and will not be resumed without consultation with the leadership of the Congress. Those consulted would I believe include the gentleman from Michigan, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl, and others.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. The gentleman realizes that the possible amendment to which he refers is one I discussed with him earlier today.

Mr. MAHON. That is correct.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. A careful reading will convince the gentleman, I am sure, that upon the halting of any aggressive action between these two nations, the President could immediately resume aid.

Mr. MAHON. After they discontinued the aggressive actions the President could resume aid.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. correct.

That is

Mr. MAHON. We do not like that. None of us likes that.

Let me read the proposed amendment which would be a portion of the motion to recommit, according, I think to the gentleman from Arizona:

None of the funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this act may be used to furnish military assistance under part 2 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as

amended, to any country which is engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts directed against any country receiving assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended until

Until what?

until the President determines that such

the Congress, conclude that "Well, we can now again renew our aggression against India because the hands of the President, the Commander in Chief, the hands of the military forces of the United States are tied by this act of Congress," it would be a horrendous thing for this Government so to tie its hands under these circumstances. We could not go to the aid of India when attacked by Red China as we have previously done. We could not because of this long-standing feud which has ripened into a present conflict between India and Pakistan which may continue for quite some months. This is regrettable, but do not think for a moment that we should tie the hands of the President at such a critical time.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON] may proceed for 5 additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. MAHON. So the point is we would jeopardize the security of the United States by opening the door for Red China to attack India while the circumstances are favorable for such an attack. I say let us give the President the flexibility which he needs in these circumstances. He has withheld aid, and we all approve it for the time being. However, if Red China marches in, if he does not give aid and give it quickly to India, he would be making a tremendous mistake. He would not make such a mistake but would act responsibly in the best interests of the United States. We must not tie the President's hands in an area where our system of government requires him to act. Under this language we would tie his hands.

So I plead with the House not to vote

have

Have what?

have ceased and he reports to the Congress that he has received assurances satisfactory to him that such aggressive military efforts or preparation will not be renewed.

Now, this language shocks and disturbs

me greatly. It shocks me to think that we would seriously consider the passage of this proposed provision. I will explain to you why. It is true that all nations which have received military and economic aid are much stronger as a result of this military and economic aid. We hope they are. That has been the purpose of the aid program-to strengthen free nations so that they can join with us in resisting aggression and communism.

Now, let me point out, in providing aid to India and Pakistan we were not blind to the fact that the nearest neighbor to India and Pakistan is Red China. We want Red China to have strong antiCommunist neighbors. Red China has not been mentioned very much in this debate, but it must be mentioned now. Let me say this: should Red China, following the passage of this legislation by

tie the hands and the President in the event he should need to take action in behalf of India against Red China.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman from Texas is making a very powerful appeal to the Members of the House. It is not an appeal to the emotions but an appeal to our reason in connection with the national interest of our own country. To tie the hands of the President by the adoption of this language might be decidedly against the national interest of the United States. Uppermost in the minds of all of us, I know, without regard to party, is the national interest of our country. Who can see history in the making? It is hard and difficult. But we do know there is a terrible situation existing over there that has already developed into a very aggravated state and which is likely to continue along more aggressive lines. Who can tell where it will lead? The Secretary of the United Nations is on a mission to that part of the world. We all hope and pray his mission will be successful. On the one hand

Pakistan was our friend. Pakistan has entered into negotiations with Red China to some extent, but Pakistan has not yet left its association with the United States. It was only a few years ago when the U-2 incident occurred when the President of Pakistan was in London and he was asked about it. He said, "My country will investigate," and he added significantly, "But America is our friend." We have here a situation where, as the gentleman has well said, poised on the Indian border are a number of divisions of the Red Chinese. Back of it is the dread of the dangerous shadow and hand of Red China.

Who knows what will happen? Who knows what will occur if this amendment should be adopted? I join, not as a Democrat, but as an American who is serving in this body, with my distinguished friend from Texas, in the national interest of our country, in urging that such an amendment not be adopted.

Mr. MAHON. I thank the distinguished Speaker for his remarks. I know that India has long been more or less a neutral and nonwarlike country. India is not prepared to fight Red China with all its Chinese divisions. So it seems to me that the adoption of an amendment of this type on a motion to recommit would be playing into the hands of Red China. hands of Red China. It is the last thing that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES] Would want to do.

It is for this reason that I pointed out to some of my friends on your side that there was a fatal error in this proposal. I hope that this is obvious to all.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas has raised an awesome specter. I am sorry that he did not raise it with me prior to this time; he had ample opportunity to do so. The facts are that a perusal of this amendment leads to absolutely the opposite conclusions from those suggested by the gentleman from Texas. Obviously, if Red China were to attack either Pakistan or India, at that time the nation attacked would certainly not be an aggressor, it would be a defender against Communist aggression. This denies aid only to aggressor nations. I say to the gentleman from Texas that he must have completely misread this as to context and intent to have any idea that this was offered to or that it would result in aid or comfort to Red China.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON] may proceed for 5 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. The gentleman has made some very unfortunate legislative history here which I hope I have corrected because, while the amendment has not been offered-and I will say to the gentleman from Texas that this amendment will not be offered—still, if it had been offered this discussion would

Mr. MAHON. I was told that the gentleman's proposal would be a part of a motion to recommit and that the amendment would provide that we would forestall all aid to any country receiving our assistance which is engaged in or even preparing for aggressive military efforts directed against any country receiving assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, until the President determines that such aggressive efforts, and so forth, had ceased.

The President would have to find that Pakistan and India had quit fighting and peace had been restored and he would have to notify Congress before he could move in to assist the cause of freedom in repelling acts of aggression by Red China against India.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, any fair reading of the amendment bears out the argument, and the telling argument, that the gentleman made when he first started talking; and that is that this might be an invitation for Red China to intervene. We are now giving and we will continue to give, although new commitments will not be made under the President's statement, economic assistance to both countries. But if Red China should move in, under this proposed amendment how could we move in in defense of the nation being assaulted by

Red China?

Mr. MAHON. We could not do it because of this prohibition. In my judg

ment, we will not adopt such a prohibition.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle

man.

Mr. HAYS. The papers today say that Red China is threatening to come to the assistance of Pakistan. If she did, under the terms of this amendment, we could not help India at all. Our hands would be tied, would they not?

Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is absolutely correct, unless the war ceases and everything is settled and the President makes this finding and reports to Congress.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that by now the gentleman from Texas knows that he is making an argument against a phantom amendment, an amendment which is not before the Committee. It is an amendment that will not be offered. So the gentleman is tilting at windmills. Any reading of this proposal, if it had been offered, would not permit a reasonable man in my opinion to come to the conclusion that he has, under the cir

cumstances.

Mr. MAHON. I was told that this would be included in the motion to re

Michigan that it had a fatal defect which I would expose, if necessary. I which I would expose, if necessary. I believe I have exposed it. I state this with all sincerity, because there is certainly nothing phony about taking action which would be equivalent to inviting Red China to move into India.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the Speaker. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I think we are all happy to learn from the minority leader that the amendment referred to will not be included in the motion to recommit.

I think everyone would admit that the gentleman from Texas was justified in anticipating it.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I have accomplished my purpose, if the proposed motion to recommit including this language which I have described has been abandoned. I arose to speak because I felt that the House should not be required to vote on a motion to recommit which had not been discussed. The pitfalls and dangers would perhaps not be readily apparent and I considered some discussion in the public interest.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle

man from Oklahoma.

the proposed amendment and which has Mr. ALBERT. If the paper containing been circulated as an amendment is phony, I think it has been accurately

described.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, may I say that following the troops from my right, it is rather difficult and I feel as though I need a little aid of some kind to resist such great oratory. But I believe I owe it to the House to talk about the motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from Texas did not discuss the motion to recommit with me, for I would have told him what the motion to recommit was going to be, as I did the Speaker a few minutes ago.

The language of the amendment that was to be offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES] is not in the motion to recommit.

As to language in the motion to recommit which would withhold aid from opposing countries getting our aid—and I shall read it because I think the House is entitled to know exactly what is going to be in the motion to recommit-one part be in the motion to recommit-one part of the motion will be this, and it goes to the question of the money in the bill:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, of the total sums appropriated this title, of the total sums appropriated under the heading "Economic Assistance," not more than $1,182,460,000 may be used during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,

for expenses for technical cooperation and

development grants, international organizations and programs, Alliance for Progress, development loans, and development loans as authorized by sections 212, 302, 252 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the money in the bill under "Economic assistance" and does not affect military assistance which we may need in Vietnam, Korea, and other areas for our own protection. This would reduce the bill by $285 million in areas which the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER] has discussed and which have been fully debated and, therefore, there is no reason for me to go into it. We do not pinpoint the reduction, as this is a responsibility of the agency.

Now, may I speak to the crucial part of this motion. With reference to the funds authorized by military assistance, I will read to you the language of section 17-this is strictly a limitation:

None of the funds provided in this title shall be available for assistance to any country which is engaged in military action in opposition to another country, such countries having been recipients of aid under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, as of July 1, 1965.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me make it crystal clear that this is a limitation and would be a limitation where our allies might be fighting, such as Pakistan and India. But under this, let us assume that the Red Chinese are poised on the border of India and may come in. May where the countries in the fight have been I point out that this is a denial of aid the recipients of aid.

Now, I am quite sure, although there is so much "secret and confidential" in this bill; we do not always know where the money is going-but I assume that Red China is not getting any aid. So, if the aggression is from Red China into India or into Pakistan, wherever it may be, there is no prohibition here against aid to the country to resist Communist aggression.

Mr. Chairman, we do not stop there. But what we are trying to say to our friends is this: "You cannot take the foreign aid which we are voting, amounting to millions and millions of dollars, to kill each other."

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HAYS. I am sympathetic with what the gentleman is trying to do, and that is to deny aid to Pakistan and India as long as they are fighting each other; but presume they continue fighting each other, and Red China comes in on the side of Pakistan. India and Pakistan are still fighting with each other, with Red China as an ally of Pakistan. Does not the gentleman's amendment deny aid to India?

Mr. BOW. No, because the aggression comes from a Communist country. If they are not receiving aid, we then can go in.

Mr. HAYS. I do not know who is the aggressor in this thing, whether Pakistan or India, but the thing that bothers me, if you can believe the press, Red China has issued a statement she will come to the assistance of Pakistan.

Mr. BOW. Yes.

Mr. HAYS. Under the language of the gentleman's amendment, as I heard it read, it seems to me unless India would completely quit fighting with Pakistan she could not get any aid, and if she did that she could only fight China while Pakistan was attacking on the other side. Mr. BOW. I am glad the gentleman raised that question. We are making legislative history here. If the aggression comes from a country which is not the recipient of our aid, then we may aid the defending country. This would be the case in India. We would be permitted to aid India if the aggression comes from Red China.

you have the two countries fighting each other, both of which have received our aid, the gentlemen's amendment means because Pakistan and India are fighting we cannot give any aid to either one or the other, even though one of them happens to be fighting on the side of Red China while fighting the other? Mr. BOW. I do not agree with the gentleman.

Mr. ALBERT. That is what the gentleman's amendment says.

Mr. BOW. If the opposition comes from the country which is receiving aid, then the aid would stop.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? gentleman yield?

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOGGS. I think what the gentleman from Ohio is saying is not a question of direct aggression from China on India, but indirect aggression, let us say, from Pakistan, which would be the situation that your amendment would prohibit.

Mr. BOW. I believe it does.
Mr. BOGGS. Certainly it does.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.

(By unanimous consent (at the request of Mr. Bow) he was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)

Mr. BOGGS. Will the gentleman read his proposed motion?

Mr. BOW. None of the funds provided in this title shall be available for assistance to any country which shall engage in military action in opposition to another country, such country having been the recipient

Mr. BOGGS. Namely, Pakistan or India, either one.

Mr. BOW. Let me complete my statement, and then I will be delighted to yield to the gentleman-which shall engage in military action in opposition to another country, such countries having been the recipients of aid under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOGGS. If certain countries have been the recipient of aid under this program and this country is engaged in war with another country, which is also a recipient, then that country is barred? Mr. BOW. That is true, as between Pakistan and India.

Mr. BOGGS. The question as posed by the gentleman from Ohio, as I understood it, it is not a direct attack by Red China on India or Pakistan, but an indirect attack through India on Pakistan, or through Pakistan on India, while both are fighting. In such event aid would be barred?

Mr. BOW. So long as the two countries are fighting, but if the opposition comes from a country not receiving this aid then we could give aid to them.

Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. MOSS. Let us take the case of the announcement this morning where the government of Indonesia indicated very clearly its intention to give support to the government of Pakistan. Now supposing the government of Indonesia becomes a convert for assistance through the Communist bloc nations of the East, Red China. This is assistance that we have and evidently it is going into Pakistan. Then under your amendment we would have to deny assistance both to India and to Pakistan.

Mr. BOW. And to Indonesia. Mr. MOSS. Well we have already stopped the assistance to Indonesia. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

that are now warring with one another. I doubt if anyone here would say that that situation is tenable. So all that the gentleman from Ohio asks is that we write that in through the motion to recommit in order that there be no misunderstanding about it. When I came over here even before the gentleman from Texas took the floor, I inquired as to what would be in the motion to recommit. I think these amounts ought to be cut down. I think the Congress needs to deal with this problem involving the war going on between India and Pakistan right now. So when I looked at the motion to recommit, may I say to the gentleman from Texas, it did not have the language about which he complained earlier. I am inclined to agree with the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES] that you were reading into that proposed language something that is not there. That is not before us now.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the people over there who call on us to put the interest of our country above everything else—and that we have now doneare now grasping at straws to try to find something wrong with this language. Let me say as a practical matter this measure will go to the other body. The motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Ohio has said that this is going to be done. It is not subject to amendment. It is not subject to change. But if this language does not do what

Mr. HAYS. The thing that worries me is that the Chinese will do like they did in Korea-send in so-called volunteers through Pakistan to attack India and maybe attack India at the same time. If they do and India still continues to fight, she cannot get any aid; is that to fight, she cannot get any aid; is that right?

Mr. BOW. If the Chinese volunteers such as you had in Korea would go into India, and India was not receiving aid from the United States, there would be from the United States, there would be no reason why we cannot give aid to fight them.

Mr. HAYS. If the gentleman will yield further, I think the amendment ought to be rewritten and make it crystal clear.

Mr. BOW. May I say this, I am perfectly willing to have this clarified because I think the gentleman from Texcause I think the gentleman from Texas-and I am sure he did not attempt to mislead anyone did not have this language when he made his statement. That is the reason why I think the House is entitled to have that.

which I say it does, then there will be plenty of opportunity to straighten it out. Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, all this year I have been asking for help on the problem of adjusting the funds required for this foreign aid bill through statistics, correspondence, mailing, and so on. I did not get too much encouragement along the way from either side of the aisle. So the Congress in its wisdom-the great Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate the Senate authorized $3,360 million. When the bill came before the subcommittee, I do not recall any motions being offered to reduce this bill down to $3 billion, except, I know that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER] SHRIVER] thought thought the subcommittee recommendation was too high.

little bit late to cut the bill to $3 billion.

Mr. HALLECK. I would like to make an observation here respecting this matter if I might, and I make this observation as one who expects to support the motion to recomit and likewise as one who many times at great political disadMr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman vantage to myself back home has supfrom Oklahoma.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALBERT. If you have the situation where Red China attacks one of two countries that are fighting each other, and you get Red China fighting one, and

ported this foreign aid program since its inception.

Now clearly nothing could be more ridiculous than that we would be sending our arms to the alleged friendly nations

ment from the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] and other Members who are now participating in the effort to recommit the bill, I would have been given new hope. Perhaps those clipped wings would have started sprouting sooner. But to wait until the bill has reached the floor of the House and then to offer a motion to cut the bill to $3 billion, when the proposal had never been discussed at any other meeting so far as I know, is not the way to handle the matter. I hope the motion will be

voted down. If the proponents of the motion continue to feel the way they do, let them make their case before those in the other body who will handle the measure, and we shall see what we can do with the other body in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to, and that the bill as amended do pass.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. PRICE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10871) making appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. The SPEAKER. Without objection,

the previous question is ordered.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read the third time, and was read the third time.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I offer a mo- Dawson tion to recommit.

Scheuer

Rogers, Fla.

Roush

Willis

Wilson, Bob

Wyatt

George W.

Ashbrook

Rogers, Tex.

Roudebush

NOT VOTING-50

Andrews,

Baring

Bonner

Fuqua

Morse

Gallagher

Pepper

Griffiths

Pirnie

Hanna

Poage

Hawkins

Powell

Hébert

Holland

Reifel Resnick

Hungate

Jones, Mo.

Adair

Berry Bolton

Bray

Burton, Calif. Cameron

Clawson, Del
Daddario

de la Garza
Derwinski
Downing
Dulski

Kee Kornegay Lindsay

Krebs

Kunkel

Landrum

Delaney Dent

Leggett

Springer

Long, Md.

Stafford

Love

McCarthy

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op- Denton posed to the bill?

Mr. BOW. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bow moves that the bill H.R. 10871 be recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report it back forthwith with the following amendments;

"SEC. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, of the total of the sums appropriated under the heading 'Economic Assistance', not more than $1,182,460,000 may be used during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, for expenses for technical cooperation and development grants, international organizations and programs, Alliance for Progress development loans, and development loans, as authorized by sections 212, 302, 252, and 202(a), respectively, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

"SEC. 117. None of the funds provided in this title shall be available for assistance to any country which shall engage in military action in opposition to another country, such countries having been the recipients of aid under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, as of July 1, 1965."

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered.

McDade

McDowell

Staggers

Stalbaum

Stratton

McFall

Duncan, Oreg. McGrath

Dwyer Dyal

Edmondson

McVicker Macdonald Machen

Mackie Madden Mahon Mailliard Matsunaga

Edwards, Calif. Mackay
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Tenn.
Fallon
Farbstein
Farnum
Fascell
Feighan
Findley
Flood
Fogarty

Matthews

Meeds

Miller

Minish

Mink Monagan

Ford, Gerald R. Moorhead

Foley

Ford,

William D.

Morgan Morrison Morton Moss Multer

Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Friedel
Fulton, Pa.
Fulton, Tenn.
Garmatz

Gibbons

Gilbert

Abbitt

Abernethy

Murphy, Ill.

Murphy, N.Y. Natcher

Yates Young Zablocki

Nedzi Nelsen Nix

Anderson, Ill.

Burleson

Burton, Utah

Glenn Andrews,

N. Dak.

Andrews,

Carter Casey

Cederberg

Chamberlain Chelf

Dague Davis, Ga. Davis, Wis. Devine Dickinson Dole

Broyhill, N.C. Collier

Duncan, Tenn. Edwards, Ala.

Mr. Toll for, with Mr. Bray against.

Mr. Ryan for, with Mr. Reifel against. Mr. Downing for, with Mrs. May against. Mr. Daddario for, with Mr. Adair, against. Mr. Kee for, with Mr. Martin of Alabama against.

Mrs. Bolton for, with Mr. George W. Andrews against.

Mr. Morse of Massachusetts for, with Mr. Baring against.

Mr. Pirnie for, with Mr. Bonner against. Mr. Martin of Massachusetts for, with Mr. Fuqua against.

Mr. Mathias for, with Mr. Hungate against. Mr. Lindsay for, with Mr. Younger against. Mr. MacGregor for, with Mr. Berry against. Mr. Cameron for, with Mr. Saylor against. Mr. Dulski for, with Mr. McClory against. Mr. Pepper for, with Mr. Derwinski against. Mr. Charles H. Wilson for, with Mr. Del Clawson against.

Mr. Sisk for, with Mr. Ashbrook against. Mrs. Griffiths for, with Mr. de la Garza against.

Mr. Resnick for, with Mr. Hébert against.
Until further notice:

Mr. Holland with Mr. Burton of California.
Mr. Roncalio with Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Powell.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Farnsley.
Mr. Thomas with Mr. Kornegay.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

and its ability to meet our growing national needs.

Most remarkable of all, this has been achieved within the price-wage guidelines laid down by the Government as the

key to a continuing non-inflationary prosperity. I note with extreme pleasure that the wage increases called for in this settlement, when averaged over the 39 months since the last contract expired, amount to an average annual increase of exactly 3.2 percent. This is the exact percentage specified in the price-wage guidelines as a proper annual increase for American labor, based on the average

from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, Labor Day of 1965 is a day that will be long remembered. It will be remembered, most appropriately, as the day on which management and labor in the steel industry amicably resolved their differences and spared the Nation a paralyzing strike.

Over this past Labor Day weekend, the representatives of management and labor, together with the President, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and other Government leaders, accomplished what some thought impossible. Through their skillful and unstinting efforts, they achieved a steel agreement which is fair to labor, fair to management, and fair to the people of the United States. And they did this peacefully, and in the best traditions of the collective-bargaining system.

Had they done less, there would today be nearly half a million American workmen out of work. Hundreds of thousands more would be waiting with grim anticipation for spreading shortages in

steel to wipe out their own jobs. Mer

chants would find their sales diminishing and the American steel industry would be duly losing to foreign manufacturers customers who would never return. Such has been the dire result of every steel strike in our history.

Thanks to the restrain, the wisdom, and the patriotism shown by the steel negotiators over this past Labor Day weekend, however, the situation is quite different. We now look forward, at the very least, to another uninterrupted 3 years of peace in the steel industry. We may confidently anticipate a continuation of our already unprecedented 54 months of uninterrupted economic expansion.

The settlement which brings these benefits to the Nation is also fair to management and just to labor. Labor has achieved better health benefits, better pensions, and a significant wage increase, both immediately and for the months ahead.

Management has achieved a settlement which will enable it to continue its contributions toward the price stability of our economy. It has achieved a settlement which will let it now go forward with its plans for modernization, to further improve its competitive position,

Thus, every American has cause to remember what was accomplished this weekend, past, and to be grateful to those dedicated men who achieved it. They have served their country well. They have honestly and skillfully represented the American workmen on the one hand, and the American investor on the other. Finally, they have set before the world a never-to-be-forgotten example of what the American system of free enterprise and collective bargaining can accomplish.

During their negotiations, the President expressed his conviction to the representatives of both management and labor to conduct themselves with full regard to the "importance of their efforts to every man and woman in this country of ours, and to the health and the vitality of our economy, and the security of America all around the world."

Now we have the results of their negotiations, and we see that the President's faith was fulfilled.

PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentelman

from Nebraska?

There was no objection.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday during rollcalls No. 263, No. 264, and No. 265, I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted "yea." I had to leave the House Chamber because my 15-year-old son was struck down by a truck of the Evening Star Publishing Co. while he was bicycling and for that reason I was absent. I want the RECORD to show I would have

voted "yea" had I been present on those

three rollcall votes.

Administration is petitioning the Fed-
eral Power Commission for an increase
in its power rates, averaging about 3
percent. The announcement is not un-
percent.
expected and is much less onerous than

previous proposals. It is, in my judg-
ment, however, unnecessary and not in
the best interests of the Pacific North-
west.

Oregon and the Pacific Northwest have been blessed with trees and water. Adequate supplies of water for irrigation, industrial and domestic use and for cheap hydroelectric power have represented a most important economic advantage for Oregon in the heated competition for development. Some say it is our only economic advantage and that this is more than offset by high freight rates, recurring shortages of railroad cars and the great distances from the large concentrations of people where the profitable markets exist.

Competing interests-geographical, industrial, and power users and suppliers-have long wanted to either share our Northwest resources or reduce the economic advantages inherent therein or both.

Power presently surplus to our needs will soon be exported to the Southwest. Only by diligent hard bargaining was this accomplished under conditions of mutual advantage to the two sections of the country with protection for the rights of the Northwest.

Another great battle looms as the Southwest looks over the water in northern California to the Columbia River for additional supplies to water the parched Southwest and to further develop that area in direct competition with our own.

The power rate increase is an attack on the Northwest, demanded more by pragmatic political considerations involving the continued development of hydroelectric power than by the economic necessities. In meetings with the Bonneville Power Administration officials and the Secretary of the Interior, neither made a convincing case that rate increases were necessary at this time.

The statistical basis on which the increase is predicated is tenuous and speculative, involving predictions of economic conditions, interest rates, labor and other costs, revenues and new production and transmission facilities for many, many years in advance—at least up through the year 2030.

The newly announced rate policy, in effect, asks present Bonneville Power Administration customers to pay in advance for power projects not yet begun and for which money has not yet even

INCREASE OF BONNEVILLE POWER been appropriated by the Congress.

RATES

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.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have read with disappointment and regret the Secretary of Interior's announcement that the Bonneville Power

Rates can be reviewed again in 1969. There is ample time to adjust them to avert a deficit projected in the next century. There will be fewer variables to consider then. Indeed, the whole concept of the 50-year payout period for generating structures is too low. I know of no private utility which depreciates its facilities on that basis when they know the useful life is much longer.

I oppose the increase. If a rate increase must come, I repeat, this one is less onerous than I feared. It will not destroy the Northwest, but it cripples us.