RESOLUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE SENATE

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], and myself, I present a certified copy of a resolution entitled "Resolution Memorializing the Congress of the United States To Enact Legislation Providing Federal Aid for Nursing Home Care for Aged Veterans," adopted by the Senate

of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on October 23, 1963.

I ask that this resolution be appropriately referred.

There being no objection, the resolution was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, as follows: RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENACT LEGISLATION PROVIDING FEDERAL AID FOR NURSING HOME CARE FOR AGED VETERÁNS

Whereas there is now pending before the Congress of the United States H.R. 8009

which has been unanimously passed by the House of Representatives and presently awaits further action in the Senate, which bill establishes Federal responsibility for a portion of nursing home care for aged veterans, assists State homes in capital outlay needs, and eliminate the splitting provision whereby the Veterans' Administration claims one-half of any moneys collected from pension or income of veterans in State homes

when charges are made; and

Whereas by the enactment of H.R. 8009, the Commonwealth could receive up to $250,000 annually which would help to partially relieve the heavy burden which has been voluntarily assumed because of the Federal

Government's failure to provide sufficient

beds for long-term care of veterans in State

homes: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Massachusetts Senate respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to enact H.R. 8009 providing Federal aid for nursing home care for aged veterans; and be it further

Resolved, That an engrossed copy of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the secretary of the Commonweath to the President of the United States, to the Presiding to each Member thereof from the CommonOfficers of each branch of the Congress, and wealth.

Adopted by the Senate October 23, 1963.
THOMAS A. CHADWICK,
Clerk.

Attest:

KEVIN H. WHITE, Secretary of the Commonwealth.

REPORT OF A COMMITTEE The following report of a committee was submitted:

By Mr. BYRD of Virginia, from the Committee on Finance, without amendment:

H.R. 8821. An act to revise the provisions of law relating to the methods by which amounts made available to the States pursuant to the Temporary Unemployment Compensation Act of 1958 and title XII of the Social Security Act are to be restored to the Treasury (Rept. No. 629).

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself and
Mr. METCALF):

S. 2279. A bill to authorize the transfer of the Piegan Unit of the Blackfeet Indian irrigation project, Montana, to the landowners within the unit; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. HARTKE (for himself and Mr.
BAYH):

S. 2280. A bill to establish a Wabash Basin

Interagency Water Resources Commission; to the Committee on Public Works.

(See the remarks of Mr. HARTKE when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

RESOLUTION

ELECTION OF FRANCIS R. VALEO TO BE SECRETARY FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE SENATE

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I offer a resolution, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be stated.

The legislative clerk read the resolution (S. Res. 222), as follows:

Resolved, That Francis R. Valeo, of the District of Columbia, be, and he is hereby,

On February 6, 1961, I introduced S. 811, a bill identical to the one I offer now. S. 811 was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Works and it was reported by that committee on June 6, 1961. In its report to the Senate, the committee expressed these views:

Comprehensive water resources development plans have been prepared in the past for certain areas and found to be of great value in the formulation and selection of projects for construction. Examples of these studies are the comprehensive report on the New York-New England region and the equally comprehensive report on the Arkansas-White-Red River Basins in Southwestern

United States. Other comprehensive studies, such as those on the Columbia, the Missouri, the Mississippi, and the Ohio, have proved to form an invaluable basis for the development of the water resources in those basins.

The Congress has authorized similar study commissions for the southeastern river basins of the United States and for certain southwestern river basins. The committee is of the opinion that the proposed study of the Wabash Basin will prove of equal value in the future development of the water and related resources of this extremely important area of our Nation.

The Senate then passed the bill on June 13, 1961.

On July 13, 1961, the President transmitted to the Congress his draft legislation implementing certain recommendations contained in his message of February 23, 1961, on natural resources. This legislation would provide for development of the Nation's natural resources through the establishment of a Water Resources Council and river basin

commissions. Subsequently, when the Agency reports on my bill were sent to the House Committee on Public Works,

they recommended against enactment of S. 811 saying that they believed the overall river basin water resources commission proposed by the President was preferable to individual river basin commissions for a particular area. Consequently, the House did not act on my bill. As we all know, Mr. President, the administration's bill failed to pass Congress last year. It is not even clear if it will

pass this year or next. Meanwhile, the Wabash Basin is waiting.

The late Senator Robert Kerr understood what this Commission could mean to the Wabash Basin. It was he who advised me that this kind of commission would be most effective in coordinating our flood control efforts in the basin. He supported S. 811 in the last Congress and spoke in its behalf when the measure was offered as an amendment to the omnibus public works authorization bill last year. The Wabash Valley comprises 33,100 square miles and has a population of over 4 million people. Each year parts of the valley are ravaged by floods which cause thousands of dollars in damages. Some years, such as this year, the countryside shrivels from drought bringing additional hardship and financial loss. Recent losses could have been prevented had a coordinated and planned flood control effort begun 10 or 15 years ago.

The Wabash Basin cannot afford to wait an interminable length of time for an effective and comprehensive planning body to coordinate flood control and water resources development. Even though we have made progress in the last 3 to 4 years in initiating vitally needed flood control projects, we cannot continue our stop-and-start record of development.

Delay is expensive to the people of the Wabash Valley. I ask, therefore, that the Congress act with dispatch in approving this bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately

Mansfield amendment, for our checking with the Parliamentarian makes clear to us that that is important if we wish to influence the overall amounts that are set forth in the Mansfield amendment.

The next amendment that I shall offer, send to the desk and ask to have printed, so that it may be called up in the due course of time, is an amendment to the course of time, is an amendment to the Mansfield amendment which, in connection with the Development Loan Fund, tion with the Development Loan Fund, would strike out $975 million and substitute $900 million. The amendment would further save $75 million.

We propose to leave the Alliance for Progress economic aid figure at the amount contained in the Mansfield amendment, but we propose to change the contingency fund from the large increase in the Mansfield amendment back to $150 million.

In committee I proposed $100 million. A compromise was made at a higher figure. I am not too certain, but my recollection is that the $100 million figure is the figure proposed by the House. One hundred and fifty million dollars is not only ample but, in my judgment, it could even be cut $50 million more perhaps by amendments offered by other Senators, for among some of us who have been discussing the bill there seems to be an opinion, rather strongly held by some, that the amount should not be more than $100 million.

In justification, I wish only to say of the $150 million proposed in my amendment that after I lost on the $100 million proposal in committee, I went along with the compromise of the committee. I feel it was good enough for me there, and it ought to be good enough for me here, although I would have no objection to going to a lower figure, because I think it would be justified.

But there is one mythical argument that is being used in support of a higher allowance for the contingency fund that I think should be answered very quickly. A huge contingency fund is unnecessary. A contingency fund of $100 or $150 million could meet any immediate emergency that might confront the President. The record of our committee shows that he did not use a dollar of his contingency fund at the time of the Cuban crisis. It was left intact.

With

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask that I may have 1 additional minute. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. out objection, it is so ordered. dicial notice that the President can get Mr. MORSE. I think we can take juto the Capitol in minutes if he faces an emergency, and he will have no trouble getting whatever money he needs for the

emergency.

But there is a precious principle of a check upon the executive branch of the Government under our constitutional system, and that is not to give un

checked discretion to any officer of the

Government. If we should provide the amount of money that is called for by the Mansfield amendment, in my judgment, we would give too much power to any President. I do not care who he is. When the President can come to Congress and get more money for a real

emergency very quickly, I believe that the $150 million we are allowing is sufficient.

I close by saying that taking $150 million from what the President asked for in the contingency fund is a rather harmless way of cutting the bill. And yet it is important for many reasons, including psychological reasons. It would be rather reassuring to the people of our country that we are willing to take $150 million off the contingency fund when we know that we also give them assurance that if some serious emergency should arise that would call for more money, the President would have no trouble getting it at that time. But I see no reason why we should tie up $300 million of the taxpayers' money in the contingency fund-$150 million is enough. Therefore we offer the proposal in the amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be received, printed, and lie on the table.

Mr. GRUENING submitted two amendments (Nos. 296 and 297), intended to be proposed by him, to House bill 7885, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. ELLENDER submitted two amendments (Nos. 298 and 299), intended to be proposed by him to the amendment proposed by Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself and other Senators) (amendment No. 280) to House bill 7885,

supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. ELLENDER also submitted an amendment (No. 300), intended to be proposed by him, to House bill 7885, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself and Mr. MCGOVERN) submitted an amendment (No. 301), intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to the amendment proposed by Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself and other Senators) (No. 280) to House bill 7885, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. MORSE submitted three amend

ments (Nos. 302, 303, and 304), intended to be proposed by him to the amendments proposed by Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself and other Senators) (No. 280) to House bill 7885, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON S. 2136, TO AMEND THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1938

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the Committee on Foreign Relations announces today that hearings on the bill (S. 2136) amending the Foreign Agents

Registration Act of 1938, will begin at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, November 19, 1963,

in room 4221, New Senate Office Building. The session will be open to the public.

Representatives of the Departments of State and Justice will be the first wit

nesses.

On Wednesday, November 20, and Thursday, November 21, at 9:30 a.m.,

there will be further hearings on the bill in room 4221 for additional executive and public witnesses.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the following bills of the Senate:

S. 876. An act to authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey certain land in Prince Georges County, Md., to the American National Red Cross; and

S. 1201. An act for the relief of Dr. James T. Maddux.

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT

RESOLUTION SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolution, and they were signed by the President pro tempore:

S. 310. An act for the relief of Kaino Hely Auszis;

H.R. 1049. An act to amend sections 334, 367, and 369 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 734, 767, 769) and to add a new section 355 so as to require claims to be filed and to limit the time within which claims may be filed in chapter XI (arrangement) proceedings to the time prescribed by section 57n of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 93n);

H.R. 1311. An act for the relief of Jolan Berczeller;

H.R. 1345. An act for the relief of Peter Carson;

H.R. 2260. An act for the relief of Mrs. Rozsi Neuman;

H.R. 2445. An act for the relief of Mrs. Barbara Ray Van Olphen;

H.R. 2754. An act for the relief of Mercedes Robinson Orr;

H.R. 2757. An act for the relief of Woo

You Lyn (also known as Hom You Fong and Lyn Fong Y. Hom);

H.R. 2835. An act to clarify the status of circuit and district judges retired from regular active service;

H.R. 2968. An act for the relief of Kazimierz Kurmas and Zdzislaw Kurmas;

H.R. 3384. An act for the relief of Lee Suey Jom (also known as Tommy Lee and Lee Shue Chung);

H.R. 4145. An act for the relief of certain individuals;

H.R. 6097. An act for the relief of Dr. Pedro B. Montemayor, Jr.;

H.R. 6260. An act for the relief of Wai Chan Chang Liu;

H.R. 6500. An act to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes; and

H.J. Res. 626. Joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to the establishment of an interstate school district by Hanover, N.H., and Norwich, Vt., and to an agreement between Hanover School District, New Hampshire, and Norwich Town School District, Vermont.

ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTICLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE RECORD

On request, and by unanimous consent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

By Mr. HARTKE: Address delivered by Senator MAGNUSON before the 33d Annual World Travel Congress of the American Society of Travel

Agents, Inc., at Mexico City, October 21, 1963; and address delivered by Milton A. Marks, before the 33d Annual World Travel Congress of the American Society of Travel Agents, Inc., at Mexico City, October 25,

1963.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TALENT— ADDRESS BY C. W. MILLER Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, commencement addresses usually are characterized in greatest measure by the pleasantest of platitudes, and so frequently our young people seek in vain, in such well-meant speeches, the nourishing meat of substance.

It is particularly refreshing, therefore, when the unusual happens, and a sound, straightforward, spirit-challenging commencement address is served up to a graduating group eager and able to come to grips with the new and larger life beyond the campus.

Such an address recently was delivered to the graduating class of the summer class of 1963, at Trinity University, San Antonio, Tex., by Mr. C. W. Miller, a trustee of Trinity, and retired president of Sears, Roebuck & Co. I ask unanimous consent that this splendid speech be printed in the RECORD, and I respectfully draw the attention of my colleagues to it.

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

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TALENT (By C. W. Miller) President Laurie, fellow trustees, graduates of the summer class of 1963, ladies and gentlemen, for you members of the graduating class of summer 1963 here at Trinity this evening, this is a very significant occasion. You have completed your university course. While some of you, no doubt, will go on to further graduate studies, to most of you, I presume this evening marks the end of your university course. Tomorrow, you will step out into a new world. You will leave the academic atmosphere of Trinity University, and you will burst into the hurly-burly, competitive life of business or of one of the various professions. Your first concern, I presume, will be to forge for yourself a place of significance in order to assure a suitable income for yourself and your family. As I have seen you from time to time going about the campus on my rather frequent trips there, and as I look into your faces this evening, I hold no doubt but that over the next few years each of you may be counted on to become a success in your chosen field of work and in your home.

While making a suitable living is certainly one of man's prime responsibilities, if not his No. 1 responsibility, as well as one of the greatest pleasures, it is not about this that I wish to speak to you this evening. Neither do I wish to talk to you about that subject which is engaging the thoughts and time of so many people in all walks of life across the length and breadth of this great land of ours; namely, the subject of socalled civil rights.

Rather, I would draw your attention to the field of your civic responsibilities; not the rights but the responsibilities. Shall we say, "The responsibilities of talent"? I am sure that each of you in this class of summer 1963 is the possessor of more native abil

ity and talent than the average nonuniversity graduate. Some of you, of course, have more talents than your fellow classmates. These talents of yours have been added to and polished and sharpened by your years at Trinity. They are now ready to be used.

It is about "The Responsibility of Talent" that I wish to speak to you tonight.

Christ, in His Parable of the Talents, clearly teaches that He expects more from those to whom He has given more; and from those with the greatest talent, He expects the most. It is a sad and sorry sight to see a man or a woman possessed with great native talent wasting the years away with the petty, the ordinary, and the humdrum.

Today, in this, the greatest nation in the world, we are faced with the absolutely frightening problems of sheer survival. Abroad, we see a strong and populous nation openly advocating our overthrow by force.

China would invade our shores tomorrow if she had the strength to do it. Russia openly advocates our overthrow but currently only through the process of changing our form of government by subversion. At home, our land is torn by great internal problems. We see a racial minority group in many places, particularly in the South, denied certain rights guaranteed to it by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of our land. We see it struggling to receive those rights. But, sadly, we also see it hurting itself and our Nation by insisting on much that is beyond its constitutional rights or the constitutional rights of anyone. We see the sanctity of private property being attacked in a fashion unheard of just a few years ago.

Our free enterprise system that has made possible the world's wealthiest, the world's strongest, and the world's happiest nation is today being taxed to the breaking point. Our high taxes of all kinds, including a confiscatory income tax, is having a stifling effect on the business of this country. Taxes can destroy any nation. Perhaps, this is what Chairman Khrushchev had in mind last summer when he said, "We believe that tomorrow the Red flag will wave over the United States, but we will not take it therethe Americans will do that themselves." In Bexar County alone, we have 55 local taxing authorities. This does not include the State or Federal.

We see a philosophy of government coddling from the cradle to the grave-a welfare state for all. We see a philosophy of big government and big spending. Instead of government being the instrument of the taxpayer, in all too many areas the taxpayer is thought of merely as the source of supply for big government spending. We see waste in government at all levels-local, State, and National. Only this, the wealthiest nation in all history, could support the wasteful government we have; and we can't do it forever.

The profit motive, which is the heart of our free enterprise system, is being criticized in high places. Confiscatory income taxes remove much of the incentives to business to plan, to invest, or to expand. Let us hope that Congress will soon cut taxes and thus lighten this heavy load on business and accompany this with a corresponding reduction of Government spending.

We see gigantic labor unions with millions of dollars in their treasuries controlling elections and politicians. Their monopolistic actions are largely beyond our present laws. No one questions the right of labor to organize. No one doubts that great good has come from organized labor, but something must be done through legislation to control the great power organized labor has achieved, not only for the good of business and the general public, but for the laboring man himself.

On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe announced a new policy for the United States. It came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. It has been echoed by every President since Mr. Monroe's time, including Mr. John F. Kennedy. That policy in the past has meant that the Americas are for the Americans, and without foreign interference or foreign pressure or foreign domination.

I would like to ask this 1963 class of Trinity: Do we, today, have a Monroe Doctrine? And, if so, what does it mean today-tonight-if you please? How does it apply to Cuba as we are gathered here this evening? How is it possible under the Monroe Doctrine for Russian guns and planes to be pointed across a mere 90 miles of ocean at our shores, with a sneering, threatening dictator daring the United States to come and remove those menaces to our safety? How is this possible under the Monroe Doctrine of James Monroe and Teddy Roosevelt?

We see our Government giving away the substance of this great Nation of ours in ever-increasing amounts. We have seen some of it, like the Marshall plan, doing great good in restoring deserving peoples to a state of self-support and self-respect. But today, we now see millions and millions being wasted in a futile attempt to win friends and influence people to our form of government. We also see untold millions being given to our avowed enemies. This, I am sure, they doubly enjoy. In speaking of foreign aid on a worldwide basis, Eugene Black, the former President of the World Bank says, "None of our objectives has been achieved."

Should we aid a foreign power in setting up a U.S. financed, but foreign governmentowned factory to compete with U.S. factories, as in the case of the steel mill proposed for India?

Should we aid governments which expropriate U.S.-owned property without compensation, as in the cases of Ceylon and Brazil? Should we have given Marshal Tito, of Yugoslavia $901 million during the past 9 years with $136 million in this year's program while he stands with Khrushchev on the Berlin question and on all other cold war matters? Should another $900 million have gone to Communist Poland in the last 7 years while Poland reships that aid to Cuba and North Vietnam and East Germany? Is that even half smart?

Should we have given the Dictator Sukarno, of Indonesia, $780 million to bolster his government while he threatens Singapore, Malaya, and Borneo-each a friend of the United States?

of

Two years ago, Mrs. Miller and I traveled through the communistic countries Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Russia, and a number of so-called neutral countries including Indonesia. They have no love for the United States. They are not our friends, yet directly and indirectly, we are giving

them millions of American dollars in aid. In the last few weeks, Mr. Khrushchev is smiling in a very friendly fashion. His hand is extended in a most cordial manner. But, we must not forget that this is the man who has vowed to "bury" us. This is the man who has always broken his commitments whenever it suited him. One should not be moved to complacency simply because an avowed enemy smiles at one once in a while.

How much of your first month's salary check, which you will receive after graduation, do you want to give to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, United Arab Republic, Cuba, and so on and on? much of the Treasury of the United States should go to subsidize the enemies of the United States and the so-called neutrals?

How

The two World Wars and the fiscal policies of the United States have led to a national debt of $300 billion or approximately $7,000 for each family in the United States. The interest alone is mounting at the rate of $17,000 a minute. In the 20 minutes which will elapse while I am talking to you this evening, the interest on the national debt alone will increase $134,000.

These are some of the problems that you of the class of summer 1963 will face tomorrow morning. It will be very easy for you to say: "I don't have time to think about these matters; I will have to get a job and go to work; I will have a family to support;

IRKS KENNAN

It would be very easy for you to say these things and a lot of people would accept this as a valid excuse for failing to inform yourself on the important issues confronting this Nation today, and then, having formed a well-thought-out solution for each one of them, letting your opinion be heard. Christ, however, teaches that from him who has been given a great talent, great things are expected-not just making a living for oneself and one's family, as important as that is. These great problems hanging over our heads, threatening our very existence as a nation, simply have to be solved and settled. This country must for the solutions to these matters to those

possessed with leadership and great talents. In the laboratories, in the libraries, and in the classrooms here at Trinity, you have learned to seek the truth; you have learned to look it in the face and analyze it. You have learned to look through the mask of mere appearances for the hard facts of reality. You of the class of summer 1963, here at Trinity tonight, and the others like you in the other great universities of the Nation, must look through the maze of conflicting testimony and confused thinking and help solve these and the other questions of our time. This is your responsibility. This is the "Responsibility of Talent."

In every public opinion poll, there is always 15 to 25 percent of those polled who have no opinion, one way or another. In this time of instantaneous communication by radio, TV, newspapers, and magazines, when all of the facts are presented and all points of views are expressed, it would seem that every citizen would take sufficient time and have sufficient interest in what is going on to contemplate on the great issues of our time and form an opinion.

Of course, among you there will be differences of opinion as to the proper solution to pursue on each major issue. This is as it should be. For it is in the free debate of a free and informed people that the final and proper solution to any problem can finally emerge. It is indifference and fuzzy thinking that are the eternal enemies of freedom. In the long span of history, freedom has more often been lost by indifference, by credulity, and by selfishness than by conquering armies.

Therefore, to you who possess great talent falls the responsibility of making your strength of character, your learning, and your thoughtfulness felt. Your first contact is, of course, your own circle of friends. Then comes your representatives in Austin and Washington-and through all means available to you-word of mouth, letters, telegrams-through any means at your disposal. It is the job of those with talent to study and lead. Give your Nation the benefit of the extra talents which God has so generously entrusted to you. From you with the most, God and your country expects the most. So now, as we are gathered here together tonight under this starry canopy which covers the strongest, the richest, and the happiest land in all the world, but at the same time a land which is beset by threats of enemies from abroad and grave problems here at home; it is my prayer that you, the class of summer 1963, here at Trinity, will clearly recognize the responsibility of your clearly recognize the responsibility of your talents and down through the years which lie ahead, use those talents to the end that our way of life is preserved and our great Nation made even greater.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, an article recently published in the Washington Post appeared under the headline "Trade Decision on Yugoslavia Irks Kennan." The article begins as follows:

George F. Kennan, a leading U.S. authority on communism, has told Congress he is bitter because it ignored his advice and revoked favored trade status to Yugoslavia.

Later in the article the Ambassador is quoted as saying:

If I had known, when I was offered the position of Ambassador in Yugoslavia, how little value the Congress would assign to my own judgment, I would not have accepted the appointment.

Mr. President, I say to the good Ambassador that there was nothing to keep him from resigning long before he did.

We have a very interesting series of statements from this Ambassador. I do not know whether he knows what the position of an Ambassador is, vis-a-vis the Congress of the United States; but I should like to suggest to him that, in my opinion, such show of pique is not going to impress very many Members of Congress. Perhaps he should rest from his labors before he utters any additional effusions such as this one. Sure

ly he knew when he went to Belgrade that it is a function of Congress and not the President, much less an Ambassador, to regulate trade with Yugoslavia and every other nation. Mr. Kennan's views on the matter were well known, as were his views in support of continued U.S. aid to Yugoslavia. Congress simply did not

agree with him.

I would not be a bit surprised if, before we get through with the foreign aid bill, there may be some other ambassadors whose entrenched selfish interests may in some way, somehow, be jeopardized by the final version of the bill, and they will not be too happy with the Congress. But we can dispense with their services; and if any of them share Mr. Kennan's views, they should line up on the right, waiting outside the office of the Secretary of State as they present their written resignations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

TRADE DECISION ON YUGOSLAVIA IRKS KENNAN

(By Endre Marton)

George F. Kennan, a leading U.S. authority on communism, has told Congress he is bitter because it ignored his advice and revoked favored trade status to Yugoslavia.

At the time Kennan became Ambassador to Yugoslavia in 1961 that nation enjoyed mostfavored-nation status in tariff mattersmeaning it could claim the same tariff privileges as those accorded any other nation by the United States.

This status was extended to Yugoslavia, and Poland as well, by both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. The theory was that by encouraging trade with these Communist nations the United States could help them avoid being forced completely under Moscow's domination.

But Congress revoked the most-favorednation status for both countries last year

and its restoration is pending business now

in the Senate.

"If I had known, when I was offered the position of Ambassador in Yugoslavia, how little value the Congress would assign to my own judgment, I would not have accepted the appointment," Kennan said in a memorandum prepared at the request of the Senate Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Operations.

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Democrat, of Washington, released the memorandum yesterday.

The diplomat, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, retired from the Foreign Service in 1953. In 1961 he accepted President Kennedy's call and went to Belgrade, but retired again late last summer to return to his professorship at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.

Congress, Kennan complained, placed restrictions on trade with Yugoslavia last year "in the face of the most solemn and formal sort of warnings and objections on my part." When an Ambassador's recommendations are disregarded, then his usefulness as a whole is affected, Kennan warned.

He said he had similar troubles with the executive departments especially when the State Department had no primary responsibility for the decision.

"I was never sure," Kennan said, "that they understood, or shared, or respected, the policy determinations of the Department of State with relation to Yugoslavia. I had the impression, perhaps erroneous, that many of these people were going on the assumption that Yugoslavia was a member of the Soviet tions and to the established analysis of the

bloc, a thesis contrary to our own observa

Department."

The former diplomat was critical also about the lack of information from Washington on "what was going on at home in

matters affecting our work in Belgrade."

Because of the secrecy of internal security organs, for instance, the Embassy asked in vain for information whether the Yugoslavs in the United States were conducting any sort of activity to which we could object. Such information was important to determine U.S. policy toward Yugoslavia, he said. "We simply had to bat in the dark in all

such matters," Kennan added.

On the general organization of the Government from the standpoint of foreign affairs, Kennan suggested that the Secretary of State should get wider authority to handle the Nation's external affairs.

Such a change in the Government's structrue implies, however, a priority of foreign policy, meaning that external affairs should be given precedence over internal issues, and that foreign policy should not be permitted to become a function of domestic-political convenience, Kennan said.

venia, Croatia, and Serbia trying to remain in Austria, just as many of the East Germans are jumping to their death or are proceeding in the face of guns in their attempts to escape the oppression in East Germany?

It seems to me that on the basis of these facts, Mr. Kennan cannot speak categorically about the goodness of the Tito government. I, for one, believe we are confronted with a great propaganda play which is thrown at us at a time when the foreign aid bill is being considered by the Senate.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator from Ohio. I am somewhat at a loss to understand the attitude of the Kennans in our Foreign Service, for he is not alone. Apparently they seem to think they are oracles on foreign policy; and when any question is raised in regard to what should be in a foreign aid bill, they seem to think we should bend the knee, bow from the waist, and yield to their bad judgment for seldom do men of this type have good judgment.

Mr. President, I shall continue to point out that we have responsibilities in foreign policy. eign policy. We have responsibilities in determining how much of the taxpayers' money shall be made available for expenditure on foreign policy. Mr. Kennan needs to learn that lesson. Some who are still ambassadors will have to learn that lesson. We have the very clear duty to see that the financial side of foreign aid is checked very closely by the elected representatives of the people; namely, the Congress of the United

Mr. LAUSCHE. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his statement.

What bewilders me is the absolute belief by Mr. Kennan that his judgment is infallible. Why does he think all others are wrong and that he is right? Mr. MORSE. Because he is Mr. Ken

nan.

Mr. LAUSCHE. This morning, there came to my desk a letter in which it is stated that a number of Yugoslavs attended a handicraft fair in Vienna, Austria, and that 83 of those visitors refused to return to Yugoslavia. That development raises this very interesting question: If things under the Communist domination of Tito are so good and so sound, why are those people from Slo

workshops for African journalists during July and August 1963. A workshop was sited in each of the three previously mentioned cities where the AfricanAmerican Institute has regional oversea offices. Each workshop lasted approximately 2 weeks with formal sessions of 7 hours a day on weekdays and a half day on Saturday. In addition to local material used for these study courses, three American textbooks were issued to the participants, one on reporting, one on broadcasting and on English style.

At the conclusion of the sessions, a total of 94 participants received certificates of completion. Twelve others participated but did not complete the minimum requirements. The 94 represented 15 African countries and worked for 41 news publications, 12 broadcasting or

ganizations, 9 information ministries, and 3 news agencies.

Members of the workshop instructional team were Mr. Malvin R. Goode, news commentator, American Broadcasting Co., New York; Mr. John McCormally, editor of the Hutchinson News, Kansas; Prof. Burton Marvin, dean, William Allen White School of Journalism, University of Kansas, and Dr. Sydney W. Head, field coordinator.

It is of particular interest to those of us from Kansas that our State had two outstanding journalists on the team, Dr. Burton Marvin, dean of the William Allen White School of Journalism, University of Kansas, and Mr. John McCormally, editor of the Hutchinson News, Hutchinson, Kans.

For decades Kansas has been recognized nationally and internationally as an outstanding journalism center and this is another honor for our State.

An excellent summary report was prepared by the group and is now being studied by representatives of our State Department.

MISREPRESENTATIONS BY CERTAIN

SEGMENTS OF THE PRESS Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, it was with much interest that I read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of our last session prior to today. I refer to the colloquy between the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia and the distinguished Senior Senator from Oregon with respect to what they exposed as misrepresentations made against them and appearing in one of the local papers.

I commiserate with them. Over 10 years ago a pair of smear writers wrote a smear book that smeared some two dozen Senators. I was one of them. They charged that I was pro-Communist, a leftwinger and a "fellow traveler" because of my declaration of conscience. Against the vigorous warnings of good friends, I sued them for libel. I was the only one of the two dozen maligned Senators who did sue them for libel.

It took me 41⁄2 years to get them into court after their constant stalling and attempts to evade the inevitable. And on the first day when the jury was about to be selected as the case opened, their spokesman got up in court and admitted that what they had written about me was false. They folded and made a public apology and retraction in prominent newspaper advertisements for which they paid-and they paid damages.

It was a complete victory for me and a significant victory against what Senators RUSSELL and MORSE have called "yellow journalism"-and while the smear writers folded when the "chips were down," it took me 42 years to nail them down, to even get them to trial.

Over the weekend I read last Friday's RECORD with much interest for while Senators RUSSELL and MORSE denounced the misrepresentations made against them in a local paper, they were relatively lucky compared to the misrepresentations made against me on September 28, 1963, in a column carried by