governments, terrorized innocent victims, and sought to intimidate the rest of the world by displaying its military might.

This is not ancient history. The means and objectives of communism have remained fundamentally the same. Today, as in the beginning, world domination is its goal, and its means include anything that will work to its own advantage.

Free people, therefore, must oppose communism-both as an idea and as a system of power, both here at home and wherever it seeks to pull down free institutions and enslave free men. This is an obligation that arises from the right of self-defense and from the very logic of freedom.

How, in any specific way, the free world should go about the work of opposing communism is a matter of governmental policy and, therefore, is subject to controversy and debate. There is no single right way, valid for all times and places and circumstances. The strategy of freedom must be flexible, ready to confront the changing tactics of communism in various parts of the world, and ready, too, to utilize every opportunity to strengthen freedom and present freedom's case forthrightly and persuasively.

As a part of this strategy of freedom, we must, I believe, recognize the fact that conditions are changing within the Communist world, and with those changes comes the need to reexamine our own tactics.

Since

and the people of Poland. We should reinforce their hopes for the future, by convincing them that we have not forgotten their brave struggle against tyranny. We should weigh every chance to help by the test of whether it will increase the people's desire, hope, and demand for greater freedom. Freedom, we should know by now, is a dangerous thing for communism. A little freedom only sharpens the appetite for more. It creates a hunger that must be satisfied. This is our greatest weapon.

If we of the Western World truly believe in our ideals of freedom and independence, democracy and self-government, and the dignity and worth of each human being, then we have nothing to fear from communism. We should compete with communism wherever we find it compete with it by demonstrating the superiority of freedom, by proving that we really care about people and that we are willing to help them in their hour of need.

It won't be easy. There is no guarantee of early victory. But to those who understand it and value it, freedom is priceless, and no matter how much patience, ingenuity, and determination it may require, freedom is worth the struggle.

Representative BRUCE and myself would like to make this tour. It is not even a question of whether or not we support the President. The White House is owned by the American taxpayers, not the Kennedys. This means that it is owned by our constitutents whether they be Democrat or Republican and it is typical of the shabby abuse of power that we see along the New Frontier when the office of the President is used in such an arbitrary and dishonest manner.

Staten Island Barracks No. 2524, Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN M. MURPHY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this oppor

but unmistakable relaxation within Soviet Russia-a little more attention to the people's needs, a little less reliance on total police control. Not much, but a little. The same kind of loosening-up process has been evident in relations between Soviet Russia and the satellite countries of Eastern Europe. With Poland and Yugoslavia taking the lead, Russia has been forced to acknowledge the right of other Communist states to follow at least a partially independent national policy, rather than total subservience to the U.S.S.R. This "victory"-limited though it is-has led to the most decisive split in the history of communism, the deep division between Soviet Russia and Communist China, in which every Eastern European government except Albania has taken the side of the Soviet

Union.

This is a hopeful situation. Obviously, I do not see the end of the cold war in sightfar from it. But it does present the United States with new opportunities to lessen the danger of nuclear war and to encourage the further separation of one-time puppet governments from their one-time foreign boss. Independence isn't everything, as I have said before, but it is an essential first stepprovided that we don't stop here.

Poland is an outstanding example of the new situation that confronts us. The Polish people, supported by their church-as you know so well-have never surrendered to communism. They have never given up the struggle for freedom, never stopped their resistance to the power of the Communist

state. Their courage has won them at least some independence, and we can hope for

more.

Now is certainly not the time to shut the door on Poland. To do this would be to play into the hands of the Communists themselves. If the free world, especially the United States, should abandon Poland, we would be proving that Communist propa

gandists are right when they argue that

America doesn't care or can't be counted on for help. We would be forcing the Polish people to turn closer to other Communist powers and away from freedom.

Instead, we in the United States should look for every possible way of distinguishing between the Polish people and their Communist government. In every way we can, we

should help the people without strengthening the government. We should increase the contacts between people of the free world

Along the New Frontier

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK

OF OHIO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see the pettiness and partisan spite of this administration. Never has this been brought home more demonstrably than in an incident which happened this morning. As everyone knows, a limited White House tour is available on a reservation basis for constituents of Congressmen. Reservations can be made 30 days in advance for this special tour.

It is now obvious that the White House has a blacklist of Congressmen who will not be favored with constituent tours. For the past 3 days, my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, Representative DONALD C. BRUCE, has made calls at 10 a.m. in the morning, right on the button, for reservations a full 30 days ahead, the maximum. In each instance he has been turned down. He told me of his problems this morning at 10:18 a.m. and I said, "Don, they're lying to you and we can prove it. We only need to bait the trap." Less than 10 minutes after the gentleman from Indiana, Representative BRUCE's request was turned down, three nonexistent people were granted this tour on December 14, the same date requested by the gentleman from Indiana, Representative BRUCE, simply by giving

the name of a liberal Democratic congressman.

Mr. Speaker, I do not care about being on a Kennedy blacklist. I would not want to have his support in 1964. This is not the point. It is a good indication just how this bunch operates. Deceit, favoritism, and blacklisting are the order of the day. It is not a question of whether the gentleman from Indiana,

Barracks No. 2524, Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A. and to compliment them on their outstanding Veterans Day services which were held on Monday, November 11, 1963, at Ocean View Cemetery, Staten Island, N.Y. Judge James C. Crance was the principal speaker, and did great honor to their members who so valiantly defended the cause of democracy in 1917-18.

The Staten Island Barracks is one of the most active barracks of the Veterans of World War I of U.S.A. and I would like to join hands with them on Armistice Day in saluting all of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD I include my message to the Staten Island Barracks No. 2524, Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A.:

Once, in the very recent past-only yesterday, really, in this ever swifter march of time-Armistice Day was a unique holiday. On the one hand it was a day of solemn homage to those who, as Lincoln so movingly put it, “Gave the last full measure of devotion" to their country's cause. And on the other it was a day of rejoicing that those gallant men of the AEF had not died in vain. on that fateful November 11, 1918, we believed in our hearts that we had heard the last shot fired in anger, that the battle flags had been furled for all time. The war to end

war had run its bloody course, and the world had been made safe for democracy.

of World War I we reaped the deadly whirlTragically, we were wrong. From the seeds wind of World War II, a war, which, in reality, has never ended-only the enemy or, more precisely, the ideology, has changed. The Communist tide that inundated Eastern Europe in the wake of Germany's collapse would be inundated but for a living dike of

sent its waves into remote Korea, which, too,

watchful young Americans. This evil tide now laps hungrily at South Vietnam, where still more young Americans fight and die in a skulking silent war to protect another threatened outpost of democracy. And so it goes, round the world, from Berlin to Okinawa, from the Arctic Circle to the Panama Canal. Everywhere there is war or the threat of war.

So, on this 46th Armistice Day, we have neither peace nor armistice with our re

sourceful and remorseless foe, communism. This being true, why are we gathered here today? Is it simply to pause, briefly, in remembrance of the silent 600,000 who laid down their lives in all our wars? Is it only to momentarily wave the banner of freedom and half listen to a flood of patriotic oratory that is forgotten when the final echo is wafted away? No. It must not be. This must be a day of rededication for us, the living, if we are to honor the dead.

In these times it is temptingly easy to slip into shrugging cynicism. We read of our hard-earned tax dollars being siphoned off into vague and seemingly insatiable projects in misgoverned and frequently ungovernable lands; we read of fiascos in policy that set back the cause of freedom in our relent

less struggle against Communist imperialism; we read of price rigging in industry, of

connivance in labor, of graft in politics, and of corruption in high places; we read that Khrushchev will bury us, that the doom of individual freedom and enterprise is inevitable, and-more and more frequently that the image of America as a dynamic symbol of human attainment is shattered beyond repair. Under the weight of this catalog of woes-more apparent than real-too many of us retreat in cranky indifference, convinced that to look forward is both foolish and futile.

But in doing so we dishonor those to whom we pay homage today, the silent 600,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our citadel of freedom. Now, you may ask: In view of what we read, is there any real justification for pride in the immediate past and hope for the future? The answer is a ringing "Yes." Somehow, the credit side of our national ledger gets scant attention; criticism, as we all know, commands a wider audience than praise. In our country's ebullient youth, boasting of its prowess and progress was a national trait; undoubtedly we overdid it, but even so it was done in all faith and honesty. But now we are suddenly sophisticated, and expressed patriotism is considered quite unfashionable in some circles. Who today in public life, for instance, would dare voice Stephen Decatur's notable toast-"Our country. In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right, or wrong." In some quarters he would most certainly be denounced as a primitive, a man blind to world opinion, a rabble-rousing flag waver, and possibly even a warmonger.

I am not saying that we all should make Fourth of July orations. But I am saying that we should renew our faith in ourselves and in our country by quietly considering the credit side of our ledger. Let's brush away the carpers, the cynics, and those of little faith, and look for a moment at what the ledger has to tell us. Our part in the two World Wars is too vividly remembered for me to dwell upon at length here, but I would like to point out one historical factor

by grave new responsibilities. It would have been easy to put down the burden; after all, we had poured 4 years of blood and treasure into the war; why not let Europe pull itself up? But we did not. Instead, we cheerfully accepted a continuing drain on our economy so that the economy of the free world would be strong enough to resist the steady pressure of communism. And what has been the result? Directly because of our sacrifices, the economy of the free worldEurope in particular-has never been healthier. On all fronts, we have either defeated or contained the Reds; militarily in some areas, economically in all.

Keep that in mind-and speak out-when you hear that we as a nation are faltering, that we no longer have the will and the vigor to lead the free world. We have missed opportunities, certainly; we have made policy

mistakes, and we have taken wrong turns. But let us not forget that, on balance, we have been far more right than wrong. It is communism that has been rolled back, not freedom; it is the Communist economy that is sickly and here let us remind ourselves how galling it must be to Khrushchev to come asking us for wheat-and not our own; it is communism that is on the defensive,

not individual liberty and free enterprise; if Khrushchev is to bury us, he must find himself a new shovel; we have broken his old one.

And let us not forget, either, that we have paid a high cost in blood, as well as treasure, to push back the forces of enslavement. More than 30,000 of our young men gave their lives in Korea; others are dying now in South Vietnam; undoubtedly still others will die in places not yet known before this struggle is concluded. So, today, let us honor these men, the silent 600,000 who wrote our history in blood from Bunker Hill to Belleau Wood, to Berlin, to Inchon, to Vietnam, by pledging ourselves to keep the faith that they so gallantly bore for us. Let us keep green in our memory the eloquent appeal of Poet McCrea in "In Flanders Fields":

"In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard among the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.

"Take up our quarrel with the foe;
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die

which I engaged in with members of the legislative committee of Local 28, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO, of St. Louis. I became convinced safety legislation was required.

Following the introduction of my bill, which was H.R. 9700, in the 87th Congress-H.R. 942 in the 88th Congressthe Coast Guard asked for an opportunity to complete its own investigation of the need for this legislation before any

action was taken on it.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Department has now sent to the House a draft of a proposed bill to close the safety loopholes at which my bill was directed, and I have therefore introduced the new bill today as H.R. 9130. It is, I understand, an even broader bill in some respects than my original proposal, and is based on a Coast Guard study which revealed in general that operation of diesel-powered towing vessels involves as great a hazard as operation of those propelled by steam and should therefore be subject to similar Coast Guard safety standards.

MANY ACCIDENTS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

When I introduced the original bill on January 16, 1962, I expressed the hope that it would serve as the vehicle for obtaining a full review by the executive agencies and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of this whole question of safety in river transportation. Many of the vessels, which are not subject to periodic safety inspection, are manned by personnel not licensed or otherwise shown to be qualified for the tasks they are performing.

For instance, while the number of towing vessels has increased 20 percent in the past 10 years, the number of casualties has increased by 120 percent, to an average of 559 casualties per year. A large percentage of these casualties occurred on uninspected towing vessels, and it is the opinion of the Treasury Department that many of these were of a kind which could have been avoided or minimized if well-qualified personnel were aboard.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance

In Flanders Fields."

Let us not break faith. Thank you.

wars would have been won without us; and in World War II the United States became the only country in the history of the world to successfully fight a massive, two-front war and simultaneously maintain a full economy at home.

Now let's turn back the clock briefly to 1945. Hitler's evil conspiracy had been crushed, and Germany with it. Militarism had been struck down in Japan. The world was weary of war, and we were busily disarming ourselves with a haste that we were to regret later. Europe was prostrate, a polit

ical vacuum open wide for the onrush of communism. England, once the guardian of freedom in her own sphere of influence, was badly stricken and unable to stem the advance of Red tyranny from the East. We alone had the resources to battle this new

enemy, and we alone were called upon to shoulder the burden despite our hopes of going back to the pursuits of peace untroubled

River Transportation

EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF

HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN

OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, November 14, 1963 Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 1962, I introduced, by request, a bill to promote greater safety in river transportation by requiring the inspection and certification by the Coast Guard of diesel-powered towboats, and licensing of certain personnel.

The bill was an outgrowth of a long series of exchanges of correspondence

industry and its employees, I am herewith placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, under unanimous consent, the text of the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Speaker transmitting the draft of the bill which I have now introduced.

Following that, I am also inserting the Treasury Department's report on my original bill, H.R. 942. After the interested groups have had a chance to study the new bill carefully, I shall ask for hearings in the committee so that we can proceed to solve a serious safety problem in river transportation.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR
LEGISLATION

The text of the letter to the Speaker is as follows:

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C. Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is submitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill to

require the inspection of certain towing vessels.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to bring towing vessels propelled by means other than steam under inspection by the Coast Guard.

Section 4427 of the Revised Statutes (46 U.S.C. 405) presently requires the inspection of "every tugboat, towing boat, and freight boat." This section is part of an extensive statutory pattern to insure high standards of safety on merchant vessels through regulation and inspection by the Coast Guard. Although phrased in broad terms, section 4427 has been interpreted by the courts as applying only to vessels propelled by steam. As a result, motor propelled towing vessels are not presently subject to inspection unless they are seagoing vessels of over 300 gross tons.

The anomaly whereby steam towing vessels are subject to inspection and motor towing vessels performing practically identical services are not has long been recognized. This anomaly is becoming increasingly apparent with the increasing dominance of the diesel towing vessel as compared to the steam towing vessel. At the present time, steam tugs have been almost completely superseded by diesel towboats; figures show that in 1962 there were 5,016 diesel tugs in operation compared to 84 propelled by steam.

The present interpretation of section 4427 of the Revised Statutes results in another inconsistency in that barges or self-propelled tank vessels carrying hazardous liquid cargoes on inland waters must be inspected and meet Coast Guard safety standards while motor propelled tugs towing such barges are not required to be inspected. Considering the ever increasing traffic in dangerous liquid cargoes and the fact that collision is a major source of marine casualties, an obvious potential hazard is involved in permitting such cargoes to be towed by vessels which at present are neither subject to the requirements for safety inspection nor subject to the licensing and certificating of their personnel.

During 1962 the Coast Guard made a comprehensive study of towing vessel operations. The study showed that of 5,100 vessels documented for towing service only 103 were inspected and certificated by the Coast Guard. The remaining vessels were not subject to inspection under existing law.

The data obtained during the study also shows that while the number of towing vessels has increased 20 percent in the past 10 years, the number of casualties has increased by 120 percent to an average of 559 casualties per year for the period from 1960 through 1962. During 1962, for example, 530 towing vessels were involved in casualties serious enough to be reported, which is an average of 1 out of every 10 towing vessels in service. Detailed casualty figures for that year reveal that while no lives were lost due to casualties on inspected towing vessels, 15 lives were lost in casualties involving uninspected towing vessels. The figures further reveal that less than 3 percent of the inspected vessels were involved in reportable casualties compared to 10 percent of the uninspected vessels. During fiscal year 1962 estimated monetary damages due to casualties involving towing vessels were over $9 million.

Analysis of the casualty figures for towing vessels for the past several years leads to the conclusion that operation of diesel towing vessels involves as great a hazard as operation of those propelled by steam, and that this hazard could be reduced by requiring these vessels to comply with Coast Guard safety standards. In brief, the Department has concluded that motor propelled towing vessels should be brought under the statu

tory inspection scheme. The proposed bill would, therefore, amend section 4427 of the revised statutes to provide for the inspection of towing vessels regardless of the manner of propulsion.

The Department believes that the smaller towing vessels are not a sufficient safety hazard to warrant the increased administrative difficulties and costs which would result if they were subject to inspection. Therefore, the bill would exclude those towing vessels which are less than 15 gross tons and 26 feet in length. This would eliminate from inspection the smaller vessels which engage in limited operations.

The casualty statistics also show that a large percentage of the casualties which have occurred on uninspected towing vessels are of a type which could be avoided or minimized if well qualified personnel were aboard. For example, during fiscal year 1962 almost 60 percent of the reported casualties involved collisions while another 12 percent involved groundings of the tug or tow. To minimize the hazard to life and property from operation of towing vessels by unqualified personnel, the proposed bill would contain authority to prescribe regulations regarding the manning of towing vessels and the licensing and certificating of their personnel.

The Department, of course, realizes that there are large numbers of vessels to which the strict application of the inspection and manning requirements would not be appromanning requirements would not be appropriate for one reason or another. In some cases it is not possible or practicable to bring the vessel into strict compliance; in other cases to do so would result in severe economic hardship or loss of employment. Therefore, the proposed bill would require the Secretary to take into account the various factors which might appropriately require a lessening of the inspection or manning requirements as to certain vessels. It would also give him authority to exempt additional vessels from the inspection requirements if necessary in the public interest. These provisions are intended to provide sufficient flexibility in administration to enable the Secretary to tailor the inspection requirements more closely to the circumstances of individual vessels. With this authority it should be possible to achieve the maximum safety on towing vessels consistent with the least economic hardship and disruption to the industry. This authority would also permit the gradual application of the requirements to existing vessels to insure an orderly transition period with minimum interference to towing vessel operations.

The proposed legislation would require increased expenditures for inspection and clerical personnel since an additional 4,300 vessels would become subject to inspection. The Department estimates that an increase of 55 officers and 20 civilians would be required. This would result in additional costs of approximately $650,000 per year.

There is enclosed a memorandum which contains in summary form the results of the study made by the Coast Guard of the operation of towing vessels. There is also enclosed for your convenient reference a comparative type showing the changes in existing law that would be made by the proposed bill.

It would be appreciated if you would lay the proposed bill before the House of Representatives. A similar proposed bill. has been transmitted to the President of the Senate.

Sincerely yours,

DOUGLAS DILLON.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ON ORIGINAL BILL

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Department report on my original bill, H.R. 942, con

taining suggestions and recommenda-
tions for the new bill, H.R. 9130 which I
have just introduced, is as follows:
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C.

Hon. HEBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 942, to require the inspection and certification of certain motor vessels known as towboats.

The bill would require the inspection and certification of every domestic towboat, however powered, which (1) is designed and used for the purpose of moving barges; (2) is of 480 horsepower or more; and (3) operates on the navigable waters of the United States. Inspection and certification requirements would extend to design, construction, repair, stability, accommodations for crew, lifesaving equipment, firefighting equipment, manning, and other matters.

In September of 1961 the Coast Guard initiated a comprehensive study of towing vessel operations with a view toward determining whether marine inspection and licensing laws now applicable to steampowered towing vessels should be extended to other classes of towing vessels. That study has been completed. It revealed in general that operation of diesel towing vessels involves as great a hazard as operation of those propelled by steam and that this hazard could be reduced by requiring those vessels to meet Coast Guard safety standards. The Treasury Department has drafted legislation, based on the findings of this study, which is being submitted to the Congress separately.

Although the bill drafted by the Department is similar to H.R. 942, it is broader in scope since it would subject to inspection all towing vessels which are over 15 gross tons or 26 feet or over in length. This results from the findings of the Coast Guard study that vessels over 26 feet or 15 gross tons constitute a definite safety hazard which can be reduced without excessive administrative costs.

Other differences in the two proposals result from the Department's belief that the

law governing inspection of towing vessels should follow the existing statutory pattern of title 52 of the Revised Statutes. This

would permit a considerable simplification in language. The Department's draft also contains fewer specific statutory requirements and relies more on administrative rulemaking power.

The Department notes that section 5 of H.R. 942 would authorize a penalty twice as great as that provided for violations of the inspection laws by other vessels. While the Department agrees that the penalty provision of existing law should be increased, it does not seem fair to increase the penalty against only one class of vessels. The Department is, therefore, studying the whole question of penalties for violations of the inspection laws. Meanwhile, it recommends that the existing penalty be applied to towing vessels.

In the circumstances, the Department recommends favorable consideration of the legislation relating to towing vessels which it is submitting in lieu of action on H.R. 942.

The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours,

G. D'ANDELOT BELIN,
General Counsel.

The Role and Work of the Advisory Com-
mission on Intergovernmental Relations
Relations
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF

HON. FLORENCE P. DWYER

OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 1963, I was privileged to address the 33d annual meeting of the New Jersey Taxpayers Association at the Hotel Robert Treat in Newark, N.J. As one of three House Members of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, I used the occasion to discuss the role and some of the work of the Commission, particularly its study of State property taxes and its unique position as a force for improving our Federal-State-local system of govern

ment.

Under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the text of my address:

THE ROLE AND WORK OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr. Chairman, members of the association, ladies and gentlemen, for several reasons I am grateful for this invitation to meet with the New Jersey Taxpayers Association this year to discuss the position and the work of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

First, I always welcome an opportunity to meet with citizens of New Jersey to discuss issues of the day and to render an accounting of the positions which I take in the Congress affecting the people of the Nation and the State.

Second, the Advisory Commission, of which I am proud to be a member, works very closely with the Tax Foundation and through the foundation with the various State taxpayers associations throughout the United States. For example, at the present time the Tax Foundation is engaged in a concerted study of the report which the Commission has recently published dealing with the role of the States in strengthening the property tax. I will have more to say about this report in a few moments. Upon completion of the foundation's study of the Commission's report, however, it is hoped and expected that through one or more special publications the foundation will assist the Commission in promoting many of these recommendations throughout the country. In this connection, let me call your attention to a column by Mr. Raymond Moley appearing in the New York Herald Tribune on August 19.

Mr. Moley observes that:

"In one of his debates with Richard Nixon in 1960, John F. Kennedy said that the property tax was practically exhausted as a source of revenue. On this assumption he advocated vast new Federal expenditures for local facilities such as public schools.

"It is a pity that Mr. Nixon did not remind his opponent that it was the Federal income tax, not the property tax, which had reached the point of diminishing returns. Mr. Kennedy has admitted that in asking for tax rate reductions this year."

Mr. Moley goes on to refer to the comprehensive study of the property tax being published by the Advisory Commission and closes with the hope that by strengthening the property tax it may be possible to check the growth of Federal control of local affairs.

Third, I am especially pleased at this opportunity to explain something about the work of the Advisory Commission and to summarize the things it is for and the things it is not for-despite the rumors and allegations to the contrary. Let me note at this point that I have arranged to provide for your use a supply of pamphlets describing the functioning of the Commission. With this more comprehensive material available, I shall limit myself here to matters of special interest.

Now, a brief look at the events leading up to the establishment of the Commission.

You may recall that in 1953 the President and the Congress initiated a thorough review of Federal-State relations by creating a temporary commission made up of persons appointed by the President and Representatives from both Houses of the Congress. This Commission came to be known by the name of its chairman, the late Meyer Kestnbaum of Chicago. In 1955, the Kestnbaum Commission went out of business and issued its formal report, which constituted the most comprehensive review of intergovernmental relations since the adoption of the Constitution. Our own Gov. Alfred Driscoll, by the way, was a member of this pioneering group. The Kestnbaum report covered not only the philosophical aspects of federalism, but also a variety of specific recommendations on the allocation of functions and responsibilities between the National Government and the States. The report did not get down to many specifics on taxes, but dealt extensively with grants.

From 1956 through 1958, the House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking minority member, undertook a comprehensive study of the recommendations of the Kestnbaum Commission, including those relating to possible permanent arrangements within the National Government for attention to intergovernmental relations. In the course of this study, our subcommittee met with State and local government officials throughout a large part of the country. We were deeply impressed with the great body of evidence these officials provided, which showed a disturbing failure of communications between the various levels of government. It became obvious that this failure was at least partially responsible for a lot of waste and duplication. Not only did local and State officials not know what the other was often doing, or had done, or could do in particular areas, but just as often neither was familiar with the role of the Federal Government in that field. Under such circumstances, coordination and cooperation were difficult to obtain and inefficiency was encouraged.

With this situation in mind, our subcommittee chairman, Congressman FOUNTAIN, and I introduced companion bills to create a permanent Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Following a favorable report by the subcommittee, hearings on this House bill were carried on jointly by the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations. An identical measure was sponsored in the Senate by Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, of Maine, and a number of other Republican and Democratic Senators. These bills culminated in the enactment of Public Law 380 in the first session of the 86th Congress.

This act, approved by President Eisenhower, September 24, 1959, provided for the establishment of a permanent, bipartisan body of 26 members, to give continuing study to the relationship among local, State, and National levels of government. The act specifies the following composition of the Commission on a bipartisan basis: (a) three officers of the executive branch of the National Government; (b) three private citizens; (c) three Members of the U.S. Senate; (d) three Members of the U.S. House of Representa

tives; (e) four Governors; (f) four mayors; (g) three county officials; and (h) three State legislators.

Among the members of the Commission presently are: Secretary of the Treasury Dillon, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Celebrezze, Robert C. Weaver, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency; Senators Ervin of North Carolina, Mundt, of South Dakota, and Muskie, of Maine; Congressmen Fountain, of North Carolina, Keogh, of New York, and Dwyer, of New Jersey; Governors Anderson, of Kansas, Sanders, of Georgia, Sanford, of North Carolina, and Smylie of Idaho; and Mayors Blaisdell, of Honolulu, Naftalin, of Minneapolis, Selland, of Fresno, Calif., and Tucker, of St.

The act creating the Commission assigns certain specific responsibilities to this group. The Commission is directed to:

1. Bring together representatives of the Federal, State, and local governments for consideration of common problems.

2. Provide a forum for discussion of the administration of Federal grant programs.

3. Give critical attention to the condi

tions and controls involved in the administration of Federal grant programs.

4. Make available technical assistance to the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the review of proposed legislation to determine the overall effect on the Federal system.

5. Encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problems that are likely to require intergovernmental cooperation.

6. Recommend, within the framework of the Constitution, the most desirable allocation of governmental functions, responsibilities, and revenues among the several levels of government.

7. Recommend methods of coordinating and simplifying tax laws and administrative practices to achieve a more orderly and less competitive fiscal relationship between the levels of government and to reduce the burden of compliance for taxpayers.

Three major distinctions characterize the Commission, in comparison with predecessor efforts. First, it is a permanent rather than a temporary body and as such it can approach its work selectively, on a problemby-problem basis; second, the cities and counties sit down as equals at the council table along with representatives of National and State governments; and third, it is not dominated by any one level of government or part thereof. Of the 26 seats on the Commission, 6 are controlled by the President, 6 by the Congress, and 14 by State and local governments. So only in a very technical sense can the Commission be considered a Federal agency. Currently, all of its funds come from Congress, but its congressional sponsors definitely had in mind the possibility that, if accomplishments warranted it, State and local assistance could be sought in financing the Commission's work.

As will be noted from the list of responsibilities stated in the act, the Commission has a broad mission. The Commission believes that the years ahead hold serious challenge for all levels of government. If our present system is to prove equal to these tasks, we believe, the resources of each level must be utilized to the highest degree of effectiveness. The Commission is therefore dedicated to strengthening local and State governments in particular, in order that they may play their full part in a period when the forces of international tension, rapid population growth, and marked technological change point to an increase in the responsibilities of government as a whole.

Finally, the Commission recognizes that its own value and place in the Federal system will be determined by the extent to

which it is able to make constructive contributions. It cannot expect continuance and support over an indefinite period unless by its actions significant changes for the better occur in the relationships among Federal, State, and local agencies of government.

No single "party line" has emerged from the recommendations made by the Commission so far. The closest thing to such a position is the conviction of all of the members that State and local government in the United States must be strengthened if further unnecessary centralization at the Federal level is to be avoided. The Commission has recommended the enactment of a broad scope of enabling legislation by State governments for the unshackling of local governments, particularly those in urban areas, to permit a much greater degree of cooperation among these localities in meeting new problems.

Last year Senator MUNDT, of South Dakota, one of my colleagues on the Commission, commented as follows: "The Congress has brought to a halt the present effort to create a Federal Department of Urban Affairs. Nevertheless, I urge State legislatures and Governors to lose no time in asserting by positive action their interest, their help, and their authority with regard to these problems brought about through rapid increases in population in our large metropolitan centers. If the States do not move in this matter, additional excuses will be seized upon by those who desire to see the Federal Government establish supremacy in this field."

Senator MUNDT then went on to commend for the consideration of the States the various legislative proposals which the Advisory Commission has made in regard to coping with metropolitan area problems.

Several of these recommendationsstrangely enough-have become involved in the controversy over metropolitan government, or "Metro" as its opponents insist on calling it. To some people, apparently, even the word "metropolitan" is anathema, and, as far as I can determine, it is the Commission's use of this very well-defined, honorable and descriptive word which has made the Commission fair game. As a matter of fact, however, the Commission has never endorsed metropolitan government as suchdirectly or indirectly. Our interest is based on the fact that metropolitan areas exist; that, because of the multiplicity of governing bodies in metropolitan areas, there is a vital need to encourage and facilitate these individual governments in cooperating with each other to solve problems which are common to them all. Each of our recommendations is designed to accomplish this limited but important objective.

Ironically, by trying to tag the Commission's work in this field as part of "metro," opponents are helping to bring about-as Senator MUNDT suggests-exactly what they are supposed to be against: The development of centralized government in urban areas.

The Commission has been very concerned about the growth in the number and magnitude and complexity of Federal grants-inaid. One of its first reports dealt with the need for the requirement by Congress of a periodic review of grants-in-aid programs to assure their termination or redirection when the need has ended or changed. introduced H.R. 7160 which is pending in the House Committee on Government Operations to carry out this recommendation.

I

The Senate version of our bill, S. 2114, is scheduled to come up for hearings before the Senate Committee on Government Operations next month. Sponsored by Senator MUSKIE of Maine, our own Senator CASE and 28 other Senators of both parties, this bill, I suggest, is worthy of your active support.

If you agree, your letters to New Jersey Congressmen and Senators could be very helpful.

The objective of this proposed legislation is to establish a uniform policy and procedure for review of new grant-in-aid programs which are designed to assist States or their political subdivisions in meeting recognized national needs. The bill is intended neither to encourage nor discourage the use of the Federal grant-in-aid device, but only to improve it where it is found desirable by the Congress.

Nevertheless, as all of us know, there is a persistent tendency for such programs, once enacted, to go on and on, no matter how useful they may be, without a meaningful or consistent congressional reexamination of their effectiveness as instruments of intergovernmental cooperation. The record shows that in all our history, only 14 Federal grant-in-aid programs have ever been terminated. Those terminated were special wartime or depression measures.

In my judgment, the failure of Congress to give continued and systematic attention to the problem helps to explain why this device is frequently the target of severe criticism. Congress ought to have a uniform policy and procedure for periodic review of grants-in-aid, not only to answer the critics, but to assure ourselves that programs we adopt are either adjusted to meet changing conditions or terminated when their original purposes have been achieved.

Under the bill, any new grant program hereafter enacted by the Congress would automatically expire at the end of 5 years unless an earlier date were specifically provided, or unless application of the act had been specifically waived, in recognition of the intent to provide continuing Federal assistance in a given program. The bill provides that the appropriate legislative committees in the Congress shall, at the end of 4 years, address themselves to the following questions:

First. The extent to which the purposes for which the grants-in-aid are authorized have been met.

Second. The extent to which the States or political subdivisions thereof are able to carry on such programs without further financial assistance from the United States. Third. Whether or not any changes in the purpose or direction of the original program should be made.

The proposed legislation does not apply to existing grants, but we hope that such programs also will be assessed periodically by Congress and the executive agencies in terms of the same criteria provided in the bill. The importance of Federal grants-inaid is beyond question. Programs that have almost quadrupled over the past 10 years and will consume over $10 billion of Federal funds during this fiscal year alone demand the continued and effective attention of Congress.

Now let us return to the property tax. This is a sore subject in the State of New Jersey.

We have been told by the courts to equalize our assessments among the various jurisdictions or run the risk of having them overturned in the process of judicial review. There is a great deal in the report adopted by the Commission that can be usefully studied in New Jersey. I will here only summarize some of the recommendations contained in the report.

1. Each State should take a hard, critical look at its property tax law and rid it of all features which cannot be administered as written, which encourage taxpayers' dishonesty or force administrators to condone evasion and which, if enforced, would impose an intolerable tax burden.

2. Both the the legislative and executive branches of the State governments should study the property tax as consistently as the other major sources of State-local revenue and treat it as an integral part of overall State and local financial planning.

3. In order that the taxpayer may be kept informed, each State should require the regular assessment of all tax exempt property, and publish the findings, including the function, scope and nature of activities so exempted.

4. The geographical organization of each State's primary local assessment districts should be reconstituted, to the extent required, to give each district the size and resources it needs to become an efficient assessing unit and to produce a well-ordered overall structure that makes successful State supervision feasible.

5. The State supervisory agency should be empowered to establish the professional qualifications of assessors and appraisers and certify candidates as to their fitness for employment on the basis of examinations, and to revoke such certification for good and sufficient cause.

6. Assessors should be appointed to office, with no requirement of prior district residence, by the chief executives or executive boards of the local governments involved; they should be appointed for indefinite, rather than fixed, terms; and should be subject to removal for good cause, including incompetence, by the appointing authorities.

There are several additional recommendations which time does not permit presenting here. I would urge all of you to give a careful reading to this very valuable report.

Now let me say a few words about what the Commission is not doing. We are not promoting metropolitan government. We are not advocating the elimination of municipal home rule. We are not advocating the abolition of small local units of government. This does not mean to say that the Commission favors the status quo with regard to metropolitan area problems. The growth of population and the spread of technical functions in these areas has been such as to require greatly increased cooperation among the local units involved and a much greater degree of leadership on the part of the State governments.

The gamut of solutions to these problems runs from the urban-county approach used by Nashville-Davidson County, Tenn., and Miami-Dade County, Fla., to a metropolitan service corporation, adopted by the people of Seattle, to the establishment of joint contracts among units of local government. There are many modifications to all of these approaches. The Commission has urged that each State and each metropolitan area appraise its own situation and proceed accordingly.

In conclusion, let me urge the New Jersey Taxpayers Association to give a critical reading to the reports and recommendations of the Commission. I am sure that you won't agree with all of our recommendations, but I am equally sure that you will find yourself in agreement with a great many. The members and staff of the Commission would be appreciative of any criticisms or suggestions which you may have to offer regarding our work.

The Commission is dedicated to the proposition that the Federal system of government in this country, with its division of powers among local, State, and National governments, must be preserved and strengthened. We welcome your help in this

task.