By Mr. McGRATH:

H. Con. Res. 502. Concurrent resolution to recognize the World Law Day; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. PEPPER:

H. Cbn. Res. 503. Concurrent resolution creating a joint congressional committee to study and report on areas of the United States where racial friction has erupted, or may erupt, in acts of violence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. McCARTHY:

H. Con. Res. 504. Concurrent resolution requesting the President of the United States to refer the matter of a study of a plan for to refer the matter of a study of a plan for providing a new supply of water for the Great Lakes to the International Joint Commission; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. SWEENEY:

H. Con. Res. 505. Concurrent resolution requesting the President of the United States to refer the matter of a study of a plan for providing a new supply of water for the Great Lakes to the International Joint Commission; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

By Mr. MICHEL:
H. Res. 575. Resolution

requesting

the

President of the United States to transmit information relating to two White House Task Force Reports on Education, written Task Force Reports on Education, written by Committee chaired by John W. Gardner; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

H. Res. 576. Resolution directing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to transmit to the House the complete texts of (1) the proposal for the establishment of a National Research and Training Center for State Educational Agency Development, and (2) a position paper re the Office of Education's future role and responsibilities with large city school districts and State education agencies; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois: H.R. 10987. A bill for the relief of Antonios Koklas; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BARING:

H.R. 10988. A bill for the relief of Sammy (Soo Yong) Chung; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia: H.R. 10989. A bill for the relief of Ethyl C. Committee on Campbell; to the the Judiciary.

By Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia (by request):

H.R. 10990. A bill for the relief of Maj. Alan DeYoung, U.S. Army; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 10991. A bill for the relief of Said Fores Mughabghab; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 10992. A bill for the relief of Leila Murad Al-Sheikh; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. COLLIER:

H.R. 10993. A bill for the relief of Ming Chia and Mei Jok Phua; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HENDERSON:

H.R. 10994. A bill for the relief of Charles

SENATE

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1965

(Legislative day of Wednesday, September 8, 1965)

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Acting President pro tempore [Mr. METCALF).

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D., offered Harris, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Our Father God, as in reverence we hallow Thy name, so may we hallow our own as we keep our honor bright, our hearts pure, our ideals untarnished, and our devotion to the Nation's welfare high and true.

As within this quiet Chamber of governance we close the door for this still moment upon the wild and violent world without, we seek Thee anew within, until thoughts grow reverent again, waiting tasks are glorified and our whole being is dominated by a faith in the ultimate decency of the world because the God behind the shadows, and in them, can transfigure all common things into shining sacraments of love.

We ask it through riches of grace in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, September 8, 1965, was dispensed with.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT

OF 1965

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business be laid before the Senate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other purposes.

Mr. ELLENDER obtained the floor.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Louisiana yield to me briefly?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Senator from Montana without losing my right to the floor.

By Mr. ROGERS of Colorado:

H.R. 10995. A bill for the relief of David Acosta; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. ST. ONGE:

H.R. 10996. A bill for the relief of Lourdes Y. Lim; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. TENZER:

H.R. 10997. A bill for the relief of Allan Michael Charak; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE CALENDAR

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of certain measures on the calendar, beginning with Calendar No. 670.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will state the first bill.

Mr. STENNIS. The bill now before the Senate takes the place of the bill vetoed by the President of the United States (H.R. 8439). It is exactly the same as the bill passed by the Senate and the House heretofore except in two particulars. The first is the section to which the President objected with respect to the delay of time in the closing of camps, posts, stations, yards, or other installations under the authority of the Department of Defense.

The section substituted for the one in the old bill provides that they shall not be closed until after the expiration of 30 days from the date upon which a full report of the facts, including justifications therefore for such proposed action, is submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The position of the Senate was not nearly so strong with reference to this delay as was that of the House of Representatives. I believe that this section is satisfactory generally to all members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and we unanimously recommend its adoption by the Senate.

The other exception relates to a requirement in section 609 of the House version of the old bill that the expenditure of funds for the construction of buildings for the Aerospace Corp. must be by a line item authorization, for the Air Force just as a military installation has to have a line item authorization. The Senate denied this provision in that it was singular in purpose. The conferees agreed on the purpose of the section, but broadened it in scope to apply not only to aerospace but to other similar undertakings, as well.

There was some confusion about confusion about the meaning of the language, and it was decided to adopt the section in the original bill and carry over until next year the technical problem of expanding the language to cover other installations. We believe the section is sound and should be adopted.

The bill was not referred to the Committee on Armed Services. I discussed the question with the membership, and it was agreed that the referral was not necessary.

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] and I conferred about the bill yesterday. He cannot be in the Chamber at this moment, but he agrees to the bill in its present form, as do all other members of the committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that sections 609 and 611 of the bill, H.R. 10775 be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

SEC. 609. Every contract between the Secretary of the Air Force and the Aerospace Corporation shall prohibit the construction of any facility or the acquisition of any real property by the Aerospace Corporation

unless such construction or acquisition has first been authorized to the Air Force by the Congress.

yard, or other installation under the auSEC. 611. (a) No camp, post, station, base, thority of the Department of Defense shall be closed or abandoned until after the expiration of thirty days from the date upon piration of thirty days from the date upon which a full report of the facts, including the justification for such proposed action, submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives.

(b) This section shall apply only to posts, camps, stations, bases, yards, or other installations that are located in the United States and Puerto Rico and have a total military and civilian complement of more military and civilian complement of more than two hundred and fifty. It shall not

apply to any facility used primarily for river and harbor projects or flood control projects.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is open to amendment. If there be no amendment to be proposed, the question is on the third reading.

The bill (H.R. 10775) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

great odds in both India and Pakistan during the past 15 years. The work of a dedicated, indigenous leadership and a hard-working populace, the contribution of enormous amounts of aid from many nations, the political achievements wrought in the context of Commonwealth cooperation and evolution-all of this is subject to forfeit in the military storm which is now spreading.

It is easy enough to preach to both nations that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by abstaining from violence. It is easy enough to urge peace on both India and Pakistan. But our own involvement in Vietnam— a far less complex situation—should underscore for us the gap between the great desirability of peace and the slim possibilities of its prompt restoration once it has given way.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

THE MILITARY CONFLICT OVER

KASHMIR

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for more than a decade and a half, the good sense of the leadership in India and Pakistan and the work of the United Nations have served to maintain a truce in Kashmir. It is a truce which has been threatened many times but, always, in the past has been reasserted.

Now there has been a massive collapse of the truce. It is carrying down the whole structure of the comity by which India and Pakistan have managed to live in a tolerable peace subsequent to partition. The military conflict which began in Kashmir a short time ago has already leaped across other parts of the frontiers leaped across other parts of the frontiers between India and Pakistan, on both the east and the west. Reports tell of air raids against major cities and airdrops and other military activity in many places outside of Kashmir. With every places outside of Kashmir. With every passing hour the conflict seems to be gaining momentum.

Unless the present trend is promptly checked, there will be a Himalayan catastrophe in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent. It will be fed not only by the issue of Kashmir but by a fierce national rivalry buttressed by the clashing forces of religious communalism. A foreshadow of what may be involved is to be found in the struggle which accompanied partition, when it is estimated that half partition, when it is estimated that half a million persons lost their lives and approximately 15 million people were uprooted from their homes and forced to rooted from their homes and forced to seek refuge in one of the greatest transplantations of population in the history of mankind.

At the end of the present course lies, clearly, the wreckage of much of the great constructive endeavor which has been pursued successfully and against

The fact is that the Kashmir problem has been a matter of concern to the United Nations since 1949. The United Nations Security Council has been able, heretofore, to play a major role in maintaining the truce in Kashmir even though it has yet been unable to bring about a resolution of the basic issues. If there is any outside element which can be helpful in this situation it would appear to be, still, the Security Council assisted by the able Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. U Thant. Indeed, the Council, on September 4, took the first essential step when by unanimous vote it called for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces to the 1949 truce line in Kashmir. That call has so far been disregarded and indications are that other actions will have to be taken.

For us and for other nations that seek peace within the context of friendly relations with both India and Pakistan, the great necessity is for a common course at this critical time. It would appear to me that such a course is best achieved through the machinery and procedures of the Security Council, assisted by the Secretary-General. Decisions properly taken by that body are binding on every member of the United Nations. And, indeed, such decisions should have the firm support of member nations in view of the common stake of all in the restoration of peace.

and

It seems to me especially important at this time that the U.S. aid programs for India and Pakistan those of other nations, and they are many, which are inextricably and, in all frankness, embarrassingly interwoven with this conflict must be made to serve the ends of a restoration of peace. Just how that can be done is not yet clear. But this Nation, it seems to me, ought to be prepared to join with other nations in a common pledge that

aid programs in which they may be engaged in both India and Pakistan, within their present dimensions, will be adjusted at the request of and in accordance with any relevant decisions of the United Nations Security Council.

In the present critical situation the constructive value of all aid programsmilitary and economic-in both India and Pakistan is thrown into doubt. The President has acted wisely in promptly suspending shipments to both nations under the military aid program. Further adjustments in the interests of peace may be necessary. Flexibility is essential to the President if he is to make these adjustments effectively. He can be counted upon to act in close cooperation with the Congress. In this connection, it might be well to recall that the President, while subject to much criticism, refused to enter into any aid agreements for this fiscal year until Congress approved the authorizing foreign aid legislation and appropriated the necessary funds. It would appear to me that this is not only a sound approach in itself but is also indicative of his readiness to work closely with the Congress as circumstances develop. The complex and critical nature of the current situa

tion, however, requires full support of the President and his representative at the United Nations Security Council. Together, they can press the views of this Nation and adjust them, as necessary, in the light of the views of others to the end that the aid programs of all may be brought to the full support of a United Nations effort to restore peace as quickly as possible.

In fact, I have been somewhat amused at some of my Democratic critics having cautioned other Democrats not to issue any words of praise about me lest I use those words to good advantage in campaigning for reelection.

But MIKE MANSFIELD has done an excellent job and I am not about to deny him recognition him recognition on my part of his achievement merely because I am a member of the opposite political party. He has given the Senate the most orderly conduct of business that I have ever seen since I have been privileged to be a Member of this body. He has wisely and very effectively conducted the Senate's business in an unparalleled manner of avoiding late night sessions and Saturday sessions, both of which are not conducive to legislating in the best mental framework when Members are tired and their tempers affected by their fatigue.

And while paying tribute to the majority leader, I want to pay equal tribute to the minority leader. I have read some attacks on EVERETT DIRKSEN for not being partisan enough in his role as minority leader-for not being more of an opponent to the President's program-for being too cooperative.

Well, I have personally witnessed the political independence of EVERETT DIRKSEN. I have seen him oppose the President when he thought the President was wrong. I have seen how his actions and views have had a great influence on the President and caused the President to change his original views on legislation and his legislative program—and change constructively.

In the words of the President, EVERETT DIRKSEN is constructive instead of being merely negative-he is a builder instead of a wrecker. And the best testimonial to his constructive fairness, without diluting his duties as the leader of the loyal opposition, to the President's own high regard for EVERETT DIRKSEN and the very great degree to which he leans upon EVERETT DIRKSEN for guidance and advice.

Everybody knows this. But it is time that it should be said in defense of EVERETT DIRKSEN against his overly partisan critics. We Members of the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, share the high regard and esteem that the President of the United States holds for EVERETT DIRKSEN.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me? Mrs. SMITH. I yield.

Mr. KUCHEL. I join with enthusiasm in what the distinguished Senator from Maine has just said. We have two superb Senate leaders. The majority leader, MIKE MANSFIELD, a man of high courage and conviction, is a great adornment to his country, his party, and to the Senate. Surely his counterpart, the minority leader, EVERETT DIRKSEN, is equally a great American leader, a great Republican leader, and a great Senate leader.

Any man or woman in public service who attempts to accomplish good for the people of this country may be subjected to cruel attack from time to time, and abuse on occasion, has come, without justification, to both of those men.

I regret that from time to time the leader of our party in the Senate, who has accomplished so much for his country by his leadership, has been the recipient of abuse as has been, also, his Democratic counterpart. Surely the comment of the Senator from Maine demonstrates what the feelings of Senators are with respect to the Democratic leader and the Republican leader in the Senate and what the feelings of the people of this country are with respect to them.

Mrs. SMITH. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for his comments.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me?

Mrs. SMITH. I am happy to yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for her remarks and to join her wholeheartedly in what she has to say concerning the distinguished minority leader.

If the Senate is to function, there must be cooperation on both sides as a matter of necessity. Cooperation, understanding, and tolerance have been forthcoming at all times.

Let me say that it is good for mereally a tyro in politics-to work alongside an old "pro," who rolls with the punches, who faces up to events as they occur, and who manages to emerge smiling most of the time.

Again I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for her comments and to assure her that I appreciate them more than I can say.

Mrs. SMITH. I thank the distinguished majority leader.

lady from Maine yield to me? Mr. DIRKSEN. Will the charming

Mrs. SMITH. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I can only salute and agree wholeheartedly with what the majority leader says in regard to the operation of the Senate.

Long ago, we agreed that the Senate is a public body which functions on a two-way street. If it were not so, the Senate would be in a constant state of disruption.

We dedicate ourselves to the business of making the Senate a functioning body. I am grateful, indeed, for the kind words.

As for the abuse, I roll with the tide. For more than 30 years I have been subjected to criticism of one kind or another. I do not retaliate. I do not reply in kind. I am content to take criticism in stride, because that is one of the things to which one must become inured in public service.

I am grateful to the Senator from Maine for her kind remarks.

Mrs. SMITH. I thank the minority leader very much.

A TRIBUTE TO MINORITY LEADER EVERETT M.

DIRKSEN

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the Senator from Maine yield?

Mrs. SMITH. I yield.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we have just heard a marvelous tribute given to our minority leader, Senator EVERETT DIRKSEN. I have asked permis

sion to associate myself with the expert views of the gracious lady from Maine [Mrs. SMITH).

"Ev" DIRKSEN is Nature's nobleman and a great leader with a warm heart and unimpeachable integrity. He and his wife, Lou, deserve the tributes which have just been paid to them.

I thank the Senator from Maine. Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] for taking all this time, when it was not my time to yield, and I hope that he will bear with me.

sufficient food to take care of 100 million people. The great valley of Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers, was able to grow food for as many as 15 million people.

I visited those areas. But, because of the neglect of the people in the protection of their land and water resources, the great Mesopotamia Valley is able to grow food now for only about 2 million people.

Their lands have soured. Their streams have clogged. The great port of Basra, which used to be on the Persian Gulf, is now removed about 30 miles up

Mr. ELLENDER. Maine is most welcome.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1965

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other puposes.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, for the past 3 or 4 months, the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has been giving very serious consideration to the many problems facing agriculture.

As we all know, the farm price support program really had its start in 1938. What the Congress has done since that time has been to add to and substract from the original proposals made in 1938. It will be remembered that the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry at that time held hearings throughout the country, at the grassroots, to obtain all the information possible with which to draft a bill in keeping with what was thought to be to the advantage of the producers of our Nation.

There is no doubt that we must by all means keep our farming community on the go and provide it with a fair income. Our entire economy is dependent on agriculture. One need only visit various parts of the world to discover what it means for a country to be incapable of producing its own food and fiber requirements. Many countries have neglected their precious land and water resources.

As a consequence, their economies deteriorated.

Many years ago Persia, which consisted of the present territory occupied by Iraq and Iran, was able to produce

What was the reason? The sedimentation from those two great rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, came down and not only built into the Persian Gulf, but clogged the many streams that emptied into those two great rivers and made much of the land more or less barren.

We do not want such a condition ever to exist in our own country.

Mr. President, long before I came to the Senate I devoted much time and study to the protection and preservation of our two great resources. I am proud of the fact that, as a Senator from Louisiana, I have been able to carry on this work as chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, as well as chairman of the Agriculture and Forestry committee of the Senate.

I have been serving on the latter committee since I came to the Senate, alaffecting our farms, affecting conservamost 29 years ago. All of the legislation tion, and other laws affecting agriculture and the protection and preservation of our water resources came under my view. and the protection and preservation of I was there to participate and assist in our water resources came under my view. passing legislation to protect and preI was there to participate and assist in serve those great resources.

that the cost of our programs has been Mr. President, it has often been said that the cost of our programs has been too high. I have so stated on many occasions, but when we consider the great factory that has been built over the years, in which we can now produce food and fiber in abundance, to feed not. fifty million, or 100 million, but almost 200 million people at home and many more millions abroad, the cost fades in more millions abroad, the cost fades in comparison. It has been a marvel what the farmers of this Nation have been capable of accomplishing.

From information gathered by the committee staff through the Department of Agriculture, the program cost, from of Agriculture, the program cost, from its inception in October 17, 1933, when we first had the NRA through June 30, 1965, amounts to $38,239,800,000.

If we add other Commodity Credit Corporation costs to that amount, such as strategic and critical materials-we have a barter program as we all knowhave a barter program as we all knowoff-shore procurement, ocean transportation in order to take care of shipment of Public Law 480 commodities, storage facilities, research studies, interest in the amount of $3,822,900,000, the wartime consumer subsidy of about $2,102,300,000, and other items, we find that the total cost amounts to $46,976,100,000.

At first blush, such sum appears very high, and it is very high; but, as I pointed out, our food and fiber abundance warrants every penny spent. There are

many periodicals today that are highly critical of the farm program; they suggest that the farmers should go to the marketplace to obtain their fair share of our economic prosperity. But, Mr. President, after World War II, when industry returned from war to peace, over a period of 5 years it cost the Federal Government in excess of $43 billion in subsidies to industry. We never heard a chirp out of anyone when that was done.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a question.

Mr. AIKEN. The Senator will remember that following World War II Congress authorized cancellation of several billion dollars worth of consumer subsidies, which have been charged to the agricultural program. They were written off as if they did not exist when it came time to repay the Commodity Credit Corporation.

Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator. Those figures were included in the total I mentioned which was chargeable to agriculture.

I stress the fact that this cost has been over the period from 1933 to 1965, over 32 years.

Today there are no people in the world who are better clothed or who eat better than do the people of the United States. That is something which should be borne in mind by those who seek to criticize this very costly program, as they put it. In the course of my discussion I shall refer to the costs of each of the programs.

The program which leads the way in cost is the wheat program. Of course, the reason is that of the $14,603 million total cost of this program, $9,517,100,000 was expended under Public Law 480. Wheat is a product that is used by all the peoples of the world, and we help to keep millions of people from starvation. Wheat is a major product exported under the Public Law 480 program.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. GORE. Is not the disposition of grain and other food commodities under Public Law 480 a vital instrument of American foreign policy?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; it is. I consider it so.

Mr. GORE. However, I believe the cost

is charged to the farm program.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is correct. Mr. GORE. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. GORE. In what countries would people be facing virtual starvation now, except for the food surpluses produced in the United States?

Mr. ELLENDER. There is the classic example of India, now at war with Pakistan. We have shipped wheat there by the hundreds of millions of bushels in the past 7 or 8 years. We have done the same in Pakistan. We shipped a good deal of wheat throughout Asia and north Africa, and some to Western Europe soon after the war, when production there had not reached its normal capacity.