the distinguished Senator yield? Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I should like to ask

the majority leader about the remainder of the day, and, incidentally, I should like to ask the Senator from Colorado

how long he is going to take and whether

vote.

or not he will ask for a yea-and-nay Mr. ALLOTT. In response to the inquiry of the distinguished minority leader, I have an amendment which I think is quite important, but it can be explained briefly. I plan to take about 5 minutes if I can have reasonable attention of a number of Senators. Then I

will ask for a voice vote.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Kan

sas [Mr. PEARSON] has an amendment. I should like to ask him how much time he needs.

Mr. PEARSON. I shall take only 2 or 3 minutes, and I shall not ask for a yea-and-nay vote.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I ask if there is to be a yea-and-nay vote on passage of the bill?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, so far as I know, there will not be a yeaand-nay vote on passage of the bill, so I hope Senators will remain close to the floor. Senators who offer amendments are entitled to serious consideration of their amendments.

If the bill should pass tonight, as appears likely, there will be no further business tonight, but Calendar No. 627, H.R. 3157, to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, will be laid before the Senate and become the pending business tomorrow after the morning hour.

In addition, tomorrow we will clear up odds and ends.

Incidentally, I understand that the higher education bill was reported unanimously by the committee today; but the reports will not be in final form until midnight tomorrow. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the committee and the distinguished minority leader.

It is our anticipation that it will be made the pending business tomorrow, to be taken up at the conclusion of morning business on Thursday.

Mr. JAVITS. If the Senator will yield I would express the hope-I am the ranking member on that committee-inasmuch as we understood each other quite well in committee and with the Labor Day holiday coming on, that it would be extremely helpful if Senators who had in mind offering amendments on the higher education bill would be gracious and kind enough to have them printed. This would accelerate their consideration, with the holiday coming up, as we shall be up against meeting the deadline of, let us say, Friday.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am sure that Senators will pay strict attention to what the Senator from New York has said and will have their amendments, if any, ready.

from the conclusion of business Friday until noon on the following Tuesday.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I had understood, in an earlier statement made by the majority leader, that the holiday would consist of Friday, Saturday, Sun

day, and Monday.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No. I never said that. If I did, I was in error. I would bet 10 cents that I did not say it.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I concur in what the majority leader says. I believe that the only modification of it was that Friday could be a light day, and there might not be any record votes late in the day; but, other than that, I thought we were agreed on the end of business Friday and the holiday would then begin and we would go over until Tuesday.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Let me say

Mr. President, I intend to support the

sports bill because I feel that it is essential for the continued growth and prosperity of professional team sports. I certainly agree that the leagues should be permitted, by agreement or plan, to equalize player strengths, provide for a common means of selecting players, and operate within specific geographic areas. In addition, professional sports should be permitted to take such actions as are

necessary to preserve public confidence in the honesty of sports contests.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield for a question?

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I was not able to hear the Senator. Did he say that there would be a yea and nay vote, or merely a voice vote?

Mr. ALLOTT. I said that if I could get enough Senators to remain in the

Mr. MANSFIELD. It is the usual Labor Day holiday, but we can anticipate having the higher education bill this week, and either the immigration or the farm bill. We are in difficulty on the other two. I assure the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] that if there is no business, the Senate will not be in session, and we will not go through any formality. It depends on what business there is before us. The best I can say, at this time, is from the conclusion of business Friday until Tuesday noon.

That is it.

APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TO ORGANIZED PROFESSIONAL TEAM SPORTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 950), to make the antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act applicable to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey and to limit the applicability of such laws so as to exempt certain aspects of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and for other purposes.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read as follows: insert in lieu thereof the following: On page 2, line 13, strike "contracts;" and

"contracts: Provided, That each person who participates as an employer in a plan of selection of players or player contracts for professional football shall permit all other persons so engaged in the same professional sport at the same level to participate in such plan on an equitable basis;"

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President if we can get a reasonable number of Senators to remain in the Chamber for a voice vote on my amendment, I shall not ask for a yea and nay vote.

ask for a yea and nay vote; but I wish more than an empty Chamber to vote on Senator from Florida understands my my amendment. I am sure that the position.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the distinguished Senator. I did not understand his statement before, due to the confusion in the Chamber.

Mr. ALLOTT. There was certainly enough confusion.

Mr. President, I believe that the curof equalizing player strengths which rent bill, however, leaves open one facet should be rectified, and I am introducing an amendment to achieve that goal. My amendment calls for a common draft between or among professional sports In other leagues at the same level. words, any two or three leagues playing at the same level would have one common draft instead of individual drafts for each league.

The effect of my amendment would be to give the less wealthy teams equality with the more wealthy teams. Currently, for instance, a player may be drafted by a team in each league. Naturally, in most instances, the player will sign with that club which will pay him the most money. Last fall, we saw untried and untested players signing for phenomenal sums which the less wealthy teams just could not pay. Thus, the richer teams get richer in player personnel and the poorer teams have to take the poorer players.

I certainly do not wish to leave the impression that I am opposed to these young men getting well paid for their services. I wish them to be well paid, and paid fully to the degree of their competence. What I object to are the exhorbitant salaries promised these young men, as a result of team bidding against team, when the young man has never participated in the sport professionally. after proving himself, a young man can get a huge salary or bonuses, I am in favor of it, but I do not believe that he should be paid huge amounts of money for merely signing a contract.

If,

Again, my amendment would do no more than provide equality in player selection for all professional sports teams

playing at the same level. This would give the less wealthy teams in the various leagues an opportunity to hire better player personnel, thus making the teams within each league and between leagues equal.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would hope very much that the amendment would not be agreed to. I believe that although it would apply uniformly to all professional team sports, it is intended to require the two professional football leagues, currently in existence as competing entities, to join together. I believe that this is a decision Congress should not arrive at at this time, and for that reason I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I shall speak briefly. I support the position of the Senator from Michigan on this score. In committee, we have not considered the amendment or anything that would be comparable to it.

Let me say again that our concern is to fashion a bill and get it approved by the Senate so that we may resolve a situation long overdue, which needs the treatment of all professional team sports on a parity basis insofar as the antitrust laws are concerned.

I do not believe that the effect of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado would be any other than to lead to an obstruction toward that result. For that reason, I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

Mr. ALLOTT. Let me say in reply, that we are considering a team sports bill. My amendment would make it possible, throughout both football leagues, to bid on an equal basis and get a common draft for these players.

If we wish to make the big teams bigger all the time, then vote against the amendment. If we wish to place it on a somewhat equal basis so that there can be a common draft, and give these young men the opportunity to prove themselves and draw the salaries and bonuses, then vote for my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

The amendment was rejected. Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk proceeded to state

the amendment.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The amendment offered by Mr. PEARSON is as follows:

On page 2, strike out lines 14 and 15. Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, what my amendment would do actually would strike from the bill the third subparagraph on page 2 which refers to "the right to operate within specific geographic areas."

I do not contend for a moment that all of the transfers from city to city, or from county to county have been against the best interests of sports or against the best interests of the public. However, if the Proxmire amendment represented a flanking attack, attack, my amendment represents a direct attack on what I believe to be a serious problem in today's professional sports and athletics and in the organization of leagues, for there exists a problem to which I refer as "hop scotching" of franchises from one section of the country to another.

Specifically I believe serious consideration should be given to the removal of subparagraph (3) in order to offer some protection to cities and the public. In my opinion, removal of this subparagraph would not prohibit the removal of a franchise for any legitimate reason and would aid in the protection of municipalities against overnight loss of their professional athletic groups. Cities and counties have, and in all probability will continue, to erect through municipal bond issues and considerable private investment, the necessary stadium facilities and requirements necessary for the operation of professional athletic clubs. They should, therefore, have some guarantee of future security for their professional athletic groups, that exist in various cities.

I say to the Senator in charge of the bill that I know it is late in the day, and it has been a very confusing day. I merely wish to say that the amendment would strike paragraph 3 on page 2. We discussed this matter privately earlier today.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I hope very much that at this late hour the Senate will not strike what is really a critical and key element in the bill. During the debate many comments were made on the necessity for this aspect. Again, Mr. President, while none of us pretends that the product of the committee can be listed among those achievements which are perfect, I am satisfied that the elimination of this aspect of the bill would have very serious repercussions within a short period of time. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Michigan in opposing the amendment. After all, the territorial aspect of this bill is what imparts value to a franchise in organized professional team sports. Without it there would be nothing but chaos and confusion. While it might, on the surface, be thought to correct a situation, it would create complete chaos and confusion in other areas. I urge that the amendment be rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kan

exemptions for these same sports from these same laws.

Others have outlined the reasons why professional team sports should not be expected to meet the same competitive standards that other businesses are expected to meet. Why, in fact, these competitive standards could very well mean the end of professional team sports as we know them today. I concur in these reasons.

And yet, Mr. President, in concurring with these reasons I must also voice my views on the relationship that exists between professional athletics and their business activities, for professional team sports and big businesses to their owners-and becoming more and more so.

The people have, I believe, become alarmed at the recent trend toward control of professional teams by diversified corporations. The leagues themselves are also beginning to show an awareness of this problem as witnessed by the recent ruling by the Commissioner of one of the two major professional football leagues that henceforth purchasers of franchises must have football as their major interest and that diversified corporations are out as buyers. This aspect of big business was dramatically illustrated by the acquisition of 80 percent of the stock of the New York Yankees baseball team by the Columbia Broadcasting Co.

By saying this I do not mean to single out CBS for special damnation. However, I believe this does pinpoint one of our problem areas. Whether the purchase be by CBS, NBC, ABC, or even by a large advertising firm; we are faced with the same possible legal consequence-an interlocking interest that could be, but is probably not, subject to the antitrust laws.

Some

This situation is the result of legal decisions that have left professional baseball outside the sphere of these laws. In 1922 the Supreme Court in Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, ruled that organized baseball was not subject to the antitrust laws. 30 years later the Supreme Court upheld its ruling in deciding the case of Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953). In the latter case, the Court, with admirable restraint that is oftentimes lacking in their decisions, indicated that they were basing their ruling on the principal of stare decisis and went on to say that Congress had shown no indication of including the business of baseball within the scope of the Federal antitrust laws even though we had had the matter under consideration.

In subsequent decisions, however, the Court held that other professional team sports were not entitled to this exemption. The result is twofold. We have, in the first place, discrimination between sports that operate substantially in the same way. We also have this hazy area of when baseball, in its purely business activities, could be subject to antitrust laws. Legislation is clearly needed.

This pending legislation would include business activities, but would specifically exempt certain types of activities which have little or no commercial significance. These activities include the equalization

of competitive playing strengths, the employment selection or eligibility of players or the reservation, selection or assignment of player contracts, the right to operate within specific geographic areas, and the preservation of public confidence in the honesty in sports contests.

It would cover sales such as the recent sale of the Yankees. This purchase could be considered a vertical acquisition of a major supplier by a customer, for CBS is in a position of bidding on the league television contracts and at the same time is one of the 10 American League baseball teams voting on acceptance of such bids. Such a situation may or may not have been in violation of antitrust laws but if this bill had been enacted years ago, the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission would have been authorized to investigate to determine if antitrust implications were involved.

Mr. President, I do not believe that professional team sports are opposed to having their purely business activities covered by the antitrust laws. In fact, in justice to CBS it should be pointed out that the president of the Columbia Broadcasting Co. has testified that he also thought the antitrust laws should be applicable to the business aspects of team sports.

Nor do I believe that it is wrong for Congress to pass a law covering this problem. This is a legitimate function of the legislative branch and is a matter of governmental concern. The public needs and deserves this protection.

It is, incidently, far better for us to solve these problems by legislation such as this which lays down specific guidelines for the professional sports involved so that they can then run their own business, than it is for the Government to become actively involved in the management of a particular sport as is being proposed in the establishment of a federally appointed Boxing Commission.

I would hope that the Senate will not follow the lead of the other Chamber and pass legislation creating such a commission, but the best way to avoid such policing duties in the future for all sports and at the same time protect the public would seem to be passage of legislation which would allow the professional team sports to police themselves within the general legal framework of such laws as the antitrust law.

I urge, therefore, the adoption of S. 950. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be offered, the question is on the engrossment and the third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I shall vote against the bill on passage for two reasons. First, the bill makes it lawful for persons who operate professional baseball, football, basketball, or hockey clubs to do things for which other Ameri

cans are to be subjected to damages, fines,

or imprisonment.

Second, the bill makes every person in the United States who possesses skill in

An act to make the antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act applicable to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey and to limit the applicability of such laws so as to exempt certain aspects of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended (26 Stat. 209); the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730); and the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (38 Stat. 717), shall be applicable according to their terms to the organized professional team sports of basecept that neither such Act shall apply to any contract, agreement, rule, course of conduct, or other activity by, between, or among persons conducting, engaging, or participating in any one of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, or hockey to the extent to which such contract. agreement, rule, course of conduct, or activity relates to

ing strengths; (1) the equalization of competitive play

(2) the employment, selection, or eligibility of players, or the reservation, selection, or assignment of player contracts;

(3) the right to operate within specific geographic areas; or

(4) the preservation of public confidence in the honesty in sports contests.

SEC. 2. As used in this Act, "persons" means any individual, partnership, corporation, or unincorporated association or any combina

tion or association thereof.

SEC. 3. Nothing in this Act shall affect any cause of action commenced prior to the effective date hereof in respect to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, or hockey.

SEC. 4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to deprive any players in the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, or hockey of any right to bargain collectively, or to engage in other associated activities for their mutual aid or protection.

SEC. 5. Except as provided in section 1 of this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to change, determine, or otherwise affect the applicability or nonapplicability of the antitrust laws to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, or hockey.

SEC. 6. Section 3 of the Act of September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 732), is amended to read

as follows:

"SEC. 3. Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any joint agreement described in section 1 of this Act which permits the telecasting of all or a substantial part of any professional football game on any Friday after 6 o'clock post meridian or on any Saturday during the period beginning on the second Friday in September and ending on the second Saturday in December in any year from any telecasting station located within seventy-five miles of the game site of any intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest scheduled to be played on such a date if

"(1) such intercollegiate football contest is between institutions of higher learning, both of which confer degrees upon students hours to equal a four-year course, or following completion of sufficient credit

"(2) in the case of an interscholastic football contest, such contest is between secondary schools, both of which are accredited or certified under the laws of the State or States in which they are situated and offer courses continuing through the twelfth grade of the standard school curriculum, or the equivalent, and

"(3) such intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest and such game site were announced through publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation prior to March 1 of such year as being regularly scheduled for such day and place."

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

to lay that motion on the table. Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I move

The motion to table was agreed to. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the question of the applicability of the antitrust laws to professional sports has been a knotty one which has troubled both the courts and the Congress for more than four decades. The problem has involved weighing and evaluating essential sports practices as distinguished from the business practices involved in sports in the light of fundamental antitrust principles. Today this body has passed a bill which seeks to accomplish this goal.

I congratulate the junior Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], the chief sponsor of the measure, chairman of the Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and able manager of the bill, for his skill in shepherding the Professional Sports Act of 1965 through the Senate. He did so with the very able assistance from across the aisle of the senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA].

But an equal measure of commendation is due to those who so capably proposed and pressed their amendments, both in committee and on the floor. I refer especially to a skillful and distinguished lawyer, the senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the distinguished senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], and the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT].

The skillful handling of this measure and the spirited debate surrounding it are a credit to this entire body.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, what has been done here to revise the antitrust laws will be of great benefit to professional sports and with respect to the whole temper in which the sports are carried on in the United States.

and State. I am delighted that it has It is critically important to my city been done finally.

I congratulate the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], who has done a splendid job in piloting through the Senate intricate and difficult legislation, which will be of great value to millions of Americans, young and old alike, who will thank him for having brought regularity and order to what has often been the subject of uncertainty.

I also congratulate one of the ranking Republican members of the committee [Mr. HRUSKA], who cooperated in the successful handling of the bill.

TRIBUTE TO CASEY STENGEL

Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of nature's noblemen, Casey Stengel. Time and physical infirmity have accomplished what combative opponents, intransigent umpires, and heckling fans could not accomplish for over half a century. The "Ole Perfesser" is retiring from the playing field-unbeaten, but unable to continue taking a fully active part in the game.

Mr. Stengel, for those of you who do not know him, is the peerless leader of the practically peerless New York Mets. He is a man who, over a period of 75 years, has acquired a vast tolerance for the vicissitudes of life. As a player and then a manager, he has experienced the sublime and the ridiculous. He reached the pinnacle of his career in winning five world's championships in a row with the New York Yankees. With his graceful gift for placing what might be embittering defeat for smaller men in its proper perspective, he has tickled the funnybone of baseball fans on many occasions. that the Though some may think that the amazing Mets have taxed his sense of humor to the utmost, it was the old Brooklyn Dodgers who brought out the most ingenious in Casey. They were not only an unusual baseball team, they were, individually and collectively, as unusual-and I use that word advisedly-a bunch of characters as ever were assembled in a dugout.

But Casey, with his rich sense of humor, topped them all. One day, while One day, while taking a verbal shellacking from the crowd, he doffed his cap to the assembled multitude-and a bird flew out, effectively silencing his hecklers.

I tell this revealing little anecdote, not just to illustrate what an amusing and enjoyable character Casey is, but also to illustrate what a shrewd handler of people the Ole Perfesser is.

With a nimble mind and a lively imagination, Casey has devised many ways of dealing with many people and situations during his years in baseball. He handled an angry crowd or a friendly sportswriter with equal ease. But, perhaps, his greatest achievement has been in his handling of young people. Casey has established a reputation as the finest developer of young ballplayers in the business. He teaches his lessons in many different ways-by example, with a wink or a nod or with that unique command of the English language which has been termed Stengelese-a now widely accepted synonym for artfully scrambled syntax.

Casey has contributed in many ways to the game of baseball and to contemporary American life.

He even made his contribution to the deliberations of this body, back on July 9, 1958. He testified before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Judiciary Committee, when the Congress

was considering whether to exempt baseball from the antitrust laws.

Casey was under questioning by Senator JOHN CARROLL, of Colorado. I quote a short excerpt from that testimony:

Senator CARROLL. That was not the question I asked you, and I only asked you on your long experience

Mr. STENGEL. Yes, sir. I would not be in it

48 years if it was not all right.

Senator CARROLL. I understand that.

Concerned for the morale and harsh conditions of the South Vietnamese soldiers, Mr. Anthony Ustjanauskas, of Hartford, Conn., sent a sizable check to Ambassador Maxwell Taylor in Saigon. He suggested that this money be used to buy gifts for the wounded soldiers of the Vietnamese Army.

Ambassador Taylor was impressed by this idea, and with the money purchased

Mr. STENGEL. Well, then, why wouldn't it transistor radios for distribution among

stay that?

Senator CARROLL. In your long experi

Mr. STENGEL. Yes.

Senator CARROLL. Do you feel you have had experience through the years

Mr. STENGEL. That is true.

Senator CARROLL. With the draft system, and the reserve clause in the contracts. Do you think you could still exist under existing law without changing the law?

Mr. STENGEL. I think it is run better than it has ever been run in baseball, for every department.

Senator CARROLL. Then I come back to the principal question. This is the real ques

tion before this body.

Mr. STENGEL. All right.

Senator CARROLL. Then what is the need for legislation, if they are getting along all right.

Mr. STENGEL. I didn't ask for the legislation. [Laughter.]

Senator CARROLL. Your answer is a very Kefauver put to you. good one, and that is the question Senator

Mr. STENGEL. That is right.

the wounded South Vietnamese in Can Tho Military Hospital. These radios, which help to ease the tedious and painridden hours, were gratefully received by the hospital and its patients.

This gift, an expression of American appreciation for the courageous fight which the South Vietnamese are waging, received considerable coverage and attention in various Connecticut newspapers.

It met with spontaneous public approval, and soon Mr. Ustjanauskas was receiving inquiries from many who wished to take part in this effort. Money and checks began to come in, and a special bank account and the services of an attorney were needed to handle these funds.

It was then decided that a committee might be formed to expand the initial idea on a larger scale. As a result, the American Friendship Committee for South Vietnam was established as a non

Senator CARROLL. That is the question Sen- profit organization on July 22, 1965.

ator O'Mahoney put.

Mr. STENGEL. Right.

Casey brought one of his young Yankee ballplayers with him, Mickey Mantle. Mickey had long been under the wise Mickey had long been under the wise tutoring of the Ole Perfesser.

And when he was asked his opinion of the antitrust laws in reference to baseball, he showed that the lessons had been learned. His reply was:

My views are just about the same as Casey's.

Mr. President, with the kind of resilience and joy of living Casey has shown with the great contributions he has made in the past-I know that he will continue to make contributions to baseball and to the American scene as a vice president of the Mets, working with young people on the west coast.

THE AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEE FOR SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the feel ing and compassion of Americans for the plight of the people of South Vietnam continues to impress me tremendously. While our Government and Armed Forces help to fight Communist aggression in southeast Asia, private citizens have responded with aid and assistance for the people caught in this bitter struggle.

In June, I spoke on the Senate floor about "Operation Friendship" and the motorcade of Virginia Jaycees who took food, clothing, and supplies to Fort food, clothing, and supplies to Fort Bragg for shipment to South Vietnam.

Today I would like to bring to your attention another good will effort undertaken by private citizens.

Mr. Ustjanauskas serves as secretary of the committee. Dr. Emanuel Marcus, a reserve colonel now with the Veterans' Administration, is president; George Sherman, an attorney, is vice president; and Raymond Woolson, a bank official, is treasurer.

The contributions made by interested citizens are credited to a special account and sent directly to the U.S. Ambassador in Saigon. Decisions as to the purchases are made there, and the gifts are then distributed to wounded South Vietnamese soldiers.

Because there has been such a heartening public response to this program, the committee now hopes to expand their efforts to include gifts of used clothing, and also to help promote similar programs in other States and communities.

Americans are aware of and understand the brutal toll of this critical conflict, and the people of South Vietnam appreciate the growing desire of our citizens to help. The patriotic and humane efforts of individuals and groups, such as Mr. Ustjanauskas' committee and the Virginia Jaycees, are meaningful, tangible contributions to the fight for freedom

in southeast Asia.

It is a great source of pride to me that the citizens of Connecticut have demonstrated in this way their concern for the needs of others.

I would commend and encourage the initiative and good will of all those throughout the Nation who have taken part in these voluntary assistance programs. Obviously, this could have a very real and important effect on the outcome of the present struggle.