Mr. President, the United States-Japan Trade Council declares that if the United States succeeds in maintaining its present share of the Japanese markets for coal, this country can expect to have an annual 16-million-ton trade with Japan by 1970. We certainly should strive mightily to share in such a market participation and growth, but it becomes more obvious as time and competition march on that we must reduce the delivered price of coal at the points of destination in Japan. We must especially seek to reduce Panama Canal tolls if we are to succeed in attaining a 16-million-ton trade with Japan or anything close to that order of magnitude. In a recent communication to the Honorable Frederick G. Dutton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, I wrote that coal mined in West Virginia and exported to Japan is a subject of vital concern to West Virginians. I added that there are disturbing indications that shipping costs, including Panama Canal tolls, are disadvantages which must be overcome if our markets in Japan are not to be taken over by Australian, Canadian, Communist Chinese, or Soviet Union suppliers. I requested a copy of a report prepared by the U.S. Embassy staff in Tokyo, discussing problems of Japanese imports of coking coal from the United States. In transmitting a copy of the report, Assistant Secretary Dutton made this important observation: In looking into the question of possible steps to facilitate coal exports to Japan, the Department [of State] has learned from a Panama Canal official in Washington that the average tool per ton of coal is considerably less than the amount (about $1) mentioned in the attached report. Ships transiting the canal are charged on the basis of 90 cents per measurement ton. However, coal ships carry on the average a much larger amount of coal than indicated by the theoretical measurement tonnage capacity. As a result, the average toll per ton of coal actually carried was 442 cents in fiscal 1962, according to Panama Canal calculations. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: PROSPECTS FOR U.S. COKING COAL EXPORTS TO JAPAN INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Coking coal is one of the principal Japanese imports from the United States. In 1962, the steel and gas producing industry imported 5.3 million metric tons valued at approximately $110 million, c.i.f. Japan from the United States. However, while States have been rising over the past 5 years, the proportion of the total imported from the United States has been falling. In 1958, imports from the United States were 79.6 percent of the total and this proportion fell to 55.9 percent in 1962. Over the past 5 years, Australia has enjoyed the greatest increase in exports of joyed the greatest increase in exports of coking coal to Japan, rising from 7 percent of the total in 1958 to 27 percent in 1962. Imports from Canada have also shown sigImports from Canada have also shown significant increases. Japanese steel industry and trading company representatives visited the United States in January and February 1963 and negotiated price reductions with U.S. coal producers and also held discussions with railroad and U.S. Government officials in efforts to obtain reductions in U.S. inland freight and Panama Canal toll charges with apparently little immediate success. Officials of the Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates of Boston, one of the largest exporters of U.S. coking coal to Japan, visited Japan for several weeks in May and June 1963 to discuss sales prospects with the Japanese steel industry and the Embassy. The Embassy arranged a discussion at which some of the major problems involved were aired. The steel industry representatives made clear at this and subsequent discussions that further reductions in the landed price of U.S. coking coal were necessary if the U.S. industry is to remain competitive with some of its rivals. The principal rivals are the Australians and Canadians who offer medium volatile coal at attractive enough prices to induce the Japanese industry to develop technology permitting greater substitution of coals from these countries for edly indicated that this price could be met on future deliveries as well. The low price Australian and Canadian medium volatile coals are not only cutting into the sales of U.S. coal of similar quality but encourage the Japanese to find ways of substituting these coals for U.S. low volatile coal which sell for $13.50 per metric ton, cost and freight, Japan, currently. An additional consideration is the low price of Soviet Kuznetsky "K-10" low volatile coal which is currently being sold at the cost and freight price of $14.75. The Embassy understands that this coal is mined in the Urals, must travel about 4,000 miles by railroad to a Pacific port and is quoted f.o.b. Soviet port at $11.95 per metric ton which would seem to be hardly enough to cover the cost of inland freight alone. One steel company executive categorized the Soviet prices as "political" and said the Japanese industry recognizes that it cannot consider this source of supply as dependable. Nonetheless, the industry believes it can increase its dependence on this source somewhat over the present level (a little less than 10 percent of metallurgical coal imports). STEEL INDUSTRY COAL MISSION VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES In January and February 1963 the heads of the raw materials purchasing departments of four leading Japanese steel companies vis the admittedly higher quality (but higher ited the United States in the company of priced even when quality differences are discounted) U.S. coal. The U.S.S.R. is a direct competitor with the United States in that it has been selling low volatile coking coal approximately matching the U.S. coal in quality at considerably lower prices. The Eastern Fuel representatives noted that they had reduced their prices to the minimum and that any further reductions would have to be achieved by reductions in transportation charges. They felt that negotiations with the railroads were proceeding satisfactorily and that some reductions in freight rates might be achieved. They, and the Japanese steel industry representatives, asked that the U.S. Government also cooperate in this effort by examining the possibility of reducing Panama Canal charges. In further discussions with representatives of the steel industry in July, the Embassy was told that with present price trends, long-range prospects for the U.S. coking coals are distinctly unfavorable. The industry sources stated that there will always be a market for U.S. coals because of their high quality and the fact that the United States is a dependable source of supply. However, losing out completely on the growth of the the U.S. coal industry faces the prospect of metallurgical coal market in Japan as increasing substitutions for high quality coals are made and the Japanese industry cautiously increases its imports of high quality coal from the U.S.S.R. BACKGROUND Coking coal imported from the United States has in the past been of both medium and low volatile types. Within recent years, the U.S. producers lost out on much of the growing market for medium volatile coal in Japan to Australia primarily because of price. Australian coal, according to data made available to the Embassy by the Japanese steel industry, is currently priced at between $13.10 and $13.76 per metric ton, cost and freight, Japan. Price quotations on similar U.S. coal of medium volatility given the Embassy range between $16.65 and $17.35 per metric ton, cost and freight, Japan. The Canadians have been marketing a medium volatile coal at $15.54 per metric ton, cost and freight, Japan, this year, but a recent sale of 100,000 metric tons was made at $13.50 and the Canadian supplier report several trading company representatives primarily to discuss price reductions with U.S. coal exporters. They also talked with the Norfolk & Western and Chesapeake & Ohio Railroads and visited Washington in the company of Stephen F. Dunn, president of the National Coal Association, and Mr. W. B. Ross, senior vice president of Eastern Gas & Fuel Association. The four Japanese steel industry officials present were Mr. T. Wagatsuma, director and manager of purchase department, Yawata Iron & Steel Co.; Mr. S. Tanabee, manager of raw materials department, Fuji Iron & Steel Co.; Mr. O. Murata, manager of raw materials department, Nippon Steel Tube Co. (Nippon Kokan); and Mr. H. Shio, manager of raw materials department, Kawasaki Steel Co. The Japanese steel industry representative reportedly emphasized the necessity for obtaining reductions in Panama Canal rates in order to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. coal in the Japanese market. The results of the trip to the United States were a reduction in the price of coal from at least some of the U.S. exporters, some progress in obtaining serious consideration by the U.S. railroads to reduce freight rates to tidewater, but (according to the Japanese steel executives) little hope in obtaining changes in Panama Canal rates. On the contrary, they understand that canal tolls may soon be revised upward. EASTERN GAS AND FUEL ASSOCIATES VISIT TO JAPAN For several weeks in late May and early June, Mr. Eli Goldston, president, and Mr. William B. Ross, senior vice president of Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates of Boston, visited Japan to discuss coal exporting problems with the Japanese steel industry. They visited the Embassy several times and explained the problems they were having in maintaining and increasing their sales in the Japanese market. They noted that Eastern now sells approximately 1 million tons of coal to Japan and that it is considering the an investment of about $9 million which is opening of a new mine in West Virginia at expected to be able to produce about 1 million tons annually. In order to make the new mine a paying proposition, Eastern believes it must have reasonable assurances of being able to export about half of the mine's output to Japan. They are consequently looking for new long-term contracts with Japanese consumers for 400,000 tons annually. The Eastern executives observed that their plans correspond with two important U.S. Government objectives: (1) the export promotion program and (2) the program to economically rehabilitate rehabilitate West Virginia. They expressed the hope therefore that the U.S. Government would provide assistance to Eastern's efforts in those areas where the Government can properly do so. They felt there were two ways in which this could be done. In the first place, the Embassy could be of assistance in holding a conference with the Japanese steel industry representatives who had visited the United States several months earlier with the objective of giving their case a sympathetic hearing and, most importantly, providing by this action a symbolic indication of the interest of the U.S. Government in promoting this important export to Japan. The second area in which the Eastern executives felt the U.S. Government could properly be of assistance is to give serious consideration to the possibilities of reducing the Panama Canal toll charges which currently amount to about $1 per ton of coal moving through the canal. They noted that canal charges are based solely on weight which unfairly discriminates against bulk cargoes. They thought that if the matter were given serious study, bearing in mind the advantages that could accrue to the United States and the canal authorities through the potential increase in bulk cargo movements to Japan following toll reductions, a solution might be found. EMBASSY CONFERENCE WITH JAPANESE STEEL EXECUTIVES On June 4, 1963, the economic counselor hosted a meeting with the four steel company executives who had visited the United State earlier in the year. Present were the two Eastern executives, the Deputy Chief of Mission, the Commercial Attaché and the reporting officer. The discussion was very frank and centered on the competitiveness of Soviet K-10 coal with the U.S. product. The steel executives agreed with the contention of the Eastern representatives that they could not reasonably expect further significant reductions in the price of coal from the U.S. producers. They felt, however, that the railroads should cut their inland freight rates and observed that inland freight rates from mine to tidewater for coal destined to U.S. east coast markets are con siderably lower than those for coal destined abroad. They mentioned the Panama Canal toll problem but felt that this was one of primary concern to the United States. EMBASSY COMMENT Neither the Japanese steel executives nor the Eastern representatives indicated that U.S. coking coal exports to Japan are likely to be reduced significantly in absolute terms as the result of more attractive alternative offers being received from other sources. Steel industry representatives have on a number of occasions told the Embassy that they value the dependable source of supply of this commodity provided by the United States. We believe, however, that the U.S. coal industry does run the risk of losing out of its share in the market growth for imported coking coals in Japan. The Japanese steel industry hopes to achieve a production of 48 million tons of crude steel by 1970 and will, therefore, require ever-increasing quantities of imported coking coals. (Domestic production is limited and mostly of fairly poor quality.) Imports of coking coal in 1962 amounted to about 9.6 million tons. These are expected to rise to almost 15 million tons by 1970. In the meanwhile, over the past several years, imports of U.S. coking coal appear to have plateaued out at slightly over 5 million tons. While changes in technology which require lesser amounts of high quality coals for blast furnace charging may be responsible for part of the relative reduction in demand for U.S. coking coals, more attractive (in terms of price) alternative opportunities for importing coal have probably played an important role in the development of these processes which require less of the U.S. coals. While it is not likely that Soviet low volatile coking coal would ever completely replace U.S. coal in the Japanese market, the price advantage offered by the Soviets increases the possibility that the Japanese steel industry will give the Soviets a greater share of its increased demand than might be the case if the price differential were not so great. One steel company executive thought that the industry may be willing to increase its imports of Soviet and Communist China coking coal from the present 11.5 percent of total metallurgical coal imports to 20 percent in the near future. While the Japanese industry representatives have talked much of the direct competition between Soviet and U.S. coal, the indirect competition with medium volatile Australian and Canadian coal is at least as important. The Japanese have become accustomed to using U.S. coking coal and find generally that it mixes best with the lower quality Japanese varieties. They are reluctant to shift to other varieties of coal but have been doing so to an increasing extent over the past several years because of the Embassy representatives questioned the price advantages offered by these alternative value of canal toll reductions since, in total cost and freight price of coal landed in Japan, these rates amount to only $1 approximately of the $18.50 total price. The Japanese steel representatives replied that they did not expect, even with the most sincere effort on the U.S. part, to achieve reductions in the cost and freight price of coal down to the level in which it would be directly competitive with Soviet coal. They felt strongly, however, that the U.S. side must bring the price down to a level somewhat closer to the Soviet political price if they were to be able to continue to justify buying U.S. coal in the future. By implication, they indicated that even a small reduction in the Panama Canal rates would be helpful in this regard. In discussing the possibilities of increasing imports of Soviet coal, the steel executives made clear that they understood the dangers of becoming overdependent on that source. It was for that reason, as well as the traditional friendliness toward the United States, that they will continue to buy U.S. coal even though it is several dollars higher in price than Soviet coal of similar quality. sources. Direct price comparisons are difficult to make since even among coals which are generally similar, differences in ash, sulfur and volatile matter can have considerable significance. Japanese industry sources have been reluctant to discuss the price reductions required to make U.S. coal more competitive with similar varieties elsewhere but one trading company representative stated that U.S. coals, depending on variety, can be priced from 5 to 20 percent above Canadian and Australian coals and still be competitive. The head of the raw materials purchasing department of a major steel company said it was his personal opinion that a reduction of $1 to $2 per ton in the landed price of U.S. coal should be adequate to maintain competitive status. OPEN SPACES LAND GRANTS IN NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Independent Offices Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported language on open spaces land grants which would continue the eligibility for grants under this program to Maryland and Virginia communities contiguous with the District of Columbia. These areas had been singled out by the House committee as no longer eligible for assistance because they had already received substantial grants under this program. In the statement which I made before the Senate subcommittee, I rejected completely the idea that the National Capital area should be penalized because of its ability to qualify quickly for Federal assistance, and to expend substantial sums of its own money for open space lands. I urged the subcommittee to take action to set aside the direction contained in the House committee report. If allowed to stand, the language of the House committee report would have had a most serious and unfortunate effect not only on Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, but also on the entire National Capital area. I am pleased that the report of the Senate committee specifically bars the unfair and discriminatory exclusion of a significant geographic area from a law meant to apply equally throughout the country. The area between Washington and Baltimore is one of the fastest growing regions of the country. The urban population in Montgomery County increased 136 percent between 1950 and 1960. In Prince Georges County, the increase was 112 percent. Clearly this increase in population results in many thousands of acres of once open space land being lost to homes, streets, shopping centers, and parking lots. I am proud to say that the Maryland counties in the National Capital area have been foresighted in providing the necessary local funds to match Federal contributions, thereby acquiring fast disappearing undeveloped land for urgently needed park, conservation, and historic purposes. I urge all communities to take advantage of this important program, and ask Ernest Baugh appearing in the Monday unanimous consent that the article by edition of the Baltimore Sun be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WASHINGTON AND BALTIMORE: PATUXENT The Maryland State government, through a 1961 act of the general assembly, is committed to the development of an open strip or greenbelt along the Patuxent River from Frederick County to tidewater. So, too, are the counties bordering the river: Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Howard, Montgomery, Prince Georges, and St. Marys. The reasons for that commitment are increasingly urgent. The Baltimore and Washington metropolitan areas are expanding rapidly and threaten to merge into each other. Planning experts are in agreement that the areas should be kept separated for the good of each and that the place for division is the Patuxent, a natural open-space separator and reserve. The preamble of the 1961 act is quite specific. It reads in part: "The legislature finds that the Patuxent River and the land bordering thereon constitute some of Maryland's most scenic natural or esthetic assets, and that rapid growth and spread of urban development is encroaching upon or eliminating many of these bordering lands. "It is the intent of the legislature to provide means whereby the State department of forests and parks with [the seven counties] may cooperatively provide for the protection of the said Patuxent River and for the acquisition and use of the lands bordering thereon, so that the harmful effects of flooding, silting and erosion by the expansion of urban development may be discontinued or eliminated. "The legislature declares that it is necessary *** to expend or advance public funds for, or to accept by, purchase, gift, grant, bequest, devise or lease, the fee or any lesser interest or right in real property to acquire, maintain, improve, protect or limit the future use of lands bordering on, and within, the Patuxent River watershed." The State's general improvement loan of 1961 carried an appropriation of $150,000 for the purchase by the State of property along the Patuxent or for contributions toward such purchases by the participating counThe general improvement loan of 1963 carried two similar appropriations amounting to $500,000. Several of the counties either have money available for land acquisitions or are taking steps toward that end. But to be realistic, the money on hand or in sight is insufficient. Development of the envisioned greenbelt is a big undertaking, involving as much as 40,000 acres of land and maybe more. Because of the lack of sufficient money in sight, there is no timetable for the fulfillment of the project. However, there is, as noted, the statutory commitment by the State and the seven counties and there are signs that progress is accelerating. The most promising sign was last week's approval of a general Montgomery-Prince Georges plan to acquire 18,000 acres of land, all of it, of course, within the boundaries of those two counties or, to put it another way, only on the Washington side of the river. The major portion of that tract (16,000 acres) would be in Prince Georges County and would be in a continuous strip running downriver from Laurel to almost the Charles County line. The 2,000 acres in Montgomery County would be along streams tributary to the Patuxent, primarily the Hawlings. Another promising sign of accelerated progress also came last week when the Senate Independent Offices Subcommittee wrote into the $15 million Federal open-spaces bill a provision making Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia eligible for grants under the measure. A bar against eligibility for the three jurisdictions had been raised in the House on the ground that they had been given more than their share of open-space money under a current appropriation. If the House accepts the Senate action, Federal money for the Patuxent project will be available. Unfortunately, the State has been moving slowly with its share in the greenbelt development. It is supposed to buy a total of about 8,500 acres, including a large tract along the upper reaches of the river above the Triadelphia Reservoir, a smaller tract between that reservoirs' dam and the Rocky Gorge Reservoir and a relatively narrow strip to carry the greenbelt through the Laurel area. State work to date has involved surveying in the main. To refer to the two reservoirs is to refer to the one really bright spot in the whole greenbelt plan. The reservoirs are the base of the water supply system for Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties and are under the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. About 5,700 acres of open land surrounding the reservoirs are owned by the counties and so are within the public domain and reserved for greenery. Howard County is just beginning to tackle its share in the big project. Anne Arundel County is lagging. The southern Maryland counties below Anne Arundel and Prince Georges seem to be doing nothing. All of which suggests that the foresighted and active Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties can't do the job by themselves. If we are to have that highly desirable greenbelt to prevent Baltimore and Washington from colliding, there will have to be early determinations at the State House and county courthouse levels. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed. AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. pore. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. pore. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 317, proposed to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. This amend CONVERSION OF WAR INDUSTRY TO ment was proposed by the Senator from PEACE-RESOLUTION Mr. President, the Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO has sponsored a resolution calling for the conversion of the nuclear industry to constructive peaceful purindustry to constructive peaceful purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Since 1942, the United States has spent over 33 billion dollars to develop atomic industry. Over 95 percent of this sum has been spent on military application of this science. The stockpile of nuclear weapons has reached the stage of overkill with some estimates as high as twelve times the maximum needed to knock out all potentially military bases. Senate ratification of test ban treaty and the filling of all possible military requirements poses the question of continued use and the very existence of the industry established to develop nuclear science. Capital investment in plants and structures alone exceed $10 billion. This large investment is threatened with disuse and potentially destruction unless it is converted soon to effective peaceful uses. The same nuclear force which creates military destruction can under proper controls be used to provide energy to meet mankind's needs. The present first tentative uses of nuclear energy for production of electric power are uneconomic. They are uneconomic in part because of the artificially high costs which have been established for urani um and the custom-built plants in which the atoms of uranium are split to produce energy to turn the wheels of generating plants. These economic problems can be solved with the traditional methods of mass production and production line techniques which have been the boon to American industry: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, calls for conversion of nuclear industry as a forerunner, and as proposed by Senator MCGOVERN in the establishment of a National Economic Conversion Commission (S. 2274), of conversion of the military industries generally through the use of modern production line techniques to build nuclear powerplants and help light the underdeveloped world through the production of 1,000 power reactors established in the areas of greatest need to produce electricity, and 1,000 reactors especially designed to use the energy of the atom to produce fresh water from the ocean for arid areas throughout the world. Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] as a substitute for lines 1 through 17, on page 50, of the committee amendment, as amended, relating to interest rates on development loans. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, we are fortunate in having some columnists who understand the reasons and justification for current congressional efforts to reobjective observer is Arthur Krock, of duce foreign aid. Such a balanced and the New York Times. In an article which appeared in the November 12 issue of the Times, Mr. Krock points out the legitimacy of current congressional concern over the foreign aid program. Although I cannot agree with the article in all particulars, it generally states a case worthy of our notice and approval. 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: THE CONSTITUTION KEEPS GETTING IN THE WAY (By Arthur Krock) WASHINGTON, November 11.-The Secretary of State, who is a man mild of manner and speech but as they say in his native State of Georgia-"sot in his ways," last week supplied one of the two reasons for Congress' sharp reduction in the foreign aid budget when he said he doesn't "understand it." Merely by reading the Senate speeches of the self-named liberals who are leading the fight for the budget cuts the Secretary could readily discover the first reason. It is, that the executive proposes to give President Nasser of Egypt the aid which pays for the military force he is using to back his refusal to withdraw his troops from Yemen; and to continue to provide aid to President Sukarno of Indonesia, who is sworn to destroy the new state of Malaysia, and to Brazil, where President Goulart is dissipating the aid by failing to control inflation. The second reason is that the only effective means Congress has to show disapproval of executive policies it disapproves is through the appropriating powers that the Constitution reserves exclusively to Congress, foreign policy not excluded. The Senate, led by the Members who have been the stanchest supporters of foreign aid, simply has turned to the use of this means to impose on the executive budget for the next fiscal year the revision and rationalization of the foreign aid program that long has been overdue. Rusk's statement to his November 8 news conference that he disapproved of this "tendency to legislate foreign policy" is not at all surprising. What is surprising is his other statement that he doesn't "understand" the why and wherefore; and seems not to realize that with this assertion he was furnishing the general explanation of the situation he "does not understand." Until and unless the President and the Secretary of State comprehend, if they really do not, what is so clear, the part of Rusk's news conference that states a sound principle of Government will not have the desired beneficial effect on Congress. This principle the Secretary phrased as follows: "I am very much concerned about the tendency in the Congress to legislate foreign policy as it might apply to specific situations or specific countries. But support in Congress of this sound precept in foreign policy is impaired when the Executive continues disuse of the flexibility in judgment it admonishes Congress not to impede-by perpetuating aid programs, such as those for Egypt, Indonesia, and Brazil. These are automatically self-defeating of the plain and declared objective of foreign aid. The eventual consequence, as is now being demonstrated, is that Congress will go too far in its efforts to restrain Executive flexibility. An example was the Senate vote denying aid to any nation interfering with American fishing vessels in what the United States unilaterally decrees to be international waters. Diplomatic negotiation is the proper means, instead of legislation requiring other nations to accept U.S. charting of the seas. And only the Executive, not Congress, can conduct diplomatic negotiations. Neuberger Hill Holland Hruska Javits Mr. HUMPHREY. Pearson Thurmond Tower Walters I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. I also announce that the Senator from The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL- The Senator from Alaska has the Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I aid. They are fed up with doling out billions in American tax dollars to people who couldn't care less about what we in this country like to speak of as "the American way of life." They are bored to tears with the threadbare argument that the Communists will take over the world unless we pay the bills for countries which don't know or care which team they are playing on, assuming that they are willing to play on any team. Mr. Khrushchev can't even feed his own people. Why not let him try this foreign aid load for size? To sum up, we think the American people, as far as foreign aid is concerned, have just about had it. And we haven't the slightest doubt that it is this more than anything else which underlies the attitude of Congress-an attitude which the President either can't or won't understand. This Congress, of course, will pass a foreign aid bill. But the appropriation will be sharply cut back. And it should be. The 88th Congress will go down in history (with applause) if it begins the quick phasing out of foreign aid. And we do not believe that the rest of the world, without the Yankee dollar, will go either to pot or to the Communists. I concur with what is written in the editorial. It certainly expresses my opinion. I believe it it expresses the opinion of a majority of the American people. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding to me. CAN LAWS MAKE MEN EQUAL? Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, one of the most scholarly and thought-provoking articles that I have read in a long time appears in the November 18 issue The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without of U.S. News & World Report. It is writobjection, it is so ordered. ten by Dr. Walter R. Courtenay, minister of the First Presbyterian Church of Nashville, Tenn. Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, the forCongressional foreign policy support by eign aid debate during the past 2 weeks appropriation is also impaired when the Executive assumes leadership for this Government in coercing another to yield to military blackmail, and in violation of the United Nations Charter. Yet the administration, in concert with Secretary General Thant of the U.N., did precisely this to assure the success of Indonesia's threats of seizure of west New Guinea from the Netherlands. This helped to build up the revolt in Congress. And in furthering the revolt Congress, of course, is using its constitutional power to cut authorizations and grants from the revenues contributed by American taxpayers. Thus again the Constitution annoys one arm of the truine Federal Government by getting in its way. Yet though this constitutional power, and the reasons for the tendency to invoke it, are plain, strangely enough the Secretary of State "doesn't understand it." Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, the amendment now pending before the Senate is my amendment No. 317. In order that there may be a full attendance of Senators for debate on the amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: has generated a great deal of editorial I am confident that the bill which the I now read the editorial, entitled "Tired of It All," for the RECORD at this point: TIRED OF IT ALL President Kennedy, in accepting a distinguished service award from a Protestant group, got in the following plug for his foreign aid program: "I think the American people are willing to shoulder this burden. *** Some say they are tiring of this task, or tired of world problems, or tired of hearing those who receive our aid disagree with our diplomacy. But what kind of spirit is that? Are we tired of living in a free world? Do we expect to make it over in our own image? Are we going to quit now because there are problems not yet solved? The implication here is that the American people (who have been lugging the foreign aid load for 17 years) are ready, willing, and happy to keep on lugging it. Some other President, 17 years in the future, may be saying pretty much the same thing. But we dissent. It is our belief that the American people, or most of them, are sick and tired of foreign I believe that the readers of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and others will find the article worthwhile reading, and I therefore ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CAN LAWS MAKE MEN EQUAL?-A MINISTER'S (By Dr. Walter R. Courtenay, minister of (NOTE. "Equality"-That's the battle cry now, in the United States and around the world. But what does it really mean? Are all men actually equal? Can they be made equal by laws or by other government action? Does liberty necessarily provide equality? Can democracy guarantee it? This problem of "equality," says a Nashville, Tenn., minister, "may be in many ways the greatest problem of our day." In a sermon that has attracted widespread attention, this minister discusses the whole question of individual rights-also of individual and governmental responsibility.) During the past summer the air was filled with the raucous sounds of conflict in Birmingham, Chicago, New York, and Danville. It was also redolent with discord within the United Nations, and within the backward countries demanding recognition. Accompanying these was the endless struggle of labor and capital, and the seemingly endless drain of our resources into the giveaway programs at home and abroad. The air was charged with social electricity as individuals, groups and nations fought for new status of happiness? Life is the gift of God, and under the banner of equality. Equality has intoxicated the modern world. Men walk starry-eyed through streets and halls dreaming of new days and improved status. The whole world seems in a peprally mood, and the bonfires grow larger and burn more fiercely, even as the songs, chants, and shouts of the participants become louder and more fervent. In a thousand tongues men scream their demands for equality, for place, for recognition, for rights, for privileges. As one listens, he frequently hears the words, "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But the words never end there, but hurry on to declare that it is the responsibility of government to make all men equal and to maintain equality amongst men. Still other words are heard, declaring that democracy has failed to establish equality, and that man, therefore, must now turn to socialism and communism. In my summer setting, close to nature, I looked around for evidences of equality in nature, and found none. Trees and hills are not the same in breadth and height. Rivers and lakes are not of uniform size. Not all animals and birds are swift and beautiful. The lion does not recognize the equalness of the antelope, nor the fox the rabbit. Some fields are fertile and others sterile, and clouds and puddles are not the same, though both are water created. In nature inequality seems to prevail, and yet the inequalities of nature produce the beauty we admire. As I thought of it, the same seemed to be true of history. Nations and races do differ in size, wealth, prestige, power, creativity, and vision. Some soar like eagles. Some build like beavers. Some grow like vegetables and weeds in the garden called the earth. Between individuals, races, groups, and nations there are broad differences, and equality is not a characteristic of either nature or human nature. Having reached this point, my mind asked the question, "Can we have both freedom and equality?" Someone has said, "Freedom without equality tends to become license. Equality without freedom tends to produce stagnation." How can these great objectives be secured without damage to the highest social system men have yet devised-democracy? Looking back across history, I realize: that the Jews preached concern for the poor, but not equality. The Greeks preached democracy, but not equality. The Romans preached justice under law, but not equality. The Middle Ages in Europe preached Christ, but not equality. In fact, not until the French Revolution did men openly affirm that "Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect to their rights," and not until our declaration declared that "All men are created equal" did the world come alive to the possibilities of equality. These two events placed a new chemical in the cup of life, and the contents of that cup are changing men. Here I paused to rethink the words, "All men are created equal." Are they? I could see that all men are created equally helpless, equally ignorant, equally inexperienced, equally sin touched, but I could not see how they could be said to be created equal in any other sense. Men do not begin life with an even start for all. Their beginnings are marked by differences in pedigrees, health, educational and moral levels, economic strength, social status, and personality potentials. There are broad differences in temperament, talents, drives, and desires. They do not begin life on a common line. And what of the so-called unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit so are liberty and happiness-in a certain Happiness is a byproduct of a way of life Having reached that state of mind, I wondered why men ever thought that government could make men equal and keep them equal. How can mere laws produce equality among men on a heart level? How can coerced fellowship ever become real fellowship? WHAT GOVERNMENT MUST DO That government has a role to play in the mighty, moving drama of man's progress is not to be denied. Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights stand to affirm it. It is the function of government to state the conditions of liberty, equality, and responsibility, but unless it is the will of the people to give life to the law, it will not work. The prohibition era proved that beyond our contesting. Then why do we believe and state in our legal documents that "all men are created equal," and have "unalienable rights"? I presume it is because we must find some means of limiting the powers of the powerful and of protecting the rights of the weak. Great power, unpoliced, tends to become destructive power. The rights of the weak tend desires. They never pace themselves by the speed of the mediocre, but by the speed of the best. They are never satisfied by crumbs; they want half loaves and whole loaves. PEOPLE WHO MAKE PROGRESS It is such people who made America possi ble, and who have always led men in the up ward climb. They are, in truth, the benefactors of the race. It is their ideas and creativeness that establish businesses and industries, thereby providing employment for others, and the taxes that make community and national progress possible. They furnish our best leadership, and give to the Nation our best guarantee of security. It is because of them that progress is produced in all areas of life-the intellectual, the artistic, the economic, the governmental and the social. While they did not build America alone, they provided the means whereby our Nation came into existence and has continued on its upward way. I suddenly realized that the success of the Looking critically at such a line of thought, few creates the inequalities that loom large in the minds of the many. The haves highlite the have-nots. It is the successful who outlive the failures and all others who take their places on the curve of life as it sweeps downward. During my summer days it seemed to me that: It is the nature of some men to succeed, and others to fail. It is the nature of some men to get by, and others to achieve. It is the nature of the have-littles to want more. It is the nature of the successful to seek to dominate. It is the nature of those who are unsuccessful to resent it. It is the nature of the poor to envy. It is the nature of the wealthy to assume unjust privileges. It is the nature of those who inherit wealth to use it well, to misuse it, or to feel to be lost in a land where only the strong guilty because they have it. We all understand this, even as we all above, although it has often been both in joyed being slaves. The poor have never en- It is from this level of life that the hunger And yet, one must face facts. In any classroom of pupils only a few qualify under the letter A. Below these leaders of the class are the B students, and then the C's, and then the D's, and then the F's. Some, by ability and effort, rise to the top, while others, because of lack of ability or application, take their places on the descending curve of scholarship. In every nation it is the same. Only a small percentage of people have the ability, the desire, the drive, the willingness to work and sacrifice, to foresee and prepare for success in any realm. The people who struggle to succeed are never interested in equality, but in superiority. Their goal is never the level of the masses, but a level above the masses. They endorse and espouse liberty because it creates for them a favorable climate in which to think, plan, create, work and achieve according to their abilities and It is the nature of the intellectuals who receive their compensation from taxes or the gifts of the economically successful to advocate a change of system in order to get one wherein the intellectuals will be generously rewarded as business executives under free enterprise. It is because men are unequal in ability and drive, in opportunities for recognition and advancement, in rewards for work done and services rendered that people become restless socially. It is the inequalities of humanity that create the crusaders for equality. In the 18th century men looked to democracy as the answer to the inequalities amongst men, and now in the 20th men look toward socialism and communism. Democracy, as we have tried to shape it in America, has been heavily impregnated with the Ten Commandments of Judaism and the spirit of Jesus. Because of this, we are suspicious of any system that advocates the big lie, covetousness, greed, the stealing of property, the destruction of life, and the taking away of liberties. Democracy condemns without reservations the confiscation of private property and capital by the state and the regimenting of human beings like animals on a farm. Our democracy is not perfect. Imperfections exist, but its virtues exceed those of any other system mankind has tried. These observations moved me then to reach certain opinions concerning American democracy: 1. Democracy was never created to be a leveler of men. It was created to be a lifter, a developer of men. 2. Democracy was created to let the gifted, the energetic and the creative rise to high heights of human achievement and to let each man find his own level on the stairway of existence. |