weapons which their country and ours now possess for instantaneous use.

For these reasons, the Communist-world leaders, still bent on world domination by the best available means, can be expected to step up their nonmilitary tactics to expand their control over the globe. The test ban treaty by no means will lessen the Communist offensive in the cold war; on the contrary, their weapons of propaganda, infiltration, agitation, subversion, espionage, plus all manner of economic and psychological attacks, undoubtedly will be increased. In short, the United States should expect and prepare for, an intensified drive of total political warfare.

Today the Soviet Union is operating an estimated 6,000 special schools to train Russian Communist Party members and Communist agents from nations around the world in the tactics of infiltration, propaganda, subversion, sabotage, and other means. Approximately $5 billion a year is being spent to train these Communist agents to engage in all kinds of political, nonmilitary warfare, in all parts of the world. The Soviets are old hands at political warfare, and today graduates of their special schools are staffing some 75 Communist parties in nations throughout the non-Communist world.

Let no one deceive himself that the leaders in the Kremlin and in Peiping will be satisfied to maintain the status quo of so-called peaceful coexistence.

To increase our country's vigilance and to provide a concentrated avenue of counterattack against the nonmilitary thrusts of the Communist conspiracy, I am sponsoring legislation before the Congress to establish a Freedom Academy, designed to train Americans from both the public and the private sectors to learn and utilize the tactics of total political warfare in order to defeat the Communists at their own game.

Such a Freedom Academy would be an independent agency of the Government and would provide to trainees research, development, and practical application in all nonmilitary conflict techniques.

The unique advantage of this Freedom Academy over any existing governmental training schools is that it would give this specialized training not only to governmental personnel from the various agencies, but also to private citizens of our country and from throughout the free world. The students at the Freedom Academy would be trained not only to defeat Communist offensives of all kinds, but also to replace their

tactics with positive substitutes to obtain our own political objectives and to establish free societies wherever possible.

As I view this legislation, one of its most important assets is its recognition of the need to give the American people a greater awareness and understanding of communism and its goals, and further, to utilize the much-neglected private sector of our extensive human resources. Like the tax cut bill which has now passed the House of Representatives, my bill to establish a Freedom Academy will engage actively the private citizens of our country in direct participation against the Communist conspiracy. In the private segment of America, as opposed to the public or Government segment, there is a large reservoir of unused talent, ingenuity, and wisdom which can, and should, be harnessed for active service in the continuing cold war.

Today in New Orleans, a prime example of making constructive use of our private citizens in the ideological and psychological struggle against communism is found in the Information Council of the Americas (INCA), headed by Edward Scannell Butler of New Orleans.

Under the leadership of Mr. Butler, INCA was established in New Orleans in early 1961, with the aid and support of some of the city's leading citizens. Since then, INCA has waged an incessant campaign of anti-Communist and prodemocratic information through all communications media-radio, television, newspapers, magazines, leaflets, lectures, speeches, and other means.

Particularly have INCA's truth tape radio programs been directed effectively to the peoples of Latin America, especially those in Cuba under the Communist heel of Castro's regime. Members of INCA include businessmen, professional men, educators, farm leaders, journalists, and others from throughout the United States; they have provided solid support for the half-hour truth tape programs which feature Cuban refugees who have escaped from the oppression of Castro's dictatorship, and noted sports and entertainment personalities. These loyal Americans present in their broadcasts proof of lies to be found in Communist propaganda and Communist actions.

On his staff, Mr. Butler has utilized the services and talents of journalists, entertainers, engineers, technicians, and others in INCA's counterthrust efforts against the spread of communism in Latin America. From both the governmental and private sectors of our community, Mr. Butler has

received cooperation and support, and by his work he has proved the validity of using the energies and talents of private citizens of our country to combat communism, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

As proposed in my bill, the Freedom Academy will be under the direction of the Freedom Commission, to be composed of six members and a chairman. The commissioners will be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they will serve for terms of 6 years. Furthermore, no more than four commissioners may be members of any one political party.

This legislation to establish a Freedom Academy also outlines general guidelines and regulations for selecting both private American citizens and foreign students to attend the school, and provides for proper security checks for both commission employees and students. The bill provides for the hiring of a qualified general manager for the Academy, as well as for other professional and administrative personnel.

The uniqueness of such an Academy will be that it will provide a single center at which all nonmilitary tactics and techniques against Sino-Soviet communism can be developed and utilized to the fullest extent throughout the free world. It will give both public and private citizens a direct opportunity to join in the cold war with vigor, imagination, and skill.

I am proud to note that this legislation has widespread and bipartisan support in the Congress. Congressman A. SYDNEY HERLONG, JR., of Florida, has joined me in sponsoring this bill in the House. In the Senate, 13 Senators who are members of both political parties also are sponsoring this legislation:

CLIFFORD CASE, of New Jersey; THOMAS DODD, of Connecticut; Paul DouglAS, of Illinois; HIRAM FONG, of Hawaii; BARRY GOLDWATER, of Arizona; BOURKE HICKENLOOPER, of Iowa; KENNETH KEATING, of New York; FRANK LAUSCHE, of Ohio; JACK MILLER, of Iowa; KARL MUNDT, of South Dakota (principal sponsor in the Senate); WILLIAM PROXMIRE, of Wisconsin; HUGH SCOTT, of Pennsylvania; and GEORGE SMATHERS, of Florida.

The creation of a Freedom Academy also has received support from throughout our country from various civic and governmental organizations. Thus far, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held hearings this year on the legislation, and I am most hopeful that the 88th Congress will act on this important bill so that a new bulwark for freedom can be provided for the United States and the free world.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1963
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.

The Reverend Robert E. Brengartner, Catholic chaplain, U.S. Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., offered the following prayer:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Almighty God, we pause at this moment to invoke Your blessing on this session of Congress and we beg that this blessing may continue as long as the people act so as to deserve good men representing them in a government operating under God's grace. Relying on the purity of their intentions, the justice of their cause, and the integrity and intelligence of the people, our Founding Fathers established the Congress of the United States under an overruling providence which has so singularly protected our country to this

very moment. Divine Being, supreme over all, patron of order, fountain of justice, continue Your blessing on this Nation and the men responsible for its laws so their acts may always be consistent with the ends of Your providence. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Mr. McGown, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 3488. An act to provide for the striking of medals in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the statehood of the State of Indiana; and

H.R. 7193. An act to provide for the striking of medals in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the first union health center in the United States by the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1964 Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6868) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, agree to amendments Nos. 1 to 13, inclusive, 15 to 29 inclusive, and No. 34; and on the remainder of the amendments, disagree thereto and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"SENATE

"Compensation of the Vice President and Senators, mileage of the President of the Senate and Senators, and expense allowances of the Vice President and leaders of the Senate"

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"COMPENSATION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND SENATORS

"For compensation of the Vice President and Senators of the United States, $2,471,140."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"MILEAGE OF PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND OF SENATORS

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"Offices of the majority and minority whips "For four clerical assistants, two for the majority whip and two for the minority in basic multiples of $60 per annum by the whip, at rates of compensation to be fixed respective whips, $15,165 each; in all, $30,330."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES "For office of the Official Reporters of Debates, $231,555."

Page 1, after line 6, insert: "OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OF THE SENATE

"For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, $247,260: Provided, That effective July 1, 1963, one additional employee in the Office of the

"EXPENSE ALLOWANCES OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS

"For expense allowance of the Vice President, $10,000; majority leader of the Senate, $2,000; and minority leader of the Senate, $2,000; in all, $14,000."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"Salaries, officers and employees

"For compensation of officers, employees, clerks to Senators, and others as authorized by law, including agency contributions and longevity compensation as authorized, which shall be paid from this appropriation without regard to the below limitations, as follows:" Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

"For clerical assistance to the Vice President, at rates of compensation to be fixed by him in basic multiples of $5 per month, $136,710."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"CHAPLAIN

"Chaplain of the Senate, $9,430." Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

"For office of the Secretary, $897,885, including $128,000 required for the purposes specified and authorized by section 74b of title 2, United States Code: Provided, That effective July 1, 1963, the basic compensation of the printing clerk shall be $5,700 in lieu of $5,400."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES

"For professional and clerical assistance to standing committees and the Select Committee on Small Business, $2,731,965." Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"CONFERENCE COMMITTEES"

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"For clerical assistance to the conference of the majority, at rates of compensation to be fixed by the chairman of said committee, $82,740."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"For clerical assistance to the conference of the minority, at rates of compensation to be fixed by the chairman of said committee, $82,740."

Page 1, after line 6, insert: "ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL ASSISTANTS TO

designated as Senior Counsel, and the compensation of the additional employee so designated shall be equal to the gross per annum rate presently authorized for other employees so designated."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"Contingent expenses of the Senate" Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"SENATE POLICY COMMITTEES

"For salaries and expenses of the majority policy committee and the minority policy committee, $175,585 for each such committee; in all, $351,170."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"AUTOMOBILES AND MAINTENANCE

"For purchase, exchange, driving, maintenance, and operation of four automobiles, one for the Vice President, one for the President

pro tempore, one for the majority leader, and one for the minority leader, $37,840." Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"FURNITURE

"For service and materials in cleaning and repairing furniture, and for the purchase of furniture, $31,190: Provided, That the furniture purchased is not available from other agencies of the Government." Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS

"For expenses of inquiries and investigations ordered by the Senate or conducted pursuant to section 134(a) of Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, including $380,000 for the Committee on Appropriations, to be available also for the purposes mentioned in Senate Resolution Numbered 193, agreed to October 14, 1943, $4,025,760." Page 1, after line 6, insert:

authorized by law, $61,610, and the maximum allowance per capita of $550 is increased to $610 for the fiscal year 1964 and thereafter; for maintenance of a supply of stamps in the Senate Post Office, $1,500; in all, $63,535."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"STATIONERY (REVOLVING FUND)

"For stationery for Senators and the President of the Senate, $181,800; and for stationery for committees and officers of the Senate, $13,200; in all, $195,000, to remain available until expended."

Page 1, after line 6, insert:

"COMMUNICATIONS

"For an amount for communications which may be expended interchangeably for payment, in accordance with such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed by the Committee on Rules and Administration, of charges on official telegrams and long-distance telephone calls made by or on behalf of Senators or the President of the Senate, such telephone calls to be in addition to those authorized by the provisions of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1947 (60 Stat. 392; 2 U.S.C. 46c, 46d, 46e), as amended, and the First Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1949 (63 Stat. 77; 2 U.S.C. 46d-1), $15,150." Page 16, after line 24, insert:

"SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS

"For maintenance, miscellaneous items and supplies, including furniture, furnishings, and equipment, and for labor and material incident thereto, and repairs thereof; for purchase of waterproof wearing apparel, and for personal and other services; including eight attendants at $1,800 each; for the care and operation of the Senate Office Build

ings, including the subway and subway trans

portation systems connecting the Senate Office Buildings with the Capitol; uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by the Act of September 1, 1954, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2131); to be expended under the control and supervision of the Architect of the Capitol; in all, $2,535,300: Provided, That there is hereby authorized to be established and maintained, in an amount not to exceed $50, a petty cash fund for small purchases necessary for such care and operation of the buildings, which shall be reimbursed by vouchers properly chargeable to this and successor appropriations."

Mr. STEED (interrupting reading of Senate amendments). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, since these are purely Senate items, that the reading of the Senate amendments be dispensed with.

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

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I might as well do it at this point as later, let me ask STEED]: What do you propose to do by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. agreeing to amendments at this time? This is a rather unusual procedure in asking to go to conference on a bill and at the same time asking the House to agree to certain provisions of the bill even before you go to conference.

Mr. STEED. If the gentleman will yield, this is the same, identical procedure that has been followed every year for as long as I can remember. These items to which we are agreeing are agreed to the ones for the House. The purely Senate items. They have already ones we are disagreeing to are those joint items on which traditionally we have always gone to conference.

Mr. GROSS. Then, the Senate has not agreed to the House bill? It has agreed to the bill, but with exceptions?

Mr. STEED. All of the bill that relates to the House, they have agreed to in the Senate, without amendment.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman that I, for one, would like to know what the other body is obtaining by way of appropriations.

I would suggest to the gentleman that he simply ask to go to conference and then bring the total bill back to the House. I am interested in what they do at the other end of this building. As a matter of fact, I wish the Senate would send a housekeeping bill over here first sometimes so we could get a look at what they are spending and for what purposes. We send a bill over to them with our requests for housekeeping money and they have the benefit of what we are doing. Why not have the Senate send the bill over here first and let us take a crack at it and see what they are doing over there. I do not like this business of operating almost completely in the dark.

Mr. STEED. Well, the Senate has a report and the hearings on the items have been held as to what they have put in the bill. This is the system that the two bodies have followed for many, many years. What we are asking for here today is the same thing that has always been the custom.

Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentleman that we have seen a lot of newspaper publicity lately and I have been very much interested, for instance, in some of this Bobby Baker business, as well as various other items.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to object to the gentleman's request. I wish the gentleman would go to conference and come back with the bill and let us take a good look at what is happening around here by way of spending money by both the House and Senate.

Only yesterday, the House passed a debt increase bill. I did not support it, but I insist we will have to scrutinize very carefully from here on out what the House spends and what the other body spends.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman would adopt the normal procedure and go to conference, as is done with other

appropriation bills, and come back with

the bill and let us have a look at it.

Mr. STEED. I must insist, Mr. Speaker, that what we are asking for here today is, by tradition, the normal course.

Mr. GROSS. I am not interested in

tradition in this matter, I will say to the

gentleman.

Mr. STEED. That is the gentleman's privilege.

Mr. GROSS. We have got to the point

around here where we need to know more about what is going on with our own housekeeping expenditures. I, for one, want to know.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold this up and send the gentleman to the Committee on Rules. This I do not want to do. I see no reason why the I see no reason why the gentleman could not go to conference and come back with the various amendments for action on the floor of the House. The gentleman is asking for

the approval of certain amendments on the approval of certain amendments on the floor today with almost no one here.

Mr. STEED. The bill has been before the Congress since it passed the Senate on June 19. This is the same, identical system that has been followed year after year. The gentleman well knows that on all the items that affect the expenditures of the House of Representatives the subcommittee of which I have the honor to be chairman held extensive hearings on those items. hearings on those items. We have made every bit of information available that we know how. The Senate had hearings on those items which apply to them and the report and the hearings have been printed and have been available all this printed and have been available all this time. I do not think there is any desire on the part of anyone to withhold anything.

Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentleman that you are going to a conference, or you want to go to a conference with the other body with respect to certain disagreements; that is with respect to the House item, as I understand it—the appropriations for the House; is that correct?

Mr. STEED. No, no. The House items, the ones that we consider our own housekeeping items, have already been agreed to by the Senate. They are not in conference. What is in disagreement are two general subjects in the conference report here before us today and those items that pertain solely to the Senate, and then we have the joint items. All we are asking here is that we agree to the items pertaining solely to the Senate and that we disagree on the joint items and go to conference, as has been true every year for a long, long time.

There is not anything out of the ordinary or unreasonable or unusual about this. The request is in keeping with the traditional rule of comity. I am trying to follow a course that would keep the House in a very good conformance with that rule of comity. Otherwise it would put me in the position of placing the House in the position of being criticized.

Mr. GROSS. I am not necessarily opposed to the rule of comity, but I want it to work both ways, and it should never operate to deny Members of either body operate to deny Members of either body or the public information to which they are entitled. Perhaps what is suggested here today will not be satisfactory to

some of us in the light of what may transpire in the conference.

Mr. STEED. There is not any intention on my part to permit anything to happen in conference that encroaches

upon the prerogatives of the House and violates the rule of comity. I give the gentleman my very positive word on that. What I am trying to do with this request today is to leave the House and the House today is to leave the House and the House conferees in the position where we can maintain that exact position.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation given and the fact that

this bill should have been enacted months ago, I will not object to this request toago, I will not object to this request today, but I want to say to the gentleman that next year, the Lord willing, and I am here, I shall object to such procedure, and I serve notice here and now that I will do exactly that.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request to dispense with further reading of the Senate amendments?

There was no objection.

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

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. STEED, KIRWAN, CANNON, HORAN, and LANGEN.

CRIME REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I am requesting unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD the last 3 weeks' crime report for the District of Columbia.

I am certain every Member of Congress has great interest in the Nation's Capital and it is our desire to use every means to curb crime and make the city of Washington a safe place for the visitors from all the 50 States who visit their Capital on Government business or to see how their Government operates.

I am firm of the opinion that this should be the No. 1 project for the Congress as it is extremely essential that crime conditions be not only equal to other States but better than any city in the United States since we have from 7 to 10 million schoolchildren visiting the Nation's Capital every year.

GOVERNMENT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
November 7, 1963.

The Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of

Columbia, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.:

The District of Columbia Budget Office, under date of August 7, 1962, requested this Department to forward for information to matters one copy of any special report, study, each congressional committee on District survey or similar document which is released by this Department to the public and the

press.

Accordingly, the enclosed material, which is being released by this Department on this date, is provided for your information. ROBERT V. MURRAY, Chief of Police.

CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
OCTOBER 1963

During October 1963 a total of 2,345 part I offenses were reported in the District, an increase of 451 offenses or 23.8 percent from October 1962.

This was the 17th consecutive month with an increase in crime for this city. During this month increases occurred in all classifications of serious offenses except aggravated

assault, which decreased. Noteworthy were the increases in rape, up 4 offenses or 57.1 percent; housebreaking, up 163 offenses or 35.9 percent; and auto theft, up 193 offenses or 83.2 percent, from the offenses reported for last October.

The increase for this month brought the trend of offenses to 25,127, an increase of

59.1 percent from the low point established in June 1957, and making the trend period (the 12 months ending with October) the alltime high for crime in this city.

GOVERNMENT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, October 30, 1963.

The Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: Forwarded herewith are copies of the weekly crime report for the District of Columbia for the week beginning October 20, 1963.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT V. MURRAY, Chief of Police.

Government of the District of Columbia, Metropolitan Police Department-Pt. I offenses reported, Oct. 20 through Oct. 26, 1963

Change

Amount Percent

+2+200.0

+34.3

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in recent years about the "cost of living." I think nearly every citizen is aware of the fact that the prices of consumer goods have a tendency to rise over the years and that this process, in turn, reduces the purchasing value of the dollar. Because of public awareness of this fact many labor contracts and Government pay schedules provide for automatic cost-of-living increases as the Consumer Price Index warrants from time to time.

Now, we can take much satisfaction in recent leveling of this inflationary process. No longer is the cost-of-living advancing, or the purchasing power of the consumer dollar declining, at the rapid rate of the immediate postwar era. rate of the immediate postwar era. There has been a distinct slowing down of the inflationary spiral. However, today in our economy there are many sectors which haven't caught up, and if my colleagues will permit me to point out an obvious truth, one of them is the Congress of the United States.

To some critics of Congress such an observation may be ludicrous. Why, these critics know that Members of Congress are overpaid now, and any decline in the +13.0 real-money income or take-home pay of Congressmen can only be regarded as just retribution for all their well-known sloth and crookedness.

+12

Aggravated

+16.3 -20.0 +24. 1 -1.0 +14.6

GOVERNMENT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,

November 6, 1963.

The Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of

Columbia, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: Forwarded herewith are copies of the weekly crime re

However, to those who have some knowledge of the responsibilities borne by Members of Congress, some knowledge of the enormous expenses they must bear which no other executives or officials must bear, some knowledge of the inequities between congressional pay and compensation compensation of decisionmakers in State and local government and private industry, my observation may not seem so ludicrous. In fact, I believe it is well

port for the District of Columbia for the for every Member to be aware of the

fact during the debate on increasing Federal legislative, judicial, and executive pay-that congressional salaries today are not what the Congress considered appropriate when the last salary increase was voted more than 8 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I have checked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and learned the following. In 1955 the Consumer Price Index for all items checked was 93.3. The most recent Consumer Price Index, for the month of September of this year, was 107.1. This was a gain of 13.8 units, or 14.8 percent over 1955. This may be regarded as a 14.8-percent decline in the value of any salary which has remained constant through this period.

Applying that 14.8 percent to the salary of Members of Congress reveals a decline of $3,330 in their real-money income. In other words, in place of the $22,500 1955 dollars which the Congress considered to be appropriate for Members, the salary today in 1955 dollars is $19,170.

Now this is not the only, or even best, case that can be made for congressional salary increases. General elevation of executive salaries in State and local government, and in private industry, the need to lift the ceiling on Federal execuneed to lift the ceiling on Federal executive salaries, and the fact that the 1955 increase itself did not take these factors

adequately into consideration-these are reasons why I support a more realistic increase in congressional, executive, and judicial salaries. But, considered with these other factors, the 14.8-percent decline in real-money salaries of Members of Congress can be regarded as convincing evidence that the time is at hand for establishing a new congressional salary level.

Mr. Speaker, I have stressed before and I know my colleagues are aware of this, that congressional pay is the smallest part of the Federal pay bill recently approved by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Nevertheless, it is this portion of the bill which attracts the most interest, obviously because the Constitution saddles us with responsibility for fixing our own salaries. It is for this reason that I am once again today addressing myself to the question of congressional pay.

I have said that a rise in the consumer price index has reduced congressional pay to $19,170 in 1955 dollars. Let me go further and show that the $10,000 increase presently proposed is not the "pot of gold" that some imagine.

Let us take a specific case-a Member with a wife and no dependent children filing a joint return and taking an average deduction for charitable contributions, interest, and so forth.

The Internal Revenue Service has calculated this Member's current Federal income tax at $5,394. His "take-home" pay on a salary of $22,500 is actually $17,106.

All right, so what happens when his salary is increased by $10,000? Will this Member have another $10,000 to help defray some of his trips home, some of the expense of maintaining two homes and some of the other unusual expenses he must meet as a Member of Congress? Far from it. His new Federal income tax will be, not $5,394, but $9,601, the Internal Revenue Service tells us. This means his "take-home" increase will be, not $10,000, but $5,793. His usable income and State taxes, of course must come out of it-will be $22,899, or about the amount the average man on the street imagines he is receiving now.

Is this the largess we have been hearing about from some quarters? Is this the enormous, "unconscionable" increase denounced by the professional Congresshaters?

Members of Congress should act to save In truth, the time is at hand when the Congress from becoming a secondrate institution composed of political hangers-on and ne'er-do-wells, a few millionaires and many self-seekers, and very few men of ability and success capable of making substantial incomes in

our society.

congressional pay through a rise in the Considering, first, the depreciation in consumer price index, and, secondly, the large portion of any increase that must go to Federal and State income taxes, I do not see how any Member could say that the increase proposed is either excessive or inconsistent with the best interests of the people of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the largest and most influential newspaper in eastern Oregon has taken a strong stand in support of Federal pay raise legislation. Without objection I insert an editorial from the East Oregonian of Pendleton, Oreg., at this point in the RECORD.

[From the East Oregonian, Pendleton
(Oreg.), Oct. 30, 1963.]

INCREASES ARE LONG OVERDUE

Oregonians were a long time getting around to giving State legislators the authority to raise their salaries. They finally were persuaded last year that a legislator should be paid enough that he didn't have to dig into his pocket to pay the expenses that go with serving in the legislature.

A committee was appointed to recommend to legislators what their reimbursement should be and the legislature subsequently decided that legislators should be paid $250 per month and $20 per day for the first 120 days of a legislative session.

Many voters opposed the legislature's program because they thought the legislators voted too much money for themselves. We suspect that no matter how much increase in salary the legislators had voted there would have been some opposition. It's one of those things you can't win on.

It is precisely for that reason Members of the Congress have been so reluctant to follow the recommendations of a Commission appointed by President Kennedy to study

Federal executive, legislative and judicial salaries. The Commission recommended

substantial salary increases in all three branches of the Federal Government.

Many citizens have indicated their support for higher salaries in the three branches of government. Among the strongest supporters is the American Bar Asociation. The ABA thinks salary increases are urgently necessary to attract the most competent men to fill high offices in the Federal Government.

The ABA recently sent its president, Walter E. Craig, and the chairman of its committee on judicial selection, tenure, and compensation, Bernard Segal, to testify before the House committee that is considering salary increase proposals. Mr. Segal pointed out that the ABA has been considering this matter since 1947 and he has been closely associated with it for many years.

It was the position of the President's Commission, which has the support of the ABA, that the scale of judicial and congressional

salaries has not kept pace with the growth of the duties and responsibilities of the offices; that the differences between salaries

paid to Federal judges and Members of the Congress and those paid in private enterprise were grossly disproportionate; that the judicial and congressional salaries were and for a long time have been grossly inadequate; that low salary rates tend to confine these high positions to persons of independent wealth or those having outside earnings.

It was pointed out also that since the last increase to Members of the Congress and the

judiciary there have been six salary increases for employees in the Federal classified service. Every responsible group that has addressed itself to this problem feels that the time is overdue for radical overhaul in the whole matter of judicial and congressional

salaries.

Mr. Segal said to the House committee:

"Businessmen would say that this is the simplest kind of good economics. Political

scientists would say this is the simplest kind of good government. There is also the over

riding factor of simple justice. It is high time that these inequities of long standing be eliminated and that salaries be fixed at levels which are consistent with the dignity and the stature which the informed citizens

of our country wish to have attached to the office of U.S. Senator, Representative, and Justice or judge in the U.S. courts."

During the committee hearings, Repregood point. He spoke of the salaries paid to Cabinet members and the responsibilities that fall upon such as the Secretaries of State and Defense. He spoke specifically of the Secretary of Defense: "If any of us were serving on the executive board of a corporation and paid him $25,000 we would be thrown out by the stockholders without further ado. It is preposterous that we ask men to assume this heavy responsibility at those levels of pay."

sentative MORRIS UDALL, of Arizona, made a

Many of the points that were made by this editor and others who supported higher pay for State legislators can be made as effectively in the case of Federal Government salaries. The case is more pressing because the men in Federal Government whose salaries we would raise carry much greater responsibilities. We must attract the best to those positions and we cannot get the best if they must make substantial sacrifices, as most Federal judges must when they leave the practice of law to go on the bench. We cannot get the best either if we are confined to drawing from that select group whose members can serve because they have sufficient private resources to do so.

We concur completely in the recommendations of the President's Commission and the American Bar Association. We can under

stand the reluctance of Members of the Con

gress to raise their own salaries, but they have a responsibility to consider the responsibilities of the offices they and others hold in the Federal Government without regard for who holds the offices now. The offices should offer higher salaries.

MENTS TO TEXTILE MILLS Mr. REIFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter. The SPEAKER.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Cooley cotton bill, H.R. 6196, is legislative lunacy.

One of its most indefensible provisions is the authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to make multimillion-dollar payments to textile mills.

modified by the amendment, drafted by This would be true even if the bill is the gentleman from Maine [Mr. MCINTIRE] and accepted informally as a committee amendment.

Actually, the Secretary would be authorized to make two types of payments. The first would be to persons other than producers, and the second would be to producers themselves through the novel nonsense known as "simultaneous purchase and sale."

The first type payment is "in kind." That is, the payment would be in the form of a certificate entitling the mill to a specific dollar value in cotton owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation. The certificate could be used to claim the cotton, or could be sold to another firm for cash. Either way, to the mill, it would be the same as a cash transaction.

To the taxpayer, it would be the same as cash too, because he has bought and

paid for the CCC cotton.

The second type payment would be in cash only. The Government would buy the first 15 bales of cotton from each farmer and immediately sell it back to him at a loss. The price paid would be about 2 cents a pound above the market price. The farmer would immediately buy the cotton back at market price. The cotton would never actually move an inch. This is a fancy way of disguising a direct payment to the producer.

The Department of Agriculture estimates the first type payment would cost taxpayers $283 million annually and the second $62 million annually, for an annual total of $345 million.

In theory, "other than producers" could mean anyone in the cotton processing chain between the farmer and the retailer. Actually, legislative history clearly shows this payment would go to textile mills.

During consideration of the bill in committee, an amendment to make these "trade incentive" payments directly to farmers was adopted by record votes of 19 to 16 and 18 to 17. This amendment was later reconsidered and rejected by the committee by a record of vote of 19

to 15. An amendment to make these payments payments to the first purchaser-or second purchaser-was rejected by 28 to

6.

Since the committee spoke clearly on which parties are not to receive these payments, only the mills remain as the practical recipients.

Therefore, it is fair and proper to consider this bill as one proposing new and expensive subsidy payments to textile mills.

The committee has informally agreed to accept the McIntire amendment. It would remove some of the discretionary authority in the bill, and it would make mandatory a modest but specific schedule of reductions in price support. Similar reductions, so the proponents of the bill say, could be made by the Secretary under discretionary authority.

As the McIntire amendment very likely will be adopted by the House, I have computed typical payments authorized by the bill, assuming it is modified by the McIntire amendment.

gathering data so Members can have a clear idea of this legislation.

For several months I have been

The substantial character of the payments was substantiated in a letter to cultural specialist of the Library of me from Dr. Walter Wilcox, senior agriCongress.