The yacht Sequoia is merely a flashy symbol of this system. It costs the Government far more than Baker or Korth is ever likely to make in a lifetime. It plies up and down the Potomac with a crew of two officers and eight men and is primarily a floating restaurant and bar for the entertainment of Senators and Congressmen.

Baker allegedly peddled influence to lobbyists and managed to buy houses and motels where he could give and get more favors. But the Sequoia is the Pentagon's own official instrument for influence peddling-for encouraging generous defense appropriations and under such a system it is scarcely surprising that Korth used the old tub occasionally for his own purposes.

SCRAP THE "SEQUOIA"

The mess, in short, is not going to be cleaned up by concentrating on Korth and Baker, but by overhauling the system. Baker couldn't peddle much influence on his own; his influence came from his close association with Senators and with officials who knew he was close to Vice President JOHNSON and others.

Korth wasn't crooked; he was morally insensitive and stupid, but the President insists Korth wasn't fired, which raises the question: Why not?

How is the system to be changed if the President praises a man with judgment like Korth's, and the Senate won't conduct an objective investigation of its own shortcomings? The official reaction here to Baker and Korth is more of a problem than they are, for they are gone and the system that produced them remains.

The competition for maximum benefits of a particular group must inevitably come into conflict with one or possibly all of the other groups. When this situation occurs, it becomes necessary for government to step in as an umpire and legislate controls or procedures. Such controls or procedures should be based on the moral principles of equity and fairness. They should effect a reasonable compromise between unrestrained pursuit of group self-interest and overall sharing of society's benefits.

No interest group, therefore, can be allowed to promote its welfare without consideration of the effects on other equally legitimate group interests.

It became necessary to pass Federal legislation to protect the working people of our country against the abuses of employers.

It subsequently became necessary to pass legislation to protect the individual members of organized labor against fraudulent and abusive acts of some unprincipled leaders of labor unions and the trustees of labor union trust and pension funds.

We have passed Federal legislation against corporate and cartel practices that injured other businesses in the business community by illegally controlling production and establishing monopolistic prices in the marketplace.

In each of these areas of group interest it became necessary to enact laws which corrected abuses, and to modify by law and supporting rules and regulations the economic practices of those within a specific interest group. Each of these laws modified competition for the benefit of society.

The enactment of these laws concerning all of the specific interest groups ining all of the specific interest groups involved the balancing of their respective rights with rights of the other interest groups and for the general protection of our overall society.

The quality stabilization bill has as its purpose the protection of an important and, until now, an unprotected interest group in our society. This group consists of hundreds of thousands of small and medium sized retail merchants; and these merchants are the backbone-yes, the seedbed of the business system in our Nation. Small business is just as legitimate and just as entitled to perpetuation and protection as labor organizations and their members; as business interests threatened by cartel or corporate monopolies; as farmers threatened by cannibalistic forces in agricultural production and marketing.

I note with concern the opposition to quality stabilization legislation; legislation which protects the final element in the process of production and distribution-the retail merchant.

I grant the legal right of each selfish interest group to try to protect their selfish interest. Of course, I expect the discount houses and certain other chainstore operators to fight any attempt to regulate their bandit-type methods of price gimmicks, come-on tactics of distribution.

But I do not expect or condone the opposition to this legislation by organized labor unions. I do not need to defend my position with organized labor. Neither do Congressmen such as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable JOHN H. DENT; the gentleman from Indiana, the Honorable RAY MADDEN; the gentleman from California, the Honorable JOHN MOSS, and so forth. Neither do I need to defend the record of Senators such as the Honorable HUBERT HUMPHREY, the Honorable MIKE MONRONEY, the Honorable EUGENE MCCARTHY, and the Honorable JENNINGS RANDOLPH in the consideration they have given to the rights of labor. There are many other congressional friends of organized labor who support and will vote for the quality stabilization bill, as well.

I call upon all leaders of every organized labor union to review their position in opposition to the quality stabilization bill-not because many of their congres

sional friends are supporting it, but because its purposes and its principles are identical with the purposes and principles of Federal labor legislation. Such legislation protects the fair wages and working conditions of their unions and their members against scab labor and intolerable abuses of another self-interest group, unprincipled employers of labor. I challenge the leaders of organized labor to read the following 56 enumerated propositions and principles pertaining to the purpose of the quality stabilization bill.

After reading and studying these numbered items, I then would welcome any comment they might deem appropriate to refute the purposes and the principles of the quality stabilization legislation. QUALITY STABILIZATION LEGISLATION IS IN ACCORD WITH THESE PROPOSITIONS 1. That Matthew Woll, as vice president of the American Federation of Labor, correctly foresaw today's chaotic marketplace when he said: "The makers who sold at a price lower than anyone else could meet were once considered great benefactors; but now they are disliked, and the day will come when they will be considered criminals. Then a law will be passed permitting no manufacturer to sell at a price which does not show him a fair profit on top of a fair wage rate." 2. That quality stabilization will stabilize employment and will avoid skimping on labor as price competition on the product forces costs and consequent layoffs of factory labor the manufacturer to expect 15 men to do the work of 20.

3. That labor is the greatest consumer of goods it produces and should lead therefore in the demand for orderly marketing of quality branded goods-as essential to a stable

economy.

shop puts, as a minimum, one more family out of work, adding to the critical employment problem in this country.

4. That the closing of only one store or

5. Millions of union wage workers are engaged in production and selling brand name merchandise. Unless the distributive pattern for such merchandise is protected at every step, those workers' jobs will be imperiled.

6. That the predatory merchant, whose volume of sales comes predominantly from the wage earner, is an enemy of labor, because he uses advertising lures of brand name merchandise to unload inferior merchandise. 7. That much of the predatory merchant's tremendous and unholy profits come from foreign goods or inferior merchandise from low wage areas, neither category of goods

being made by union labor.

8. That quality stabilization is not "fair trade," is not "price fixing," and does not conflict with Federal or antitrust laws.

9. That quality stabilization stimulates incentive of the citizen to create, produce, and distribute new and better products to raise our level of living and national security.

10. That quality stabilization will incur no cost on the part of the Government for enforcement nor will it be to the detriment of the consumer.

11. That quality stabilization will provide encouragement to tomorrow's citizens to go into business for themselves; that without quality stabilization, only giants will be left and only those with huge capital will be able to go into business.

12. That quality stabilization will restore the confidence of the consumer by providing a standard of value to help make her selection in the marketplace-a standard against which to measure the quality of a product and to measure the fairness of applicable prices.

13. That labor, unless it supports quality stabilization, shall, by forfeiture, contribute to the destruction of its own basic principle of a fair wage, in this instance to the employer of labor.

14. That labor must lead the fight to keep domestic production standards high, and American quality supreme, in order to maintain security of jobs.

15. That quality stabilization is the only measure before Congress that can and will bolster the ability of the American manufacturer, distributor, and worker to compete on a value basis (quality of product as related to its price) in the intensely competitive world market.

16. That the welfare of labor and the welfare of the employer are interdependent, and are based on fair wages and fair profits.

17. That if labor's wages are to be stabilized and to grow, then the product creating those wages must be stabilized as to quality and price.

18. That quality stabilization will in the long run increase market demand and factory output by promoting fair competitionthus creating more stable jobs and more security for labor.

19. That quality stabilization is essential to the implementing of the established principles of the AFL-CIO to even strive to improve product and quality of workmanship.

20. That quality stabilization asks only that the U.S. manufacturer of a trademarked product be given the same protection and remedy as was given long ago by Congress to the foreign manufacturer of a trademarked product under the tariff law.

21. That the mushrooming growth of retail monopoly is a threat today to the AFL-CIO. 22. That labor's interest will be promoted by endorsing quality stabilization as necessary to the preservation of labor's own dignity, economic welfare, and security.

23. That quality stabilization enables the honest manufacturer of a quality brand name product and the ethical distributors of that product-to compete on a fair basis in the marketplace.

24. That quality stabilization promotes and encourages vigorous competition between the quality brand name product and all other goods, branded or unbranded, and stabilized under the Quality Stabilization Act or unstabilized.

25. That quality stabilization gives the consumer an unlimited range of choice of price and quality of product to best suit the consumer's needs.

26. That the present rampant "jungle warfare" in the marketplace is affecting the manufacturer's ability and incentive to create quality goods-thereby injuring labor and the consumer. It is causing a flight of industry to cheaper and cheaper labor areas here and abroad.

27. That President McKinley in an earlier era correctly admonished: "I do not prize the word 'cheap.' It is not a badge of honorit is a symbol of despair. Cheap prices make for cheap goods; cheap goods make for cheap men; and cheap men make for a cheap country."

28. That predatory price cutters, in the long run, hurt labor more than they can help labor.

29. That quality stabilization protects the quality-conscious manufacturer by stopping the predatory retailer who in his war of destruction against smaller competitors forces price (and quality) concessions and specifications upon the manufacturer.

30. That a manufacturer of a popular quality brand product may be driven out of one marketing area after another because smaller retailers will refuse to handle it at a loss.

31. That such manufacturer is confronted with increasing costs as his volume shrinks, and must cut quality to cut his costs.

32. That the manufacturer, to stay in business, may be forced to reduce costs, with quality materials being sacrificed for inferior materials and quality employees being sacrificed for those less skilled.

33. That the consumer (and wage earner) thus is often the innocent victim of deceptive pricing forcing in a vicious cycle lower and lower quality into the product-thus giving the consumer (and wage earner) less and less in value.

34. That substitutions of inferior labor and materials forced upon the manufacturer endanger public health and safety and depresses the market of labor.

35. That the New York Times of August 19, 1962, reported there were 153,000 shopkeepers in 1950 in the metropolitan area of New York, yet 10 years later the number had decreased from 153,000 to only 66,474-despite the enormous increase in population and sales.

36. That though the small businessman is the backbone of American economic strength, he is, at the same time, the stepchild of American Government, fighting against unfair competition, complicated tax laws, and conflicting regulations.

37. That the wholesaler and retailer find in their business today the stabilization of rent, employee salaries, freight rates, travel rates, light, gas, and power rates, advertising rates, etc.

38. That the wholesaler and retailer is thus confronted with stabilization of almost every aspect of his business except the right to earn a profit. He cannot earn a profit if practically every part of the distribution cost pattern is rigidly controlled and he is forced to earn his profit in a cutthroat competitive area of profit margin.

39. That leaders of communism boast they can take over this country if the small businessman is put out of business-which is happening today at an alarming rate.

40. That United Press International has issued stories quoting discount house enthusiasts as saying "their movement is going to take over, lock stock and barrel, before 1970, 80 percent of the retail business of the country."

41. That unfair and predatory pricecutting retailers frankly confess that they use well-known quality brand name products as leaders to lure the unsuspecting consumer into their store.

42. That the discounter openly confesses he tests the value of his advertising of popular trademarked products, not by how many units he sells of that product, but by "how many people does the advertising bring into the store."

43. That there is overwhelming endorsement of quality stabilization provisions to retard injury to the consumer by helping check the evil practices of "bait and switch" tactics and misrepresentation of well-known quality brand name products.

44. That the predatory merchant promotes automation and less manpower, with one of his major goals the attainment of unattended or robot retailing.

45. That necessary to robot retailing is still greater reliance by predatory merchants on the well-known quality brand name product presold because of its quality and price by its manufacturer to the consumer-thus posing even greater danger for the manufacturer and employees making that product.

46. That courts and regulatory agencies in opposing orderly marketing on the pretext that such programs are antimonopoly are that such programs are antimonopoly are in fact fostering and encouraging the most vicious form of monopoly-retail monopoly.

47. That if the United States is the land of free, individual enterprise, then the manufacturer must be able to exercise the same rights and privileges with respect to the merchandising of his products as retailers have in their private brands.

48. That quality stabilization will put the smaller manufacturer on an equitable footing with giant competitors using factoryowned retail outlets, with retailer-owned brand names, with consignment selling, with direct door-to-door selling, etc.-all of which practices are now lawful.

49. That research will come to a halt if the new product-the fruit of that research-is to be torpedoed in the marketplace as soon as the product is made available to the public.

50. That quality stabilization is uniquean example of free, competitive enterprise at its best-in providing an essential private remedy on an optional basis. It cannot be enforced in the sale of a monopoly item. There must always be similar competitive items available to the consumer, thereby protecting the consumer against prices based on a monopoly.

51. That quality stabilization will give the small ethical businessman a new lease on life to provide for the consumer the service and the assortment of necessary but slowmoving items that the "fast buck" operator cannot and will not provide.

52. That loss of taxation revenue of Government-at all levels-resulting from the "swallowing up" of the smaller ethical merchant and manufacturer can be reversed by enactment of quality stabilization.

53. That the honest citizen and the honest manufacturer should each have the right to protect his good name against defamation.

54. That implicit in quality stabilization is the right of a reseller to engage in any practices that may injure the reseller's name-so long as that reseller does not involve the brand name or goodwill of the trademark owner.

55. That under quality stabilization no manufacturer will be restrained from building the best product he can, or the cheapest product he thinks he can sell with or without any pricing restrictions at the retail level.

56. That quality stabilization will survive and serve only if it is good; that it will quickly die if it does not fulfill its purpose.

UNMARRED WILDERNESS AREAS

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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to again express my desire to see legislation enacted which will guarantee us and fumarred wilderness areas. ture generations the resource of un

Back on February 18, 1963, I introduced H.R. 3878, a bill to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people. On November 7, 1963, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] introduced a bill, H.R. 9070, also for establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System.

I am in agreement with the bill introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] and have introduced a bill today identical to his. By this means I wish to indicate my wholehearted support for establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] indicated in remarks before this House on November 7, 1963,

that he believes his bill is one on which we can all agree. I certainly hope that his prediction is true and that each of us will understand the long-range and farreaching favorable effects that we can achieve for the people of the United States by passage of H.R. 9070.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] has fully explained the content of his bill, and so I shall not take time to go into that at this time. I would like to reemphasize, however, that in his remarks the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] made clear that the measure requires no expenditures beyond those that would be called for in any case in administering the park, refuge, or forest lands for their presently established purposes.

The objectives of the wilderness bill would be achieved through, first, the declaration of a national policy; second, the designation by Congress of wilderness areas; third, the provision of guidelines for the use and administration of the areas involved; and fourth, certain other provisions related to gifts, bequests, contributions, inholdings, records, and reports.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are few pieces of legislation that come before this House that offer so many benefits for so few demands.

The concept of preserving wilderness and wildlife areas as the public domain and for the use of all the people is not new in American history. It reached probably its finest hour under the Federal administration of the late President Theodore Roosevelt. It is accepted in the organizations and areas of life most concerned with preservation of wilderness areas that a great national public debt is owed the work of President Theodore Roosevelt. The extent to which our national life has been enriched by his enlightened leadership in this field more than a half century ago, can never be measured.

our

But the continuing growth of our Nation and population calls for continuing programs to preserve the great natural resources with which we have been blessed. This bill, H.R. 9070, is designed to establish such a program.

It is, indeed, the very factors in our present highly mechanized society which threaten our wilderness areas, that make preservation of those same wilderness areas essential.

Streamlined strips of glistening white concrete are essential to our national life and the fast pace of transportation on which it is dependent. But I submit that a rustic canoe trail through lands covered with trees, untouched by smoke and soot, exhaust fumes and noise, also has a good deal to contribute to our national way of life.

Tractors are more efficient than horses and cellophane packaged meat in the supermarket is much more handy-and necessary than a hunting trip to find meat for the table. But I submit that a protected wildlife range can open up wonderful new worlds with wonderful effect on people both young and old.

To lose through neglect, negligence, or apathy, the natural wilderness and wildlife resources with which we are en

dowed, means to give up forever a source of enjoyment and benefit for our people for generations to come.

SHIPS IN CUBAN TRADE SHOULD NOT CARRY AMERICAN WHEAT TO RUSSIA

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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I have just received a report listing a total of 196 ships of various flags which have carried cargoes to Cuban ports since January 1, 1963. This is in spite of the fact that the United States called on our allies and free world nations to join us in boycotting Communist Cuba.

I have urged that the Department of Commerce blacklist these foreign ships which have traded with Castro and be prohibited from carrying any grain exported to Russia under license of our Government. While I personally disapprove of the surplus grain sale to the Soviet Union I would certainly feel much Soviet Union I would certainly feel much worse about this situation if shipowners that have ignored our economic boycott were allowed to profit from this wheat deal.

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

Mr. SISK: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 565. Resolution for consideration of H.R. 9009, a bill to amend further the Peace Corps Act, as amended; without amendment (Rept. No. 895). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. STEED: Committee of conference.

H.R. 6868, a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 896). Ordered to be printed.

H.R. 9103. A bill for the relief of Saadet

S. 2032. An act to authorize a study of methods of helping to provide financial

assistance to victims of future flood disasters; to the Committee on Banking and asters; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

S. 2079. An act to provide for the striking

of three different medals in commemoration of the Federal Hall National Memorial,

Judiciary.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

440. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Joseph F. Lamb, supreme secretary, Knights of

Columbus, New Haven, Conn., urging passage of Senate bill 108 making Columbus Day a national legal holiday; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

441. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., to make it a crime to circulate Canadian coins within the United States of America; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

442. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., to censure Secretary of State Rusk for attempting to say Congress is not definitely a very vital part of U.S. foreign policy; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

443. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., to make a study of staged political photography and pictures, especially those involving presidential can

didates; to the Committee on House Administration.

444. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., to restore the subjunctive mood in the writing of all legissubjunctive mood in the writing of all legislation where said mood be necessary and grammatically correct; to the Committee on House Administration.

445. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., relative to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and subscribing thereto; to the Committee on House Administration.

446. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., requesting passage of a resolution congratulating Hollywood Actress Elizabeth Taylor as the "greatest inspiration to American and world womanhood since Eve"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

447. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., requesting an amendment to the 12th amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the election of the President of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

448. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., requesting legislation to permit the use of our official motto "In God We Trust" on postage metered mail; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

449. Also, petition of Henry Stoner, General Delivery, Worland, Wyo., to pass a resolution requesting the President to permit anyone on his staff at the White House with the surname of Lincoln, to sleep one night in the Lincoln bed during their tenure at the White House; to the Committee on Public Works.

Washington Report

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BRUCE ALGER

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, November 12, 1963

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following newsletter of November 9, 1963. WASHINGTON REPORT: BIG SPENDERS CONTINUE FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY

(By Congressman BRUCE ALGER of Texas) The foolish fiscal policies of the Kennedy administration were given another boost this week in a close vote to increase the debt ceiling to $315 billion. The bill, H.R. 8969, passed 187 to 179.

Some Members, of which I am one, are tired of picking up the tab for the big spenders who vote for the appropriations and against the debt ceiling. We consistent opponents of such spending may encourage a more statesmanlike approach to Federal spending by refusing to support continued increases in a high level debt ceiling.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

1. The demand by President Kennedy for a $315 billion debt ceiling shows clearly that he has abandoned every effort to reduce expenditures.

(a) When the tax bill was before the House, the President and his spokesmen, promised Congress and the people that a tax cut would be supported by responsible restraint on spending. Since that promise was made and the tax cut bill passed by the House, the administration has asked for increased spending in every bill presented to Congress.

2. President Kennedy and the Democratic leaders have increased yearly spending to the point where by fiscal 1965 it will be $23 billion above the level for fiscal 1962 and they have increased the public debt by $25 billion in the same period.

3. The administration has demanded three increases in the debt ceiling this year.

4. The $315 billion debt ceiling implies a spending level in fiscal 1964 of $99 billion, which is entirely too high.

These brief facts prove that Federal spending is entirely out of hand. Yet the proponents of the debt ceiling increase tell us we must not try to control such spending, or the rate of spending, by use of the tools at hand. A realistic debt ceiling has a place

in spending. Indeed, it is the only statutory limit on Federal spending, but it is meaningless if we spend without regard to the ceiling and continually increase the ceiling to cover spending irresponsibility.

A PRACTICAL METHOD FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY My own proposal for fiscal responsibility and protecting the peoples' money:

1. An annual balanced budget (Alger bill H.J. Res. 7): Congress should not adjourn any year until such a balance is reached.

2. An agonizing reappraisal of spending priorities. All nonessential spending should be eliminated and public works programed only within the limits of a balanced budget.

A TOUGH DECISION

Legislative processes are far from simple. There are few instances in casting his vote that a Congressman is faced with an issue clearly outlined in black and white. There are always large gray areas. A good case in point was the vote in the House this week on the conference report on H.R. 6143, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963.

When this bill was first presented to the House I fought it with all my energies. I am opposed to Federal aid to education and this measure was a part of the whole program to put the Federal Government in the field of education. In spite of the efforts of those who opposed the bill on principle, the House passed it and it was sent to the Senate where it was drastically changed. This meant the bill then had to go to conference to work out a version acceptable to both

bodies.

At this point it is imperative to note the difference between original House legislation and a conference report.

The fight for principle must be made in the debate and vote on original legislation. Once the bill has been acted upon by the House the fight for the principle involved has been won or lost at that time.

A conference report is a procedural matter. It is voted up or down, not on the principle involved, but on whether or not the House believes its conferees did a good job of representing the House position on the particular bill at issue.

On the conference report on the Higher Education Facilities Act, the House conferees did maintain the House position and the Senate conferees receded. That was the issue. I voted "yes" in support of the House conferees. Such a vote is not a vote for Federal aid to schools.

The lesson to be learned by many of us in this is that the fight for good legislation must be made when bills first come before the House. Many times, good conservatives will compromise on original legislation on the theory that it can be improved later when it is returned from conference. Legis

lative processes just don't work that way. The principle of the bill is established at the time it is first passed and any subsequent action will be merely on disputed points, not a vote involving the principle of the legislation.

The Honorable John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Recipient of the Cardinal Gibbons Medal

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. CLIFFORD DAVIS

OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, November 12, 1963

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, along with a number of my colleagues, I was privileged to attend the dinner on November 2, 1963, when our distinguished and beloved Speaker was presented the 1963 Cardinal Gibbons Medal awarded to him by the Alumni Association of the Catholic University of America at the Shoreham Hotel. He delivered one of the most inspiring and challenging speeches I have ever heard him deliver, and, in my years in the House, I have heard him make some excellent ones.

Under leave to extend my remarks I am including the statement made by the board of governors of the alumni association when they met last June to choose the recipient of this year's Cardinal Gibbons Medal. It is so expressive of his contribution to his Government, the Catholic Church, and the Catholic University of America that I am asking that it be included as a part of my remarks, together with this splendid speech delivered by the Speaker:

STATEMENT OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS When the board of governors of the alumni association met last June to choose the recipient of this year's Cardinal Gibbons Medal, which is established to honor one who has made an outstanding contribution to either the United States of America, the Catholic Church, or the Catholic University of America, it unanimously chose a man eminently

During the 70th Congress, he came to Washington, D.C., to fill the unexpired term of the late James A. Gallivan. He served in the following nine consecutive Congresses, and in the 81st and 82d Congresses he was majority leader, and in the 83d Congress was a Democratic whip. He served as a Member of the 84th, 85th, and 86th Congresses, and the 1st session of the 87th Congress he was again majority leader, and was Speaker for the 2d session of the 87th and the 88th Congress.

He has been awarded honorary degrees of LL.D. by a host of famous colleges and universities, including the Catholic University of America, and, he has had an impressive number of honors awarded him. His mem

berships include the Order of Malta First Class; Knight Commander, Order of St. Gregory the Great; Grand Commander of the Royal Order of the Phoenix, with Star; and many others too numerous to mention.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JOHN W. MCCORMACK, SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Toastmaster, right reverend, very reverend monsignors, reverend fathers, reverend sisters, my dear friends and distinguished colleagues of the National House of Representatives, the great American who has dedicated his entire life, both in war and in peace, to the best interests of our country, General Gruenther; distinguished and invited guests, ladies, and gentlemen, I am very conscious of the honor that has been bestowed upon me by the Alumni Association of the Catholic University of America in presenting the 1963 Cardinal Gibbons Medal to me. It is true that a man in public life can become the recipient sometimes of many honors, and equally true that these must naturally fall into some gradation of importance assigned by the individual himself.

May I assure the members of the Catholic University Alumni Association that this present award, combining as it does the distinction of being honored by the National Pontifical University and the memory, still fresh and still impressive, of so great a Catholic churchman as James Cardinal Gibbons was, brings me a feeling of great humility and deep appreciation.

The Cardinal Gibbons Medal, as the president of your association reminded you, should be awarded to a person who has made a contribution to the church, the Nation, or the university. Any man in public life hopes to be able to make some contribution, however small it might be. It is never as great as a man would want it to be. But I am grateful to all of you for considering me for this award, and I am all the more closely touched by it because of the man whose name it bears.

The honor that comes to me through this award is all the more valued since it bears the name of one of the truly great Americans of our time. Less than a half century ago we were living in the "age of James Gibbons," and the impress of his life of deep faith, of his remarkable personality and farseeing leadership has left many a monument.

This great university, a landmark of Catholic education throughout the Nation, is to a considerable extent the legacy of his

foresight. foresight. As the first chancellor of the Catholic University of America, he played a significant role in guiding its early years. In fact, what is there in the Catholic Church in this area—indeed in the entire Nation that does not bear the mark of his genius? How much did the great papal encyclicals on labor owe to the cardinal's unfailing championship of the American workingman? How much does the splendid patriotism of American Catholics, tested in so many trials and conflicts, reflect the outspoken love of country that was a hallmark of the great

cardinal?

And not only this, but James Cardinal Gibbons was a man far ahead of his times. He is perhaps the first great ecumenist in the hierarchy of the American church. He possessed extraordinary courage, the courage of action, and when advisable, the courage of silence. Above all, what Cardinal Gibbons stood for was genuine and complete Catholicism in entire harmony with a genuine and complete Americanism. He would have been very much at home with Pope John, very much at home with Pope Paul. He saw his role as a national figure in the light of his own great charity for all races, for all nations, and for all religions. The Ecumenical Council meeting in Rome this very week would find in him a great spokes

indications that you are still moving forward in both the scientific and the humanistic components of the well-balanced education.

And such forward progress is the hallmark of American education today. As this Nation makes incomparable strides forward in its scientific knowledge, as it reaches out literally to grasp the moon within the arms of its technical comprehension, it must move forward with equal steps toward a broadening and a deepening of its cultural and intellectual life. No one who faces the future can deny that scientific know-how and technical appreciation of new forces must be one of the keystones of national greatness. This Nation cannot afford to slow down in its quest, already well begun, to master the forces of nature in a nuclear age.

On the other hand again, many of us, especially those of us who are responsible to a small or great degree, for the policy and the progress of this Nation, see that there is only disaster in closing our eyes to the arts as we concentrate on the sciences. This has been the lesson taught by the Catholic University, and by every institution of higher learning in the United States today.

When the House of Representatives passed its bill providing for assistance to institutions of higher learning, these thoughts were in our minds. They provided the motivation

The Catholic University of America is this year celebrating its diamond jubilee. The University of the American Bishops has a right to be proud of its contributions to the church and the Nation during the past 75 years. One of the very first of the universities organized by the Catholic Church and the only one in the Nation of pontifical status. It has blazed a bright trail through the educational history of the United States. Outstanding scholars have always found the university as a congenial home and the history of the church in America has been influenced greatly by the administrators, faculty, and alumni of this great institution.

The clarion call of this university, as indeed of all Catholic education has been the insistence of the preparation of the wellrounded man. The university has firmly rejected the idea of education which focuses on the technician as a human machine rather than as a human person, even as it has also rejected the notion that the liberal arts today can prosper in a heavily technical world by ignoring the great contemporary movements in science, much as an ostrich with its head firmly planted in the sand.

The Catholic University has given evidence of its forward thinking, and as well of its balanced judgment concerning the needs of education today. Your university was one of the very first to obtain a nuclear reactor, one of the pioneers in establishing a department of the space sciences, one of the most forward thinking of the engineering schools in the country. And, I know, the Catholic University stands ready even today to meet the challenging opportunity of a world in scientific transition.

On the other hand, the Catholic University has never lost sight of the humanistic and spiritual values that must go into the process of formation of the whole man. Alongside this new technological growth, the university has kept pace in the field of arts and letters. Your splendid plans for a new university theater, the thriving bureau of social research established a short time ago, the continuing excellence of the departments of humane studies which was crowned last June by the award of more Woodrow Wilson fellowships to your students than to any other university in the area; finally, the insistence on graduate studies where Catholic University makes its unequalled contribution to American higher education—all these are

all types of higher education, including the arts and the humanities, and not restricted to the scientific and technological. Senator Secretary of Health, Education, and WelRIBICOFF of Connecticut, himself a former

fare, in pleading for the House orientation of the education bill from the floor of the Senate last month, did not hesitate to prefer the broader purposes of the House bill, saying, "Higher education needs support in all fields. It simply cannot be argued that funds should be used to aid the teaching of physics, but not the teaching of foreign languages, to aid the teaching of biology but not the teaching of economics, to aid the teaching of botany but not the teaching of history" (RECORD, p. 19483).

Educators throughout the country have seen the need of expanded support for education which would include as equal sisters, the fields of arts and the humanities.

Sena

tor PROUTY of Vermont, in defending the House bill several weeks ago in the Senate, called the attention of that body to the fact that he had received messages from hundreds of college and university presidents on this issue, 96 percent of them being in favor of unrestricted aid that could be applied to the arts and humane studies as well as to the strictly scientific. He went on to warn: "Downgrade the arts and huIf manities and you downgrade America. we downgrade the arts and the humanities, American education will be flying on one wing."

Monsignor McDonald, your own rector, made a plea of great importance at the Catholic University's June commencement, this year. He called for a national foundation based on the National Science Foundation, which would provide aid to outstanding young men and women who choose the arts and humanities as their field of graduate research; similar financial support as is today given to those who dedicate themselves to research in the sciences. I welcome the thoughtful suggestion of the rector of the Catholic University of America. It is a most constructive suggestion, worthy of every consideration.

The battle for the future will be, as has been said before, a battle for men's minds. To the nation with the greatest understanding of the truth-of the whole truth-of the truth in science and the truth in culture, to this Nation belongs tomorrow. And today's struggle is to prepare the minds of our young men and women with a grasp of