He went on to state:

As a very rough estimate, the 12 largest textile mills probably process over half of the cotton used domestically. (The eight (The eight largest knitting mills accounted for 61 percent of the total value of shipments by knitting mills in 1958, according to the census of manufacturers.)

It is probable that several of the largest companies process over 400,000 bales or 200 million pounds of cotton a year.

Fragmentary information suggests that several of the largest merchants handle 500,000 bales or more.

As Dr. Wilcox points out, there are several textile firms in this country which use in excess of 400,000 bales annually. In considering this legislation, it should be borne in mind that approximately 35 textile companies use a total of 6 million bales of cotton annually and that 12 of these companies use approximately one-half of this 6 million bales each year.

Taking one of these large companies which uses 500,000 bales of cotton annually, and multiplying the proposed 6-cents-a-pound subsidy in the following calculation, we see the American taxpayer carrying a $15 million annual burden for just one textile company:

If the Secretary should, however under the broad authority of this bill, choose not to follow the legislative history and select some other "persons" as recipients of these Federal susidies, the same principle would apply. Ginners, merchants, warehousemen, or any other intermediate processors of cotton could also receive multimillion-dollar Federal payments each year under the provisions of H.R. 6196.

As a member of the Cotton Subcommittee, I have also had direct correspondence with several of the Nation's leading textile firms to verify cotton consumption data.

One firm, for example, informed me it uses 550,000 bales a year. If the McIntire amendment is adopted, this firm would qualify for hefty annual payments from U.S. taxpayers ranging between $13,750,000 to $16,500,000.

Thirty-five textile mills consume about two-thirds of the cotton that is used in the United States. Based on total annual consumption of 8,500,000 bales, this means 35 mills use about 5,600,000 bales. If domestic consumption should rise to 9 million bales, as predicted by the sponsors of this bill, this would mean these 35 mills would probably consume about 6 million bales of cotton.

Using the lower figure as a base, this means an average annual consumption of 160,000 bales per mill. Each of the top 10 mills consume over 200,000 bales. Data I have secured and verified directly myself show that five mills use over 300,

Payments to mills mentioned above are only part of the total cost to taxpayers.

For example, under the bill, whether modified by the McIntire amendment or not, an immediate 82-cent-a-pound not, an immediate 82-cent-a-pound payment would be made to owners of raw cotton now in private inventories. In addition, special bonus payments are authorized for the first 15 bales produced by each farmer.

There should be no doubt that this legislation greatly increases the cost of the present cotton program.

I offer these citations:

Page 12 of the committee report, presenting the views of the committee majority, states:

The Department of Agriculture estimates that the program under H.R. 6196 would cost approximately $250 million more annually than the program under the current cotton law.

PLAIN TALK AT U.N.

Mr. REIFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

South Dakota?

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend our able colleague from California [Mr. MAILLIARD] for his recent blunt talk before the United Nations Budgetary Committee.

Mr. MAILLIARD is a newly appointed member of the U.S. delegation to the General Assembly, but he has already brought some uncommon commonsense to the deliberations of this international agency.

In his remarks to the Budgetary Committee, he challenged both the freewheeling spending practices of the U.N. and the growing habit of some of the member nations in letting Uncle Sam pick up the tab for its expenditures.

It may be difficult for the U.N. bureaucrats-including some who ostensibly represent the United States-to adjust to this sort of blunt talk.

It is my hope, however, that Congressman MAILLIARD will give them some more of the same.

Under permission to revise and extend my remarks, I include a November 1 editorial from the Chicago Tribune commenting on Mr. MAILLIARD'S statement to the U.N. Budgetary Committee.

GROWTH INDUSTRIES

It is surprising and somehow heartening, to find an American spokesman in the United Nations arising to say that much

The bill would cost an additional $221 million, and according to the information submitted to the committee by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it would bring the cotton program's total cost to $779.4 million annually.

doggle and that the membership should start practicing some economy. But perhaps this switch is easier to fathom when it is understood that the adjuration came from a Republican Congressman who is also a member of the U.S. delegation.

The unwelcome counsel was voiced by Representative WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, of Cali

There is pending legislation dealing with subsidy payments on cotton which would require upward of $300 million annually, if enacted.

The Associated Press on October 23, as reported in the Washington Evening Star, quoted the Department of Agriculture as "estimating the new subsidy would cost the taxpayers $250 million a year."'

These cost estimates would not be materially altered by the McIntire amendment, because they are all based on the same "trade incentive" subsidy payment-6 cents a pound-for 1964.

I would urge all Members to consider carefully the total price tag, as well as the multimillion-dollar mill payments, before making any commitments on this before making any commitments on this legislation.

Committee. He recounted that the United States will be obliged to pay about half of the $550 million cost of U.N. activities throughout the world this year, and recalled that even the Secretary General, U Thant, saw a $112 million deficit in prospect.

Mr. MAILLIARD referred ironically to the booming business in international conferences, which he called "one of the great growth industries of the postwar world," and he suggested that before more powwows are scheduled, the question be asked, "Is this meeting really necessary?" Then he proposed that U.N. functionaries who felt impelled to travel get out of first class and ride economy class.

We are not too sanguine that Representative MAILLIARD's remarks will have much effect, for the vast apparatus of U.N., with 35,000 international bureaucrats in the specialized agencies alone, not to mention the headquarters staff and the delegations representing 111 countries, find U.N. a good excuse for fat expense account living.

Nevertheless, Mr. MAILLIARD is correct in saying that sound growth in organizations, as in fruit trees, depends on periodic pruning. The United States should be interested in encouraging such activity, for it has to date committed itself to buy more

than $70 million worth of the U.N.'s so-called bonds to cover the last deficit, and, at the present rate of spendthrift expenditure, it won't be long before some more bum paper is being peddled.

Of course, looking to Washington's example in running the Federal Government, the U.N. won't be much impressed with the need for economy. We suggest that Representative MAILLIARD go back to the Capital and direct similar admonitions to the Kennedy administration.

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. KING] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include an article by Mr. SIKES.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. KING of California. Mr. Speaker, I include in the RECORD at this point an article by our distinguished colleague, the Honorable BOB SIKES of the First District of Florida, entitled "Why I Sponsored a Bill To Protect the Private Ownership of Firearms."

Many thousands of American citizens will be appreciative of his valued contribution on this important subject.

On Thursday, September 12, at a public hearing, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Honorable THOMAS MORGAN, stated categorically that he supported the language of H.R. 6364, a bill to insure that the disarmament program would not curtail lawful ownership of firearms by citizens of the United States. In that hearing no voice was raised in objection to this language. It appears certain that the language will be incorporated into the authorizing language for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

This simply means that great organizations of gun lovers and sportsmen like the National Rifle Association and outstanding publications like Guns and Ammo, and leading patriotic organizations like the VFW, have done a thoroughgoing job in educating the American public to the danger inherent in that act at present. It further shows that an alert American public-and only an alert American public-can protect its rights and its freedoms against the encroachment of bureaucracy.

As the sponsor of H.R. 6364, here is what I said on this occasion.

The bill, S. 777, an act to amend the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, contains new language which was inserted in the bill at the request of Senator HICKENLOOPER. It is found in paragraph (c), section 3, of the bill on page 3 and reads as follows: "Such section is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: 'Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any policy or action by any Government agency which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by an individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation, education, or training.'" This is similar to H.R. 6364 introduced by me as a separate bill amending section 33 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.

In the Senate at the time of the passage of the act, Mr. HUMPHREY had this to say about the language to which I have referred. "The amendment is self-explanatory. It is the committee's view that nothing in the original act would have authorized the Agency to deal with the question of indi

vidual ownership and possession of firearms. Since some concern seems to exist, nevertheless, in the minds of sportsmen and others, the committee recommends this amendment to the Senate to make the congressional intent entirely clear." This appears on page 10240 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of June 13, 1963.

It is my hope that this language will be retained in the bill if it is reported by your committee. This is language which has been urged by the National Rifle Association of the United States, by a number of sports magazines, such as Guns and Ammo, by Powerful military, veterans', and patriotic organizations, and by many individuals. I have before me an editorial from the magazine, Guns and Ammo, for August which I submit for the records of the committee as

a part of this statement. The editorial is entitled "A Vital Bill Before Congress" and refers to my amendment.

Insofar as I can determine, Mr. Chairman, there is no opposition to the amendment. In a letter addressed to the chairman by Mr. William C. Foster, it is stated that "The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has no objection to such an amendment, but believes it unnecessary." Now, it may be unnecessary just as insurance on property may be unnecessary, but it sometimes is a very useful thing to have. You may have a building you consider fireproof and you may think here is a place to save on insurance. But, the day a gasoline truck overturns in the immediate area, or there is a bad short in the electric wiring system, or a firebug equipped with incendiaries starts his work in the area, you find that you didn't have a fireproof building after all. Then, it is too late to get insurance. I believe this language is insurance and that it will be a useful thing to have.

As the committee well knows, the content of the legislation and the executive policy on the subject of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have generated much publicity and reaction through the country. Many patriotic organizations and individuals have been highly critical of the purposes and scope and handling of the Disarmament Act. The general grounds for criticism have been that the implementation of this law would place the United States in a dangerous political, economic, and military position visa-vis the Communist bloc. There is a great deal of public apprehension over the prospect of surrendering our defenses into the keeping of the U.N.

The language, temper, and range of the act are idealistic and broad. Certain perhaps unintended consequences could conceivably flow from the carrying out of its existing provisions, and such consequences would negate one of our most cherished rights. This right is the possession and use of firearms by the law-abiding private citizen.

Thousands of Americans who own and enjoy firearms for defense and sport strongly feel that the continuation of this ownership and enjoyment is seriously threatened by the vague language and by the administrative interpretation of the disarmament statute. Assurances of the Director and other officials of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have not dispelled this fear. I believe that there is substance to the citizens. The allapprehension of our emcompassing nature of the law and Agency pronouncements thereon speak for themIn order to make absolutely clear that the Arms Control and Disarmament Act does not include the elimination of private firearms as part of the proposed disarmament program, I support the amendment adopted by the Senate and covered by my bill on this subject.

selves.

Now, I want to depart from my statement and to recount the background which

prompted the drive for this protective language.

I have not been happy with the actions taken by the Agency. taken by the Agency. Although its basic design had appeared sound and its purpose commendable, the organization has been injected into too wide an area of operation. I see very little being done by the Agency which could not be done by the State Department and other existing Government agencies. To me it has simply provided more frosting on the cake and costly at that. It is another layer of officialdom on top of officialdom.

The Agency, of course, claims to have had a vital part in the proposed test ban treaty, to have thought up and helped to accomplish the hot line between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Knowing something about the particulars in these cases, I am reminded of the flea that rode an elephant across the bridge-then said, "We sure shook that one, didn't we?"

There have been indications that the

Agency, failing to achieve more concrete results on the international scene, could turn to domestic regulation of firearms in order to show a reason for its continued existence. Quite frankly, I had hoped that the Agency would be allowed to die or to be abolished. Knowing of the administration's support for the Agency, however, that seemed a dim hope and, after conferring with my colleagues in Congress, with legislative experts, and with the National Rifle Association, I determined to draft and introduce legislation to prevent this Agency from ever usurping the citizen's constitutional guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. H.R. 6364 was dropped into the hopper of the House of Representatives on May 15 and began the long trip which all bills must take if they are to become law.

H.R. 6364 was referred to the House Com

mittee on Foreign Affairs, where it lay relatively undisturbed until the end of August, when the committee began hearings on amendments to the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.

In the Senate, however, favorable action was taken almost immediately. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on amendments to the Arms Control and Disarmament Act on April 10, and in later executive sessions, added a stipulation that the Agency not be allowed to regulate private firearms. My good friend, Senator BOURKE HICKENLOOPER, of Iowa, was responsible for the inclusion of this amendment, and the Senate committee accepted it without argument in a closed session. On June 17, the Senate passed amendments to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, stipulating that "nothing contained in this act shall be construed to authorize any policy or action by any Government agency which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by an individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation, education or training."

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has now considered this bill. I am confident it will concur in the Senate version, and that the House will approve this guarantee of basic rights. Then, the freedom to keep and bear arms will be protected against Government encroachment through this Agency.

I have heard criticism from some quarters about allowing the free possession and use of firearms in modern American society. Arguments that this contributes to crime and constitutes a menace to free government are completely fallacious. Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they approved the second amendment to the Constitution, which states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Then,

as now, an armed citizenry is less likely to be cowed by criminal elements or oppressive government. Rather than restricting freedom, the right to possess arms guarantees it by instilling independence and strength in an enlightened people.

The United States is facing a critical period in its history. The years to come will decide the desperate battle between communism and freedom, individualism and totalitarianism. If we are to win this struggle, we will need to preserve and use every element of strength that is available to us. Americans are fighting and dying in farflung corners of the world. Some of them will survive because of lessons in marksmanship and acquaintance with firearms they gained as boys in a free society. We would be making a fatal mistake if we allowed the right to keep and bear arms to be curtailed. My provision will help guard against this. I am optimistic that the provisions of H.R. 6364 will be enacted into law. This measure is vital enough

to merit the support of all freedom-loving Americans.

RUSSIAN

BEHAVIOR-IN BERLIN

AND IN THE WHEAT BINS The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. FEIGHAN] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, there is considerable speculation in Washington circles as to the reasons for the provocative Russian blockade of U.S. military convoys plying between free Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany. The so-called Kremlinologists are guessing that this is a Russian maneuver to remind us that they will never permit a free and united Germany. Other observers view this episode as evidence of a split between Khrushchev and aggressive factions in the Red Army who disagree with his peaceful coexistence tactics. And some even see it as no more than an indication of poor communications between the Moscow Kremlin and the Russian military commanders in Berlin.

But Khrushchev himself clarified the reasons for the provocative Russian behavior in Berlin. Speaking within the past few days to a group of American businessmen visiting Moscow, Khrushchev observed that had the United States employed force to get our blockaded military convoys through, this action might have led to war with the result "none of us would be here today." After this exercise in the Russian technique of spreading fear, Khrushchev then took up the pending RussianAmerican wheat deal, threatening that if the United States persisted in its demand that U.S. vessels be used to transport our wheat to the Soviet Union, we might end up eating our own wheat. It is now clear there is a direct connection between the latest Russian provocations in Berlin and the backroom haggling now going on between a combine of U.S. grain merchants and commissars of the Russian empire. The haggling I refer to concerns the shell game being played by the Russians to siphon off our surplus wheat. There is no doubt in my mind that Khrushchev ordered the recent provocations in Berlin in order to provide his agents with more leverage

at the backroom haggling table. It is equally clear that Khrushchev remains convinced his blackmail tactics will produce the desired results in negotiations

with the United States.

Khrushchev is being completely consistent in his efforts to squeeze us in Berlin in order to extract our wheat under conditions set by him. Such behavior is Russian par for friendly relations with all non-Russian nations, free or captive. It would be an act of premeditated stupidity to assume that Russian behavior patterns have been changed by any events of the recent past.

It is useful to recall in this connection the extended negotiations between the United States and imperial Russia for settlement of the Russian World War II debt to the United States. The official estimate of this debt is $10.8 billion.

In 1948, when the negotiations opened, we asked the Russians for an inventory of U.S. lend-lease goods on hand at the time of VJ-Day which would have would have peacetime use. It was then assumed we would write off the cost of lend-lease goods used in the prosecution of the war. However, the Russians refused to provide us with the requested inventory. Under these circumstances the United States put a reasonable value of $2.6 billion on the Russian inventory of U.S. lend-lease materials. This estimate did not include the value of 84 lend-lease merchant ships or 49 army-navy watercraft loaned to the Russians during the course of the

During the course of the 1948 negotiations, the United States proposed that the Russians pay $1.3 billion to clear up their actual debt of $10.8 billion. This figure was one-half of the reasonable value of $2.6 billion that we had put on the Russian inventory of our lend-lease materials of VJ-Day. This generous offer by the United States, amounting to a claim of about 10 cents on the dollar, was rejected by the Russians. The Russians then came up with an offer to pay $170 million to cancel out their debt of $10.8 billion. This offer was rejected by the United States.

Negotiations were reopened in 1951-52. At that time the United States reduced its asking price to $800 million. The Russians in turn offered $240 million, which was refused. The Russians then raised their offer to $300 million, or just short of 3 cents on the dollar repayment. This offer was also rejected by the United States.

On January 11, 1960, the negotiations were again reopened. "Smiling Mike" Menshikov was the Russian negotiator. The United States then took the position that negotiations should deal solely with the lend-lease debt. The Russians then demanded that a trade agreement granting them most-favored-nation treatment and long-term credits on terms acceptable to them be negotiated simultaneously with the lend-lease debt issue.

At the time of the 1960 negotiations with the Russians, word leaked out that the Russians had offered to pay $300 million in settlement for their $10.8 billion lend-lease debt, provided however, that the United States granted them long-term credits of $1.5 billion. It was

obvious the Russians would come out of this deal with a net gain of 1.2 billion U.S. dollars which they would use to purchase coveted U.S. industrial plants and equipment. In this connection it will be recalled that Khrushchev, while visiting the United States in September of 1959, announced he would like to purchase chemical plants and high speed steel fabricating equipment from us and publicly urged that Federal laws prohibiting sale of strategic goods to the Soviet Union be overturned by our people.

At that time I, among many others, raised a protest, pointing out the obvious, mainly:

First. That we would be paying the Russians $1.2 billion for the privilege of canceling their debt to us of $10.8 billion.

Second. That the Russians would use the $1.2 billion new money to purchase the means to hasten our burial ceremony.

That deal did not go through, despite the spirit of Camp David which hung heavy over the American scene.

I ask now what happened to the Russian gold that allegedly was to be put on the barrel head for our wheat?

While I oppose the sale of wheat or anything else that would help to preserve the Russian empire, I believe our people are entitled to a forthright answer to that basic question.

It is a sad commentary that the American people are now largely dependent on propaganda statements from Moscow for news on the current status of the wheat negotiations. Khrushchev has taken full advantage of this news vacuum to monopolize our news media on this issue. Yesterday Khrushchev announced in Moscow it would be possible to reach agreement with grain dealers in America "if we bargain on the basis of equality without discrimination." Just what the Russians mean by the basis of equality without discrimination can be taken from our experiences in the prolonged negotiating with them on the repayment of their World War II debts. Equality to the Russians means they demand equal rights with the U.S. Government to dip into our surplus wheat bins, without cost to them. Similarly they charge discrimination against us if we ask them to pay for our wheat what it cost our agricultural economy to produce it and they charge discrimination if we insist that U.S. shipping vessels have a right to profit and longshoremen have a right to employment from what has been advertised as a purely commercial transaction involving Russian gold for American wheat.

I would not be surprised if a question was raised about what assurances we have that American vessels will be allowed to return home if they are used to transport our wheat to the Russian empire. The Russian record for acquiring our ocean vessels at no cost to them is notorious. Moreover, the amount of public confusion generated by the Russians on this entire matter would make such a question logical.

According to public statements made by Khrushchev, his agents are negotiating with private American grain dealYet our press reported today the

ers.

chief Russian wheat agent has been meeting with Under Secretary of State Ball and that negotiations took a "favorable turn" at a meeting last Wednesday. It is fair to ask with whom the Russian wheat agents are in fact negotiating and what the negotiations are all about.

Khrushchev has taken full advantage of the prolonged silence on this issue by official Washington. It is time the official U.S. version of what is taking place in the negotiations to exchange surplus Russian gold for surplus American wheat became at least dimly visible and audible through our news media.

AMERICAN FOREIGN AID BUILDING UP FOREIGN COMPETITION The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. HALEY] is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress an article appearing in the Washington Post of this morning, Friday, November 8, under the byline of "The Washington Merry-Go-Round" written by Jack Anderson. It has been demonstrated to me for many years, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the United States will never shake off this foreign aid worldwide giveaway for which we are taxing the American people billions of dollars-hundreds of billions of dollars, and, as a matter of fact, to do what? To build up in the foreign countries of the world competition against the American business people and exporting the jobs of American labor by the expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

I have always contended and still contend that when the American people through their manufacturers and their businessmen and their labor leaders understand what this particular program has done to weaken the economy of this Nation that they would demand that the program cease. I think it will be a fine thing for the American people when they realize just what is going on. We build steel mills that compete with our own people. We have destroyed, Mr. Speaker, practically, the textile industry of this Nation. We have purchased through our foreign aid funds the finest textile equipment equipment possible-sure the people of Lowell, Mass., and other places have profited, but we have given plants all over the world the finest equipment that it is possible to obtain-free. We, in turn, sell the raw material in the form of cotton at 82 cents less a pound than a man or a plant operating in any State in this Union can buy it from our own Government.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is about time that this program was phased out and that the taxpayers of America who have contributed generously to the other people of the world are given some relief.

1963]

But plainly, aid money has built foreign factories which today are forcing American firms out of business and American workers out of work.

This is a development Senators can no longer overlook as they debate this week how much more money to ladle out to needy nations.

For our income tax payments already have helped to build up competitive industries overseas, often providing them with more advanced equipment than our own.

Result: At home, one industry after another has been forced by foreign competition to cut back production, thus adding to our 4 million unemployed and multimillion-dollar gold loss.

Few seriously suggest that foreign aid should be cut off. With two-thirds of the world living on the starvation line and easy prey to communism, the United States in the interests of its own security must continue to help the underdeveloped nations to help themselves.

Yet in the last 5 years, foreign aid has built, expanded or rodernized: 31 pulp and paper plants, 24 chemical plants, 13 aluminum plants, and 22 rubber-processing plants. It has given another 27 loans or grants for studies or construction of petroleum refineries.

GENEROSITY BACKFIRES

Our tax money also has built foreign shipyards, plastic plants, pottery works, engineering labs and industrial research centers.

A reported $2 billion has gone out of the U.S. Treasury to build or expand 179 for

eign steel mills. This American generosity

has helped to reduce our share of the world's steel market from 17 percent in 1950 to less than 6 percent.

Result: Our steel mills are operating today at only about 60 percent of their capacity. Congressman BOB CASEY points a finger, for instance, at Mexico across the border from his native Texas. In 1960, Mexico exported only 65 tons of steelplate to the United States. Two years later, the figure had risen to 12,000 tons, which has already been more than doubled this year.

"Whose tax money," cries CASEY, "do you think built the 22 Mexican steel mills under our aid program?"

For the textile industry, the aid-pampered competition has been even more disastrous. No one seems able to say exactly how many rival mills Uncle Sam has built around the

world.

HEMPHILL has said: "In our efforts to reBut South Carolina Congressman ROBERT vitalize Japan as a bulwark against communism, we participated technically, financially and otherwise in creating a Japanese textile industry that today threatens our own with ruin."

SHIRTS AT $1.99

On a trip to the Orient, HEMPHILL also saw U.S.-financed textile plants in India, Korea, Formosa, and Hong Kong. He saw in Hong Kong mills with the latest American looms, far finer than most American mills have been able to afford.

He was hardly surprised later to find, in a South Carolina department store, men's dress shirts from Hong Kong offered for $1.99 alongside American-made shirts priced at $5.95. Few consumers are so patriotic that

Another 350 woolen and worsted mills have been closed, putting an additional 105,000 people out of work.

Textile leaders have begged the Government for a little of the aid that has been

given to the Japanese industry. But they have been largely ignored.

An ailing factory apparently can't qualify for U.S. aid unless it is located overseas.

Foreign shipyards built with aid money and cheap foreign steel are pushing our own shipbuilding industry to the wall. Since 1948, more than $600 million in aid has gone to build or modernize foreign yards. Add the assistance given to foreign steel mills, and American shipbuilders are working under a $1 billion handicap.

MUSHROOMS FROM TAIWAN

Even American mushroom growers have hired a Washington attorney to seek relief from the competition of the U.S.-financed mushroom industry in Taiwan. Uncle Sam's experts looked around for some way to help the economy of Taiwan and decided mushrooms might do the trick. They sent over prize spores, taught the peasants how to cultivate. The new industry literally mush

roomed.

The first mushrooms from Taiwan started coming into this country in 1960. Exports doubled the following year, doubled again in 1962. Now Formosan mushrooms account for 25 percent of American consumption of the edible fungi.

It is hard to disagree with those American businessmen who are plaintively asking a rather deaf Uncle Sam: "Isn't it time some charity began at home?"

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. FEIGHAN, for 5 minutes, today, to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. SAYLOR (at the request of Mr. REIFEL), for 1 hour, on Tuesday, November 12.

Mr. HALEY, for 10 minutes, today.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to extend remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:

Mrs. KEE. Mr. BRAY.

Mr. HECHLER and to include extraneous matter.

(The following Member (at the request of Mr. REIFEL) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. DERWINSKI.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. ALBERT) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. POWELL. Mr. FEIGHAN.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED

A concurrent resolution of the Senate of the following title was taken from the

Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. Con. Res. 19. Concurrent resolution to designate "Bourbon whiskey" as a distinctive product of the United States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

BILL PRESENTED TO THE
PRESIDENT

Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 1989. An act to authorize the government of the Virgin Islands to issue general obligation bonds.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.) under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, November 12, 1963, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATONS,

ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

1361. A letter from the Secretary of State, transmitting the Second Annual Report on

the Operations of the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West (East-West Center) for the fiscal year 1962, pursuant to Public Law 86-472; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

1362. A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill entitled "A bill to authorize the Weather Bureau to make appropriate reimbursement between the respective appropriations available to the Bureau, and for other purposes"; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUB

LIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. HALEY: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. S. 1868. An act to amend the act of August 3, 1956 (70 Stat. 986), as amended, relating to adult Indian vocational training; with an amendment (Rept. No. 894). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. MATHIAS:

H.R. 9094. A bill to authorize the President to declare July 9, 1964, as Monocacy Battle Centennial in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Monocacy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MULTER:

H.R. 9095. A bill to provide under the social security program for payment for hospital and related services to aged beneficiaries; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

pore.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown offered the following Harris, D.D., prayer:

Almighty God, Thou Father of all mankind, whose paths are mercy and truth: Before the white splendor of Thy purity, every vileness shrinks away.

Lift us, we pray Thee, as we come, above the smog of the immediate, and set our gaze on the wide horizons of abiding verities. In the anxious contemplation of conditions that baffle us, in the grip of swift currents which sweep us on, grip of swift currents which sweep us on, contending with evil forces whose hidecontending with evil forces whose hideous cruelty stabs our hearts with anguish, it is only the ultimate reality of Thy presence in such a world and the final invincibility of Thy truth which keep our feet from slipping in the whelming flood.

This day fix our eyes not just on what we vow before Thee to tear down, but upon what in Thy name and for the sake of all Thy children we pledge as channels of Thy might to build up.

With the burdens we all bear, guard our lips from chilling criticism which may unjustly wound some comrade plodding bravely on, with a heavy load, by our side.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in order that the Senate may have before it a pending question, other than the bill itself, I call up my amendment No. 306, so that it will be the pending question.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I understand that the purpose of the Senator from Oregon is to have an amendment laid before the Senate, so that the Senate may be informed as to what the next question will be.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment (No. 306) of the Senator from Oregon to the committee amendment, as amended, will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 47 of the committee amendment, as amended, it is proposed to strike out lines 15 to 21, inclusive, as follows:

(i) No assistance shall be furnished on a grant basis under this Act to any economically developed nation capable of sustaining its own defense burden and economic growth, except (1) to fulfill firm commitments made prior to July 1, 1963, or (2) additional orientation and training expenses under part II hereof during fiscal year 1964 in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.

And to insert the following:

(i) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act to any economically developed nation, except to fulfill firm commitments made prior to July 1, 1963. The President is directed to make no further commitments for assistance to such economically developed nations and is directed to terminate such commitments made prior to July 1, 1963, at the earliest practicable time. The President July 1, 1965, to the Speaker of the House and is further directed to report, not later than

to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the steps which he has taken to comply with this provision.

As used in this subsection, the term "economically developed nation" means any nation listed as an exception to the definition of "economically less developed nation" contained in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1875 (S. IV) and, in addition, the German Federal Republic and Switzerland.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this amendment is known as the United Nations amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 306) of the Senator from Oregon to the committee amendment, as amended.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, November 7, 1963, was dispensed with.

name.

Amen.

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

of his secretaries, and he announced that the President had approved and signed the following acts:

On November 4, 1963:

S. 1064. An act to amend the act redefining the units and establishing the standards of electrical and photometric measurements to provide that the candela shall be the unit of luminous intensity.