Слике страница
PDF
ePub

But few peace-loving people will tolerate an end to the war at the price of freedom or the profit for aggression. The national interest of the United States and South Vietnam-indeed the national interest of all nations, large and small, whose people live in freedom-repudiates a policy of peace at any price. There is a price to be paid for peace, and it is only with a clear understanding of what that price is that those who speak of "negotiations" can speak meaningfully.

President Johnson's statement at Johns Hopkins University was also repeated:

We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.

All of us realize that great priority has been given by the President to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Vietnam and to bring the participants to the conference table.

But there is something of higher priority than that: It is the minimal objectives clearly stated by the President of the United States for the war in Vietnam. These objectives are: To persuade the North Vietnamese to leave their neighbor, South Vietnam, alone; to cease and desist from directing, controlling, and supplying war materiel and manpower to the Vietcong military forces in South Vietnam; and to assist the South Vietnamese in ending the attacks of the Vietcong so that the people can live in peace and freedom. This is the price of peace in Vietnam. Any cessation of hostilities and any action at the conference table must be premised on the achievement of these minimal objectives. And any timetable for cessation of hostilities and participation at the conference table cannot take priority over them.

It is with these thoughts that I turn to the statement on the floor of the Senate made by the distinguished majority leader on September 1. It has been widely reported that the views he expressed were those of the President, but whether this is so or not I do not know.

The majority leader set forth the four conditions for peace advanced by Hanoi in response to the President's Johns Hopkins speech. He then sought to show that these conditions might be reconcilable with President Johnson's minimal objectives.

I find it difficult to reconcile them. Hanoi's condition that the internal affairs of South Vietnam be determined by the South Vietnamese in accordance with the National Liberation Front program is repugnant to the concept of freedom for the people of South Vietnam. The peaceful, so-called reunification of all of Vietnam is a nice-sounding objective, but when one realizes the impossibility of holding genuinely free elections in a Communist dominated country, the objective lacks substance. It would seem to run counter to the only American interpretation which can be placed on President Johnson's stated objective that the people of South Vietnam shall have the right of choice, the right to shape their own destiny in free elections in the South, or throughout all Vietnam under international supervision. How could there be any such in

ternational supervision without the foreign interference which Hanoi clearly demands be left out?

, 1965 shape their own destiny in free elections in the South, or throughout all of Vietnam under international supervision."

There is all the difference in the world be

The distinguished majority leader tween the free elections in the South and also made this statement:

But unless the military conflict is to expand and to continue into the indefinite future, whether it be 3, 5, 10, or 20 years of war, the degree of these automatic reflexes must be tested in negotiations.

I do not believe that such a choice exists at all. The choice is between the realization of the minimal stated objectives of the President of the United States by negotiations and settlement or by war and settlement. It is the leaders in Hanoi-not in the United States-who have made the choice. It is up to themnot us to decide whether to stop their aggression. Their decision will determine the length and intensity of the

When they realize that aggression does not pay off-that the price of their decision to continue the war is too dear, they will agree to the President's minimal objectives in a settlement-and not before. This need not be any 3, 5, 10, or 20-year war at all; but its length will depend greatly on the President's decision on how much more cost will be paid by North Vietnam and how soon in order

to persuade the leaders in Hanoi that continued war is unacceptable to them.

In this connection, a timely lead editorial entitled "We're Talking Too Much,' was published in Monday's Washington Evening Star. The editorial points out that all of the talk about negotiations which has been going on from within the United States might be taken as an indication of irresolution on our part. It lays a foundation for the hope in the hearts of the leaders in Hanoi that the United States will not have the patience and perseverance which the President says we shall have to see it through, so that our minimal objectives will be attained and the world will know that aggression does not pay off. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD, along with an editorial from the Des Moines Register of September 5, entitled "Mansfield's Peace Plan," which points out that the majority leader's suggestions "are still far from those offered to date by North Vietnam and its ally, the National Liberation Front of South VietnamVietcong."

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

[From the Washington, D.C., Evening Star, Sept. 6, 1965]

WE'RE TALKING TOO MUCH Senator MANSFIELD, the majority leader, made a speech the other day which was essentially a restatement of our aims in Vietnam. He threw in two additional points, that there must be provision prior to negotiations for a "secure amnesty" and a willingness on all sides to accept a "cease-fire and a standfast." Otherwise, there was nothing new in it.

Since this speech is supposed to have had the prior approval of the President, there is reason to note with some concern Senator MANSFIELD'S reiteration of the Johnson statement of July 28: "We insist and we will always insist that the people of South Vietnam shall have the right of choice, the right to

elections throughout all Vietnam. In the former case there would be a right of choice. In the second, there would be none, for such an election would surely be won by the Communists. To agree to any such condition as this would be to capitulate to the Communists, despite all our brave words, and to sell the South Vietnamese down the river. We hope that this was not the essential message that Senator MANSFIELD, with the President's approval, was trying to get across to Hanoi.

It seems to us, furthermore, that the time the Communists every hour on the hour. has come to stop making peace overtures to The fighting has not been going well for them, and they must know that they cannot win this war. Why not let them sweat it out for a while instead of giving them even slight reason to think that we are tiring of the struggle and ready to call it a day? plauded the MANSFIELD speech. He said we Senator JAVITS was among those who apshould constantly reiterate our willingness to negotiate, which, in fact, the President has been doing. Then the New York Senator added: "I hope very much that these efforts are not misunderstood as indicating an irresolution on our part."

With this, he put his finger on what may for peace. We should stop talking about our well be the Achilles' heel of our repeated bids willingness to talk, and let our willingness to fight speak for itself for a while. [From the Des Moines Sunday Register, Sept. 5, 1965]

MANSFIELD'S PEACE PLAN

Two new sets of peace proposals have appeared recently for the Vietnam war: an interview given by South Vietnamese Premier Nguyen Cao Ky including his peace terms; and a speech in the U.S. Senate by Majority Leader MIKE MANSFIELD, ostentatiously approved by the White House, summarizing U.S. terms for peace.

Ky wants time to overcome "many injustices" in South Vietnam before he faces peace negotiations and possible free elections. This doesn't fit in too well with U.S. efforts to get pease as soon as possible, perhaps this fall or winter-but the frank admission of injustices is a new and wholesome attitude for a South Vietnamese to take. South Vietnam can be lost on either the military front or the economic and social front; but it cannot be "won" without solid accomplishments in both.

Ky would like North Vietnamese troops withdrawn from South Vietnam under firm guarantees before he starts peace negotiations, and he wants American troops to stay on until his government asks them to leave. This goes beyond U.S. thinking. But as a hard bargaining position this makes some sense providing Ky's forces and his U.S. allies win some more victories.

Senator MANSFIELD's speech is much more realistic in the terms it presents. MANSFIELD has been (1) against expanding the Vietnam war; (2) for full debate and full news coverage of it, without fear or favor; (3) for President Johnson's effort to make peace and to hang on in the meantime. In public, MANSFIELD has generally supported administration policy; in private he is said to be critical.

So there is special significance in his appearing this time as administration spokesman, with public congratulations by VicePresident HUBERT HUMPHREY and a White House statement that the speech "reflects the sentiment of the Johnson administration." MANSFIELD himself avowedly based the speech on recent presidential speeches, with "clarlfications" of his own.

The Mansfield-Johnson peace terms call for a verified free choice by the South Vietnamese people of their own government and their own destiny, which may be independence of reunion with North Vietnam if they so choose. The terms call also for with

drawal of all foreign forces and bases throughout Vietnam, North and South, once peace is established and adequate international guarantees for noninterference in

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1965

The House met at 12 o'clock noon and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. ALbert).

the bill (H.R. 9567) entitled "an act to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. MORSE, Mr. HILL, Mr. MCNAMARA, Mr. YARBOROUGH,

Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are agreed on. DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Mr. CLARK, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. KENNEDY MANSFIELD added suggestions for an amnesty and a cease-fire as essential to negotiations.

These terms are still far from those offered

to date by North Vietnam and its ally, the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Vietcong). They want to get the U.S. troops and bases out, but not the North Vietnamese, and they want reunification of Vietnam under elections stacked in favor of the Communists. But they may be doing some rethinking under the impact of the heavy U.S. poundings in the field, and the still heavier U.S. buildup for future hostilities if the war continues.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the previous order, that the Senate adjourn until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 1 o'clock and 4 minutes p.m.), in accordance with the previous order, the Senate adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 8, 1965, at 12 o'clock meridian.

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations, confirmed by the Senate September 7, 1965:

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF WASHINGTON Hobart Taylor, Jr., of Michigan, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of Washington.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
WELFARE

Ralph K. Huitt, of Wisconsin, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

U.S. NAVY

Rear Adm. Alexander C. Husband, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy, to be Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in the Department of the Navy for a term of 4 years.

U.S. ARMY

The Army National Guard of the United States officers named herein for appointment as Reserve commissioned officers of the Army, under the provisions of title 10, United States Cole, sections 593 (a) and 3392:

Brig. Gen. Richard Charles Kendall, 01184680, Adjutant General's Corps.

Brig. Gen. Howard Samuel McGee, 0387469, Adjutant General's Corps, to be major generals.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Keith Hardie, of Wisconsin, to be U.S. marshal for the western district of Wisconsin for the term of 4 years.

George A. Bukovatz, of Montana, to be U.S. marshal for the district of Montana for the term of 4 years.

Robert Nelson Chaffin, of Wyoming, to be U.S. Attorney for the district of Wyoming for the term of 4 years.

IN THE MARINE CORPS

The nominations beginning William L. Atwater, Jr., to be colonel, and ending William J. Zaro, to be colonel, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on August 23, 1965.

TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT) laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker: THE SPEAKER'S ROOMS, September 7, 1965.

I hereby designate the Honorable CARL ALBERT to act as Speaker pro tempore today.

JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp, D.D., prefaced his prayer with this verse of the Scriptures: II Thessalonians 3: 3: But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

Almighty God, we thank Thee for this moment of prayer and meditation in the midst of hurrying days. Give us open minds and responsive hearts and may we hear and heed Thy voice speaking peace unto our souls.

Always and everywhere we need Thee; in our weakness to support and sustain us and in our strength to discipline and

direct us.

Grant that our eyes may be open to the higher values of life and the eternal worth of every human soul.

As we have entered into the labors of others, so may we work while it is yet day that those who succeed us may enter into a richer inheritance, and be brought into union with the abiding life of God without whom our lives are shrouded in impenetrable mystery and end in futility.

In a world of racial rancor and industrial strife and discord, where we have not learned to live together, show us how we may stop the madness of it all and live with one another in fraternal fellowship.

Hear us in Christ's name. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The Journal of the proceedings of Friday, September 3, 1965, was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 9567. An act to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education.

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I simply want to inquire if the rather lengthy letter and research by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DONOHUE], compiled by the Library of Congress, has been made a part of the committee record? This is an excellent report. I have seen it personally. All of the House provisions of the Consent Calendar have been met, and I commend the gentleman and the committee for accomplishing this within the rules we establish for ourselves.

Mr. DONOHUE. I will advise the gentleman copies were mailed to the other objectors, and one has been forwarded to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 439

Whereas 1965 marks the two hundred and

fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the town of Hopkinton, Massachusetts; and

Whereas this town and its people have made important contributions to all aspects of the life of this Nation; and

Whereas the observance of this anniversary will be celebrated in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, on June 25, 26, 27, 1965, with public ceremonies, parades, concerts, and other public gatherings with widespread participation of not only the townspeople but guests and visitors from many places; and

Whereas Hopkinton is a beautiful community, rich in historic interest, well known for its patriotic contributions, noted for its

many famous sons and daughters who distinguished themselves in many fields of endeavor and many facets of American civilization: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives extends its greetings and felicitations to the people of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, on the occasion of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of this community, and the House of Representatives further expresses its appreciation for the splendid services rendered to the Nation by the citizens of Hopkinton during the past two hundred and fifty years.

sentatives serve with the Armed Forces? Is there anything obligatory about their service with the Armed Forces? What is meant by this language?

Mr. FISHER. The purpose of the bill is to permit traveling space to be allocated to the dependents of Red Cross personnel who are now entitled to it but who must wait until the space becomes available.

Mr. GROSS. In other words, the Government is now about to embark upon paying the expenses for families With the following committee amend- or members of the Red Cross; is that ment: correct?

On pages 1 and 2, strike all "Whereas" clauses.

to.

The committee amendment was agreed tion that we are dealing with in this

The House resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

LIABILITY TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE VETERANS' LOAN PROGRAM

The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 7571) to amend title 38 of the United States Code with respect to liability of individuals arising out of certain loans made, guaranteed, or insured by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I note in connection with this bill the Veterans' Administra

tion is opposed to it, and the Housing and Home Finance Agency has deferred to the views of the Veterans' Administration.

Under the rule established by the bipartisan committee of objectors, it is my understanding that only legislation on which there is a favorable agency report is considered to qualify on the Consent Calendar.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection and ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection.

PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES OF AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS

PERSONNEL

The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 8848) to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide transportation for the immediate families of personnel of the American National Red Cross serving with the Armed Forces.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask someone what is meant by the words "to provide transportation for the immediate families of personnel of the American Red Cross serving with the Armed Forces." In what way do these repre

Mr. FISHER. The members of the Red Cross who are involved in this situation that we are dealing with in this legislation only go when they are requested to go somewhere by the military, wherever that may be. Under the preswherever that may be. Under the present law, their travel may be provided but it is on a space available basis. This would give them a priority for obtaining space when they are requested by the military to go.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman says when they are requested to go by the military. Is there anything obligatory on representatives of the Red Cross to go anywhere on the orders of the military?

Mr. FISHER. There is nothing obligatory.

Mr. GROSS. That is what I thought. Is there anything obligatory upon the Salvation Army, which in my opinion on the basis of experience in World War I, does an equal if not a better job than the Red Cross in many respects, with respect to services provided members of the Armed Forces. I see nothing here to include the Salvation Army. Did you give any consideration to the Salvation Army?

Mr. FISHER. I think not.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT). Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

ELIMINATION OF REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES REQUIRED AMONG THE ARMED FORCES FOR INPATIENT MEDICAL OR DENTAL CARE The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 10234) to amend section 1085 of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the reimbursement procedure required among the ment procedure required among the medical facilities of the Armed Forces under the jurisdiction of the military departments.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply want to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. FISHER] if in his opinion this could in any manner or wise be interpreted as the first step of taking over military medical care in Government civilian hospitals by the now passed law for ci

vilian medicare? In other words, the treatment of military dependents and/ or even of the military and the retirees in HEW hospitals?

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALL. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FISHER. In response to the gentleman's question, it is my opinion and the opinion of counsel for the committee who studied this, and in response to the gentleman's inquiry that was previously made, that it cannot have that effect at all and it is not designed to have that effect.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I have the gentleman's reply in writing and the action of the committee of the Armed Services Committee and counsel of the Defense Department, and I am delighted that this is the situation, and the legislative record having been made, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 10234

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1085 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"§ 1085. Medical and dental care from another executive department: reimbursement

"If a member or former member of an armed force under the jurisdiction of a military department, or his dependent receives inpatient medical or dental care in a facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, or if a member or former member of a uniformed service not under the jurisdiction of a military department, or his dependent, receives inpatient medical or dental care in a facility of an armed force under the jurisdiction of a military department, the appropriation for maintaining and operating the facility furnishing that care shall be reimbursed at rates established by the Bureau of the Budget to reflect the average cost of providing such care."

SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out the following item:

"1085. Medical and dental care from another uniformed service: reimbursement." and inserting the following item in place thereof:

"1085. Medical and dental care from another executive department: reimbursement."

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL OF PARIS The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 9877) to amend the act of January 30, 1913, as amended, to remove certain restrictions on the American Hospital of Paris.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask

someone why there is any limitation at all on this hospital in Paris?

Mr. CELLER. The act was passed many years ago with a limitation of $2 million. We increased the amount of its capital to $8 million, I think, in 1929. Now we are asking to increase it beyond that. There are no Government moneys involved here. It is privately endowed. It probably might well have been originally arranged that there would be no limitation. I cannot answer the gentleman's question as to why there was originally a limitation. But that is the condition we find this in and we are asking now because of the increased expenditures and patients that the amount of the capital be increased.

Mr. GROSS. I was curious to know why there has ever been any limitation upon the amount of money that could be spent upon this hospital.

Mr. CELLER. I cannot give the reason. That was passed many years ago. Mr. GROSS. I call the attention of the gentleman to the language which appears on page 1 of the report, as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to remove a limitation on the total value of property which the American Hospital of Paris may

own.

But a limitation of $8 million is placed in the bill. I do not understand the language which appears on page 1 in relation to the bill which provides a definite limitation. Perhaps someone made a mistake.

Mr. CELLER. Possibly that might be correct. I do not know.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection. There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

H.R. 9877

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act to incorporate the American Hospital of Paris", as amended,

approved January 30, 1913 (37 Stat. 654), is further amended by striking out: ": Provided, That the total value of the property owned at any one time by the said corporation shall not exceed $8,000,000".

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon

sider was laid on the table.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PELLY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. In fact, the bill contains other matters. There were about six bills combined and the onion matter was inserted into this bill. I have an amendment prepared and have no objection to taking out that part.

Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I should like to interrogate the gentleman.

Am I correct in what I understand the bill, if passed, would do? Would it not make eligible for marketing agreements the following products: cherries, carrots, citrus fruits-not onions-Tokay grapes, fresh pears, dates, plums, nectarines, celery, sweet corns, limes, and avocados? Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. No. They already have marketing agreements for those items. The bill would only allow them to advertise and assess the members of the industry through a vote and an agreement. It would let them advertise their products. That is all the bill would do. It would not create any new marketing order or marketing agreement.

Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, there is a provision for advertising. Do I correctly understand that as a result of the provision for advertising that the industry will pay the cost?

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Yes. The members of the industry will assess themselves.

Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has said that they will assess themselves as growers. Would the assessment be in the nature of tax on those the end that the ultimate consumer would have to pay upward of a 4- to 5percent tax on those items?

work out in that way. This is a very Mr. DE LA GARZA. No, it will not small or minimum effort on the part of the growers and producers themselves. Let me assure the gentleman that all of the associations referred to relative to each one of the items which it is desired to have included have asked that this action be taken. They are unanimous in requesting that this be done.

I

Also this does not apply to all the items that have been mentioned. Some already have them. Of necessity, the items included citrus, carrots, and all the other products named, including Tokay grapes, cherries, and pears. think Mrs. MAY was interested in pears. As far as advertising is concerned, there would be no great overall increase in the cost of advertising that would raise the cost to the consumer or anything of that sort. It is only a small amount that the producers themselves would allow themselves to take off in order that they might advertise their particular product. That is all it is.

Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. With the understanding that the cost of the advertising will not be passed on to the ultimate consumer and added to the cost of the product, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

H.R. 10206

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, is further amended as follows: "such container and pack requirements pro(a) Section 2(3) is amended by inserting vided in section 8(c) (6) (H)", immediately after "establish and maintain".

(b) Section 8c (2) (A) is amended by inserting "and onions" immediately after "(not including vegetables other than asparagus").

(c) The proviso at the end of section 8c (6) (I) is amended by inserting ", carrots, citrus fruits, onions, Tokay grapes, fresh pears, dates, plums, nectarines, celery, sweet corn, limes, or avocados" immediately after "applicable to cherries".

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DE LA GARZA

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DE LA GARZA: On page 1, beginning on line 10, strike out all of subsection (b).

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman

[blocks in formation]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (a) of the Act of March 4, 1913, as amended by the Act of January 31, 1931 (16 U.S.C. 502), is amended to read as follows: "(a) To hire or rent property from employService, whenever the public interest will be promoted thereby: Provided, That the aggregate amount to be paid permanent employees under authorization of this subsection, exclusive of obligations occasioned by fire

ees of the Forest Service for the use of that

emergencies, shall not exceed $20,000 in any one year."

With the following committee amendment.

On page 1, beginning on line 8, strike out the colon and the proviso through page 2, line 2, and insert: "As soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives a statement of rentals under the authority of this subsection during the fiscal year."

[blocks in formation]

There being no objection, the Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: S.J. RES. 89

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, effective June 1, 1965, the last sentence of the joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution authorizing the erection in the District of Columbia of a memorial to Mary McLeod Bethune", approved June 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 154), is amended by striking out "within five years" and inserting in lieu thereof "within seven years”.

The joint resolution was ordered to be was read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was

laid on the table.

[blocks in formation]

PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS OF THE KLAMATH AND MODOC TRIBES AND YAHOOSKIN BAND OF SNAKE INDIANS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

The Clerk called the bill (S. 664) to provide for the disposition of judgment funds of the Klamath Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians, and for other purposes.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, at the request of a Member who could not be present today, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection.

[blocks in formation]

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

H.R. 8917

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior shall add to the roll of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, prepared pursuant to section 1 of the Act of September 14, 1961 (75 Stat. 508), the names of all children living on the date of this Act who were born after September 14, 1961, and who possess aboriginal Omaha blood of the degree of one-fourth or more: Provided, That no child who is enrolled with any other tribe of Indians shall be added to the roll under the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 2. The roll prepared pursuant to the Act of September 14, 1961, with the additions authorized by section 1 of this Act, shall

constitute the membership roll of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska as of the date of this Act, and children who are born after the date of this Act may be enrolled if they meet the requirements of article II, section 1(b) of the tribal constitution, or any amendment thereof.

SEC. 3. From the funds on deposit in the

Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Omaha Tribe that were appropriated by the Act of June 9, 1964, to pay a judgment obtained by the tribe in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 138, after deduction of attorney fees, litigation expenses, and such sums as may be required to distribute individual shares, the Secretary of the Interior shall make a per capita distribution of no more than $270 to each person living on the date of this Act whose name appears on the roll prepared pursuant to the provisions of sections 1 of this Act. The

balance of such funds and the interest thereon, may be advanced or expended for any purpose that is authorized by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary. The amount of $150,000 of said funds and any interest thereon shall not be distributed, advanced, or expended until said $150,000 and any interest thereon becomes available for disbursement pursuant to the terms of the final judgment dated April 14, 1964, by the Indian Claims Commission in docket numbered 138.

SEC. 4. Sums payable to enrollees or to their heirs or legatees who are less than twenty-one years of age or who are under a legal disability shall be paid in accordance with such procedures as the tribal governing body, with the approval of the Secretary, determines will adequately protect the best interests of such persons. Proportional shares of heirs or legatees amounting

such amounts shall escheat to the Omaha

to $5 or less shall not be distributed and Tribe of Nebraska.

SEC. 5. The funds distributed under the provisions of this Act shall not be subject to Federal or State income taxes.

SEC. 6. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.

With the following committee amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"That from the funds on deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska that were appropriated by the Act of June 9, 1964, to pay a judgment obtained by the tribe in

Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 138, after deduction of attorney fees, be required to distribute individual shares, litigation expenses, and such sums as may the Secretary of the Interior shall make a per capita distribution of no more than $270 to each person living on the date of this

« ПретходнаНастави »