have killed and assassinated their own rivals and Arab foes for centuries. They feud among themselves. They have always been undemocratic and feudal in their government. They have been opportunistic and unreliable in their promises. They scorn infidels. Do they want to control the oil and the access of Europe to it because they realize that oil is the lifeline of western Europe?

Through free, democratic Israel, access to at least Iranian (not Arab) oil can now be provided by pipeline to the Mediterranean. This would protect Europe from Arab blackmail such as Nasser tried at Suez. wonder such Arabs would destroy Israel.

No

To recognize legitimate national aspirations of all people, is American policy. This applies to the Middle East, for Arab countries as well as Israel and the other nonArab States of the region. Our Government must, therefore, contain fanatic Arab ex

pansionism—which foments aggression and subversion, serves as an instrument for Soviet domination of the Middle East, and menaces the independence of the Middle Eastern countries-Arab and non-Arab. Demagogs cannot be appeased-they must be constrained until their people wake up.

Efforts by our Government to provide economic assistance to the underdeveloped countries of the Middle East merit support. If applied through the United Nations, such assistance should be rendered to nations observing the United Nations Charter, which prohibits belligerency and economic boycott,

as practiced by Arab States against Israel. aid programs for countries such as Israel, Turkey, and Iran which are identified with the United States in the struggle for democracy and against communism.

We should favor continuation of economic

Israel's role as the major bulwark of strength for the West in that region is now appreciated throughout the free world. In accordance with the solidarity prevailing in President and both parties have proclaimed publicly support for Israel's political independence and territorial integrity, and have made it clear that aggression against Israel would be treated as a threat to our own security. But this is not the whole sad picture. Let us think beyond what would happen if the Arabs had Israel and the Communists spread their influence throughout the Arab world. Once in African Egypt, how long is it taking for the Chinese- and Russian-dominated communism to stir up the Africans? The Congo? Once they have Africa, how long would it take to stir up unhappy people in South America? Remember, the narrowest part of the Atlantic Ocean is from Africa to Brazil.

In conclusion, for want of a nail, the shoe was lost. And for any prospective defection from its word to Israel, the whole world may

be lost.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS IN THE

BODY OF THE RECORD

Mr. FARNSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who desire to do so may extend their remarks in the body of the RECORD following the special order of the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT).

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

PANAMA CANAL ZONE: REPREHEN-
SIBLE JOURNALISM-SEQUEL
Mr. FARNSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. FLOOD] 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 Kentucky?

There was no objection.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, as a student of Panama Canal history and interoceanic canal problems, I long ago learned how our great tropical waterway and U.S. citizens burdened with responsibility for its construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, protection and defense, have suffered at the hands of fly-by-night, indeed, flighty, North American journalists.

One of the earliest such incidents following U.S. occupation of the Canal Zone resulted from a December 1-2, 1905, visit to the Isthmus by Poultney Bigelow, whose total time there was 28 hours and 10 minutes. His story, published in the January 4, 1906, issue of the Independent, a highly respected magazine, was so inaccurate that he was invited to appear before a congressional committee to present facts. He did appear but was altogether unable to give facts to justify the article he had written.

Since that time the Isthmus has been

plagued with a long rash of Poultney Bigelows whose pattern of performance is repeated with little variation. They arrive by ship or airplane, cross the Isthmus by train or automobile, gather a few fleeting impressions through the windows, spend an evening at some hotel talking with gossips, seize on half-truths or misinformation, and, as quickly as they can do so, sail or fly away to write superficial, inaccurate and, at times, malicious articles.

A recent example of such reprehensible journalism was a newsstory by the syndicated columnist, Charles Bartlett, published in his column in the June 24, 1965, issue of the Washington Evening Star and other papers of the Nation. In this, he outrageously attacked U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone, spread much misinformation, and quoted me out of context as regards my stand for maintaining our undiluted and indispensable sovereignty over the Panama Canal enterprise. In a statement to the House on July 26, 1965, which quoted the full text of his June 24 article, I undertook to expose some of his major distortions, errors, and fallacies.

It was, therefore, with much interest that I subsequently received a copy of a very fine, factual letter to Charles Bartlett by Frank A. Baldwin, Panama Canal Information Officer in the Office of the President of the Panama Canal Company at Balboa Heights, C.Z., which exposes additional inaccuracies in the Bartlett June 24 story.

Because this letter admirably supplements the analysis and exposure in my July 26 statement, I quote it as part of my remarks, inviting attention to the fact that much of the friction between the United States and Panama has been induced by just such yellow journalism as that which characterized the indicated Bartlett column.

PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, Balboa Heights, C.Z., July 7, 1965. Mr. CHARLES BARTLETT, Chicago, Ill. Care of Publishers Newspaper Syndicate,

DEAR MR. BARTLETT: Readers who questioned the accuracy of some of your facts in two articles relating to the Republic of Panama and the Canal Zone have prompted us to furnish to you accurate information on several points.

As a journalist, you are unquestionably aware that errors in facts, particularly when presenting a controversial matter, can lead readers to form conclusions that are unfair. A second unfortunate result, of course, is that the readers we seek to inform become misinformed.

We have the highest respect for the right of opinion and do not presume to make any comments in that direction. But, again, a writer who bases an opinion upon incorrect information may come to distorted conclusions.

In reference to your article concerning the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama which appeared in the Denver Post and other newspapers, the following points are pertinent:

1. Peace Corps Volunteers: It is true that mize their contacts with the Canal Zone and the Peace Corps has instructions to miniits residents. This is due to the fact that they have a mission in the Republic of Panama and are encouraged to be within the

Republic and with Panamanians as much as possible. However, Canal Zone residents and

the Canal Zone administration have worked together with the Peace Corps in joint projects such as tourist trade in the interior of the Republic, initiated by the Peace Corps. Much organization and support was furnished by the Canal Zone on other projects which include a program to send teams of Panama and Canal Zone doctors and dentists to out-of-the-way areas in the Republic of

Panama.

2. Canal Zone residents: Canal Zone residents do make friends with Panamanians.

Hundreds are married to Panamanians, and in practically all cases, their children are bilingual. Canal Zone residents participated in Panama's national carnival and annual fairs. Many who own homes at beach and mountain sites travel to the interior of the Panamanians are invited to visit the Panama Canal and Canal Zone installations. Canal Zone residents participate in numerous charitable projects to raise funds for such activities. There is much more that could be added.

on weekends. Thousands of

3. The International Commission of JuBut

rists did, in fact, state as you say "having you began the sentence with a capital H on regard to the special situation. * * *" the word having." The Commission report did not do this, but reported, and I quote here in full "We cannot help feeling that the United States having regard to the special situation it occupies in the world, and with its resources and ideals * ** should reflect upon these sad facts and take effective steps to make possible a reorientation, etc."

And the very next item in that report, in the same paragraph, reveals the other side of the coin by saying, "The Government of Panama and the life and economy of Panama is so closely tied to the Panama Canal that is would not be out of place to suggest that the Panamanian Government and Panamanian people should also reflect upon the facts as they appear to impartial observers and should exercise tolerance, moderation, and understanding in their relations with the United States and Canal Zone authorities." That sentence, of course, did not appear in your column.

4. You state "The obduracy of the old outlook among these 32,000 Americans *

An accurate census, about which there is no question, places a total civilian population of the Canal Zone at 27,300 in 1964. Many of these are Panamanians. The U.S. citizen population you refer to is 16,000, by the same census. This information is contained in several public records, among them the International Commission of Jurists Report, page 12. Since you quoted from this report, I assume you have a copy.

5. You quote the Governor of the Canal Zone, Robert J. Fleming, Jr., as saying, "There are no beaches in Panama, you know." It is correct that this was his statement. It is also correct that, as you say, there are three beaches close to downtown Panama. It is not correct that they are rigidly preempted by Americans. It is not correct that one is “even reserved for officers." It is not correct

that "A Panamanian has to drive for an hour to enjoy the nearest beach that is open to him in his own country." Farfan Beach is in the Canal Zone. It is used by thousands of Panamanians each week. Americans use it too. There are no restrictions by nationality or any other standard and the beach is freely and harmoniously used by all. The second beach is Venado Beach, also in the Canal Zone. It too is used by Panamanians and Americans, without restriction of any kind. A third beach is Amador Beach at the Amador Officers Club facility, which is a private club. There are more than 100 Pana

manian members of this club who use this

beach, not counting many others who are guests of club members. The restrictions at Amador are the same as those at any officers' club in the U.S. Army anywhere in the world: members and their guests only. But as I have pointed out, many Panamanian nationals have membership in this club. Governor Fleming meant only that there are no beaches in the Republic convenient to Panama residents. That is correct, since there are three in the zone that are a few minutes from Panama City.

6. You quote Governor Fleming as justify

ing an operating deficit for the Tivoli by saying, "It is essential to have a guest facility." The testimony before Congress shows that Governor Fleming did not say this, that the statement was made by Philip L. Steers, Comptroller of the Panama Canal Company. And he referred to an anticipated deficit, in the present fiscal year, 1966, this facility

not a current one. Mr. Steers also stated that

would be very close to breaking even.

7. You wrote that "Fleming requested $30,000 to build a glass-enclosed announcer's booth at the high school football field. This structure will be located almost within sight of thousands of Panamanians who live in the most wretched cardboard housing in the hemisphere." The fact is that Governor Fleming did not testify on this point. It was in the budget request. And the $30,000 was principally for a 10-by-22 foot concrete storage building. Sitting atop this, as a small addition, will be the frame-and-glass booth.

8. The Governor's residence is on Ancon Hill, not Balboa Hill. And if you visit the Canal Zone, you will learn it does not overlook the city, as you also stated.

9. Incidentally, "Panama Canal Zone" used by you is a unique dateline. The wire services and New York Times and other large newspapers having correspondents who cover this area use either "Canal Zone" or "Balboa, Canal Zone" to designate news from this area and "Panama City" to designate stories filed from the Republic of Panama.

10. You state that the commissaries "will presumably be closed by the new treaty. But even this step will have to be taken slowly because it will cost the jobs of 6,000 Panamanians." This is incorrect. Presuming that the commissaries were closed immediately, the maximum number of Panamanians to be affected would be 1,800. That is

the total number employed in all commissary operations here, not 6,000.

11. In another article appearing in the Chicago Sun-Times and other newspapers of June 21, 1965, you state "The United States can contemplate this generosity because its total investment in the old canal, some $1.8 billion, is only $200 million short of being repaid from revenues." This is incorrect. The latest official report shows unrecovered investment at nearly a billion dollars * * * to be exact: $957,075,685, excluding the investment of the United States in Armed Forces facilities in the Canal Zone. This is also a public record.

Let me assure you that our office stands ready to furnish factual information, fully and at any time. We regularly answer inquiries from hundreds of sources. And should you be in this area again, I cordially invite you to visit us. We will be happy to talk with you and answer any and all questions you might have.

Sincerely yours,

FRANK A. BALDWIN, Panama Canal Information Officer.

THE POPULATION PROBLEM Mr. FARNSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. TODD] 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 Kentucky?

There was no objection.

Mr. TODD. Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate that it be called to the attention of the Members of this body that once again President Johnson has spoken forthrightly on the population problem. The President's most recent remarks were made on Monday, August 30, 1965 in a letter written to Secretary General

U Thant at the Second United Nations World Population Conference, which opens today in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Over the past years we have seen a great reluctance on the part of many people to discuss the overwhelming probpeople to discuss the overwhelming problem of the world population explosion. That there is today a growing concern and a growing public dialog on the matter is in large part the responsibility of President Johnson. His past statements, as well as his extremely important letter to U Thant, illustrate responsible and creative leadership of the highest order. It is through his efforts and his program that we now have hope that this enormous problem may be solved in a humane and intelligent man

ner.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the President's letter today is of enormous interest to my colleagues, and I believe it appropriate that it be read into the body of the RECORD in full:

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY GENERAL: The U.S. Government recognizes the singular importance of the meeting of the second United Nations World Population Conference and pledges its full support to your great undertaking.

As I said to the United Nations in San Francisco, we must now begin to face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying population. Our Government assures your Conference of our wholehearted support to the United Nations and its agencies in their efforts to achieve a better world through bringing into balance the world's resources and the world's population.

In extending my best wishes for the success of your Conference, it is my fervent hope that your great assemblage of population experts will contribute significantly to the knowledge necessary, to solve this transcendent problem. Second only to the search for peace, it is humanity's greatest challenge. This week, the meeting in Belgrade carries with it the hopes of mankind. Sincerely,

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

HOME RULE BILLS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. FARNSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOWDY] 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 Kentucky?

There was no objection.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, through its president, Miss Mary J. Bean, appeared before the House District Committee holding hearings on the home rule bills for the District of Columbia.

This fine group of clubs, composed of dedicated, patriotic ladies, has given many years of service to the city of Washington and its residents.

Miss Bean's statement is well considered, and deserves the attention of all the Members of the House.

I respectfully include her testimony in my remarks:

STATEMENT OF MISS MARY J. BEAN, PRESIDENT

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, PRESENTING GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS' RESOLUTION AGAINST HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before your committee.

As Mrs.

My name is Mary J. Bean and I am president of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, an affiliate of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Hasebroock pointed out the first day of these hearings, it is the largest women's orgamembership of 11 million of which 9 million are in the United States.

nization in the world with an international

the Nation, was created as a Federal city "Whereas Washington, the Capital City of which the Founding Fathers set apart as a seat of government free from local political interferences; and

"Whereas there is legislation pending before the Congress of the United States which if enacted would give to the District of Columbia a municipal form of government commonly called home rule with elected officials and a council; and

"Whereas Washington, D.C., enjoys a stable form of government which has been in effect since 1878; and

"Whereas Washington, D.C., exists primarily for the business of the Federal Government; and

"Whereas the Federal Government and tax free foreign governments and organizations own 54.2 percent of the land in the District for which no real estate and other taxes are assessed and collected; therefore

"Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs requests the Congress to

continue its executive jurisdiction over the municipal affairs of the District, retaining its present form of local government which has proven adequate for 87 years; and

"Further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to proper officials of Congress, and that the General Federation of Women's Clubs urges its member clubs to write their Senators and Representatives in Congress advocating retention of the present form of government."

This resolution was passed by the General Federation of Women's Clubs because the members are cognizant of the fact that the District of Columbia was set up by our forefathers as a Federal city and that the Federal Government owns approximately 43 percent, the District of Columbia 4 percent, and foreign governments and other organizations 7 percent-or a total of slightly more than 54 percent of the area of the city. This means that Washington is a city belonging to all the Federal taxpayers of the United States and not just for those who live in the District of Columbia. While I have been waiting, I have heard testimony to the effect that some citizens living geographically remote are not particularly concerned with the problems of the District of Columbia and how it is governed but I assure you this is not true of the members of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. They are vitally interested in the governing of the Capital City of the United States.

The District of Columbia belongs to the whole Nation. It is a city which was established for the convenience of the Federal Government. Those people who live here, do so from choice, or for their employment and many leaving their positions with the Government elect to stay here. When anyone comes to Washington to live, they know our form of government and if they do not like it, they should not have come. Most people who work for the Federal Government retain their legal residence in the State from which they were appointed and we doubt very much that they would change this if we had home rule.

The framers of the Constitution left no shadow of a doubt about their intentions when they wrote article I, section 8, clauses 17 and 18 of that historic document, in which they stated "To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which same shall be, for the erections of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and any other needful buildings; and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States."

Note the words "exclusive," "all cases," and "whatsoever." It is clear-their meaning direct. James Madison in clarifying this clause wrote "it was done to provide a small territory where Congress and the national administration could have original and complete jurisdiction at all time, without local interference from political factions and vested interests, a sanctuary, as it were, a neutral spot where all citizens of the United States could meet to discuss problems, whether political, economic, or social."

And to further quote from "A History of the National Capital" by W. B. Bryan, "But the emphasis was placed by the advocates of this clause on the vital need of having a Federal city in a territory where the general government would be sovereign and the few objections raised to the creation of such a district were apparently looked upon as highly theoretical."

We did have the vote here at one time. Prior to 1871, with the negative consent of the Congress, the various municipal units in the District of Columbia had their own local government. In 1871, Congress granted a territorial form of government with one elective but voteless delegate in the House of Representatives and an elective lower house of the District territorial legislature comprising 15 whites and 7 Negroes. The upper house and the Governor of the territory were appointed by the President. This government lasted about 3 years. It was very incompetent and during the period amassed a debt of $25 million and this debt was not fully discharged until 1922, a period of 44 years.

Congress, in abolishing local government in 1874 and all suffrage in the District of Columbia, gave as its almost unanimous opinion, based on 74 years of experience, that any kind of suffrage at the seat of government greatly interfered with the orderly functioning of the National Government in Washington, and that suffrage operated much to the disadvantage of the local residents thereof. Most of the longtime inhabitants of the District of Columbia shudder at the thoughts of a return of the vote in the District. Obviously, the local politicians are violently opposed to our present form of government.

We would like to quote that venerable Justice, ex-President William Howard Taft, later Chief Justice Taft, who said in a speech at a dinner given in his honor by the citizens of the city of Washington, May 8, 1909. "This is the home of the government of a nation and when men who were just as much imbued with the principles of civil liberty as any who have come after, Washington at the head, put into the Constitution the provision with reference to the government of the District of Columbia, they knew what they were doing and spoke for a coming possible 80 millions of people who should insist that the home of the Government of that 80 millions of people should be governed by the representatives of that 80 millions of people; and that if there were of that 80 millions of people men who desired to come and share in the grandeur of that capital and live in a city of magnificent beauty as this city is, and enjoy all the privileges, then they come with their eyes open as to the character of the government that they were to have, and they must know that they must depend not upon the principles ordinarily governing in popular government, but that they must trust, in order to secure their liberty-to get their guarantees they must trust to the representatives of 80 millions of people selected under the Constitution."

Let me digress just a bit to say that this applies today just as it was spoken by the late President William Howard Taft, later Chief Justice. He further stated, we are all imperfect. We cannot expect perfect government, but what we ought to do is pursue practical methods, and not make it seem as if the people of Washington were suffering some great and tremendous load of sorrow, when as a matter of fact they are the envy of the citizens of other cities.

"Washington intended that this to be a Federal city, and it is a Federal city, and it tingles down to the feet of every man, whether he comes from Washington State, or Los Angeles, or Texas, when he comes and walks these city streets and starts to feel that 'this city is my city; I own a part of the Capital and I envy for the time being those who are able to spend their time here.'' I quite admit that there are defects in the system of government by which Congress is bound to look after the government of the District of Columbia. It could not be otherwise under such a system, but I submit to the judgment of history that the results vindicate the foresight of the Fathers.

He continued by saying, "Now, I am opposed to the franchise in the District; I am opposed and not because I yield to anyone in my support and belief in the principles of self-government"; but principles are applicable generally, and then, unless you make exceptions to the application of these principles, you will find that they will carry you to very illogical and absurd results. This was taken out of the application of the principle of self-government in the very Constitution that was intended to put it in force in every other part of the country, and it was done because it was intended to have the Representatives of all the people in the country control this one city, and to prevent its being controlled by the parochial spirit that would necessarily govern men who did not look beyond the city to the grandeur of the Nation, and this as the representative of that Nation.

He further stated, "I have gotten over being frightened by being told that I am forgetting the principles of the Fathers. The principles of the Fathers are maintained by those who maintain them with reason, and according to the fitness of the thing, and not by those who are constantly shaking them before the mass of voters for the purpose of misleading them.

"I think that when it comes to looking into the hearts of the American people, that they will not be convinced when they come to Washington that the Washingtonians are suffering to the degree that requires a reversement of the policy adopted, with entire clearness of mind, by the framers of the Constitution, also had L'Enfant draw the plans of Washington *** that was adapted to a city of significant distances, and to a city of millions of inhabitants; and therefore the clause was adopted, knowing that just such a city we would have here, and just such a city would have to get along, relying upon the training in self-government of the Representatives of 80 million of people to do justice by it."

Again, members of this committee, I would like to emphasize that this statement is as true and applicable today as it was at the time it was made in 1909.

When Chief Justice Taft was asked to autograph a copy of the foregoing speech and I quote "Smilingly he promised to do so, with the added remark that I still feel the same way about that speech."

And this remark was made 16 years later. There are some things in life that change but the basic ones never do, no matter how much we try to change them.

It is our firm belief that for many people the reasoning back of the desire for home rule is just the ballot. We believe they have not gone deeply enough into all the problems involved. Some are only interested in "feathering their own nest" and are not particularly interested in what is best for the District of Columbia.

For example: how are we going to raise the money to pay for the operation of a home rule government with about 37 percent of the population paying income tax and approximately 46 percent of the real estate tax of the District of Columbia being taxable54 percent being owned by the Federal Government or rather the citizens of the United States, the District of Columbia government, foreign governments, and other organizations. What makes the proponents think Congress will appropriate a higher percentage of funds? History does not show this. What makes them think that home rule will bring about an honest form of government when throughout the United States this is not always true?

What makes them think it is the panacea for our problems in the areas of education, health, welfare, recreation, and all other social concerned fields? It hasn't been answered in other cities and States throughout

the country. Yes, we have problems in the District, no one could possibly deny this— so does every other city in the United States. But with a population growing so fast we have to be patient and gradually try to solve these problems and I use the word "gradually" advisedly. If there is a criticism of our current Federal programs, it is that we are trying to do too much for too many people at one time. We have to try out a program, test it to see if it does the things we want it to do. This is the only way to have a well governed people and not chaos. We very much fear that if we have home rule, we will soon be bankrupt as it would seem we are inclined to let our emotions run away with our commonsense.

Instead of it being the worst governed city as stated in Changing Times, we have always believed the District to be one of the best governed cities-a city for all the citizens of the United States and not just for those who live here. It has been free from politics as such and free from graft.

We believe that the hand of our government should be strengthened rather than change our present form of government and have it fail as it did during the period prior to 1878.

Mr. Chairman, I have attended a number of the school board meetings, and if we elect our school board, I doubt very much that we will have a better school system than we have now. In fact, I question whether it will be as good.

We believe the superintendent of the District schools is a dedicated man; and that the members of the Board of Education should continue to be selected by the judges of the courts rather than be elected.

As president of the federation, I attended the board meeting, at which the sit-down episode occurred, and if that is a sample of what we will have when home rule elects the board, the schoolchildren in the District are not likely to receive as good an education as they have the opportunity to do now.

At this meeting, the spokesman for a socalled Committee of 100 stated that the appointed of the new assistant superintendent in charge of the elementary schools was not from the community of which the majority of the children were and therefore could not understand the problems of most of the children attending the District schools. He also said that future appointments should be on this basis. Now that puts appointments on the basis of color instead of qualifications. Is this within the purview of the Civil Rights Act?

The track system is not a race problem as Mrs. Rosalyn Switzer stated Sunday a week ago on the "Dimension Four" program. The District Federation of Women's Clubs had come to that conclusion and has endorsed the track system. The color of the skin of a child does not determine his ability to keep up with other children. This is determined by the background of the child, and the track system simply gives it a chance to learn at the level it can absorb.

No amount of money expended by local or Federal Governments for educational purposes is going to give young folks the incentive to learn which is so necessary to get an education. Incentive comes from within ourselves. It is instilled in us by our parents or teachers but mostly, it has to be born in us.

We need more vocational schools for those who are better able to work with their hands than with books.

We need to teach good citizenship, not civil disobedience which breaks down our respect for law. There are too many people out with a hatchet instead of putting their shoulder to the wheel, to build rather than to tear down.

A statement was made on the television to the effect that the clock is ticking, time

is moving, and we should and must do something about the situation in Washington or we will have riots here. This statement is seeds of riots and seeds of depredation. Flammatory statements can cause riots as occurred in Philadelphia, Rochester, Cleveland, Chicago, and Los Angeles. May I remind you that all these cities have complete and free voting rights, as well as home rule and access to all places and have had for a long time?

In July 1919, the District of Columbia had a race riot, but at that time, we did not succumb to pressures and threats. Immediate action was taken then, soldiers patrolled the streets and in a short time law and order was restored. The way to put out a fire is not by adding fuel. For obvious reasons, under no circumstances should a riot be invited or allowed to get under way in the Nation's Capital. The Federal Government should be in control at all times.

Many people need to have the following attributes: "First of all to work, and then self-restraint; obedience to law; respect for authority; creative imagination; right con

* some capacity for leadership, some positive contribution to the community he lives in, some sense of common decency in the maintenance of neighborhoods."

They should have "respect for law, respect for property, respect for the rights of othersthese have to come first. And these must be enforced by the courts and by the suddenly stiffened demands of a fed-up society." What we need are good laws and good law observance and courts that will punish when punishment is due. We, in the District of Columbia Federation, are thankful for, and

we respect the men who are willing to give their lives in police work, and we support them in every way we can not undermine

them.

We believe that when the members of this committee review all the facts, they will realize that the District of Columbia should remain the Federal City, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, who had the wisdom and the vision, which somehow-we must hold onto.

FOREIGN AID DISCUSSION 3 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, SPEAKER'S DINING ROOM

Mr. FARNSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRASER] may exRECORD and include extraneous matter. tend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the bipartisan group that has been sponsoring the foreign aid discussions, I am very pleased to announce that the next meeting will be Wednesday, September 1, at 3 p.m. in the Speaker's Dining Room.

"Vietnam: Winning the Support of the Peasants" will be the subject of the discussion. Two top officials from AID with responsibility for Vietnam and the Far East will be present.

AID TO MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS

Mr. FARNSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRASER] 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 Kentucky?

There was no objection.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider extending the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act. The 1963 legislation has been successful and it is essential that we continue and expand its operation. Since its enactment, 2,279 new first year places have been created in medical, dental, public health, nursing, pharmacy, and optometry schools. This progress is encouraging.

However, we are still not providing new places fast enough. In 1962 there were approximately 149 physicians for every 100,000 Americans. At that time, the medical schools were graduating approximately 7,500 M.D.'s per year. In order to maintain that ratio in 1975 they would have to increase the size of their graduating classes to 11,000. But, in the 2 years since 1963, only 725 new medical places have been created. Because of cal education, the rate at which new the time necessary to complete a mediplaces are being created is too slow to provide 11,000 graduates in 1975. Facilities on which construction begins this year will not produce a general practitioner until 1973, or a specialist until 1975.

In 1963, there were 64.6 dentists for every 100,000 individuals. To maintain this ratio, dental schools will need to graduate more than 70,000 dentists between now and 1980. At the present rate of graduations, only slightly more than 55,000 dentists can be graduated, reducing the ratio of dentists to 50 per 100,000 persons.

Minnesota needs this legislation as do other States. The average age of dentists in the State is 58 years. Half of the Minnesota dentists will probably not be practicing in 10 years.

The University of Minnesota, which is order to construct a new medical-dental in my district, needs this legislation in outpatient clinic and a new dentistry building. This will cost some $20 million, much of which will have to come from the Federal Government. The new facilities will increase the number of graduates, provide better training in comprehensive medical care methods, and provide facilities in educating doctors in new methods.

Expanding the number of first year places available does not insure an adequate supply of qualified doctors. We must also encourage the best students to enter the health professions.

A high school graduate who desires to be a doctor must anticipate that his education will cost $20,000 to $30,000. This is certainly a deterrent to young people who are otherwise eager and promising. A disproportionate number of medical and dental students are drawn from families which are able to pay for professional education. In 1963, half of the medical students came from the 20 percent of families having incomes over $10,000.

The National Defense Education Act and the National Science Foundation Act provide fellowships for teaching and

science students. A critical shortage was recognized in these areas and the Federal Government responded with scholarship assistance. Now that we have recognized the imminent shortage of health profession personnel, we must provide comparable scholarships.

Both loans and scholarships are provided by this bill in order to encourage the most qualified students to go on to professional schools. The practice of providing Federal funds for student loans is extended for 3 years. Grants are also made to schools of medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, and optometry for scholarships in amounts up to $2,500 per year.

Dr. Robert Howard, dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School and president of the American Association of Medical Colleges, testified before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call his excellent testimony to the attention of my colleagues by inserting it at this point.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT HOWARD, DEAN, MEDICAL SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

I think it is clear that in the last several years there has been increasing awareness on the part of the American public of its concern over health matters and awareness of a relative shortage of physicians. These matters were spoken to with clarity by the President in his message to Congress on the 7th of January 1965, where he pointed out this concern and he pointed out the shortage of physicians which has been very real and has been of interest and concern to all of us responsible for medical education these past several years.

This shortage or this need for more manpower will be even more severe in the future, if we are to develop programs such as those that are envisioned in the DeBakey report. The medical complexes for dealing with the killer diseases will require even more physicians than are now needed, and I think that it is appropriate that real attention be given to this matter of strengthening the Nation's ability to provide oppor

tunities for medical education.

In 1963 the health profession's educational assistance amendment was passed and has

requests in support of construction of facilrequests in support of construction of facilities. It would require maximum funds in an amount of slightly more than that, I suppose in the neighborhood of $500 million, based on present kinds of programs. But this is a very substantial contribution on the part of schools and their States that support them or their private endowments, and replies again reflect this national interest in this problem.

So I am here, among other things, to urge that the construction feature of H.R. 3141 be

passed; that it be increased in its amount to

meet these growing needs. We do strongly support the provisions of this legislation and the administration's position with respect the administration's position with respect to this which asks for an extension over a 4- or 5-year period.

We do, however, recognize that Congress has at times indicated an interest in applying some sort of limitations on such programs, and we would urge that if it does that it appropriate no less than $160 million for each year of the period in which it hopefully will extend the act.

I would like to speak briefly to the portion of the act that relates to provision for student loans. We also urge the extension of the student loan program and that the amount which may be loaned to individual students in any given academic year be increased from $2,000 to $2,500 per year. This would conform with what is possible for other students under the National Defense Education Act.

This program, too, in a year's time has proved very helpful and very popular, and the funds that were made available during this last year were sufficient only to meet 57 percent of the requests made by students.

One of the things we are interested in is extending the possibility to go to medical school to students who come from families of relatively modest incomes and clearly this kind of act will help them do that.

Dr. Berson is going to speak to the other aspects of this bill and, in particular, I think he is going to say things about the provisions of the bill that would provide general support for medical schools, and this, too, I would want to go on record as saying is badly needed, and if medical schools with rapidly rising costs are to be able to meet the needs of the future, some form of support of this kind is clearly in order.

Thank you very much.

hands to submit a list to you, Mr. Speaker, which was announced here today as to who the members of the minority on the conference would be. In fact, the gentleman from New York [Mr. GOODELL! was not even a member of the ad hoc subcommittee that heard all of the testimony.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask when the House convenes unanimous consent that the names be stricken from the list on the minority side and that the conference not be started until, Mr. Speaker, you have an opportunity to appoint a list that I have submitted to you.

The SPEAKER. The Chair suggests that the gentleman might confer with the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor between now and tomorrow.

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with you more. For the last hour and a half I have tried to confer with the chairman of the committee. The only person I have been able to talk to is an assistant, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone could not tell me how the list was prepared. All he said was that the chairman programed the conference to meet tomorrow, and the conferees had been notified.

Mr. Speaker, I did my best to confer with the chairman; however, he has not seen fit to accept my phone call.

PROBLEMS OF NEGRO RELOCATION AS A RESULT OF URBAN RENEWAL

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WIDNALL] 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 Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, the

This provided $175 million total for support of construction of schools of medicine, dentistry, public health, nursing, optometry, and pharmacy. This was $175 million over a 3-year period.

During the past year I have been privDuring the past year I have been privileged to serve as a consultant to the Public Health Service and have visited some 10 schools that had put in applications for support under this act. In two or three of these instances they were brandnew schools. In the remainder they represented schools that were increasing their capacity for medical education.

I could not help but be impressed by what this act had done in stimulating these schools either to develop as new schools or to increase their enrollments.

The total new physicians the total new places in medical schools represented by just these 10 schools that I was privileged to visit was something in the neighborhood of 400, and this is just in 1 year's time.

So you can see that the impact of this act was a very real one, and in just 1 year's time, then, there had been a considerable move forward on the part of the Nation's schools for the development of more educational opportunity.

I would like to call your attention to the fact that medical schools have, to date, either put in specific applications or filed letters of intent totaling more than $400 million of

THE ANTIPOVERTY BILL

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

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection.

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to hear that the minority conferees for the antipoverty conference ferees for the antipoverty conference between the House and the other body were announced today.

Mr. Speaker, the list prepared by the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. PowELL], listed the members of the minority that would be members of the conference, when no members of the minority were even asked who they might want, let alone myself, the ranking minority member.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an outrage. We all know that this antipoverty program is somewhat confused, but little did I realize that the chairman of that committee would take it in his own

urban renewal projects have fallen particularly heavily on the Negro citizen and other minority groups whose opportunities for finding or affording decent, have, in many areas, been greatly cursafe, and sanitary relocation housing tailed. Only last July 13 the Washington bureau director for the NAACP, Mr. Clarence Mitchell, in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, commented on the fact that even present relocation techniques appear insufficient for the job to be done adequately. Said Mr. Mitchell:

There is a strong suspicion that a careful analysis of the housing now occupied by displaced persons would show that far too many have moved into areas with greater overcrowding and worse slum condition than the places that they left.

The careful analysis mentioned by Mr. Mitchell has been done in at least one area of the country. In July of 1963, the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report entitled "Family Relocation Under Urban Renewal in ConnecticutProblems and Proposals in a Typical Federal Government Program Involving