more nearly complete park unit. Most of these lands were federally owned, having been a part of the former Roosevelt RDA. The act