Page images
PDF
EPUB

(d) Members of the Board appointed from private life, and any members of visiting committees or advisers appointed from private life, shall receive compensation at the rate of $100 for each day while engaged in the actual performance of their official duties and in necessary travel.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SEC. 5. (a) The chief executive of the Academy shall be the Chancellor of the National Academy of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Chancellor"). Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the Chancellor shall have authority and be responsible for the execution of the powers, functions, and duties of the Academy. In accordance with the policies and guidance established by the Board, he shall take such actions as may be required to carry out the purposes of the Academy; correlate the training, education, and research furnished by the Academy with the activities of other Government agencies and with the programs of private institutions; and encourage and foster such programs outside the Academy as will be complementary to those of the Academy. The Chancellor may from time to time make such provisions as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer or employee of the Academy of any function of the Chancellor.

(b) The Chancellor shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall be compensated at a rate established from time to time by the President, based on comparable salaries provided by leading universities. In case of death, resignation, absence, or disability of the Chancellor, a member of the faculty or staff of the Academy designated by the Chancellor shall, unless otherwise directed by the President, perform the duties of the Chancellor until a successor is appointed or such absence or disability shall

cease.

SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHANCELLOR

SEC. 6. Under such policies and guidance as the Board may establish, the Chancellor may

(a) appoint and compensate, as faculty or staff of the Academy, on a full- or parttime basis, such officers, employees, and attorneys as he may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of the civil service laws and regulations and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, except that in the absence of suitably qualified United States citizens, he may appoint and compensate persons who are not citizens of the United States: Provided, that when deemed necessary by the Board for the effective administration of this Act, members of the faculty may be appointed and compensated without regard to such laws and regulations: Provided further, such members of the faculty shall receive a salary at a rate based on comparable salaries provided by leading universities, but not to exceed the rate provided for GS-18 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended;

(b) arrange, with the consent of the head of the Government agency concerned, for the assignment or detail of any officer or employee of the Government, to serve on the faculty or staff of the Academy, or to receive training or education or to perform research at the Academy. To carry out the purposes of this subsection, the head of any Government agency may, under such arrangement, assign or detail any officer or employee of his agency to serve on the staff or faculty of the Academy, or to receive training or education or to perform research at the Academy. Such assignment or detail shall be deemed to be without prejudice to his status or opportunity for advancement within his own agency;

(c) permit other persons, including individuals who are not citizens of the United

States, to receive training or education or to perform research at the Academy when deemed in the national interest; and to provide appropriate orientation and language training to members of family of officers and employees of the Government in anticipation of the assignment abroad of such officers and employees or while abroad; but such persons and members of family shall not be deemed, by virtue of attendance at the Academy, to be Federal employees for any purpose of law;

(d) make arrangements (including contracts, agreements, and grants) for the conduct of such research and other scholarly activities in foreign affairs and related fields by private or public institutions or persons as may implement the functions of the Academy;

(e) pay the necessary tuition and other expenses of officers and employees of the Government who are attending the Academy, for additional special instruction or training at or with public or private nonprofit institutions, trade, labor, agricultural, or scientific associations, or commercial firms;

(f) procure services as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended (5 U.S.C. 55a), at rates not to exceed $100 each day for individuals, and in addition transportation expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence while away from their homes or regular places of business, as authorized by section 5 of said Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 73b-2): Provided, That individuals may serve singly or as members of committees: Provided further, That contracts so authorized may be renewed annually;

(g) pay travel and related expenses of the members of the Board, the Chancellor, faculty, staff, students of the Academy, members of visiting committees, and advisers to the Board as authorized by section 911 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1136), or by the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 835–842), and sections 1 and 7 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended (5 U.S.C. 73b-1 and 3), or by section 303 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, as amended (37 U.S.C. 404-406), as appropriate;

(h) utilize or employ the services, personnel, equipment, or facilities of any other Government agency, with the consent of the head of the Government agency concerned, to perform such functions on behalf of the Academy as may appear desirable;

(i) acquire in the United States or abroad such real and personal property as may be necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Academy: Provided, That the acquisition by lease or otherwise of buildings or parts of buildings in the United States, including the District of Columbia, for use of the Academy, shall be through the Administrator of General Services;

(j) accept, receive, hold, and administer gifts, bequests, or devises of money, securities, or property made for or to the benefit of, or in connection with the Academy, in accordance with section 1021 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 809); and

(k) prescribe rules and regulations governing the function and operation of the Academy, consistent with policies and guidance established by the Board.

PROVISION FOR COPYRIGHTS

SEC. 7. Members of the Board from private life, Chancellor, members of the faculty, and persons in attendance at, or serving with, the Academy shall be encouraged to write and speak on subjects within their special competence, and such writings and speeches other than those required in the performance of their official duties shall not be considered publications of the United States Government within the meaning of the Act of March 4, 1909, as amended (17 U.S.C. 8), or the Act of January 12, 1895, as amended (44 U.S.C. 58).

APPROPRIATIONS AND USE OF FUNDS

SEC. 8. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and when so provided in an appropriation Act, such funds may remain available until expended.

(b) Funds appropriated for the purposes of this Act or transferred to the Academy by other Government agencies for such purposes shall be available for the exercise of any authority granted by this Act, including, but not limited to: expenses of printing and binding without regard to the provisions of section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 111); entertainment and official courtesies to the extent authorized by appropriations; purchase, rent, or lease of offices, buildings, grounds, and living quarters for the use of the Academy, payments therefor in advance, and maintenance, improvement, and repair of such properties or grounds; expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with furthering the purposes of this Act, including (notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 of Public Law 60-328 (31 U.S.C. 673)) expenses in connection with meetings of persons whose appointment, employment, assignment, detail, or services is authorized by subsections 6 (a), (b), (f), and (h) of this Act.

REPEALS AND SAVING CLAUSES

SEC. 9. (a) Section 701 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1041), is amended to read as follows: "The Secretary of State is authorized to furnish training and instruction in the field of foreign affairs to officers and employees of the Foreign Service and to the Department and to other officers and employees of the Government when such training and instruction are not otherwise provided at the Academy or elsewhere. The Secretary may also provide appropriate orientation and language training to members of family of officers and employees of the Government in anticipation of the assignment abroad of such officers and employees or while abroad."

(b) Sections 702-707 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 10421047), are hereby repealed.

(c) Section 575(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 963), is further amended by adding the following: "The Secretary may pay the necessary tuition and other expenses for any such officer or employee."

(d) Section 578 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 968), is further amended by deletion of the phrase "at the Foreign Service Institute or elsewhere" from the final clause of the third sentence.

(e) So much of the property, records, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds held, used, available, or to be made available in connection with the Foreign Service Institute, as established by sections 701-707 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1041–1047), that relate to the work of the Academy, as determined by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, are hereby authorized to be transferred to the Academy and the Chancellor thereof.

(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, all determinations, authorizations, regulations, orders, contracts, agreements, and other actions taken, issued or entered into under authority of statutes repealed by this Act shall continue in full force and effect until modified by appropriate authority.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I ask Senators to note also that the 27 sponsors of this legislation included the entire Democratic leadership, as well as Members from both sides of the aisle.

In addition, with the approval and recommendation of the Secretary of State, a committee was formed, under

the chairmanship of Dr. James Perkins, of Cornell University, to support S. 865. The name of this committee was the Committee for the National Academy of Foreign Affairs, and because it is one of the most eminent and outstanding group of citizens ever gathered together in support of any legislation, I ask unanimous consent that a list of its membership be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE COMMITTEE FOR THE NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Dr. James A. Perkins, chairman.
Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor, Foreign
Affairs.

Mr. Dexter Otis Arnold, president, General
Federation of Women's Clubs.

Homer D. Babbidge, Jr., president, University of Connecticut.

Elliott V. Bell, chairman of the executive committee, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. William Blackie, president, president, Caterpiller Tractor Company.

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, stated clerk, United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

Roger M. Blough, chairman, United States Steel Corp.

Arleigh A. Burke, director, Center for Strategic Studies, Georgetown University.

Benjamin J. Buttenwieser, Kuhn, Loeb &

[blocks in formation]

Erwin D. Canham, editor, The Christian Science Monitor.

Everett Case, president, Sloan Foundation. Everett R. Clinchy, president, Council on World Tensions, Inc.

John Thomas Connor, president, Merck & Co., Inc.

Howard A. Cook, president, International House-New York.

John Cowles, president and editor, Minneapolis Star and Tribune.

Arthur H. Dean, Sullivan & Cromwell. Dr. Elmer Ellis, president, University of Missouri.

John Fischer, editor, Harper & Row. Marion B. Folsom, Eastman Kodak Co. James M. Gavin, U.S. Army, retired; president, Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Dr. Robert F. Goheen, president, Princeton University.

Gordon Gray, president, Federal City Coun

cil.

Gen. Alfred M. Gruenther, U.S. Army, retired; Supreme Commander, NATO; President, American Red Cross.

Dr. John Hanna, president, Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science.

Karl G. Harr, Jr., president, Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.

Dr. J. George Harrar, president, Rockefeller Foundation.

[blocks in formation]

Col. George A. Lincoln, professor of
social sciences, U.S. Military Academy.
August Maffry, senior vice president, Irv-
ing Trust Co.

William Marvel, president, Education &
World Affairs.

Dr. John W. Masland, Jr., provost, Dart-
mouth College.

George Meany, president, AFL-CIO.

Max S. Millikan, director, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Emory W. Morris, president, Kellogg Foundation.

Dr. Franklin D. Murphy, chancellor, Uni-
versity of California.

Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit, president, Texas
Southern University.

Alfred C. Neal, president, Committee for
Economic Development.

tion request for money in the proposed aid bill should be reduced, is the fact we have not yet taken steps to properly train the many thousands of additional people now representing us abroad. It is the quality of the people, rather than the quantity of the money, that really counts.

My second major apprehension about the proposed program results from the fact the United States is spending, and for some years has been spending, far more than its just share in banking the cause of freedom; in Central and South America, in Europe, in the Middle East, in South Asia, and in the Far East; in other words, all over the world.

As I see it, this cannot go on, because in our way of life, our physical strength can only come from our economic strength. It is becoming ever more clear that the generosity of the American people, as expressed in the foreign aid program, a generosity unique in world history, cannot be continued indefinitely without jeopardizing the system we cherish and want to preserve.

The above leads into my third appre

Calvin J. Nichols, executive director, World hension; namely, the continuing unfa

Affairs Council of Northern California.
John B. Oakes, editor, New York Times.
William S. Paley, chairman of the board,
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
James G. Patton, president, National
Farmers Union.

Dr. Don K. Price, dean, Graduate School
of Public Administration, Harvard Univer-
sity.

Dr. C. Herman Prichett, president-elect,
American Political Science Association.
Dr. Nathan Pusey, president, Harvard Uni-
versity.

Walter Raleigh, executive director, Young
Presidents' Organization, Inc.

Dr. William C. Rogers, director, World Af-
fairs Center, University of Minnesota.

Edith S. Sampson, judge, the Municipal
Court of Chicago.

Dr. Paul Sheats, president, National Uni-
versity Extension Service Association, Uni-
versity of California.

Sylvester C. Smith, Jr., president, Ameri-
can Bar Association.

A. M. Sonnabend, president, American
Jewish Committee.

H. Christian Sonne, chairman, National
Planning Association.

Monroe E. Spaght, president, Shell Oil Co.
Charles M. Spofford, David Polk Wardwell
Sunderland and Kiendl.

Frank Stanton, president, Columbia Broad-
casting System, Inc.

Charles P. Taft, Taft, Lavercombe and Fox.
Dr. Herman B. Wells, chancellor, Indiana
University.

Gen. Thomas D. White, U.S. Air Force,
retired; senior military editor, Newsweek.
John Hay Whitney, publisher, New York

Gilbert A. Harrison, editor and publisher, Herald Tribune. New Republic.

Loy W. Henderson, professor of international relations, American University.

Dr. Pendleton Herring, president, Social Science Research Council.

Christian A. Herter, former Secretary of State.

Rt. Rev. Msgr. Frederick Hockwalt, executive secretary, National Catholic Education Association.

Dr. Logan Wilson, president, American
Council on Education.

Dr. Henry M. Wriston, president, American
Assembly, Columbia University.

James David Zellerbach, chairman, Crown
Zellerbach Corp.

Mr. SYMINGTON. To the further
surprise of all those interested, how-
ever, influential people, including mem-

Dr. Kenneth Holland, president, Institute bers of the State Department old of International Education.

C. D. Jackson, publisher, Life magazine. Dr. Joseph E. Johnson, president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Eric Johnston, president, Motion Picture

Association of America, Inc.

Devereux C. Josephs, New York Life Insurance Co.

guard who want no change in the cur-
rent status, circumvented the wishes
of the President and the Secretary of
State by successfully voicing opposition
to even the administration's bill.

One of the three primary reasons,
therefore, why I believe the authoriza-

vorable balance of payments. The value of the currency of the United States is expressed by gold and backed up by gold; but whereas many countries that have received our foreign aid in billions have now increased their gold holdings by billions, over recent years this Nation has lost some 35 percent of the gold it once held.

There are some economists who believe that this is not a matter of great importance, that we can continue to lose gold indefinitely without adversely affecting our economy. I do not so believe. No professor will ever convince me that this steady loss of gold is anything but a steadily increasing danger to the future of the United States.

We know that offshore military expenditures incident to our being the world banker of freedom, plus the foreign aid program, are two of the primary reasons for this unfavorable balance; and although we are assured, with various plans and programs and charts, that necessary steps have been taken to change this unfavorable balance, the gold continues to run out.

Another consequence of this continued balance-of-payments deficit is that we have now become a debtor nation, with some $25 billion of current liabilities; and inasmuch as we are now borrowing money from the International Monetary Fund, as well as selling bonds to foreign central banks, it is a fact that we are now being forced to borrow money from foreign countries in order to finance this program of aid to foreign countries.

For these reasons in addition to the heavy criticisms of this bill in the current report of the Foreign Relations Committee, I do not believe we should continue foreign aid on the scale recommended. I do believe we should take whatever steps are necessary to train more people, should emphasize to our friends and allies that they must bear more of the price of freedom; and should also recognize that there is no program more important to the ultimate security of the United States than one designed

to reverse, as soon as possible, the longtime continuing unfavorable balance of payments.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SYMINGTON. If the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] will permit.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. I wish to ask the Senator if he has arrived at a decision as to what he would recommend for an appropriation for foreign aid for this year. I go along with him in saying that the authorization should be substantially reduced, but at what level does the Senator think we should reduce it to?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I answer my able friend from Vermont that we have had figures of $4.9 billion, then $4.2 billion, that figure cut to $3.5 billion, then restored to $4.2 billion. Now, I understand, it is proposed by the amendment proposed yesterday that this latter figure be reduced by some $385 million from $4.2 billion.

I should like to know more about the details, the component parts of the programs before giving a figure to the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont. However, if the cut were to be a blanket cut, in my opinion the cut of $385 million could be further reduced.

Mr. AIKEN. The Senator means that even though the authorization would be reduced by $385 million, it could be reduced even further. The Senator believes the amount would be reduced in the appropriation anyway, does he not?

Mr. SYMINGTON. My friend from Vermont has been in the Senate longer than I. His conjecture as to the action of the Appropriations Committee would be based upon more experience and, I am sure, more intelligence, than my own.

Mr. AIKEN. I would not agree to that. I know that the Senator from Missouri has had a great deal of experience in both the legislative and executive branches of the Government. It is my opinion that an authorization of $3.8 billion or $3.6 billion-whatever the conference should decide upon-would result in an appropriation of possibly $3 billion, and not more than $3.25 billion, which would be a reduction of approximately 25 percent from last year.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe that whatever authorization is recommended by the Senate prior to the functioning of the Appropriation Committee, the authorization should be based upon what we believe right.

I do not say this in critical fashion. I am sure the Senator from Vermont, with whom I have served with pleasure on this and other committees, agrees with me, because I know the way he approaches these problems.

Mr. AIKEN. I agree with the Senator from Missouri that it should not be based on certain actions taken with respect to the authorization bill; nevertheless, we must face facts and realize that it will be based on them to a certain extent.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I hope, when the bill is passed and the money is appropriated, it will represent the best thinking of the Senate from the standpoint

of the security of the United States. Therefore, I hope the authorization bill will represent our best thinking, what is best, net, for the country.

I thank the able Senator from Virginia. Mr. ROBERTSON. I was glad to yield, because I am in sympathy and full accord with the views expressed. When I express my views, I am going to specify a cut that will be much greater than the cut the Senator from Missouri has indicated. I hope the distinguished Senator from Vermont will be in the Chamber to comment on the cut that I shall propose.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] for 3 minutes without losing my right to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

IMAGINATION IN OUR EXPORT

PROGRAM

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. In spite of wide discussions and considerable interest in the field of export expansion, the regrettable fact is that the United States is lagging behind other United States is lagging behind other more aggressive trading countries in its efforts to secure a larger share of the world's markets-in fact, even in its efforts to retain its present share.

In the category of manufactured goods, the U.S. share of world trade fell from 29 percent in 1957 to under 23 percent in 1962. In the first 8 months of 1963, our favorable trade balance was less than it was a year ago. We are importing 5 percent more goods than we did last year, but exporting only 3 percent more.

It is particularly disturbing that our share in manufactured goods has declined. The largest amount of our nonmanufactured exports consists of surplus food, cotton, and other agricultural or raw materials. Most of these exports are Government subsidized in one form or another. Yet it is in the area of manufactured goods that we should be making the greatest effort, for it is our manufactured goods that provide jobs by the thousands and by the millions. Our manufactured goods should be finding their way into new markets and into new countries. Each year should see a substantial advance in the sale of American goods throughout the world.

One field that is of particular concern to me is the field of clothing and fashions. New York is the clothing center of the world, employing many thousands of workers. It should also be the fashion center. American clothes, which I know would be in great demand, should be for sale in every European department store and throughout the entire world. However, I should like to call the attention of Senators to a recent article written by Sylvia Porter, indicating how both our Government and businessmen in the clothing industry have fallen down on the job.

Admittedly, modern-day protective devices in trade, the advent of Common Market competitors, and the problems of import licenses, exchange control,

quotas, taxes, labeling and packaging requirements, surcharges, credit and price controls, State trading and operating monopolies, penalty fees and import documentation, product standards and specifications, commercial advertising restrictions, bureaucratic delays and nationalism in certain countries-to mention but a few of the obstacles in international trade-all these do pose a challenge to American manufacturers in finding markets for the export of American fashions. But it is a challenge that must be accepted.

What is more, Mr. President, the State Department, despite the talk of promoting exports, has, I understand, refused to sponsor American fashion shows in U.S. Embassies-where they would undoubtedly attract great attention. Our Government, I understand, argues that they are too commercial. That is in striking contrast to the diligent efforts taken here by representatives of several European countries to advance their fashions and clothing interests.

Mr. President, in every other free world country, and particularly among our industrial allies, the governments are 100 percent behind the efforts of clothing and other manufacturers to secure foreign markets. It is time our own Government began to emphasize the interest and concern of U.S. firms, and to abandon the hands-off attitude which has discouraged U.S. business overseas and often left it unaided to deal with determined foreign competitors who have their government's strong backing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, following my remarks, an article written by Sylvia Porter on this subject, published in the Evening Star of October 31, 1963.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CLOTHES MARKET WAITING ABROAD (By Sylvia Porter) Frenchwomen are hungry for American clothes and particularly want to buy our "casual look"" dresses made of cotton and synthetic fibers.

To meet this already existing demand and to develop the potentially huge clothing market in France's cities and growing suburbs, the United States sold a "grand" total of $7,232 of cotton dresses and $13,635 of synthetic fiber dresses to France in 1962. Our exports of all clothes to her last year averaged only $112,000 per month-which is equivalent to saying we sold that country next to nothing.

The women of Italy and West Germany also are excited by the sort of clothes we produce here-about our fashions, our experiments with synthetic materials, our prices.

To meet this already existing demand and to develop the potentially huge clothing markets in the cities and growing suburbs of Italy and West Germany, we sold a grand total of $100 (yes, 10 $10 bills) of synthetic fiber dresses to Italy and $40,000 of synthetic fiber dresses to West Germany in 1962. In April, the peak month of exports, our sales of all clothes to booming West Germany amounted to only $492,000.

"There is a complete apathy in the United States toward selling clothes abroad," says Eleanor Lambert, internationally recognized

authority on fashions in the United States and foreign clothing markets.

"We have been terribly stupid," she added flatly in an interview. "We have people running to Europe to observe markets but nobody does anything about selling. The State Department has refused to sponsor American fashion shows in American embassies because they're too commercial. Yet the French Embassy has frequent fashion shows in Washington.

"All European countries are constantly sending delegations of textile people and retailers here to study our garmentmaking techniques and to make licensing agreements. Yet they protect their own techniques from our observers. We don't protect our own techniques.

"In the area of high fashion there is no American clothing going abroad except in

travelers' suitcases."

The implications of this harsh indictment go far beyond the clothing industry, important though this industry is in our country.

We must expand our exports abroad to provide more jobs for our workers and to protect the profits of American businessmen. We must expand our exports overseas to earn the dollars to cover our spending overseas, to narrow the deficit in our balance of payments, and to curb the outflow of gold from

our reserves.

Yet, despite the pleas by the administration, the hoopla about boosting our exports, the high-level foreign trade conferences in and out of Washington, our performance on trade expansion has been mediocre.

In the first 8 months of 1963 our trade surplus was at an annual rate of $4.6 billion,

a seemingly hefty figure but it's down from the level of a year ago. Our imports of goods are up 5 percent while our exports are up only 3 percent.

When the totals are broken down, the

record shows up as even more disappointing, for U.S. exports not tied into foreign aid or our farm disposal programs have been just creeping up. The rise of non-Government financed exports in the past 3 years has been only a meager 1 percent a year.

The pathetic indifference of so many businessmen is highlighted by the clothing industry. Although a few pioneers are starting to move into Europe to explore the market, most in the field are either ignorant of the exhilarating possibilities or are afraid to venture out, or are discouraged by artificial barriers that could be broken down if they

would make the effort.

[blocks in formation]

and the Senecas came to the conclusion that further protestations were in vain, they and the Friends appealed to the President of the United States for just and immediate compensation.

On April 9, 1961-more than 2 years ago-the President wrote to the head of the Seneca nation indicating that Government action was forthcoming. My with the Senecas and the Friends, introcolleague [Mr. JAVITS] and I, working duced legislation to compensate the Indians for their anticipated loss.

In 1965-one short building season from now-Indian lands and Indian homes will be flooded, but we still have no bill. The Senecas cannot make plans to move their homes because they still do not know how much money will be available. They cannot plan new sites because they still do not know where new roads will be built. They cannot plan to develop recreational facilities because they do not yet know what they will be allowed to develop.

The House Indian Affairs Subcommittee has been working diligently on the bill, and I commend the members for their efforts. At the same time, I must point out that time is running short for these Indians, and that we have an obligation, incurred in 1794, to act with justice and with speed.

Mr. President, an article written by Lucian Warren which was published in the Buffalo Courier-Express last week explains the status of the bill and admonishes the Government to act. I ask the RECORD the text of this article. unanimous consent to have printed in

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SENECAS NEED STRONG ALLY IN KINZUA ISSUE

(By Lucian C. Warren)

On August 9, 1961, President Kennedy sent a long letter to Basil Williams, at the time president of the Seneca Nation of Indians. It was a kindly, well-written letter, and while it indicated it was too late to stop construction of the Kinzua Dam, it did promise the Government would do certain things.

Among other things, he said that he had directed the various Federal agencies to consider the possibility of (1) acquiring "lieu" lands near the reservation in exchange for the flooded out lands; (2) developing the recreation potential of the reservoir, with the Indians sharing in the benefits; (3) awarding special damages to the Indians because of the substantial proportion of Indian lands to be taken; and providing special assistance to the Senecas in their relocation problems. Recommendations: The letter also stated that "in the event legislation is required to achieve these objectives, I have asked that recommendations be prepared."

It is now more than 2 years since that letter was sent. Tomorrow (Friday) a Seneca delegation, headed by George D. Heron, present Seneca president, will confer in the White House with Lee White, administrative assistant to President Kennedy. Basil Williams will be a member of that delegation.

The Indians will undoubtedly tell the President's representative that the President is a long way from delivering on his promises.

It is true that as of this week, substantial agreement has been reached among certain interested parties on the language of proposed legislation which is designed to help the Senecas. Representatives of the Senecas, the House Interior Committee, the Inte

rior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Defense Department's Army Corps of Engineers have worked out the details of providing the Senecas with direct and indirect damages and for relocation of the Senecas flooded out by the Kinzua Dam.

Dispute: But by common consent, among these interested parties, the dollar amounts of the money to be paid and the acreage involved are still to be filled in. On this there is considerable disagreement.

In the line of "special damages" as asked by President Kennedy, the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Seneca Nation are in agreement that $691,000 is a fair amount. The Army Corps of Engineers takes no position on this, except to say that Congress can authorize and provide any amount it wants, but such funds should not be charged to the cost of the project.

Historical error: In this they are histori

cally in error, for in other somewhat similar projects "special damages" have been charged to the cost of the project.

Army Engineers and the Senecas are also very far apart on the "subsurface value" or mineral rights of Indian lands needed for the reservoir. In their latest testimony before Congress, the Senecas said they expected payment of $4,227,000 for Seneca land, while only $535,000. Most of this huge difference the corps indicated they were willing to pay involves the difference in their estimates on subsurface values.

Agreement: In recent negotiations, the Senecas and the Army Engineers have shown they are not far apart on their appraisals of surface land values and improvements. Already there has been agreement on some of between $25 and $15,250 will be made for 134 tracts of Seneca land, for which payments the surface value of land involved. The indi

cations are that the two sides are not too far apart on the remaining tracts, if only surface land values and improvements are considered.

Because there is still such a big difference on the subsurface estimates values, Congress will be presented with suggested legislation that will keep surface and subsurface dollar amounts separate. Army Engineers will back one version of the legislation that will direct this matter be settled by the courts. Senecas

are asking that Congress authorize payment of a certain minimum amount for subsurface rights, with the balance to be determined by courts.

Another issue: Another area of disagreement is due for an airing in Federal court in Buffalo on November 4, even before Congress acts. This is the issue of whether the Army Engineers have the right to take over enough Indian land to provide a four-lane limited access highway for a relocated State highway, Route 17. The Senecas maintain Uncle Sam should have the right to acquire land for a two-lane highway.

Still very much in the air is what is to be done to rehabilitate the Senecas, to provide them with jobs and a worthwhile project to take the place of their farmlands, the best of which will be in the reservoir area.

Brill report: The Brill engineering firm of New York has recommended in its final report that a $35 million recreational-educational project, and a $4,438,000 industrial park would solve this problem. The former would be financed by an outright grant of $15 million from Uncle Sam, plus $20 million in an interest-free loan, payable $500,000 a year after the 10th year of the project. The latter would be financed by an outright grant.

So far, only the Senecas among the interested parties have received the Brill report with enthusiasm. The Army Engineers have shrugged it off as another benefit that Congress could provide not to be charged to the cost of the project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has as yet to make a recommendation, and no Congressmen, either on or off

the House Interior Committee, have as yet endorsed the idea.

Empty words: And yet if the Indians are to have a means of livelihood and if the western New York area is to gain some economic advantage in return for the mudflats of the Kinzua Dam, something like the Brill recommendation must be adopted..

The Indians would do well to muster their best arguments at the White House Friday. Unless a powerful friend comes to their rescue, they might find again that, like George Washington's promise that the treaty of 1794 would never be broken, the 1961 letter may have been empty words.

Mr. JAVITS subsequently said: Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I have long been deeply concerned with the critical problem of the displacement of the Seneca Nation of Indians from their homes in New York brought about by the construction by the Federal Government of the Allegheny Dam and Reservoir project, known as the Kinzua project, located at Kinzua, Pa., which is scheduled for completion in 1965. The taking of 10,000 acres of land and Seneca property by the Federal Government in the dam area will disturb and disrupt the community life and economic and social traditions of the Seneca Nation.

In view of the fact that the nearly 800 Senecas in the reservoir area have been warned to abandon their homes by October 1, 1964, the immediacy of the problems of providing compensation for the displaced nation and its members is patently clear.

On July 9, I, together with Senators KEATING, SCOTT, CLARK, MCGOVERN, CASE, and ERVIN, introduced a bill (S. 1836), to provide for much needed financial compensation for the relocation, rehabilitation, social and economic development of the Seneca Nation of Indians and its individual members who will be displaced by the taking of their property. In providing compensation for the Seneca Indians, the bill expressed in legislative form the intent of President Kennedy as reflected in his August 9, 1963, letter to the Seneca Nation, in which he declared "the desire of the Federal Government to assist the members of the Seneca Nation in every proper way to make the adjustment as fair and orderly as possible."

Legislation to provide compensation to the Seneca Indians for the Federal taking has also been introduced in the House. The Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has conducted hearings on the bills. The House Committee has spent a good deal of time considering the positions of the executive agencies and proposed provisions of the bill, including estimated direct and indirect damages. It has encouraged continued discussion between the Corps of Engineers and the Seneca Nation on problems concerning this legislation. The Seneca Nation has actively cooperated in this regard with the House Committee. In addition, on October 25, 1963, a delegation from the Seneca Nation traveled to the White House to confer with administration officials on relocation matters and the pending legislation. The Seneca Nation is deeply concerned over its future and has already begun preparation for the relocation.

I am pleased to note that the House Indian Affairs Subcommittee, is presently drawing up a compromise bill and is striving diligently to come up with a satisfactory bill. I am hopeful that remaining unsettled issues, including the amount of damages, will be resolved and that the House and Senate will act quickly on this much needed legislation in view of the urgent need to come to terms with the serious problem of the relocation of the members of the Seneca Nation required by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article written by Warren Weaver, Jr., entitled "Kinzua Dam Pact Mapped in House," published in the New York Times this morning.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

KINZUA DAM PACT MAPPED IN HOUSE-BUT SENECAS AND ENGINEERS CLASH ON MINERAL RIGHTS

(By Warren Weaver, Jr.) WASHINGTON, October 31.-The congressional committee trying to reimburse the Seneca Indians for the flooding of their western New York reservation drew up a compromise bill today.

The new legislation apparently settled a

good many of the tangled legal questions

involved in the Kinzua Dam controversy, but it still left the Indians and the Army Engineers at odds over several critical finan

cial issues.

Most important, it developed at a hearing of the House Indian Affairs Subcommittee, is the question of how much the Seneca Tribe should receive from the Federal Gov

ernment for the injury the new Allegany Reservoir will do to sand, gravel, oil, and gas Reservoir will do to sand, gravel, oil, and gas rights on the property.

The Army Engineers' spokesman at the hearing, Loney W. Hart, estimated that these rights for the 10,000 acres of Seneca Reservation to be flooded by the reservoir would be damaged only to the extent of about $50,000!

But Arthur Lazarus, the Washington lawyer who represented the Seneca Nation, maintained that the figure should be $5

million. He said the Senecas would be willing to settle, however, for a minimum guarantee of $500,000 in the legislation.

PROTESTS DISPARITY

This disparity prompted the chairman of the parent House Interior Committee, Representative WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Democrat, of Colorado, to protest that "I don't understand this 100-to-1 ratio. I can't understand this variation at all."

Originally, the Army Engineers called for a bill that would simply give the Senecas, in return for the subsurface rights on their land, whatever a Federal court said they were entitled to.

Today Mr. Hart, who is chief of real estate legislative services for the corps, offered a compromise. Under it, the Indians would get $500,000 but would become responsible for any claims lodged by persons to whom gas and oil leases had been assigned.

The Senecas could go to court if they wanted to try to improve on this settlement, but they would then risk losing money if the Federal court award was less than $500,000. Mr. Lazarus called this latest Army proposal "completely unacceptable."

being built on the Allegheny River near Kinzua Dam is a $115 million project Warren, Pa., by the Army Engineers.

The subcommittee chairman, Representative JAMES A. HALEY, Democrat, of Florida,

is trying to settle the subsurface damage issue and several other financial grants in the Seneca legislation in time so that a bill can be passed this year.

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

Mr. JAVITS. I am glad to yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is this the case in which a treaty with the Seneca Indians was involved?

Mr. JAVITS. There was a treaty. That was all worked out in connection with the Kinzua Dam. Legally we did not feel that the treaty actually represented the kind of commitment which I could be enforced against the Federal Government in respect of this dam. The treaty lent great weight to the need for doing at least financial justice.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. But the Senecas believe it is a violation of the treaty on the part of the United States, do they not?

Mr. JAVITS. They certainly do. It broke my heart, and that of former Senator Ives as well, when we could not stop the dam project, because of the feeling of Senators that time marches on, and that this is an extremely important project. There was a great deal of flooding in the area, and it had to be done.

I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his intercession.

SYRACUSE, N.Y.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, in February 1961, the Metropolitan Development Association of Syracuse, N.Y., sponsored a major conference of community leaders and planners from Onondaga County and developers and financiers from across the United States. The purpose of the 2-day conference was to discuss the potential of the Syracuse metropolitan area and ways and means for accomplishing planning goals.

In the short space of 2 years, remarkable changes have taken place in the Syracuse-Onondaga area.

The city of Syracuse has approved the Presidential Plaza development in the Near East Side urban renewal area. When completed, this will provide nearly 1,000 apartments in three 30-story apartments, three 10-story apartments and 27 townhouses.

Development of a new 25-story officehotel building and 4 other major office buildings have begun in downtown Syracuse.

The voters of Onondaga County have approved a modern county charter with an elected county executive and a bond issue for $45 million for a new water supply.

Modern terminals have been opened at Hancock Airport for air passengers and by the New York Central Railroad for train passengers.

Hospital facilities in Onondaga County have been increased with the opening of the 298-bed community hospital. Construction is well advanced on the 396bed State hospital of the Upstate Medical Center, with the opening scheduled in 1964.

Syracuse University which has averaged two new buildings a year since 1946 has increased the tempo of its building

« PreviousContinue »