21920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE November 14

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Charles R. Hook

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. PAUL G. ROGERS OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speak­er, in the recent passing of Mr. Charles R. Hook, America has lost an interna­tionally known industrialist and Govern­ment servant who devoted his entire life to principle.

It was my great pleasure to work with Mr. Hook "through his efforts on the Hoover Commission. As the sponsor of legislation which· his committee recom­mended, I had the opportunity to get to know and respect his great ability and devotion to his country. On the Hoover Commission, Mr. Hook made his specialty the business ·side of the Defense Estab­lishment. He brought with him the experience gained in Government by serving, without pay, under three Presi­dents. He started as a $2 a week office boy for a Cincinnati, Ohio, steel firm and rose to serve as chairman of the board of one of our leading steel companies. This varied background in business made him well qualified for his Government service, and many of his recommenda­tions on behalf of the Hoover Commis­sion have been enacted into law.

Mr. Hook received many awards in his lifetime, but perhaps one of the last meant the most to him. This was the award presented "for devotion to prin­ciple" given by former President Herbert Hoover on behalf of the Hoover Commis­sion task force. The citation said "you have provided strong leadership in the far-reaching and time-consuming task of assuring hnplementation of the Commis­sion's recommendations." Hoover said to Mr. Hook that the citation was the only one of its kind ever awarded, and "it is an indication of the great esteem in Which you are held." The citation praised Hook's "diligence, perseverance, integrity, and farsightedness."

Charles R. Hook is representative of that product of the American free en­terprise system we tend to overlook too often. His life story is one of a man who worked his way up from the bottom of the ladder of industry to the top position in his field, and who gave of his time and energies to the Nation which had made it all possible. He did not seek honors nor compensation for his service, merely the opportunity to serve. He lived his life quietly, without great fanfare, and yet made a lasting contribution to Gov­ernment and industry. As his biog­rapher, John Tebbel suggested in his title, he brought "the human touch" to business, and to Government.

America has produced others like Mr. Hook. It is assured, through his good example and faith, she will continue to produce leaders of quality, and integrity.

To Mrs. Hook, and their son and daughter, we express our deepest sym­pathy, and pray that the strength of a lifetime of love and devotion sustain them.

H.R. 333, a Bill To Amend t~e Sherman Antitrust Law and Make It Applicable to International Labor Unions

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. DAVE MARTIN OF NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963 Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr.

Speaker, Jimmy Hoffa within the last few days has announced that he is start­ing negotiations on December 1 with the trucking industry for a one-package na­tionwide contract. He is demanding for the first time one contract with all of the Nation's 16,000 trucking companies which, of course, would end on the same date . . Heretofore, regional contracts were written, each separate and with different dates. This kind of a new frontal attack gives Jimmy Hoffa the power to com­pletely tie up the economy of the coun­try within a matter of hours. It gives Jimmy Hoff a the power to put thousands of trucking firms out of business. If management were to conspire to put a competitor out of business, the Govern­ment would step in; but if a union does exactly the same thing, nothing is done. Why? Because there are no laws on the books to control the power of the unions.

The International Teamsters magazine of November 1963 predicts that the 16,000 trucking companies in the United States today will shrink to 100 in the next de­cade. Why? Jimmy Hoffa and his na­tionwide contract will either force these companies· to the wall or to consolidate. He has already brought ruin to many companies throughout the country by his ruthless tactics, and this latest demand will bring the entire industry and the economy of the country within his grasp.

Jimmy Hoff a stated that the proposed contract would cost over $600 million in the next 3 years and that higher rates would be needed in order to pay this amount. Among other things, the con­tract will require that all operators pay $5 into the Teamster pension fund for each truck trailer piggybacked by the railroads. This is outright featherbed­ding and, yes, even blackmail. No serv­ice is performed for the $5, but yet it is demanded under threat and will be paid under fear. This-in the United States which, under our Constitution, guarantees freedom to each individual.

Mr. Speaker, this master contract will complete a monopoly for Jimmy Hoffa in the trucking industry. Rather than wait until an emergency arises­such as we had in the railroads this

year-it is imperative that the Congress now consider legislation in the field of industrywide strikes and come up with some sound work in this field without an emergency hanging over its head. If we are to enact constructive legislation in this field, now is the time to move for­ward. Now is the time to consider the consequences of the proposed action by the Teamsters Union.

My bill, H.R. 333, goes to the heart of this problem. It would amend the Sherman antitrust law and make it ap­plicable to international labor unions. It would prohibit industrywide strikes, it would prohibit featherbedding, not only in the transportation industry but in all industry. This is one of the most serious problems which this country faces today. If we are to protect the welfare of our citizens from the greed and lust for power by some of our labor leaders, we must enact legislation in this field. The hour is late and hnmedi­ate consideration of this grave problem is a must. The American citizen and the rank-and-file union member must be protected.

Jacksonville (Ill.) Jaycees Honored

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. PAUL FINDLEY OF n.LINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce has achieved worldwide recognition for its many examples of public service. One of the most significant of its new projects was inaugurated by the Jacksonville <Ill.) chapter of the Jaycees on Memorial Day, 1961.

On that day the organization, under the leadership of its president, Bill Carl, established a highway safety service on Highways 36 and 54 in Jacksonville which received nationwide recognition. The group established a rest stop for the convenience and safety of motorists on that day of busy traffic. Motorists were invited to park for a few minutes, have the windshields of their cars cleaned off, receive free refreshments in the shade, travel information, and a packet of literature and other items to make their journey more pleasant.

This event was highly successful and so widely praised by motorists that it re­ceived nationwide publicity. Since then the Jacksonville Jaycees have continued the rest stop each as a feature of the July Fourth and Labor Day holidays.

The new president of the group is Keith Schuman, and on Tuesday, No­vember 26, the chapter will receive a special a ward from Illinois Secretary of State Charles F. Carpentier, himself na-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 21921 tionally known for his effective work in promoting highway safety.

To me it seems a significant occasion on which to recognize the initiative and constructive good work of the Jaycees.

The Polish University Club of New Jersey

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. FLORENCE P. DWYER OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, the Polish University Club of New Jersey, one of the most active and constructive organi­zations of its kind, celebrated its 35th an­niversary last month with a most im­pressive and enjoyable banquet and ball at the Robert Treat Hotel in Newark.

In connection with this event, the club published a very informative and attrac­tive program which contains a great deal of important information about the club and its activities.

Founded in 1928, the Polish Univer­sity Club's purposes have been admira­bly summarized by Dr. Charles Allan Baretski, its historian:

An outpouring of love for America and re­spect for its Government and institutions and gratitude for sacrifices made in their be­half by their parents and fam111es and a de­termination to foster an appreciation of their Polish heritage bespoke a readiness on the part of the club's founders to charter an organization for Polish-American men whose only standard would be one Of excellence. Thus, ab initio, the Polish University Club of New Jersey was something more than a fraternal group, much more than an ethnic or "nationality" society, singing its own praises. Ideally and actually, it was and ls meant to be a service group, and it does serve. It llluminates the ideals of American citizenship, holds high the torch of learning and scholarship, and disseminates the fruit of Polish culture.

Among the group's most important contributions has been its sponsorship, beginning in 1953, of the Institute of Pol­ish Culture at Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J. Now known as the Polish CUltural Society at Seton Hall University, this institution has regularly implemented the club's ideals by bring­ing to the public, under university aus­pices, outstanding programs featuring Polish scholars, music, poetry, and his­tory.

The club's scholarship program is another of its activities in which mem­bers take special pride. Over the years, a long list of deserving young men and women have been aided in pursuing col­lege careers at various institutions in­side and out of New Jersey, thereby extending the beneficial infiuence ·or the the club far into the future.

In addition to a very active women's auxiliary, the club has also engaged in numerous social affairs, awarded medals for academic excellence, aided numerous good causes, and has exer­cised a constructive impact on our State far out of proportion to its numbers.

The president of the Polish Univer­sity Club of New Jersey for the current year is· a distinguished citizen of my own congressional district, Mr. Jan Zaprawa­Ostromecki, of Roselle Park. A former member of the Polish Parliament, a lawyer, economist, and engineer, Mr. Zaprawa-Ostromecki was a leader of the Polish underground in World War II and was captured, tortured, and impris­oned by the Nazis.

Other officers this year include: James R. Barwick, :first vice president; Casimir J. Drygas, second vice president; Stanley Wyglendowski, corresponding secretary; Walter J. Pietrucha, recording secretary; Wallace Nowel, treasurer; Dr. Charles A. Baretski, historian; and Raymond Woz­niak, sergeant at arms.

Chairmen of the club's committees for 1963-64 are Walter Brytczuk, budget; Peter Pietrucha, good and welfare; Casi­mir J. Drygas, dinner-dance; John A. Wroblesky, bulletin; Stanley Strand, publicity; J. Thaddeus Rospond, Scholar­ship; Edmund Wiss, life membership; Edward Mizerski, ways and mei;tns; John Lacz, academic award of elementary schools; Leonard V. Gorson, outstanding .citizen award; Charles Pierce, Seton Hall Institute; Edward Mizerski, legislative and constitution revision; Dr. Edward Wolski, membership; Chester Stanowski, dinner meeting; Frank Gubernat, thea­ter party; Eugene Bogatko, liaison; Jan Zaprawa-Ostromecki, 35th anniversary; Dr. Charles A. Baretski, Poland's millen­nium; Joseph Zaorski, promoting courses in Polish language and literature; Dr. Eugene Nargiello, 600th anniversary of Cracow University.

As evidence of the high regard in which the Polish University Club is held by the people of New Jersey, the club's honorary committee for the 35th anni­versary includes the entire New Jersey delegation to the House and Senate, as well as the following: Most Rev. John Dougherty, auxiliary bishop of Newark and president of Seton Hall University; Rt. Rev. Msgr. Francis P. Kowalczyk, P.A.; Rt. Rev. Msgr. Bronislaw Socha; Very Rev. Msgr. Michael Fronczak; Gov. Richard J. Hughes; Mayor Hugh J. Ad­donizio; and Dr. Juliusz Szygowski, Min­ister Plenipotentiary of the Polish gov­ernment-in-exile.

I was very privileged, Mr. Speaker, to be one of the speakers at the 35th anni­versary celebration of the Polish Univer­sity Club of New Jersey and under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the text of my speech on that occasion:

Mr. Chairman, honored guests, and friends, it ls a special pleasure for me to be here with you tonight and to be asked to speak on this notable anniversary celebration-not only because I feel so much at home with so many friends but also because I find the goals and ideals of the Polish University Club so similar to my own.

Your emphasis on and practical <:ontribu­tion toward excellence in education recog­nizes the growing importance of equipping our people with the skllls, the training, and the understanding which are needed to deal with this modern world in all its complexity. Both the opportunities and the hazards of our age are fairly obvious, but it is even more apparent that, in order to benefit from the

opportunities and avoid the hazards, we must improve the quality of education and broad­en the availab111ty of education to all our people. I am happy to see that you are doing your part.

You are also dedicated to freedom-both personal freedom and national independ­ence---at a time when neither can be taken for granted anywhere in the world. And the two go together, as you so well understand. It ls not enough that a nation be. lndepend­ent---whether that nation be the United States, Poland, Cuba, or the Soviet Union. If its people are not free to govern them­selves, if they are forced under the heel of an oppressive government---whether that government ls homegrown or imported­then we cannot be content or consider that our ideals have been achieved. National in­dependence without personal freedom may represent progress of a limited kind, but lt is not by any stretch of the imagination the end of the struggle. Independence ls empty unless it is filled with the hopes and dreams of people whose basic human rights are re­spected and protected.

I emphasize this distinction between na­tional independence and personal freedom because it applies directly to the present slt­ua tion in Poland and in other Eastern Eur-0-pean countries, and because I believe it ls a keystone to the understanding of what is happening to the cold war in that crucial part of the world.

The time has come, I believe, to make a major reassessment of our foreign policy with respect to Soviet Russia and to other Communist governments, especially in East­ern Europe. We need a new national debate on the course our country should follow. We should have a clearer understanding of how our Government views the great issues involved here and what it proposes to do about them. The events of recent weeks which have alarmed some and encouraged others-an:! I refer to the nuclear test ban treaty, the sale of wheat to Russia, the pro­posed joint American-Soviet expedition to the moon-has also served to confuse even more of us about the policy our Government ls now pursuing.

Whatever that policy may be, it should, I believe, carefully avoid two unworkaple, un­realistic extremes. I cannot agree, for in­stance, with those who deny that times can change and that we must be ready to take advantage of the new opportunities these changes bring. I cannot agree with those who would deny us any contact, any rela­tions, with the countries of Eastern Europe because their governments are Communlst­controlled. I cannot agree with those who stlll maintain, in this age of the superbomb that the only course we can follow ls the forcible and violent overthrow of these gov­ernments.

That ls one extreme. At the other ex­treme, I would also condemn those who naively expect too much from too little evi­dence-who are too ready to believe the best of Communist words at the expense of the worst of Communist actions-those who place too much emphasis on the loosening of direct Soviet contro: over countries like Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia, but who overlook the tyranny of the so-called inde­pendent Communist regimes there-and I condemn the optimism of those who are too wllling to forget the fUndamental evil of communism. ·

Somewhere between these two extremes,· there ls a practical course and a realistic policy for our country to follow. In seeking that course, I would remind us all that international communism ·remains a power­ful opponent. As an idea, it has a deceptive appeal which has infected individuals throughout the world. As an organized sys­tem of force, it has mobilized hundreds of millions of people, overthrown legitimate

21922 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 14 governments, terrorized innocent victims, and sought to intimidate the rest of the world by displaying its military might.

This is not ancient history. The means and objectives of communism have remained fundamentally the same. Today, as in the beginning, world domination is its goal, and its means include anything that will work to its own advantage.

Free people, therefore, must oppose com­munism-both as an idea and as a system of power, both here at home and wherever it seeks to pull down free institutions and enslave free men. This is an obligation that arises from the right of self-defense and from the very logic of freedom.

How, in any specific way, the free world should go about the work of opposing com­munism is a matter of governmental policy and, therefore, is subject to controversy and debate. There ls no single right way, valid for all times and places and circumstances. . The strategy of freedom must be flexible,

· ready to confront . the changing tactics of communism in various parts of the world, and ready, too, to utilize every opportunity to strengthen freedom and present freedom's case forthrightly and persuasively. ·

As a part of this strategy of freedom, we must, I believe, recognize the fact that con­ditions are changing within the Communist world, and with those changes comes the need to reexamine our own tactics. Since the death of Stalin, there has been a limited but unmistakable relaxation within Soviet Russia-a little more attention to the peo­p1e•s needs, a little less reliance on total police control. Not much, but a little. The same kind of loosening-up process has been evi­dent in relations between Soviet Russia and the satellite countries of Eastern Europe . . With Poland and Yugoslavia taking the lead, Russia has been forced to acknowledge the right of other Communist states to follow at least a partially independent national policy, rather than total subservience to the U.S.S.R. This "victory"-limited though it is-has led to the most decisive split in the history of communism, the deep division between soviet Russia and Communist China, in which every Eastern European government except Albania has taken the side of the Soviet Union.

This is a hopeful situation. Obviously, I do not see the end of the cold war in sight­far from it. But it does present the United states with new opportunities to lessen the danger of nuclear war and to encourage the further separation of one-time puppet gov­ernments from their one-time foreign boss. Independence isn't everything, as I have said before, but it is an essential first step-­provided that we don't stop here.

Poland is an outstanding example of the new situation that confronts us. The Polish people, supported by their church-as you know so well-have never surrendered to communism. They have never given up the struggle for freedom, never stopped their resistance to the power of the Communist state. Their courage has won them at least some independence, and we can hope for more.

Now is certainly not the time to shut the door on Poland. To do this would be to play into the hands of the Communists them­selves. If the free world, especially the United States, should abandon Poland, we would be proving that Communist propa­gandists are right when they argue that America doesn't care or can't be counted on for help. We would be forcing the Polish people to turn closer to other Communist powers and away from freedom.

Instead, we in the United States should look for every possible way of distinguishing between the Polish people and their Commu­nist government. In every way we can, we should help the people without strengthen­ing the government. We should increase the contacts between people of the free world

and the people of Poland. We should re­inforce their hopes for the future, by con­vincing them that we have not forgotten their brave struggle against tyranny. we should weigh every chance to help by the test of whether it will increase the people's desire, hope, and demand for greater freedom.

Freedom, we should know by now, is a dangerous thing for communism. A little freedom only sharpens the appetite for more. It creates a hunger that must be satisfied. This is our greatest weapon.

If we of the Western World truly believe in our ideals of freedom and independence, democracy and self-government, and the dignity and worth of each human being, then we have nothing to fear from communism. We should compete with communism wher­ever we find it-compete with it by demon­strating the superiority of freedom, by prov­ing that we really care about people and. that we are willing to help them in their hour of need.

It won't be easy. There is no guarantee of early victory. But to those who under­stand it and value it, freedom ·is priceless, and no matter how much patience, inge­nuity, and determination it may require, freedom is worth the struggle.

Even the White House Tours Are Rigged Along the New Frontier

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK OF OHIO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see the pettiness and partisan spite of this administration. Never has this been brought home more demon­strably than in an incident which hap­pened this morning. As everyone knows, a limited White House tour is available on a reservation basis for constituents of Congressmen. Reservations can be made 30 days in advance for this special tour.

It is now obvious that the White House has a blacklist of Congressmen who will not be favored with constituent tours. For the past 3 days, my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, Representative DONALD c. BRUCE, has made calls at 10 a.m. in the morning, right on the button, for reservations a full 30 days ahead, the maximum. In each instance he has been turned down. He told me of his prob­lems this morning at 10: 18 a.m. and I said, "Don, they're lying to you and we can prove it. We only need to bait the trap." Less than 10 minutes after the gentleman from Indiana, Representative BRUCE'S request was turned down, three nonexistent people were granted this tour on December 14, the same date re­quested by the gentleman from Indiana, Representative BRUCE, simply by giving the name of a liberal Democratic con­gressinan.

Mr. Speaker, I do not care about be­ing on a Kennedy blacklist. I would not want to have his support in 1964. This . is not the point. It is a good indication just how this bunch operates. Deceit, favoritism, and blacklisting are the order of the day. It is not a question of whether the gentleman from Indiana,

Representative BRUCE and myself would like to make· this tour. It is not even a question of whether or not we support the President. The White House is owned by the American taxpayers, not the Kennedys. This means that it is owned by our constitutents whether they be Democrat or Republican and it is typical of the shabby abuse of power that we see along the New Frontier when the office of the President is used in such an arbitrary and dishonest manner.

Staten .Island Barracks No. 2524, Veter­ans of World War I of the U.S.A.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. JOHN M. MURPHY OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963 Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this oppor­tunity to pay tribute to the Staten Island Barracks No. 2524, Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A. and to compliment them on their outstanding Veterans Day services which were held on Monday, November 11, 1963, at Ocean View Cem­etery, Staten Island, N.Y. Judge James C. Crance was the principal speaker, and did great honor to their members who so valiantly def ended the cause of democ-racy in 1917-18. .

The Staten Island Barracks is one of the most active barracks of the Veterans of World War I of U.S.A. and I would like to join hands with them on Armistice Day in saluting all of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD I include my mes­sage to the Staten Island Barracks No. 2524, Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A.:

Once, in the very recent past-only yester­day, really, in this ever swifter march of time-Armistice Day was a unique holiday. On the one hand it was a day of solemn homage to those who, as Lincoln so movingly put it, "Gave the last full measure of devo­tion" to their country's cause. And on the other it was a day of rejoicing thitt those gallant men of the AEF had not died in vain. On that fateful November 11, 1918, we be­lieved in our hearts that we had heard the last shot fired in anger, that the battle flags had been furled for all time. The war to end war had run its bloody course, and the world had been made safe for democracy.

Tragically, we were wrong. From the seeds of World War I we reaped the deadly whirl­wind of World War II, a war, which, in reality, has never ended-only the enemy or, more precisely, the ideology, has changed. The Communist tide that inundated Eastern Europe in the wake of Germany's collapse sent its waves into remote Korea, which, too, would be inundated but for a living dike of watchful young Americans. This evil tide now laps hungrily at South Vietnam, where still more young Americans fight and die in a skulking silent war to protect another threatened outpost of democracy. And so it goes, round the world, from Berlin to Oki­nawa, from the Arctic Circle to the Panama. Canal. Everywhere there is war or the threat of war.

So, on this 46th Armistice Day, we have neither peace nor armistice with our re-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 21923 sourceful and remorseless foe, communism. This being true, why are we gathered here today? Is it simply to pause, briefly, in re­membrance of the sllent 600,000 who laid down their lives in all our wars? Is it only to momentarily wave the banner of freedom and half listen to a :flood of patriotic oratory that is forgotten when the final echo is wafted away? No. It must not be. This must be a day of rededication for us, the living, if we are to honor the dead.

In these times it is temptingly easy to slip into shrugging cynicism. We read of our hard-earned tax dollars being siphoned off into vague and seemingly insatiable projects in misgoverned and frequently ungovern­able lands; we read of fiascos in policy that set back the cause of freedom in our relent­less struggle against Communist imperial­ism; we read of price rigging in industry, of connivance in labor, of graft in politics, and of corruption in high places; we read that Khrushchev will bury us, that the doom of individual freedom and enterprise is inevi­table, and-more and more frequently-that the image of America as a dynamic symbol of human attainment is shattered beyond repair. Under tJle weight of this catalog

. of woes-more apparent than real-too many of us retreat in cranky indifference, con­vinced that to look forward is both foolish and futile.

But in doing so we dishonor those to whom we pay homage today, the silent 600,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our citadel of freedom. Now, you may ask: In view of what we read, is there any real jus­tification for pride in the immediate past and hope for the future? The answer is a ringing "Yes." Somehow, the credit side of our national ledger gets scant attention; crit­icism, as we all know, commands a wider au­dience than praise. In our country's ebul­lient youth, boasting of its prowess and prog­ress was a national trait; undoubtedly we overdid it, but even so it was done in all faith and honesty. But now we are sud­denly sophisticated, and expressed patriotism is considered quite unfashionable in some circles. Who today in public life, for in­stance, would dare voice Stephen Decatur's notable toast-"Our country. In her inter­course with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right, or wrong." In some quarters he would most certainly be denounced as a primitive, a man blind to world opinion, a rabble-rousing flag waver, and possibly even a warmonger.

I am not saying that we all should make Fourth of July orations. But I am saying that we should renew our faith in ourselves and in our country by quietly considering the credit side of our ledger. Let's brush away the carpers, the cynics, and those of little faith, and look for a moment at what the ledger has to tell us. Our part in the two Wo;ld Wars is too vividly remembered for me to dwell upon at length here, but I would like to point out one historical factor that is often overlooked-: Neither of those wars would have been won without us; and in World War II the United States became the only country in the history of the world to successfully fight a massive, two-front war and simultaneously maintain a full economy at home.

Now let's turn back the clock briefly to 1945. Hitler's evil conspiracy had been crushed, and Germany with it. Militarism had been struck down in Japan. The world was weary of ·war, and we were busily dis­arming ourselves with a haste that we were to regret later. Europe was prostrate, a polit­ical vacuum open wide for the onrush of communism. England, once the guardian of freedom in her own sphere of influence, was badly stricken and unable to stem the ad­vance of Red tyranny from the East. We alone had the resources to battle this new enemy, and we alone were called upon to shoulder .the burden despite our hopes of go­ing back to the pursuits of peace untroubled

by· grave new responsibilities. It would have been easy to put down the burden; after all, we bad poured 4 years of blood and treasure into the war; why not let Europe pull itself up? But we did not. Instead, we cheerfully accepted a continuing drain on our economy so that the economy of the free world would be strong enough to resist the steady pressure of communism. And what has been the result? Directly because of o\ir sacrifices, the economy of the free world­Europe in particular-has never been healthier. On all fronts, we have either de­feated or contained the Reds; militarily in some areas, economically in all.

Keep that in mind-and speak out-when you hear that we as a · nation are faltering, that we no longer have the will and the vigor to lead the free world. We have missed op­portunities, certainly; we have made policy mistakes, and we have taken wrong turns. But let us not forget that, on balance, we have been far more right than wrong. It is communism that has been rolled back, not freedom; it is the Communist economy that is sickly-and here let us remind ourselves how galling it must be to Khrushchev to come asking us for wheat-and not our own; it is communism that is on the defensive, not individual liberty and free enterprise; if Khrushchev is to bury us, he must find him­self a new shovel; we have broken his old one. And let us not forget, either, that we have paid a high cost in blood, as well as treasure, to push back the forces of enslave­ment. More than 30,000 of our young men gave their lives in Korea; others are dying now in South Vietnam; undoubtedly still others will die in places not yet known before this struggle is concluded. So, today, let us honor these men, the ·silent 600,000 who wrote our history in blood from Bunker Hill to Belleau Wood, to Berlin, to Inchon, to Vietnam, by pledging ourselves to keep the faith that they so gallantly bore for us. Let us keep green in our memory the eloquent appeal of Poet McCrea in "In Flanders Fields":

"In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, :fly

Scarce heard among the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders Fields.

"Take up our quarrel with the foe; To you ,from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die "

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders Fields." ·

Let us not break faith. Thank you.

Legislation To Promote Greater Safely in River Transportation

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 1962, I introduced, by re­quest, a bill to promote greater safety in rive)." transportation by requiring the inspection and certification by the Coast Guard of diesel-powered towboats, and licensing of certain personnel.

The bill was an outgrowth of a long series of exchanges of correspondence

which I engaged in with members of the legislative committee of Local 28, In­ternational. Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO, of St. Louis. I became convinced safety legislation was required.

Following the introduction of my bill, which was H.R. 9700, in the 87th Con­gress-H.R. 942 in the 88th Congress­'the Coast Guard asked for an opportu­nity to complete its own investigation of the need for this legislation before any action was taken on it.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Depart­ment has now sent to the House a draft of a proposed bill to close the safety loopholes at which my bill was directed, and I have therefore introduced the new bill today as H.R. 9130. It is, I un­derstand, an even broader bill in some respects than my original proposal and is based on a Coast Guard study V.:hich revealed in general that operation of diesel-powered towing vessels involves as great a hazard as operation of those propelled by steam and should therefore be subject to similar Coast Guard safety standards.

MANY ACCIDENTS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

When I introduced the original bill on January 16, 1962, I expressed the hope that it would serve as the vehicle for obtaining a full review by the execu­tive agencies and the Committee on Mer­chant Marine and Fisheries of this whole question of safety in river transporta­tion. Many of the vessels, which are not subject to periodic safety inspection, are manned by personnel not licensed or otherwise shown to be qualified for the tasks they are performing.

For instance, while the number of towing vessels has increased 20 percent in the past 10 years, the number of casualties has increased by 120 percent, to an average of 559 casualties per year. A large percentage of these casualties occurred on uninspected towing vessels, and it is the opinion of the Treasury Department that many of these were of a kind which could have been avoided or minimized if well-qualified personnel were aboard.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter to the river transportation industry and its employees, I am here­with placing in the CONGRESSIONAL REC­ORD, under unanimous consent, the text of the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Speaker transmitting the draft of the bill which I have now introduced.

Following that, I am also inserting the Treasury Department's report on my original bill, H.R. 942. After the inter­ested groups have had a chance to study the new bill carefully, I shall ask for hearings in the committee so that we can proceed to solve a .serious safety problem in river transportation.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR L:EGISLATION

The text of the letter to the Speaker is as follows:

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,

Washington, D.C. Hon. JOHN W. McCORMACK, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There 1s submitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill to

21924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE November 14 require the, inspection of certain towing ves­sels.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to bring towing vessels propelled by means other than steam under inspection by the Coast Guard.

Section 4427 of the Revised Statutes ( 46 U.S.C. 405) presently requires the inspection of "every tugboat, towing boat, and freight boat." This section is part of an exten­sive statutory pattern to insure high stand; ards of safety on merchant vessels through regulation and inspection by the Coast Guard. Although phrased in broad terms, section 4427 has been interpreted by the courts as applying only to vessels propelled by steam. As a result, motor propelled tow­ing vessels are not presently subject to in­spection unless they are seagoing vessels of over 300 gross tons.

The anomaly whereby steam towing ves­sels are subject to inspection and motor tow­ing vessels performing practically identical services are not has long been recognized. This anomaly is becoming increasingly ap­parent with the increrusing dominance of the diesel towing vessel as compared to the steam towing vessel. At the present time, steam tugs have been almost completely super­seded by diesel towboats; figures show that in 1962 there were 5,016 diesel tugs in opera­tion compared to 84 propelled by steam.

The present interpretation of section 4427 of the Revised Statutes results in another inconsistency in that barges or self-propelled tank vessels carrying hazardous liquid car­goes on inland waters must be inspected and meet Coast Guard safety standards while mo­tor propelled tugs towing such barges are not required to be inspected. Considering the ever increasing traffic in dangerous liq­uid cargoes and the fact that collision is a major source of marine casualties, an ob­vious potential hazard is involved in per­mitting such cargoes to be towed by ves­sels which at present are neither subject to the requirements for safety inspection nor subject to the licensing and certificating of their personnel.

During 1962 the Coast Guard made a com­prehensive study of towing vessel operations. The study showed that of 5,100 vessels docu­mented for towing service only 103 were in­spected and certificated by the Coast Guard. The remaining vessels were not subject to inspection under existing law.

The data obtained during the study also shows that while the number of towing ves­sels has increased 20 percent in the past 10 years, the number of casualties has increased by 120 percent to an average of 559 casual­ties per year for the period from 1960 through 1962. During 1962, for example, 530 tow­ing vessels wer~ involved in casualties se­rious enough to be reported, which is an average of 1 out of every 10 towing vessels in service. Detailed casualty figures for that year reveal that while no lives were lost due to casualties on inspected towing ves­sels, 15 lives were lost in casualties involv­ing uninspected towing vessels. The figures further reveal that less than 3 percent of the inspected vessels were involved in reportable casualties compared to 10 percent of the un­inspected vessels. During fiscal year 1962 estimated monetary damages due to casual­ties involving towing vessels were over $9 m1llion.

Analysis of the casualty figures for towing vessels for the past several years leads to the conclusion that operation of diesel towing vessels involves as great a hazard as opera­tion of those propelled by steam, and that this hazard could be reduced by requiring these vessels to comply with Coast Guard safety standards. In brief, the Department has concluded that motor propelled towing vessels should be brought under the statu-

tory inspection scheme. The proposed blll would, therefore, amend section 4427 of the revised statutes to provide for the inspec­tion of towing vessels regardless of the man­ner of propulsion.

The Department believes that the smaller towing vessels are not a sufficient safety haz­ard to warrant the increased administrative difficulties and costs which would result if they were subject to inspection. Therefore, the bill would exclude those towing vessels which are less than 15 gross tons and 26 feet in length. This would eliminate from in­spection the smaller vessels which engage in limited operations.

The casualty statistics also show that a large percentage of the casualties which have occurred on uninspected towing vessels are of a type which could be avoided or minimized if well qualified personnel were aboard. For example, during fiscal year 1962 almost 60 percent of the reported cas­ualties involved collisions while another 12 percent involved groundings of the tug or tow. To minimize the hazard to life and property from operation of towing vessels by unqualified personnel, the proposed blll would contain authority to prescribe regula­tions regarding the manning of towing ves­sels and the licensing and certificating of their personnel.

The Department, of course, realizes that there are large numbers of vessels to which the strict application of the inspection and manning requirements would not be appro­priate for one reason or another. In some cases it is not possible or practicable to bring the vessel into strict compliance; in other cases to do so would result in severe eco­nomic hardship or loss of employment. Therefore, the proposed bill would require the Secretary to take into account the vari­ous factors which might appropriately re­quire a lessening of the inspection or man­ning requirements as to certain vessels. It would also give him authority to exempt ad­ditional vessels from the inspection require­ments if necessary in the public interest. These provisions a.re intended to provide sufficient :flexibllity in administration to en­able the Secretary to tailor the inspection requirements more closely to the circum­stances of individual vessels. With this au­thority it should be possible to achieve the maximum safety on towing vessels consist­ent with the least economic hardship and disruption to the industry. ThJs authority would also permit the gradual application of the requirements to existing vessels to in­sure an orderly transition period wi\h mini­mum interference to towing vessel opera­tions.

The proposed legislation would require in­creased expenditures for inspection and clerical personnel since an additional 4,300 vessels would becom" subject to inspection. The Department estimates that an increase of 55 officers and 20 civilians would be re­quired. This would result in additional costs of approximately $650,000 per year.

There is enclosed a memorandum which contains in summary form the results of the study made by the Coast Guard of the operation of towing vessels. There is also enclosed for your convenient reference a comparative type showing the changes in existing law that would be made by the proposed bill. ·

It would be appreciated if you would lay the proposed bill before the House of Rep­resentatives. A similar proposed bill has been transmitted to the President of the Senate.

Sincerely yours, DoUGLAS DILLON.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ON ORIGINAL BILL

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Department report on my original bill, H.R. 942, con- ·

taining suggestions and recommenda­tion~ for the new bill, H.R. 9130 which I have just introduced, is as follows: THE GENERAL CoUNSEL OF THE TRBABlJ1lY,

Washington, D.C. Hon. HEBERT c. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine

and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Depart­ment on H.R. 942, to require the inspection and certification of certain motor vessels known as towboats.

The bill would require the inspection and certification of every domestic towboat, how­ever powered, which ( 1) is designed and used for the purpose of moving barges; (2) is of 480 horsepower or more; and (3) operates on the navigable waters of the United States. Inspection and certification requirements would extend to design, construction, repair, stablllty, accommodations for crew, life­saving equipment, firefighting equipment, manning, and other matters.

In September of 1961 the Coast Guard initiated a comprehensive study of towing vessel operations with a view toward de­termining whether marine inspection and licensing laws now applicable to steampow­ered towing vessels should be extended to other classes of towing vessels. That study has been completed. It revealed in general that operation of diesel towing vessels in­volves as great a hazard as operation of those propelled by steam and that this hazard could be reduced by requiring those vessels to meet Coast Guard safety standards. The Treasury Department has drafted legislation, based on the findings of this study, which is being submitted to the Congress separately.

Although the bill drafted by the Depart­ment is similar to H.R. 942, it is broader in scope since it would subject to inspection all towing vessels which are over 15 gross tons or 26 feet or over in length. This results from the findings of the Coast Guard study that vessels over 26 feet or 15 gross tons con­stitute a definite safety hazard which can be reduced without excessive administrative costs.

Other differences in the two proposals re­sult ·from the Department's belief that the law governing inspection of towing vessels should follow the existing statutory pattern of title 52 of the Revised Statutes. This would permit a considerable simplification in language. The Department's draft also con­tains fewer specific statutory requirements and relies more on administrative rulemak­ing power.

The Department notes that section 5 of H.R. 942 would authorize a penalty twice as great as that provided for violations of the inspection laws by other vessels. While the Department agrees that the penalty" provi­sion of existing law should be increased, it does not seem fair . to increase the penalty ·against only one class of vessels. The De­partment is, therefore, studying the whole question of penalties for violations of the inspection laws. Meanwhile, it recommends that the existing penalty be applied to tow­ing vessels.

In the circumstances, the Department rec­ommends favorable consideration of the leg­islation relating to towing vessels which it is submitting in lieu of action on H.R. 942.

The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no ob­jection -from the standpoint of the admin­istration's program to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours, · G. D'ANDELOT BELIN,

General Counsel.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 21925 The Role and Work of the Advisory Com­mission on Intergovernmental Relations

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. FLORENCE P. DWYER OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, November 14, 1963 Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, on No­

vember 12, 1963, I was privileged to ad­dress the 33d annual meeting of the New Jersey Taxpayers Association at the Hotel Robert Treat in Newark, N.J. As one of three House Members of the Ad­visory Commission on Intergovernmen­tal Relations, I used the occasion to dis­cuss the role and some of the work of the Commission, particularly its study of State property taxes and its unique position as a force for improving our Federal-State-local system of govern­ment.

Under leave to extend my remarks in . the RECORD, I include the text of my address: THE ROLE AND WORK OF THE ADVISORY COM­MISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr. Chairman, members of the association, ladies and gentlemen, for several reasons I am grateful for this invitation to meet with the New Jersey Taxpayers Association this year to discuss the position and the work of the Advisory Commission on Intergovern­mental Relations.

First, I always welcome an opportunity to meet with citizens of New Jersey to discuss issues of the day and to render an account­ing of the positions which I take in the Congress affecting the people of the Nation and the State.

Second, the Advisory Commission, of which I am proud to be a member, works very closely with the Tax Foundation and through the foundation with the various State taxpayers associations throughout the United States. For example, at the present time the Tax Foundation ls engaged in a concerted study of the report which the · Commission has recently published dealing with the role of the States in strengthening the property tax. I will have more to say about this report in a few moments. Upon completion of the foundation's study of the Commission's report, however, it is hoped and expected that through one or more spe­cial publications the foundation will assist the Commission in promoting many of these recommendations throughout the country. In this connection, let me call your atten­tion to a column by Mr. Raymond Moley appearing in the New York Herald Tribune on August 19.

Mr. Moley observes that: "In one of his debates with Richard Nixon

in 1960, John F. Kennedy said that the prop­erty tax was practically exhausted as a source of revenue. On this assumption he _ advocated vast new Federal expenditures for local facilities such as public schools.

"It is a pity that Mr. Nixon did not re­mind his opponent that it was the Federal income tax, not the property tax, which had reached the point of diminishing returns. Mr. Kennedy has admitted that in asking for tax rate reductions this year."

Mr. Moley goes on to refer to the compre­hensive study of the property tax being pub­lished by the Advisory Commission and closes with the hope that by strengthening the property tax it may be possible to check the growth of Federal control of local affairs.

Third, I am especially pleased at this oppor- tives; (e) four Governors; (f) four mayors; tunlty to explain something about the work (g) three county officials; and (h) three State of the Advisory Commission and to sum- legislators. marize the things it is for and the things it is Among the members of the Commission not for-despite the rumors and allegations presently are: Secretary of the Treasury Dil­to the contrary. Let me note at this point Ion, Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel­that I have arranged to provide for your use a fare Celebrezze, Robert C. Weaver, Admin­supply of pamphlets describing the function- istrator of the Housing and Home Fillance ing of the Commission. With this more com- Agency; Senators Ervin of North Carolina, prehensive materia-1 available, I shall limit Mundt, of South Dakota, and -Muskie, of myself here to matters of special interest. Maine; Congressmen Fountain, of North

Now, a brief look at the events leading up Carolina, Keogh, of New York, and Dwyer, of to the establishment of the Commission. New Jersey; Governors Anderson, of Kansas,

You may recall that in 1953 the President Sanders, of Georgia, Sanford, of North Caro­and the Congress initiated a thorough review lina, and Smylie of Idaho; and Mayors Blais­of Federal-State relations by creating a tem- dell, of Honolulu, Naftalin, of Minneapolis, porary commission made up of persons ap- Selland, of Fresno, Calif., and Tucker, of St. pointed by the President and Representatives Louis. from both Houses of the Congress. This Com- The act creating the Commission assigns mission came to be known by the name of certain specific responsibilities to this group. its chairman, the late Meyer Kestnbaum of The Commission is directed to: Chicago. In 1955, the Kestnbaum Commis- _ 1. Bring together representatives of the sion went out of business and issued its Federal, State, and local governments for formal report, which constituted the most consideration of common problems. comprehensive review of intergovernmental 2. Provide a forum for discussion of the relations since the adoption of the Constitu- administration of Federal grant programs. tion. Our own Gov. Alfred Driscoll, by the 3. Give critical attention to the condi­way, was a member of this pioneering group. tions and controls involved in the adminls-

The Kestnbaum report covered not only tration of Federal grant programs. the philosophical aspects of federalism, but 4. Make available technical assistance to also a variety of specific recommendations on the executive and legislative branches of the the allocation of functions and responsibil- Federal Government in the review of pro­ities between the National Government and posed legislation to determine the overall the States. The report did not get down to effect on the Federal system. many specifics on taxes, but dealt extensively 5. Encourage discussion and study at an with grants. early stage of emerging public problems that

From 1956 through 1958, the House Inter- are likely to require intergovernmental co­governmental Relations Subcommittee, on operation. which I serve as ranking minority member, 6. Recommend, within the framework of undertook a comprehensive study of the rec- the Constitution, the most desirable alloca­ommendations of the Kestnbaum commis- tlon of governmental functions, responsibil­sion, including those relating to possible ities, and revenues among the several levels permanent arrangements within the National of government. Government for attention to intergovern- 7. Recommend methods of coordinating mental relations. In the course of this and simplifying tax laws and administrative study, our subcommittee met with state and practices to achieve a more orderly and less local government officials throughout a large competitive fiscal relationship between the part of the country. We were deeply im- levels of government and to reduce the bur­pressed with the great body of evidence these den of compliance for taxpayers. officials provided, which showed a disturbing Three major distinctions characterize the failure of communications between the vari- Commission, in comparison with predecessor ous levels of government. It became obvi- efforts. First, it is a permanent rather than ous that this failure was at least partially re- a temporary body and as such it can ap­sponslble for a lot of waste and duplication. proach its work selectively, on a problem­Not only did local and State officials not by-problem b!1Sis; second, the cities and know what the other was often doing, or had counties sit down as equals at the council done, or could do in particular areas, but just table along With representatives of National as often neither was familiar with the role and State governments; and third, it is not of the Federal Government in that field. dominated by any one level of government Under such circumstances, coordination and or part thereof. Of the 26 seats on the Com­cooperation were difficult to obtain and in- mission, 6 are controlled by the President, efficiency was encouraged. 6 by the Congress, and 14 by State and local

With this situation in mind, our subcom- governments. So only in a very technical mlttee chairman, Congressman FOUNTAIN, sense can the Commission be considered a and I introduced companion bills to create Federal agency. Currently, all of its funds a permanent Advisory Commission on Inter- come from Congress, but its congressional governmental Relations. FolloWing a favor- sponsors definitely had in mind the possl­able report by the subcommittee, hearings on bility that, if accomplishments warranted this House bill were carried on jointly by the it, State and local assistance could be sought House and Senate Committees on Govern- in financing the Commission's work. ment Operations. An identical measure was As will be noted from the list of respon­sponsored in the Senate by Senator EDMUND sibilities stated in the act, the Commission MusKIE, of Maine, and a number of other has a broad mission. The Commission be­Republican and Democratic Senators. These lieves that the years ahead hold serious chal­bills culminated in the enactment of Public lenge for all levels of government. If our Law 380 in the first session of the 86th present system is to prove equal to these Congress. tasks, we believe, the resources of each level

This act, approved by President Eisen- must be utilized to the highest degree of hower, September 24, 1959, provided for the effectiveness. 'nle Commission is therefore establishment of a permanent, bipartisan dedicated to strengthening local and State body of 26 members, to give continuing study go~ernments in particular, in order that they to the relationship among local, State, and may play their full pa.'rt in a period when National levels of government. The act speci- the forces of international tension, rapid fies the following composition of the Com- population growth, and marked technological mission on a bipartisan basis: (a) three of- change point to an increase in the respon­ficers of the exec-utive branch of the National sibilities of government as a whole. Government; (b) three private citizens; (c) Finally, the Commission recognizes that three Members of the U.S. Senate; (d) three its own value and place in the Federal sys­Members of the U.S. House of Representa- tem Will be determined by the extent to

21926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE November 14 which it is able to make constructive con­tributions. It cannot expect continuance and support over an indefinite period unless by its actions significant changes for the better occur in the relationships among Fed­eral, State, and local agencies of government.

No single "party line" has emerged from the recommendations made by the Commis­sion so far. The closest thing to such a posi­tion is the conviction of all of the members that State and local government in the United States must be strengthened if fur­ther unnecessary centralization at the Fed­eral level is to be avoided. The Commission has recommended the enactment of a broad scope of enabling legislation by State gov­ernments for the unshackling of local gov­ernments, particularly those in urban areas, to permit a much greater degree of coopera­tion among these localities in meeting new problems.

Last year Senator MuNDT, of South Dakota, one of my colleagues on the Commission, commented as follows: "The Congress has brought to a halt the present effort to create a Federal Department of Urban Affairs. Nevertheless, I urge State legislatures and Governors to lose no time in asserting by positive action their interest, their help, and their authority with regard to these problems brought about through rapid in­creases in population in our large metro­politan centers. If the States do not move in this matter, additional excuses wm be seized upon by those who desire to see the Federal Government establish supremacy in this field."

Senator MUNDT then went on to com­mend for the consideration of the States the various legislative proposals which the Ad­visory Commission has made in regard to coping with metropolitan area problems.

Several of these recommendations-­strangely enough-have become involved in the controversy over metropolitan govern­ment, or "Metro" as its opponents insist on call1ng it. To some people, apparently, even the word "metropolitan" is anathema, and, as far as I can determine, it is the Commis­sion's use of this very well-defined, honor­able and descriptive word which has made the Commission fair game. As a matter of fact, however, the Commission has never endorsed metropolitan government as such­directly or indirectly. Our interest is based on the fact that metropolitan areas exist; that, because of the multiplicity of govern­ing bodies in metropolitan areas, there is a vital need to encourage and facilitate these individual governments in cooperating with each other to solve problems which are com­mon to them all. Each of our recommenda­tions is designed to accomplish this limited but important objective.

Ironically, by trying to tag the Commia­sion's work in this field as part of "metro," opponents are helping to bring about-e.s Senator MuNDT suggests-exactly what they are suppos~d to be against: The development of centralized government in urban areas.

The Commission has been very concerned about the growth in the number and mag­nitude and complexity of Federal grants-in­aid. One of its first reports dealt with the need for the requirement by Congress of a periodic review of grants-in-aid programs to assure their termination or redirection when the need has ended or changed. I introduced H.R. 7160 which is pending in the House Committee on Government Opera­tions to carry out this recommendation.

The Senate version of our bill, S. 2114, is scheduled to come up for hearings before the Senate Committee on Government Op­erations next month. Sponsored by Senator MusKIE of Maine, our own Senator CASE and 28 other Senators of both parties, this bill, I suggest, is worthy of your active support.

If you agree, your letters to New Jersey Con­gressmen and Senators could be very helpful.

The objective of this proposed legislation is to establish a uniform policy and proce­dure for review of new grant-in-aid programs which are designed to assist States or their political subdivisions in meeting recognized. national needs. The bill is intended neither to encourage nor discourage the use of the Federal grant-in-aid device, but only to im­prove it where it is found desirable by the Congress.

Nevertheless, as all of us know, there is a persistent tendency for such programs, once enacted, to go on and on, no matter how useful they may be, without a meaningful or consistent congressional reexamination of their e1fectlveness as instruments of inter­governmental cooperation. The record shows that in all our history, only 14 Federal grant-in-aid programs have ever been ter­minated. Those terminated were special wartime or depression measures.

In my judgment, the failure of Congress to give continued and systematic attention to the problem helps to explain why this device is frequently the target of severe criticism. Congress ought to have a uni­form policy and procedure for periodic re­view of grants-in-aid, not only to answer the critics, but to assure ourselves that pro­grams we adopt a.re either adjusted to meet changing conditions or terminated when their original purposes have been achieved.

Under the bill, any new grant program here­a:fter enacted by the Congress would auto­matically expire at the end of 5 years unless an earlier date were specifically provided, or unless application of the act had been specifi­cally waived, in recognition of the intent to provide continuing Federal assistance in a given program. The b111 provides that the appropriate legislative committees in the Congress shall, at the end of 4 years, address themselves to the following questions:

First. The extent to which the purposes for which the grants-in-aid are authorized have been met.

Second. The extent to which the States or political subdivisions thereof are able to carry on such programs without further financial assistance from the United States.

Third. Whether or not any changes in the purpose or direction of the original program should be made.

The proposed legislation does not apply to existing grants, but we hope that such programs also wm be assessed periodically by Congress and the executive agencies in terms of the same criteria provided in tbe bill. The importance of Federal grants-ln­aid ls beyond question. Programs that have almost quadrupled over the past 10 years and will consume over $10 billion of Federal funds during this fiscal year alone demand the continued and effective attention of Congress.

Now let us return to the property tax. This is a sore subject in the State of New Jersey.

We have been told by the courts to equal­ize our assessments among the various juris­dictions or run the risk of having them over­turned in the process of judicial review. There ls a great deal in the report adopted by the Commission that can be usefully studied in New Jersey. I will here only summarize some of the recommendations contained in the report.

1. Each State should take a hard, critical look at its property tax law and rid it of all features which cannot be administered as written, which encourage taxpayers' dis­honesty or force administrators to condone evasion and which, if enforced, would impose an intolerable tax burden.

I

2. Both the legislative and executive branches of the State governments should study the property tax as consistently as the other major sources of State-local revenue and treat it as an integral part of overall State and local financial planning.

3. In order that the taxpayer may be kept informed, each State should require the reg­ular assessment of all tax exempt property, and publish the findings, including the func­tion, scope and nature of activities so ex­empted.

4. The geographical organization of each State's primary local assessment districts should be reconstituted, to the extent re­quired, to give each district the size and resources it needs to become an efficient as­sessing unit and to produce a well-ordered overall structure that makes successful State supervision feasible.

5. The State supervisory agency should be empowered to establish the professional qualifications of assessors and appraisers and certify candidates as to their fitness for em­ployment on the basis of examinations, and to revoke such certification for good and sufficient cause.

6. Assessors should be appointed to office, with no requirement of prior district resi­dence, by the chief executives or executive boards of the local governments involved; they should be appointed for indefinite, rath- · er than fixed, terms; and should be subject to removal for good cauae, including incom­petence, by the appointing authorities.

There a.re several additional recommenda­tions which time does not permit presenting here. I would urge all of you to give a care­ful reading to this very valuable report.

Now let me say a few words about what the Commission is not doing. We are not promoting metropolitan government. We are not advocating the elimination of mu­nicipal home rule. We are not advocating the abolition of small local units of govern­ment. This does not mean to say that the Commission favors the status quo with re­gard to metropolitan area problems. The growth of popUlation and the spread of tech­nical functions in these areas has been such as to require greatly increased cooperation among the local units involved and a much greater degree of leadership on the part of the State governments.

The gamut of solutions to these problems runs from the urban-county approach used by Nashvllle-Davidson County, Tenn., and Miami-Dade County, Fla., to a metropolitan service corporation, adopted by the people of Seattle, to the establishment of joint con­tracts among units of local government. There are many modifications to all of these approaches. The Commission has urged that each State and each metropolitan area ap­praise its own situation and proceed accord­ingly.

In conclusion, let me urge the New Jersey Taxpayers Association to give a critical read­ing to the reports and recommendations of the Commission. I am sure that you won't agree with all of our recommendations, but I am equally sure that you wm find yourself in agreement with a great many. The mem­bers and staff of the Commission would be appreciative of any criticisms or suggestions which you may have to offer regarding our work.

The Commission is dedicated to the prop­osition that the Federal system of govern­ment in this country, with its division of powers among local, State, and National governments, must be preserved and strengthened. We welcome your help tn this task.