established either inside or out of Government devoted to study in depth of continuing problems raised by Communist techniques.

The Senate approved the proposal on August 31, 1960, the House failed to act, and it has been returned annually to committee ever since. A ray of hope shone through this last spring when new hearings were conducted by Representative EDWIN E. WILLIS, Democrat, of Louisiana, and his subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities.

Part of the blame for delay has been distrust based upon fear that the academy would become either a fortress of militant anti-Communists or, on the other hand, become infiltrated with Communists.

With an elite commission of seven, appointed by the President, subject to ratification by the Senate, such assumptions on both sides of the argument are patently ridiculous. As a part of the executive branch of Government, it would be the commission's job to run the academy along guidelines set by Congress.

Senator KARL MUNDT, Republican, of South Dakota, one of the prime movers, hopes the proposal, advanced in 8 House bills and backed by 11 of his Senate colleagues, will be put to a House vote soon. We couldn't agree more concerning the urgency for action.

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVEL

OPMENT AND EDUCATION

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, in view of the increasing concern with the impact of Federal research and development funds on higher education, I believe that many of my colleagues will be interested in the cogent analysis of the problem presented by Mr. Dael Wolfle in his article, "The Support of Science in the United States," which appeared in the July issue of Scientific American. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

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

THE SUPPORT OF SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(NOTE. The sharp and sustained increase

in funds has improved research and has benefited the investigator. Nevertheless, serious questions are being raised about the financing of research in universities.)

(By Dael Wolfle)

This year in the United States nearly $21 billion-3.2 percent of the gross national product will be spent for research and development. Some two-thirds of the funds will be supplied by the Federal Government. "Research and development" includes basic research, applied research and engineering, design and even the development of prototypes; it is a broad category, but it does encompass all forms of scientific research. Not long ago the support of science was primarily the business of the colleges and universities and some voluntary agencies; before World War II the Federal Government's contribution was largely in agricultural research and the work of such agencies as the U.S. Geological Survey and the Naval Observatory. It was not until 1942 that the country's expenditures on science reached $1 billion. A steady growth in the support of science continued through the war and afterward; beginning in 1953 there was a sharp and sustained rise of huge proportions. Since 1953 the country has increased its expenditures for science at an average rate of 13 percent a year. The most striking rise has been in the contribution of the Federal

Government, which has grown at a rate of nearly 20 percent a year. Although spendnearly 20 percent a year. Although spending for development is leveling off, approing for development is leveling off, appropriations for academic research will continue to increase at about the present rate for some years.

The funds spent for scientific work during the past two decades have provided research opportunities on a scale previously unimagined. All fields of science have benefited from the better equipment, special facilities, greater freedom from constraints and larger number of workers made possible by the increased budgets. The award of Nobel prizes is one measure of the growing strength of basic research in this country; in the 1930's Nobel prizes were awarded to 9 American scientists, in the 1940's to 13 of them and in the 1950's to 27. Meanwhile the economy of the country has gained enormously from the upsurge in technological research and development. In 1953 research and development accounted for 11 percent of all industrial investment; in 1962 research and development absorbed about 25 percent.

The subject is nonetheless surrounded by disquiet. In Congress and in the executive branch, in the universities and learned societies and foundations questions are being raised about the manner in which science is financed. Most of the questions deal not with the adequacy of the national effort but with the effects of the massive Federal contribution on the course of science and in particular on the conduct of basic research in the universities.

Evidence of this concern is found in a rapidly growing list of policy studies and program analyses. The National Academy of Sciences is midway in a series of reports dealing with various aspects of the scientific enterprise. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has advocated the establishment of a national review body that would decide on ma

jor new programs. Two committees of Conernment Research and the House Subcomgress the House Select Committee on Govmittee on Science, Research and Development-have reviewed many aspects of the Federal program, and their reports have become valuable sources of detailed information. Moreover, Congress has begun to insist that executive agencies prepare special reports on certain areas of investigation such as oceanography so that the Federal effort can be examined as a whole instead of in its budgetary and departmental fragments. The White House Office of Science and Technol

ogy has appointed a blue-ribbon committee of industrial, scientific, and educational leaders to review the policies and programs of the National Institutes of Health. The Bureau of the Budget has taken the lead in reexamining the administrative practices of the Federal agencies that support basic research. The National Science Foundation has reorganized and strengthened its staff sections responsible for studies of scientific policy, planning and resources. "Science policy" has become the topic of a number of university seminars and analyses.

All this ferment of analysis and reexamination makes it clear that major changes in policies governing the support of science are underway or in the offing. These analyses have also served to provide reassurance that many of the past policies and practices are sound and should be continued. The magnificent achievements of recent decades are evidence that the support system has been a fundamentally healthy one.

Support for research and development comes from many sources; some contribute only a few dollars, others billions. Some 300 firms provide 80 percent of the industrial money that goes into research and development; another 13,000 firms provide the remainder. Some 200 private foundations grant significant amounts to science and medicine. Universities and many colleges provide research talent, laboratories and

financial help. A number of private research institutions finance their own investigations. State and local governments conduct a variety of research programs. Four agencies are responsible for 95 percent of the Federal funds: the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition to these giants there are another four agencies that account for 4 percent of the Federal total: the Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Aviation Agency. The remaining 1 percent of Federal research and development funds is spent by 21 agencies.

In the 12 years from 1953 to 1965 every major source of research and development funds increased its support substantially. Federal funds are five times what they were in 1963. Industrial support has tripled, and the universities have done almost as well. The other nonprofit institutions are contributing six times their 1953 amount.

Just as the amounts of money supplied by these four sectors vary greatly, so do the amounts they use. The Federal Government supplies two-thirds of the funds, but Federal laboratories carry out less than 15 percent of the work. Industry contributes a third of the funds but conducts threefourths of all the work (mostly with Federal funds). The colleges and universties provide about a tenth of the funds, and the other nonprofit institutions about a fortieth. (The universities' contribution is underrepresented in the financial reports, perhaps by several hundred million dollars a year; they provide substantial additional support, in the form of laboratory facilities and faculty time, that is not budgeted explicitly for research.)

From 1953 until 1960 about 8 percent of the Nation's research and development budget was devoted to basic research. The percentage has been rising since 1960, reaching almost 12 percent in 1965. As for the Federal Government's funds, in 1953 less than 7 percent went for basic research. The figure has been rising since 1960, to about 11 percent in 1965. The universities are relatively much more prominent in basic re

search than in the total research and development effort, being responsible for almost half of all basic research. In contrast the industrial laboratories, which dominate in

development activity, conduct only about a fourth of the basic research.

Development activity is directly associated with identifiable industrial, economic, military, or other practical objectives. Its cost and the cost of any associated research are therefore justified and budgeted in terms of its expected contribution to the attainment of specific objectives. In the case of basic research the situation is quite different. The ultimate beneficiaries of basic research are many, but they are hard to identify in advance. As a result the cost of basic research tends to be shared widely. Some basic research of notable quality is done in industrial laboratories, but most of it is conducted in universities with support from public funds. In some cases this public support involves Congress directly in decisions on priorities. Modern basic research sometimes calls for large-scale facilities such as particle accelerators, oceanographic research vessels and astronomical observatories. Such big science enterprises are so expensive that they must be considered individually at top Government levels, where the cost and promise of each can be compared with those of other claimants for available funds.

On the other hand, little science typically the work of a university faculty member and his assistants and advanced students, will continue to be budgeted on an a priori basis and to be supported by means of a large

number of project grants.

Little science, the principal subject of the remainder of this article, is an area of central concern to science as a whole, not least because it involves the education of future scientists. It is the kind of science that is most characteristic to academic research and hence is most often involved in Government-university relations. It is also the area in which those relations are most likely to change.

Sustained scientific work of high quality requires the effective union of three elements: a self-renewing population of able scientists; appropriate research facilities with the necessary supporting structure for institutional management; a source of money. In a few well-endowed research institutions all three elements are happily present in an almost totally self-contained and self-supporting organization. Such unity, however, is rare. More commonly under present conditions there is a scientific staff, a university with multiple obligations, and an external source of funds. All three sides of this triangle are interested in science, but their interests differ in detail; tensions arise and compromises become essential. The scientist must serve three masters: the internal logic and the opportunities of his own discipline, the policies and requirements of his institution, and the customs and wishes of his financial supporter. The university must meet the demands of science, of its many other endeavors and of the agencies that provide support. The Government agencies have an equally complex problem: in supporting a large number of individual scientific projects they must also consider the general welfare of the universities and be mindful of the wishes of Congress and the public it represents.

One useful change in the interrelations of scientists, universities and Federal agencies would be the simplification and standardization of what has grown to be a maze of rules and regulations governing fiscal and administrative details and reports. The complexity of grant administration was summarized last year by the House Select Committee on Government Research: "One of the ironies of the research grant is that while it is sometimes itself a simple one-page (if not a one-paragraph) document, it is accompanied by a bulky manual of instructions, explanations, and amendments. For example, although the NIH (National Institutes of Health) grant form is a one-page instrument, it incorporates by reference the NIH grant manual, which runs to more than 100 pages."

The National Institutes of Health manual of course explains only NIH procedures and requirements; other agencies have adopted different rules and procedures. Congress has sometimes added to the confusion by setting arbitrary limits on the amounts that some agencies can pay to reimburse an institution for the indirect costs of conducting research. This "overhead" rate varies, moreover, depending on the agency that grants the funds. Sometimes overhead can be paid on some budgetary items but not on others, or at one rate on some items and at another rate on other items. The multiplication of administrative redtape slows decisions, harasses both agency and university personnel and puts the emphasis on form rather than substance. Fortunately these difficulties are widely recognized, and simplification and standardization would bring such obvious advantages that they will surely come about.

Standardization of procedures will be welcome, but more fundamental changes are required. Project grants are nominally made to a university or other institution, but in reality they are awarded to an individual. The scientist and Government official frequently deal directly with each other on both substantive and budgetary matters, largely excluding the university administration from any important role in CXI- -1435

reaching decisions about the research done in the university. Not all of the consequences have been happy ones.

When a faculty member looks outside his university for the major sources of support for his work, his interest and loyalty are likely to go where the dollars are. When the continuation of his work depends on his maintaining good relations and an effective record with private foundations and Washington agencies, and when his professional reputation depends primarily on his research productivity, he is likely to devote more and more of his time to writing project proposals and reports and to supervising the increased number of research assistants that liberal grants enable him to hire. Correspondingly less of his interest and loyalty go to the university that happens to be his home for the present, and less of his time is devoted to teaching and to doing actual laboratory work with his own hands.

There are many contentions that the increase in research has been bought at the expense of a depreciation of teaching. The research programs at most colleges and universities are not large enough to have an adverse effect on teaching. In the universities with large research budgets, however, complaints are heard that there is a schism between the teachers and the researchers; that the ablest graduate students are research assistants, whereas the less able ones become teaching assistants; that the bigtime research operator has become the admired model in the eyes of graduate students; that in return for the explosive growth of research we are building up a deficit in the training of future scientists and in the general education of other students in science. There is a substantial body of opinion to the effect that whereas education at the graduate level has improved as a result of the availability of better equipment and larger and more competent staffs, undergraduate teaching has suffered.

The emphasis on research supported by outside funds on an individual-project basis has also tended to strengthen the divisive forces and weaken the integrative forces that are always at work on a university campus. By and large faculty scientists like the change to off-campus support; it means that each researcher is judged by colleagues in his own field of specialization. Physicists judge physicists, biochemists judge biochemists and geologists judge geologists. A man can take pride in the fact that specialists from other institutions have judged his work and found it worthy of support.

Bringing new funds to the campus enhances the scientist's prestige and gives him some freedom from local control. He can buy equipment or hire a secretary, travel to a national meeting to discuss work with other people in his field and even invite a man from another institution to pay him a visit with expenses paid-to consult on research plans. And he can do all this without having to ask his dean or president for permission, because the grant is his. (That is, he can pay for these extras if he has had the foresight to provide for them in his project proposal. If not, it may take weeks for a busy office in Washington to let him know whether or not he can transfer $100 from one budget category to another.)

It

The result of all this is what the projectgrant system undoubtedly weakens the scientist's ties with his own university. means that many decisions about the research conducted on a campus are made in Washington instead of at the campus level and are made piecemeal rather than with full account taken of all the other programs and responsibilities of the university. A university is not solely a group of individualistic faculty members. It is a community of scholars and of students who wish to learn from them. It includes a central administration responsible for the development of

the entire university, not simply the uncoordinated expansion of individual units or empires. Professor X would rather entrust his research proposal to the judgment of his professional colleagues on a Washington reviewing panel than to what he may consider the uninformed or biased decisions of his own dean and president. President Y, however, would prefer to have a larger measure of control at the university level, because he remembers that the university is responsible for teaching as well as research, for history and philosophy as well as physics and biochemistry, for the library as well as the observatory, and he wants funds that can be used in the best interests of the university.

Not only may the institutions in which research is carried out be changed by the methods of support; science itself may also be affected. One cannot help worrying about what subtle distortions in the course of scientific progress may result from the fact that nearly all of the Federal support now comes from mission-oriented agencies. The National Institutes of Health are interested in certain diseases, the Atomic Energy Commission in nuclear energy, the Department of Defense in weapons systems and countermeasures. Each supports basic research, but each selects projects in terms of its own mission. Of all the Federal grantmaking agencies, only the National Science Foundation is free from this necessity. To be sure, many researchers have secured support from the mission-oriented agencies for exactly what they as scientists most wanted to do. The fact remains that, of all the money spent for basic research in the United States, only about $1 in $5 comes from a source that does not have specific missions in mind. It is still a matter of opinion whether or not this fact is threatening the future health of basic science, but there is a widespread feeling that the National Science Foundation should assume a greatly increased share of the responsibility for supporting basic research.

Certainly agencies with special missions will continue to support basic research; funding decisions will often be controlled by immediate objectives; projects will continue to be supported largely on the basis of their individual merits and those of the scientists involved. Yet basic improvements in the system are possible. Now that massive Federal support is accepted as an obligation, the most necessary change is to shift a substantial amount of the decisionmaking responsibility closer to the point of research. The fact is that decisions that should be made by the executive agencies are now being made by Congress. Decisions that should be made by the universities are being made by the agencies.

In Great Britain, Parliament avoids political and governmental control of science and education by making block grants to the University Grants Committee, which in turn allots funds to the British universities. For a number of reasons this mode of operation is not feasible in the United States. Don K. Price, of the Harvard School of Public Administration, has pointed out that Congress takes a very different attitude toward the relation between ends and means than Parliament does. Parliament is content to decide on the ends, authorize the necessary funds, and leave the details of the means to administrative agencies and the civil service. Congress, on the other hand, pays much attention to the means by which national objectives are to be attained. It reviews the budgets of Federal agencies in great detail, sometimes instructing an agency that no more than (and a stipulated occasionally no less than) amount is to be spent on a particular kind of activity. Congress is not likely to surrender its control of means as well as ends but it might well give the agencies a freer hand with the details and subcategories of their research budgets.

There will have to be, in turn, a substantial shifting of responsibility for research decisions from the supporting agencies to the universities. Some of the Federal agencies are now supplementing the project grant with newer forms of support that will help the universities to regain this responsibility: general-research support grants; program grants that support an established group of research colleagues not for a specific project but for work in an area in which they have demonstrated their competence; institutional grants that can be used in whatever way the university officials believe will best advance science on the campus; grants to help with the construction or equipping of laboratories, and the new science development grants to help selected institutions that are already quite good take a major step up the quality ladder.

These newer forms of grants will help to shift responsibility back to the campus, but the universities also have some work to do. A university's functions include both teaching and research; it has to maintain a reasonable balance between the two and also decide on the kind and amount of research that makes sense in the context of its total program. The university president will sometimes say wearily that he knows these are his responsibilities but that his hands are tied— that there is no way to stop the very competent Professor X when he wants to start a new project because half a dozen other universities are eager to have the professor, willing to take him on his own terms and confident that plentiful grants will follow him to his new home. If the president lets

his hands remain tied, the project grant will continue to be the dominant form of research support. It now seems likely, however, that universities that develop strong institutional controls and excel in the management of research funds can expect to receive a larger amount of support in more flexible forms.

The

Both the Government and the universities need to reconsider their interrelation. makers of science policy must recognize that the Nation is as dependent on the universities as the latter have come to be on the Government. The universities are institutions with major responsibility for the Nation's future and not just for its present eminence in science; institutions with a broad role in the Nation's intellectual life and not merely laboratories qualified to solve current problems.

The universities have always adjusted their policies and programs to changing social and economic requirements, and they will have to continue to do so. The universities cannot, however, merely respond to outside forces. They must also be independent innovators and stubborn conservators of old values. The weight of history urges that control of the universities by any one benefactor must be prevented if they are to preserve their independence, play their full roles as critics, conservators and innovators, and retain control over their own destinies.

Research and development funds were supplied and expended in 1965 as shown in this table. Figures, in millions of dollars, are estimates based on National Science Foundation tables for prior years. Industry conducts most of the research and development.

OLD MEN AND TIRED LEGS Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, the Mazamas, an outstanding Oregon mountaineering club, has developed over the years a program to introduce people to mountain climbing and the other winter sports which abound in my State. People of all ages enjoy the exercise and instruction provided by the club's annual mountain climbing school.

The September issue of American Forests includes an article on the Mazama climbing school which illustrates vividly that outdoor exercise is not for the young alone.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the American Forest article entitled "Old Men and Tired Legs."

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

OLD MEN AND TIRED LEGS

(By William B. Morse) There was a traffic jam at the chute. We had to wait in line to belay across the crevasse at the end of the hogback. The old hands were impatient, but not me. I was just plain glad to kick a shelf in the Mt. Hood snow, sit down and get some blessed rest.

As a little feeling returned to my legs and my breathing slowed, I wondered what a man of 45 years was doing here. Especially

15, 180

20, 850

a man who had not climbed a mountain since he was 14 years old. I still wonder, sometimes.

As breath returned, and the early morning sun warmed me, I began to take an interest in the life about me. A party of four, two teenagers and a grey-haired man and woman, were roped and waiting just down the hogback. "Are you with the Mazama climbing school?" I wheezed. "No, we're climbing on our own," the man answered.

"How long have you been at it?"

"Just started last year," he told me. "We all took the school last spring. Now we like to climb alone at our own speed." "Do you do it often?" I asked. "Every chance," he replied.

There, I thought, is another boom in outdoor recreation I didn't even know about, mountain climbing as a family sport.

so strange, though, my own rope of four had an instructor rope leader, my son, my daughter, and me.

Climbing is a team effort, requiring skill, safety, and good judgment. A party, skilled, roped, and disciplined, has many times the safety of a lone climber. This is as true on Pacific Northwest glacier-covered peaks as on a sheer rock cliff. If there is one thing we learned in the school, it is safety is everything. If in doubt, don't do it.

THE MAZAMA CLIMBING SCHOOL

For 25 years the Mazama mountaineering club of Oregon has conducted an annual school to teach climbing fundamentals. Until about 1952, it was primarily for club

members. Now, depending on advertising, anywhere from 350 to 550 students sign up each spring; most have never climbed. The students are mainly high school and college age, but more than 10 percent are over 40 years old. The elderly either have better cars or more persistence than the kids-about 23 percent of those completing the course are the mothers and dads, and many of them are back on the mountains regularly.

When we checked into the Mazama lodge to spend the preclimb night, we found we had already been assigned to parties of about 22 each. Our party-identified by a blue arm band-was of groups with the same last name, in an effort to group the old gaffers and their younger children so we would not slow down the high-energy teen types. We started last, passed the others about half way up, and were first on top, in spite of a lot of dragging and huffing to get us oldsters up the slope. Climbing is not necessarily a young man's sport-many Mount Everest climbers are in their mid-thirties or forties. Anyone who will get his legs in condition with some deep knee bends and a little jogging, can climb. Older people know they can keep going even after the body sends the message it's through; and age and sex are no indication of stamina or skill. My 17year-old daughter kept me going when I was about through-"Come on, Dad, you can do it. Don't look up. Let's go." I'll never forget her that day, or the skill with which she belayed me across the snow-bridge crevasse. She may be scatterbrained at home sometimes, but I trust her belays. That is the ultimate mountain climbing compliment.

The Mazama school consists of five evening lectures and 3 full days of field practice followed by a comprehensive written examination. A certificate is awarded to the student after he makes a graduation climb of Mount Hood.

The lectures cover the gamut of climbingfrom rock and snow climbing to diet, from first aid equipment to mountain hazards. To graduate, you must spend 3 days in field practice. A full day of snow climbing practice on the lower slopes of Mount Hood, a day of rock practice in the Columbia Gorge, and a day of orienteering or land navigation near Portland. Enthusiasm of the students is high and the older ones are the most enthusiastic. I guess learning you can teach an old dog new tricks is a thrill for the old dog. I'm a man always ill at ease on a ladder, and to find myself successfully scrambling up a rock chimney a hundred feet from the ground is more than just learning-it's the conquest of an entirely new world. Emphasis on safety dominates in lecture, practice, and climbing. Mountains are dangerous at all times; they only tolerate the climber.

We assembled at 2 in the morning at Timberline Lodge for the Mount Hood climb; there was a full moon and the mountain was beautiful. It looked high, but 4 hours later and halfway up, it looked higher still. Most climbs start in the early morning darkness with the aim of reaching the 11,500-foot summit no later than 11 a.m., and of being back at the starting point by 2 or 3 in the afternoon. This gives the climbers more time on hard snow, and above all else, a long, safe margin of daylight to cope with any emergencies and accidents.

"DON'T GET DISCOURAGED"

The big lesson I learned from climbingdo not get discouraged. Our leader said, "You climb a mountain one step at a time." That was exactly the way we did it, one plodding test step after another, drenched with sweat, sun protective greasepaint itching on the face, and breathing like a convention of asthmatics.

When you dare to think-"What the devil am I doing here?"-it seems the most ridicu

lous sport in the world. Maybe it is, but on the summit you begin to get a feeling of accomplishment, soon destroyed by the utter exhaustion of the trip back down the beast. The drive home isn't restful, and the next day you still have the most bone-weary fatigue you have experienced since the first days of basic military training.

About Tuesday, the world starts looking better, an intense feeling of exhilaration and conquest sets in. "By Joe, you have cut the mustard," and at your age, too. For a few days your children look at you with a great deal more respect. You try to tell everyone about your wonderful experience and are shocked when they are not interested in hearing about it. You finally learn, if you must explain your reasons for climbing to someone, that they don't understand anyway.

The kids and I plan to do a lot more climbing; it fosters togetherness. We will certainly be together when we rope up-we will be relying on each other. Another point in favor of climbing as an outdoor sport is that it doesn't spoil any of our precious natural resources. A Mazama motto, "The only thing you leave on the mountain is footprints."

We are lucky in the Northwest, there are plenty of mountains to climb; but many parts of the country have climbing clubs and schools. Get in touch with some local climbers, ask them to teach you, and join a family sport. There is nothing like it as long as you remember there are two ways of climbing-the safe way and the wrong

way.

THE PAY RAISE BILL

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, in 1932, I was elected to the House of Representatives on a Democratic platform, the chief architect of which was my distinguished predecessor, Carter Glass, of Lynchburg.

In the opinion of those who believe in economy and constitutional government, that was the best platform the Democratic Party has adopted in the present century. Among other provisions in that platform was a promise, with a view to balancing the budget, of a 25-percent cut in the pay of all Government employees, including Members of the Con

gress. As a Member of the 73d Congress, which was elected in November 1932, I conscientiously endeavored to carry out all provisions of that platform, including the proposal to cut my own pay by 25 percent. The bill to cut the pay of Members of Congress became a law and that is the only bill relating to pay of Members of Congress for which I have voted. I have never voted for a bill to raise my own pay and never intend to.

In any event, I think if Members of Congress are going to vote to raise their pay this year they should be open and above board not only in taking that action, but in clearly specifying the amount of the pay increase.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an article concerning a pay-raise bill now pending in the House by James J. Kilpatrick entitled "Congressmen Vote Themselves Pay Raise Without Actually Aye-ing," which was published in yesterday's issue of the Richmond News Leader.

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

The

percentagewise, given to anyone else. prospect is for a 10-percent boost, on top of the fat increases granted just a year ago. To their lasting credit, six Republican

WITHOUT ACTUALLY AYE-ING

(By James J. Kilpatrick) The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service came up the other day with a truly tailormade bill. The committee decreed an increase from $100 to $150 in the uniform allowance for the mailman, and arranged to have the coattails cut wide enough for Congressmen to ride on.

As an exercise in legislative oneupmanship, the committee's "Federal Salary Adjustment Act of 1965" stands in a class by itself. It contains a real tricker. And in any primer, for freshman Congressmen, the device deserves a chapter all its own: "How To Vote Yourself a Pay Raise Without Actually Ayeing."

This adorable gimmick is tucked away in a modest little 10-line section on page 38 of a 39-page bill. Without a code book to figure out the code book, you scarcely would know it is there. What it says, translated into English, is that whenever salary rates for ordinary Federal employees are raised, the salaries of Congressmen, judges, and Government executives "shall be increased automatically." The amount of these prospective pay raises to be computed according to the highest percentage of increase given to

anyone else.

The beauty of this arrangement emerges from the context of the bill. Under the committee proposal, the 2 million Federal employees are promised two raises in pay, one to become effective October 1 of this year, the other October 1, 1966. (These would be the 12th and 13th general pay raises since 1945, not that it really matters.) This year's raise is specific: 4.5 percent across the board. The cost to the taxpayers: $621.6 million for the rest of the current fiscal year.

The second raise is not specific at all. It is predicated upon some complicated assumptions that can be illustrated in the case of a beginning mailman. He now starts at $5,000. This figure would be increased to to $5,230 under the first raise, effective in October. However, the committee assumes that this hypothetical mailman, even with his 4.5 percent raise, still will be making 1.5 percent less than a mailman would make in private industry, if private industry em

ployed mailmen.

The formula for the second raise would

begin by granting, as a first factor, a raise equal to half of this presumptive gap between public and private employment. the case of the starting mailman, this would amount to about $40. Then the Bureau of Labor Statistics would make a study for the President of private industry salaries, genActing on this study, the President would erally, in February and March of next year. certify, as a second factor, a percentage increase for each class of Federal employees.

The committee's surmise is that by March of 1966, the President will find that the salary of a mailman in private industry will $160. The formula would add the $40 under have gone up another 3 percent, or roughly the first factor to the $160 under the second factor, and produce a raise of roughly $200 effective October 1, 1966.

All clear? Like mud? Well, that is the whether the House committee is within a way the bill works, and it is anybody's guess country mile of the cost of this nebulous plan. The putative added expense is placed at $1.4 billion (not counting the raises of the coattail Congressmen) for fiscal 1967, game begins anew. Meanwhile, starting in January of 1967, Members of Congress would benefit by raises equal to the highest raise,

and $1.6 billion for fiscal 1968. After that the

their strong protest against the automatic features of the bill. Their names should be writ large: GROSS, of Iowa; DERWINSKI, of Illinois; BROYHILL of North Carolina; CORBETT, of Pennsylvania; ELLSWORTH, of Kansas; and BUCHANAN, of Alabama. In the great rush to get while the getting is good, they constitute a corporal's guard crying halt. Who pays them any heed?

AN INCISIVE LOOK AT WOMEN
STRIKE FOR PEACE

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, an organization known as the Women Strike for Peace has been in the news recently in connection with demonstrations against our policy in Vietnam. The organization has a long and questionable identification with causes which could hardly be deemed in the best American interests, but there has been in the past a marked reluctance on the part of prominent Americans to be constructively critical of this group. Perhaps its name strikes fear into the hearts of all. "Women Strike for Peace" is a pretty impressive title. No one wants to tangle with a woman and no one wants to be against peace, so it was left to a 21-year-old senior at Old Dominion College in Norfolk, Va., to rebut the substance of a teach-in held at American University on July 23 of this year.

George Archibald, a history major, editor of the college newspaper, the Mace & Crown, and president of the Young Republicans Club, went on American University's WAMU-FM on the evenings of July 26 and 27 and delivered what I consider a most candid and informative presentation by way of responding to the specifics of the July 23 teach-in and in pointing out some facts regarding the organization Women Strike for Peace. Mr. Archibald has made available to me a transcript of these two broadcasts and

I ask unanimous consent that it be

printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the transcript of the broadcast was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WOMEN STRIKE FOR PEACE VERSUS U.S. POLICY IN VIETNAM

(By George H. Archibald)

(NOTE. This transcript is a rebuttal to a Women Strike for Peace teach-in held at the American University on July 23, 1965, at which the women advocated U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and reported on a recent trip to Djakarta, Indonesia, where they met with the women from the Vietcong. The teachin was broadcast on WAMU-FM, the educational station of the American University, on July 26 and 27, 1965, on "Kaleidoscope," and was subsequently answered on the same program on August 9 and 10 by this rebuttal. The author, George Archibald, is a 21-yearold senior at Old Dominion College in Norfolk, Va., where he is a history major, editor of the college newspaper, the Mace and Crown, and president of the Young Republicans Club. He is also second vice chairman of the Virginia College Federation of Young Republicans.)

I would like to take this opportunity at the outset to extend my deep appreciation to

WAMU-FM for this opportunity to express my opposition to the sentiments expressed by members of the group known as Women Strike for Peace on a taped program of their July 23 teach-in on "Kaleidoscope", July 26 and 27.

I would also like to extend undying gratitude and indebtedness to the thousands of Americans and Vietnamese who are fighting in Vietnam for all that is good and free, against communism, despite the ravings of the pacifists and the proponents of American withdrawal from Vietnam, which is a considerable aid to Radio Hanoi and its new staff member, Anna Louise Strong, an American octogenarian successor to Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose. Miss Strong broadcasts the statements of such as Women Strike for Peace in an attempt to break the will and morale of the American soldier in Vietnam. I hope that those whom I am answering today appreciate this, and are proud that their words are being repeated by such "proAmerican" sources in such "harbors of freedom."

In the time generously given to me for this rebuttal, I intend to take a look at the organization known as Women Strike for Peace, and to strike at the fallacies inherent in the arguments of its spokesmen who advocate withdrawal of the "brutally aggressive" "brutally aggressive" American troops from Vietnam. I must say that it is highly unusual in any form of dialog for the negative to have spoken first. And despite all of its unheroic exertions on behalf of its own definition of peace, Women Strike for Peace is purely negative and even harmful in its particular approach to the problem of achieving any type of peace in the world today. I intend to make this fact clear in my presentation.

First, what of Women Strike for Peace as an organization? It was investigated by the House Committee on Un-American Activities in December 1962. The late Congressman Clyde Doyle of California was presiding and opened the sessions with an explanatory statement to clarify the purposes of the investigation. I might point out that the following facts were compiled from the hearings by Fulton Lewis, Jr., the news commentator, and presented on his broadcast of March 2, 1964, over the facilities of the Mutual Broadcasting System.1

First, Congressman Doyle said, the initiated Communist, understanding his MarxistLeninist doctrine, knows that a call from Moscow to intensify his fight to destroy capitalism has as its major bastion the United States. This is the way to peace, according to Communist doctrine. Thus, Communist peace propaganda is a call to action for all Communists, spurring them to increase activity and effort aimed at the Communist objective of world conquest.

Second, as events have proved, peace propaganda and agitation have a disarming, mollifying, confusing, and weakening effect on those nations which are the intended victims of communism. Moreover, throughout history, aggressors, dictators, and governments bent on conquering others, or conquering the whole world, have known that pacifism or unrealistic and exaggerated desire for peace on the part of their intended victims is a tremendous asset to ultimate victory for the aggressor.

Excessive concern with peace on the part of any nation impedes or prevents adequate defense preparations, hinders effective diplomacy in the national interest, undermines the will to resist, and saps national strength. For this reason, in today's world, intense peace propaganda and agitation in nonCommunist nations obviously serves the aggressive plans of world communism.

With that as a premise, let's take a look at Women Strike for Peace and find out who

1 "The Top of the News With Fulton Lewis, Jr.," vol. 6, No. 10, March 2, 1964, pp. 1-2.

some of the people are who have been around Mrs. Dagmar Wilson in this organization of hers which is advocating that the "aggressor" and "malignant force" in Vietnam is the United States, and that we should withdraw from Vietnam immediately, "make peace," and bring an immediate halt to American "atrocities" against the "peace-loving," "dignified," and human Vietcong Communists. Let me say at this point that I do not allude to Women Strike for Peace as a Communist group. I do say that some of its members are Communists, as Mrs. Wilson herself has admitted, and that the organization has been adversely influenced by these people and is naively, stupidly, and unrealistically prattling the Communist line with regard to American policy in Vietnam, in the name of peace at any cost, despite military or political posture at the time of such action. Now, who are some of the members of Women Strike for Peace who testified at the congressional hearings mentioned?

Blanche Posner, a bleached blond who describes herself as "more than 21," who served as president pro tempore of Women Strike for Peace office in Metropolitan New York. Mrs. Posner invoked the fifth amendment 44 times on the witness stand and refused to tell the committee whether or not she was a Communist.

Rose Clinton, dark haired and nattily groomed, who also took refuge behind the fifth amendment. Mrs. Clinton is secretary and membership chairman for the West Side Peace Committee in New York. She has been identified twice under oath by congressional witnesses as a Communist, and refused to answer committee questions as to whether she was under Communist Party orders in infiltrating the peace movement.

Iris Freed, a sharp-tongued brunette from Larchmont, N.Y., who is a leader in the Westchester County Strike for Peace and has been identified as having held Communist Party meetings in her home in 1954. She refused to deny that allegation when questioned about it before the House committee and clammed up when asked if she had been a delegate to the Communist Party convention in 1957. Finally, she took the fifth amendment when asked whether she was currently a Communist Party member.

Anna Mackenzie, a tearful Vassar graduate, who claimed that committee members were throwing stones, not questions, at her. Mrs. Mackenzie was active in the Connecticut Women Strike for Peace and refused to invoke the fifth amendment, in refusing to answer committee questions. Committee investigators alleged that Mrs. Mackenzie was known to have been a Communist in years past, and she refused to deny that charge. She was equally silent on the question of her present membership.

Elizabeth Moos, a spry 72-year-old veteran of Communist or Communist-front movements, and mother-in-law of the late William Remington, a convicted Soviet Russian spy. She has been identified under oath before congressional committees as a Communist, and took the fifth amendment when questioned about it.

Thelma Rein, who also has been identified under oath as a Communist and who helped run Women Strike for Peace in the Nation's Capital. Mrs. Rein, long a wheelhorse in local Communist fronts, took the fifth amendment several years ago when asked about her Communist Party membership. Her husband is David Rein, who is listed in the committee report on legal subversion as having been identified under oath as a member of the Communist Party by two witnesses, Herbert Fuchs and Mortimer Reimer, both former Communists.

Lyda Hoffman, of Great Neck, N.Y., head of Women Strike for Peace in Nassau County testified that she was not then a Communist, but refused to answer about past membership.

Ruth Meyers, of Roslyn, N.Y., another fifth amendment pleader, took the first and fifth amendments under oath in declining to answer committee questions about Communist Party membership.

Mrs. Dagmar Wilson, the leader of Women Strike for Peace, who spoke at the meeting which aroused my ire and this rebuttal, was herself put on the witness stand at those hearings, and was asked if she would knowingly permit or encourage a Communist Party member to occupy a leadership position in Women Strike for Peace. She replied: "Well, my dear sir, I have no way of controlling, do not desire to control, who wishes to join in the demonstrations and the efforts that the women strikers have made for peace."

She was then asked if she would willingly permit or welcome Nazis or Fascists to occupy leadership in Women Strike for Peace, and she replied: "Whether we could get them or not, I don't think we could." The official report of the House Committee on Un-American Activities on these hearings has a footnote at this point which says: "Despite the fact that this is the response recorded by the official reporter for the hearings, newspaper reporters covering the hearings reportedand members of the committee and its staff distinctly recall-that Mrs. Wilson's actual reply to the preceding question was: ""If only we could get them on our side.'"

At the close of these committee hearings I have been describing to you, committee counsel asked Mrs. Dagmar Wilson: "Am I correct, then, in assuming that you plan to take no action designed to prevent Communists from assuming positions of leadership in the movement, or to eliminate Communists who may have already obtained such positions?" Mrs. Wilson replied: "Certainly not," meaning that she planned to take no such action and welcomed all people who wanted peace in her movement, no matter what their particular definition of peace might be. I'll discuss that a little later.

With all of these facts in mind, then. With the knowledge that persons of positive and undenied Communist affiliations are members of and leaders of Women Strike for Peace, and with the statement by the organization's leader, Mrs. Wilson, that all persons, despite their Communist affiliations and leanings, are welcomed into the group to promote "the cause," is it any wonder that Women Strike for Peace advocates our withdrawal from Vietnam and our abdication from defeat of the Communist enemy?

Is it any wonder that a delegation of this group traveled to Djakarta, a city of Indonesia, a country ruled by a pro-Communist government, to meet with women from the Vietcong and the National Liberation Front, the people of the Vietnamese conflict on the Communist side and armed by Communist guns and ammunition?

Is it any wonder that they had what they described as "a wonderful time" with President Sukarno, a man who hates the United States and who has told us to "go to hell" with our foreign aid?

Is it any wonder, finally, that this delegation has come home, spouting off the Communist line re Vietnam by praising the "virtues" of the Vietcong and damning the "atrocities" of American troops; stating that we should get out and forget our crusade for freedom and justice against the Communist enemy?

I think not.

Again, let me say that I do not view this group as totally Communist in makeup, but it has been infiltrated, and it is piping the line of Radio Moscow and Radio Hanoi in its advocation of our withdrawal. Let me also point out that by this I do not view as Communists all those who advocate our withdrawal from Vietnam. There are many who have sincere arguments on this point from a Western point of view, even though a vast majority of the American people according to