Yesterday four Republican Senators were absent. All other Republicans on this side of the aisle answered to the rollcalls. That is pretty good; far better, indeed, percentagewise, than the Democrat's record, my Democratic brethren. Today, six Republicans, I regret to say, were absent. The rest of us answered to the rollcalls. To that extent I point with consummate pride to the votes, pro and con, on the amendments as they have been offered, which my colleagues on the minority side have been privileged to cast.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KUCHEL. I will yield in a moment, but not now.

Mr. MANSFIELD. It is relevant to what the Senator is saying, because the last rollcall shows that only 78 Senators were on hand.

Mr. KUCHEL. We cannot be certain of the amount of expatiation in which our colleagues will indulge; heaven knows it will be substantial. On the assumption that we will all be pointed and relevant in our comments, I infer that the suggestion of the majority leader is to the effect that there may still be other rollcalls. To that extent, I hope that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, may remain here until additional amendments have been disposed of.

Mr. DODD obtained the floor. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. DODD. I will yield in a moment to the Senator from Ohio. I first wish to make a brief statement.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, without losing the floor, I may yield first to the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] and then to the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I call

up

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for what purpose does the Senator from Connecticut yield? He has the right to yield for a question; but for what purpose does he propose to yield?

Mr. DODD. I assume it is for a question.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I desire to direct a question to the majority leader. I am prepared to call up my amendment to bar aid absolutely to Communist countries. I am prepared to abide by a 30minute limitation of time and to have a vote tonight, if we can get unanimous consent on that subject.

I am not going to relate the conversation, because I do not want to "spill over"

Mr. MORSE. There will be objection. Mr. LAUSCHE. I knew that out of the pit would jump the phantom. Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. DODD. Under the same conditions. The Senator from California deserted me this morning.

Mr. KUCHEL. No; I did not. The Senator from Connecticut is a fine Senator. I want to come around and talk with him. I want to help him to correct a wrong impression which he has left. that on the last rollcall, of the total numMr. President, let the RECORD show ber of our beloved friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, 16 regrettably, were absent. On this side of the aisle six of our Republican colleagues, regret

tably, by reason of illness or otherwise,

were absent.

So, as I conclude and take my seat, the record of absences on the last rollcall was 16 of my Democratic brothers, and 6 of the admirable minority. And that, my brethren, represents a gold star for the Republican minority.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I am very glad that I did not have to make that statement.

Mr. KUCHEL. I am glad I was able to make that statement.

Mr. MANSFIELD. So am I, even though it reflects on the Democratic side. But it may be remembered that last Friday approximately 25 Senators were absent; and this is not a laughing matter. At noon today, six Democratic Senators were absent. On the last vote, 16 Democratic Senators were absent. All of us, on both sides of the aisle, had better "get right" after that. Our job is to be here, representing the people of the States from which we come. This absentee record is ridiculous, it is tragic, it is a sad commentary on the legislative branch of the Government.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is completely correct. The business of the Senate is paramount for those who have been elected to serve here. I am glad, if the Senator will permit me to make a partisan comment, that my Republican colleagues have a pretty good attendance

record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I shall be brief. I felt this morning somewhat like a skunk at a lawn party.

I do not want to appear to be a spite

Mr. MORSE. It is no shadow. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to answer the question. What was it?

Mr. LAUSCHE. It was said that if a Senator were prepared to call up an amendment, the Senate would remain in session to vote upon it, if that were the will of the Senate. I am prepared to accept a 30-minute limitation on the amendment which, if adopted, would bar aid absolutely to Communist countries under the Foreign Aid Act.

of critic. I am not of that nature.

I wish to relate to the Senate what, I suppose, is the best experience I ever had.

I said, "You make me feel about the size of a pin. I wish I were as big as you are."

Because he is big. He is a very great man. He is a very great Senator.

I fear I was harsher than I meant to be last night toward him-and, I might add, toward by friend, EVERETT DIRKSEN, whom I really like and for whom I have affection. Both of these men are great men. I hope they will understand that what I said was not said out of malice. the delays, about our lack of progress. I spoke out because I was upset about

But I want to tell the Senate that we do have wonderful men leading us. MIKE Would never tell this.

It is not in his nature to do so.
But I tell it.

I publicly tell it, because I want it on the record that this great soul, this noble character, this fine human being, this great Senator, should have thought to humble himself.

But it was not he who humbled himself.

He humbled me, and I am grateful to him.

I want him to know that he has not only my affection and devotion and admiration, but, as well, my loyalty. [Applause.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is open to further amendment.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, while I do not concur in everything that my friend the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD] said last night, I admire his courage for having said it. I think the ability to criticize ourselves and our institution is something that should not be taken lightly. I know it was not an easy thing for him to say. It might even have been said in a moment of anger. Nevertheless, it took courage to say it. While I do not concur with my friend, I admire his courage.

Mr. DODD. I am grateful to my friend the distinguished Senator from Texas for the generous compliment he has paid me.

STEELWORKERS EXPRESS NEED FOR PLANNING FOR SHIFTS IN DEFENSE SPENDING

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, Mr. John J. Sheehan, legislative representative of the United Steelworkers of America, has sent to me under date of November 1, 1963, a letter relative to the conversion of our economy to peacetime production.

Mr. Sheehan included with his letter a copy of an important letter that was mailed October 28, 1963, to officers and representatives of the United Steelworkers of American by Mr. Frank Hoffman, legislative director of the union.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters by Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Hoffman

and the article by Mr. Harvey Segal referred to be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., November 1, 1963. The Honorable GEORGE S. MCGOVERN U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCGOVERN: Please find enclosed a copy of a letter which we sent to all our legislative representatives on the subject of conversion to peacetime economy which issue was raised by you in your speech entitled "New Perspectives on American Security."

Your speech was certainly provocative and raises challenges that must be met now in order to arrive at a rational approach to the necessity of planning federal expenditure in the public sector on the economy. The recent article written by Harvey Segal certainly indicates that your speech has attracted attention.

Sincerely,

JOHN J. SHEEHAN, Legislative Representative.

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

Washington, D.C., October 28, 1963. To All District Directors, Legislative Representatives, and Staff Representatives. DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: Federal expenditure in the public sector of the economy has long been one of the objectives of the labor movement. Such spending is desirable not only for fiscal and economic goals but also for social goals. Not all Government spending, however, involves investment in the public sector. Over 55 percent of the annual budget is consumed by military expenditure. It is roughly 9.2 percent of the gross national product-the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. The enclosed items direct your attention to two aspects of this fact.

I. Impact of military spending in unemployment areas: Although, for the most part, military spending is nonproductive, it can have a tremendous impact upon the vitality and economic viability of many of our industrial communities. Last year, the Senate Select Committee on Small Business conducted a hearing to determine whether this impact was beneficial or deleterious. The enclosed report includes the findings and recommendations of that committee. The report indicates that more than 12 percent of the Nation's population lives in areas of persistent and substantial unemployment but only 4 percent of all defense contracts is now awarded to firms in those areas. Furthermore, the shift in demand for different kinds of military hardware has meant the loss of thousands of jobs and unbalanced economies in different areas in the country.

Senator HUMPHREY, who was chairman of the subcommittee's investigation, feels that the social costs of unemployment to the individual and the community should also be taken into consideration when a military contract is being awarded. Because of an amendment attached to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1957, no funds appropriated for military purposes shall be used for the payment of a price differential on contracts made for the purpose of relieving economic dislocations. The defense manpower policy of 1960 has, therefore, been blocked in its attempt to implement the national policy to encourage the placement of contracts and facilities in areas of persistent and substantial labor surplus and to assist such areas in making the best use of their available resources by other contradictory policies of the Department of Defense. The report outlines a number of changes which could redirect the economic impact of this

type of government spending. Some of these changes recommend (1) a total setaside of a particular defense contract for distressed areas; (2) establishment of an Office of Economic Utilization in all agencies to coordinate procurement policies; (3) adoption of a program to equalize the distribution of research and development contracts. California alone accounted for 41.3 percent of such contracts let by the Department of Defense; (4) expansion of the Office of Emergency Planning to include preparation of studies and suggestions to improve the long-range health of the economy.

It is true that our economy should not become dependent upon military expenditure, but, if, de facto, Government funds are being expended in this way, then, there should be a more conscious utilization of these huge funds with a view to their social and economic impact. Last year only $138 million worth of defense contracts were allocated to labor surplus market areas as a result of Defense Department activity. This year, the Director of the Office of Economic Utilization, Albert Lazure, intends to increase the amount to $500 million.

II. Planning the conversion to a peace economy: The other aspect, certainly the more important in the long run, concerns our national approach to the hopeful and anticipated decrease in military expenditure. Quite obviously much of the decrease in the first stages of reduction should be diverted into the public sector of the economy. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, Democrat, of South Dakota, in a Senate speech on August 2, emphasized the need for a planned approach to the eventual reduction. The immediate problems facing such a conversion are entwined with America's traditional apprehension about public-sector investment. involved is the military-industrial complex about which there is so little awareness.

Also

The Senator seeks a solution to the conversion by diverting part of the arms budget to our unmet public needs. In order to accomplish this objective, he recommends (1) establishment of an operating conversion committee within every company engaged in military procurement; (2) establishment, by executive order, of an economic conversion commission with the responsibility for blueprinting appropriate action by Government to facilitate change from a military to a civilian economy; (3) convening of a national conference on economic conversion and growth to focus national attention on the problems.

The Senator declares: "Competence for converting from a military to a civilian economy is a basic requirement for the economic and political security of the United States." Sincerely and fraternally,

FRANK N. HOFFMAN,
Legislative Director.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Oct. 28

1963] ECONOMIC FRONT: THE PROBLEM OF TAPERING DEFENSE OUTLAYS

(By Harvey H. Segal)

Roswell L. Gilpatric, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, recently raised some disquieting questions about the neglected relationship between defense spending and the health of the economy.

Since 1957 national defense expenditures have increased by more than 25 percent, from $44 billion to the current level of over $55 billion. As a result of this rapid expansion, which was sparked by the advent of the intercontinental ballistics missile, the ratio of defense expenditures to the GNP was maintained at 10 percent over the 5-year period ending in 1962.

And while there were negative impacts in the shape of balance-of-payments pressures

and rapid shifts in the location of manufacturing activities, this latest bulge in defense outlays made an important net contribution to economic stability and growth.

But the success of Operation Big Lift, the progress of the Polaris missile programs and recent suggestions that stocks of fissionable materials are more than ample all point to leveling off in defense outlays. In surveying the prospects for the future, Gilpatric concluded that: "It is unlikely that sharp increases of the sort programed in the early years of this administration will be needed in the years immediately ahead. In terms of the GNP percentage, there should be some decline in the application of U.S. resources devoted to purely military preparedness."

Whether one assumes that defense expenditures will remain constant at their present high level or decline absolutely, there is little doubt that the boost which they gave to overall economic activity will be dissipated in the near future. More resources in either case will become available for use in the private and local government sectors of the economy.

But the question of how these resources are to be realized is one which has yet to be squarely faced by any agency of the vast Federal establishment.

Some work on the impact problems of reconverting industries which are closely tied to the defense effort has been carried on by the inadequately financed Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and there are projects which the Department of Defense has farmed out to private research agencies. None of these studies, however, can fill the needs of a well-planned program for the effective transfer of a portion of the vast defense-industry potential to the civilian sectors of the economy.

Last June, Representative WILLIAM FITTS RYAN, of New York, asked Charles J. Hitch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, what steps had been taken "toward blueprinting the conversion" of firms from military to civilian production. Hitch replied that "the major responsibility in a free economy such as ours must fall on the individual companies affected. What Government can do is study the problem *** develop the data necessary for private planning, and make these data available to private industry." Gilpatric's remarks echoed similar sentiments.

Thus far such information has not been made available, and a spokesman for one important defense industry organization complains further that Defense Department officials, anxious to maintain their sources of supply intact, are discouraging firms from seeking orders for civilian products. Charges of this sort are difficult to evaluate, but the fact that they are being made suggests that the problem of shifting resources from the military to the civilian sector is one that can best be handled outside of the DOD.

The problem of effectively transferring resources from the military to the civilian sectors of the economy is not one that can be solved by making information available or hoping that reductions in defense outlays will be matched by tax cuts. What is involved here is the transfers of new and powerful technological developments which are not very well suited to small-scale projects. For example, the electronics industry with very little effort could design superior automobile traffic control systems in which the information on density and flows at various points would be fed into a computer that would automatically adjust the timing of semaphore lights. But that involves large outlays by municipalities. Much the same can be said for the systems analysis approach to problem solving which can be fruitfully applied in the area of mass transportation.

The difficulty is not that intelligent persons in Government agencies have failed to consider these problems; rather the failure

to draft serious plans for their solution. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, of South Dakota, is about to introduce a bill which would establish a National Economic Conversion Commission. This agency, lodged in the Department of Commerce, would seek to encourage planning by business firms whose Government contracts absorb more than 25 percent of their labor force.

The virtue of a Conversion Commission is that it would assign to a single agency the responsibility for forward planning. Until that and much more-is accomplished, the problem of tapering off defense expenditures is one which will continue to menace economic stability.

INDUSTRY AND LABOR LEADERS POINT UP NEED OF PLANNING FOR CONVERSION TO PEACETIME

PRODUCTION

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. President, there is growing evidence that industry leaders are aware of the need to plan for shifts or cutbacks in military spending.

In a letter dated October 23, 1963, sent to all members of the engineering staff, the Sperry Gyroscope Co. explained that the changing requirements of our military establishment have necessitated a reduction in the company's engineering personnel.

The vice president of this distinguished firm, after commenting on "the impact of major changes in Government procurement policies," explained that the reduction of engineers is unprecedented.

Sperry has prided itself in never having had such a layoff in its entire history

Said Vice President Lisle L. Wheeler. Mr. President, this letter demonstrates the need for the kind of conversion planning by industry and Government which is called for in the bill I introduced a week ago the National Economic Conversion Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the Sperry letter be printed at this point in the RECORD:

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

SPERRY GYROSCOPE CO.,

Great Neck, N.Y., October 23, 1963. To All Members of the Engineering Staff:

I am sure there is no one in this or any other company that is heavily committed in defense work who is not fully aware of major changes in direction that have been developing in the entire industry. One such trend is a steadily declining requirement for production quantities of system hardware. Comparatively few large volume longrun production contracts are being awarded. Projects such as Minuteman, Polaris, and TFX are fast becoming the exception rather than the rule. Many other large production type contracts such as Skybolt have been terminated. Programs such as Hustler have been sharply reduced from original procurement plans and are being phased out. The layoffs in production areas which have been necessary at Sperry over the past several months have been the inevitable, though regrettable, result of the shrinking volume of defense production work.

While the total volume of R. & D. work has not had the sharp decline that has been

experienced in production work, this area, too, has felt the impact of major changes in Government procurement policies. Here, also, fewer large systems are being authorized and funded and only after heavier emphasis on small preliminary study contracts, greater effort toward system definition prior to contracting and increased pressure on industry to assume a greater share of the risks. At the same time the Department of Defense and the military services have been driving for a substantial reduction in the cost of R. & D. work. The effect of these pressures has been a sharp increase in the competition for every R. & D. job that is proposed. Under these circumstances no company can maintain and enhance its competitive position unless it trims all unnecessary costs. A company whose overheads are inflated by surplus manpower cannot be competitive.

While many competitor companies have had several engineering layoffs, up until now Sperry has been successful in avoiding a reduction of its engineering staff. However, a surplus has now developed that requires that we have the first layoff of engineers in the history of the company. One hundred engineers will be laid off effective October 31. Each person being separated has been notified by his supervision.

In compiling the layoff list consideration was given to seniority, performance and potential of each individual and changing technological requirements. In no case is anyone with more than 29 months' service affected. Those scheduled for layoff will receive full severance pay as provided in SPI.

Our employment department is contacting other companies to arrange job interviews and it will do all it can to help those looking for new positions to find them. As information becomes available, it will be passed on by supervision.

Again, let me say we regret that this engineering layoff must occur. Sperry has prided itself in never having had such a layoff in its entire history. Now that it must take place we have tried to provide every consideration for those affected.

Everyone not affected must realize the importance of sharpening our efforts to improve our competitive job-getting ability. We are investing substantial sums of money in improving our facilities, in our independent research and development efforts and in an unusually large number of bids for new business. We have been spending long hours meeting with various Washington officials in support of our proposal efforts. We are confident that a hardhitting team effort can and will result in a growing backlog of new orders and a rising level of employment. Sincerely,

LISLE L. WHEELER,
Vice President for Engineering.

PLANNING NOW FOR PEACE

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, my hometown newspaper, the Mitchell Daily Republic, of Monday, November 4, 1963, carried an editorial entitled "Planning Now for Peace." The editorial asserts:

If we accept the conclusion that the Nation will not indefinitely go on pouring over half of the Government's income to military uses then we also must accept the challenge to plan now for the return of a more normal civilian economy.

The Daily Republic editor comments on two proposals that I have made to the Senate in recent months. First, a $5 billion cut in excess U.S. military spending. Secondly, the establishment of an ecom

ic conversion commission to ease the transition of high defense expenditures to civilian pursuits.

The editorial also includes excerpts from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial on the same subject.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

PLANNING NOW FOR PEACE

With top administration aids currently concentrating on budgets for next year, a recent statement by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gilpatric that the time has come to start reducing American Armed Forces overseas and that the upward spiral of defense spending is at an end comes as a welcome relief to American taxpayers.

Mr. Gilpatric was far from specific on the exact date or the amount these expenses I will be reduced but it is an indication of

administration thinking for he could not have given the talk in Chicago without prior approval. With this trend also indicated in other quarters, two proposals by South Dakota's Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN are moving rapidly into national attention. The first, proposed last summer, was that $5 billion be knocked off U.S. defense spending to prevent an even greater surplus of overkill power and the second, made within the last week, was that the Government establish an Economic Conversion Commission to ease the transition of high defense expenditures to more civilian pursuits. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently wrote:

"Last summer Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, of South Dakota, mustered only a handful of votes in support of his argument that the military budget should be cut back to eliminate a surplus overkill capacity which, he said, does not actually enhance our security.

"The Kennedy administration has increased the military budget by 20 percent. We hope its projected outlays next year will be subjected to the kind of critical analysis Senator MCGOVERN called for. People who say we cannot afford $5 billion for space exploration should ask themselves how much of a $53 billion arms budget represents surplus capacity rather than military essentials.

"And this would be a good time to adopt Senator McGOVERN's proposal for an Economic Conversion Commission to begin the task of planning the transition to an economy less dependent than ours is on a swollen arms industry."

If we accept the conclusion that the Nation will not indefinitely go on pouring over half of the Government's income to military uses then we also must accept the challenge to plan now for the return of a more normal civilian economy.

This return can be speeded considerably in industry, States and communities will not suffer from a reduction in the military program, that economies now based on the shaky pegs of military production and military bases will not collapse.

RECESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to be transacted, I move that the Senate take a recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 8 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, November 8, 1963, at 12 o'clock meridian.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1963

The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Father John F. Mallon, assistant pastor, St. Agnes' Church, Arlington, Va., offered the following prayer:

O God, Supreme Lord and ruler of the universe, whose laws and commandments emanate from Thy divine wisdom for the establishment of order and harmony among the nations, grant, we humbly beseech Thee, to our Representatives in the Congress a profound wisdom to realize that all human authority derives from divine authority; a holy prudence to guide them in their deliberations in the Halls of this Congress; an understanding that the problems of our Nation are to be solved only with prayerful recourse to Thee, O God, who art ever ready to bless those statesmen, who, like the Founding Fathers, place their trust in Thee.

As of old Thou didst come down upon

the mountain to instruct the people of God through their representative, Moses, so now come, we beseech Thee, to this Chamber and diffuse the benefits of Thy governance through our chosen Repre

sentatives, that they may sanctify themselves with Thy grace, serve the people of

God with humility, and acknowledge Thee to be the Father of governments and of nations. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

There was no objection.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who desire to do so may extend their remarks on the subject matter of my address following my remarks at this point. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago this month, the people of the Seventh Congressional District of Iowa voted to send a new Representative to Congress. Because of his diligence to

The Journal of the proceedings of yes- duty and his outstanding legislative abilterday was read and approved.

WATERSHED PROTECTION AND

FLOOD PREVENTION

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication, which was read and referred to the Committee on Appropriations:

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., November 5, 1963. Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended, the Committee on Public Works has approved the work plans transmitted to you which were referred to this committee. The work plans involved are:

State and watershed

Alabama: Big Nance Creek... Arizona:

Executive Committee com- approval mittee No.

ity, he has been reelected for 13 consecutive terms and is now the ranking Republican on the Committee on Appropriations. I refer of course to the dean of the Iowa delegation, the Honorable BEN FRANKLIN JENSEN, known affectionately to his colleagues as Uncle BEN. Only eight Members of Congress who commenced their service with BEN JENSEN on January 3, 1939, are still Members of the House today.

As a colleague from Iowa and one who has been privileged to work closely with BEN, it is a pleasure indeed to extend my heartiest congratulations on his distinguished record of dedicated service to his State and Nation over the past 25 years and to also express my best wishes on his 71st birthday which he will celebrate on December 16. BEN is a native Iowan, having been born on a farm near Marion in Linn County. His parents were of Danish ancestry. After serving as a second lieutenant in World War I, he became very active in the American Legion and throughout his service in the Con

gress has been a champion of the vet900 Oct. 8, 1963 eran. Before being elected to Congress, BEN was a retail lumberman in his hometown of Exira, Iowa. His wife is also an Iowan, the former Charlotte Hadden, of Clearfield, Iowa, and they have one daughter, Betty, who is now Mrs. Donald G. Fitzpatrick, of Marblehead, Mass.

Do.

Apache Junction-Gilbert..

900

Do.

Williams-Chandler.

900

Do.

900

Mississippi: Chuquatonchee

Creek.

900

Oklahoma: Stillwater Creek.

Do. 900 Oct. 8, 1963

Puerto Rico: Guayanes River... Alabama: Cheaha Creek..

900

Do.

Tennessee: Middle-Fork Obion River....

CIX -1346

We in Iowa are immensely proud of BEN JENSEN'S legislative record and the

Al

philosophy for which he stands. though sometimes referred to as a pennypincher by the big spenders in Washington, we are genuinely pleased with his stand on economy in Government, and the people of the country can be glad that he is one of those who holds the Federal pursestrings on the Committee on Appropriations.

Tomorrow, on November 8, scores of friends and admirers are honoring our beloved colleague at an appreciation banquet to be held in Council Bluffs, Iowa. This is recognition well deserved in view of his long and faithful service to his congressional district, the State of Iowa, and the entire Nation. I am sure that all Members of the House will want to join with me in extending best wishes to BEN on the anniversary of his 25th year of service in the Congress and his forthcoming birthday. May he continue to enjoy health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, Congressman BEN JENSEN, upon the completion of 25 years of service in the House.

I have served with BEN during the past

5 of his 25 years and as representatives of districts which have mutual boundaries, we have had occasion to work together on several problems.

Since we are now both on the Appropriations Committee, we find additional opportunities to work jointly on problems which directly affect and concern the people of the State of Iowa.

Through these associations, I have had an opportunity to know BEN well and I am glad to list him as one of my personal friends.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to extend my sincere congratulations to BEN on this special occasion and to wish him well in the years to come.

Mr. REIFEL. Mr. Speaker, few Members of this body are more deserving of the accolades being bestowed today than is the Honorable BEN JENSEN of the Seventh Congressional District of Iowa.

Truly, he is one of the outstanding statesmen in the Congress today, a man of unquestionable integrity and purpose and one who is held in the highest regard by all his colleagues.

I had heard of the outstanding work of BEN JENSEN long before I came to Congress. As a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, he has been one of the real architects of America. His imprint and guidance can be found in numerous activities of the Federal Government to develop our great natural search programs, better the lot of the resources, undertake undertake worthwhile reAmerican Indian and assure wisest possible expenditure of the taxpayer's dollars.

It is my understanding that his many friends in the Seventh Congressional District of Iowa will be holding a testimonial dinner on November 8 in Council Bluffs to recognize his 25 years of distinguished

service to them and to the people of America. BEN JENSEN is eminently deserving of this bipartisan tribute for dedicated service in public life.

Few of us have failed to benefit by his counsel and wisdom. I have been especially privileged to be a direct and special beneficiary of his characteristic kindnesses and counsel. Few Members take a more devoted interest not only in the science of government and its legislative processes but also in the personal problems of constituents and associates.

It is interesting that although he has compiled one of the most outstanding legislative records in this body his biography as it appears in the Congressional Directory is one of the most brief, which serves to demonstrate his characteristic humility.

I am proud to join in this bipartisan tribute to one of the great men in America, BEN JENSEN, on the 25th anniversary of his election to Congress. His countless friends and admirers wish for him many more years of effective congressional service.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, no one can appreciate the assistance and guidance of an experienced Member of Congress more than a new Member in his first days in this great body. BEN JENSEN had been a Member of the Congress for 20 years when I came to Washington. When I sought his advice and his counsel, he was always ready, willing, and able to assist me. Furthermore, his aid was given in the finest possible spirit of helpfulness.

I have appreciated the wide knowledge which BEN JENSEN carries-knowledge which could have been obtained only after a period of conscientious service. His dedication not only to his district and to his State, but to the Nation as well, has served as an inspiration for me. He has been, and is, a most valuable and influential Member of this House. The Nation will benefit from his continued service.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in the tributes that are being paid today to my colleague and beloved friend, Representative BEN JENSEN, of Iowa.

Twenty-five years ago this week BEN and I were among the 81 new Republican Members elected to serve in the 76th Congress. Today we are the only 2 of that 81 now serving in Congress.

Throughout the years my respect and affection for BEN JENSEN have grown. BEN JENSEN is recognized as one of the real leaders of Congress. He has made an impressive record in this House. He has served with exceptional ability and wisdom. He has contributed much to the welfare of the people he represents and to the benefit of this Republic which he loves so much and he has served so well for a quarter of a century.

We all salute BEN JENSEN, may he enjoy health and happiness-and continue to serve in this House for another 25 years is our wish.

Mr. BROMWELL. Mr. Speaker, BEN JENSEN was born in my home county and it was there in Linn County that he spent his early boyhood. I have always enjoyed contemplating this fact, not only because of the shared familiarity with places and people, not only because of

my pride in my home county for having produced such a distinguished son as BEN, but also because of my personal respect and affection for him.

As has been the case with other distinguished sons of the Middle West, one can read much of the strong, simple virtues of the prairie community in the story of his life. Life in the Prairie States has changed greatly in the years that BEN JENSEN has shared it. It has changed perhaps as greatly, although less obtrusively, as has the life in our urban centers.

In his warmth and understanding of the people of Iowa; in his sturdy honesty and decency; in his fierce loyalty which is reciprocated to those deems worthy of loyalty; in his simple and effective love of family; in his unashamed and uncomplicated patriotism; in his diligent and regular performance of his public responsibility, we can see mirrored the virtues which have wed him to Iowa-the land between the two great rivers-and Iowa to him.

I rejoice that we have been blessed with 25 years of the service to this Republic which BEN JENSEN has provided. I congratulate him and wish him well.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my Iowa colleagues in paying tribute to the dean of the Iowa delegation to both the Congress and the House. Tomorrow, BEN JENSEN will celebrate the 25th anniversary of his election to the U.S. House of Representatives. In honor of this momentous occasion BEN JENSEN's friends back in Iowa will hold a banquet to celebrate this anniversary. It will be a privilege for me to join with them tomorrow evening in Council Bluffs.

BEN JENSEN has served his country and State superbly. Born and raised in Iowa, married to an Iowa girl, and according to him "the prettiest girl in Taylor County," BEN has a record of distinction in this House second to none.

Through the years he has received many awards and commendations. The Social Conservation Society of America made him an honorary member of that group on November 16, 1954. BEN JENSEN was one of the first Members of Congress to be so honored. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has honored him in a similar manner. One of BEN JENSEN'S prized possessions is a letter from former President Herbert Hoover commending him for his efforts to keep free enterprise alive in the electrical power field.

BEN JENSEN has always held a warm spot in his heart for schoolchildren. Thrilled by an address to the joint session of Congress given by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, March 4, 1939, on the 150th anniversary of the meeting of the 1st Congress, BEN JENSEN asked the permission of the Chief Justice to send it to all the school-age youngsters in his district. Chief Justice Hughes, honored by the request, asked this then freshman Congressman to come to his office. According to the secretary of the Chief Justice, BEN was the first Congressman to be accorded the honor of an appointment with the Chief Justice.

As ranking member of the House Appropriation Committee, BEN JENSEN has long been an advocate of sound fiscal

government. He has saved this country countless millions of dollars by his tireless work and research as a member of that committee. BEN JENSEN is not one who votes blindly or without thought. He acknowledges the responsibility and obligation of the Federal Government in the fields of veterans retirement, help to widows, and orphans. BEN JENSEN was instrumental in the passage of the legislation that gave countless GI's after World War II the opportunity of an education. He has also recognized the need for medical and scientific research.

Perhaps some of his best work has come as a member of the Public Works Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. As a member of the House Public Works Committee I have taken pride in the manner in which he deals with authorizations made by my committee. He has had a sympathetic ear when it comes to funds needed for necessary public works projects in my constituency. The people I represent could have no finer friend.

BEN JENSEN, as indicated earlier, is a leading soil conservationist and is a strong advocate of meritous watershed projects. Flood control projects have been a major interest of his. His service in this field has been outstanding. His knowledge of these areas and his willingness to work for the enactment of sound programs which implement his ideas. OCTOBER 29, 1963.

The Honorable BEN JENSEN,
Old House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR BEN: I read in yesterday's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that your 25th anniversary of service will soon be honored. It hasn't seemed that long.

Here's how I feel about it:
"God made a man.

His name was BEN.
How tall he stood

'Midst other men!
"Through those he served
His fame spread wide
As 'the Great Dane'
And 'Iowa's pride.'
"His greatest goal-

His firmest stand-
To save the wealth
Of this, our land.
"In war, his words

Ranged past the sea
To tell the Norse

They would be free.
"We hail his work

Which long years span.
When God made BEN

He made a man!"

This has been a great privilege to rise to honor my fellow Iowan BEN JENSEN. An asset to Iowa, to our country, we need more like him. BEN JENSEN has been a friend of mine for more years than perhaps either of us care to admit. My sincere hope is that he and I will be able to serve together here in the Congress for many years to come.

There is a letter that I would like to read. It is addressed to BEN, but I saw a copy of it and thought it should be in the RECORD. It expresses the feelings of all