the use of a radio transmitter are illegal. (See "Federal Communications Commission Rule Changes Affecting Law Enforcement Agencies," "Law and Order," September 1964.)

THE PROFESSIONAL SNOOPER

The professional eavesdropper is a highly skilled specialist whose knowledge and complex array of technical equipment is for hire. He is well acquainted with sound systems, electronics and telephone equipment. He is not to be confused with the small-time private investigator who plants microphones under the beds of unsuspecting lovers. This type of operation is not only beneath his dignity but does not have the monetary return necessary to interest him.

The true professional is as adept at coun

termeasures as he is at snooping. Probably the most instructive material that could be published on electronic eavesdropping would be to pit one specialist against the other and record the efforts of each.

URBAN RENEWAL-CONSTITUTION PLAZA-IN HARTFORD, CONN. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the current issue of Look magazine which is being released nationally today contains an interesting and very favorable article on renewal in Hartford, Conn.

The article is entitled "One City's Answer to Downtown Decay" and starts out as follows:

Grass isn't growing in the streets of Hartford, Conn., but plenty of it grows high above them. Constitution Plaza, a great platform built above the traffic, raises city renewal to a new level.

Constitution Plaza does raise the restoration and rebuilding of downtown areas to a new level.

It is a magnificent section of Hartford, so overwhelmingly right in so many ways that a visitor might easily miss its most vital quality-its significance to the future of every city in the land.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

"ONE CITY'S ANSWER TO DOWNTOWN DECAY Grass isn't growing in the streets of Hartfort, Conn., but plenty of it grows high above them. Constitution Plaza, a great platform built above the traffic, raises city renewal to

a new level. In a mutual-benefit plan appropriate to a town famous for insurance, people on foot are safely separated from people in cars. With cars parked conveniently beneath, families are free to stroll among the gardens, shop in the stores, eat at a terrace restaurant and enjoy the fountain, sculpture, open space, and shining architecture. The multiblock plaza has also lifted historic Hartford's formidable civic pride to a new high, triumphantly clearing the way for the return downtown.

Constitution Plaza is so overwhelmingly right in so many ways that a visitor might easily miss its most vital quality its significance to the future of every city in the

land.

The plaza is important because it demonstrates that the central city can be saved if responsible citizens act. First, Gladden W. Baker and Roger Wilkins of the Travelers Insurance Co. picked up the master plan drawn

by architect Charles DuBose and invested $40 million to make it a reality. The next big step came when Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. reversed its decision to move away from Hartford and projected its new, ship-shaped headquarters as an extension of the plaza. Constitution Plaza proved to be just the vote of confidence in the city that was needed. Across the street from it, G. Fox & Co., the town's largest retailer, built a $12 million addition. Now under construction nearby is the new high-rise headquarters of Hartford National Bank and Trust Co. A half-dozen blocks away, the Travelers has recently completed a giant computer center. But the spirit of renewal is by no means confined to commercial structures. Bulldozers have cleared the ground for twin apartment towers. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is at work on plans for a graduate division downtown. South of the plaza, the Wadsworth Athenaeum, one of the country's finest

MR. HUMPHREY MAKES A GOOD

POINT

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, the Hartford Courant of August 22, in an otherwise excellent editorial, remarked that "once in a while" Vice President HUMPHREY "makes good sense." I admire this newspaper, but I want to take mild exception to that assertion: I believe that Vice President HUMPHREY-that vibrant, and articulate statesman-always makes good sense.

He made good sense recently, and the Hartford Courant paid him tribute for it, when he spoke of the necessity for education and training in alleviating the shameful conditions of unemployment which face Negro Americans today.

President Johnson has made it clear that he considers better education central to the achievement of the Great Society. Our able Vice President has echoed this concern of the President, and has done so eloquently and forcefully.

I ask unanimous consent that the edi

torial be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Hartford Courant, Aug. 22, 1965] HUMPHREY MAKES A GOOD POINT

Vice President HUMPHREY has a wellearned record as a marathon talker, but once in a while he makes good sense. Speaking the other day in Chicago, he pointed out that now that the Negro has legally won his civil rights, new problems must be met. Foremost among these is the need for more and better employment. The unemployment rate among Negroes is constantly a great deal more than among white people. And despite the general rise in employment, this is not reflected in Negro employment.

Behind this sad fact is the more basic one of education. Many of the Negroes who have come out of the South are poorly equipped

stitution Plaza has encouraged other efforts to build new structures and add to existing ones in downtown Hartford, commercial, residential, cultural, and educational.

The rehabilitation of Hartford is well

advanced and it is a source of pride to me that the capital city of my State is setting such a fine example to other, often larger, cities throughout the country.

It is a shining example of what enlightened private enterprise and enlightened leadership by local officials can accomplish.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, at the conclusion of my remarks, the article entitled, "One City's Answer to Downtown Decay."

I only wish that I could also have printed in the RECORD the Look photos of the renewal area, with its fountains, plantings, and examples of superb architecture.

But this cannot be done, so I would suggest to my colleagues and to everyone else who is seriously interested in constructive approaches to downtown renewal that they look at this article or even better visit Hartford to see for themselves what can be accomplished.

sculpture court.

Constitution Plaza is also important because it represents a renewal idea of critical value to our congested cities. The platform principle places a number of related buildings on a raised base, connected with had a forerunner in New York's Rockefeller service and parking areas underneath. It Center, with its subsurface pedestrian streets. Today, the platform approach is on the design boards in cities across the country-the Pennsylvania Avenue proposal in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia's Market Street East plan, Seattle's waterfront proposal and San Francisco's Market Street mall. The platform, sorting out people and cars, is no cureall, but Hartford is a daily demonstration of its worth.

The plaza is important, finally, because it is sufficiently complete to walk through and appreciate. But other downtown projects have not been laggardly. In many centers

Philadelphia, Baltimore, Providence, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis-the rehabilitation of downtown, though still incomplete, has advanced further than even their plete, has advanced further than even their own citizens realize. Downtown's new look

is beginning to take shape. Factories and warehouses are disappearing. Living, shipping, office, entertainment, and cultural cenbounded by great loop highways. In Hartters are going up on landscaped plazas ford, the visitor to Constitution Plaza can already see the multileveled cities of tomorrow reflected in its great glass buildings.

modern industrial world. Furthermore, this incapacity grows as the standard of skill needed grows higher each year. The basic need, then, says Mr. HUMPHREY, is to reach

the illiterate and semiliterate, the unskilled and the semiskilled, and by intensive training attempt to give him something that can

be sold in the labor market.

This lack of education or training is the source of many other ills, including delinquency, dependency on relief, unstable family life, and general hopelessness. If there is one weak spot in the whole antipoverty campaign, it is the fact that training of the untrained has not been sufficiently emphasized. There are many educational programs being launched, but not many of the lowest people on the economic totem pole are being reached.

Every person, black or white, is happier when he has a feeling of worth. It is difficult for most white people to know the feel

ing of rejection, of being on the very periphery of life, that must be the pervasive force in the lives of the untrained and unskilled

Negro. He has been uprooted from a simpler environment, and lives for the most part as a rootless and unproductive unit in a large city. It is not at all strange that strong emotions, including hatred and revenge, rise to the surface. It will not be an easy job, but these people must be trained so that they too can become part of the productive

world.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Salt Lake City Tribune,
Aug. 30, 1965]

MRS. AMERICA-OUR "BEST" MOM,
U.S. BEST, Too

(By Stephanie Smith)

"We think she's the best mother in the whole world," Dale Buehner, 10, said Sunday after a phone call from dad telling him that his mother, Mrs. Don L. (Alice) Buehner, had been chosen Mrs. America, Saturday evening.

When Dad relayed the message, Dale said, "I think I'm going to faint."

Seven-year-old Gary, who catches squirrels and chipmunks near home in the Mount Olympus wooded area, said only, "Hey, dad, I've got a new trap."

And the whole Buehner family is convinced their mother is the best, Jeff, 5, reported that the only time she ever became cross was when he hurt someone. "And that isn't very often."

Dale commented that "She isn't grouchy with us, keeps a house neat and is a pretty good cook. Her meatloaf is really good." He added, "She sings and paints a lot, too."

Gary said he watched the contest on television, “But mom was on for just a minute. Dad was on longer."

SWIM LESSONS

"Mom is special," Lisa said, "because she takes me swimming at my friend's all the time.

I'm taking swimming lessons, too," she remarked.

The 2-year-old, Bobby, when asked where his mommy was, replied, "She's gone."

The baby of the family, 8-month-old Donnie, went on eating his canned vegetables as if nothing at all had happened.

FOREIGN AID

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Mr. President, many years ago it became a cliche to say that foreign aid has no constituents-to assert that because the benefits of foreign aid are dissipated beyond our national borders, support for foreign aid appropriations was difficult to justify. I am one who believes deeply in the justice and the necessity of foreign aid. I believe our national interest requires this aid-and I believe our national honor demands it. As President Johnson said not long ago, "We did not choose to be the guardian at the gate." No, we did not choose to be the guardian-but history has chosen us. And if we are to live up to the demands of history, we must be willing to apportion a small part of our vast resources so that other nations may be assisted in achieving internal development, military security, and a better life for all.

I was impressed recently by an excellent editorial in the Des Moines Register. I commend to my colleagues, and

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD, this editorial, published Monday, August 23: "Foreign Aid Continued."

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Des Moines (Iowa) Register,
Aug. 23, 1965]

FOREIGN AID CONTINUED

Differences in Congress over foreign aid usually center around the amount to vote for foreign military and economic assistance. This time President Johnson submitted the lowest request in the history of the foreign aid program-for $3.38 billion

and both houses voted to authorize close to this amount. Nevertheless, the foreign aid bill remained tied up in a bitterly deadlocked House-Senate conference committee for 2 months before agreement was reached last week on a compromise, which was approved Thursday in the House.

The deadlock developed over the Senate's determination to bring about fundamental overhaul of the foreign aid program.

The Senate sought to achieve this by authorizing foreign aid funds for a 2-year period but stipulating that aid under the program should terminate as of June 30, 1967. The President was directed by the Senate in the interim to bring in plans by July 1, 1966, for a new program in accordance with guidelines contained in the Senate authorization bill. Provision was also made for a 16-member "Foreign Aid Planning Committee," to be made up mostly of Congressmen, to advise and assist the President and to make its own report by January 3, 1967.

The House conferees objected to the 2year authorization, terminating the existing program and requiring the proposed studies. Senate Members gave up the 2month battle after extracting a face-saving compromise in which the President was merely urged "to inaugurate a review of the aid program as presently constituted."

The Senate-passed authorization measure would have required the President to submit proposals for separating economic and military aid programs and providing for administration of nonmilitary assistance under a single agency. This would have constituted a valuable reform.

But more harm than good could well have come from the Senate's insistence that the entire aid program be scrapped and started over afresh. One of the major weaknesses of the foreign aid program has been the instability and uncertainty caused by the succession of overhauls and reorganizations inflicted by Congress on the administering agency.

The authorization measure must still clear the Senate, and bills providing the actual appropriations have to be acted on by both

Houses.

cleared, providing assurance that the United But the major hurdles have been States again fully intends to honor the foreign economic and military assistance commitments it has been responsibly assuming since the end of World War II in the interest of world peace and economic progress.

JAMES V. BENNETT, FORMER DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS, SUPPORTS BILL TO COMPENSATE

VICTIMS OF CRIMES

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, one of the great public servants which this country has had during this generation is James V. Bennett. For 27 For 27 years he served as Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. In his years of servBureau of Prisons. In his years of service in this post, prisoners, lawyers, Representatives, Senators, judges, and just plain citizens grew to admire and respect

this man for his compassion and firm will.

Last August, when he retired, speeches in his praise echoed both in this Chamber and the House. Many of us felt that his retirement would mean that the country would, henceforth, be deprived of his counsel, advice, and wisdom; but, fortunately, he is still concerning himself with problems and issues at the very forefront of criminal law.

The other day, I was greatly pleased to receive a letter from him, congratulating me on my introduction of a bill to compensate the victims of violent crimes. He has even gone so far as to offer to appear at hearings on the bill when they are held. I can think of few men either in the United States or in the world at large who would be more qualified to testify on such a plan. I hope that such hearings are held soon and I look forward to hearing Mr. Bennett's testimony. I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Bennett's letter printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Washington, July 14, 1965.
Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I was delighted at the introduction of your bill to compensate the victims of certain crimes. It is a proposal that has been discussed frequently here, in the

United Nations meetings on crime and delinquency, and at a number of judicial conferences during my tenure as Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. It has also been discussed from time to time by the section on criminal law of the American Bar Association, on which I have served as an officer for a good many years. I am sure you are also aware that Justice Goldberg has propounded the idea.

I am confident that the introduction of your bill will crystallize the tremendous support that I know exists for it. In the event hearings are scheduled, I would like very much to appear. The bill is well drafted, but I may have some further suggestions as to details.

With kind personal regards.
Sincerely,

JAMES V. BENNETT. Consultant.

THE FREEDOM ACADEMY IS

NEEDED

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, from far and near across the land, there is a rising crescendo of support for enactment of the so-called Freedom Academy bill, once passed by the Senate, and recently unanimously approved by the appropriate legislative committee of the House. All that now delays House action is the need to get a rule from the House Rules Committee which will clear the legisla

tion for action on the House floor.

Recently, Henry Mayers, chairman of the Cold War Council, headquartered at 2301 West Third Street, Los Angeles, Calif., was interviewed on station KNBCTV of Los Angeles on the needs and the proposed programs of a freedom academy. I ask unanimous consent that this interview appear at this point in the RECORD as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the text of the interview was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE FREEDOM ACADEMY

(TV interview with Henry Mayers (excerpts from transcript), station KNBC, Los Angeles)

He

BOB WRIGHT. With us here in the studio is the man who founded the Cold War Council and is now its chairman. Henry Mayers is a Los Angeles advertising executive. was named advertising man of the year for 1957 by the Western States Advertising Agencies Association. During the next half hour, we will question him closely on the merits of this new organization. Joining me in the questioning will be KRCA reporters Bill Brandt and Bob Brackett. We'll begin the questioning with Mr. Brackett.

Question. Mr. Mayers, would you give us some background on the Cold War Council? What's its primary purpose?

Answer. The council is a group of citizens in communications industries. We are primarily concerned with the fact that the nonmilitary activities of Communists around the world represent as great a threat to our security and our survival as the military capacity of the Soviet Union. In the military area we have a $55 billion defense budget that is insurance against military aggressions by the Communists in the free world. need comparable insurance against nonmilitary aggressions in the form of political warfare of the type that enabled the Soviets to put Cuba into the Communist bloc. The free world lacks the capacity to prevent more Cubas. We have yet to develop techniques, strategies, and weapons that can counteract

We

grated study of the kind that bill recommends. The existing agencies you mention do not believe that there is necessity for it. Question. Who would formulate the program that would be taught in the school? What sort of people would you get on your faculty, as it were, of this freedom academy?

Answer. All over the free world there are people, mostly outside of government, who devote full time to the problems of the cold war. They are very dedicated and very clear in their basic concepts as to what must be done to counteract Communist political warfare. The problem, in our country, is not finding people or knowing what they would teach, but having the will to take the waging of propaganda and political warfare as seriously as the Communists do.

Question. Let me ask you specifically. Would somebody like Dr. Fred C. Schwarzwho is a self-styled expert in this area, at least would he be a welcome addition to the faculty of the Freedom Academy if it existed today?

Answer. I doubt it very much. An expert on political warfare must be more than an expert on communism. The men whom I refer to are not identified with any crusading effort. Some are political scientists, some are ex-diplomats, some are ex-military men, some are foreign correspondents. There's one group in the University of Pennsylvania known as the Foreign Policy Research Institute. They write scholarly volumes on the subject, such as "Protracted Conflict," "A Forward Strategy for America," and "The New Frontier of War." These are $5, $6, and $7 books. One of the purposes of the Cold War Council is to try to bring the thoughts of these people down to the grassroots-to

nothing that necessarily involves any conflict. As a matter of fact, there are White House advisers right now who would in a sense be encroaching on the State Department's area, if that were their exclusive area. That's the big issue. We feel that diplomats are not necessarily conflict managers.

Question. In a sense, since the Soviets don't admit their underhanded propaganda, so to speak-if we would have a person on the President's staff, wouldn't this be in a sense admitting that we were doing propaganda?

Answer. By all means, we should admit it. One of our inhibitions is fear of the word "propaganda," because it can only mean lies or underhanded activity. This is a mistake. We're talking about political communication. You can use any words you want. But the truth has to be presented about the nature and the objectives of the United States, and about the fact that we are the only legitimate revolution in history. We must also tell the truth about the nature of the enemy. BOBBY KENNEDY came back convinced by that. He saw that we must do more than just talk about ourselves. We must talk about the threat those people are facing, when they believe Communist promises.

Question. Is it possible to sell freedom?

Answer. I don't think you should sell anything but the self-interest of the people whom we are addressing. That's where the Communists are very clever. They identify themselves with the self-interest of the people. Of course, they deceive them. promise the laboring groups better conditions, and once they get in control, those people are slaves of the state. They promise

They

warfare their strategy and weapons are today overwhelmingly superior to ours.

Only when we develop what the Cold War Council calls a freedom offensive to counteract the Kremlin's drive for world domination, will free world nations be assured of security in the nonmilitary area. If we do not develop such capacity, Communist political power may continue to expand throughout the undeveloped world. We may ultimately

be faced with no other alternatives than surrender or nuclear war.

Question. Your organization talks a great deal about a freedom academy. Exactly what is this, and what is the status of the project? Answer. That happens to be the only example of what might be called cold war legislation that is before Congress today. Unfortunately, it has been before Congress for 3 years, and it has been largely neglected, pigeonholed in committees. It is opposed by the State Department, although a Gallup poll revealed that about 4 out of 5 people who have an opinion on it, favor the idea.

Question. I think we might like to examine that. Could you tell us in a very few words what is the freedom academy?

Answer. A freedom academy is to be set up by a Commission, under the freedom commission bill. It calls for a six-man Commission of three Democrats and three Republicans, structurally very much like the Atomic Energy Commission. While they develop atomic power, this commission would seek to develop our capacity for nonmilitary warfare in all phases. It would conduct research and it would establish an academy for training American citizens who work overseas, and also citizens of other free world nations. That, in its essence, is the purpose of the freedom commission bill.

Question. Well, can't all of this be done through existing agencies like the USIA and the Foreign Service School, and the State Department?

Answer. The freedom commission bill was introduced because, despite the need, nothing like that has been done. There has been no coordinated effort and inte

form, for the average person to grasp. A Cold War Council booklet that costs us a few cents relays some of the ideas these $6 books contain.

Question. Mr. Mayers, aren't their ideas being used within the present organizations, like the foreign policy school, the Foreign Service School?

Answer. Not their basic theory of the necessity for going on a freedom offensive. That is not being taught, because our present Government doesn't see the danger as we see it. Our policymakers go on the assumption that anything that would embarrass the Soviets or put them in a bad light would be regarded as provocative and increase tensions and make negotiations more difficult. This is what the Soviets love to have them think. We think just the opposite.

Question. Are you saying, then, that the Government has a "no win" policy?

Answer. That's a rather oversimplified statement. What the world needs is a "no win" policy on the part of the Soviet Union. Our policy should be to try to force such a development within the Soviet Union, by actively cultivating opinion behind the Iron Curtain. There are tensions there, too. There are the Soviet youth, the scientists and the manager group-they're not necessarily out for world domination, the way the present Kremlin leadership is.

Question. Isn't there built into this sort of a notion, a terrible chance that rather than embarrass the Soviets, we'd embarrass our own Government by having State go in one direction and this new superagency going in another direction in these countries?

Answer. The concept that political warfare is not necessarily the business of diplomats is basic to the position of the Cold War Council. The State Department hasn't built-in authority, under our Constitution to make foreign policy. Only the President has that authority. He decides what he wants the State Department to do, to carry out that policy. If the President chooses to set up another organization like a Freedom Commission or a strategy board, there's

control, the state takes over the land. So it's the deceptions that must be brought out, so that the Communists do not get away with the claim that they are the wave of the future, when they're really nothing but the wave of a return to feudalism under state capitalism.

Question. I'd like to follow the question Mr. Brandt raised a few minutes ago, about embarrassing our Government. If we might take a specific. Suppose we launched the program you're describing, to try to capitalize on the unrest in Communist China. Suppose that due to that program and the current food shortage, the revolution did start in China. Wouldn't the U.S. Government face quite a dilemma? If it went in to support the revolution, it might lead to a nuHungary, we'd get an even bigger black eye. clear war. If it didn't do anything, as with

Answer. We could no nothing more foolish than to create another Hungary anywhere. But the idea that you arbitrarily barge in and try to create revolution is not the concept of nonmilitary warfare. There are antiregime groups in all of these countries to be guided in nonviolent channels. If we had been really alert to the proper cultivation of such anti-Communist forces behind the Iron Curtain, we might have prevented the unnecessary slaughter of a Hungary. But we were not in contact with that leadership. In every one of these satellite countries there are divisions, there are tensions, there is the capacity to force concessions from a government that is not serving the interests of the people.

Political warfare is a more sophisticated form of warfare than military action or civil revolt. It can slowly weaken a regime. There are tremendous conflicts between the people of Russia and the Kremlin, too. Our concern is to cultivate the potential opposition. We are fighting the Kremlin, not the Russian people. We think they're on our side, and that it's just an accident that communism and Leninism took hold of Russia.

Question. How do these trained agents of the Freedom Academy get that information

into Russia? We can't even get our radio broadcasts into Russia.

Answer: That's a misunderstanding. The potential is increasing every day, and it is already very great, to get news and information into Russia. There are organizations such as the American Committee for Liberation, which is continually broadcasting into all of the U.S.S.R. countries from Munich. There is an organization called NTS which is a completely underground one, which has not only mobile radios, but all sorts of methods of bringing literature in by ships, and by other means. The Iron Curtain is not as airtight as you imply. We just haven't got the will to pursue our opportunities. Incidentally, Mr. Sarnoff, being highly skilled in the technical field of broadcasting, developed a number of recommendations such as dropping down very inexpensive receiving sets. There's no communication problem we can't solve, if we have the will to approach it the way we approach military problems.

Question. But do we have the people to do it? This presupposes a large, very skillful, well trained force. Where would these people come from?

Answer. There are quite a few in America, and all over the world there are anti-Communist organizations who are working on these things right now. But they're working under great handicaps, whereas the Communists get their guidance, support and all sorts of aid from Soviet Russia. Most of these anti-Communist groups are utterly without support, especially if they happen to represent what you might call the anti-Communist left, which doesn't happen to be in power in the country.

Now the Soviets don't care who is in power. They not only set up a Communist Party, they get front organizations to carry out their line, regardless. We should do the same. We have to get leaders of the countries telling their people the story. Not the story of the United States, necessarily. This is not a war between the United States and Soviet Russia, or conflict of two systems of society, a concept which the Soviets would

love to have us believe. This is a conflict between a tremendous totalitarian, imperialistic power and all the people of the world whom they would like to put under state slavery.

Question. Mr. Mayers, if I understand you right, you're saying that we should use some of the methods the Communists are presently using-some of the heavy, underhanded methods.

Answer. There's nothing underhanded about telling the free world, anti-Communist story, or about the methods to be used. The anti-Communist story has to be told by natives of each country to the people of that country. That is one Communist strategy we can adopt. We, too, can subsidize the activities of the newspapers and the radio stations, the authors and the scholars in those countries. I say subsidize in a perfectly legitimate and open sense. There's nothing cloak and dagger about this at all. But we have to make the effort that they do. The best comparison I can make is that we spend about $120 million a year on an information agency and they spend $2 billion a year on all forms of propaganda and political activity. They have 500,000 paid agents around the world doing these things. They will go into a small country where we have an Embassy of maybe 10 or 20 people and they'll have 150 people in the Soviet Embassy. What are they doing? They're not taking care of diplomatic niceties.

Question. Mr. Mayers, most experts in the field express the thought that the Russians fear an atomic war as much as we do. They don't want it any more than we do. Do you think that if we were to launch a propaganda offensive of this kind that this might create an atmosphere where a hot war would be more desirable to them?

Answer. The Cold War Council believes there is greater danger of a hot war in our present policies of inaction in the face of Communist political aggressions. We think that unless we go on the offensive and convince the Kremlin that they cannot win control of Latin America, Africa and Asia and the Near East, they have no reason to abandon their designs for world conquest. The Russian people do fear war. As far as the Kremlin is concerned, our military are pretty well convinced that the Soviets won't make any hasty decision about going to war when we have the capacity of retaliation that we The Russian people think that the United States wants to bomb them largely because the Kremlin spends great sums of money propagandizing the Russian people. Propaganda is one of the biggest industries inside Russia, as well as its greatest export. If they still have to do that, after 40 years, you can imagine how vulnerable they are to a countereffort which doesn't necessarily preach bloody revolution or anything as superficial as that, but that encourages the forces within Russia which are going to change the character of the leadership in the Kremlin, some day. The policies we recommend would accelerate that change.

Question. Isn't it true that the basic battleground you speak of is in the nonwhite areas of the world today? Don't you feel that we have some problems here at home that we ought to cope with?

Answer. I don't think there's any connec

tion between the two. Except, of course, that the Communists will take advantage of any and every one of our injustices and our tensions. They make the most of them and they also invent them, whether there is a basis or not. But they have injustices and

discontents and tensions, too, and we have to make the most of their vulnerabilities.

If your question means, "Do you think we ought to do nothing until we have solved our race problem in the South," I'd say absolutely no, because that problem may be with us for many years. We are facing a challenge right now which is not a debating society challenge. We can't afford to lose a few more countries in Latin Amer

ica as we've lost Cuba. We haven't a perfect society and we will not have it a hundred years from now-but that's no reason why we shouldn't defend the society we have, right

now.

Question. Mr. Mayers, you've claimed, I believe, that your group is nonpartisan. And yet, isn't it true that you have said that one of the reasons your Freedom Academy bill has not passed Congress is that Senator FULBRIGHT, a liberal Democrat, is opposed to it?

Answer. I haven't said that, although I believe he is opposed to it. There are many reasons why it hasn't passed. I would say it's chiefly because of the lack of interest on the part of the public, or rather, a lack of awareness of its existence.

Question. Wasn't the bill introduced by Senator MUNDT, a conservative Republican? Answer. It was jointly written by Senator MUNDT, a conservative Republican, and Senator PAUL DOUGLAS, a liberal Democrat. It's sponsored by 12 Senators of both parties, and in the House it was introduced by SYDNEY HERLONG, a Democrat and Walter Judd, a Republican. No, there's nothing partisan about the congressional sponsorship of the Freedom Commission bill. It requires that there be three Republicans and three Democrats on it; it requires that the Commission members be approved by both Houses.

Question. Then there isn't any political group that's holding up this bill in Congress?

Answer. I wouldn't say it's a political group. I would say it's the State Department chiefly. The history of it is that it actually passed the Senate at the end of the 1961 session by a voice vote. It had cleared the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee

with a very strong endorsement in which they said it was one of the most important bills ever offered the Senate. It was too late in the session for it to go to the House. Next session it was reintroduced, but Mr. FULBRIGHT asked that it be referred to his committee. That was in February 1961, and it still isn't out of his committee. The reason he gives is that he asked the executive department for their views on it and he couldn't hold hearings until they gave their views. He waited 15 months for the State Department to answer his request. That was 4 months ago.

Question. Would the Cold War Council be concerned exclusively with the external manifestations of communism? You are not interested in the areas that the John Birch Society is, for instance.

Answer. We are concerned only with the external threat and what can be done about it in the field of political communications. The Cold War Council, you know, was founded by citizens engaged in advertising, public relations, and the communications fields.

BOB WRIGHT. "Sorry, time's up."

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, in addition to this fine interview, Henry Mayers and his widely recognized Cold War Council have been getting out pamphlets and brochures explaining the purposes of the Freedom Academy and the overall weakness in America's cold war activities because of our continuing failure to tool up our cold war arsenal and effectively to train the necessary personnel to meet the challenges of modern cold war techniques.

Among the rapidly growing list of important American newspapers and magazines which have endorsed the Freedom Academy legislation is the San Diego Union of San Diego, Calif. I ask consent that an editorial from this fine metropolitan paper entitled "Freedom Academy Is Needed" be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WOULD TEACH REDS' TACTICS: FREEDOM
ACADEMY IS NEEDED

For 5 years now, House and Senate proposals for the establishment of a Freedom Commission and Freedom Academy have been thwarted in Congress even as the United States continues to suffer hot and cold war defeats at the hands of atheistic commu

nism.

Quite simply stated, what is proposed is a West Point for psychological purposes, an academy to be staffed by experts on communism to teach both Americans and foreigners the techniques of the enemy.

In the forefront opposing the proposal has been our own State Department, with a 20-year history of hot and cold war defeats, telling proponents that Government has agencies equipped to carry out any psychological missions required against the enemy.

In response, we would ask when it is going to begin using them. Russia has 6,000 special schools on espionage, subversion, infiltration, agitation, and propaganda devoted to selling atheistic communism in any way it feels is necessary.

Perhaps the State Department's objections could be better understood if this were a partisan bill, backed by Republicans or conservatives within the Congress. But it has the stamp of approval of both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals.

Objections raised are all the more startling when weighed in light of the fact that no research or educational institution has been