The Bureau of the Budget, in its report on this bill, points out that it is not cognizant of any technological advances which would render the project physically or financially feasible, and in the absence of any realistic hope for positive accomplishment does not recommend enactment of S. 530. The hearing on this bill fully substantiates the position of the Bureau of the Budget.

GATEWAY TO FANTASY

The investigation and study to be authorized by this bill would not include experimentation for the development of new deicing techniques. This study is to This study is to collect and analyze information already in existence, and it is bound to produce nothing more than is already known. Why should we accumulate existing information which gives no hope of a practical method of opening this great system of waterways to year-round navigation? The most that this study can produce is a recommendation that additional studies and experimentations be undertaken for the development of new technology.

Considering the extent of the problem and the obvious enormous capital investment and maintenance expense to create and operate facilities capable of rendering the channels and lakes sufficiently ice free to permit all-winter navigation, it is quite evident that no practical solution now exists. This preliminary study, flying the popular banner of research, costs only $50,000, which may not be considered much when Government expenditures are usually expressed in millions and billions of dollars. But it may be enough to whet the appetite for additional and far more expensive studies, and possibly even for the authorization of a construction project, without any more expectation of practical solution than now exists. Once Congress has taken the first step, it will be urged to pour more and more money into this project, which now holds the promise of nothing more than sheer fantasy.

CONCLUSION

The study authorized by S. 530 can provide us with nothing of any value except a predictable finding that deicing of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway is not practical, barring a major technological breakthrough. Since this is now evident, the proposed study is superfluous and unjustified, especially at a time when everyone, even the President, is urging that we keep Government spending to the minimum necessary for defense and other essential activities. The amount we are considering is not large, but the study cannot be characterized as essential, nor is it advisable until the prospects for success are better than they now appear. The relatively small amount of money involved is no justification for its expenditure. We should have more persuasive evidence that its expenditure will be fruitful.

may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to authorize and direct the Architect of the Capitol, under the joint direction of the House and Senate Office Building Commissions, to construct the third Library of Congress building in square 732 in the District of Columbia, and to provide that such building shall be designated as the President James Madison Memorial Library.

Mr. Speaker, a dispute has raged for several years over the appropriate use of square 732 in the District of Columbia. The land was originally authorized by the Congress to be purchased for the exclusive purpose of constructing upon it a third Library of Congress building. Since the purchase of the land, there have been those who have strongly advocated the construction of a James Madison memorial building on the site, to honor with a memorial in the Nation's Capital, the "Father of the Constitution."

It has long been recognized that a suitable memorial to James Madison would be a welcome addition to the many places of historical interest in the Federal City. James Madison rightly deserves to be honored by the Nation for which he struggled so diligently. He drafted the guarantee of freedom of religion in Virginia's Declaration of Rights, one of the most significant documents on religious freedom in the history of the Western World. He was an outstanding leader of the Continental Congress, and he led and won the fight in that Continental Congress to make western lands a national public domain. He fought strongly for provisions requiring the separation of church and state in the new Nation. He drafted the document which became the Constitution of the United States of America, and sponsored and drafted the first 10 amendments to the Constitution which formed the Bill of Rights. As Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, he contributed largely to the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. As the President of the United States, he stiffened American foreign policy in defense of American neutral rights, gallantly commanded the Armies and Navies in the War of 1812, and under this administration the United States became universally regarded as a world power.

James Madison was one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers. A memorial to him in the Nation's Capital should be constructed, but it should not be constructed on square 732.

During the 87th Congress, when a confrontation between those who advocated the construction of a third Library of Congress building to be named the President James Madison Memorial Li

MORIAL LIBRARY BUILDING

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. CLEVELAND]

struction of a James Madison Memorial Building which would have had underground storage vaults for Presidential papers, a bitter dispute raged over the use of square 732.

The proponents of constructing a James Madison Memorial on square 732 which is bounded by Independence Avenue and C Street SE., running east and west, and First and Second Streets SE., running north and south, advocated construction of a memorial costing some $39 million. However, the most serious and disturbing thing which the proponents advocated was the location of the memorial on square 732. This was entirely contrary to the intent of the Congress. When the site was purchased it was exclusively for the construction of a third Library of Congress building which would have adequate facilities for the expanding Library needs.

Mr. Speaker, the construction of a Madison Memorial instead of a Madison Library Building would require the acquisition of additional land in the area at taxpayers' expense. This is unwise and unnecessary, for the Madison Memorial can be constructed elsewhere. Square 732 should be used for the purpose for which it was acquired, for the construction of a third Library of Congress building.

Most proposals for the Madison Memorial have included provisions for a ground floor containing a memorial room, two stories in height, in which a statue of Madison and certain historical exhibits pertaining to his life would be placed. The proposals have included provisions for an annex with underground vaults for the storage of documents of many of the Presidents of the United States. These facilities would be wholely inadequate for the badly needed expansion of the Library of Congress. It is just not practical.

The plans for the building and the facilities authorized under this bill would be designated to provide for the currently projected needs of the Library of Congress for the next 25 years; and, in the development of the design for the building, the Architect of the Capitol would, with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts and the American Institute of Architects, obtain the consulting services of distinguished architects. If, upon receiving advice from those architects, he deems a national competition for such design to be appropriate, he would, with the advice and approval of the Librarian of Congress and the House and Senate Office Building Commissions, hold a national competition and would specify the conditions thereof.

Mr. Speaker, because the Library of Congress is rapidly expanding, the bill provides that the Librarian of Congress would, in consultation with a committee of nationally recognized leaders in the arts and sciences, whom he would select for the purpose, prepare and recommend to the Congress by February 15, 1967, a plan to guide the growth and development of the Library of Congress as the national library and repository. In developing this plan, the Librarian would resolve any conflict between the functions of the Library of Congress and the functions of the national library and repository and would recommend the location or locations of the building or buildings, facilities, and organization which

would provide maximum services for the benefit of the people of the United States with the greatest economy.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the many outstanding architects who will participate in the designing of this building will consider the use of natural stone

in its construction. The Federal buildings on Capitol Hill have traditionally been constructed of this fine natural stone, and I do not think use of concrete exteriors would be a wise decision in this instance. The Federal City has been characterized as one of the most beautiful capital cities in the world, and its many fine buildings of natural stone have contributed greatly to this image. The granite quarries of New Hampshire can supply the necessary natural stone for this building, and I hope that they are given consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the Library of Congress needs a third library building, and it needs it urgently. The facilities of the Library of Congress are literally bursting at their seams. The Congress should authorize construction of a third Library of Congress building as soon as possible. The land has already been purchased, and the third building is needed.

WHY IS THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COM

MISSION BEING PREEMPTED?

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, Members of this body have increasingly become aware of growing public debate about the location of the J. F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts along the Potomac River. This debate has

been

joined by architects and city planners, the press, and Members of Congress. THE NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMIS

SION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The considerable public expression of doubt about the advisability of the Center's present location should cause all those interested in the orderly growth of our cities to question the planning mechanism that Congress has provided for the Nation's Capital. Almost every Congressman must be concerned with planning for the growth of American cities according to human needs. As long as Congress retains its control of the Federal City, every Congressman has an obligation to provide for the orderly government of the District of Columbia, not by directing all elements of the District's affairs, but by establishing public institutions fully adequate to meet the needs of the city.

The National Capital Planning Commission is charged by law with serving as the overall planning agency for the Federal and District Governments within the National Capital region. In this capacity it reviews District development programs and advises about their consistency with the comprehensive plan

for the area. The National Capital Planning Commission was specifically authorized by law in 1958 to choose the site along the Potomac that is now in dispute.

HOW THE PRESENT SITE WAS CHOSEN

The Potomac site was chosen in 1958

by legislators who proposed that the site originally committed in 1938 for a cultural center, a site directly across the tural center, a site directly across the Mall from the National Gallery, would be used instead for the Smithsonian's air museum. The legislative situation at the time demanded that an alternative site time demanded that an alternative site be found within the space of a few hours. The present Potomac site was thus thus hastily chosen as the best of the alternatives then available. The actual bill specifying the site was then drafted using similar wording and a concept used using similar wording and a concept used in the bill which fixed the site of the National Gallery, stating that a site would be selected within certain strictly defined boundaries. In the case of the National Gallery, the site had been very carefully selected, with full advice and approval from the existing planning agencies. The National Capital Planning Commission was never consulted, however, in the selection of the Potomac site. It was in effect ordered by law to select a site within a plot of land whose limits had already been determined.

That site, having been selected by the Planning Commission, is now defended by Mr. Stevens, who is Chairman of the Kennedy Cultural Center's Board of Trustees. But it is the National Capital Planning Commission, as the body generally charged with the planned development of the site for the Cultural Center, that is best qualified to determine the site ultimately chosen for this national institution.

NEED FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION

resolution that calls for the National Thus, I am today introducing a joint Capital Planning Commission to study tomac site, to hold public hearings on the and review the relative merits of the Poadvisability of the site and to report its findings to Congress. This public study and review process should take fully into account the many public and private organizations and individuals interested in ganizations and individuals interested in the finest site possible for the Center. It should also consider the views of President Kennedy's immediate family, who are understandably distressed over the present site.

It is important to remember, in this connection, that President Roosevelt's family successfully challenged the Stonehenge memorial proposed by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, and that the family of President Theodore Roosevelt successfully challenged the memorial proposed for Roose

velt Island.

The resolution provides also that the preparation for construction of the Center on the present location be delayed until the Commission makes its report to Congress.

In introducing this legislation, I want to make clear that I do not in any way question the need or the desirability of constructing the Kennedy Cultural Center. Such a Center, if well planned,

would be an invaluable addition to the cultural life of the Nation and the Nation's Capital, and a fitting memorial to the late President.

NEED FOR ADEQUATE PLANNING MECHANISM

My concern is, first, that the Nation's Capital be served by the best type of planning organization, and that this organization function ganization function adequately. The Planning Commission must be able to determine how best to meet the needs of this fast-growing city. Then it must locate the Cultural Center on the site best suited to the needs of the Capital. both as a social organism and a physical entity. And if the public discussion of the location of the Cultural Center reveals that the Planning Commission has

not adequately carried out its legal mandate, or that it lacks sufficient legal authority to be effective, I would expect that steps be taken by the Congress and legislation passed to correct shortcomings when proved.

TWO PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

alternative to the Potomac site is that To date the most seriously proposed of my colleague from New Jersey, WILLIAM WIDNALL, who in H.R. 10558, has proposed that the Center be located "be

tween 4th Street and 12th Street Northwest, appropriately related to the National Gallery of Art, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Collection of Fine Arts, the historic Ford's Theater Archives." and Lincoln Museum, and the National

In order to help focus the growing public debate, it may be valuable to list the arguments for and against the Potomac and the Pennsylvania Avenue sites. Though there may well be other satisfactory alternatives, these two seem the most likely.

WHY THE POTOMAC SITE?

The principal arguments in favor of the Potomac site are that it will benefit from the site along the presently unspoiled, wooded bank of the Potomac. A secondary argument is that the planning for the present site has gone too far to allow reconsideration of it.

Counterarguments are that the Potomac site is accessible to the Virginia suburbs, but is relatively inaccessible to the great bulk of the city behind it, and to the Maryland suburbs. Plans of the Center and its surrounding road networks published in the August 22 Washterlee, president of the Washingtonington Daily News by Nicholas V. SatMetropolitan Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, give grounds to site to pedestrians and to public transquestion the accessibility of the Potomac portation. It supports those who consite is like a fortress surrounded on all tend that the Center on the Potomac sides by barriers of concrete and water, to which only those with motor vehicles can gain access. The site is isolated from the heart of the city, promoting the use of the Center only for large cultural events, and effectively preventing its use for informal, small exhibitions and performances which conceivably could take place during the day and which would be enjoyed by shoppers, Government employees, and business men and women.

As Foggy Bottom continues to develop, this lovely stretch of riverbank will be increasingly needed for human recreation. The gigantic cultural center will effectively destroy the human uses of this section of the river. It will mitigate in favor of the construction of yet another bridge in the unspoiled area above Key Bridge across from Three Sisters Islands. It will certainly prejudice the development of a new waterfront for Georgetown.

OVERWHELMING SIZE IN RELATION TO SITE

Few of the residents of the city realize, I think, just how gigantic the planned center will be. It will be much larger than Dulles Airport, a structure that can be seen for miles in the rolling Virginia countryside. As shown by the perspective drawing published in the Sunday, August 22 Washington Post, the center will dwarf the beautiful Lincoln Memorial. It is fully nine times larger than the memorial. It is as high as an 11story office building.

Considerations of cost should not at this stage be determining. No major contracts have been let. Much of the

planning-for the needed type of auditoriums and their seating capacities, for instance-need not be scrapped by a change of site alone, it is argued.

Certainly, it would be unrealistic to carry through a project ultimately costing $65 million merely on the grounds that $3 million has already been spent. The long-term social and economic costs of an improperly located building, and, therefore, a building which cannot be properly used, far outweigh the shortsighted argument that we have gone too far to turn back now. The important fact is that the money has now been obtained for the Center. Certainly, the donors of that money, both private and public, would prefer that it be used well rather than used badly.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE

LOCATION

Several recent developments are cited by proponents of the Pennsylvania Avenue site to support their position. The first is that the plans of the new Commission on Pennsylvania Avenue now give a physical and aesthetic framework into which a cultural center of the importance of the Kennedy Center would properly fit. The second is that the National Capital Transportation Agency has planned subways which would center in the downtown area in the vicinity of the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue area, and which would provide rapid and cheap public transportation that would largely overcome the problem of access other than by automobile to the center.

Yet a third reason used to support the Pennsylvania Avenue site is that the Housing Act of 1965 makes the midtown section of Washington eligible for the kind of urban renewal funds which were

used to acquire the sites for the new cultural center in Los Angeles, and the Lincoln Center in New York. Thus the additional costs of a relocated site would be substantially defrayed.

Arguments cited by Roger L. Stevens against the Pennsylvania Avenue site seem primarily to be that the cost of the land would increase the total cost of the Center, that the money spent for planning the Center at the Potomac site would be lost, and that access to the downtown site would be very difficult.

ACCESS TO ALL THE PEOPLE

It would seem to me that the best argument to be brought to support the Pennsylvania Avenue site is that a cultural center located there would be a part of the living city. It would be freely accessible in the evenings to the people who work in the surrounding areas. It is close to hotels, restaurants, and shops. People would be able to leave work, dine, and attend the theater without first returning home, and without moving by

car.

Best of all, the Center in a downtown site would be easily available to the thousands of tourists for whom the Center is in large part planned. It would be within walking distance of their hotels, and would be easily accessible by subway. These strangers to the Federal City would not have to unscramble an incredibly complex and tortuous road system in order to reach the Center. Attending events at the Center would thus be easily integrated into their sightseeing programs.

Finally, the Center should contribute immeasurably to the creation of a grand national avenue which should be a place to live and enjoy as well as a place to work. It would also promote the renewal, work. It would also promote the renewal, by private initiative, of the somewhat shoddy areas of downtown Washington we know today.

All of these arguments and many more should be considered by the National Capital Planning Commission in the public study and review process I propose. The views of city planners, architects, historians, representatives of private and historians, representatives of private and public organizations, and other concerned individuals must be heard. A partial list of these organizations follows immediately after this statement, with unanimous consent. It shows the complexity of the decision that must be made, and it especially reveals the need for a strong focus of decisionmaking in this city's planning.

THE ROLE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE J.F.K. CENTER AND ITS CHAIRMAN VERSUS THE

ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

The Commission of businessmen and other notables, headed by the real estate man Roger L. Stevens, has done a remarkable job collecting enough private funds to match the Federal grant of money for the Cultural Center. The Board of Trustees has thus fulfilled one of the major purposes for which it was of the major purposes for which it was organized. It did not choose the present site, and it is not competent to decide the location of a cultural institution which is of such importance to the city and the Nation; it should not have the power to make this decision or to impose its will in this matter.

The National Capital Planning Commission is the organization best suited to take into account the views of the innumerable public and private organizations interested in this project.

I suggest that the present dispute about the Cultural Center site will cause us to look beyond the problem of site selection to examine the functioning of the planning mechanism the Congress has established for the District of Columbia.

LIST OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE VIEWS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

Board of Trustees, J.F.K. Center for the Performing Arts.

National Park Service.

Potomac River Task Force.
Commission of Fine Arts.

HON. JAMES A. REED

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maine [Mr. TUPPER] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for a great number of my colleagues in extending best wishes to the Honorable James A. Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, as he returns to private life after 4 years of outstanding public service.

As all of us are acutely aware, it is difficult to attract dedicated and competent men to executive positions in Government. Jim Reed was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in charge of U.S. Coast Guard, Bureau of Customs, and Bureau of Narcotics, by the late President Kennedy. During his stint of service he has done a particularly meritorious job. The energy, enthusiasm, vision, and judgment that he brought to the areas of his responsibility set a standard of excellence that is difficult to duplicate.

It has been my privilege as ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on U.S. Coast Guard to work closely with Secretary Reed on a considerable number of matters. I have been immensely impressed with the accomplishments he has brought to this branch of our armed services.

Under his stewardship, careful longrange plans have been developed setting forth future requirements for vessels,

shore stations, and aircraft. These programs should assure the U.S. Coast Guard continuing congressional support, and by the mid-1970's this service should have a truly modern and efficient operation.

Two years ago an authorization bill was finally passed requiring that the Coast Guard present to the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation, their request for capital expenditures in each fiscal year. Secretary Reed was strongly behind this measure, for he believed it would have a salutary effect on the Coast Guard and its budgetary requests.

The Congress has been far more generous in appropriating funds for the Coast Guard since Secretary Reed has

been at its helm.

Jim Reed has demonstrated a keen awareness of the role of the Coast Guard in the field of oceanography, and during his term of office there has been a substantial growth of participation by this service in this scientific field. He has

been an advocate for constructing nuclear icebreakers manned by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has taken over all icebreaking functions from the Navy in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

Through his perseverance in getting better equipment and facilities, better housing for Coast Guard officers and enlisted men, he has won the lasting respect of Coast Guard personnel.

Two months ago I visited Governors Island in New York City with Secretary Reed. This island, which has been called Fort Jay by the Army, will now be used by the U.S. Coast Guard. This will con

solidate many Coast Guard activities and save the Federal Government millions of dollars.

As Members of the House know there

are 17 U.S. Coast Guard vessels now on

patrol in waters off Vietnam. I think it tells us a lot about Jim Reed that after he had decided to return to the practice of law, he took a trip to Vietnam with Admiral Roland, the able Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, to visit with coast guardsmen on duty there. Shortly before making his recent inspection trip

he told me:

I would not feel right leaving this job without going out to Vietnam to see how these young men were making it.

In his supervision of the Customs Bureau, Secretary Reed has been responsible for great improvement in the image of this Bureau. Courtesy and service to the traveling public has vastly improved. Under his leadership a study was made relating to the complex antidumping laws, and a new set of regulations, clearer and fairer, were promulgated.

It may well be that Secretary Reed will be remembered in future years for his role in modernizing the Customs Service administrative structure. There had been no substantive changes in the Customs Service from its origin in 1789 until President Johnson presented reorganization plan No. 1 to Congress this year. Secretary Reed's participation in updating of Customs procedures was a significant achievement.

Administrative functions of the Bureau of Narcotics underwent change under Secretary Reed's direction. Responsibility for suppressing the manufacture and exportation of illicit drugs overseas was formerly divided between the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Narcotics; this was changed three years ago with the Bureau of Narcotics becoming solely responsible for overseas operaing solely responsible for overseas operations relating to illicit drugs, and Customs becoming concerned alone with smuggling. This has brought about a great improvement in cooperation between the two agencies, and in the efficient operation of both.

During the last few years there has appeared to be a change in the attitude of the Narcotics Bureau with respect to the treatment and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts, resulting in a more humane enforcement of these laws as they pertain to addicts.

I have touched upon a few of the accomplishments that James A. Reed can take a large measure of credit. Being a modest man by nature, Jim Reed would probably assert that others, both in subordinate positions as well as superiors of Cabinet rank, deserved the credit.

It therefore seems even more appropriate that the record show that we in

the legislative branch applaud dedicated and exceptional public service in the

executive branch.

In that capacity he has been in charge of the policies and activities of the Coast Guard and has done an outstanding job. He has been directly responsible for the development of the medium and large cutters, which are proving so valuable to interest has enabled them to expand the that service. His active and continuing service and to increase its value to the country. Its recent use in connection with the emergency in Vietnam is just one example of its readiness in time of need.

Jim Reed has been ready at all times to appear before congressional committees to speak in behalf of the Coast Guard, and this has paid off well for the Coast Guard and for the country.

In leaving the Federal service to return to private law practice, the Government is losing a valuable public servant, and those of us who have been in close contact with him in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury will miss him very much.

I wish Jim Reed every success in private life.

ADDRESS OF GOVERNOR SCRANTON

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman

from New York [Mr. GoODELL] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, last year I was a delegate to the Republican national convention and I supported Bill Scranton for our presidential nomination. Governor Scranton has written a

superb record during his administration thus far in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Prior to attaining the highest office in his State, Bill Scranton was a distinguished lawyer, businessman, official in the State Department, and finally Congressman from the 10th District. He takes a thoughtful, intellectual, and realistic approach to problems. His record of bringing prosperity to Pennsylvania and reducing unemployment is particularly significant. On August 12, 1965, Governor Scranton addressed the American Bar Association annual dinner in

Miami, Fla. His provocative and incisive speech deserves the attention of all my colleagues and all Americans. I commend it to your attention and include it at this point in the body of the RECORD: ADDRESS OF Gov. WILLIAM W. SCRANTON AT THE ANNUAL DINNER OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, BALLROOM, HOTEL FONTAINBLEAU, MIAMI BEACH, FLA., AUGUST 12, 1965

American jurisprudence and American government share a common dependence on the adversary system.

In our courts the search for civil justice is conducted under the prodding of opposing advocates, and the system rests on the supposition that both advocates be strong and able and aggressive.

In our government the quest for civic excellence is pursued under the prodding of opposing political parties, and rests on the supposition that there be two great parties, each strong and able and aggressive.

It is a rare lawsuit, of course, in which the adversaries are absolutely equal in ability, experience, or verve. Nor does the system require absolute equality. We expect and we understand that so long as lawyers are human and lawsuits are lawsuits there will be differences in ability and differences in the fundamental merits of cases. what we do demand in our jurisprudence are basic competitive qualifications for the advocates and that no influence be allowed to destroy their role as adversaries.

But

And if circumstances suddenly endangered this adversary system-if suddenly it were proposed that justice be dispensed in American courts without competent advocacy on both sides of the question-then promptly and properly this distinguished assembly would become extremely alarmed.

I propose to you tonight that this is preAmerican government: that the two-party cisely what is happening in the forum of system has come upon an hour of peril and paralysis.

And I submit, too, that this is particularly hazardous because it comes at a time when basic decisions are being made about the very fabric of our Federal system, and, thus, about the liberty of our people and the goodness of our society.

Specifically, the National Republican Party today is not, for the most part, serving as an effective instrument of the two-party system, and though as a Republican I may find that uncomfortable, as an American I find it alarming.

All of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, must be concerned when the condition of either party becomes such that it endangers the system itself.

So let me, as a Republican and as a practicing politician, but mostly as an American, talk to you without partisanship about my party and about our Nation.

It is a tribute to the art of cartooning that when we think of the Republican Party, we think of elephants.

I grew up in a household where both the substance and symbols of the Republican Party were treated with more than indifferent interest. My mother particularly spent her working hours electing good Republicans, and her off-hours collecting model elephants, elephants in stone, steel, ebony, ivory, crystal or glass-any way in which human ingenuity fashioned them.

There was but one criteria: From whatever material the elephant was carved, he had to have his trunk raised high in a bellow of victory. Elephants were considered unfit and useless if their trunks droopedhowever gracefully-in the whimper of defeat or worse yet, in the posture of not having tried hard enough.

But accepting the symbol of the elephant is one thing, and believing the many myths that go with elephants is quite another.

Particularly, there are two commonly accepted legends which we would do well to realize are fictitious.

First is the legend that elephants live many hundreds of years. Modern science has knocked that into a cocked hat. The real lifespan of an elephant is no more than that of man-a 70-year-old elephant is an old elephant.

A political party, like an elephant or like a man, cannot claim extra years or extra life as a matter of right. A political party, however, unlike man and elephant, can rejuvenate itself.

If the Republican Party wants to continue to live, it is going to have to earn the privilege through self-rejuvenation, not by expecting it to happen automatically.

The second elephant myth has also been shot down by modern science. Contrary to folklore, elephants don't gather up each other's trunks and tails, marching off to a common dignified graveyard. Elephants die like the rest of us. They drop one by one in their tracks, wherever disease or longevity or mortal injury dictate.

So, too, the Republican Party is unlikely to join tails and trunks today or tomorrow and fall dead before our eyes in a sacred graveyard. Instead, it's a matter of one elephant after another dropping along the way.

And the Gallup poll has been counting the remaining Republican elephants. That poll-which, incidentally, through peculiar perverseness the Republican Party's power structure believed in 1948 when it was wrong, but not since, when it has been right-reveals that today but one-quarter of the American electorate considers itself to be Republican. Under these circumstances only a stupid elephant would fail to realize that he's running short of trunks and tails to grab hold of as he takes that last majestic and mythical walk through the jungle.

The one part of elephant folklore that modern science has not been able to destroy completely is the matter of memory and intelligence. It turns out that the elephant is a bit brighter and more able to learn from experience than most of the animal kingdom.

One would hope that the Republican Party might take a lesson from the elephant, learning from the past, without succumbing to the temptation to confuse memory with nostalgia.

The Republican Party was a long time being born. It can trace its roots back into American soil first turned by the Federalists. The Federalists fought for a strong National Government and played a prominent role in forging a nation with the political strength to be unified and the spiritual strength to be diversified. The Federalists remained a power in American government until they became too small, too exclusive and too exclusionary. Then the party died. The heirs of the Federalists were the Whigs, who in their turn remained a major political party until they became so enamored of the backlash theory that they succumbed by compromising their antislavery sentiments.

Thus came the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. The American Nation has never since seen quite so a remarkable combination of idealism and pragmatism as he fashioned into a political philosophy.

He took the Federalists' sense of nation, the Whigs' spirit of frontier, and he added a belief in the common man that could have come from nowhere except the heart of Thomas Jefferson.

So armed, Lincoln's party was able to preserve the Union, inaugurate the land-grant colleges, open up the West to homesteaders, tie the continent together with railroads, and generally conduct itself as though it believed the United States was a going concern with a future and not a museum piece.

In fact, as the 20th century broke across the American Continent, the Republican Party was the natural home of a Theodore Roosevelt who was talking orthodox republicanism when he said: "Be progressive. A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy."

Now all of this is of obvious importance to the Republican Party, but why do I say all of it here before this distinguished and bipartisan audience? I do so because the awesome domestic challenges which face our Nation in the immediate future will best be met if they are subjected to the best efforts of two strong parties. It is partisan nonsense to believe that all wisdom and all

sound ideas reside in the Republican Party, but it is equally foolish to believe that they reside only in the Democratic Party.

Where do we stand today in the ongoing adventure of perfecting the American experiment?

No man, be he political friend or foe, can question the skill with which the President has been shepherding his domestic programs through the Congress. You need not be in full agreement with the substance of each program to admit that they constitute a remarkable political scoreboard. And I do not believe it partisan to point out that thinking men in both parties might justifiably be concerned that the very quantity of the program so far enacted might becloud the very substantial unfinished public business in America today. Consider but a portion of the catalog and see if you do not agree that a strong two-party system is essential for its sound fulfillment.

The field of human rights comes to mind as most significant in the second half of the 20th century. We have seen this year and last the enactment of the most far-reaching legal protection for the rights of man ever attempted by any society. But yet, who will deny that even after the recent voting rights law much still needs to be done to protect the sanctity and equality of every man's ballot. I am thinking primarily of the big city machines, which to this day callously and deliberately prey upon the outnumbered in every election. If equal voting rights are truly to be accomplished for every American, this Nation and its States are going to have

to undertake massive election reforms. And I believe that this is far more likely to happen with two strong political parties rather than one.

Or consider the maze of health and welfare programs which have been created by American Government during the past several decades. It is no secret that they have become cumbersome, wasteful, overlapping, and, perhaps worst of all, so uncoordinated that they reach but a fraction of those whom they were designed to assist. Here, too, we shall find reform coming far more rapidly with two strong parties contributing to the subject.

Or consider the myriad and mammoth problems involved in 20th century urban life. The big cities each year, despite huge doses of tax money continue to lose ground in the fight for livability. in the fight for livability. Clearly, existing approaches to urban problems have not been successful, and surely we shall all be better off if there are two vibrant parties at work on the problem.

But of all the important issues of our time that might be mentioned in discussing the importance of the strong two-party system, none stands out with more clarity than the questions which now need to be answered about the very structure of the Federal system itself.

In the law of property, lawyers have a term called imperceptible encroachment to describe change so gradual that it can only be seen from a distance in time. Certainly our Federal system has been undergoing imperceptible encroachment until suddenly we find that great and important changes have taken place, and even more significant, that even more important changes now need to be made.

The fundamental principle behind the Federal system, of course, is that the various levels of Government ought to share separate areas of responsibility for the public business.

The problem comes in the decision of what responsibility and how once the responsigovernmental level ought to handle what bilities have been assigned, they can be most effectively carried out. The significance of these divisions of responsibility is that with responsibility there necessarily goes corresponding amounts of power-and power if not wisely distributed can infringe on the individual liberties of a people.

Our Federal system today has evolved into a hodgepodge of confusing and uncoordiareas of responsibility. As an incumbent Governor, I can assure you that the list of governmental functions which are now shared on a hit-and-miss basis by all three levels of government is a long and disturbing one. In health, in welfare, in conservation, in education, in a score of different areas, overlap and confusion breed almost hourly.

The net effect of this hodgepodge is threefold:

First, it is terribly inefficient. Tax moneys are wasted and in far too many cases the lack of coordination is so great that many persons ironically fail to receive any of the services which the three levels of government-State, local and national-are all involved in providing.

Second, in the face of such confusion an overabundance of power tends to rise to the National Government. As mankind should have learned many long years ago power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The third effect-and understandably also a contributing cause to the whole problemis that the tax revenues of the Nation are seriously malapportioned between the three levels of government.

The National Government-primarily through through the graduated income

tax-can