The age of rising expectations has been fueled often only on cash injections from the big powers.

The $20 million or so that America puts into its areas each year may seem paltry alongside grants to other areas more remote and less strategic.

But on a per capita basis and compared to past standards in the Pacific, this still is a sum that is working dramatic changes.

Copra, trochus shells, some timber industry, a few mineral deposits, sugar in Fiji and coffee in New Guinea-things like these give the area its economic base, irregularly distributed.

But they are not enough to feed the rising wants of the residents, and particularly not enough to feed the fastest growing populations in the world.

Simple famine is a possible threat to the area, Dr. Spoehr believes.

Population control is one answer-but a strong Catholic Church presence in the area handicaps efforts to move to the most obvious solutions.

American Samoa sustains itself mainly because several thousand people a year migrate out of the area, Spoehr points out.

One of the concerns of the South Pacific Conference is with finding new economic

bases.

Hawaii's example in tourism has not been lost on the islanders. Some areas might draw travelers as South Sea paradises-others on the strength of World War II memories (to Japanese as well as the Allied nations).

Fisheries also have sparked a general interest.

Military activity by the United States and France also throws dollars into the areathe French with their nuclear bomb test base in Polynesia, the United States with its Nike-X base at Kwajalei.

Russia tests missiles in the Pacific but so far without a land base.

Many islanders have lived happily in a subsistence economy, picking fruits and coconuts and catching the fish they need to live without thought or need of money. The growing population and growing urbanization defeat this. Growing expectations challenge the lack of motivation to compete that has marked many areas.

Students of the area like Dr. Spoehr and Dr. Roland Force, who succeeded Spoehr as director of Bishop Museum, agree on the need for education and training. They have no fear of any lack of raw talent.

Force found a great respect for Hawaii's East-West Center among delegates to the July conference in Lae, and Goto agreed on the spot that the Center would undertake several additional training programs involving island people.

Spoehr, who was the first chancellor of the East-West Center, sees one of the first requisites for education as the elimination of pidgin languages.

"The pidgin languages are no good," he says. "They are essentially a trade jargon, a simple means of communication. Around the world they are going out. People emergent need a meaningful language."

English and French are the languages being offered the Pacific Islanders as second language vehicles to 20th century education. There is a Gallic rivalry over which will prevail-though the odds both numerically and in terms of usefulness seem to be with English.

PETER COLEMAN: LAND FEARS ARE A BARRIER TO PROGRESS

America's Peter Coleman sees the land problem as a barrier to economic development and progress.

"The greatest fear of the island people," he says, "is loss of land. This is the greatest barrier to political development.

"Hawaii is a good example to the island people in many ways, but they see it as a bad example in land. Some steps will have to be taken to insure the security of the land."

Coleman himself is a symbol of both the Pacific's promise and problems.

He is the first native-born governor of American Samoa.

His parents sent him up from Samoa to Honolulu before World War II to get an education here. He went to St. Louis High School and then into the Army where he rose from private to captain.

After the war and because of the GI Bill of Rights he was able to go to college and earn a law degree from Georgetown University, the first Samoan to reach so high.

He found, though, when he went home in 1952, that his own wants and aspirations had risen considerably beyond the thatched hut economy he had known and left.

As Governor, from 1956 to 1961, he could find fulfillment but governorships won't be waiting for all college graduates. Yet Coleman's example has inspired many Samoans to seek college for their children.

Currently the U.S. Trust Territory administration of which Coleman is now a part faces the same problem of satisfying islanders who had gone off to college and returned. So far, it has managed to use them in government jobs and provide them government

housing.

But this, too, will not prove an inexhaustible source of challenge for men of raised expectations.

What then?

SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS FACE HOST OF
PROBLEMS

(From interviews in Honolulu and from the
South Pacific Conference at Lae, New
Guinea, as reported by Pacific Islands
Monthly, published in Sydney, Australia)
"We can't have our cake and eat it at the
same time. If we want to be a part of the
world, we have to take part in it."-Ratu
Mara, of Fiji (on the assault of outside influ-
ences on island cultures).

"One thing that has interested and surprised me about this conference (of the South Pacific Commission areas) is that we know so little about each other, but have so much in common."-Carlos Taitano, Guam.

"In the Gilbert and Ellice Islands we lose expatriate officers just when they are beginning to understand local conditions.”—Buren

Ratieta.

"Citizenship will not spell eqality. The island people also need education and economic training and development. They need to be able to compete."-Peter Coleman, foradministrator of the Trust Territory. "Things are moving quickly in this part of the world and our people are not trained in They

This is one of the problems of the emer- mer Governor of American Samoa, now an gent paradise.

One of the awful truths is that, whatever the difficulties ahead, there is no turning

back.

The South Pacific can't go home again to the storybook days of old.

Islands of the Pacific U.S. areas: American Samoa (76 (76 square miles) __. Guam (209 square miles) ----Trust Territory of the Pacific 1 (700 square miles) -Independent, but affiliated: Tonga (with United Kingdom) (269 square miles) ----Western Samoa (with New Zealand) (1,133 square miles) __ United Kingdom areas:

British Solomon Islands Protectorate (11,500 square miles) ---

Fiji (7,095 square miles) Gilbert and Ellice Islands (375 square miles) ---Pitcairn (2 square miles) __ Australian area:

Nauru (8 square miles).
Papua-New Guinea 1 (183,540
miles)

Norfolk Island 1 (13 square
miles)_____

New Zealand area:

Cook Islands (99 square miles) Niue (94 square miles). Tokelau (4 square miles)‒‒‒‒‒ French area:

French Polynesia (1,544 square miles) -----

New Caledonia (7,335 square miles).

Wallis and Futuna Islands (106 square miles)__ British-French condominium: New Hebrides (5,700 square miles)

1 United Nations trusteeship areas.

Population 20, 850 75,000 85,000

62,000 115,000

130,000 428,000

some of the new business methods.

must be educated to know that they will be dealing more and more with businessmen from the more sophisticated areas. One of the greatest complaints about our area is that our businessmen are unreliable."-Carlos Taitano, Guam.

"I wonder if we are aware of the fact that nuclear explosives will ruin our fish in the Pacific? I wonder if this conference will pass a resolution to ask a nation which is going to explode a nuclear weapon in our area to think twice or to have pity on the people of the South Pacific?"-Apenera Short, Cook Islands. (No resolution was passed.)

"I wish I could believe entirely and implicitly in the idea of democracy that the vote will bring people together."-Ratu Mara, of Fiji (discussing the maintenance of separate racial voting rolls in Fiji, which he favors.)

"The American dollars now circulating in the Trust Territory, principally in the form 47,000 of wages and salaries in the areas of logistics, give a false sense of prosperity. With the removal of U.S. sponsorship of the Territory, 4,800 these funds would be withdrawn."-Drs. Roland and Maryanne Force, of the Bishop 2,100,000 Museum.

programs in the Office of Economic Opportunity directed to some of the problems of the aged poor in our Nation.

Comments often are heard, and sometimes in critical tones, that our war on poverty is concentrating on the young to the exclusion of other groups. I certainly do not minimize the vital importance of programs to improve the skills, broaden the horizons, and enhance the opportunities of youth in any concerted attack on the roots of poverty. Nor do I wish to second-guess the judgment of those who in launching a new program placed initial emphasis in this area. But I do say, and I have said it often in the past several months, that we must recognize the widespread poverty among America's senior citizens. This is a

group for which opportunities to improve their economic condition are especially limited. It is a group whose needs must be given major attention if we are to make real inroads against the blight of poverty.

As chairman of the Special Committee

There is a multitude of necessary and productive work to be done in every community, some of which can best be done by older people who can bring to it the perspectives and the wisdom of age, and who by doing so would be filling their natural role in the community structure. At the same time this work is of such nature that it warrants compensation which would enable these older people to live in more comfort and dignity.

The foster grandparent program is one example of the kind of work contemexample of the kind of work contemplated by my senior service corps proposal. It is my hope that this modest test will prove so successful that it will lead directly to the development of community organizations through which reprofitably employ their time in many tired people can constructively and different ways.

The Special Committee on Aging will

continue its studies and efforts to find ways in which older people can improve their financial situations through con

now taking positive steps in that direction. I am pleased, too, that the Senate

has indicated its recognition of the necessity for such programs by including in the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments, which have just been passed, a section calling for programs of assistance to the elderly.

Mr. President, President Johnson has announced a program which will utilize the talents of older people to provide love and guidance to small children who are homeless and abandoned. The foster grandparent program is an inspired conception; a program which opens up to thousands of unfortunate children the beneficial influence of concerned and mature contact, and at the same time it enables older people to improve their living standard as a result of real contribution to the betterment of their communities. Other projects will utilize the elderly as home health aids and in child care in the slums and with the retarded.

Our senior citizens represent a group who are mature and skilled, who want to be a useful part of the community life about them. Our society has not yet learned how to fit them into its affairs, to find their place in the pooling of efforts toward a more civilized, more satisfactory community life. The foster grandparent program which has been developed by the OEO is a step in this direction.

In addition to the section I have mentioned, amending the Economic Opportunity Act to assert the intention of Congress that programs for senior citizens should share in the war on poverty, I advocated the establishment of a senior service corps. Members of the Special Committee on Aging will recall that during the hearings of the committee on poverty and the elderly held last June, Director Shriver describe and discussed with us the foster grandparent program which has just been announced. We received this idea with enthusiasm, but it is just one facet of a far broader opportunity which lies before us.

ergies; and we shall continue to advocate measures on the part of the War on Poverty which can transform these possibilities into realities.

We have been receiving a number of outstanding suggestions from senior citizens all over the Nation. And I call attention to one idea in particular, suggested by Burt Garnett of Key West, Fla., who is a senior citizen himself and an outstanding commentator on the problems of the elderly.

Mr. Garnett has suggested that what is needed in communities around the country is something in the nature of a senior citizens workshop-where retirees can perform useful work for themselves and for one another.

Repairs to furniture, small appliances, and the like-which are so hard to obtain even for those who can well afford to pay for the work-could be provided in such shops, which could be established so they do not compete with industry.

Such shops, however, could provide manual, clerical, and other tasks for many senior citizens and serve a useful public purpose.

Aggression against South Vietnam disguised as liberating war must be successfully resisted, or more aggression and more war will follow.

These observations are contained in a most impressive statement advanced recently by the trustees of Freedom House in New York and endorsed by 130 distinguished faculty members from colleges and universities all over the Nation. I am highly gratified to learn of this statement and of the impressive support which has been rallied behind it. I commend this eloquent statement to my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this statement will do much, I believe, to put the perspective. It is lucid, informative, and national dialog on Vietnam in proper thoroughly praiseworthy.

And most importantly, it indicates that, despite a vocal and highly inflammatory minority, steady voices of reason all across this great Nation are ready to rise in support of a policy which is nec

essary and which demands the continuing support of our citizens.

EXHIBIT 1

STATEMENT OF TRUSTEE OF FREEDOM HOUSE

More than 130 members of the American academic community have publicly backed the position of the U.S. Government in South Vietnam. Their action was taken in endorsing a Freedom House statement, which declares that the present policy of the United States deserves the wholehearted support of the American people.

Faculty members at 70 colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher education in the United States are among those expressing their agreement. Although a majority are in the fields of political science and international relations, the group includes scholars from a wide range of academic disciplines. A professor of economics at Cornell University, however, withheld his signature, although he agreed with the statement and has written various public officials to this effect. He expressed the feeling that it is inappropriate for individuals with expertise in one field to use their position to attempt to influence the public.

The endorsements are in response to a let

Therefore, Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the news announced from Austin, Tex., on August 28-that $41 million in four projects will be made available to help fight poverty among senior citizens.

VIETNAM

charged by some that the United States is embarked on a military crusade

against Communist nations.

disseminated more widely. They overwhelmingly endorsed the view that if the "aggres

The effort of the United States in South Vietnam is only part of a substantial U.S. program to enlarge the economic, social, and political future of the Vietnamese people.

scale war will follow."

The Freedom House statement included a

credo of support, which declared that withstances would be morally indefensible and that the decision to halt Communist aggression is clearly in the interest of the free

drawal from Vietnam under present circum

world nations. At the same time the statement noted that the United States is "not embarked on a military crusade against Communist nations" and that American military operations are "only part of the substantial U.S. program to enlarge the economic, social, and political future of the Vietnamese people."

The Freedom House effort to enlist support for our Government's Vietnam policy was welcomed by President Johnson in a letter to the organization's Public Affairs Committee, dated July 19, as follows:

"I believe your statement in support of the policy of the United States toward Vietnam reflects the strong opinion of most Americans. What you say takes increased importance from your long and courageous record of opposition to all forms of tyranny.

"I am grateful for the position stated in your credo of support and I hope that others who feel as you do may be willing to join in this expression. Effective public support of our national purpose in Vietnam will hasten the coming of the peace which is our common purpose."

The members of the academic community who have endorsed the administration's policy in Vietnam are part of a growing list of faculty members who are communicating their views to Freedom House. New sponsors are adding their names daily; the list to date follows:

SPONSORS OF FREEDOM HOUSE STATEMENT American International College: C. S. Samra.

The American University: Ernest S. Griffith, dean, School of International Service; Loy W. Henderson, director, Center for Diplomacy and Foreign Relations.

Bowling Green State University: Emanuel Solon, department of chemistry.

Brandeis University: Max Lerner, professor of American civilization.

Brooklyn College: Harry D. Gideonse, president; Hyman Kublin, department of history; Ivan D. London, department of psychology.

Brown University: William T. Hastings, professor of English emeritus.

Bryn Mawr College: Angeline H. Lograsso. Carleton College: Reginald D. Lang, department of government and international relations.

The Catholic University of America: B. S. Browzin.

Claremont Graduate School: George S.

Blair.

Claremont Men's College: William S. Stokes, senior professor of comparative political institutions.

The College of Idaho: George V. Wolfe, professor of political science.

Columbia University: Daniel Bell, professor of sociology; Zbygniew Brzezinski, director, Research Institute on Communist Affairs; William K. Jones, professor of law; Willis L. M. Reese, director, Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law; Joseph H. Smith, professor of law.

Cornell University: Charles Acerman, department of sociology; George H. Hildebrand, department of economics; Jacob Wolfowitz, department of mathematics.

Dartmouth College: John W. Masland, department of government.

Drew University: Will Herberg. Elmhurst College: Royal J. Schmidt, professor of political science and history.

Fairfield University: John Norman, department of history.

Gallaudet College: Kurt Beermann, professor of history and political science.

George Washington University: Franz Michael, associate director, Institute for Sino

Soviet Studies.

Georgetown University: James D. Atkinson, department of government; Walter W. Wil

kinson, department of history; Rev. Gerard F. Yates, S.J., international student programs.

Harvard University: Robert Braucher, professor of law; Carl J. Friedrich, professor of government, Littauer Center; Morton H. Halperin, Center for International Affairs; George C. Homans, department of social relations; Samuel P. Huntington, professor of government; William L. Langer, professor of history; Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., department of government; George H. Quester, Center for International Affairs; George C. Shattuck, medical school; Roland W. Thorwaldsen, Center for the Study of World Religions. Hofstra University: Robert A. Christie; John C. Moore, department of history. Hollins College: Victor Zitta.

Indiana University: Robert F. Byrnes, director, Russian and East European Institute; John E. Stoner, department of government. Lehigh University: H. S. Braddick, department of international relations; Aurie N. Dunlap, department of international relations; A. Roy Eckardt, department of religion.

Joseph P. Harris, department of political science; Seymour Martin Lipset, director, Institute of International Studies; Frederick C. Mosher, department of political science; William Petersen, department of sociology; Robert A. Scalapino, department of political science; Raymond J. Sontag, department of history; and Aaron Wildavsky, department of political science.

University of California, Los Angeles: J. A. C. Grant; and Robert G. Neumann, department of political science.

University of Chicago: Morton A. Kaplan. University of Cincinnati: Paul F. Power, department of political science.

University of Colorado: James L. Busey, department of political science; and Edward J. Rozek, department of political science. University of Connecticut: Arthur Bronwell, dean of engineering.

University of Maryland: Walter Darnell Jacobs, department of government and politics.

University of Michigan: Russell Fifield, department of political science.

University of Minnesota: Carl A. Auerbach,

Marquette University: Arthur C. Marlow, chairman, political science; Quentin L. Quade, department of political science; and Eric Waldman, department of political sci

ence.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Lincoln P. Bloomfield, department of political science; Ithiel de Sola Pool, department of political science; and Lucian W. Pye, department of political science.

of government. Miami University: Dan N. Jacobs, professor

Michigan State University: Charles R. Adrian, chairman, department of political science; Wesley R. Fishel, department of political science; and J. Oliver Hall, department of social science.

New York University: Sidney Hook, deTrager, professor of international affairs. partment of philosophy; and Frank N.

Ohio State University: James A. Robinson. Princeton University: Rowland Egger,

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs; Brooks Emeny, advisory council, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs; and William W. Lockwood, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Ripon College: William Fleming, chairman, department of political science.

Rutgers-The State University: Donald G. Herzberg, executive director, The Eagleton Institute of Politics.

makoff, department of history. Sacramento State College: George Tok

Saint Louis University: Frances J. Corley, department of history.

man, department of history; Samuel Krislov; C. H. McLaughlin, department of political science; Arnold M. Rose, professor of sociology.

University of Montana: Thomas Payne. University of Pennsylvania: William R. Kintner, deputy director, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Robert Strausz-Hupe, director, Foreign Policy Research Institute.

University of Pittsburgh: Daniel S. Cheever, graduate school of public and international affairs; John O. Hall, director, overseas programs, graduate school of public and international affairs; Donald C. Stone, dean, graduate school of public and international affairs.

University of Richmond: Spencer D. Albright.

University of South Carolina: Robert W. Foster, professor of law; James E. Larson, professor of political science.

University of Tennessee: Douglas Carlisle, department of political science.

University of Texas: Page Keeton, dean, school of law.

University of Washington: Imre Boba, Far Eastern and Russian Institute; Karl A. Wittfogel.

Upper Iowa University: Charles B. Clark. Utah State University: Jay M. Bagley, civil engineering department; Carlton Culmsee, dean, college of humanities and arts; Elliot Rich, civil engineering department.

Wabash College: George A. Lipsky, political science and geography department; Warren W. Shearer, economics department.

Western Washington State College: Manfred C. Vernon, department of political

Yale University: Eugene V. Rostow, professor of law; Walter R. Sharp, professor emeritus of international relations; Alexander von Graevenitz, department of microbiology.

Yeshiva University: Joseph Dunner; Roman Vishniac, professor of biology.

Additional listings. Robert A. Goldwin, director, Public Affairs Conference Center, University of Chicago; William V. O'Brien,

Texas Western College: S. D. Myres, department of government; and Roland I. Perusse, department of government.

town University; Robert Sobel, department of history, Hofstra University.

Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, the incidence of death from diseases of the thoracic system has increased ninefold since 1945, according to the U.S. Public Health Service.

In spite of the efforts of the American tobacco industry to gloss over the relation between cigarette smoking and disease, the deaths continue and emphysema victims are coughing away their declining days.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Washington, D.C., Star be printed in the RECORD.

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

U.S. CITES FATALITY RISE: LUNG DISEASE DEATHS LINKED TO CIGARETTES

(By William Grigg)

The U.S. Public Health Service today labeled cigarette smoking the most likely explanation for vastly increased deaths from two lung-crippling diseases-chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

Emphysema has become second only to heart disease as a cause of disability. Unlike cigarette-linked lung cancer which quickly kills most of those it strikes emphysema allows many of its victims to live with a greatly decreased capacity to work or enjoy life.

A progressive disease it weakens the bellows action of the lungs. This robs the body of its ability to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide efficiently. A mild exertion in a normal person become a major chore to an emphysema victim.

Chronic bronchitis is a recurring inflammation of the lining of the air tubes. It causes thick mucus, difficulty in breathing, and deep coughing.

Together, the diseases caused only 2,300 reported deaths in 1945. By 1963, deaths had increased ninefold to 19,443.

The Social Security Administration pays more than $60 million a year to workers disabled by emphysema.

The new report by the PHS, a carefully prepared leaflet for the general public, calls "something inhaled into the lungs-somethings not common before this century" the most likely explanation for the increases in the two diseases.

BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR AN EASING OF AMERICAN MONETARY POLICY AT HOME AND ABROAD

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, one of the great strengths of the American political economy is the continuous and informed communication that exists between responsible leaders of the business and financial communities and the Congress. On the difficult questions of public policy in economic and financial matters, there is no substitute for the experience and expertise of the men who are devoting all their efforts to making this system work-and who are making it generate ever higher wages, ever greater profits, and ever increased productivity.

In recent weeks, I have been privileged to receive the support and encouragement of a number of experts in our financial community for our continued urgings that American monetary policy be eased-both at home and abroad. The position which we have consistently espoused is that the proper approach to defending and encouraging the growth of the American economy is not to shacklethrough restrictive credit and monetary policies the private sector which is the real engine of economic growth. And

this position, I am proud to report, has received the enthusiastic backing of Mr. E. Bates McKee, vice president and director of Bache & Co.; Mr. Sam B. Lyons, rector of Bache & Co.; Mr. Sam B. Lyons, Washington consultant to the Association of Stock Exchange Firms; and Mr. Milton A. Manley, senior partner in the stock exchange firm of Manley, Bennett, stock exchange firm of Manley, Bennett, McDonald & Co. of Detroit, and others. I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BACHE & CO., INC., Washington, D.C., August 26, 1965. Hon. VANCE HARTKE, U.S. Senator from Indiana, U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HARTKE: Thank you very much for your letter of August 20. I read with great interest the joint statement which you and Senator MCCARTHY presented to the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on the subject of "Balance-of-Payments Priorities" and consider that this is a brilliant presentation on a rather complex subject presentation on a rather complex subject and that the conclusions that you have drawn definitely are in the best interests of this country.

I shall consider it a great privilege to meet with you and some of your colleagues at such time as it is convenient for you to arrange such a meeting.

Very truly yours,

E. BATES MCKEE, Vice President and Director.

WASHINGTON, D.C.,

July 19, 1965.

Hon. VANCE HARTKE,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HARTKE: My associates and I were pleased and heartened to read (in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of July 14) your forthright comments on your recent letter from Keith Funston. Earlier, I believe, you had a similar letter from one of our ASEF Governors, Milton Manley, of Detroit.

The all-important consideration of market liquidity is frequently lost in (or, at least, overshadowed by) more dramatic economic factors. Your continuing interest, beyond the merits of your argument, serves to bring the liquidity problem into increasingly sharp focus. And this has to be all to the good.

Apart from the good wishes, this is a pleased to answer or expedite the answers friendly reminder that I am both handy and to-any questions you may have concerning the exchange community. By the same token, it goes without saying that we will be as always-grateful for your continuing suggestions.

Betimes, strength to your good right arm. Cordially and sincerely,

ance in our payments equilibrium, sounds like good commonsense to me.

I am, however, very much interested in your comments regarding the stock market. It is the primary barometer of public con

fidence, and the deterioration of that confidence is very apparent in recent weeks. We brokers notice it in our dealings with the investing public. If the margin requirements were reduced by the Federal Reserve authorities, I am of the opinion that the market would react favorably, and induce many people to reinstate their market selections with confidence.

I sincerely hope that the able Senate Committee on Finance will continue with the thoughts outlined in your recent letters to me.

Respectfully,

MILTON A. MANLEY.

FARM PRODUCTS-WEAPONS FOR PEACE

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the informative Kiplinger letter of August 27 has some interesting predictions with respect to the future of the agriculture policies of the United States.

Speaking for myself and the farmers of Missouri, I hope much of the letter is right, because these thoughts embrace what we have urged for years; namely, substitution in the AID program of our increasing food and fiber surpluses in place of our decreasing dollars.

The letter asserts that the Government plans to use food, with the recipient countries agreeing to expand their own internal food production, to that end purchasing from the United States such items as agricultural machinery, processing plants, machinery, and so forth.

In other words, we would substitute food for dollars in the AID program; and at the same time develop trade.

The letter states this would bring in billions of dollars of business, to those involved in food production and distribution.

These changes, so the letter adds, would be predicated on the serious world famine predicted for the 1970's, which would be worst in Latin America, Africa, and Asia; and therefore, in effect, this food would be worth more than money.

Food would be considered a weapon for peace, having some deterrent capacity comparable to military power.

For years we have recommended that the base of this idea be tried. In following the theory, more trade-less aid, food and fiber might well be utilized in the interest of halting among nations the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

PRIZE-WINNING ESSAY: "MY RESPONSIBILITY TO AMERICA"

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, Miss Roberta Fish, of High Street, Ashaway, R.I., recently visited my office in Washington, while she was participating in the teen forum sessions here in the District of Columbia. Miss Fish wrote a prizewinning essay entitled "My Responsibility to America."

Because of the excellence of this essay, I ask unanimous consent to insert the essay into the RECORD at this point.

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

MY RESPONSIBILITY TO AMERICA Being a custodian of a precious, yet vulnerable way of life obligates me to develop a deep-rooted approach to life, its people and its problems. I must know and meet the obligations to liberty enabling them to become indelibly stamped on my heart and mind. In striving to possess the self-discipline to do justice, I am required to maintain the rights of others as well as my own.

Eternal vigilance, the price of freedom, must be focused not only against dangers from without, but complacency, softness, and selfishness within. I must continually undergo self-improvement and rededication to live up to the challenges of the future.

As a youth, I need not only the courage to speak out against the weaknesses of society, but to root them out in myself. It is my duty to maintain and strengthen our heritage as it was won by being honest, inquisitive, alert, diligent, and physically and mentally fit. I must avoid prejudice, display strength of character, demand morality from myself as well as from others, secure justice from my government and set an example of loyalty, decency, courtesy, and honor. I am obligated to rely not on the gold in vaults, but the iron in my blood to endure unflinchingly the sacrifices necessary in defending my free nation.

I must not only accept these obligations passively, but reflect on them until they become actual yardsticks by which I can measure my success or failure in growing to become a responsible member of democratic America.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, too often we, in the legislative branch of the Government, only hear about the lack of responsibility that is developing in the young people of our country. However, as someone who is vitally interested in the young people of America, I believe that the potential for greatness in young Americans is far greater today then ever before in the history of our Nation.

I have called for a dialog with youth, not only to learn their apprehensions, problems and failures, but, also, to help bring out the devotion to our country which lies just below the surface. Miss Roberta Fish is an ostensible sign of the depth of understanding of our young people. It must be encouraged. It must be allowed to grow.

We will truly move forward into the Great Society, and not be overwhelmed by the engine of history if Miss Roberta Fish is symbolic of the youth of our Nation.

For the information of others I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at this point a table showing current State allotments under the Federal grant program and what that allotment would be under S. 2481.

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

ments, water State allot

pollution

control con

struction grants pro

gram

$2, 122, 600

760,000

1,266, 600

1,750, 750

4,988, 450

1,274, 500

1,321, 300

730, 650

812, 550 2,297,950 2,178, 700

971, 050 1, 200, 400 3,447,000 2,095, 050 1,632, 600 1,468, 950 1,954,700 2,024, 800 1, 252, 100 1,575, 700

2, 113, 200 2,950, 000 1,795, 900 2,068, 000 1,986,950 1,090, 200 1,237, 850

689, 250

Nebraska..

Nevada..

New Hampshire.

1,023, 400

New Jersey..

2,344, 700

New Mexico.

1, 163, 500 3,466, 600 1,641, 350 1,285,850 3,922, 750 1,050, 350 1,917, 300 1, 189, 750 2, 109, 350 3,584,000 1, 178, 250 1,046, 800 2,062,750 1,572, 000 1,575, 450

1,920,000

890, 150 1,487, 300 2, 115, 150

1,477, 700

100, 000, 000

ments under Senator RIBICOFF's bill S. 2481

$8,450, 400 3,040,000

7,003,000 19,953,800 5,098, 000 5, 285, 200 2,922, 600 3,250, 200 9, 191, 800 8,714, 800 3,884, 200

years. The companies know that their markets are subject to competition from abroad and from substitute materials. But the unique problems faced by the two parties to this dispute are small relative to the overall problem with which the Nation would be confronted if there is a break in steel production. That we should even have to skirt this problem seems unwarranted since the differences that separate management and labor do not appear great.

Both the steelworkers and the steel companies have shared in the benefits of a booming industry. American steelworkers earn, on the average, $3.46 an hour. This is one-third higher than the average earnings of American manufacturing workers. To be sure, the steelworkers have long been better paid than other American wage earners: But the margin of their advantage has improved over the past decade. In the early 1950's, their hourly wages exceeded the average by only 23 percent. Now the margin is 33 percent. If wages today are compared with those at the end of World War II, steelworkers have gained 182 percent, while manufacturing workers generally have gained 148 percent. In the first half of this year, the average weekly pay envelope of the American 11,800,000 steelworker contained $145.

13, 788,000 8, 380, 200 6,530, 400 5,875, 800 7,818, 800 8,099, 200 5, 008, 400 6, 302, 800 8,452, 800

7, 183, 600 8, 272, 000 7,947,800 4,360, 800 4, 951, 400 2,757,000 4,093, 600 9, 378, 800 5, 131, 200 21,087, 400 9,452, 600 4,654,000 13, 866, 400 6, 565, 400 5, 143, 400 15,691, 000 4, 201, 400 7,669, 200

8,437, 400 14, 336,000 4,713, 000 4, 187, 200 8, 251,000 6, 288,000 6,301,800 7,680,000 3,560, 600 5,949, 200

5,910, 800

400, 000, 000

Not only wages but fringe benefits pensions, insurances, medical benefits, supplementary unemployment benefitshave increased. The value of the wages and fringe benefits received by steelworkers averaged $4.42 an hour early this year. If this is not the highest average in American industry, it is very close to it.

Beyond individual earnings, moreover, the condition of steelworkers as a group has improved. For the 10 years prior to 1962, employment in American steel mills was stagnant or declining. But in the last several years this trend has been reversed; steel employment has expanded dramatically. In 1964, steel jobs rose by 36,000; and in the first half of this year there were 59,000 more steel jobs than in the first half of 1964. This expansion of employment in the steel industry has occurred in spite of a continuing rapid rise in the productivity of each steelworker. It has occurred in

THREATENED STEEL STRIKE POSES great part because the national economic

ECONOMIC CRISIS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, this Nation today is on the threshold of an economic crisis of major proportions. The steel industry is threatened with a shutdown by an apparently intractable labor-management dispute at the very time that our national and international needs for its production are increasing. We have taken on additional military responsibilities in Vietnam. The Nation's economy has just completed an unprecedented 42 years of uninterrupted economic expansion. It ought to be obvious that the threat of a steel dispute hangs heavily over both.

The United Steelworkers and the steel companies have their own problems. The union believes that it has been falling behind in the advance of wages in recent

policies which have been followed in recent years have produced an unprecedented expansion of incomes and consumer purchasing power, and a remarkable enlargement of business investment. Together, these have led to an unprecedented rise in the consumption of steel.

The rising employment of steelworkers has helped to resuscitate every major steel producing center in the Nation. Between June 1961 and June 1965 unemployment fell in Pittsburgh, from 11.5 to 3.6 percent; in Chicago, from 5.4 to 3 percent; in Gary, Ind., from 6.8 to 2.7 percent; in Youngstown, Ohio, from 8.8 to 2.9 percent; in Buffalo, N.Y., from 10.8 to 3.5 percent; in Birmingham, Ala., 8.6 to 3.8 percent.

And in July, Johnstown, Pa., was taken off the Labor Department's list