This is why I'm interested. It means jobs for American workers. It could mean a more

favorable balance of payments. In fact it may be just what we need. And this means that a good deal of our outflowing of gold could be stopped. If these things are important, I see no reason why we can't embark upon selling our technology to those people who want to participate in a broadly based space program.

The 30th Anniversary of the Artificial Famine in Ukraine, 1932-33

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, November 8, 1963

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, history clearly refutes the arguments which the administration may offer for its desire to embrace the Soviet Union and other satellite countries in a spirit of coexistence.

As a reminder of historic Communist treachery, I submit resolutions adopted by the Ukrainian-American Committee at its rally on October 13, in Chicago, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Artificial Famine in Ukraine, 1932

33:

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE UKRAINIANAMERICAN RALLY COMMEMORATING THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARTIFICIAL FAMINE IN

UKRAINE, 1932-33, CHICAGO, ILL., OCTOBER 13, 1963

The Communist empire of the Moscow dictators came into being, grew, spread, gained power, existed and continues to exist by terror, genocide, and injustice, violating God's Commandments and trampling the rights of man, enslaving, subjugating and destroying entire nations.

Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev-different names but the same rule-different persons but all pledged to the same methods of merciless dictatorship, an uninterrupted chain of crimes against mankind, based on relentless physical terror and mass murder.

Recalling these facts andWhereas in the years 1932 and 1933 during the great famine, over 6 million Ukrainians needlessly perished; and

Whereas the Famine was deliberately created by the Moscow-directed regime to permanently suppress Ukrainian nationalism and Ukraine's right and desire for self-determination; and

Whereas Moscow's rulers forcibly confiscated all privately owned properties and Jailed countless thousands of Ukrainians who refused to submit to the dictates of colonial expediency; and

Whereas during the 30-year period since the famine, Russia was directly responsible for the death of thousands of Ukrainians at Vinnitsa, thousands of Poles in the Katyn Forest, thousands of Hungarians in Budapest, and countless East Germans in Berlin, all of whom were the unwilling victims of

the Muscovite regime; and

Whereas the world still remains indifferent to the menace of Russian Communist imperialism which threatens to enslave the free world; and

Whereas this indifference has cost the United States thousands of American lives in Korea, Laos, and Vietnam; and

Whereas all these facts are overwhelming evidence that Russian Communist imperialism continues to threaten human dignity, freedom, and democracy leaving no room for compromise: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That we, the members of the Ukrainian-American community gathered at the National Guard Armory in Chicago on Sunday, October 13, 1963, do hereby:

1. Condemn the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as the greatest crime known to man; 2. Appeal to the free nations of the world, especially the United States of America, to use whatever means are available to force Moscow to abolish all forced labor camps, and to cease the practice of mass deportation which are both directed against the vital interests of Ukraine;

3. Demand that the Soviet Government immediately withdraw all of its occupation forces, dissolve the puppet Ukrainian regime, and permit free elections under the jurisdiction of the United Nations;

4. Appeal to the United States to introduce the problem of Russian colonialism in the United Nations and the problem of Russian genocide in Ukraine (1932-33) International Court in Hague.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, may I briefly recount the history of the Ukraine famine so that the full import of Soviet treachery may be realized.

Ukraine, with a population of approximately 45 million inhabitants, boasts one of the richest agricultural areas in all of Europe. Between 1909 and 1913, Ukraine accounted for 20 percent of Europe's grain supply.

During the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ukraine, along with a number of other non-Russian nations within the Russian Empire, declared its independence, an act which resulted in the establishment of the Ukrainian National Republic. Unable to sustain itself against the overwhelming odds of German and Polish interference, Denekin's White Russian army, two Bolshevik invasions, a poorly equipped army, disease, and economic chaos, Ukraine succumbed to the third and final Communist onslaught of 1920.

At first the Bolsheviks proceeded with caution in their takeover of Ukraine, hoping to win the Ukrainian population over to the Communist cause. When Ukrainian resistance continued, how ever, the Communists decided to resort to extreme measures to bring Ukraine to heel.

Between 1929 and 1932, 500,000 farms were confiscated, 21⁄2 million Ukrainians were driven from their homes and transported to other regions of the Soviet empire, and another million Ukrainians were packed off to Siberian slave labor

camps.

On August 2, 1932, Moscow issued an edict ordering Ukrainian peasants to turn over all of their crops to Moscow's food collectors. Resistance to the edict brought about forced food collections, the isolation of entire areas by armed troops who prevented anyone from leaving or entering, and the actual destruction by bombardment of villages where resistance was strongest. The result was mass starvation.

Ironically, Ukraine's grain elevators remained full, protected by the Soviet

army, and Moscow continued to export grain and other foodstuffs to the outside world. Barring all Western observers from Ukraine, the Communists vehemently denied the existence of a famine and refused all offers of aid from the International Red Cross. Late in 1932, Ukraine was opened to selected newsmen and American and foreign newspapers were filled with stories outlining all of the brutal details of the mass starvation. Although estimates vary, reliable sources have placed the number of those who perished in the famine at between 6 and 7 million.

Address at Parkersburg, W. Va., by Hon. Thomas P. Gill

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. KEN HECHLER

OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, November 8, 1963

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Speaker, on November 2, the featured speaker at the Fourth Congressional District seminar in Parkersburg, W. Va., was the gentleman from Hawaii, THOMAS P. GILL, and under unanimous consent I include the text of Congressman GILL'S excellent, analytical address:

a

Your good Congressman, KEN HECHLER, may come to regret the wide license he gave me this evening. I have interpreted his instructions broadly, but I hope not vaguely. I am going to try to give you a small report on the progress of Democracy recently in this country-and we will spell it with a big D. I don't really think I could get away with vague talk in West Virginia. In Hawaii, I know I would be in trouble. In my State, people call vague political bombast "muumuu speech," meaning, of course, that it covers everything but reveals very little. Seriously, it is good to talk to Democrats about our party-and to talk as specifically as we can. We know that our party is no better than its workers. Your knowledge, as workers, of State and National issues sets the measure for the party leaders. Your ability to distinguish a fact from a phony has a remarkable effect on the quality of your

elected officials.

I would like to reemphasize this point-it is central to what we have to say tonight: A political party that defines the issues, recognizes the problems they raise, and deals squarely with them on the basis of facts is, in my mind, the only kind of political party worth having.

A political party needs "heart," and our party has kept its sense of concern for human values; but a party also needs a “head,” and this is not always as easy to maintain. This essential combination of "heart" and "head" is what gives the people of this Nation a feel

ing of confidence in us as Democrats. We not only want to do what is best for the average

man; we also know how to do it.

Let's talk for a moment about the "heart"

and the "head" in three areas of great importance to all of us today: the economic progress, the growth of education and training, and the opportunities that must exist for us and our children.

When we talk economics, heads usually begin to bob; it is hard to brighten the dismal science.

Let me approach this by first talking about some current American folklore-some myths to which both parties are prone.

First, some Democratic myths.

As Democrats, we are inclined to worship at the altar of "ever increasing production." It sometimes seems we consider increased production of goods and services as a virtue in itself.

We may be getting lost in a myth. Shouldn't we question both the side effects of production and the real value of the goods produced?

We can agree that our gross national product, now soaring to the $600 billion mark annually, must continue to rise. It should rise at a faster rate if we are to continue to increase the creature comforts of our people.

However, let's watch that we don't just believe in "production for production's sake."

One aspect of our special myth is that production is always good, regardless of side effects. We need more and better roads; but where the roads begin to cover our fertile fields with concrete and tear the hearts out of our cities, we should pause and think. We need more cars and appliances; but do we need them in tremendous profusionengineered to go out of operating order as well as fashion every few years? Need all those appliances when some money could go to better schools? We need new factories, new jobs, new products; but in the process of building, working, and producing, is it wise to poison our rivers and the air around us? We need the coal in the ground and the trees that grow on it; but in gathering these riches, should we destroy the hills, streams, and fertile countryside?

To some, these are ethical questions. I suggest they are both ethical and practical.

Certainly, it is not right to willfully destroy and waste the bounty that nature has given us. But there are also some very practical reasons. The more we pollute our rivers, the more we must spend for drinking water. The more we destroy our mountains and fields, the more it costs us to support the people who used to live off their bounty. The more we poison our air and mar our cities, the more they repel our children and people from other areas who might want to work and spend their money with us.

Production is good; increasing production is necessary. But some production may be useless; some may destroy far more than it gives. Let's distinguish the fact from the myth.

Another aspect of the myth of production for production's sake is well known to the people of West Virginia. You certainly know that an overall increase in national productivity doesn't necessarily help all of us. We do have what the economists darkly call structural unemployment. The pockets of despair exist in many parts of this country; there are many communities that suffer poverty in the midst of general plenty.

This dark star holds a special place in our economic sky today. Whether we be employers or workers, we cannot either ignore automation, or try to lock arms to prevent it. We may want our children to live and work nearby, but we can't deny the fact of a mobile labor supply. We may think we have learned our trade, but new jobs need new skills which, in turn, demand new training.

While we are still discussing myths, let's look at one with a particular Republican stamp. This is the myth that surrounds the great goddess of the ever balanced Federal budget. As the myth would have it, the handmaidens to this goddess are the twin horrors, deficits and inflation.

This myth is rapidly being built into an issue for the next campaign. Government finance is so complicated that few understand it.

Here the Republican Party has fallen into the tempting trap of baiting ignorance with fear. They would shout black and white solutions for black and white problems when the real world shows little but gray.

The Republicans tell us that an unbalanced budget is always evil; that the national debt will crush our children; that all this means inflation which will rob our old age. This is poppycock and the brighter of them know it. However, they will try to sell this line

and we must know the answers.

The mere fact that we unbalance a Fed

eral budget either by a tax cut, or by careful spending programs, or a combination of both, in order to jolt the private economy into greater productivity, doesn't mean that such a deficit is bad. And it doesn't have to mean inflation. In fact, it may be the sensible way to speed up the economy, increase Government income, and thus prevent an almost permanent deficit.

The fact that the national debt is over $300 billion today is no cause for panic, or for ill-founded anxiety about our grandchildren. Our national debt is not a mortgage which will be foreclosed at a given day unless we pay it back in toto. It is a great mass of different obligations owed by all of us to all of us. Our credit to ourselves, in a real sense, depends on our confidence in our ability to meet the payments as they come due. The key measure of our ability individual, is our earning power. as a nation to carry debt, like that of an

In 1946, our publicly held national debt was about equal to the value of goods and services we produced each year; since then our debt has risen about 12 percent; but our income has risen much more and now

our debt equals only about half our annual production.

At this point, let's borrow a leaf from the Republicans and talk Government finance in household terms. Suppose you, individually, in 1946 had debts totaling $5000 and an annual income of $5000; suppose today you have debts of $6000 but your income has risen to $12,000. Are you better off today

stantial tax cut, to stir the roots of the private economy. This is an expression of faith in a free economic system far deeper than any given by the recent Republican administration.

In short, we are saying that new purchasing power, freed by the tax cut, will surge through the marketplace and give us the new jobs and production we need.

However, we should be aware of two counter movements to this administration attempt to move the economy. The congressional opponents of the tax-cut approach have tried to cripple it by cutting deep into spending. There is also the danger that segments of the economy, particularly those areas where prices are capable of being "managed," will try to sop up the new purchasing power with price increases rather than with more production.

Let's move from the economy to the second great area in which we, as Democrats, should show "head" as well as "heart." This is education.

There are few educators in the Nation today who deny the crushing burden that has tunate States, with thriving economies and fallen on our school systems. In some forgood tax systems, they come closer to meeting the need. In many States, the educational needs have long since run away from

local resources.

The majority of the people of this Nation, and a vast majority of the educators admit the need for Federal aid to education.

As Democrats, our hearts tell us that there can be no greater legacy than the trained minds of our children; and our heads tell us the same thing. Today, a high school diploma is next to useless as job insurance. To have less than a high school education is to court disaster; to have more is to have a fighting chance at a decent future.

This Democratic administration has proposed a number of far-reaching education bills. Strangely enough, this supposedly slow and fumbling Congress may well be recorded as having done more for education than any other in our generation.

or in 1946?

So much for myths; what about answers? If we are to be a responsible party, we must not only distinguish the problems from the folklore, but we must also provide answers. Not the one line, grade school type answers that some would peddle today, but complex, sophisticated answers that meet the needs

of a difficult civilization.

What are some of them?

We spoke of the need to conserve our resources and the face of our land. The Kennedy administration, under the direct stewardship of Interior Secretary Udall, has moved strongly to encourage conservation, to develop new recreation areas for our teeming cities, to clean our rivers and skies.

This Democratic administration has not been hypnotized by the myth of production for the sake of production. It has moved against the soft spots in our economy with the ARA, with accelerated public works, with manpower retraining, and with broader education programs. These laws and programs have also served to channel our country's money into more essential types of production, such as the building of community facilities basic to future growth.

As a general stimulus to the economy, the President has taken the rather daring step of proposing a planned deficit, through a sub

for students and structures, has passed. An improved library services act waits in the wings. Impact aid and the NDEA will probably be continued this year and improved the next. We have reported out of committee a strong new manpower training act, and it waits its turn.

I am particularly glad to report our progress in education because I know of the deep interest here of your Congressman, Mr. HECHLER, and your Governor, Mr. Barron.

One tough educational problem we will not crack this year is the basic one of Federal aid for primary and secondary schools. The great dispute over support to private and parochial schools has created a legislative impasse. On this issue, we should all ponder.

The third and last area I want to briefly mention is opportunity-not for some but for all.

Opportunity is the gateway to the future. But in our country, opportunity must be for all, not for just some. Our heads tell us that every man or woman is entitled to make the best of his or her native talents and energies. Our heads tell us that to deny opportunity to some creates an economic and social drag on the rest.

Our heads tell us that the basic law of this land holds all men are created equal and that this should apply regardless of the color of our skin. Our hearts should tell us this,

too, for it is right, but here our hearts are often silent.

I do not intend to speak at length on civil rights-enough is being said everywhere today. However, I think it is a fact that in this year of 1963, there is no more crucial problem in this country than the brotherhood of man. The leading elements of our party must continue to stay in the front of the drive for equality of opportunity for all Americans.

It will mean little to raise living standards and production when one out of 10 of our people is denied the right to fully participate. It serves us little to improve education, and tax all our people to pay for it,

when large numbers of our children cannot share in the benefits only because they were born with different pigment in their skin.

The promise of America is the promise for all. As Democrats, in our heads and in our hearts, we must know this.

There is a place for philosophy in a political party. A party is not just to win elections. A party is to form issues, to teach, and to lead. The political party should be more important than the men and women in it.

It is true that in most areas we need attractive candidates to win elections, but I think it is fair to say that a political party based only on personality cannot survive for

long. Men come and go, and they change. The sparkling crusader of yesterday may flounder in the bog of privilege or apathy tomorrow.

I hope, as Democrats, that we will continue to have the "heart" to know the right, and the "head" to make it so. If we believe in the basic reasonableness of man, we can give the voters a clear picture of the problems of our time. Further, we can give them humane and rational answers to those problems. We must say what we can do, and deliver.

As loyal party people, there is no greater service than this; as Americans, today, we cannot do less.

SENATE

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1963

(Legislative day of Tuesday, October 22, 1963)

The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the President pro tempore.

Rev. V. Allen Gaines, pastor, Chamberlayne Baptist Church, Richmond, Va., offered the following prayer:

Our Father, we acknowledge once more that in Thee we live and move and have our being, and that Thou art closer than breathing and nearer than hands and feet.

Lord, we are dependent on Thee, so come down and sit beside us, to give us courage in place of discouragement, and lift us up from the doom of despair and the doldrums of disappointment, to recognize Thy grace, mercy, and love. Lead us to make wise use of our time, so that as Thou wilt bless America, we may become stronger in Thee.

Bless here Thy servants, our Senators, O Lord, with good health, wisdom, and protection; and bless their families, too. We wait upon Thee for continued answers, and make this our prayer in Jesus' name. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, November 8, 1963, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the President of the United States submitting nominations were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate messages from the Presi

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
BUSINESS

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, it was ordered that there be a morning hour, with statements there be a morning hour, with statements limited to 3 minutes.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING

SENATE SESSION

On request of Mr. FULBRIGHT, and by unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.

On request of Mr. MCCLELLAN, and by unanimous consent, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations was authorized to meet during the session of the Senate this afternoon.

(See the remarks of Mr. BOGGS when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. BEALL:

S. 2300. A bill to strengthen the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act of the District of Columbia; and

S. 2301. A bill to amend the Fire and Casualty Act of the District of Columbia to provide for the financial protection of certain persons suffering injury as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle by uninsured motorists; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. BIBLE (by request):

S. 2302. A bill relating to the employment of minors in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

RESOLUTION

ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TEE

Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported an original resolution (S. Res. 225); which, under the rule, was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations hereby is authorized to expend from the contingent fund of the Senate, during the Eighty-eighth Congress, $10,000, in addition to the amounts, and for the same purposes, specified in section 134(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act, approved August 2, 1946, and S. Res. 128, agreed to May 9, 1963.

EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A
COMMITTEE

As in executive session, The following favorable report of a nomination was submitted:

By Mr. BEALL, from the Committee on Commerce:

Philip Elman, of Maryland, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner.

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first

Rules and Administration.

(See the above resolution printed in full when reported by Mr. HAYDEN, which appears under the heading "Report of a Committee.")

ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMISSION ON NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to establish a Commission on National Agricultural Policy.

Harvesttime is over once again, and again American farms have produced huge amounts of food and fiber, more than we need for consumption and export. It is fitting we do mark the end of harvest by celebrating Thanksgiving Day. Yet this outpouring, as we all realize, is both a blessing and a problem.

Solving the problem of overproduction has occupied the attention of Secretaries of Agriculture and the Congress for the past 30 years, except for the war periods. I do not have to add that the problem is still with us, in some ways more baffling than ever.

The Senate has recently considered

sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

second time, and referred as follows:

will ease the surplus problem. In the legislative background now are the problems, among others, of surplus wheat and surplus cotton. Instead of confining ourselves to these individual problems,

however, we should consider the broad picture, the relation of all the parts which make up the agricultural whole. That is what my bill proposes.

It is ironic that in a world where more than half the population goes to bed at night hungry that our great Nation should be plagued with the problem of too much food. But that is the case.

Not only do we have more food than we need, but we also carry the burden of billions of dollars spent to keep down production and keep the farm economy healthy at the same time.

Farmers have taken advantage of research and increased their crop yields to the point where one American farmer feeds 26 of his fellow citizens. Without our high farm productivity and consequent low food cost, the rest of our economy would have grown much more slowly. To farmers we owe not only our good and inexpensive food, but to a large degree our opportunity for progress in business and industry.

But the farmer, unfortunately, has not been able to keep economic pace with his urban neighbor. As high productivity has reduced farm prices, the farmer has had to produce larger crops just to stay even. He does not control his market. His best hedge against lower prices and consequent lower income usually appears to be a bigger crop. As he and other farmers make these individual decisions, however, the resulting increase in production adds up to oversupply. Complicating the situation, no matter how well intentioned, are the artificial crop prices based on subsidies. The farmer looks more to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and congressional committees on agriculture than to the marketplace in planning his crop program.

The farm legislation we enact, I am afraid, is on a year-to-year basis with no firm expectation that it is leading to a long-range solution of our difficulties. There is an uneasy feeling among many Congressmen, I am sure, as farm legislation comes up and is passed or rejected. That uneasy feeling is based on a lack of an overall policy against which to measure the new proposal. It is like trying to fit pieces into a picture puzzle without having any idea of what the picture looks like.

This country desperately needs a broad and comprehensive policy for the good of farmers, for the good of consumers and taxpayers, and for the good of U.S. economic and political relations in international affairs. It is foolish to conIt is foolish to continue with the patchwork policy we now have. It is to costly in wasted food and money and effort.

The cost of trying to balance the farm economy with subsidy payments continues much too high. For the 20-year period between 1932 and 1951 the total cost of subsidies to stabilize farm production was $6.8 billion. As high as this figure is, however, it is dwarfed by what happened during the next 10 years. The cost to taxpayers from 1952-61 totaled $22.1 billion, or approximately $2.2 billion a year. This includes a cost of $5.2 billion for fiscal 1961 alone. And the total Department of Agriculture budget

This huge increase in cost comes at a time when the number of farms and farm population is dropping drastically. population is dropping drastically. The number of American farm units hit an alltime peak of 6.8 million in 1935. Since then the number has declined to about 3.7 million and there are forecasts that in another decade or two the number will be only a little more than 1 million. When this Nation came into being, about 90 percent of its population lived on farms. Now the percentage is about 7 percent, and the percentage will surely go lower.

More than crop production is out of balance, however. Three percent of all the farms in the country produce more food and fibers than the bottom 78 percent combined. This diversity adds to the problem of devising a farm policy which will treat all segments of agriculture fairly.

Unless we do take a long and objective look at American agriculture, we face the continuing prospect of first one crop, then another, being considered in fragmentary fashion by the Congress. The relation between the crops will be ignored or overlooked and the huge drain on the Treasury will continue. on the Treasury will continue. If this piecemeal process had generally strengthened farming, even at great expense, that would be something in its favor. But it appears that the big farms get bigger, and the small farms get smaller, and in today's agriculture we can almost substitute "rich" for "big" and "poor" for "small.”

It is commonplace today to say that we live in a time of revolution, but we do. And this revolution exists in agriculture. Not to recognize this sweeping change as a revolution, and to act accordingly, is foolhardy. Worse, it may be economically disastrous.

My proposal, as outlined in the finding and purpose of the bill I am introducing, is to provide "for the establishment of a Commission, composed of leaders from public and private life, to study, investigate, and evaluate the problems and trends of agriculture in the United States, with a view toward recommending an overall national policy for agriculture, a policy which will help agriculture prosper for the good of both

farmer and consumer, and for the good of the Nation as a whole in domestic and international commerce."

I realize that this is a huge job, but I can think of no better way of approaching it than by the creation of a Hoovertype commission. This Commission will need a topflight staff, and because of the variety and complexity of its assignment, will probably have to break down its work into separate study areas.

In order to assure this survey being as complete and objective as possible my bill provides for a 12-member commission, with the President, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House each appointing two members from Government and two from private life. In addition, not more than six members are to be from the same political party. Strengthening American agriculture is too important to the Nation to have the

There is a danger in appointing a commission and thereby assuming that the problem is half solved. I make no such assumption. Naming the members of the Commission is a necessary first step, but then will come months of hard work, culminating finally, I hope, in solid recommendations for legislative and administrative action. Unless this first step is taken, however, unless we get some overall policy by which we can gage the separate agricultural issues which come up, we will continue to stumble around in the dark.

Underscoring the need for action quickly is the fast-moving international situation. The wheat deal with Russia is one example. Our farmers have more or less been insulated against the ups and downs of world agricultural markets during the past quarter century by the U.S. Treasury and its subsidy payments. Maintaining this insulation will be increasingly difficult under the pressures of free trade and competition for markets.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section of my bill dealing with the duties of the Commission be printed at this point in the RECORD.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the section of the bill referred to will be printed at this point in the RECORD.

The bill (S. 2299) to establish a Commission on National Agricultural Policy, introduced by Mr. BOGGS, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

The section of the bill is as follows:

DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

SEC. 4. (a) The Commission shall make a comprehensive study and investigation of any and all matters relating to the agricultural industry of this country with a view to formulating recommendations for a general agricultural policy for the future which will best serve the interests of farmer, consumer, and Nation. In formulating any agricultural policy pursuant to this Act, the Commission shall give special consideration to the following:

(1) How the Federal Government can best serve the interests of the Nation in the field of agriculture.

effectively utilized, particularly in regard to (2) How agricultural research may be more finding new and improved uses of agricultural products.

(3) How the United States can increase and expand its exports of agricultural products.

(4) How the problem of unemployed farmers and farmworkers can be solved in the wake of continued modernization and mechanization of farming.

(5) How agricultural education can be improved in light of the increasing complexity of farming.

(6) What services and functions of the Federal Government relating to agriculture, which are carried out under existing law, should be expanded, curtailed, modified, or eliminated.

(7) How agriculture is related, directly and indirectly, to the domestic economy, national defense, and international relations of the United States, and what adjustments might be made to improve these relationships.

(8) How the marketing of farm products can be improved to give a better return to the producer.

(9) How the Nation's land resources can be most effectively utilized in order to insure a continued abundance of food and fiber.

(b) The Commission shall, not later than June 30, 1965, submit to the President and to the Congress a final report setting forth the results of its study and investigation and its recommendations. The Commission may from time to time submit to the President such earlier reports as the President may request or as the Commission deems appropriate. The final report of the Commission may propose such legislative and administrative actions as in its judgment are necessary to carry out its recommendations.

RECONSIDERATION OF SENATE RESOLUTION 217, TO AUTHORIZE

STUDY OF NATIONAL SYSTEM OF SCENIC HIGHWAYS

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate reconsider the action it took last Friday in adopting Senate Resolution 217; and I ask that the resolution be referred to the Rules Committee, for consideration of the dollar amount contained in section 4.

I request this action so that the Rules Committee may have a chance to consider the moneys to be spent from the Senate contingent fund, a matter over which the Rules Committee has jurisdiction. I also ask that the other amendments agreed to by the Senate remain undisturbed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas explain this item?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The The resolution was submitted by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART]; it has to do with a survey of the recreational needs of the country.

Section 4 reads as follows:

The expenses of the committee, under this resolution, which shall not exceed $20,000, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee.

It has been pointed out that the resolution has not been referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, which has jurisdiction over the contingent fund.

Mr. MORSE. That is the only part of the resolution which would be referred to the Rules Committee, is it?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes; and I have asked that the other parts of the resolution remain undisturbed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate reconsider its vote by which Senate Resolution 217 as amended, was adopted, and that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, for its consideration of the dollar amount contained in section 4? Without objection, it is so ordered.

CAPITOL PAGES' RESIDENCE BILL

ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR Mr. YARBOROUGH. I ask unanimous consent that the name of the dis

tinguished senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] be added as a sponsor of S. 1847, the Capitol pages' residence bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF

RESOLUTION

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] be added as a cosponsor of my Senate Resolution 224, which is the resolution favoring the adoption by the leadership of the two Houses of a schedule looking to expeditious consideration of the business during the next session of Congress.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN SERVICES FROM COMMERCIAL SUPPLIERS ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILL

Under authority of the order of the Senate of October 30, 1963, the names of Mr. CASE, Mr. COOPER, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KEATING, Mr. MORTON, Mr. PROUTY, Mr. SALTONSTALL, and Mr. SCOTT were added as additional cosponsors of the bill (S. 2268) to amend section 7 of the act of May 21, 1920, to require the procurement of certain services from commercial suppliers when economy will result from such procurement, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. KUCHEL on October 30, 1963.

NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF NOMINATIONS BY COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I desire to announce that on November 8 the Senate received the nomination of Dr. Herbert Scoville, Jr., of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and today the Senate received the nomination of Benson E. L. Timmons III, of Florida, to be Ambassador to Haiti.

In accordance with the committee rule, these pending nominations may not be considered prior to the expiration of 6 days of their receipt in the Senate.

THANKSGIVING AWARD BY CLARKE
COLLEGE TO
TO DR.
DR. WILLIAM B.
WALSH

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Sister Mary Benedict, B.V.M., president of Clarke College, has written to inform me that Dr. William B. Walsh, a director of Project Hope, will be the recipient of the first Thanksgiving Award conferred by Clarke College, in Dubuque, Iowa. This is one of the outstanding women's colleges in the Nation, and it has a long honorable and prestigious history.

I ask unanimous consent that the announcement of the award be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

William B. Walsh, M.D., director of Project Hope, will receive the first Thanksgiving Award conferred by Clarke College to an American "whose service to the country and its citizens merits distinction."

Commemorating the centennial of the first national Thanksgiving proclamation by Abraham Lincoln, the award is a simple open figure, designed by the college art department and cast in bronze, symbolizing hope and gratitude.

The Honorable Win G. Knoch, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, member of the Clarke lay advisory board and chairman of the Thanksgiving Award committee, observes that "the aim of the award is to refocus attention on the true meaning of

Thanksgiving-faith and freedom in the New

World-without abandoning the traditional trimmings of food and football."

Announcing Dr. Walsh as the first recipient of the award, Sister Mary Benedict, B.V.M., Clarke president, said that the presentation will be made at a special Thanksgiving convocation at the college, November 26. The tribute to "this man whose life reveals an awareness of the blessings of freedom, opportunity, and dignity insured by the Constitution of the United States," Sister Mary Benedict believes, will achieve in a special manner one of the aims of the women's college: "to alert students to their potential for influencing world situations and transmitting spiritual and esthetic values."

William Bertalan Walsh, born in Brooklyn, N.Y., 1920, is a graduate of St. John's University, N.Y., and Georgetown Medical School, Washington, D.C. Serving as a medical officer aboard a destroyer in the Pacific during World War II, Dr. Walsh observed the lack

of medical facilities in the area.

When, in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invited Dr. Walsh to initiate a project aimed at international good will and understanding through personal contacts, Dr. Walsh submitted a plan for the world's first peacetime hospital ship. A reconverted 15,000-ton Navy hospital ship became the SS Hope (Health Opportunities for People Everywhere).

Privately outfitted at $3.5 million and equipped with 60 doctors, dentists, nurses, and technicians, the white hospital ship was invited to stop at 11 ports of call in 1961, all in the vicinity of South Vietnam and Indonesia. The ship's personnel performed 1,200 major operations, treated 36,000 patients, gave more than 100 lectures, and distributed 8,000 books and 86,000 pounds of medical supplies.

The SS Hope was stationed at Trujillo, Peru, from May 1962 to June 1963, and 25 of the personnel remained behind to assist the University of Trujillo Medical School in operating a new regional hospital.

In addition to his work as president of Project Hope and of the People-to-People Health Foundation, Dr. Walsh, an internist and heart specialist, is an Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine at Georgetown University. He is married and the father of three sons.

JOHN KRSUL, SHERIFF OF CASCADE COUNTY, MONT.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, during the visit of the President to Montana, 100,000 people turned out to welcome him in Great Falls, Mont. The man in charge of the arrangements for President Kennedy's visit there is an old friend of mine, Sheriff John Krsul, sheriff of Cascade County. Sheriff Krsul did a magnificent job; it was obvious that his planning for this welcome was