SANTIAGO IGLESIAS-PANTÍN, POLITICIAN, PATRIOT, AND LABOR LEADER

Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. POLANCO-ABREU. Mr. Speaker, Labor Day has double significance in Puerto Rico. It is the day in which we honor workingmen, through whose noble toil the country maintains the pace of constant progress. It is also the day in which we honor one of our most dedicated labor leaders: Mr. Santiago Iglesias-Pantín, who was my predecessor as Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico during the period from January 1933 to December 5, 1939. On the latter date he died in Washington, D.C., before completing his second 4-year term as the elected Representative of Puerto Rico in Con

gress.

I have always had great admiration for Santiago Iglesias-Pantín in his dual role as politician and as labor leader. Born in La Coruña, Spain, on February 22, 1872, he attended the common schools and was apprenticed as a cabinet maker. But soon he emigrated to Havana, Cuba, where he immediately joined the ranks of labor. From 1889 to 1896 he served as secretary of the Workingmen Trades Circle, and then moved to Puerto Rico where he devoted his efforts to journalism and founded three newspapers, all of them labor oriented: Porvenir Social, 18981900; Union Obrera, 1903-06; and Justicia, 1914-25.

He was at the same time active and effective in the labor movement, becoming a pioneer in the effort to create in our working men a true conscience of their rights before a society which was only then first beginning to hear about such things as minimum wages, labor unions, shorter working hours, and labor contracts.

Even as early as November 4, 1898, Mr. Iglesias-Pantín was busy in San Juan exposing the unfair working conditions of his own carpenter's guild, to which he was deeply attached. Prevailing wages then were usually from $1 to $1.50 a day; a man would have to stay on the job for 10, maybe 11, hours, without getting any extra pay; and he would then go home to find a meager supper for himself and his family.

This was the sad picture which Mr. Iglesias-Pantín described before Special Commissioner Henry K. Carroll, appointed by President McKinley to study conditions prevalent in the newly acquired territory of Puerto Rico.

But there was hope, too.
Our chief object-

Mr. Iglesias declared

has been to obtain for each of the guild members the greatest amount of education possible. *** Under the new (American) institutions, we shall find this much easier, because we understand that in the United States the greatest part of the forces of the Government

are directed to the propagation of instruction for its workingmen.

We also will have to direct our attentionHe added

especially to the economic aspect of our trade, as that has been at a very low ebb.1

True enough, some years later, as a member of the Senate in the Legislature of Puerto Rico, he was able to sponsor legislation to improve working conditions in the island and to protect the workers' right to organize unions and enter into right to organize unions and enter into collective agreements.

As a politician, Mr. Iglesias-Pantín was astute and shrewd. He founded the Socialist Party, which gradually drew strength from the fast-growing unions, and was elected a senator when Congress gave the island a new Organic Act in gave the island a new Organic Act in

1917.

He was for some years the only representative of his party in the legislature, and the anecdote went round that whenever an important situation came up he would close his eyes and hold his head would close his eyes and hold his head with both hands, elbows firm against the flat top of his desk.

"Sh, sh," he would answer to anyone interrupting his meditation, "I'm holding a party caucus."

His task as Resident Commissioner was difficult, but somehow he was able to overcome formidable obstacles to reach his goals. When Mr. Iglesias died, he earned praise from all those colleagues who had been fortunate to be his friends.

I always found him concerned only for the welfare of the people of Puerto Rico, and never for himself

Said Delegate Dimond, of Alaska, adding:

Nobody who knew him can truthfully deny that while he was Commissioner from Puerto Rico, the people of that island had an able, high-minded and devoted advocate in the Congress.

Even a man as reticent as Adm. William D. Leahy, then Governor of Puerto Rico, said:

His death is a great loss. He was a true public servant, loyal to the legions who honored him.

I should like to bring memory in the House of Representatives today, of this former colleague who devoted himself so untiringly to the cause of labor, to the laborer's uplift in dignity, and who gave his best effort for the betterment of Puerto Rico in general.

CBS REPORT ON THE WAR IN
VIETNAM

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

1 Henry K. Carroll, "Report on the Island of

Puerto Rico," submitted to Hon. William McKinley, President of the United States, Oct, 6, 1899. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1899.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last night I watched for an hour a CBS report on the war in Vietnam. Liberally sprinkled through the report were comments by American servicemen about the significance of the battle they are fighting and the difficulty the American people seem to be having in understanding the significance and the importance of the American presence and activity in Vietnam. Occasionally a soldier suggested rather hopefully that the voices of withdrawal were a distinct minority.

Debate of American policy is a healthy characteristic of our form of government. This debate is valuable, however, only as it is predicated upon accurate information. Recently the White House, in cooperation with the Departments of State and Defense issued a publication entitled "Why Vietnam." This booklet performs two useful services. It spells out clearly the background of our commitment in South Vietnam and contains excellent factual statements both by Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara.

I am advised that the demand for copies of this publication from Members of Congress has been heavy and the supply is limited. I am further advised that the cost of publication as a House document is very substantially less than if additional copies were to be printed for congressional use by the State Department. In view of the congressional demand and the savings to be expected, I think it proper for the House to reprint this publication as a House document.

PRESS AGENT, BUT STILL
PRESIDENT

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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, as anyone knows, who has read the Constitution, the President of the United States also serves as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, but a great many eyebrows are being raised over the President's apparent assumption of the additional role of "editor in chief" of the Nation's newspapers.

In the summer issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, published under the auspices of the Graduate School of Journalism of Columbia University, is a most enlightening article entitled "Press Agent, but Still President." It deserves to be read by every member of the fourth estate faced with the problem of choosing between respect or his readers and respect for the Presidency.

To indicate how closely this article describes the present situation, the Washington Post this morning contains an article by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak entitled "The Planned Press Con

ference." This article penetrates the image of Presidential press conferences and portrays them for what they areplanned propaganda.

[From the Columbia Journalism Review, 1965]

PRESS AGENT, BUT STILL PRESIDENT

(By Ben H. Bagdikian)

For a time during World War II this writer was an instructor in aerial navigation, an exercise that required one student navigator to direct the plane to a practice target while a second navigator, in the same plane but out of touch with the first, tracked where the plane had been and where it was headed. One night the first navigator said the plane would hit the target at 11 p.m. and the target would be El Paso. Asked where we would be at 11, the second navigator wrote, "Albuquerque." At 11 o'clock a large city loomed out of the night. Both men looked jubilant. On the ground I had to tell the second man we were not in Albuquerque but in El Paso. He was stunned. He pulled out his log, full of statistics like compass headings and celestial fixes, waved it in front of my face and cried, "But that's impossible. I've got the figures to prove we're in Albuquerque." He did have the figures to prove it. But the sign on the tower said El Paso and all the natives claimed to be

Texans.

This episode came to mind when the President in his June 1 press conference described the care with which he decided to send the Marines to Santo Domingo: "I had 237 individual conversations during that period and about 35 meetings with various people."

The President is a lover of statistics and of appearances and in the fierce gamesmanship that has developed in the White House he has proved himself an indefatigible practitioner of the art of public relations. This has presented special problems for the press corps, but not simply because a President tries to put himself in the best light, because all do that. It has dawned only recently on Washington correspondents just how deeply committed the President is to his public relations practice.

Joseph Kraft, writing in Harper's, believes the President's troubles with the press "stem largely from the inability of the press to see the President as just another flack."

What happens if the press has to view the President of the United States as "just another flack"?

The problem is not the existence of public relations in the White House, which has to consider its "image" if for no other reason than to know whether it is being understood. But there is flackery and flackery and the White House has pushed the techniques of PR to the point of negative returns.

Some White House deceptions are forgiven as part of the job. President Eisenhower would have been wiser to refuse comment on the U-2 shot down over Russia. As a national leader the President has to keep himself open to negotiations for the national good and if he publicly associates himself with all the dirty tricks that go on behind the scenes he damages his power-not because he tells the other side anything it doesn't privately know, but because he becomes a public symbol of the dirty tricks with whom other national leaders cannot

negotiate. Precisely because the President is more than a promoter of his own program and reputation, more than proprietor of Government agencies, but also a symbol of national aims and values, it is important that he be listened to-and speak-as something more than a shrewd public relations man.

Some of the deceptions have been important. For weeks President Johnson told the

public it was being misled by reporters who said the Government was considering widening the war in Vietnam. The reporters were correct and the President wrong. The White House has implied that it consulted the Or

mitting troops to the Dominican Republic, but it never told the OAS beforehand that it was considering troops.

Other illusions are of interest chiefly within the trade, such as the time the President gave a backgrounder in Texas but asked correspondents to put on a Washington dateline (which most did).

tion of Presidential attention given to pubThe problem is partly the astonishing porlic relations. No President has monitored his public image with more zeal. He often pulls popularity poll results out of his pocket. He adds up hours of time given to the press and it is enormous, though much of it is ritualistic or nonuseful. In one extended session a French correspondent whispered to an American that he had a Paris deadline coming up and had to leave. The President was holding forth on the White House south balcony. The American whispered back that the Frenchman couldn't possibly leave. "But we've been here for an hour and a half and he is saying nothing and I have a deadline." The American hissed, "Would you leave if Charles de Gaulle were doing this?" The Frenchman stiffened and whispered, "Charles de Gaulle would not spend 15 minutes talking about the rust on his balcony."

The President and his staff seem to ring like burglar alarms whenever and wherever the name "Johnson" appears in print or is uttered on the air. A small item in a west Texas paper mentioned Billie Sol Estes in connection with the President in a threeparagraph story on the inside; the editor claims he got a telephone call from the White House in time to kill the item in later edi

One television correspondent was awakened in the middle of the night by the White House, which had heard that he planned to make some critical remarks the next day. A newspaper correspondent wrote a critical morning story and got three telephone calls from White House aids before breakfast. The New York Review of Books, a medium-highbrow publication, ran a scathing review of Johnson's Vietnam policy and its editors got a phone call from a White House aid suggesting that in the future they have Vietnam books reviewed by Joseph Alsop (who approves of the Johnson policy).

The President has three television sets for simultaneous viewing of the three networks, plus an AP and UPI ticker. Apparently he watches them more closely than some of the editors. One night a startled wire service editor in Washington got a White House call later preserved in the house organ, UPI Reporter, as follows: "Hello?"

"Hello, Pat, this is Lyndon Johnson." "Yes, Mr. President."

"Say, I have here (pause) A101N from Johnson City, Tex., about the homestead, by Kyle Thompson. Let's see (pause) you say in there that there's going to be a fee for the tour. Well, that's not right at all. The idea is to give it to the people."

"Just a minute, Mr. President, and I'll get the story."

"You see what it says. It says 'the home was opened to the public for fee tours.' That isn't right. You see, it's for free. That's the idea. Do you see that?"

"Yes, Mr. President.

It looks like they dropped the 'r' in the word 'free.' I guess they omitted it in transmission."

"Well, Pat, it sure does mean just the opposite of what we mean."

"It sure does, Mr. President, I'll fix it." "Well, we want it to be free."

"Certainly, Mr. President. I'll straighten it out right away."

"I'd appreciate it if you would clean this up for me."

"I certainly will, Mr. President."

"We hope you will take the necessary steps to straighten this out."

"Yes, sir; Mr. President."

"Thank you, Pat."

"Thank you for letting us know, Mr. President."

But the problem is not just quantity of Presidential time and intervention. Some of it is less meticulous than his editing of UPI typos and some of it has such an implausible ending that it can only harm his credibility. He likes to be the miracle predicting what he will do. worker, so takes pains to knock down stories In December he complained that the Washington Evening Star reported falsely that he would propose a 3-percent pay raise for Federal workers. The Star dutifully reported the Presidential complaint. Then the President proposed a 3-percent pay raise for Federal workers.

At about the same time, the President complained that the Washington Post falsely reported that he planned to ask for a $4 billion cut in excise taxes. "The President is described as feeling that the $4 billion figure couldn't be further wrong," the news story said. The then press secretary, George Reedy, said, "That figure bears no relationship to any decision that has been made." The President proposed an excise tax cut of $3,964 million which bears a relationship to $4 billion as 99.1 to 100.

Nor is it unknown that a responsible White House aid will confirm a reporter's story before it is printed, and after the published story causes unexpected embarrassment another equally responsible White House aid will tell reporters that the story is wrong and was never checked with the White House.

While doing this, the President maintains sympathetic relations with editors and publishers beyond anything known before. Lyndon Johnson is the only Democratic President in this century who seems to be on better terms with newspaper publishers than with the working press. This isn't bad; it is merely astonishing. I. F. Stone, an incorrigible heretic in a town with increasing pressures for journalistic orthodoxy, has written, "Johnson sometimes seems to think the Constitution made him not only commander-in-chief of the Nation's Armed Forces but editor-in-chief of its newspapers."

Among the institutional casualties of this crushing program of public relations are the press briefings by the press secretary, which have decreasing content, and the Presidential press conference, which becomes increasingly rhetorical. Even the semi-confidential backgrounder has often been reduced to an absurdity. On April 7, for example, such a session was held to give prior interpretation of the President's Johns Hopkins University speech offering unconditional discussions on Vietnam. The briefing was given in the White House by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, then Acting Secretary of State George Ball, and Special Assistant McGeorge Bundy. Ordinarily it is not cricket to print names of briefing officers but in this case the White House disclosed them by staging a make-believe start of the briefing for television and radio for the 6 p.m. newscasts to help build public interest in the speech.

When it came to the nonattributable question and answer, the cameras were shut off but the same spirit of charade continued to pervade the session. Max Frankel, of the New York Times, asked why the Government had waited so long to make public its aims and its basis for settlement in Vietnam. Secretary Ball said that there was no delay, that the Government had always had the position presented in the President's speech.

"Are you saying," Frankel asked, "that this speech is not news, that we should treat it as old stuff?" Ball replied that the Government had always held the same position, though the "formulations" might be new and, he added as a parting shot, "it may be a little clearer to you." To which John Scali, ABC diplomatic correspondent, rose to say, "Since this has all been said before,

would the Secretary please refresh the reporters' memories on the last time anyone in the Government offered unconditional discussions on Vietnam?" There was general laughter and no answer.

The White House seems so obsessed with keeping the news record favorable that it is defensive about first-hand journalism that it could find useful. The press helped dispel some of the wild confusion within government on the Dominican coup d'etat with reporting from the scene that was better than official diplomatic and military reporting.

The same was true in Vietnam. John Mecklin, chief information officer in Saigon during the time when David Halberstram of the Times and Malcolm Browne of the AP were official dirty words, writes in his book, "Mission in Torment," that Halberstram and Browne were essentially correct in their reporting and the Government essentially wrong.

The White House obsession with PR would be easier to handle if it came from another source. Most correspondents learned to cope with flackdom a long time ago: they react when special pleaders originate news; they recognize the implausibly rosy release; they instinctively check with the opposition; they treat with contempt a man who deliberately flim-flams them.

What is special here is Kraft's observation: most reporters have trouble looking at the President as just another flack. He is not just another flack. He is a PR man in his obsession with image, his unrestrained attempts to create illusion for tactical reasons, and his concern with appearances no matter how implausible. But he is also President of the United States, carrying the burdens of his office seriously.

The problem is that Lyndon Johnson appeals to reporters with all the dignity and power of his position as President and when this does not produce the results he wants, begins manipulating them and the news in ways that are not highly regarded even at the Press Club bar. He is trying to have it both ways. The weakness of many correspondents is that the President is too valuable a source in the competition for news to be ignored as a lesser PR man would be. deeper than that is the conflict the President creates in many serious correspondents who respect the Office of President and the man in it, but whose professional standards tell them that what is going on is common, ordinary press agentry.

But

The President and his aids often seem to ignore the demands of professionalism upon correspondents, which require exercise of independent judgment based not on personality or pressure but on honest discrimination. Too often correspondents are asked to choose between disrespect for the reader and disrespect for the President.

One simple answer may be to report the unabashed intervention of the White House into the news process. The dialog in UPI reporter was seen widely in the trade, but it was not on the UPI wire. Ordinarily this would be healthy avoidance of narcissism. But perhaps the time has come to report the President not only as originator of news but also as editor of it.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 7, 1965] INSIDE REPORT: THE PLANNED PRESS CONFERENCE

(By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak) If President Johnson's last nationally televised press conference from Washington on August 25 seemed a trifle bland and just a little staged, this was no accident.

The art of planting questions calculated so that the President could make a particular point hit a new high in that news conference. Far from being the spontaneous

CXI-1451

free-for-all the general public supposed it to be, the August 25 session was very nearly as carefully staged as a Broadway play.

This completes the transmogrification of the Presidential news conference, which began as an informal cluster of reporters crowding around the President's desk in search of answers to questions. As the news conference moved to ever larger auditoriums and television-radio coverage was permitted, it became less of a newsgathering device and more of a showcase for Presidents.

Consequently, President Johnson cannot be blamed for pushing along the next logical step in this development, taking the risk out of press conferences by planning them in advance. That's what happened on August 25. Although aids of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy frequently tried to plant a question or two before a news conference, old timers in the White House press room can't remember anything like the activity immediately preceding the August 25 conference. Bill Moyers, the President's highly competent new press secretary, and Joseph

Laitin, Moyers' assistant, were scurrying

about among correspondents openly planting questions-obviously acting under the President's own orders.

For instance, the House Republican "white paper" attacking Mr. Johnson's position on Vietnam had come out a day earlier. Some question about it was bound to be asked.

But the presidential aids planted a question that put the Republicans in the worst light-a soft pitch that the President could, and did, knock out of the park.

The question planters did run into some resistance. Laitin requested the correspondent for one large eastern paper to ask a question that would enable the President to expound on the necessity for a settlement in the steel contract talks. The correspondent flatly refused on general principles.

The White House aids then went to another correspondent, who also balked at this request. After much cajoling and convincing, however, he finally agreed to play the game and ask the question.

Furthermore, the Moyers-Laitin team engaged in the opposite version of the question-planting technique. They tried to pump habitual question askers to find out what they had in mind so that the President could be alerted.

One veteran correspondent known for tough, aggressive questioning was approached. He politely declined to reveal his question for the day. Because this correspondent represents a wire service and unwritten custom dictates that wire service reporters be recognized at each press conference, he was called upon to ask his question anyway.

However, the President has no obligation to call upon nonwire service correspondents. For example, one correspondent for a major midwestern paper who doesn't play ball with the White House and has a reputation for searching questioning was not recognized August 25. Nor has he been at any of the last few press conferences.

It should be pointed out here that since Moyers took over as press secretary July 8, Mr. Johnson's press relations have turned from black to rosy.

Because Moyers actually is one of the President's closest advisers, the White House press corps is filled in on top level developments as never before. On top of the White House staff hierarchy, Moyers on one casion countermanded an order to dump correspondents from a Presidential helicopter and replace them with Secret Service agents. Such treatment is something new for the White House press.

Consequently, it's understandable that many reporters would want to help Moyers by asking a question that won't hurt anybody. But they do it at the risk of destroy

ing the press conference as the only way of subjecting the President to tough, unrehearsed examination.

ALEXANDER K. CHRISTIE Mr. KING of Utah. 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 from Utah?

There was no objection.

when an important piece of legislation Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Speaker, passes the House, only a few of the many responsible persons receive the credit. Without detracting from the great accomplishment of the Members of Congress, their staffs, and the staffs of the single out at least one person from outcommittees involved, I should like to side the official legislative family for his devoted work in behalf of H.R. 8989, the Federal Metallic and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act which was passed by the House on September 2. I am thinking of Mr. Alexander K. Christie, a legislative representative of the United Steelworkers of America. Alex helped to draft the ancestor of our present bill for the late Senator James E. Murray, of Montana, way back in the 82d Congress. He has worked longer and probably harder than any other man to bring this important legislation to a point of success. Patiently, but ceaselessly, he has spread the gospel of mine safety, of higher standards to protect the lives of the fearless men who mine the ores and minerals that, in large measure, feed our industrial might and our vast prosperity. His tireless efforts have served the national interest. I commend him for his devotion to a noble cause.

WASHINGTON SMEAR

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include certain extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the Reader's Digest for September 1965, published an article which ought to be read by every citizen of this country.

It is an article based upon the scandalous manipulations of Bobby Baker, protege of Lyndon B. Johnson and confidant to other Members of the U.S. Senate as well as Johnson. But it also deals with a little publicized facet of the sordid Baker scandals-the outrageous attempts to harass and vilify personally one of the most courageous Members the U.S. Senate has ever known-Senator JOHN J. WILLIAMS, of Delaware.

No man has contributed more in time, energy, and courage to digging out the unsavory facts in the Bobby Baker case as well as corruption in other areas

of Government. For this, President Johnson personally invaded Delaware in the fall of 1964 in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat WILLIAMS for reelection, and the Internal Revenue Service has gone over his tax returns with a fine tooth comb. The result: a bill for income taxes owed of $30.16, plus $1.74 interest. After this tedious and timeconsuming audit of all his books and checks, WILLIAMS received a refund check, without apology, from the Internal

Revenue Service.

But Senator WILLIAMS is not the only Member of Congress, who has had more than a passing interest in the Bobby Baker scandals, to have had his tax return investigated. Yet there is no evidence that the Internal Revenue Service has had more than a passing interest in the tax returns of Baker and others associated with him as he rocketed from virtual rags to riches in a few short years. In addition to the auditing of his tax returns, and the interception of his mail, a vicious, cowardly effort was made to "expose Senator WILLIAMS' sex life." This by Carole Tyler, one of Baker's socalled confidential secretaries, who said she saw WILLIAMS eating breakfast with a woman, not his wife, at a restaurant at 6 o'clock in the morning.

The young woman was Senator WILLIAMS' granddaughter.

Carole Tyler as well as Bobby Baker repeatedly resorted to the fifth amendment and thus declined to answer questions when they were summoned before the Senate Rules Committee. While they were thus protected, the man who was honestly and courageously attempting to ferret out corruption was the object of harassment and cowardly vilification.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for printing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Reader's Digest article written by a noted newsman, Mr. John Barron: THE CASE OF BOBBY BAKER AND THE COURAGEOUS SENATOR

(By John Barron)

Skeletons of the Bobby Baker case have at last been locked away in Washington's darkest closets. The carefully manipulated Senate "investigation" of the man who long was Lyndon Johnson's protege has ended in a rain of whitewash. The squalid stories of payoffs, kickbacks, party girls, and influencepeddling on Capitol Hill have all been officially forgotten.

One man, though, cannot forget-Senator JOHN J. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Nearly 2 years after he unearthed the scandals, WILLIAMS continues his lonely search for the truth. But for exposing Baker in the first place, and for daring to persist in probing for facts, he has paid and is paying a fearful price.

At one time or another, patrons of Baker have schemed to silence WILLIAMS' sources, to deceive him with false leads, to smear his The character, even involve his family. harassment got so ugly a few months ago that Senator FRANK LAUSCHE, a Democrat, openly accused fellow Senators of trying to make Senator WILLIAMS "the culprit" while letting the true culprit go free.

It was an accurate summation. The strategy employed by WILLIAMS' opponents throughout has been to save Bobby Baker and his pals by destroying the accusers. And WILLIAMS was the chief accuser. If he could be discredited, so could his revelations.

EARLY WARNING

the strange inquisitors had interrogated them about drainage ditches. Then he realized what it was all about. He had cosponsored a legislative amendment providing Federal payments to help drain low-lying Delaware farms. Government-subsidized ditches had to be dug through farmland he owned so that the surrounding area could be served, and he was entitled to collect several thousand dollars for this. In fact, though, he had personally paid the whole bill for the work done on his land.

WILLIAMS knew that, if he had not been able to prove he had paid, he would soon be publicly accused of profiting from his own legislation. It was an old Washington trick, letting the scandal prober know that the heat can also be applied to him. But WILLIAMS did not worry, at first, and for good reason.

FURTIVE MEETING

A soft-spoken farmer and chickenfeed dealer, WILLIAMS, when he first went to Washington as a Senator, seemed hopelessly out of place in the worldly atmosphere. Detractors privately ridiculed him as a "pious hick." Top officials laughed when, working without investigators, funds or power of subpena, he started rounding up records and asking simple questions about how they were running Government business. Some of them had to stop laughing when they found themselves on the way to the penitentiary.

Because of such activity, WILLIAMS came to be called "the conscience of the Senate." Again and again, enemies had tried to compromise him, but none had succeeded. promise him, but none had succeeded. So, in the fall of 1963, when he began digging into the affairs of Bobby Baker, he was confident and unafraid.

Then, early one evening in February 1964, WILLIAMS was summoned to a furtive meeting with a Johnson administration official, a man who had fought him politically. "I couldn't risk going to your office," the man began, "but I can't stomach what they're doing to you. Senator, your mail is being intercepted. Every letter you write to any Federal official asking about the Baker case is immediately routed to a special handler. He sends the Senate Rules Committee copies of any information sent to you. Sometimes he even checks with the committee before deciding whether your inquiry is to be answered at all. You'd better be careful about what you put in writing."

"The Senate should be totally outraged," cried the Washington Evening Star in a lead editorial after WILLIAMS confirmed that his mail was indeed being watched. "Obviously someone high in the executive branch issued the instructions for this monitoring. Nothing of the sort, as far as anyone knows, has ever been done before. Who issued the order?"

needed to defend his tax statement line by line. Dutifully he drove back to Delaware to submit to interrogation by an IRS agent. As the tedious audit wore on, he produced check after check to prove that he had honestly and correctly paid his taxes. But in vain. The agent insisted that he owed

$30.16 more, plus $1.74 interest.

"That's wrong, Senator," said an angry accountant whom WILLIAMS had asked to help him. "I wouldn't pay a cent more."

"No, it's worth $30 just to get it over with," the Senator said, wearily writing out a check.

A few days later, he was dumfounded to receive an elaborate 9-page rigmarole of computations from IRS indicating that the Government owed him $30.16. Enclosed, without apology, was a refund check.

WILLIAMS never could be sure of the reason for this preposterous exercise. He realized, though, that had any flaw in his tax return

been detected it would have been most useful to Baker's friends.

SMEAR BY ASSOCIATION

Next tactic of Baker's cronies was to destroy a key witness whom WILLIAMS had persuaded to talk. The marked man was Don B. Reynolds, an insurance broker who had been active among Washington's wheeler-dealers. Long an intimate member of the Bobby Baker crowd, he admitted that he was "no angel." And when he finally began to talk about his cronies, he startled the Nation.

In sworn testimony before the Senate Rules Committee, he said he had made huge payoffs to Baker. He told how, in obedience to Baker's orders, he had given Lyndon Johnson an expensive stereo set. He testified that, after selling insurance on Johnson's life, he

had been pressured by Walter Jenkins, then

Johnson's administrative assistant, into pur

chasing unneeded advertising time from a Johnson television station. And he spoke of the use of bribery and prostitutes to influence various Government officials.

Whether or not all that Reynolds said was true probably never will be determined. But he produced checks and invoices to prove that he had paid Baker, given Johnson the stereo, and bought the useless advertising time. Because some of his testimony was documented, there was only one way to neutralize it: his character would have to be so totally demolished that no one would believe anything he said. And if he could be depicted as a puppet of WILLIAMS, the muck smeared on him would rub off on the Senator.

Shortly before release of Reynolds' first testimony, several administration officials began trying to peddle to newsmen a purported confidential Government personnel report listing Reynolds' alleged misdeeds as a onetime Air Force and Foreign Service officer. He was portrayed as a pathological liar, black marketeer, and adulterer.

Then the Rules Committee itself joined in by leaking to newsmen reports of its own, denouncing Reynolds, the witness who had talked, more harshly than Baker, the subject of investigation. They stigmatized Reynolds as a "character assassin," "paranoid personality" and "an irresponsible witness." The committee insinuated that Senator WILLIAMS was in some way linked with Reynolds.

PRIORITY TARGET

Fearful of what the power of Government might do to them, many persons who had volunteered information in the Baker case

TAX AUDIT

The ensuing step in the Senator's harassment came from the Internal Revenue Service. IRS ordered WILLIAMS to produce all records he had used to prepare a return submitted 2 years before.

NOW WILLIAMS had to put aside the Baker case and dredge up the mass of old data

nessman who earlier had promised evidence said, when WILLIAMS called him, "I don't know what you're talking about, Senator, I never talked to you before in my life. I'm sorry, but I'm sure you understand."

When administration forces tried to bury the investigation in the summer of 1964 and WILLIAMS came up with new evidence, alarmed Democrats developed a plan. They

would suspend the investigation until after the approaching elections and get rid of WILLIAMS at the polls in November.

Of all the Republican members of Congress, WILLIAMS became the priority target. Administration speakers paraded into Delaware to belittle him as a hopelessly outmoded crank. On the Saturday before the election, President Johnson himself suddenly decided to appear. Reporters accompanying him were astounded that he would choose to spend the last vital day of the campaign in a State with only three electoral votes.

But there he stood in Dover, a town of only 7,000 inhabitants, appealing for WILLIAMS' defeat. "Give me men I can work with," he said.

WILLIAMS was sure of defeat. On election day, however, when Johnson carried Delaware by a landslide, enough Democrats split

the ticket to send WILLIAMS back to the Senate with a 6,932-vote victory.

STORY OF THE YEAR

After the Johnson inaugural ceremonies, WILLIAMS walked across Capitol Hill to his office. "What is going to happen to the Baker case now?" a newsman with him asked.

"Well, whitewash put on over dirt will not stick. We country boys know that," WILLIAMS said. Then he motioned the reporter into his study, where he pushed four typewritten pages across his desk. The document made it appear that three prominent Government officials had made millions through a corrupt deal.

"It will be the story of the year," the reporter said. "When are you going to break it?"

"I'm not going to," WILLIAMS replied. "The whole thing's a plant. I've checked it, and it's the darnedest cock-and-bull story you ever heard. They hoped I'd go to the floor with it. Then nobody would ever again

believe what I said."

SEX LIFE

The next snare that was set for the Senator was immeasurably more vicious. Carole Tyler, who had been Baker's confidential secretary, flew to Nashville to address the Tennessee Press Association. At Rules Committee hearings she had repeatedly ducked behind the fifth amendment to avoid saying anything. But now, rumors said, she was going to "expose Senator WILLIAMS' sex life."

In a hotel ballroom crowded with expectant reporters, Miss Tyler began reading a typewritten speech. After some banalities, she paused and with an arch smile said:

"I wonder what you would think if you knew that the principal instigator of the Senate investigation was seen by me on July 6 at 6:30 a.m. with a lady-not his wife-just after they finished breakfast? And just think, this is the gentleman who has been criticizing the Senate Rules Committee for not going into the so-called sex angle of the Baker case. I leave it to his conscience, if any, as to why he was with this lady-not his wife at such a time near a summer resort."

WILLIAMS and his wife alone in their apartment. "JOHN, it's all over town that Carole Tyler says you're involved with some woman and that you won't deny it," the friend said. "Why don't you denounce this for what it is character assassination?"

"I can't," WILLIAMS said. "On the morning of July 6 I was in a roadside diner with a girl, and I don't doubt that I was looking at her with loving eyes. She was my granddaughter. I was taking her back home after the Fourth of July weekend at the beach. But, my Lord, man, I'm certainly not going to drag my own grandchild into this."

This draft was set in type at the Government Printing Office. But if the committee released it, the sponsoring Senators would have to back up what they said, and WILLIAMS would have a chance to defend himself. Therefore, in a careful maneuver, the committee leaked copies of the report to newsmen.

WILLIAMS Stormed into the Senate and de

manded a showdown with the majority members of the committee. "Retract the charges or else repeat them in my presence," he demanded. Only Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, of Rhode Island, had the courage to say that he had no charges to make. None of the others took up WILLIAMS' challenge.

When the committee officially released its final report, all of the attacks on WILLIAMS were deleted. Nevertheless, the committee had succeeded in spreading defamatory comment about him while evading responsibility

asked.

"I think you know who I mean," she replied.

Back in Washington, the first inquiry about the speech stunned WILLIAMS. The first impulse of the 61-year-old Senator, 38 years married to the same wife, was to denounce it on the Senate floor. But he realized that denying the charges would merely give them greater circulation. Finally, he wrote a one-sentence statement: "Any newspaper, any wire service, any network that carries any report questioning my character assumes full responsibility for its truthfulness and had better be prepared to prove it."

Most publications decided to kill the story, but rumor quickly swept it over Washington. That night, a worried friend found

"I have plenty of time," JOHN WILLIAMS warned the Senate in a speech a few weeks ago. "And I am not about to be intimidated. In fact, my curiosity and determination grow as resistance intensifies."

In this sentiment, Senator WILLIAMS, of Delaware, may well be speaking for the Nation.

WASHINGTON'S WONDERBOY

To many, Bobby Baker was the "wonderboy of Washington." He came to the capital from South Carolina at 15 as a Senate page. He grew up with Senators as his tutors, became the protégé of one of the most influential, Lyndon B. Johnson, and was elected secretary of the Democratic majority

in 1955. As general agent of the Senate "Establishment," Baker exchanged confidences with Senators, advised how the leadership wished them to vote, performed personal services such as arranging loans and useful introductions, as well as picking up and parceling out "campaign contributions." By 1962 he could boast, "On any given issue, I have at least 10 Senators in the palm of my hand."

Baker's troubles began when he was sued by a Washington businessman who alleged that he had paid Baker fees totaling $5,600 to maintain a vending-machine contract at a defense plant, then suffered cancellation of the contract because of Baker's "interference." Wondering what was behind the al

legation, Senator JOHN J. WILLIAMS quietly began asking questions. He soon put together the outlines of a fantastic story. leadership some of what he had learned and WILLIAMS secretly told the Democratic suggested that Baker be offered an opportunity to explain privately before he was publicly accused. Minutes before the scheduled confrontation, Baker resigned rather than face WILLIAMS.

The Senate Rules Committee then began an investigation based almost entirely on evidence provided by WILLIAMS. Subsequent Rules Committee reports sketched highlights of Baker's financial dealings: That on a top salary of $19,600 he had amassed, at 34, a fortune which he claimed was worth $2,100,000. That a formed lobbyist had sold him for $4,600 stock worth $31,000. That, with others, he had started a vendingmachine company which won lucrative concessions from contractors dependent upon the Government. That he had obtained a Government loan for a luxurious oceanside motel he was building in Maryland by falsely representing its assets. That, 2 days after a bill beneficial to a trade association had been signed, a representative of the association paid him $5,000.

As the resultant scandals threatened to reach higher and higher into Government, resistible. The Senate ended the probe in pressures to halt the investigation became ir

July 1964, declaring that any further evidence would be "repetitious and cumulative." Whereupon WILLIAMS came up with new evidence which compelled the Senate to reopen the investigation in the fall of 1964. But the committee still considered many areas of inquiry taboo, and the investigation again stumbled to an innocuous end last June.

Baker repeatedly took the fifth amendment to avoid telling anything to Senators who once told him everything. To this day he remains silent.

PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN FOREIGN

AID

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, we are all proud of our great American heritage and the dauntless spirit of independence which made our country what it is today. We have all read of the roles played by our ancestors who had the courage, strength, and initiative to strike out for themselves and to carve our tremendous country out of what was an uncharted wilderness.

We believe, because we have seen it work and we know the effect and the effectiveness of the course of action, that