it takes great individual effort to provide the backbone and sinew of the growth and development of a country.

It is this very course of independent action which we are striving for in our foreign aid program today. The developing countries themselves have become more aware that the maximum progress toward active and self-sustaining economies comes through major reliance on the private sector.

There is an increased willingness to support private enterprise when it can do the job and where its performance is effective. Our own experience is proof of this fact and our experience in our program of foreign aid tends to bear this out, for the developing countries which have made the greatest advances are those which encouraged the growth of private enterprise as for example: Nationalist China, the Philippines, Malaya, Pakistan, and India.

As a matter of fact, the governmentto-government aid which has been given has provided the foundations for a greater participation by private enterprise. Roads, powerplants, fertilizer factories, dams and the like have all been tremendously important to the growth of a country but even more important they have been a major factor in the development of private enterprise which is helping recipient countries to stand on their own feet.

One of the most important factors in this development of private enterprise, of course, is proper financing and AID has taken action in this crucial area. Many of the developing countries lack effective capital markets, they are simply not organized to provide capital for local entrepreneurs who wish to expand or to go into business. AID has provided both technical assistance and seed capital to establish development banks

to fill this need.

Thirty-six AID-assisted industrial development banks in 30 countries have made 2,400 subloans for private industrial ventures including the expansion of existing enterprise as well as the ini

tiation of new ventures.

AID-assisted agricultural credit banks in 10 countries-nine of them in Latin American—have made more than 40,000

subloans for farm improvements.

Savings and loan associations organized with U.S. assistance and almost nonexistent in Latin America a few years ago, have accumulated local deposits of $75 million for investment in housing

and other ventures.

AID commodity loans have become an increasingly important factor in the growth of private enterprise in countries such as India, Pakistan, Chile, and Brazil. They are made available to countries with sound development programs and they make it possible for private enterprise to import a wide variety of American goods and equipment needed to maintain or expand existing plants, repair or increase the supply of farm equipment and the like. In India alone, for example, $220 million— about 80 percent of $275 million in commodity loans made during 1964 went directly to finance American ex

ports badly needed by India's private enterprise sector.

Another one of the most effective methods that has yet been utilized by AID in our foreign aid program is the organization of cooperatives. They are an invaluable means of mobilizing individual initiative and capital and act in such a way as to rapidly speed the desuch a way as to rapidly speed the development of progress.

We are all familiar with the concept and the working of the cooperative idea. and the working of the cooperative idea. The very name itself suggests a common goal and an amalgamation of talent, ideas, wealth, initiative, and enterprise to accomplish something which will be of benefit to many.

As the many are benefited, so is the immediate area and in turn the economy immediate area and in turn the economy of the country and the entire goal of our foreign aid program.

One of the best illustrations of what cooperatives can do occurred in the Ecuador town of Santo Domingo de los Colorados, a town of 10,000 about 75 miles from the capital city of Quito. A miles from the capital city of Quito. A brisk banama industry had brought some money to Santo Domingo, but very little change. The townspeople did want more electricity but there seemed little hope of getting it. Token service for electric light bulbs was provided by municipal generators that were out of repair and often out of commission. No one was inclined to fix them since 40 percent of the electric bills electric bills were uncent of the collected.

An

Under an AID contract, John Taylor of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association organized an electric cooperative in Santo Domingo. initial local subscription of $60,000 for stock in the cooperative and an AID "seed" loan provided the capital to buy out the existing service, overhaul the generators, modernize and enlarge the generators, modernize and enlarge the distribution service in the town. From their own warehouses, the 24 rural

electric cooperatives in Kentucky colelectric cooperatives in Kentucky collected more than $18,000 in surplus lected more than $18,000 in surplus transformers, meters, conductors, and the like as a contribution to the project and an American steamship company shipped them to Ecuador without charge. technicians for the Santo Domingo coNRECA experts trained managers and operative, showed them how to maintain equipment, set up books, handle billings.

The cooperative system is now supplying 63,000 kilowatt-hours a month against 25,000 before it was organized, and has doubled the number of customers. The percentage of bills paid has tomers. The percentage of bills paid has jumped from 60 percent before the cooperative to 97 percent, and monthly operative to 97 percent, and monthly revenues have increased from $955 to $2,000-the cooperative's financial growth is running consistently 20 percent ahead of what the NRCA experts cent ahead of what the NRCA experts had anticipated.

You can see the change in Santo Domingo. Electricity now powers water Electricity now powers water pumps at a banana processing plant, a meat storage plant, a 30-room hotel and meat storage plant, a 30-room hotel and a new radio station. Lines have gone into a 50-home housing cooperative. into a 50-home housing cooperative. Women are buying radios, electric stoves, Women are buying radios, electric stoves, and refrigerators. Around the town, Around the town, well lit playgrounds, community meeting rooms and recreational centers are

new gathering places, particularly for the town's young people.

From the viewpoint of development, this is an extraordinary effective and rapid change of exactly the kind we must bring about in countries like Ecuador if they are to solve their own problems.

Santo Domingo, of course, is just one town, and the less developed world of Asia, Africa, and Latin America is a very large place which will not be transformed overnight. But I have no question that we are on the right path, and that in enlarging the role of cooperatives in the foreign aid problem, we have taken a significant step forward in our historic effort to help others help themselves to a better life, and achieve a more hopeful, secure future for all of us in the free world.

This encouragement of private enterprise in the less developed countries is not without problems-several of them I have already mentioned. One of the more important problems is the shortage of experienced managerial help people skilled in management, marketing, and production control.

This shortage is being met. With strong encouragement from AID, the International Executive Service Corps was established under private auspices during 1964 to provide the help of experienced American businessmen to entrepreneurs in the less developed countries. Private business firms in more than 30 countries have expressed interest in assistance from the Corps.

The AID program already includes substantial participation by American private business, institutions, and groups. About one-fourth of AID's technical assistance is provided by American unisociations on contract and this role is versities, business firms, and private asbeing enlarged further.

American engineering and construction firms overseas are supervising the

design and construction of some $4 billion in capital projects AID is helping to finance in the developing countries. Under the partners of the Alliance program launched in the spring of 1964, 25 American States and communities are consulting with Latin American nations and communities and arranging to provide scholarships, technical assistance, investments in joint ventures, and other kinds of assistance; 8 more partnerships

will soon be underway.

Private firms, labor unions, and local governments as well as universities provide training for some 6,000 participants a year; the value of training services donated for these programs has been estimated at more than $10 million.

AID is doing much to provide greater incentive for the encouragement of greater American private investment in the less developed countries and to increase the flow of development assistance from private American relief agencies, nonprofit associations, labor unions, civic groups, and business organizations.

There is a continued sharp increase in the use of AID investment guarantees by American investors. In fiscal year 1964, AID wrote three times as many guarantee contracts and issued twice as much coverage as in any preceding year.

Increased use is being made of the AID investment survey program which is helping to generate new private American investment in less developed countries.

Placement of volunteers overseas is being made by the new International Executive Service Corps, operated and supported by American business and assisted by AID.

We are witnessing an expansion of the role of American voluntary agencies in promoting self-help and development work in addition to straight relief work in the underdeveloped countries.

There is increased State and local participation in AID's partners in the Alliance program through which Americans at the State and local community leadership level work directly with their counterparts in Latin American countries on specific development problems.

So the stage is set. Private enterprise both here and in the recipient countries has become an essential ingredient in our foreign-aid program.

The same spirit that went into the building of our own country has gone and will go into the strengthening and the building of the underdeveloped

countries which we are assisting.

The foreign-aid program deserves and commands our support. Through it and because of it there is hope for a better life for all people, a life which will insure each one of them an important role in carving out the future for their own

country.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Speaker, I am informed that tomorrow in the other body the Agricultural Act of 1965 will be on the floor of the Senate for consideration. On last Thursday the Committee on Agriculture of the other body reported a cotton title in that legislation which was very disappointing to me and to many other Americans.

We in North Carolina are very proud of our great textile industry. Our State has approximately 230,000 people employed directly in the textile industry. When you realize that in the Nation there are only approximately 1 million persons so employed, you can appreciate that State has a bonafide interest in cotton legislation.

The State of North Carolina and the neighboring State of South Carolina are also cotton-producing States. So we have a great interest in the health of our agricultural cotton economy.

For this reason, the action of the committee in the other body has caused us to look at it with interest and with a great deal of concern.

A short while ago when we had the agricultural bill before us in the House of Representatives we passed a bill which had in it a provision continuing the oneprice cotton system for a period of 4 years. The bill reported out in the other

body would destroy this very beneficial provision in the House bill.

Since the beginning of my service here I have tried very diligently to point out the seriousness of the two-price cotton system. We felt that we had put it to rest in 1963.

There are many who say there is no bonafide farmer or agricultural interest in the position that we take. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

Back several years ago, as a boy, I was employed in a textile plant which was a pioneer in the development of the use of synthetics on conventional spinning equipment. At that time those of us who were working with this new manmade fiber-rayon, celanese, and blends with some types of natural fibers such as mohair, felt we were fighting a losing battle. It was felt by many leaders in the indusIt was felt by many leaders in the industry that this was just a fool's adventure which would never produce worthwhile results. It was about this time that a native son of my home community was getting an organization known as Burlington Mills off the ground. He was pioneering in the use of synthetics. I can remember hearing many say that Spencer Love was a very foolish man to think he ever could accomplish satisfactory results with the new fibers. neering in many national publications. Then we read of Spencer Love's pioThey said that he was an adventurer in the textile industry who was of questionable soundness in his philosophy. But the textile industry who was of questionyet today, my friends, 45 percent of all yet today, my friends, 45 percent of all the textile products manufactured in America are synthetic or manmade fibers. That is how far we have come within a very, very short time.

is happening all about us. All of us who Let me point out another factor which are interested and knowledgeable at all is happening all about us. All of us who in the textile field know that there is a are interested and knowledgeable at all much greater demand today for manmade fibers than the producers of those fibers are able to meet. Recently in my own congressional district an organization known as Fiber Industries, Inc., was own congressional district an organizaformed by the Celanese Corp. of America and the Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., of Great Britain. They built a rather large plant in my congressional a rather large plant in my congressional district at Shelby, N.C.

A very short time later they went down to the district of my friend, the gentleto the district of my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Asнman from South Carolina [Mr. ASHMORE], and built another large plant to produce manmade fiber. More recently they commenced construction of a new plant near Salisbury, N.C., and even though that plant is still under constructhough that plant is still under construction, just about 10 days ago this company announced that they were doubling the size of the plant before they even completed it.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this only to point out to our friends who have as their primary interest the welfare of the farmer that they should heed warnings of er that they should heed warnings of men like Dr. M. K. Horn, of the Namen like Dr. M. K. Horn, of the National Cotton Council, and others who are telling us that synthetics are about are telling us that synthetics are about to take over the textile trade.

One of the distinguished Members of the other body, who is the architect of the other body, who is the architect of this unfortunate proposal which the Senate Committee on Agriculture report

ed out, was quoted in the press when confronted with his contention about the threat of synthetics as saying, according to the newspaper reporter, "The textile people would not dare do that; they are too patriotic."

I do not know when some will get their head out of the sand. If any believe that the chemists now engaged in the development of new fibers cannot develop fibers which will compete with cotton in every respect, they had better take another look at the situation. Those of us who remember the first rayon shirts and the first rayon dresses that were produced and look at those fabrics today know these fibers are a present and real threat. Those of us who have had an opportunity recently, as the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, my good friend from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY] has had, to personally examine alongside of each other a poplin cloth made of cotton and a piece of poplin cloth made of a blend of cotton and synthetic fibers know that the uninitiated would not be able to differentiate between them.

This onward march in the technological field in textiles is growing, and we must take note of it if we would preserve the American cotton farmers.

I have heard testimony in the Agriculture Committee since I came to this body 10 years ago by many of these so-called experts, who purport to represent our farmers, saying that you could never satisfactorily market sheets and pillow cases made of anything other than cotton. Yet last year in the congressional district of my good friend from South Carolina [Mr. GETTYS], Spring Mills opened a $15 million plant which will be entirely engaged in the manufacture of sheets and pillow cases from synthetic fibers.

So it is time, I believe, for some of us who are interested in both the textile

industry and the cotton agricultural economy, to begin trying to bring some light into this situation.

When the committee of the other body acted a few days ago, one of the men who commented on the action was the president of Springs Mills in South Carolina. He said:

Anything close to the Ellender bill would force our company to move as quickly as possible and as far as we could away from

cotton.

Another distinguished textile man, Mr. Charles Myers, the president of Burlington Industries, commented upon this. Mr. Myers' company, Burlington Industries, while it is one of the great textile companies, is operating only 30 percent of its equipment on cotton. Seventy percent of it is engaged in the production of synthetics. But Mr. Myers said that the failure to continue oneprice cotton "will unquestionably hurt the cotton economy of this country from grower to manufacturer. Mills which have been increasing cotton consumption will be forced to use less cotton, as it must be competitive with other fibers in order to hold its own or to take a larger share of the textile market."

This is the situation with which we are faced. We have heard in the House

and we have read in publications about the great bonanza that the one-price cotton legislation has been to the textile industry. But no one points out that of the 20 leading industries in America, as of the present date, the textile industry has its profit level in the 16th position. They do not mention the fact that other industries during these last few months since the one-price cotton legislation has been in effect have had profits far in excess, on a percentage basis, of those of the textile industry. They do not take into account that the profits of textiles in the past 18 months have just about equaled the percentage of tax relief which was given to the industryand to other industries-under the depreciation writeoff schedules which were established under President Kennedy, and under the tax reduction legislation which we passed here, which applies to all industries alike.

So some of these accusations of profiteering just do find support in fact.

It is easy for some of our friends to be critical. They do not point out that there have been three textile wage increases of 5 percent each since the oneprice cotton program was about to become a reality-one in anticipation of it,

and two after it.

They do not take into account, when they talk about profits, that yarn prices at the spinning mill are lower today than they were when the Agriculture Com

mittee of the House brought out the oneprice cotton bill in April of 1963.

They do not point out that today the finished textile products with the heaviest amounts of cotton in them are

cheaper than they were in April of 1963. The higher cost is found in the finer goods, where the cotton content is content is smaller than in the heavier goods.

This points out that the increased cost is in the wages of those who work with the cotton fabric, and the finer the fabric and the garment the higher the cost.

Some 18 months ago one of my friends in the industry sent some material to me for a suit of clothes. I went to a tailor in Washington and had the suit tailored. Only a few weeks ago the same friend sent another supply of simi

lar material. I returned to the same

tailor. Furnishing my own goods, which of course were not cotton, I found the tailor apologized to me because he had to charge exactly 122 percent more for

tailoring my suit than he charged 18 months previously. He pointed out that

this was because of increased wages of

tailors.

These are factors which affect the industry. I say to you, my friends of the House of Representatives, I hope that the other body, when it considers this legislation, will follow the lead of the

House of Representatives and amend the bill to conform to the House bill. If, for some reason, this act of wisdom is not committed, I hope that when the legislation goes to conference we will find that the conferees on the part of the House will recognize the absolute essentiality of a fair policy by the Government toward the great textile industry, upon which the entire Nation is so dependent.

A sick textile industry will damage not only North Carolina and South Carolina and the so-called textile belt, but it will be of economic injury to the entire Nation.

We know that the textile industry is one of the large customers of many other industries, such as chemicals, rubber, petroleum, and many other essential industries in this country. It is therefore, vitally important to our total economy. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHITENER. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. COOLEY. First, I should like to congratulate and commend my friend for the splendid presentation of the problems facing this industry, which is vital to many parts of this country. I add that under this one-price cotton system the textile industry has modernized its equipment.

The industry has spent over $1 billion in expanding its activities. That means they have bought $1 billion worth of machinery from some of the industrial areas of this country. This machinery has gone into some of the old and dilapidated mills that have been in operation for many, many years. Under the present law the industry has been revitalized and we have increased our consumption of cotton. If we should fail to continue the one-price cotton system, I am quite certain that the industry will be worse off than it was when we started out to

help it in the spring of 1963.

Down in North Carolina, as the gentleman knows, we have the greatest stake in this program, perhaps more than any other State of the Union does, because we have more textile workers there, numbering 240,000, and we have more

textile spindles than they have in any other State in the Union. This means an economic disaster for the whole great State of North Carolina if we should return to the two-price system.

I hear people making regular statements about returning to this two-price system, but we all know that the foreign mills in Osaka, Japan, in Germany, and in Liverpool, England, and those all around the world have a great advantage over our own manufacturers here at home. It was President Kennedy who referred to it as a "unique burden" which can only be lifted by legislation and by such a program as we have in

operation.

North Carolina [Mr. WHITENER] that it I agree with the gentleman from would be very unfortunate if the Senate should try again to bring the two-price system back into operation. I assure you that I will do everything I can possibly to maintain the one-price system

and bring in an equitable bill.

Mr. WHITENER. I thank the gentleman and I would like to ask him if it is not correct that since the one-price cotton system was written into the law, the increased increased consumption of cotton has been approximately 12 million bales been approximately 12 million bales greater than it was in the previous period.

Mr. COOLEY. I am not certain how great it is, but I know it is a substantial

increase. There is some controversy as to what the increase has actually been, but I know that there has been an increase in the consumption of cotton in the American market.

Mr. WHITENER. And the gentleman, as a student of this problem, I am sure must share my apprehension for the cotton farmer unless something is done to keep a further extension of the use of synthetics from developing.

Mr. COOLEY. In that connection, if the gentleman will yield further, I need only point out to the House that we now have in storage 14.2 million bales of American-grown cotton. That burden is hanging on the taxpayers and over the heads of the American cotton producers. Without Government assistance the cotton farmer would be in bankruptcy today. We certainly must have a program or we will all suffer throughout the whole Nation.

Mr. WHITENER. I thank the gentleman. I certainly am delighted that he, as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, has been so diligent in looking after the total cotton economy, that is, the agricultural as well as the processing end. The two are so intertwined that we cannot deal with them as separate units as some of our friends seem to be inclined to want to do.

Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. WHITENER. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. ASHMORE. I want to commend my friend and colleague from the sister State of North Carolina for his fine statement regarding this very, very important question. Of course, it is one of the most essential industries in both of the Carolinas and is also very vital to

a number of other areas of our country. I was amazed when I read the article of recent date, in the past few days, as to what the other body had done with reference to the two-price cotton system.

I thought, as my friend has stated, that

The

this problem had been taken care of in legislation some 2 years ago. success of that legislation should be sufficient proof, it seems to me, to the other body and certainly to a large majority of the Members on this side of the Capitol because it has shown a remarkable improvement in the textile industry throughout this land. It has pointed up the fact that the only way to help the

people who work in the plants as well as tries to work hand in hand. the cotton grower is for these two indus

In my opinion it is impossible for the

cotton producer in this country to be successful unless the textile manufacturer uses that cotton. America is the greatest market for the cotton that is

produced and grown in the United States. I believe I heard the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture state during the debate in the House on the Omnibus Agriculture bill that the United States used last year approximately 9 million bales of cotton; is that right?

Mr. COOLEY. That is right. Mr. ASHMORE. I thought my memory was correct. There is no other country in the world that uses that much

cotton grown in America. If the textile manufacturer in the United States has to pay 6 cents or 8 cents-it had gotten up to the 8-cent figure, I believe, when this one-price cotton bill was passed-if our manufacturer has to pay 8 cents a pound more for cotton than does Japan or India or Italy or Hong Kong, or any other textile manufacturing country you may refer to

Mr. WHITENER. If the gentleman will pardon me, he is talking about American cotton now?

Mr. ASHMORE. That is right, American cotton. That is what has been true in these past years before the one-price cotton system was put in. The American manufacturer had to pay 8 cents a pound more for American cotton, for every pound of cotton than a foreign manufacturer had to pay for identically

the same cotton.

That is not only unfair; it is unjust, it is inequitable. It makes it impossible for the American textile manufacturer to compete with foreign textile manufacturers, when they start off with that advantage, and particularly when you take into account the wage differential between this country and other countries, whose wages are far below the American standards.

Without the one-price cotton system the American textile manufacturer is forced, from the economic standpoint, to convert to manmade fibers-rayon, nylon, dacron, whatever it may be, because he can buy some of these manmade fibers at substantially lesser prices compared with American-grown cotton. There is less waste in the man-made fiber than there is in natural cotton, which adds to the cost of the American textile manufacturer.

Some of the people said during the

the debate in the House on the one-price cotton bill, that it is not fair to pay this subsidy to the textile manufacturer in the United States. I want it made ab

solutely certain that not one single textile manufacturer in this country has asked for a subsidy. He does not want a subsidy. All the textile manufacturer in this country wants is a fair shake, an even break with his competitor in foreign countries, and that means to sell him, our manufacturers of textile products in this country, the raw cotton

at the same price at which it is sold to foreign manufacturers. That is all he

wants.

I trust and hope that the Members of the other body will change this committee report and put back into the bill the one-price cotton system so that all of our textile people will be treated justly and fairly and equitably, as they should. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would point out that after we passed the agriculture bill in 1963 many of us here in the Congress joined with many members of the textile industry in urging that this payment of the differential not be made to the textile industry, but be paid to the first handler or the last handler, before it got into the hands of the processor. This was not done. If it is a subsidy, it is a subsidy to the producer and not to the processor.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ASHMORE] has mentioned wages abroad. I know that the gentleman and I have oftentimes discussed our concern about the fact that compared to other industries in America our textile indusindustries in America our textile industry is a low-wage industry. This is not because the industry wants it to be that way. I believe it is a compliment to our industry people that they have raised wages as fast as they could when they had a fair break on the price of the raw materials. I believe they want to raise wages more. wages more. I believe it is going to be essential to raise wages more, because we have witnessed just in the past few hours a wage increase which is represented to be anywhere from 46 to 50 cents an hour for steelworkers. Our people working in the textile industry are going to have to have an adequate wage increase if they are to buy these products manufactured in other indus

tries.

They cannot obtain that wage increase from a sick industry. It must be from a vital, vibrant, growing industry such as we have had as a result of the Cooley bill during the past 18 months.

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

Mr. WHITENER. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina.

cotton merchant, to the cotton manufacturer, and all who participate in it.

Mr. Speaker, we in America must have a healthy textile industry if we are to enjoy in peacetime the wonderful standard of living that we have always enjoyed in this country.

We certainly must have a continuing and growing textile industry if we are to have security in time of international conflict. There is no more vital segment of a nation's economy in time of crisis than its ability to properly clothe its military personnel as well as its civilians.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the other body will look at this monstrosity which is called the cotton section of the agricultural bill over there and correct the wrong that has been done. I urge that they bring out legislation such as we in this body have already acted upon. Our bill is fair to all segments of the cotton economy. It is conducive, in my judgment, to a sound cotton economy from an agriculture as well as a business standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, as I conclude these extemporaneous remarks may I express my thanks to those who have joined me in giving voice to our mutual hope for a fair cotton bill. cotton bill. To those who have so patiently heard these off-the-cuff statements I also express my sentiments of appreciation.

the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WHITENER], for the very profound and thought-provoking statement which he

has made in support of one-price cotton.

As the gentleman knows, I come from

a district which is primarily agricultural. We do have some textile industry in my district. However, I hasten to join the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ASHMORE] and my colleague [Mr. WHITENER] in concurring in the fact that the cotton farmer and the cotton manufacturer have problems which are mutual and they must work hand in hand.

Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable to me that we can expect an industry as important as the textile industry, not only to one section of the country but to America generally, to return to paying a substantially higher price for cotton produced in this country than is paid by duced in this country than is paid by their foreign competitors.

Mr. Speaker, it simply is not right. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Speaker, may Mr. Speaker, may I express to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. FOUNTAIN], and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY], as well as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ASHMORE] my appreciation for their participation in this discussion and say that my position, and I am sure it is their position, that we must have a sound cotton economy in America. When we say that we must have a sound cotton economy, we are referring to the cottongrowers, to the

TERTAINMENT SHOULD HAVE A
VOICE IN DETERMINING THE BEST
SITE FOR THE JOHN F. KENNEDY
CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING
ARTS

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WIDNALL] may extend his 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 New Hampshire?

There was no objection.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, the controversy over the site for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is still with us, as it has been since 1958, when the Mall location originally proposed by its sponsors for the National Cultural Center was preempted for an airplane museum. The Center project was moved into Potomac parklands along the river to an assigned site which has been the subject of heated discussion ever since. The issue became active again in August when the American Institute of Architects, the prevailing professional organization in its field, issued this statement calling for reconsideration of the site:

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INTITUTE OF

ARCHITECTS ON THE LOCATION OF THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

The American Institute of Architects has received information that serious consideration is being given to the possibility of re

locating the John F. Kennedy Center for the plan suggests possible sites which were not Performing Arts. The Pennsylvania Avenue available when the project was first conceived.

While the institute recognizes that plans for the Center are already well advanced, it questions whether the present location is adequate to receive properly a building of the size and importance of the contemplated Center, and it believes that another location might provide a more appropriate site for this great memorial to the late President Kennedy.

The institute therefore strongly urges that studies be made by the architect of the Centhe National Capital Planning Commission to investigate the possibility of placing the Center on the proposed national square or in some other location where it might better serve its purpose as a memorial to John F. Kennedy and as a center for the performing arts, and where this important building might make a greater contribution to the life and appearance of the city of Washing

ton.

The architects' statement won the editorial support of the Washington Post, which has consistently opposed the riverside site as being difficult of access and inferior to a downtown location. The following appeared on August 16: [The Washington Post, August 16, 1965] CENTER SITE

The American Institute of Architects deserves a respectful hearing on its proposal for a review of the location of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The professional standing of the group and its serious interest in the community entitle it to attention when it offers its views on a community decision of this kind.

The organization which has raised the matching funds for the Center has done a magnificent job in bringing the idea of the Center forward to the point of action and it would have a right to resent unfriendly or hostile obstruction. But the architects and and other advocates of an alternative location complain with some justice that full consideration has not been given to the Pennsylvania Avenue site under new conditions that now prevail. The Pennsylvania Avenue project was still under wraps when the basic issues on the Center site were last studied.

Earlier suggestions of another site were

withheld while the program was proceeding through the legislative and fund raising stages because no one wished to disrupt these efforts. Now that this phase is concluded a final look at other locations can be undertaken without injury or delay. So much has been done to fix the Center at the Potomac site that change may be difficult if not impossible. But the community will go forward in better heart if it is demonstrated by the sponsors that their choice of a site is so good that they do not fear a reexamination of the issues.

In answer to the AIA and the Washington Post, there has been a rigid defense of the riverside site by Roger L. Stevens, the New York real estate executive, theatrical producer, and political fundraiser who came to Washington a couple of years ago as a volunteer to head up the Cultural Center. Mr. Stevens has testified frequently before Congress in support of the waterfront site and he has been indirectly quoted recently as making the following points: First, a Pennsylvania Avenue location would cost more; second, construction would have to be postponed; third, the river site is more esthetic; fourth, locations should be picked by businessmen, not by architects; and fifth, Congress has approved the Potomac River site and offered no other.

It is my belief that the American Institute of Architects should be allowed to state its case in detail to the Congress along with other experts who support its views, and that Roger L. Stevens and other proponents of the river site should be able to defend their position in free and open hearings. It is correct that such hearings, in order to be meaningful, should be based on new legislation by Congress. For this reason on August 19, I introduced a bill-H.R. 10558which would permit the relocation of the Kennedy Center as part of the President's Pennsylvania Avenue plan. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Public Works. However, the gentleman from Maryland, Representative FALLON, the chairman of the committee, has stated that he does not propose to schedule hearings on what he calls a closed issue. In this view he has received the support of the Washington Evening Star, which published the following editorial on August 25:

[The Evening Star, Aug. 25, 1965]
CLOSED ISSUE

With the initial construction contracts for Washington's cultural center only weeks away, Representative FALLON says it is simply too late for his House committee to reopen the quest of the Center's location. We trust that his decision, which is eminently sound, will officially end this fruitless controversy once and for all.

For Mr. FALLON's position is supported by much better arguments, of course, than the one he cites. It would not be too late, even now, to at least consider the merits of switching the congressional approved location from the Potomac River shore in Foggy Bottom to the downtown area if this could be done with any assurrance of success. But there is no such assurance whatever. Indeed, the more likely prospect is that an official reconsideration at this late date would lead to such confusion that the project would be lost altogether.

Representative WIDNALL, supported by a smattering of local architects, suggests that the Center's facilities be located somewhere along Pennsylvania Avenue, on land acquired through urban renewal. Precisely where? Mr. WIDNALL doesn't say. In what architectural form? There are only the haziest of proposals. What would it cost, and when could it all come about? No one knows. To trade for these uncertainties the carefully planned, financially secure Kennedy memorial project which is now on the verge of construction in one of the loveliest areas of the Nation's Capital would be simply ridiculous.

To be sure, there are tricky problems of design, particularly as to access and egress, which must be carefully worked out in order for the Center to accommodate the crowds it will attract. But these are not insurmountable. The trustees are right to proceed with their contractual procedures as plannedfor this is one of those instances where the issue of what might have been will still be argued, we suppose, long after the curtain goes up in Foggy Bottom.

This current editorial comment by the Star varies somewhat from the position it took on January 7, 1964, when it urged passage of the bill renaming the National Cultural Center as a Kennedy memorial. At that time the Star said:

The bill does not bar a later second look at the question of an alternate site for the

structure.

Relating to its recent editorial, the Star, on September 1, published the following letter:

ARCHITECTS AND KENNEDY CENTER

SIR: Your August 25 editorial, "Closed Issue," concerning the site of the Kennedy Center is inaccurate and misleading.

The proposal for a study of other sites came not from "a smattering of local architects" but from the American Institute of Architects, which acted entirely_independ

ently of Congressman WIDNALL. The American Institute of Architects includes nearly 18,000 members representing about 90 percent of the architectural firms in the country. The same position has been taken at various times by the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Architectural League of New York, the Committee of 100 ing Congress, the Washington Planning and on the Federal City, the Washington BuildHousing Association, the Federation of Citizens' Associations, and many distinguished writers on architecture and city planning. This position unquestionably represents the opinion of most informed experts in the field

of architecture and planning.

The American Institute of Architects reopened the question of the cultural center site because it recognized that this will be one of the most important buildings in Washington. This being so, the Center must be placed in an appropriate setting where it can be easily reached and where it will make the greatest contribution to the life of the Nation and the city.

Since the present site fails to meet these requirements in many ways, it is obviously good sense, good economics, and good planning to find a location that is suitable. To admit at this late date that a mistake has been made is embarrassing, and some time and money will be lost in correcting the original error. This is a low price indeed to pay for the benefits that would result from making a change.

DAVID NORTON YERKES, Director, Middle Atlantic Region, American Institute of Architects. Meanwhile, the gentleman from Missouri, Representative CURTIS, was preparing his own version of a bill which would permit Congress to take a "later second look at the question of an alternate site." In a speech made when introducing his bill-House Joint Resolution 646-on August 31, Mr. CURTIS reminded Congress that in 1958 the legislative situation demanded that an alternative site be found quickly. He said:

The present Potomac site was thus hastily chosen as the best of the alternatives then

available.

Mr. Speaker, during all of the provocative discussions of geographic pros and cons it seems to me that there has been, as usual, a forgotten man. In this case by "forgotten man" I mean the many thousands of Washington, Maryland, and Virginia residents who today support and attend cultural entertainment in the National Capital area and who are expected to be the audiences for the Performing Arts Center. Should we not undertake at least elementary research among the membership and supporters of the most active performing arts organizations in Metropolitan Washington? Since these are the citizens who in the long run are going to spell success or failure for the Center, I think that they should be polled. Although such information is overdue, it is not too late to seek it and to be guided by it.