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

There was no objection.

HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow.

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

There was no objection.

NAZI GERMANY'S INVASION OF POLAND: A DAY OF INFAMY Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, September 1, 1939, was a day of infamy. It was a day of infamy because it was on this day 26 years ago that the military forces of Nazi Germany invaded Poland and set off a series of events that led to World War II.

The world has not been the same since that fateful day when Hitler's military might was thrown against Poland. Vast changes in the world have taken place, changes that had been brought about by the mysterious workings of history.

Poland was the victim in September 1939; she was the sacrificial lamb; for it was the sacrifice of Poland that led all free nations of the world to make that final decision to stop Hitler's Germany from its march toward the conquest of all Europe.

Within a very short time, a matter of days, the Nazi war machine destroyed Poland. The heroic, courageous, patriotic Polish people fought desperately to turn back the mighty enemy, but the power of Hitler's war machine was too much for the Poles. All the courage of their fighting men could not compensate for the simple fact that here was a war machine of enormous power, armed with the most modern weapons, and driven on by the compulsions of real or imagined grievances of racist ideology. The German Army could not be stopped, and the consequences for Poland were predetermined.

As victory seemed certain for the Nazis, the Soviet Union decided to seize its share of the war booty and its military forces, on September 17, crossed the Polish frontier and joined the Germans in the final destruction of the Polish state.

What Hitler had done that morning of September 1, 1939, can never be undone. He had set into operation a series of events and forces that could not be halted. The consequences of this fateful decision to invade Poland have been enormous, and the responsibility for these consequences must be borne by Germany. For what this war did was

to prepare the way for the expansion of to prepare the way for the expansion of Soviet power and world communism in Soviet power and world communism in the postwar era. On the European Continent the war created a massive power vacuum in Central and Eastern Europe, a vacuum which the Communists quickly filled. In other parts of the world it created other power vacuums as the massive imperial systems of France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands began to crumble, their power seriously weakened by the demands of the war.

No, the world will never be the same; and the price that Western civilization has paid, is paying, and will pay for this fateful miscalculation by Hitler will be enormous.

It is, of course, one of the tragedies of history that the victim too must pay the price of the enemy's miscalculation. For Poland and her people endured the worst of World War II, but only to find that a new enemy had taken control of the country's destiny once liberation became a reality. Communism quickly filled the a reality. Communism quickly filled the void created by the destruction of Nazi power in Poland, and ever since the people of Poland have been subjected to a new and all-consuming tyranny.

Freedom never had a chance in Poland once the Nazis were driven out. As the Soviet armies moved across the Polish Soviet armies moved across the Polish plain, they were followed by Soviettrained

Communist organizers who moved into the country and began to moved into the country and began to establish the nucleus of political organization intended for eventual Soviet control. Moreover, the Communists had control. Moreover, the Communists had the support of the Soviet military

presence, a reality that insured their which had hoped for and worked for an success. Thus, the Western Powers acceptable form of democracy in postwar Poland were able to do no more than protest against the various Soviet violations of their pledged word. than protest against the various Soviet

A cruel fate had befallen the Polish people in the first few years after the end of the war. Once effective opposition was destroyed, the Communist regime leaders set out to create in Poland a Communist state modeled after that of the Soviet Union. Freedom of religion no longer existed. Political freedom was narrowly limited by the Communist Party. The economic sector, particularly industry, was organized along Communist lines. In the cultural realm Communist control was total. No longer No longer could the Polish writer give full expression to his thoughts; no longer could the Polish artist, the playwright, the composer create his art freely as his inner soul had demanded.

lish Communists, seeing the inevitable consequences of their gross mismanagement of affairs in Poland, quickly put into power Gomulka, a Polish nationalist but a totally convinced Communist, and effectively checked any direct intervention in Polish affairs by the Soviet Army. The Soviet leaders who had flown to Warsaw at the most decisive moment in the crisis accepted the terms of compromise laid down by Gomulka. As a result, Poland did not become a scene of bloodshed in the Hungarian manner, and Communist rule, though somewhat modified, was retained.

What will be the ultimate destiny of communism in Poland no one can tell. In the near decade following the crisis of 1956 communism still maintains a firm and steady grip over the country. Hopes for better days never materialized. Certain manifestations of freedom do exist. The political police, for example, are no longer the instrument of fear and terror they were in the heyday of Stalinism. But the fact remains that Poland is still a Communist police state, and reports from Warsaw during the past year indicate that the regime has whittled down many of the small freedoms that had been granted the Polish people out of necessity during the critical years 195657.

On this anniversary of the beginning of World War II, our hearts go out to the Polish people. Their lives have been too full of tragedy, misery, and suffering. These fearless, lovable, hard-working, courageous people deserve a far bet

ter fate than what has befallen them since September 1, 1939. And it is our hope that one day they shall have better times, and that they will be a part of the whole European community of nations enjoying fully the fruits of democracy

and freedom.

YOUTH'S OPPORTUNITIES Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

During the first decade in the postwar era the Polish people had suffered much under the tyranny of communism. But the Polish people are an irrespressible people. Sooner or later their pent-up fury would manifest itself in some violent demonstration for freedom. The year was 1956 and the Polish people could stand no more. At Poznan, riots broke out during the early summer. This was the signal to the Communist leaders that the signal to the Communist leaders that a storm was gathering on the horizon. a storm was gathering on the horizon. In October 1956 the storm broke. Revolution had erupted in Hungary and almost simultaneously a near similar revolution occurred in Poland. But the Po

reason for leaving school, say at the age of 16, rather than finishing high school may come from any number of circumstances. It might be the conditions in the family, boredom, lack of training using the skills of a person, or the unfortunate illusion that one

The school dropout problem has become one of national significance. On August 21, President Johnson announced a major campaign, headed by Vice President HUMPHREY, to encourage young Americans to return to school this fall term. This youth opportunity campaign will seek employment opportunities, both full and part-time, which will enable young people to continue their education rather than become dropouts. Why all this concern for helping young people secure an education? Well, for one Well, for one thing, the rate of unemployment for those young people age 16 to 21 and classified as "school dropouts" is 16.6 percent or almost four times the national average of unemployment among all groups. And, during the coming school year, more than 750,000 young people will either fail to return to school or drop out during the school term. They will enter the labor force and, unfortunately, many will contribute to these "unemployment statistics."

Gaining an education which earns for you a productive place in American society has immeasurable effects. It influences you as an individual, the family you might have some day, the community in which you will live, and, ultimately, your country. But perhaps you, the individual, are the real reason to continue your education. It is true that you may not completely understand why you must take this subject in high school, or why study with that particular teacher, but these problems are only small parts of the general contribution an education will make for your future.

But, do not evaluate your need of an education only on statistics. Think about what it will mean to you personally 1 year-5 years-even 20 years from now. Say in 1980 when you will be only 30 or 35 years old. Will you be a national unemployment statistic? Or will you be using all the education and training you had available during the years you were growing and learning?

I hope that you young people will make the decision to return to school this term. In doing that, you will make some real plans for your future.

SS “HOPE” RETURNS FROM WEST

AFRICA

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, 1 Mr. Speaker, 1 hour ago the hospital ship SS Hope returned to the United States after successfully completing its fourth teaching and healing voyage. The great white ship docked in Philadelphia at 11 this morning, home from a 10-month mission to Conakry, Guinea.

During the 10 months this American floating medical center was in that West African port, the ship's medical staff

At the same time, the Hope staff performed approximately 1,500 operations, immunized 125,000 Guineans, treated thousands more, and distributed 750,000 cartons of milk.

More important, though, the members of the Hope medical crew provided a practical demonstration of the spirit of Americanism in that developing African nation. In fact, Guinean Health Minister Alpha Amadou Diallo called the Hope "a living symbol of the will of the people of the United States to make an effective contribution to the efforts undertaken by the people of Guinea to improve their own conditions of existence."

Mr. Speaker, I have long believed in and supported Project Hope, since Dr. William Walsh first advanced this great humanitarian project, and I congratulate the men and women who staff the ship for their success in translating noble idea and objectives into far-reaching good will for America.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will join me in welcoming home the good ship Hope.

MANNED ORBITAL LABORATORIES

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Science and Astronautics Committee I want to express my support of the program set forth in a recent announcement by the President that the United States United States plans to launch five manned orbital laboratories starting in 1968.

At his press conference on Sunday, President Johnson said:

No national sovereignty rules in outer space. Those who venture there go as envoys of the entire human race.

As this editorial from the August 26 New York Journal American indicates, the President has demonstrated that he means what he says by his invitation to a Russian scientist to watch the Gemini VI launching later this year. The importance of this invitation is articulately put by this editorial which I insert in the RECORD by consent at this time.

LAB IN SPACE

Announcement by President Johnson and the Defense Department that the United States plans to launch five manned orbital laboratories beginning in 1968 is exciting and

readily credible. Yesterday's fantasies are today's realities or tomorrow's likelihoods.

Two astronauts, crawling into a laboratory from an attached Gemini capsule, will remain for up to 30 days in researching the heavens for knowledge useful in future excursions. Their work done, they will return to the capsule, detach it from the laboratory and come back to earth.

The Gemini 6 launching scheduled for October will be a preliminary, involving a linking up with an orbiting satellite. To

PRESS AND PUBLIC OPPOSE
"DE-HATCHING"

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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission has largely ignored the pleas of some of us in Congress to act vigorously to protect the Federal work force being threatened increasingly dealing. So it is fortunate that many by large-scale political wheeling and current "de-Hatching" efforts are not going without public notice and growing

condemnation.

umbrella of the Hatch Act was raised over It has been 26 years since the "no politics" the heads of Federal workers. Despite this long period of partisan celibacy, it appears that most employees are uninterested in sticking their necks out to see if politics is still reigning in the Federal service.

Critics of the act argue that it makes. second-class citizens of Federal workers by denying them the right to participate actively in partisan politics and local government.

But friends of the act love it this way.

The act was born out of the political scandals and rumors of scandals during the early years of the Roosevelt administration. The Government was trying to get the country out of the depression and thousands were added to the Federal payroll and millions of people came under federally financed projects.

Members of Congress from both parties expressed the fear that political bosses might use the Federal payroll to create a cadre of party workers and donors.

The act generally bars Federal workers (and State and county employees paid with Federal funds) from actively participating in

partisan politics. It also is supposed to protect them from on-the-job campaign solicitations. It does not interfere with the political activities of their families, or with the right to vote. It punishes violators with suspension or removal from their jobs.

PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS

Shortly after the act was passed, the Civil Service Commission began granting partial exemptions-"unhatching" areas with heavy Federal employee populations. Where that Where that happened, employees may support nonpartisan candidates or run themselves against partisan candidates.

In other areas, Federal employees may only participate in elections that are strictly nonpartisan.

Those who want major liberalization of the act say that partial exemptions are no more refreshing than bathing fully clothed. They say this only creates a politically stagnant climate that nourishes nonpartisan splinter groups.

Counties and local communities in the Washington metropolitan area have been granted partial exemption from the act.

Nonpartisan organizations have sprung up in Alexandria and Falls Church and in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties. The most successful is the Arlingtonians for a Better County, which has held power almost since it was organized in the mid-1950's. It has drawn much of its strength from Federal employees.

Local politicians and some employees claim that the nonpartisan splinter groups drain off the best talent in predominantly Federal employee communities and that regular parties suffer. Others say that the nonpartisan groups are, in fact, more partisan than regular Democratic or Republican organi

zations.

MOVES FOR CHANGE

So there are moves to change the law. Recently, several Federal workers in Montgomery joined with the county's Democratic State Central Committee and filed suit in Federal court to challenge CSC's partial exemption policy.

Representative HERVEY G. MACHEN, Democrat, of Maryland, and other lawmakers have introduced legislation to grant total exemption from the act for employees at the local level. Most of the steam generated for such exemptions has, naturally, come from area Congressmen.

The Senate has approved a bill by Senator DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Democrat, of Maryland, to establish a bipartisan commission to study the Hatch Act. It is generally believed that such a commission would recommend liberalizing the act.

And if Congress approves home rule for Washington, residents may find themselves choosing between Democratic and Republican candidates for mayor who also are Federal employees. Both the Senate-approved bill and legislation by Representative ABRAHAM J. MULTER, Democrat, of New York, now in the House District Committee, would lift the ban on partisan political activity for Federal employees who live here. A CSC. official said that no high-level study has been made by his agency but conceded that opening the political arena here to Federal employees "could make some interesting problems." Another high-level official said he thought it would "be terrible to exempt employees living here and keep restrictions" on more than 2 million Federal workers outside Washington.

But many Members of Congress and employee leaders doubt that Federal workers are straining at the leash to enter local partisan politics. Congressional critics have said for years that many employees don't even take advantage of the rights they have under the act. They suspect that some employees. depend upon the act as a legal shield to avoid political involvement.

Those who favor liberalizing the act emphasize that none of the protections against on-the-job-partisanship would be altered. But skeptical Federal workers seem to believe a foot in the door could lead to many unwelcome changes.

NO BURNING ISSUE

Employees, however, haven't been consulted, and that isn't surprising. For one thing, there are too many of them. Another problem is that the act just isn't a typical item of daily conversation in Government lunchrooms as is Vietnam, vacation plans or the hard-hearted supervisor. In fact, an unscientific poll conducted by the Washington Post revealed that many employees don't

even know what the Hatch Act is.

A dozen of those interviewed, mostly in grade 5 and below, said they were unaware of, or completely uninterested in, the act. But ignorance and apathy are not confined to the lower grades.

A grade 12 supervisor at Health, Education, and Welfare said she "never had any reason to think about it." But like other employees who "weren't interested," she added: "If it protects you from being forced to buy those $100 tickets, I'm for it. * Things are working well like they are."

She was referring to $100-a-plate Democratic congressional dinner here some time ago. Scores of employees contacted Congressmen and newspapers to say they were being pressured to buy tickets. But little hard evidence was ever turned over to CSC.

Another woman, a grade 4 employee of the District government, was well versed on the act. An active civil rights worker, she said it would "be risky to change it. I'm in all the outside activities I want and it doesn't bother me. *** The act gives you a lot of freedom if you know how to use it."

A grade 12 Public Health Service employee said she had seen a great deal of politics and pressure in more than 20 years with Defense and an agency of the State Department. She called the act "the salvation of the civil service. Otherwise, each party in power would start nibbling away, some of them using a hatchet. * * * If you have a law to fall back on, you have some protection."

WHY ROCK THE FOAT?

During several lunch-hour sessions at a Government cafeteria, I talked with a few employees who said they had never heard of the act, but all but one knew there were certain political restrictions on employees and that it was illegal for their boss to bring political pressure on them.

A grade 7 college graduate at Treasury said he had never seen any political hankypanky during his 3 years service. But he said the act "is a good thing. It saves us. Why rock the boat?"

A Veterans' Administration employee flatly stated: "Change it, are they nuts? It's what keeps the wolves away from the door."

A 43-year-old Commerce Department employee said fear of the act "keeps the commissars in my shop at bay."

A grade 16 official at Housing and Home Finance Agency said he had seen several administrations come and go and managed to weather them all with the help of the Hatch Act. Proposals to change it, he said, "are for the birds. It's the craziest damn thing they could do. It would be the start of the breakdown of civil service.

are pending. That means no action was taken in about 75 percent of the cases.

Violations included solicitation of funds. by or from Federal employees for partisan political causes or candidates on Federal installations; threats regarding jobs and promotions for uncooperative political donors or workers, and actions or public statements by employees which violated their nonpartisan status.

Of course, CSC has no idea how many violations have not been reported. "People are afraid to talk about these things officially," a spokesman said, "and of course it is hard to prove that your boss implied you wouldn't get a promotion if you didn't kick in."

[From the Minneapolis Tribune,
Aug. 18, 1965]

POOR EXPLANATION OF POSTAL PATRONAGE The announcement that future summer hiring of youths for postal jobs will be based on merit would be more convincing if it were not such a blatant attempt to excuse political favoritism.

There was a misunderstanding, admitted Postmaster General John Gronouski and John Macy, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, that gave nearly half of 8,500 youth opportunity jobs to nominees of mostly Democratic Congressmen. There apparently was a misunderstanding on their part, too, since the nominees included their own relatives and sons of the party faithful.

If this is the Civil Service Commission's idea of an investigation, the taxpayers are getting mighty poor protection for their money. The Commission, of course, has had experience at this sort of cover-up. For the past year, it and the Department of Justice have been sitting on demands by Representative ANCHER NELSEN, Republican, of Minnesota, that the law prohibiting Federal employees from soliciting political funds from other Federal employees be enforced.

That incident involved four officials in the Rural Electrification Administration, but the same type of arm-twisting was detected in the State and Commerce Departments for last June's $100-a-plate Democratic congressional dinner. The Commission, it seems, has a greater respect for politics than it does for the public.

The taxpayers deserve a better explanation of who is encouraging the patronage policy in youth work programs-a course that the Commission itself ordered to be avoidedand of what is being done to prevent its resumption. Continued pressure from Representatives ALBERT QUIE, Republican, of Minnesota, and H. R. GROSS, Republican, of Iowa, may help to get some real answers.

[From the St. Paul Dispatch, Aug. 20, 1965] COVER-UP ON JOBS SCANDAL

Post Office officials at Washington are trying to cover up the full extent of the postal jobs scandal exposed by ALBERT QUIE, Minnesota's First district Republican Congressman.

QUIE caught the Post Office Department with its political pants down when he revealed that extra postal jobs supposed to be part of the President's poverty program were being handed out as patronage plums to relatives of high-up Democratic politicians. In an effort to continue his probe, QUIE asked the Post Office Department for the names of all persons hired this summer under the youth opportunities program. He was denied the information, and is now trying to get the House to adopt a resolution formally demanding the list. No one expects the resolution to get far. After all, the House majority is Democratic, and not a few of these Members put friends or possibly relatives on the Post Office payroll before the White House clamped down on the patronage caper that was in progress.

Whether he ever gets the list of names or not, QUIE has performed an excellent public service by bringing the jobs situation into the open. He managed to dig out enough facts to show what was going on, and the refusal of the Assistant Postmaster General to provide more information probably means that other abuses would be disclosed if the full records were available. The public will draw its own conclusions from this tawdry episode.

KATHERINE NABOKOFF

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. TALCOTT] 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 Maryland?

There was no objection. Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, on August 3, 1965, the House of Representatives approved S. 618, which compensates Miss Nora Samuelli for the duration of

her imprisonment by the Rumanian Government because of her alleged espionage in behalf of the United States. At that time, I stated my belief that others who suffered similar fates should be treated fairly by our Government.

In fulfillment of that statement, I am today introducing a private bill to compensate Katherine Nabokoff, and other persons employed by the American Legation in Bucharest, who were imprisoned under circumstances similar to

Miss Samuelli. The Nabokoff case is extremely meritorious. She was imprisoned a longer period than Miss Samuelli. When she was released she made her way to Paris, and is currently employed in the American Embassy

there.

I am confident the Congress will want to accord her, and others in similar situations, fair and equitable compensation. I hope the Claims Subcommittee will act expeditiously and favorably on my bill.

HELPING THE OLDER WORKER

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. DWYER] may extend her remarks at this point

in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, of the multitude of ways in which man discriminates against his fellow man, one of the most difficult to oppose effectively-and to overcome personally-is discrimination in employment because of

and over 40 are the forgotten people of our time. They are victims of the myth that holds they are too settled, too hard to retrain, and have too little time left to make valuable contributions to new employers. The facts are otherwise, however—and demonstrably so—and it is up to Congress to help relieve the anxieties that beset millions of the middleaged and eliminate the obstacles that stand in the way of full opportunity for all.

Toward this objective, Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced a series of five bills which I believe attacks the problem of age discrimination at its causes and which is designed not only to prohibit age discrimination in employment but also to encourage employers to give older workers a chance to prove their worth. In doing so, I am pleased to join with the growing number of our colleagues who have seen the tragedy of age discrimination and who are determined to do something to help.

When a man or woman of 55, for instance, loses his job, he faces the prospect of long months of frustration, fear, and insecurity as he searches for a new one. And the odds are heavily against his finding a new job similar in kind and pay to his former position-no matter how skilled and experienced and vigorous he may be. The cost of such an experience in terms of mental anguish, family suffering, lost income, and damaged self-respect is too high to measure. One must observe it at firsthand to appreciate how painful-and how unnecessary-it all is.

A number of recent studies, Mr. Speaker, including those undertaken by the Departments of Commerce and Labor, document the seriousness of age discrimination. Here are some of their findings:

First, nationally, one-half of all job openings that develop in the private economy each year are closed to applicants over 55, and one-quarter of them are unavailable to persons over 45.

Second, though 20 of the States, including New Jersey, do have laws banning age discrimination, many of the laws have not been implemented and most of the States lack the resources to assure compliance.

Third, 30 of the 50 States have no laws at all prohibiting age discrimination in employment, and in those States more than half of all employers set specific age limits-usually between 45 and 55-beyond which workers will not be considered for employment, regardless of ability.

Fourth, once a person over 45 loses a job, the chances against finding another job like it are 6 to 1 against him. And the older the person is and the less education and training he has, the more hopeless his problem becomes.

Fifth, last year, about 3.5 million workers age 45 or older were involuntarily unemployed-and this at a time of unprecedented prosperity. The number of workers in this age bracket continues to grow, and should the economy fail to continue growing as rapidly as the working-age population, conditions

for the middle-aged worker can only become much worse.

There are reasons, of course, why age discrimination is so dishearteningly widespread. They are not malicious reasons, for business and industry do not seek to persecute middle-aged workers. Employers are concerned, however, that older workers may be less physically capable, less adaptable to new conditions, that they sometimes lack special skills and training and have a shorter period of work expectancy, that pension plans cost more for older workers, and that younger workers can be employed for less money, all of which may add to the cost of doing business in a highly competitive field.

plicants are, in fact, more capable and On the other hand, when older apdependable, as these studies have demonstrated is often the case, or when retraining and the acquisition of new skills is feasible and I refer to the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center study for the Bureau of Labor Statistics as evidence of the adaptability of older workers-then job discrimination hurts not only the deprived applicants but the employers and our economy and society as well. This, especially true when discrimination consists of the blunt, blind refusal, rigid and unbending, to employ age, however able or qualified they may workers once they have passed a specific be. Such a closed-door policy only adds to long-term unemployment, higher relief costs, and extensive human suffering and despair.

In such a complex situation, Mr. Speaker, a law which simply prohibits job discrimination will be unworkable. Legislation is needed, I am convinced, but it must attack the causes of discrimination, remove the obstacles to employment of older workers, and help make it possible for employers to hire such workers without suffering financial or competitive disadvantages.

The legislation I have introduced today will, I believe, meet these criteria. This five-bill package of proposals will, among other things, do the following:

First, amend both the National Labor

Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to make it an unfair practice for an employer or labor organization to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to otherwise discriminate against an individual solely on account of age where age distinctions are not reasonably related to the demands of the job.

Second, establish in the Department of Labor a Bureau of Older Workers which would provide leadership and coordination in Federal activities to prevent age discrimination and to increase employment opportunities for older workers.

Third, authorize the appropriation of funds for the provision of grants by the Secretary of Labor to public and nonprofit private agencies for demonstration or experimental projects to show that older workers are useful and employable.

Fourth, authorize grants by the Secretary of Labor to voluntary, nonprofit groups which operate programs designed to assist older workers in obtaining employment.

Fifth, provide a credit against income tax for an employer who employs older persons when it can be shown that such employment results in added costs of doing business.

I believe these are reasonable and workable proposals, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge employers and their organizations to study this and other pending legislation so as to cooperate with Congress and the executive branch in finding ways of ending age discrimination and enlarging opportunities for older work ers—in the best interests of all concerned.

DEMOCRATS CREATE SPECIAL

INTEREST AUTO CARTEL

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

There was no objection.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, there is considerable irony in passage of H.R. 9042, which would wipe out automobile tariffs between the United States and Canada and establish instead a huge, international cartel. I remember well the time Mr. Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense under President Eisenhower, said "What is good for General Motors is good for the country" and how the Democrats jumped on him and laughed him derisively from office. So here we have a Democratic administration urging a compliant Democratic Congress to enact, in violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a $50-million-a-year windfall for big automobile manufacturers.

This bill, by which Congress merely gives approval to an action already taken by the President and the Government of Canada, will give the big automobile companies the right to more operations across the border any time labor costs get too high for them in this country. American auto workers who are thrown out of work as a result, become eligible, under this special-interest legislation, for all kinds of special help and treatment which is not available to any other workers displaced by foreign imports. The cost of the special programs is to be borne not by the automobile companies who are being given this lush opportunity but by the Federal Treasury; that is, by the taxpayers of America.

SPECIAL INTEREST CARTEL

I voted against this bill because it is special-interest legislation, violating existing trade treaties, establishing a huge cartel to be operated by the barons of auto management. This bill eminently bears out my oft-repeated charge that, underneath its public-relations veneer of being for all the people, this Great Society administration is, in fact, only for the big interests.

This bill is completely inconsistent with fair treatment for labor and with the administration's brave words about free trade. It represents a tremendous

concession to four automobile companies. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS] when he told us that we are on the road away from free trade and back to the stagnant days of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.

AUTO WORKERS FAVORED OVER OTHERS

It is interesting to point out that, while auto workers who lose their jobs, as a result of Canadian imports enabled by this bill, can go directly to the President for relief, other workers similarly displaced are bound by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Under that act, workers seeking the authorized relief-tax breaks, job retraining, and so on-must apply to the Tariff Commission for a finding that

imports were the cause of the unemployment. It is interesting to note that the Tariff Commission has turned down every such application since that law went into effect.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the people of the United States are consistently being misinformed by naive and misdirected Government functionaries and spokesmen on the true complications in foreign affairs. In my humble opinion, one of the most consistent misdirectors of public opinArkansas who is the chairman of the ion is the distinguished Senator from Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Recently the chairman of the Senate the release of a report entitled "YugoForeign Relations Committee approved

Council-in exile-one of the stalwart slavia 1964." The Croatian National anti-Communist organizations speaking on behalf of the peoples of Yugoslavia, presented a most effective reply to that report which I place in the RECORD at this point as a continuation of my remarks.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this commentary on the Foreign Relations Committee report clarifies the situation and corrects any misunderstandings which may have arisen if the Fulbright report is interpreted to be accurate. The report follows:

FULBRIGHT'S FICTION: YUGOSLAVIA 1964

LOGGING, SHOE, TEXTILE WORKERS LEFT OUT

What am I to tell my constituents in the shoemaking and textile industries about this bill? They are in trouble because of foreign imports and their livelihoods are in jeopardy? What can I tell my friends in the logging and papermaking industries? Are their problems with Canada going to be treated in a similar dent for help if they lose their jobs? No, way? Can they go directly to our Presiit would appear not. I must instead tell them that our Government has enacted a tremendously beneficial bill for the automobile industry, which is extremely rich and important, more important evidently than our treaty commitments to other nations, and certainly more important than the poor little fellow making shoes or textiles in New England, or cutting logs in the northern woods.

I shall also tell them I voted against the bill; that I was one of a relative handful who fought for their interests.

retary Charlie Wilson is watching these Mr. Speaker, I hope the spirit of Secproceedings. He might even agree with this bill because it is certainly wonderful for General Motors but I think he would be astonished that it comes from a Democratic administration.

YUGOSLAVIA 1964

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DERWINSKI] 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 Maryland?

There was no objection.

(A reply to Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT'S report "Yugoslavia 1964" submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by the Croatian National Council)

J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, the honorable Sen

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, made a 9-day visit to Yugoslavia last November, seemingly more to confirm his preconception about Tito's Communist government than to learn the facts. The Senator candidly admits in the opening sentence of his and issued in summary to the press on July report submitted to the Senate committee 20, 1965, that “it is not possible in a visit of 9 days to acquire expert knowledge or reach definitive conclusions about a country as complex as Yugoslavia." But having said clusions about the nature of Tito's dictatorthis, Senator FULBRIGHT blithely proceeds to draw sweeping, and often erroneous conship, and then on this basis to postulate what U.S. policy should be toward Communist Yugoslavia.

Tito Equates the United States With Nazi

Germany: After being wined and dined by Tito at one of his numerous retreats, Senator FULBRIGHT concluded that Tito and his

associates are "extraordinary individuals" Yugoslavia is a "friendly country." Possibly and that from the U.S. viewpoint Communist

Tito won Senator FULBRIGHT's endorsement by comparing the United States with Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Facist Italy (see David Binder, the New York Times, May policy in Asia and Africa and that Yugoslavia 11, 1965). Senator FULBRIGHT does concede that Tito has vehemently condemned U.S. trades with Castro's Cuba. But, says the Senator, Communist Yugoslavia is no more hostile toward the United States than many other countries. The conclusion he draws from this is that the United States should do what it can to strengthen Tito's dictatorship. Actually Tito conducts a cheap policy of blackmail, vehemently abusing the United States and then promising to suspend his attacks in return for economic assistance.

Usually Tito assails the United States most vehemently when he needs U.S. aid the least, and turns cooperative when he is in dire economic straits. Thus, for months the Yugo

slav press accused the United States of aggression in the Congo and Vietnam, but as economic chaos in Yugoslavia increased and

the need for further U.S. aid became more pressing, Tito's criticism turned into a