strong enforcement of antiobscenity statutes.

These Michigan citizens realize that there are unscrupulous Americans who would sell out the youth of our Nation for their own personal gain.

Realizing the immensity of the pornographic problem, the Metropolitan Detroit Council on Better Youth Literature has announced plans for Better Literature for Youth Week throughout the State of Michigan from November 10 to 16.

During this week, public attention will be focused on the menace of salacious material. Parents will be asked to encourage their children to read better literature.

As the father of five children, I fully sympathize with the efforts and strong determination of these Michigan parents, and other interested adults, to win the battle against smutty propagators of filth.

But the problem does not stop at the Michigan State line. Vice experts operate nationwide and on a full-time basis. They seek to demoralize the youth of our country and subject the high standards of our society to contempt and ridicule.

The amazing part of this whole situation is that many parents are often apathetic or unaware of this deplorable condition. While they sit at home lecturing their young sons and daughters on the advantages of high moral standards, the "smut men" creep up to their doorsteps and leave their vile garbage in the family mailbox.

Recently, there has been a tremendous increase in the sale of pornographic material. Literature, marked "for adults only", is being purchased by our teenagers, indicating a breakdown in home life and an inadequate environment. This squalid material glorifies crime and rebellion. It is no coincidence that the crime rate and the sale of pornographic material are rising together-and at an alarming rate.

The problem can be solved in three ways: First, a strong interest on the part of parents; second, strong legislation, and third, strong enforcement.

I would like to commend the many civic groups and citizens who are working to protect the moral welfare of American youth. Parents in Michigan and other States are asking police, legislators, and judges: "why should I not be protected in the right to keep filth and poison from the hands of my children?"

Many Detroiters remember the father whose little 6-year-old daughter was assaulted and slain by a man. Greatly bereaved, he said, "I can't blame the man as much as the society which produced him. It's a society that allows its young people to read and distribute the worse sort of pornography."

Thank God there are concerned citizens concerned about the vagueness of our statutes, the lack of strict enforcement, the apathy of the American public. They are calling for personal and community action.

American parents should respond to this appeal by following this five-point

program for the annihilation of the smut program:

First. Create a healthy home life and encourage good reading habits.

Second. Keep your eyes open for eyes open for salacious material-report offenses to police.

Third. Back your local police department when it tries to enforce the obscenity statutes.

that might well be copied by others in resisting the siren song of subsidy. They are on record with consistent opposition to Government programs affecting other areas of agriculture like those for feed grains and wheat-and on record against the shift of land from row crops to new uses, like grazing.

But now the growers and feeders of beef want Government interference with

Fifth. If you receive salacious material, report it to the Post Office Department because the Department has to have a complaint before it can initiate action against the filth merchants who are using first-class mail privileges.

It is my hope that this positive action will be undertaken by all Americans. Total cooperation is necessary if we are to wipe out this menace to society.

The youth of our Nation must be prepared to operate the country's schools, businesses, government, and other institutions with a moral understanding and a high sense of decency. We must reinforce the high principles of our society through good literature, and we must advocate tasteful, educational, and cultural reading habits for all Americans.

I salute the men and women in Michigan who are responsible for "Better Literature for Youth Week" because, through their positive action, the public will become aware of the horrors of pornography.

GOVERNMENT CONTROLS AND

SUBSIDIES

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion of late concerning the freedom from Federal controls of many of the products of our agricultural economy, the highlight of such discussion being the allegation that in particular the livestock industry has been the most successful of all farming to remain "free from Government control and subsidy."

Mr. Speaker, while the livestock industry has been free of control, the record does not show it free of subsidy. And, if that industry has historically been opposed to Government help, it is currently in the process of rewriting history, because it is asking for Government help. Growers and feeders of beef cattle are petitioning the legislative and administrative branches of Federal Government for a supply management-price support program. They would achieve it through governmental action in cutting back imports of beef.

For many years cattlemen have been held up as shining examples, by themselves and others, as the undefeated champions in the area of resisting assistance from the Federal Government. The cattlemen have cited their virility and versatility and courage as virtues

they chased sheepherders down the old Chisholm Trail-the law of supply and demand. They want the Government to reduce the supply of processed beef in order to increase demand for what obviously is an oversupply of fed beef.

We are not, it appears importing filets or sirloin steaks or pot roasts from abroad for the Nation's dinner tables and outdoor grills. What we are buying from abroad in increasing volume is the type of beef that goes into processed meats, like frankfurters-and these imports are related in substantial degree to the fact that we do not produce a sufficient supply of that type of beef here at home to meet the demand.

I can by no stretch of imagination pose as an expert on production distribution, feeding, slicing and sale of beef. If I qualify at all as a beef expert it is at the household budget and taste levels, as a buyer and consumer. This is a classification held by the majority of my fellow citizens.

It is in behalf of the millions of housewives who seek to give their families varied and nutritious diets within the framework of often-limited budgets I express the hope that before any administrative or legislative action is taken to limit the total supply of beef in our markets, the impact of such action upon our consumers will be given thorough study.

The "let-'em-eat-cake" philosophy expressed by some representatives of the beef cattle industry-those who contend consumers will turn to more steaks and roasts if there is a cut in the supply and a boost in the price of processed beef-does not impress me. The family on a used-car budget does not buy a new Cadillac just because there are no second-hand cars available at reasonable prices.

I repeat: If the Government is to seriously study action in relationship to restriction of imports, let the study include the effect such action would have on our Nation's consumers.

Frankly, I have not shared the beef cattle industry's opposition to, or fear of, a cooperative role for Government in agriculture or in any other area where Government can help can help people reach worthwhile objectives they cannot achieve alone.

At the same time, I have not been able to accept without question the claim made by many outspoken representatives of cattlegrowers and feeders that they have been able to get along just wonderfully up to now without any Government help.

Under the Federal program now known as the agricultural conservation program the taxpayers of the United States,

since 1936, have invested more than $5 billion in soil and water conservation practices on privately owned farms and ranches. Around 60 percent of this total, or better than $3 billion, has gone into financing conservation practices applicable to livestock farms and ranches.

I realize conservation has achieved a status in our society comparable to motherhood, childhood and togetherness-and I have no objection to such status for conservation. It is, indeed, a good thing. And I know that farmers and ranchers match from their own pockets most of the subsidies they receive from the Federal Treasury for carrying out soil and water conservation practices. Neither do I need to be told these practices are an investment in the Nation's future, guaranteeing well-maintained natural resources and food production potential for our great-great-grandchildren.

But let us face it, with the hope that cattlemen will start facing it, too: There are immediate benefits from this type of Federal subsidy in terms of more profitable production. And I think it would be nice if the cattlemen would say thanks to the taxpayers for $3 billion instead of saying they neither receive nor want Government help.

What have taxpayers done to make a better life for people and for cows on farms and ranches?

In the period 1936-62 taxpayers have helped construct 207,000 wells for livestock water on farms and ranches at a cost of $76,423,000. They have helped construct 1,414,000 reservoirs for livestock water at a cost of $254,744,000. They have helped pipe livestock water over distances totaling 49,095,000 linear feet at a cost of $12,737,000.

There are other practices on privately owned lands in which costs have been shared by the Federal Treasury over the 1936-62 period, such as $50,949,000 worth of improvement of cover on rangeland and $4,076,000 worth of tillage operations on pasture and range and $2,547,000 worth of stocktrail construction running 40,649,000 linear feet.

Since the establishment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the various State departments of agriculture, billions of dollars in tax funds have been expended in research and action programs related to eradication and cure of livestock diseases and in research leading to increasing the efficiency, and profits, of livestock producers.

The 1964 budget proposal of the U.S. Department of Agriculture called for more than $18 million to finance research in animal husbandry and animal diseases and parasites, and another $34 million for animal disease control and eradication.

Not long ago taxpayers put $15 million into the construction of the world's best animal disease laboratory at Ames, Iowa.

Naturally, the livestock industry could not have done these things for itself such research and action programs are logical, worthwhile responsibilities of State and Federal Governments. Furthermore, consumers have benefited and

will benefit in terms of more and better foods-foods that are free of many health hazards faced by earlier generations of Americans. But these State and Federal expenditures have brought economic advantages to beef producers, too, and as such represent Government help.

Along with the interests of producers and consumers, I believe our national posture in relationship to foreign trade in agricultural products should get a hard look before action is taken to restrict imports.

How would we look waging a "chicken war" with the Common Market for freedom in trade that will permit greater exports of one farm product while conducting a "cow war" with other nations aimed at limiting trade in another farm product. Maybe a reconciliation can be achieved proving to everyone's satisfaction that what is good for the wishbone is bad for the T-bone and, in order to avoid achieving a ridiculous picture of our trade aims, I certainly hope so.

We need a vigorous, profitable beef cattle industry in the United States and if Government has to lend a hand to meet that need I am for Government help.

I am in favor of a fair and full hearing of the industry's case for Government help in the beef import area.

I only want our consumers to have a hearing, too, along with those who value consistency in our foreign trade policies.

To this I would add the hope the cattlemen will, in the days ahead, demonstrate a little more understanding, a little more compassion, as they look at the requests of other groups for Federal aid and show a little more appreciation for the contributions they have received from State and Federal taxpayers.

FOREIGN AID AND FOREIGN POLICY Mr. ABERNETHY. 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 Mississippi?

There was no objection.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, if a student had to sum up U.S. foreign policy from the year 1945 through today, he could research his assignment by merely reading the records of our so-called foreign aid program.

Our foreign policy has been foreign aid and foreign aid has been foreign policy. Occasionally, we have been temporarily diverted by a brushfire crisis which, as likely as not, was ignited or at least fanned by foreign aid itself. But the one constant factor in U.S. foreign policy during all these years is foreign aid.

In underwriting this policy the American Government has given away our rapidly depleting natural resources and our priceless and irreplaceable human productivity to the tune of $120 billion. Thus we have clumsily tried to reward our friends.

Thus we have created and sustained new nations, many of whom criticize and condemn us and vote against us in world forums.

Our foreign aid foreign policy has been singularly unsuccessful except in isolated instances of such rarity and relative importance as to make them hard to recall.

Neither political party must bear the blame alone, for they are equally responsible for this one-track-mind foreign policy. The present administration is continuing the policies of the Eisenhower administration which adopted those of the Truman administration.

The countless disillusionments and failures of foreign aid have been recited in recent debates. There is no need to repeat them now. But we shall have another chance to call a halt to this anemic foreign policy when the conference report on the foreign aid bill comes to the House, and I sincerely hope that we kill it for good.

Foreign aid foreign policy has got to go if the United States is to achieve initiative and leadership in world affairs.

I am, of course, aware that our Constitution grants to the President virtually sole responsibility in the conduct of foreign affairs. The Senate has very limited "advise and consent" authority and the House holds the purse strings, however loosely.

But it seems to me that in our free society and under our form of government it behooves every Member of the House and every Member of the Senate, and private citizens as well, to apply themselves and their best thinking to national problems of major importance. The development of new foreign policy for our country is not merely important; it is imperative. We cannot continue indefinitely to drift down the shallow stream of foreign aid foreign policy, without permanently and perhaps fatally damaging our future.

Mr. Speaker, my proposal is twofold: First. Phase out foreign aid at the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 1964.

Second. In the meantime, put our best minds and best efforts to work toward developing a new, imaginative foreign policy aimed at regaining American initiative and leadership in world affairs.

OUR WATER RESOURCES IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

Mr. PEPPER.

unanimous consent to extend my reMr. Speaker, I ask marks at this point in the RECORD and include an address.

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

There was no objection.

Thus we have attempted to influence neutrals.

gress.

I think it would be highly profitable for my colleagues in the Congress to read

OUR WATER RESOURCES IN THE NATIONAL

DEFENSE

(An address delivered before the 30th Annual Convention of the Inland Empire Waterways Association at Portland, Oreg., Nov. 5, 1963, by Henry Holland Buckman, president, the National Rivers and Harbors Congress)

"What would this city be without the river?" The question might be fairly asked of Portland, of Jacksonville, of St. Louis, of London, or of most of the larger cities of the world. But, as a matter of fact, so far as the historical record goes, it was first asked with respect to the city of Babylon on the Euphrates. The time was the year 539 before Christ, and the man who asked the question was the Persian conqueror of Mesopotamia, Cyrus the Great.

His chief of staff had just assured him that the fortifications of the city were such that they could not be stormed, and had dwelt at some length on the tremendous resources which the regent, Belshazzar, had at his command within the walls; men and armament, and supplies sufficient to withstand an indefinite siege.

"And yet," said Cyrus, "What would this city be without the river?" And he set his conquering troops in motion, and arriving at a point some distance upstream from Babylon, he directed his engineers to excavate for the river a bypass channel around the city. Then the river flowed around and away from the city instead of through it as formerly. And within a matter of days Babylon surrendered without fighting, and thus passed forever from history as the mightiest city of western Asia.

I have recited this bit of history in order to invite your attention to the essentiality of the full development and use of our water resources with a view to their employment in defense, the pragmatic recognition of which has been too long delayed.

Your convention this year is dedicated to the theme: "Thirty Years of Leadership." And well may it be. The leadership of this organization and its sister groups in the Northwest has set a shining mark for the rest of the United States. With your support such men as Herb West, Marshall Dana, and a host of others have made your accomplishments in the basins of the Columbia and the Snake enviable throughout the land.

Today, by your leave, I summon that splendid leadership to new endeavor-the planned relation of the use and conservation of our water resources to the defense of our country.

We have stumbled across the threshold of a new age of mankind. The faint shadows outlined on the photographic plates of Madam Curie by that small bottle of uranium salt 50 years ago have spread and darkened the entire world, and "we see through a glass, darkly." The unlocking of the atom has definitely conditioned the future of the race, and possibly its end. But the instinct for self-preservation may yet prevent the terminal nuclear war. And while this possibility exists, it behooves us to consider the inevitable continuation of recurrent war and the effect of atomic power upon such warfare.

Outside of scientific and military circles, our people have focused their attention almost exclusively on that potentiality of atomic power to devastate great areas and populations. The military men and the engineers, however, while giving that aspect of the new energy source its full share of recognition, are very much alive to the fundamental changes in the nature of warfare and the meaning of strategy which are even now nascent in our first attempts to harness these forces of hitherto undreamed of magnitude. It is just possible that the object of war may

destruction.

This organization has been well named the "Inland Empire Waterways Association." I say "has been" because the great area of which your membership is representative is no longer "inland" in the strategic sense of the word. The Polaris-firing type of submarine has moved you as near the coast as any of the seaside towns of Washington and Oregon. There is not a square mile of your tributary basins in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, or Oregon that is not an easy target for a Polaris-type missile fired from a submarine hundreds of miles out in the Pacific. However, such craft could not consistently operate against this area were they not driven by nuclear power. And here there is revealed an early demonstration of the indirect use of nuclear power to subdue rather than to destroy an enemy. Its implications as to the place of seapower in world politics are far reaching. Its implications for the policy of your organization are hardly less so. No longer can you prudently hardly less so. allot to ocean water resources a secondary place in your programs. Upon the ability of you and all of us to effectively use this resource for defense can well depend our survival.

Let me digress briefly to set forth some of the salient facts with respect to the meaning

of the nuclear-powered submarine. Today, the most reliable authorities report Russia as having operable upward of 450 submarines including an unknown number which are driven by nuclear power. Our own fleet is reported to be inferior in numbers, although we have no reason to believe that our nuclear-powered craft are not equal or superior to those of the Russians. At the period of their greatest strength in World War II, the Germans were able to keep on patrol less than 150 submarines. These had an average cruising period of no more than a few weeks, 15 knots. Contrast this with the modern and an average underwater speed of less than nuclear-powered submarine with a cruising period of many months and an underwater speed of 30 knots or more. And yet the comparatively inferior German U-boat came so near to winning the Second World War that the issue hung in the balance for some time. In the short space of 90 days after Pearl Harbor it sank substantially our entire merchant fleet in the gulf-Atlantic lanes, some 167 tankers and cargo vessels. This forced the coastwise traffic overland, all but crippled our railroads, and imposed petroleum rationing throughout the East.

Since that time our Navy has devised new and improved weapons and tactics for combating the submarine. But no informed source will dismiss the tremendous threat posed by the Russian submarine fleet, especially as it is increasingly brought up-todate by nuclear-powered replacements. We cannot prudently overlook the possibility that eventually surface craft, both battle and cargo, can become obsolete. Such an eventuality is not at all unlikely. Until the advent of the nuclear-powered cargo-carrying submarine or the nuclear-powered cargocarrying airplane, the supply of a large oversea expeditionary force may become impossible. We can move men overseas on a limited scale by airlift, but we cannot supply 200 divisions in Europe or Asia by fuelpowered planes. If and when large-scale occupation becomes impossible, the attack will take the exclusive form of bombing, and this will lead inevitably to the nuclear debacle. Thus transport may be the key to

Nine years ago the National Rivers and Harbors Congress constituted a special committee to study the feasibility and advisability of plans for converting the Panama Canal to a sea-level waterway in order to remove the possibility of its closure by enemy action against the locks or the Gatun Dam.

The committee consisted of three engineers,

a former chairman of the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and a retired admiral of the U.S. Navy. After 2 years of study, the committee found the plans feasible and advisable, and sent its report to Congress. This is House Document 446, 84th Congress, 2d session. I commend it to your attention. And yet, I am bound to say that I would not have signed that report had I then known of the subsequent development of the modern submarine. For it has now become a debatable question whether, in a future world war, cargo surface vessels will be able to reach either end of canal, regardless of whether or not it can be kept open. You may recall that during the period of German ascendancy in North Africa during World War II, the British were never able to get a supply ship within hundreds of miles of the northern end of the Suez Canal. Until the defeat of Rommel, they could not supply Crete without staggering losses to their convoys. In some cases these ran to more than 90 percent.

The record of World War II in America shows that 40 percent of all supply to the Pacific Coast States had to move via Panama, the railroads having reached the limit of their capacity on hauling the remaining 60 percent. In the East, at the beginning of the war 90 percent of the petroleum for the Atlantic States supply was moving (as it does today) by tanker via the ocean route between Cuba and Florida. When this movement was almost immediately denied us by enemy submarines, as much of this tonnage as possible had to be moved overland, and we did without the rest to the serious detriment of the civilian war effort even with the help of rationing.

You in the Pacific coast area are threatened also with a supply crisis through the cutting of your rail connections with the midcontinent. There are only six junction points between the Canadian and Mexican borders through which must pass the entire rail traffic to and from the west coast. All of these are within easy range of Polaristype submarine attack from far out in the Pacific. The closure of the Panama Canal or the inability of surface cargo vessels to reach that waterway would create a critical situation in your area. The concurrent rupture of the greater part of those rail junctions could mean disaster.

I think I have dwelt sufficiently upon this matter of transportation to warrant my inviting your very serious consideration of a policy which will recognize the necessity for (a) the fullest practicable development of our inland waterways for navigation, and (b) a more comprehensive and accelerated effort to produce practicable nuclear powered underwater and aircraft cargo carriers.

Of equal and even more basic importance to our defense is, of course, the development of our water resources to meet wartime demands arising from biological and industrial needs. The obvious fact of the need for adequate water to sustain animal and vegetable life requires no comment beyond the reminder that the concentration of pollution in our surface waters from both industrial and organic waste is increasing faster than the existing supply of available potable water. We must reverse this trend before too long a time, or see a definite weakening of our defense potential.

Less evident, but equally real is the necessity for increasing our capability to supply increased amounts of water for power generation and industrial use in wartime. The manufacture of woodpulp and the chemical industries are only two examples of users of enormous amounts of water. A single industrial plant can in many cases require as much clean water as a city of a million inhabitants. Aside from water used by industry for heat exchange, industrial use ordinarily results in significant

There was no objection.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Speaker, this week Americans paid special homage to the veterans who fought so valiantly in all of the wars in which the United States has been engaged to preserve our heritage of freedom.

Since the triumph over fascism in the mid-1940's our Nation has been involved in what is called the cold war with international communism. However, in certain parts of the world it is not a cold war, it is really a hot war.

Although a state of war has not been declared, Americans are being fired upon. Americans have been killed or wounded and some are missing. Americans are dying in such far-off places as Vietnam and Korea to protect our way of life from those who would bury us.

On November 8, 1963, 1st Sgt. William Joseph Everhart, the 32-year-old son of Mr. and Mrs. Frank L. Everhart, of Canton, Kans., which is in my congressional district, died of wounds suffered under fire from a hidden Communist machinegun nest near the Cambodian border of Vietnam.

Sergeant Everhart was an Army veteran of 15 years. He had earned the Bronze Star fighting the Communists in Korea. He saw service in Germany, and had been in Vietnam over 2 years.

He is exemplary of American military men who throughout our history have made the supreme sacrifice to guarantee freedom and liberty. Lest we forget, the war in Vietnam is very much a hot war. The Department of Defense, as of November 4, 1963, listed 77 Americans dead, 360 wounded or injured, and 5 missing.

Mr. Speaker, we have a solemn responsibility, and a huge debt, to these men-and to all those who are on the front lines in the fight against communism. Let us think of these Americans and their personal commitments to the cause of freedom when our leaders sit down with the Communists to talk of peace and relaxing tensions. Let us remember Communist tactics in Vietnam and Korea and Berlin and Cuba. us remember the common objectives of international communism when we consider trade expansion and foreign aid to Communist-led or Communist-oriented lands.

Let

Under the leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include an article written by Sue Gilmore, a staff writer for the Wichita Eagle, which vividly illustrates the unselfish devotion to duty and the American way of life practiced by Sergeant Everhart:

DEATH IN COMBAT ENDS HOPE OF SOLDIER'S RETURN HOME

(By Sue Gilmore)

CANTON.-Mr. and Mrs. Frank L. Everhart didn't expect their son home for Christmas. He hadn't spent Christmas Day with them since he joined the Army 15 years ago.

William Joseph Everhart, 32, died Friday under fire from a hidden Communist machinegun nest near the Cambodian border of Vietnam.

Joe was the 75th American to die in combat in South Vietnam, where he had been the past 2 years.

He died in the desolate Darlac Plateau, 170 miles northeast of Saigon, around the world from his Kansas homeland.

Joe was born July 24, 1931, in Canton. His family moved to the country and he started school in Roxbury. He attended high school in Gypsum and Canton.

Joe wanted to join the Army. He enlisted at 17, before he finished high school, and was sent to Camp Pope in Louisiana for basic training.

Joe saw a lot of country in 15 years.

"I can't remember all the places he has been," his sister, Mrs. Max Ek, McPherson, said. "But he was in Germany a long time. He spent 3 years there once. He was in the Korean conflict."

While Joe was in Korea, he was awarded the Bronze Star. The honor came to him for saving a man's life. He "brought a man back to safety under fire," his sister added. But Joe never wrote much about his activities.

"He was not the type of person to write home about anything like Korea. He didn't worry the folks with details," Mrs. Ek said.

After Korea, Joe went back to Germany for awhile. He returned to the States until he was sent to Vietnam, "a little over 2 years ago."

Joe's last letter came 2 weeks ago. It was like all the rest-he was more interested in Canton, Kans., than in worrying his family

about conflict in Vietnam.

The most things he did write home about sidering where he was, Mrs. Ek said. were about the family. He wrote often, con

Joe's whereabouts were a constant worry to his parents, Mrs. Ek admitted, but Mr. and Mrs. Everhart never said much about their concern.

"We talked about Joe an awfully lot at home. But when he was home, we didn't talk about Korea or the service. Because he would rather not."

Mrs. Ek doesn't recall ever having Joe home for Christmas since he enlisted. "We had Christmas early about 5 years ago, so he could be with us before he went back."

The ministers of two Canton churches, the First Methodist and the Canton Chris

tian, delivered the telegram Friday night to the family.

Joe's family-he wasn't married-mostly lived in McPherson County. There are three brothers, Lawrence D., Canton, Charles R., Herington, and Richard, McPherson. He has two sisters, Mrs. Ek and Mrs. Adam Opat,

also of McPherson.

The telegram told them of Joe's death. "We received no contact as to what arrangement will be made," Mrs. Ek said Sunday. "If possible, we'll bring the body back here for burial.

"Joe had only 5 years before he could retire with 20 years. Last we knew he was going to come back here to live," Mrs. Ek added.

FUNDRAISING PARTY FOR
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] 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 Minnesota?

There was no objection.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I insert at this point in the RECORD a news story carried on the Scripps-Howard newswire yesterday. It involves an interesting campaign fundraising party to be held in this city tonight and about which the Honorable OLIVER P. BOLTON has made previous comment relating to a potential conflict of interest involving a member of the President's Cabinet:

WASHINGTON, November 13.-Labor Secretary W. Willard Wirtz conceded today his name has been used in mail urging lobbyists who do business with his Department to attend a $100-a-head fundraising party for a Democratic Senator.

Wirtz said invitations to the party for Senator HARRISON A. "PETE" WILLIAMS, JR., of New Jersey, went to "25 to 40 persons connected with trade associations" in Washington.

These invitations were mailed out without his knowledge, Wirtz said.

He declined comment on a followup letter asking the lobbyists to attend the party because "Pete needs your help, needs it badly-and needs it now.

"I hope you will let us have the pleasure of telling Bill Wirtz that you will be able to join him on the 14th," the letter says.

This letter is signed by John H. Sharon, an attorney in the law firm of Clark Clifford, who is prominent in national Democratic circles.

The party will be held Thursday night at the Sheraton Carlton Hotel. Wirtz is officially listed as host but the invitations request that checks for $100 per person be made out to the "Washington Friends of HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR.," of which Sharon is listed as chairman.

The affair first received publicity 2 weeks ago when Representative OLIVER P. BOLTON, Republican, of Ohio, denounced it as "a new low" in fund-raising tactics.

At that time, however, Sharon insisted the invitation list had been carefully screened to remove lobbyists, representatives of trade associations and any other persons whose activities might involve either Wirtz or WILLIAMS in potential conflicts of interest.

It has now been learned, however, that the invitation and followup letter went to a number of persons whose business dealings could be affected both by the Secretary and the Senator.

Among the recipients, informed sources said, were representatives of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Housing Conference, the American Trucking Association, the Association of American Railroads, Esso Research (a division of Humble Oil Co.) and a group known as "Keep America Beautiful" which is concerned with conservation.

Just how their names got on the list remains something of a mystery.

Walter Gardner, Jr., administrative assistant to Senator WILLIAMS, said there was "absolutely no effort" to include lobbyists or trade association representatives when the original invitation list was made up.

"The effort went the other way," Gardner said. "Every reasonable effort was made to eliminate them. In fact, we eliminated a lot of WILLIAMS' friends because somebody thought they might be so classified."

Among those eliminated was Robert G. (Bobby) Baker, former Senate majority secretary whose business affairs are now under investigation, Gardner said.

Sharon could not be reached for comment. The invitations which went out under Wirtz's name list J. Edward Day, former Postmaster General, as treasurer of the "Friends of WILLIAMS."

Some sources have reported that Wirtz is angry over the incident and considers that he