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

FOREIGN MEAT: THREAT TO THE U.S. CATTLE AND MEAT INDUSTRY-IMPORTS OF PROCESSING BEEF MULTIPLY BY 4 IN LAST 5 YEARS The enormous and continuing growth in imports of processing beef-already at flood stage is shown strikingly by the enclosed figures from U.S. Department of Agriculture

sources.

These imports already have caused serious damage to American cattle producers and others in the meat industry; and the economic threat is becoming steadily more critical as the foreign meat volume keeps on climbing.

A few official figures put the situation in focus:

In 1957 total imports of processing beef were just under 237 million pounds.

In 1962, the total was more than 942 million pounds-very close to four times as much.

Thus, our imports in 1962 were nearly 706 million pounds higher than 5 years before.

And, for the current year, the import rate is even higher: nearly 482 million pounds for the first 6 months, alone.

The effect upon U.S. ranchers, farmers, and others in our meat industry becomes still more sharply evident from the rise in imports as a percentage of domestic production:

In 1957, processing beef imports amounted to 102 percent of the boned weight of processing beef produced in the United States under Federal Government inspection.

In 1962, the imports had soared to 60.6 percent.

And, for the first 6 months of 1963: 68 percent.

The damaging effect of these huge and increasing imports falls heavily upon the cattle States, for this reason:

With foreign beef consistently underselling domestic by 5 cents a pound, the packer who uses domestic beef has no choice but to put pressure on the price he pays to the producer.

Packers who bone beef for processingusually small, independent companies-work on a profit of about one-fourth cent per pound. Obviously, they can't meet the 5-cent differential by cutting profit. The only means is to pay less to the farmer.

The consequence is reduction in the farmer's and rancher's income and the value of his livestock, which is collateral for his loans. Continuation of the depressing effect of cheap foreign meat will force further liquidation of herds and bankrupt many producers, just as it has already bankrupted many small packers.

THE NEEDS

The need is not for total exclusion of foreign meats. They are necessary to meet the demand for processed products.

What we need is a combination of quotas and tariffs that will limit imports to the amount needed to satisfy domestic needs, while assuring a market for domestic products; and will discourage the favoring of foreign meats over domestic.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, there appeared in the Kansas City Star, issue of November 3, an article written by Roderick Turnbull, the Star's farm editor, entitled entitled "Cattlemen Are in a Squeeze," and I quote the following from the article:

Following are some figures which are factual about one group of cattle handled in Kansas this last year. Some of these cattle are to be hauled to the Kansas City market this week.

There were more than 500 head of yearling steers in this lot. They were purchased in

Texas last September at 26 cents and actually cost just 27 cents a pound delivered in central Kansas. They weighed an average of 605 pounds and their total cost was $163.35 a head.

The owner has had the cattle just a year, so figuring interest on the investment (purchase price of the cattle) at 5 percent you get an interest cost of about $8 a head.

The owner did his best to cheapen his costs so he wintered cattle and then pastured them before putting them on full feed. During the winter phase, from around October 1 until the middle of April, the steers got per head each day 4 pounds of milo, 1 pound of cottonseed meal, some ensilage and a little alfalfa hay. The wintering cost per head was $34.

THROUGH VARIOUS STEPS

After wintering, the steers were put on pasture for the summer at a cost of $20 a head. They went to a commercial feedlot August 1 and now have been fed 120 days. When they went into the feedlot they were pretty fleshy and weighing 950 pounds. Feedlot costs are 68 cents a head each day. In 120 days that adds $81.60 a head to the total cost. Gains of about 21⁄2 pounds a day apparently are being made. This means the cattle should weigh around 1,250 pounds when they go to market this week. Marketing costs will add another $7 a head, counting hauling charges.

Adding the original cost, interest, win

tering charges, pasture rent, the full feeding and marketing costs you get a total of $313.95 per head, which the owner told me was just about as accurate a figure as he could get until the cattle actually are weighed and sold.

The owner hopes he will get 23 cents a pound. If he does and the cattle average 1,250 pounds, his gross per head will be $287.50. With costs at $313.95, he has lost more than $25 a head.

There's a possibility, he said, that he might be able to sell the cattle at the feed yards in Kansas at 23 cents.

If he does, he'll save the $7 in marketing costs and cut his losses to around $18 a head. On 500 head, a $25 a head loss means $12,500.

I ask unanimous consent to also include as a part of these remarks a table showing the average price for cows and steers in the United States from 1953 to

1963.

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

Mr. CARLSON. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SIMPSON. I invite the attention of the Senator from Kansas to the fact that I am a cosponsor of the measure which would set a quota upon imports of meat products and beef into the United States, which measure also would provide for a tariff above the amount now provided.

I am sure the Senator from Kansas is aware that all livestock associations in the country, including the Wyoming National Cattlemen's Association, are urging that the measure be reported from the committee and brought to the Senate for consideration. I seek the Senator's support for the measure.

Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate very much the comments by the Senator from Wyoming.

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

Mr. CARLSON. Iyield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I also congratulate the Senator from Kansas for the statement he has just made with respect to cattle prices. Some of the information he has presented was given me by the president of the Kansas City Stockyards, Mr. Jay Dillingham, a friend of the senior Senator from Kansas, and a friend of mine.

When one reads these figures, it is clear that the increased imports of beef-not only from countries which have been shipping to the United States in the past, but also from countries new in the field-is seriously affecting the cattle market of the United States.

I hope all Senators will read the figures presented by the able Senator from Kansas. Something of a corrective nature should be done.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I know of no one who is more familiar with this situation than is the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON], who is not only close to the Kansas City market but is also close to a large number of cattle feeders and livestock men.

there was a statement by Roderick TurnIn a portion of my statement today bull, of the Kansas City Star, which shows definitely that one operator was losing $25 a head on his feedlot cattle. That is true generally throughout the area. It is a serious situation, and one which should have our attention.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator is kind about my knowledge, which is not comparable to his own.

The Senator has also mentioned one of the true experts, Rod Turnbull.

This problem surely should be given attention by all interested in the agriculture economy of the United States, its strength and progress.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. CARLSON. I am glad to yield, if I have sufficient time.

Mr. DOMINICK. I will not take long. I thank the Senator for yielding.

I was happy to cosponsor the bill introduced by the Senator from Wyoming on this subject. I am glad that this sub

ject has been discussed on the floor of the Senate.

It seems to me the problem is a basic one in connection with permitting other countries to use our markets as a prime source of support for their economies. The more that is permitted, the more it will hurt our own economy.

I am not against the trade situation in general, but certainly it is time to place restrictions on these imports, so that our own industries based on agricultural production will not find themselves out on a limb with no markets.

I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Kansas, who is so knowledgeable in this field, has brought this subject before the Senate. I firmly believe we must take some action, or we shall face serious problems in the one area of agricultural production which so far has been highly successful, because it does not operate under Government controls.

Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from Colorado. When we import as much as 11 percent of the consumable beef products of this Nation, it is time to look at the problem.

the national attention span, and it is not possible for an old, familiar endeavor like foreign aid, no matter how grand in the historical sense, to retain its hold on popular Imagination or congressional devotion in the era of a space race and a mass Negro revolt. In the history of foreign aid, we have reached a middle stage of stocktaking and searching for a second wind. The basic premises are being reexamined. The total result of foreign aid has been just confused and contradictory enough so that any number of Congressmen feel quite uncertain whether an appropriation cut of even a billion dollars (or, for that matter, an addition of such an amount) would leave the world, the cold war and America's position in any measurably different condition 10 years from

now.

THE FOREIGN AID PROGRAM IN

TIME OF TROUBLES

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the foreign aid program is undergoing its most severe congressional "time of troubles." Eric Sevareid, the distinguished television commentator and columnist, has written an interesting article on the reasons for congressional resistance to foreign aid which is now occurring. This piece originally appeared in the September 3 issue of the New York Post and was reprinted in the October issue of Current magazine, a carefully edited collection of provocative essays chosen from a variety of sources. Although I believe that Mr. Sevareid overlooks the bipartisan nature of the opposition, his analysis is accurate and perceptive overall. And it is highly relevant to our present discussion of foreign aid. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the RECORD.

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

FOREIGN AID REAPPRAISAL

(By Eric Sevareid)

For the first time, congressional Republicans in an organized, partisan attack have broken with the President on the size of the foreign aid authorization. But there is little

reason to think that this is the beginning of the end of political unity on basic foreign policy. It is not even the end of unity on the foreign aid program, which is still accepted in principle on both sides of the aisle. Nevertheless, the phenomenon contains various implications of consequence, one of which is that there no longer exists in this country a popular consensus about foreign aid. In regard to this matter, as in regard to various domestic reform movements, President Kennedy happened to take office on an ebbing tide. It seems clear that the mood for consolidation and tidying up, symbolized by the relatively placid Eisenhower years, has not yet run its cycle. In any case, there is always a rough order of priorities for

by informed and responsible men. It represents the beginning of America's coming to terms with the reality of the world's size and complexity and with the true pace of history. We are adjusting in our sense of time.

We know now that the propostion is not really one of foreign aid at x number of dollars per year or a world collapsing into communism; we know that Soviet economic aid is not everywhere dangerous and undesirable; we know that in some countries-Venezuela, for example-the heaviest American to the Communist threat. dollar infusions will not guarantee an end

We know that the ability of one nation to alter deeply rooted social and class structures in an alien nation is extremely limited. We are beginning to know that the accumulation of capital and skills that required generations in America or Europe cannot be done ern science or no modern science. We are a in semiprimitive societies in a decade, modrelatively young people and we are only now coming to terms with the true pace of the long pilgrimage of the human race and the immense variety of the human condition. Europeans inherited this knowledge from their total race experience; we have had to learn it for ourselves, the hard way. That is the significant result of these "crash" programs-the result in our own thinking.

And a byproduct of all this, thank heaven, is the realization, at long last, that American inefficiency and bumbling ignorance are not the real reasons why progress in alien lands comes slowly. It is a realization that is going to put a lot of fervent after-dinner speakers and writers of quickie books out of business.

"WAKE UP, AMERICA”—ADDRESS BY FLOYD E. DOMINY BEFORE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION, SUN VALLEY, IDAHO

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I am sure it is well known to all of us how federally financed reclamation projects, based on the multiple-use principle, have opened the West to rapid development in the past 30 years and have provided the Nation with food and power in abundance. Yet this progress stands in danger of stagnation today. Further development of the Missouri River Basin, solu

tion of the critical water shortage in the Pacific Southwest, and a host of smaller projects such as Burns Creek in southeastern Idaho-are of great importance. When development projects take 5 to 10 years to execute, we cannot afford to wait until a crisis arises before we act on them.

It is for this reason that I seek to draw attention to an address by Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner of Reclamation, before the National Reclamation Association at Sun Valley, Idaho, October 25. Mr. Dominy has focused on the projects which stand waiting, the need for reclamation and power development to go hand in hand, the sustained effort needed to meet future needs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech "Wake Up, America" by Floyd E. Dominy may be printed in the RECORD.

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

WAKE UP, AMERICA

In recent months I have participated in two exchange visits to the Soviet Union. A year ago I was a member of a team headed by Secretary of the Interior Udall which made a hurried but quite extensive inspection of Russian hydropower development. Only a month ago, I headed a team of irrigation experts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Your own president, LaSelle Coles, was a member of this team.

In aggregate, I have spent approximately 6 weeks in the U.S.S.R. during which I have traveled more than 14,000 miles within its borders. I went as far west as Irkutsk and Bratsk, where the Soviets are working furiously on major hydroelectric installations.

I have stood in the shadow of the Himalayas in the southernmost part of the Soviet Union where there are hundreds of thousands of arid acres very similar to our own Southwest. The big difference is that these lands have available an abundance of water from the high Himalayas. The Soviet engineers are now putting the water to work to develop a large potential that has lain there for centuries virtually untapped.

The Republic of Kazakh in central Asia has the largest irrigation development of any republic in the U.S.S.R. There are 7,865,000 acres of irrigated land in this area, most of it developed in recent years.

We were told, with obvious pride and strong conviction in one briefing session with Soviet power experts, that by 1980 the installed power capacity in the U.S.S.R., and the transmission facilities to tie them together for maximum efficiency, would exceed that of the United States. This has long been one of the major objectives of the Soviet Government.

In a briefing session on the Soviet plans for irrigation development, we were told that they have programed and expect to achieve the addition of 21⁄2 million acres of new irriValley where they have developed over 3 milgated land each year for the next 20 years. lion acres of irrigated land for food and fiber production.

Then we were shown the great Fergana

Their determination to catch up with us in all areas of resource development is clear. Their prospects for success in doing so is another matter. And the answer to that is not unilaterally in their hands-we in the United States don't intend to stand at ease, placid and complacent with our present

achievement.

At the present moment in time, their success is not to be measured in millions of

acres of new land they are irrigating, but rather, in millions of tons of wheat they are having to buy abroad.

In terms of acres and acre-feet of water they are bringing to their land, the Soviets' growth is stupendous. But in many ways they're like an adolescent who suddenly shoots up from 5-foot-3 to 6-foot-2 in the space of a year or so. Put that youngster in a suit with padded shoulders and he looks like a man-at first glance. But his size doesn't make him an all-American football player. He lacks the muscle, the coordination, the skills, the knowledge. He may make the first team some day, if he's ambitious and works hard, but he's far from it as yet.

That's pretty much how it is with the Soviets. They have the ambition and they're working hard, and I suspect they will make the first team one day, when they have taught themselves all the hard lessons we have had to learn. Their projects may be huge, imaginative, and well conceived, but many of them are not well executed by our standards. They haven't a fraction of the experienced engineers they need, nor trained agronomists, nor farm workers skilled in modern agricultural techniques. And most important of all, they have thought they could barge ahead with agricultural development while scorning the exacting economic standards our American projects must meet and ignoring the incentive of personal advancement that is inbred in every human being in the world, no matter where he lives. Soviets thought they could substitute hollow doctrine for those vital ingredients but now they're finding out it doesn't work. I was fascinated at the 180-degree turn taken by Premier Khrushchev recently when he upbraided his lieutenants because many of the great Soviet undertakings were not showing a profit. He told them they should take a cue from the capitalist countries and start measuring projects in terms of whether or not they were financially sound and would pay off on their investment.

The

What an admission that is. Perhaps we are beginning to win the cold war, and the Soviets are starting to move closer to our philosophy of life.

Imitation, they say, is the sincerest form of flattery. When the Soviets start realizing there is no ideological substitute for the individual's basic urge to use his abilities to improve his station in life, they will have come a long way toward rejoining the hu

man race.

And if the success of our agricultural methods-the superiority of our reclamation projects-helps to drive the lesson home to them, then we can all be proud of ourselves.

I do not say they have learned the lesson yet, but perhaps they are beginning to. I think their failure to reach their goal in wheat this year may help open their eyes. One year of partial drought can bring disaster to their grain production; whereas we could suffer a far more severe and prolonged drought and still sell them all the grain they might need. They know this, and they know the methods and the systems and ideals through which we have achieved our plentiful production-and the lesson cannot be totally lost on them.

Have any of you been asking yourselves whether we should, or should not, be selling wheat to the Russians? There is no such question in my mind. We have relieved our elevators of a chunk of surplus grain, at world market prices, and have helped stem the outflow of our gold reserves.

Have we also helped the Soviets fight a cold war against us, as some have charged? We have not. Can any of you name me one occasion, in all the history of mankind, when peace was promoted by forcing another country to tighten its belt from lack of food? History teaches us the opposite: deprivation and enforced hunger breed resentment and conflict. Peace comes from contentment and ample food on the table.

I am convinced we have done no more than make a wise choice between feeding the stomachs of the Soviet people or feeding their resentment; and into the bargain we have done ourselves a favor economically.

If I am beginning to sound like a complacent citizen, purring happily over the state of irrigated agriculture and the progress of reclamation developments in the United States today, let me hurry to correct that notion. We seem to have reached a point of threatened stagnation in our reclamation program, and I am very concerned about it.

Our present enviable level of production was only achieved by sustained effort, by developing a continuous series of sound reclamation projects as quickly as they could be carefully planned, authorized and financed, and constructed. We cannot stay ahead of the game, or meet our future needs, unless we maintain a steady pace in our water resource development programs. fact, I do not believe our rate of development in the past is going to be nearly good enough to meet the tremendous needs facing us in the future. I think we are going to have to redouble our efforts.

In

Yet, here we are at the end of October 1963 with no new starts in sight for this first half of the current fiscal year, and no new projects being authorized by the Congress. We seem to be on dead center, caught in the middle of controversy, disagreement, and unresolved issues. I am deeply concerned about this stagnation in our reclamation program, and you should be too. Perhaps one of our troubles is that people like you, who are great believers in reclamation and water resource development, are not making your views sufficiently known to the Congress and to various dissident groups who need to resolve their differences and help us get our vital programs into production.

But before I get back to our urgent development needs in this country, I want to talk a little more about war and peace.

I fully believe that we in the United States, with all the knowledge and skills we have built in engineering, in agriculture, and in the development of our water and land resources, are holding in our hand the key to ultimate world peace. I believe that if we and the other technically advanced countries of the free world will join in extending our knowledge to the underdeveloped countries covering most of this globe, we may be able to accomplish the first truly effective campaign for world peace in history.

A lasting peace can be secured, I am convinced, only on the basis of worldwide prosperity. Hunger and peace cannot exist side by side. An effective peace campaign involves helping the have-not countries build up their economy, and particularly their agriculture. To erect barriers against armies, or engage in ideological arguments with governments, as most peace efforts appear to do, is not enough. One of the most significant cornerstones of this campaign will be the development of natural resources-land and water conservation projects-wherever they are needed around the world.

This was the theme that ran through all the discussions at the World Food Congress held in Washington, D.C., last June. It was echoed again and again by the statesmen, humanitarians, and technical experts from all over the world who attended the conference. Let me tell you a few of the sobering statistics I learned from the discussions of that Congress:

Agricultural experts have estimated that with proper development of soil and water resources, the world could feed-and feed well-at least 35 billion people. Today the world's population is only 3 billion; and twothirds of those are scraping along at bare subsistence levels, or worse, with the threat of starvation staring many of them in the face whenever their meager crops fail.

In the past 60 years, the world population doubled. But the pace is stepping up now. It will double again in only 35 years. And the growth rate will be much greater than the average-11⁄2 times greater-in the least developed countries, where even the present populations are engaged in a grim, ceaseless struggle to stay on the ragged edge of subsistence.

How are all the additional mouths to be fed? The food supplies of these have-not countries will have to be quadrupled-they'll need to produce four times as much foodby the end of this century. And that isn't very far in the future. There's only one way this goal can be reached and widespread famine avoided: by major agricultural revolutions in those less developed countries; revolutions such as have already taken place in the United States and in a few other advanced nations of the world.

These people can't conduct their own agricultural revolutions. They lack education, technical skills, machines, and the knowledge of how to use them. In the United States, a single farmer today can produce plenty of food for himself and for 23 other non-food-producing citizens. But in some parts of the world, it takes as many as 10 men, women, and children to produce enough food to keep themselves and only 1 other adult alive.

These people are willing to work-they're working hard now, just to barely eke through-but they need to be taught how to work in productive ways. They need to be taught how to utilize the water and land resources that are there in plenty in most of the least developed, needy countries. It has been conservatively estimated that in these impoverished countries there is a need for not less than 1,000 major investigations of potential large-scale agricultural developments, and for the harnessing of great rivers for irrigation, power production, and multiple-purpose benefits.

As to why we, who possess the skills and the knowledge, must shoulder the burden of carrying the banner of reclamation around the world-and must do it now-this was best expressed by Paul G. Hoffman, Managing Director of the United Nations Special Fund, when he said to the World Food Congress:

"More than one-half of the world's people living in 100 low-income countries and territories are in active revolt against continued acceptance of hunger, poverty, illiteracy, and

ill-health."

Mr. Hoffman went on to describe the seething unrest of these peoples, the intensity of their determination to better their conditions and their understandable impatience.

"That impatience," Mr. Hoffman said, "can lead to more Congos, more Cubas, and perhaps to general chaos as well. We have no time to lose. Development is historically a long, as well as an arduous task. But the pressure of demand today is so great that time is lacking for the slow development which was characteristic of most of the industrially advanced nations. The processes that took centuries for us must be compressed into decades for the underdeveloped world. The facts of modern communication make the times, and time itself, more pitiless today than ever before."

Now I'm not trying to persuade you people of the National Reclamation Association that we should instantly take up solving the world's problems, urgent as they are, and forget about solving our own. But I am saying we're faced with having to do both. We must have the will to pitch in and help build a stable and prosperous world, because that sort of world will not go to war and destroy itself. At the same time, we can only give meaningful help to others by maintaining the strongest possible economy here at home.

Our role-yours and mine-in strengthening our domestic economy lies in the de

velopment of our water and land resources through the reclamation program. We now have 15 proposed reclamation projects-all sound and all badly needed-lying on the shelf waiting for Congress to act. We have eight other projects in the process of completion. In total, these 23 projects will cost in excess of $3.5 billion. These projects will provide over 21 million acre-feet of additional storage capacity, water that can be used to irrigate 600,000 acres of new land and to supplement the supply for 1,800,000 additional acres now partially irrigated. These projects will permit installation of 2,900,000 kilowatts of hydropower generating capacity, and will provide about 1,680,000 acre-feet of water a year-1.5 billion gallons a day-for municipal and industrial needs. Other associated benefits will be of almost inestimable value.

The proposed authorizations are the heart of a needed continuing reclamation program. No other administration has ever had such a comprehensive program for western resource development before the Congress.

But for one reason or another, there seems to be a roadblock preventing action on any of those projects.

Take the Missouri River Basin, for example. John Wesley Powell, some 75 years ago, told the North Dakota constitutional convention at Bismarck that, and I quote: "There are waters rolling by you which are quite ample to redeem your land, and you must save these waters."

Well, the Federal Government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in saving those waters in such a way that downstream cities and farmlands are virtually insured against any more of the devastating floods the Missouri used to send downstream. There appeared to be no problem in the authorization of that flood control work, none of which is on a reimbursable basis. Nonreimbursable navigation has benefited and there are also tremendous recreation and fish and wildlife returns. A major reimbursable benefit already realized is hydropower production.

But North Dakota, also as a part of the long-term commitment, has a plan for using that water as some partial recompense for usurping rich valley lands which have been inundated by flood control reservoirs for downstream benefit. I have no hesitation in saying that the Garrison diversion unit of the Missouri River Basin project will be the greatest long-term economic boost North Dakota can expect for many decades, just as other Missouri River Basin States may expect similar economic improvement from work proposed in their States.

But unlike water brought under control to prevent damage, water put to a useful purpose must pay its own way. The payout formula first adopted some 18 years ago for the Missouri River Basin project is clearly outdated in these days of higher costs and more complex multipurpose projects. And so reclamation in the Missouri River Basin is bogged down while we thresh out a repayment formula within the tight strictures or repayment policy and the necessity of keeping hydropower rates as low as possible.

Secretary Holum, and we in the Bureau of Reclamation, have worked long and hard on a solution. We now appear to be reaching an acceptable payout formula, but the delay is typical of the roadblocks we are finding in the way of getting on with the job. Until we jump this roadblock, Garrison, Mid-State, Oahe, North Loup, and other feasible Missouri River Basin projects wait forlornly at the unopened gate to economic growth and development.

I mentioned another type of problem in my remarks to your convention last year when I urged that the NRA look into and seek to set up an affirmative policy on Federal hydropower as an integral part of multipurpose river development. I was heartened

as I traveled toward your convention by press statements to the effect that your special committee studying relationship of hydropower site licensing to the attainment of the objectives of the association. I have found no enthusiasm in the National Reclamation Association for facing up to the major problem. And I fail to find any resolution on this most vital element of reclamation development.

One way to increase the efficiency and consequent financial returns from our hydroplants is interconnection and integrated operations. This is important not only among our own plants and systems, but with private and public utility systems regionally and nationally. While we debate and argue and bicker, the economic benefits from integrated operation are not being realized.

Power revenues are the lifeblood of reclamation reimbursability, yet there is literally weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth every time we propose a new interconnection or a new integrated operating agreement, or even a new stretch of Government transmission lines. We have worked out operating agreements with cooperatives which are building two major thermal generating plants to meet their own loads. These plants and Federal hydroplants complement each other and make greater efficiency. Our Missouri River and Colorado River Basin power operations and revenues will be enhanced as a result of these agreements.

Burns Creek is still with us, as are the Middle Snake River development and the Knowles Dam project on the Flathead River in central Montana. All, although feasible and highly justified, are controversial and consequently inactive. I can recall only one favorable action in the past year in this

area.

On Secretary Udall's representation that the Marble Canyon damsite is essential to full development and maximum use of the resources of the Colorado River for the Pacific Southwest water plan, the Federal Power Commission has tabled consideration of the license application to give Congress an opportunity to act.

The Federal Power Commission is aware of the need for additional kilowatt capacity to meet national power needs and cannot be expected to postpone its decision too long. But if the opponents of Federal hydropower development can keep talking long enough, they can kill multipurpose use of this site as surely as if they mustered a negative vote on it in the Congress.

Another monumental contest is shaping up over the destinies of the Lower Colorado. More than 10 years ago, the Congress tabled a reclamation project vital to the needs of Arizona while action was taken to the Supreme Court to determine the rights of the respective lower Basin States to their share of Colorado River water.

The Supreme Court found for the State of Arizona in its opinion last spring. Since then, Secretary Udall has moved forthrightly in developing the Pacific Southwest water plan. Reclamation's Assistant Commissioner Bill Palmer headed a departmentwide task force which prepared the mechanics of this plan.

It contains no elements or policies which have not already been applied and proven successful elsewhere. It is essentially an all-out effort to meet the water needs of the entire Pacific Southwest. California has been proceeding with its own State water plan, which is designed in large part to meet the water needs of the megalopolis

of southern California. Otherwise, the lower basin has been largely marking time in its water program, while awaiting the Supreme Court's opinion. Now it is apparent that the California State water plan, in its present form, will not meet fully the needs of southern California. That area,

therefore, is on the same critical basis as Arizona and Nevada.

But what have we heard since the Supreme Court's opinion and the announcement of the Pacific Southwest water plan? Very few words of approval or even of constructive criticism. Many have been quick to protest and criticize. No one has come up with an affirmative substitute, although the problem is obvious. While the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee has proceeded with hearings on the central Arizona project, which is a key feature in the first phase of the total plan, it is clear that in other quarters the strategy is talk, talk, talk, and delay, delay, delay.

As in the past, as for example during the long contest for authorization of the Colorado River storage project, delay means additional benefits, additional profits for those who have to the detriment of those who have not.

From California, we now hear criticism of a possible diversion of water from that which is surplus in northern coastal streams southward past the Tehachapis and possibly into Arizona. But no one mentioned that this is a purely exploratory second phase of the total program and is not firmed up in any sense of the word.

Everyone has been viewing with alarm the purported abrogation of the county of origin philosophy in California's water law without pointing out that the successful Central Valley project and the State water plan also transport water out of the county of origin. Both plans utilize only surplus water, and if the second phase of the Pacific Southwest water plan is adopted, certainly nothing more than surplus water would be diverted.

I might also point out that if the county of origin philosophy were extended to the Colorado River, California, Arizona, and Nevada would have a pitifully small supply of water from that stream, for virtually all Colorado River water originates in the high mountains of the Upper Basin States.

We have also been blanketed into a scattergun attack by a national magazine on porkbarreling by Federal construction agencies. I must give credit to an eastern Congressman, my good friend MIKE KIRWAN, of Ohio, for mounting the first rebuttal against this attack. Congressman KIRWAN saw a copy of the article before the magazine hit the streets. He was immediately on the phone with me seeking facts and figures for his rebuttal.

There are other problems which are contributing to the blockade on reclamation, but I have done enough viewing with alarm about this negative thinking.

Those of you who know me know that I am not normally of a pessimistic nature. But you know also that I am not backward in speaking my mind, and when things need to be said, I try to lay it on the line.

let's look to the future. Let's wake up to So today, as you wind up this convention, the needs of tomorrow. Let's bury the bugaboos and the fears that seem to possess us today. As individuals, we are interdependent. None of us can exist alone, nor can we solve our problems alone. As communities, as States, as river basins, we are also interdependent. The day is gone when each of us could plan his own little irrigation project without considering its effect elsewhere. We must plan and work together, and only by so doing can we be successful. We must mix a little of the spirit

of human kindness, of compromise, of arbitration, into our daily doings.

Let's start thinking positively and cooperatively about our water needs and ways to meet them. I have found Secretary Udall, the administration, and the Congress more than willing to go along with a reclamation program which has a solid foundation and

solid backing. Representative WAYNE ASPINALL, the chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, said as much in a recent speech before the Arizona Reclamation Association.

But Congress is not disposed to push for action on any program when there is dissension, opposition, or even plain and simple lethargy in the ranks.

The Fryingpan-Arkansas project was not authorized until Colorado settled its intrastate dispute and also enlisted outside support. It was necessary for the Upper Colorado River Basin States to compromise their differences before they could hope to undertake a project which will mean so much to them.

In fact, to go back to the organization of this National Reclamation Association, reclamation was at something of a standstill 30 years ago because of lethargy and national indifference. Your organization at that time moved forthrightly and vigorously to generate action.

We are marking, this year, the 30th anniversary of the start of construction of Grand Coulee Dam. There were viewers with alarm in those days as there are today who wanted to talk the project to death for their own private benefit or because they genuinely feared it would be a white elephant. But because of the favorable national public climate created by such organizations as yours, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to authorize and direct construction of the dam with a stroke of his pen. Who is there today who will not say that it is one of the wisest investments ever made in behalf of the future of our Nation.

Or how many of you realize today that most of the early reclamation projects were authorized on secretarial findings of feasibility. Congress supported this executive action when it supplied funds to undertake construction.

How the climate has changed. The viewers with alarm, the professional pessimists, the special interests, have centered their opposition on Reclamation to such a degree that it would be politically suicidal to authorize any project by executive action. And because of this same climate, Congress is reluctant to push ahead.

I say it is up to you to reverse this thinking. In my first speech to this organization-as Commissioner of Reclamation-in November 1959, I urged you to speak out in positive terms to emphasize what you are for, to avoid a brand of negativism; positive support from this organization is vital to a continuing reclamation program. It is up to you to keep the Nation informed about reclamation as a wise national investment and as an investment in the peace and prosperity of the world. I say it is not only time to wake up America as to the challenge of the worldwide need for food and fiber-the sinews of lasting peace-but also to wake up the National Reclamation Association as to the need of positive thinking about the future of the vital work you organized to sponsor three decades ago.

BUSINESS COMPETITION AS A RESULT OF AID ACTIVITIES Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Jack Anderson, who is an associate of columnist Drew Pearson, wrote an article which appeared in this morning's Washington Post. The statements in the article may have been accurate or not accurate, but I think it is highly important that our friends on the Foreign Relations Committee, through their staff or

such men as they have at their disposal, should inform us in the Senate as to the extent to which the allegations in this article are true. To me, they were rather shocking, although I had a vague idea of some of the magnitude of the matters covered. I quote briefly:

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

Later in the article Mr. Anderson states:

In the last 5 years, foreign aid has built, expanded or modernized 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.

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 foreign 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.

Of particular interest to the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been concerned with and fighting for the preservation of the textile industry for the past several years, the writer indicates that shirts from Hong Kong were found on the same counter as American-made shirts that were selling for $5.95, those shirts having been made with modern machinery and equipment which could turn them out at $1.99.

Mr. Anderson reminds us that

In the past 10 years, nearly 4 million cotton spindles have been closed down and 290,000 millworkers have lost their jobs. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article appear at this point in the RECORD, following my remarks.

I again earnestly and seriously express the hope that the Foreign Relations Committee will, before the termination of this debate, give the Senate the information, and if these allegations are not accurate in their details, give us the accurate statistics, because it is high time, after all these years of bolstering those who needed our help, that we take into consideration the people who are being made jobless at home, before we cast our final vote on the foreign aid bill.

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

AID BUILDS BUSINESS COMPETITION

(By Jack Anderson) Foreign aid has bubblegummed in Uncle Sam's face, and he's now unhappily picking it out of his whiskers.

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.

helped to build up competitive industries For our income tax payments already have

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 modernized: 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 foreign 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 steel plate to the Two years later, the figure had risen to 12,000 tons, which has already been more than doubled this year.

United States.

"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.

But South Carolina Congressman ROBERT HEMPHILL has said: "In our efforts to revitalize Japan as a bulwark against communism, otherwise in creating a Japanese textile inwe participated technically, financially, and dustry 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 they will pay the extra $3.96 for an all-American shirt.

In the past 10 years, nearly 4 million cotton spindles have been closed down and 290,000 mill workers have lost their jobs. 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.