capital improvement over its lifetime so that those who benefit from the facility over this period of time pay for it.

Let me read from a speech I delivered on the floor of the House on August 5, 1963, at the time I was discussing the balance of international payments problems. I went into this problem of the Federal debt from several angles:

"The Kennedy administration has sought to allay the concern of the people over the rising Federal debt by a series of specious arguments.

"First. The administration hides and dissembles over the increase in the rate of annual debt increases which its fiscal theories have produced and refuses to estimate the further increases in the debt which will result from its planned deficits into the future.

"Second. The administration relates the Federal debt as a ratio of gross national product and calls attention to the fact that this ratio has declined since 1946. Note the year 1946 is selected as the basis for this relation. Should the ratio of the year 1946 be the goal of our fiscal debt policy? Certainly no reasonable man would seriously advance such an argument-1946 is the year immediately following World War II when perforce the results of the overwhelming deficit financing we resorted to in financing this war reached their peak. Does the 54-percent ratio of GNP to debt in 1962 compare favorably to the percentage ratio of GNP to the national debt during other peacetime periods in the 20th century? It does not. In 1909 the ratio was 3.4 percent and this declined to 2.5 percent by 1916-a period during which GNP increased by 44 percent or about 6 percent a year. This is in relation to an overall growth rate from 1860 to 1960 of about 2.9 percent. In 1919, after World War I's deficit financing, the ratio stood at 30 percent. This declined to 16 percent by 1929. ratio increased during the depression of the thirties and reached 43 percent in 1940-a period which incidentally showed a zero increase in gross national product. This should make people pause to reflect whether debt helps economic growth. In 1946, immediately after World War II, the ratio was 128 percent and it has now declined to 56 percent as of June 1962-debt $298.6 billion,

GNP $553 billion.

The

"It should be noted that 70 percent of the decline in the ratio of the debt in the 15 years from 1946 to 1962 occurred in the first 5 years after 1946. In 1951 the ratio had declined by 51 percentage points, or 10 points a year, to 77 percent. This decline was largely the result of the serious devaluation of the purchasing power of the dollar which occurred during these years. Hardly a course to emulate or to praise. The debt, of course, remained in the constant dollar figure of 1946, while the GNP went up because it was measured in terms of the inflated dollar. Since the Federal Reserve-Treasury accord of 1951 which largely stopped this monetary inflation the ratio has declined only 21 points in these 11 years from 77 to 56 or 21 points a year. Even some of this decline is the result of further dollar devaluation rather than real economic growth. Since 1960 the ratio has dropped less than a whole point

from 56.8 to 56. If the estimate of GNP for 1963 reaches $578 billion the administration anticipates and the debt goes to around $318 billion as the administration projects, there will be only another fraction decline to 55.2 percent. At this rate it will take 62 years to reach a 50-percent figure and another 10 on top of that to even equal the peacetime high mark of 43 percent in 1940. This will be the year 1980.

"Certainly this leaves little resiliency for these 17 years ahead of us in our fiscal posture in the event that we should have another major war or depression forced upon

us.

"Third. The administration relates the Federal debt to State, local, and private debt and points out that these debts have risen faster than the Federal debt. Again, what is the year of reference? A peacetime year? A year we would choose as our goal for an optimum? No, 1946 is again taken as the year, the year which reflects the 'high water mark' of extraordinary Federal deficit financing, as the result of World War II; 1946 is also the 'low water mark' of State and local expenditures because of our national desire to divert as much of our resources as possible to the effort of World War II. So in this instance the selection of the year 1946 as a benchmark is doubly deceptive.

"Parenthetically, I would remark that the Kennedy administration continues to show an abnormal inability to distinguish between an economy based upon war and one based upon peace in this matter as well as in other matters of economic and fiscal policies which require the use of economic statistics and the understanding of the basic laws of economics.

"What are the ratios over a period of time of State and local governmental debt to Federal debt?

"In 1946 which reflects the war expenditures the ratio rose to 94.4 percent Federal and declined to 0.8 percent State and 4.8 percent local. In 1960 that ratio had shifted to 80.5 percent Federal, 5.2 percent State, and 14.3 percent local. In 1962 the Federal ratio had further declined to 78.7 percent and State and local totaled 21.3 percent.

"The balance which formally existed between the three tiers of government during the periods when this Nation prospered the most are far from being reached in this ratio heavily weighted to the Federal Government. In 1902 the ratio was 35.9 percent Federal, 7 percent State, and 57.1 percent local. 1922 reflected the shift resulting from the massive Federal debt of World War I-69.4 percent Federal, 3.4 percent State, and 27.1 percent local. In 1927 the ratio had balanced to 55.4 percent Federal, 5.9 percent State, and 38.7 percent local. In 1932, 50.4 percent Federal, 7.3 percent State, and 42.3 percent local. The 1930 depression years show a shift to the Federal tier and by 1940 the

ratio was 67.9 percent Federal, 5.7 percent State, and 26.4 percent local.

"The Federal programs set forth in the most recent budget of the Kennedy administration will hamper the shift back to the ratios of pre-World War II peacetime years. The balances that existed during the first 140 years out of our total 170 years social and economic development seem to be out of question today. However, if we are to match the growth rate of these 140 years in the ensuing decades, I believe we would be wise to set our sights in the direction of this kind of balance. Certainly setting our sights on the balances of the year 1946 is the height of folly.

"The argument that we need not worry about the Federal debt today because it is a less ratio to the State and local govern

mental debt in 1946 is out of context. It is designed to mislead. Sixteen years after the war instead of a 78.7-percent Federal ratio which we have in 1962, we should be much

The

closer to a 50-percent Federal ratio. most alarming decline which occurred during World War II, of course, is the local government ratio. The State and local debts must increase more rapidly than the Federal debt, or better still the Federal debt should be declining much more rapidly if we are to get back to the peacetime ratios when our Nation had its greatest growth. "Fourth. The Kennedy administration seeks to compare the Federal debt to private and State and local government debt in order to suggest a point which is untrue, that a large part of the Federal debt goes for capital investment against which there are marketable and economic capital assets.

"It is true that most of the private corporate debt goes for capital investment against which there are offsetting capital assets. It is true that a good bit of consumer debt goes for capital expenditures, which remain as a capital asset securing the debt, such as homes and consumer durables. It is also true that almost all of the local governmental debt is for capital improvements, roads, schools, sewers, public buildings, and so forth. Indeed, most local debt is limited by law to these kinds of capital exMuch of the State debt also penditures.

goes for capital improvements. Some State constitutions require this of both State and local debt. Indeed, most debt other than Federal debt is tied to capital improvements and so can be directly related to economic growth and remains a security against the debt.

"The Federal debt on the other hand, just as Federal expenditure, is almost all related to other than capital investment. Even today the bulk of the Federal debt is for past and future wars, for military expenditures, and the $10 billion interest we pay annually on the debt must be largely charged to military expenditures. Military assets must go into any economic accounting books at $1 value.

"The limited areas where the Federal debt can be said to relate to true capital assets and the areas the Kennedy administration seeks to enlarge are exactly the areas which cause the gravest political disputes today of whether these are constitutional and desirable, let alone efficient functions of the Federal Government. To wit, grants-in-aid to States and local governments, the TVA, and other public power projects, and the various other Government corporations, particularly lending institutions, like FNMA and CCC which would up capital assets. The traditional and constitutional public works of rivers and harbors and reclamation projects and the Post Office are about the only undisputed capital expenditures the Federal Government makes and these make up a very small part of today's $108 billion budget. Be this as it may, the ratio of the Federal debt which has been spent for capital assets is less than 10 percent of the total outstanding Federal debt. Ninety percent of the Federal budget expenditures are unrelated to capital assets and we have no capital assets to show for them.

"Fifth. The Kennedy administration is resorting to an argument I thought was discredited in the 1930's; namely, the size of the Federal debt makes no difference because we owe it to ourselves. This is probably the most specious and dangerous of all arguments advanced by the administration to justify its extravagance. First, we do not owe it all to ourselves. Foreign holdings amount to $15.3 billion. Second, the $55.6 billion of bonds in Government invested accounts are moneys deposited by civil service employees for their retirement-$12 billion; moneys to back up the social security payments-$18 billion, and so forth; and $68.8 billion of bonds are held by individual and corporate pension funds for the benefit of employees for their retirement. Sizable sums are in

sinking funds earmarked by businesses and individuals for building homes, factories, stores, and other plants from whence come the jobs for our people. Many of our people own U.S. savings bonds. Their savings do not belong to their less provident fellow citizens; $97.3 billion of bonds are in the commercial and Federal Reserve banking system to back up the purchasing power of everyone's dollar as well as earmarked for the million and one different programs the ultimate owners of these assets have in mind.

"The most certain way to destroy the entire base of our society is to destroy the allocation of ownership of the debt securities in our society, private and governmental. Certainly we can have a complete redistribution

of wealth by Government fiat or a military coup based on the economic concept that the debt is owned to ourselves without regard for the savings and efforts and planning that lies inherent in the present allocation of the ownership of the debt. This is what political scientists refer to as a revolution. Is this what the Kennedy spokesmen wish to suggest in behalf of their constituency from whom they seek votes by their profligate spending programs?

"And certainly, the debt can be lowered as a ratio of gross national product as was done by the Truman administration by devaluing the dollar-cutting into the purchasing power of the consumers. This redistributes wealth, mostly from the poorer to the richer, however. This is the process that destroys jobs and economic growth. This does not enhance it."

Now, having made these points in August, I find the administration spokesmen still reiterating what they said then. They have not sought to discuss the economic or any other aspects of the Federal debt. They merely fight strawmen of their own creation. The structure of our monetary policy is based to some degree upon our Federal debt.

After World War II we used the Federal Reserve System, not to have monetary policy neutral to make it serve its basic function as a weight and measure, a measure to evaluate goods, services, labor and savings, but to encourage economic growth by keeping interest rates low. This policy was proving so disasterous that in 1951 the Federal ReserveTreasury accord was reached and this policy was reversed. This action brought to an end the massive devaluation of the dollar we experienced from 1946 to 1951.

Now the President, listening to this same economic school, would create planned Federal deficits and make them greater by the tax cut and have them financed by the Federal Reserve System buying the bonds. (If (If the bonds were sold to the private sector, this would take away the total purchasing

power they were seeking to enhance.) power they were seeking to enhance.) This is designed to create more money, not from savings, but from the printing press. So, the essence of the administration's new theory is to expand the volume of money. This is to be done through tax policy, reducing tax revenues, and replacing these lost revenues with the proceeds derived from the sale of Government bonds to the Federal Reserve System. According to this theory, we come out with a balanced budget perhaps in 1972. My concluding remarks are these. You can see from this speech how the use of the tax structure for purposes other than raising revenue as efficiently as possible has diverted the attention of the tax writer from the details of the tax laws. This can only result in a poorer Federal tax system, not an improved one.

The proper reform is to cut Federal expenditures so they do not exceed the revenues that can be raised from a sound tax structure which does not erode its own base. This is the Puritan ethic.

Business Committee Has Dual Objectives of Tax Reduction and Expenditure Control

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS

OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, November 13, 1963 Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, the Commitposition of the Business tee for Tax Reduction in 1963 has been tee for Tax Reduction in 1963 has been frequently cited by the administration in support of its program to cut taxes.

While the administration and press have played up the Business Committee's belief that a tax cut is desirable now, less attention has been paid to the commit

tee's belief in firm Federal expenditure control.

I am happy to see that the cochairmen, Stuart T. Saunders and Henry Ford II, have unmistakably linked the need for a tax cut with expenditure control in a statement before the Senate Finance Committee on November 4.

As Mr. Saunders said in his opening paragraph, speaking for himself and Henry Ford:

We are here to support the dual goals of this organization-prompt, across-the-board tax reduction for individuals and corpora

tions, and restraint in Federal spending.

Mr. Saunders went on to say that in order to obtain the benefits of tax reduction:

Strict control of Federal expenditures and legislative branches of Government is essenappropriations by both the executive and tial.

He also pointed out that the executive committee of his organization on May 28 called for a reduction in the 1964 budget and said that it "believes that there is no situation foreseeable which would necessarily require the 1965 and 1966 budgets to increase over that proposed for 1964."

This precise statement of the Business Committee's policy will, I hope, clear up once and for all the confusion that has been created by those who stress the committee's desire for tax reduction and largely ignore its position on Federal spending.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1963 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp, D.D., offered the following prayer: Ephesians 4: 1: I beseech you to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are

called.

PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee night tomorrow night to file a report on on Appropriations may have until midthe public works appropriation bill.

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

souri?

There was no objection.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FISCAL YEAR

1964

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight tonight to file a report on the bill making appropriations for military construction for the year ending June 30, 1964, and

Show us how this dear land of ours may be delivered from those immoralities and those evils of crime and graft and corruption which are a blight upon our national character and a disgrace to our body politic.

Wilt thou bless our domestic and foreign policies and may the spirit of unity prevail as we accept the challenge to build a world community ruled by the Prince of Peace.

In His name we pray. Amen.

AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES, 1964

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 6754, making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis

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

There was no objection.

Mr. JONAS reserved all points of order on the bill.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration may sit while the House is in session this afternoon during general debate.

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

There was no objection.

CBS FEATURE BROADCAST

Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express commendation of the Columbia Broadcasting Co. for their great service to our Nation and to the cause of commonsense and common decency which they rendered last night in presenting a feature broadcast entitled "The Case History of a Rumor."

It had to do with creating fear and frustration due to a fantastic rumor that grew out of plans by the United States for a military maneuver in Georgia. Many were led to fear an invasion by barefoot African and foreign troops.

The broadcast portrayed one of the great dangers which confronts the United States today and the growing threat to representative government. It exposed the fanatical hate groups which spread these rumors and believe our Government is the enemy of the people and that any legislation to improve the lot of the average citizen is communistic and will lead the Nation to bankruptcy and disaster.

I want to include the senior Senator from California in expressing my commendation. He is not of my party but his service to our country has been tre

mendous.

I wish, however, that the program would have included the major sources of funds that feed these hate groups.

The American people should know that they are really paying for this campaign that creates confusion, hate, distrust, and disunity, and for the organized efforts of these groups against programs that the people and the Nation need.

The American people are paying for the tax privileges which benefit big oil monopolies and those individuals who finance, not only these hate groups but other efforts to destroy the social gains our people have won in the past generation.

NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL

INSTITUTIONS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, now that the limited test ban treaty is a reality, representing a tiny but encouraging step toward a warless world, it is our duty to make preparations for the next step. To do less, or to do

nothing, is to ignore the most important matter on our agenda. All of our citizens are united in their abiding hope for a world free from the scourge of war and the burdens of armaments.

I am aware that there are serious disagreements on how to proceed, on what can be done now, that will not jeopardize our security. The present peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations is inadequate, and in the face of that inadequacy, no nation will feel secure without its own arms. It is for this reason that I strongly support the resolution sponI strongly support the resolution sponsored in the Senate by Senator CLARK and 17 other Senators, and already introduced in the House by my good friend, the gentleman from California, Congressman GEORGE BROWN, and other Members of this body. This resolution recognizes the need for international institutions capable of keeping the peace. stitutions capable of keeping the peace. It seems to me that there is nothing to lose and much to be gained, to begin now to develop, through the United Nations, some first blueprints of a responsible and powerful peacekeeping machine. It will powerful peacekeeping machine. It will be a long and arduous task, but begin we must. As the President has so appromust. As the President has so appropriately put it, in referring to the tree that took 75 years to mature, "Then we better plant it this afternoon."

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
INTERVENTION

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that a Speaker, I have always thought that a good jury was one of the most essential and useful organizations that functioned under our system of government. Several days ago the grand jury in Selma, Ala., started an investigation and issued subpenas for certain witnesses some of whom were employees the Justice Department. The Justice the Justice Department. The Justice Department went into the Federal disDepartment went into the Federal district court in Mobile, Ala., and asked for an injunction to enjoin the grand jury from making an an investigation. district Federal court in Mobile, in my opinion, correctly refused such an injunction. The Justice Department went junction. The Justice Department went from there to the circuit court of appeals in New Orleans and obtained a writ directing the Federal district judge in Mobile to stop the grand jury in Selma, Ala., from making an investigation.

The

So far as I know, that is the first time in the history of this country that a grand jury has been enjoined from investigating crime. Somebody has something to hide. I do not know why the Justice Department is opposed to a grand jury in Alabama investigating anything.

This is a most dangerous precedent, and could lead to the destruction of our system of law enforcement.

A man cannot be prosecuted for a felony unless indicted by a grand jury. A grand jury cannot indict without an in

vestigation, and if the Justice Department stops investigations by grand juries, the criminals of this country will have a field day.

I have just discussed this very serious matter with my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES], and he concurs in my statement.

USE OF THE NAVY YACHT
"SEQUOIA"

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, in a letter to Defense Secretary McNamara, dated October 24, I asked to be provided with records showing the number of times former Navy Secretary Fred Korth used the Navy yacht, the Sequoia, to entertain his associates from Continental National Bank in Fort Worth and extra good customers of the bank. tomers of the bank. I also asked for the names of all Continental officials and customers so entertained.

It took 3 weeks to receive the following one-paragraph reply, hand delivered to my office, signed by David E. McGiffert, assistant to the Secretary:

This is in reply to your letter to Secretary McNamara of October 24, 1963, concerning the Sequoia. It is my understanding that the Sequoia does not have a log or other official records which indicate all the persons aboard on any given occasion.

What kind of shoddy business is this where no records are maintained in the operations of a naval vessel?

By what authority are the Navy Secretary, other high-ranking Government officials, and their special friends entitled to the taxpaid luxury of a floating bar and restaurant, with no accounting to those who pay the bills-the American people?

Mr. Speaker, the time is long overdue for the Sequoia to be scrapped. It is safe to say that no one but a chosen few in Washington's ruling dynasty would mourn her passing.

LEGISLATIVE DELAYS

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I read with interest yesterday that a distinguished Member of the other body inferred that the reason for their inactivity was somehow the fault of the House of Representatives. Also that he talked to a Member over here regarding the civil rights bill and stated that it would not be out for 2 weeks and they would not be able to act on it because of that. I know of no reason why the other body cannot act on civil rights any time it wants to. Furthermore, I would like to

submit to them that we have had over there our appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, Judiciary and Commerce-for 6 months, and there has not been any action on it as yet.

I understand from the news stories that I read that regardless of what happens with the tax bill or the civil rights bill the other body does not intend to take them up this year anyway. So I submit that what we ought to do is to take care of the necessary authorizations and the appropriations now. We have done a pretty good job in getting legislation over to the other body. If they would do as good a job as we have done, we could get out of here, not for Christmas, but for Thanksgiving.

LEGISLATIVE SITUATION

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Speaker, once again exercising my prerogative as a member of the minority, and as the majority leader is on the floor, I would like to ask him what we are going to do in the next couple of weeks. Are we just going to be asked to go back and forth and sit 1 or 2 days a week and then push legislation off to the following week? I would like to know now. I would like to spend Thanksgiving with my family, and spend some time in my district, talking to my constituents.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. BECKER]. I know that we are having considerable discussions here about pay and other matters. As far as I know our pay goes on every day in the year and as far as I know the people want us to be here doing our duties and not back in New York or Louisiana or Oklahoma as long as there is work to do.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, apropos of the remark of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BOGGS] to the effect that this is the capital of the free world, I am not sure that the professor of Yale University who is now a Soviet prisoner in Moscow is completely convinced of that fact at this moment.

Mr. BECKER. Certainly I am getting paid just the same as the gentleman from Louisiana. That is why I want to work. I do not want to have to be here just 1 day a week and have a bill pushed off to next week. Why not have these bills in in 1 week and let us work on them, if we have got work to do?

Mr. BOGGS. What the gentleman means by work is being here on the floor. I suppose he does not consider work in the committee and in his office as part of his work.

Mr. BECKER. I am in committee every day; and I am also here on the floor.

Mr. BECKER. Of course, I yield. Mr. ALBERT. I do not know what the I think I am gentleman is going to do. I think I am going to work.

Mr. BECKER. Fine, then let us have something to work on. The gentleman cannot tell me that what we have been doing here these past weeks is work. We have had legislation only 1 or 2 days a week. What about Thanksgiving week? I understand the House will probably be off that week. Is this true? I would like to know now so that I can

make arrangements. Why do we have to act as puppets at the end of strings operated by the puppeteers-the Democratic leaders-and come here for 1 day or 2 days a week? Why not have all this legislation in 1 week and let us get it done with? Why can we not know today what we are going to do a week from now?

I think the majority leader ought to answer those questions now. This is no way to conduct the House, after being in session for almost 11 months. The Democratic majority has not even

brought up all appropriation bills that should have been passed before last June 30.

LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

doing all that, as well as being here on the floor and making very good speeches. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOGGS. Certainly.

Mr. GROSS. I heard what the gentleman said about pay. Was the gentleman referring to the pay increase bill?

Mr. BOGGS. I think we will get to that. We will consider that before we finish. We have gone a long time here. I am happy to be here and to discharge my duties the best way I can. I am sorry the gentleman from New York complains about being here. The gentleman must not like it here. He wants to be here about 10 hours a week.

Mr. BECKER. I can be here all year, if there is work to do. I like my district and the people in it, therefore, with the way this Congress has been wasting time, I could do better work by being back in my district seeing and discussing affairs with my people. The legislation that we bring up now, is of little value to our people and only imposes more and more restrictions and more and more spending.

THE FACTS OF LIFE ABOUT SOVIET RUSSIA AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

Further good might even be accomplished if the incident served to educate some of the heads-in-the-clouds stripedpants boys in the State Department.

On the latter count, I must add that I am not too optimistic.

It is incredible to me that there should be even a momentary hesitation about canceling the U.S. mission to Moscow to negotiate renewal of the United StatesSoviet cultural exchange program.

Instead, there ought to be an instantaneous termination by the United States of all travel exchange between the two countries.

The blunt truth is that any American who sets foot on Soviet soil is now a potential hostage to be used by Mr. Khrushchev in blackmail bargaining for the release of Soviet spies apprehended in this country.

I note with particular interest the following statement by New York Times. Washington correspondent, M. S. Handler, in today's New York Times:

In preliminary conversations the Soviet Government sought unobstructed access to private American groups, organizations and persons without offering the equivalent opportunities to the United States.

The Russians are interested (in) technical delegations, particularly for the study of the oil and gas industries, chemicals, computers, electronics, and automation. The United

States is more interested in the area of general studies.

I suppose that prudent parents in America still warn their children against accepting rides from strangers.

I hope to see the day come when those responsible for our foreign policy will put an end to international communism taking both our country and our citizens for a ride.

ment, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

INTERNATIONAL COFFEE AGREE

MENT ACT OF 1963

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN], and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 559 provides for consideration of H.R. 8864, a bill to carry out the obligations of the United States under the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes. The resolution provides an open rule with 2 hours of general debate.

The purpose of H.R. 8864 is to authorize the procedures required in order that

CIX-1372

the President might carry out the obligations of the United States under the International Coffee Agreement which was ratified by the Senate on May 21, 1963.

The bill would authorize the President to require all coffee entering U.S. markets and all exports of coffee from the United States to be accompanied by a certificate of origin or a certificate of reexport, to limit imports of coffee from nonmember countries, to require the keeping of certain records, statistics, and other information, and to take such other action as he may consider necessary to implement the obligations of the United States under the treaty. The bill also authorizes appropriations necessary to carry out the obligations of the United States under

the treaty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 559.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,

I yield myself such time as I may con

sume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, if I can cut it down to size so that we can all understand it, is primarily designed for one purpose and one purpose only. That is to give economic aid to certain Latin American countries which produce a great deal of coffee, by restricting the exporting, and also limiting the imports, of coffee in and out of the United States. Mr. Speaker, this whole thing was started a year or so ago by our State Department, which joined in a meeting in New York City, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. DELANEY] has explained to the Members of the House, to see what could be done to help some of the coffeeproducing nations of Latin America by having some sort of an international agreement as to the amount of coffee those countries might ship into the United States and which we, in turn, might export in small amounts to other countries. Most of our exports of coffee as I understand it, that is, from the United States, are actually made up of powdered coffee and of other special coffees, and not of the usual coffees that you and I know.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the Members of the House will read the report on this bill, they will see that the main reason why it is here is the fact, as a result of this conference in New York in the fall of 1962, that on May 21, 1963, the Senate ratified a treaty legalizing our participation in that agreement, thus committing us through a treaty, which, of course, under the Constitution only the Senate, passes upon, ratifies or refuses to ratify. The House of Representatives was not even consulted or contacted about the matter until after the treaty was ratified. Then, of course, after the treaty was ratified, the matter came before the Committee on Ways and Means. The administration spokesman told the committee, "Now we have to have this special legislation so as to provide and permit the U.S. Government to carry out the provisions of the treaty," which provisions have been explained in condensed form by the gentleman from New York [Mr. DELANEY]. But, actually, what this bill does if one will read page 2 of the commitee report—and the Committee on Ways and Means has been very frank in

this report and in the discussion of the bill-the legislation will support the price of coffee, or maintain the price of coffee,

at least at the 1962 level, as far as American consumers are concerned.

That does not mean coffee will be sold at the 1962 price level. It means it will not be sold below that 1962 average price level in this country, which, by the way, was higher than it is now. It does not prevent coffee prices from going way above the 1962 level.

Of course, the publicity that had been put out in connection with this legislation-I have read some of it—is to the effect there was some frost, and some freezing of coffee trees, down in Brazil and one or two other Latin American

countries that might produce a coffee shortage, but there is still "an awful lot of coffee in Brazil," as the old song goes.

The real reason, as frankly stated on page 2 of the report, is to maintain coffee prices in order to help the economy of the coffee producing Latin American countries south of the border. That is the only reason the bill is here.

We have an Alliance for Progress program that was supposedly effective down in Latin America. There have been some questions about its effectiveness in the last few months. This is a new way to give economic assistance to the people of Latin America, especially those nations that are producing a great deal of coffee, and to maintain coffee prices in this country at the 1962 level, or above if the price should go higher. Of course, if there should be any real coffee shortage the price would go higher. But there is no evidence there will be a shortage any time soon.

What the bill actually does is to put the United States of America as a partner in sort of an international cartel dealing with coffee, all for the benefit, presumably, of the economies of the coffee-producing countries in Latin America. But instead of helping those countries with their economic problems through the foreign aid program, and the Alliance for Progress program, which is seemingly being continued, we are going to do so by raising the price of coffee or holding up the price of coffee in the United States at the expense of the American housewife.

As far as I am concerned I am not too enamored of this legislation. Yet we find ourselves in the peculiar situation, the bad situation, where another body has ratified a treaty that our State Department first helped to initiate in the form of an agreement, to be later ratified as a treaty. The Committee on Ways and Means of necessity has brought in this bill so that the United States can carry out, or find it possible to carry out, the pledges, the promises, and the agreements made under this treaty already ratified.

The first agreement in New York was entered into by representatives of our Government without the advice and consent of the House, so far as I know, then ratified by the Senate under the provisions of the Constitution, without anybody in the House knowing about it, or being consulted, or their advice or consent sought, of course. So here we are