Hon. Al House, of North Carolina, Newly Elected President of the Young Democratic Clubs of America

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. B. EVERETT JORDAN

OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr.

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD Certain information concerning Hon. Al House, of North Carolina, the newly elected president of the Young Democratic Clubs of America.

Mr. House is one of our truly outstanding young leaders in North Carolina. His election as national president of the Young Democratic Clubs brought not only great credit to his outstanding work but also great honor to the State of North Carolina.

The material I should like to have inserted in the Appendix of the RECORD is an editorial published in the Raleigh News and Observer on February 3, 1964, entitled "Into the Mainstream"; a copy of a column written by E. M. Yoder entitled "Las Vegas Jackpot," which was published in the Greensboro Daily News on February 6, 1964; an editorial published in the Winston-Salem Journal entitled "Our Man at Las Vegas," published on February 3, 1964; a newspaper article published in the Raleigh Times of February 13, 1964, entitled, "Democrats, Young and Old, Gather To Honor House for Young Democratic Clubs Prestige"; and a biographical sketch of Mr. House. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer, Monday, Feb. 3, 1964]

INTO THE MAINSTREAM

At Las Vegas, Nev., on Saturday, North Carolina won a greater victory than the election of able Al House, of Northampton County, as president of the Young Democratic Clubs of America. His triumph demonstrated the new realistic approach of young men in his State and in the South to the racial problems which have been attended by so much fury in the recent past.

Mr. House's election by the young Democrats of the whole Nation was based upon the determination that the South does not mean to stand separate and apart but is prepared in good will to accept change which is more and more inevitable in the Nation and the world. Furthermore that determination was strengthened and supported by older, hard-headed businessmen in North Carolina who sent word to Las Vegas that they were prepared for the patronage of all regardless of race, color, or creed.

When Mr. House and his supporters entered the race for this top young man's position in the Democratic Party there seemed real question as to whether the national or

Appendix

ganization would accept any young southerner in view of the irreconcilable position taken by many older politicians in the South. Perhaps the greater wonder now is that the hard core of the House support remained the delegates from Southern States some of which have been represented as being ready to leave the Democratic Party on the racial issue.

Mr. House's election was the result of no desperate gamble in a noted gambling town. Rather it showed that when the chips are down the South is ready to take its hand and play its part in the inevitable movement for human equality in America. Old politicians may be naturally reluctant to accept change. But the young politicians, who will shape the politics of the future, know that change is not only inevitable-it is already here. Their business is so to deal with changing laws and customs as to reduce the plain for all concerned and to see to it that equality for all means a happier, more productive, more prosperous South and Nation for all.

The reluctance of older southern politicians in this matter has not been surprising. It has increasingly, however, shown itself as an item of the romanticism which has not enriched the past and will not shape the future. The new realism, impelled by a new idealism, is clearly the force which will assure the South its proper place in the councils of the country and the human advance of our times.

[From the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News, Feb. 6, 1964]

LAS VEGAS JACKPOT Forty-nine North Carolina Young Democrats returned rejoicing last weekend from the gaming citadel of the West-Las Vegas, Nev. their pockets jingling with the tin of a significant political victory.

Al House, 32-year-old lawyer from Roanoke Rapids, had just won the 1964 national presidency of the Young Democratic Clubs of America in a hot fight-a win all the more significant, perhaps, in a national election year.

House, a UNC-UNC law school graduate Lunsford Crew, offered plenty of qualificaand law partner of Democratic Chairman tions-not only his labors in the party vineyards dating back to undergraduate days at Chapel Hill but youth, vigor, and a splendidly disciplined speaking voice, free from the Yankee viewpoint, of any lush "hush-mamouf" rebel phonetics.

But the House victory is fascinating, not only as a personal sweep but as a sign of the resurgent vitality and skill of North Carolina's young Democratic politicians-and beyond that of the South's reemergence as a power in national party affairs.

One could, perhaps, tick off a list of factors in the atmosphere that made House's win probable the increasing national prominence of Gov. Terry Sanford as a wise and moderate southern Governor; the generally "progressive" picture North Carolina has managed to project abroad, through thick and thin. Indeed it is no slight of House's energetic year-long campaign to speculate that the abrupt advent of a Southerner to the Presidency in late November helped considerably. Certainly it has thrown the "presidential" faction of the Democratic Party into ferment; and the albatross of segregation and racism has subtly receded where Southern Democrats are concerned.

Al House's opponent at Las Vegas was a

35-year-old Boston labor union official, John O'Malley, a stock representative of the Northern-urban-"liberal" forces who have dominated the Democratic Party outside Congress since 1948. But House captured several crucial Northern delegations-Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, among them.

Certainly House and his strategists laid their plans well. They knew, for instance, that it would be vital to show House as no racist or footdragger on civil rights. And their foresight was vindicated. The O'Malley forces, in a despairing attempt to thwart the House steamroller, seeded the Young Democratic delegations with leaflets absurdly attempting to link House with Orval Faubus.

This puny tactic backfired. For one thing. House declared himself a strong supporter of the administration's civil rights bill and stuck by his guns in the southern caucuses. "They put the blowtorch up against him and turned it on high," confided one House aid who battled at Las Vegas. "He didn't waver."

In another and equally crucial maneuver House dodged, at considerable risk, the southern YDC caucus in Atlanta last fall. He sent representatives: but there were rumblings of revolt and of tertium quid candidates because he failed to show up in person. House gambled that the Deep South delegates would swallow their pout at Las Vegas. And they did.

Also decisive was the appearance of two Negro members of the North Carolina delegation at the Dunes Hotel, where the Young Democrats deliberated to the music of slot machines. These two delegates were instrumental in persuading the crucial northern and midwestern delegations that House, like President Johnson, is a national Democrat first and a southerner second.

The payoff came when House went handsomely over the top on the first ballot. His lieutenants fought off a last-minute procedural stall.

House's victory is a self-contained victory, perhaps. But it points to any number of possible sea changes in the national democracy. Starting with the civil rights debacle of 1948 and the ensuing Dixiecrat revolt the Southern States have experienced a 15-yearlong freezeout in the presidential wing of the Democratic Party. Southern Democrats controlled Congress through the seniority system, but could not fix hands on the network of national Democratic power based on union and minority votes that largely elects Presidents. The closest they could come was in receiving the ritual gift of the vice-presidential nomination to a moderate Senator like Barkley, Sparkman, Kefauver, and Johnson.

Maybe the situation hasn't changed all that much. But the impact of Lyndon Johnson as President is considerable. At least it may convince northern and western Democrats, even the union and minority groups, that the South's monolithic solidarity on civil rights, as dramatized in Congress, is a geographical and philosophical mirage. Given a truly national power base, difference emerge and southerners become as nationally minded as any other Democrats, indeed perhaps a little more so.

At Las Vegas, with House, the Young Democrats tasted victory in a tough national league. This could fire ambitions.

"Who knows?" mused one House backer after the big win at Las Vegas. "If we can have a national YDC president in 1964, maybe we can have a vice-presidential candidate in 1968."

[From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal, Feb. 3, 1964]

OUR MAN AT LAS VEGAS

As usual, party bigwigs were on hand at the Young Democrats' meeting at Las Vegas last week-not so much to supervise the doings of the young as to scout the rookie politicians for promising prospects that can be brought up to the majors in a few years.

As we have seen in North Carolina, these organizations of young party members offer ideal training grounds for the politically ambitious. Two of the present candidates for Lieutenant Governor, for instance John Jordan and Clifton Blue-got their political feet wet as president of the North Carolina Young Democrats. Governor Sanford himself once held the office.

And now that youth is making more and more of a place for itself in the national leadership, the strategists of both parties will be eyeing the rising young hopefuls even more critically.

It is thus not at all likely that the young man from North Carolina, J. Albert House, is being taken lightly in higher Democratic circles right now.

House, of all things, is a southern Democrat who has just been elected to national office on, of all things, a platform of civil rights and against, of all people, an opponent identified with labor.

As George Gobel used to say, you just can't hardly find that happening.

The point, though, is that it has happened. And in the happening hangs a good deal more than that the political star of young Al House is clearly on the rise. Maybe the South in a measure has risen as well.

Certainly, the Young Democrat delegates from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, and the Midwest would not have supported the North Carolinian if they had not fully believed that he meant what he said about equal rights. And they would hardly have believed what he said if his State had not produced evidence to back his words.

Maybe North Carolina, more than it knows, has helped to pull the South over the barrier that so long has barred its men from serious consideration for national office. If So, we can take extra pride in the success of Al House at Las Vegas.

[From the Raleigh (N.C.) Times,
Feb. 13, 1964]

DEMOCRATS, YOUNG AND OLD, GATHER To
HONOR HOUSE FOR YOUNG DEMOCRATS CLUB
PRESTIGE

Young Democrats and old came from all over the State to a dinner last night honoring the newly elected national president of the Young Democrats Club, J. Albert House of Roanoke Rapids.

It was intended as a nonpolitical Democratic get-together with Governor Sanford topping the list of speakers. But the rival political factions circulating in the overflow crowd of some 225 persons, the handshaking, the aids handing out buttons to anyone who would have them, all testified to the election year character of the party.

Two of the three major gubernatorial candidates were represented-L. Richardson Preyer of Greensboro by his manager, N. A. (Nat) Townsend, and Dan Moore of Canton by his manager, Joe Branch. Former State Democratic Chairman Bert Bennett, a Preyer supporter now, also was present.

LAKE AIDS ABSENT

Campaign aids for candidate I. Beverly Lake of Raleigh were not there. House has been criticized by some of the more conservative factions in the party for his open championing of racial integration.

Of the three declared candidates for Lieutenant Governor, only Robert W. Scott of Haw River was present, which was something of a suprise. Scott has never been noted as an active Young Democrats Club

supporter, as have his opponents, House Speaker H. Clifton Blue of Aberdeen and Wake Senator John Jordan.

Blue was represented, however, by his comanagers, Sam Burrow and Elvin Jackson.

Congressmen HAROLD COOLEY and L. H. FOUNTAIN both were present, as was COOLEY'S opponent for the fourth district seat, R. Mayne Albright, of Raleigh.

Preyer's supporters were present in large number, judging from the prolonged applause that followed reading of a telegram from Preyer, congratulating House and expressing Preyer's regrets at not being able to attend the dinner.

SANFORD SPEAKS

Governor Sanford used his brief talk to call attention to the meaning of House's election in terms of "added evidence that the future belongs to North Carolina."

Other speakers on the program included House, Cooley, and State Democratic Chairman W. Lunsford Crew, who recently suffered a broken leg in an automobile accident, and came to the rostrum on crutches.

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

James Albert House, Jr., born Chapel Hill, N.C.; graduate of Scotland Neck (N.C.) High School, University of North Carolina-A.B. in history, University of North Carolina Law School-doctor of laws degree, 1955. Graduate work at Harvard Law School, summer 1961.

Valedictorian and president of student body of Scotland Neck High School.

Academic scholarship, track and cross country teams, men's honor council and student council, class officer, and Phi Beta Kappa at University of North Carolina.

Organizer and president of university Young Democrats Club 1952-53; organizer of other colleges in North Carolina 1953-56, State Young Democrats Club secretary 195354, eastern State organizer 1959-60; Young Democrats Club national committeeman, 1961-63; delegate to NATO and Atlantic Conference of Young Political Leaders, Bonn, West Germany, 1963; chairman of resolutions committee, Young Democratic Clubs of America spring 1963.

U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps. Service in Tokyo, Japan, and Far East 195657.

Assistant director and instructor in law, institute of government at University of North Carolina; 1957-58.

Practiced law in Roanoke Rapids, N.C., since December 1958. Member of the North Carolina bar, bar of the United States. District Courts, and admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chairman of North Carolina Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division, 1963.

Elected president of the Young Democratic Clubs of America for a 2-year term at the 14th bienniel convention in Las Vegas, Nev., February 1, 1964.

Balance-of-Payments Deficit in 1963 Worse Than Originally Thought

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS

OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, the latest figures on the balance-of-payments deficit for 1963 indicate that the deficit on "regular" transactions is now calculated at $3.3 billion, or nearly 10 percent larger than the previous estimate of

slightly over $3 billion. The deficit is somewhat smaller than 1962 deficit, but larger than the 1961 figure. In order to make more generally known the latest information on the balance-of-payments deficit, I wish to insert an article from the March 25 Wall Street Journal summarizing our balance-of-payments position for 1963 in the RECORD:

U.S. PAYMENTS DEFICIT IMPROVED LESS IN 1963 THAN THOUGHT SOME AID WAS TEMPORARY

WASHINGTON.-The U.S. balance-of-payments deficit didn't improve as much last year as was thought, and some of the improvement was only temporary.

The deficit is currently calculated at $3.301 million for last year, nearly 10 percent larger than the previous estimate of $3,020 million. The 1963 deficit is still narrower than the $3,573 million of 1962 but is newly placed somewhat wider than the $3,043 million deficit of 1961.

A payments deficit results when dollars acquired by foreigners through U.S. spending, lending, and aid exceed the inflow of dollars here from abroad. The administration has been striving to end the persistent US. deficit, which gives foreigners mounting claims on the dwindling gold stock.

Not since 1957, when the Suez Canal closing resulted in an export spurt, has the United States shown a surplus ($520 million that year) in its international accounts.

NEW DATA STRETCHED DEFICIT

The revision in the 1963 deficit results from recent information to the Commerce Department showing that foreigners piled up about $100 million more in U.S. bank accounts than had been calculated; also, shipments of military goods to foreigners, which count as exports, were about $150 million less than initially reported.

And the Government agency, in a payments report, noted that part of the improvement recorded last year reflects "developments which have had only temporary significance" as well as some basic economic gains.

Exports of farm products, for instance, were "exceptionally high" due to such "strictly temporary factors" as bad weather and poor crops in Europe, the report said; such conditions probably boosted farm exports by up to $150 million, mostly in the final quarter. Lower import barriers helped coal exports gain nearly $150 million, the report said, but the rise was "accentuated by weather conditions and interruptions in coal production in Europe last spring."

Temporary factors also appear to have pushed up fourth-quarter bank loans and direct investment abroad, which count as outflows. But temporary help came from an unusual inflow of funds from Canadian banks.

Even with the temporary help, however, the revised data put the 1963 fourth-quarter gap at $527 million, or a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $2,108 million. Previously the final quarter deficit had been estimated at $377 million or a $1,508 million annual rate. While advance estimates are even more subject to error than reports soon after a period ends, so far this year no marked change in trend from the fourth quarter appears to be developing, authorities say.

The fourth quarter annual rate in the payments deficit, even afetr being revised upward, is still much less severe than the revised $5,228 million annual rate of last year's April-June quarter. Sharply higher outflows of private U.S. capital then prompted the late President Kennedy to propose and "interest equalization tax" on sales of foreign securities here, intending to discourage foreigners' long-term portfolio borrowing by adding 1 percentage point to

their effective interest costs. Other efforts to trim the dollar outflow by reducing military spending abroad and tying more foreign aid to purchases here also were accelerated. The tax, which would be retroactive to last July 19, has passed the House, but Senate action probably will have to wait until after the civil rights fight.

PRIVATE CAPITAL OUTFLOW DOUBLED The new figures show that the total net outflow of private capital in the final 1963 quarter rose to about $945 million-about double the total of the previous period, though well short of the total in the AprilJune quarter. The $945 million consisted of $215 million in long-term portfolio investment such as American citizens' purchases of foreign bonds and stocks, the area that is the target of the proposed tax; $129 million in short-term capital movement, compared with a small net inflow in the previous quarter when interest rates here were raised; and $601 million in direct investment, including acquisitions of foreign companies and construction of oversea factories and oil refineries by U.S. concerns.

The Bobby Baker Case-Editorials

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. HUGH SCOTT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD Several editorials and newspaper columns relating to the Bobby Baker case.

There being no objection, the editorials and columns were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Philadelphia (Pa.) Inquirer, Mar. 27, 1964]

BAKER CASE STILL ALIVE

The Bobby Baker case has not been buried just because the Democratic majority on the Senate Rules Committee has managed to close down its investigation after 5 months of evasion and fumbling.

The case is still very much alive and it will stay alive and kicking until all those embarrassing questions which the Democrats on the committee have run away from are answered.

Those questions relate to how an employee of the Senate majority could roll up a fortune of several million dollars on a salary of $19,600 a year; and whether or not the Senate and other Government agencies were used in the process of enrichment.

Chairman B. EVERETT JORDAN and his fellow Democrats on the Rules Committee were able, by outvoting the Republican members, to keep 20 witnesses from testifying.

Whether those individuals could have furnished the committee with evidence of Baker wrongdoing, or could have opened up some backdoors leading to rather interesting places is, of course, not known.

But, by repressing that testimony, whatever its nature, the Democratic members have aggravated the rumors and suspicions which have circulated around the case from the start.

The Democratic majority will issue a report on its findings and on its recommendations, if any, on legislation intended to cope with conflict of interest in the activities of Senate employees.

The committee minority will be able to submit a report of its own, and it should

prove to be a blistering one, more revealing than the majority report, more valuable in suggesting remedies for conflict of interest by Senators as well as by Senate employees. Senate debate over these coming reports could serve the public interest in focusing renewed attention upon the Baker case and its far-reaching, and unsavory, implications. It could even have such heavy impact that a more extensive inquiry could be authorized. In any event, the clumsy mishandling of the Baker case by the Democrats controlling the investigation has made it inescapably a prime political issue, from which the Republicans may be expected to glean substantial profit. The charge of whitewash already made by Senator HUGH SCOTT and others is a difficult one for the Democrats to overcome.

The important part of all this has nothing to do with the political consequences but with the shortchanging of the public which the committee has engaged in by its premature termination of the probe. The fire has not been put out by dumping whitewash on it. Public wrath will demand the truththe whole truth-in the Baker case.

[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch, Mar. 25, 1964]

BAKER INQUIRY ENDING? Indications that Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee are preparing to close the Bobby Baker inquiry have brought renewed Republican criticism and further demands for the calling of additional witnesses. Senator HUGH SCOTT, of Pennsylvania, says the Republicans, outnumbered 6 to 3 on the committee, were "chopped down" in recent voting and may have no recourse except to write a minority report.

How long should the hearings continue? Certainly they should not be terminated so long as there is the likelihood of turning up additional substantive evidence as to how Baker, when a $19,600 a year secretary of the Senate majority, accumulated a fortune he estimated at more than $2 million; particularly if such evidence involves Senators or others in wrongdoing.

But the Democrats have a point when they say the shabby pattern of Baker's wheeling and dealing is plain, and sufficient to provide the basis of a report to the Senate and remedial legislation. It would be a waste of time merely to chew over the facts already brought out, and it seems that new material is running thin. For example, what was alleged a few days ago to be a "forgery" involving a Baker tax return now turns out to have been not a forgery and of no consequence.

The Republicans have very little ammunition to use in the coming campaign against the Johnson administration and would like the hearings to continue indefinitely in the hope of turning something up. On the other hand, the Democrats are charged with "trying to put this skeleton back in the closet" before the elections. No matter what is done it will be impossible to please both sides from a political standpoint.

That leaves the question of whether the public interest has been satisfied. The hearings have been underway since last October, which seems long enough. But if the Democrats terminate them they will automatically take on the responsibility of assuring the public that they have conscientiously fulfilled their assignment. The revelations of how Baker operated have discredited the Senate majority; it will take some doing to restore public confidence.

[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Globe-Democrat, Mar. 26, 1964]

SHAME OF THE SENATE

By a straight party vote, Democrats of the Senate Rules Committee, who never did want a thorough investigation, have slammed the

door shut on the Bobby Baker affair, which has no close parallel in congressional history.

After 6 months of headlines, the American people have learned little more about this skulduggery in high places than appeared in the relatively inconclusive hearings.

The fair-haired clerk of the Senate majority, "Lyndon's boy" they called him, ran his $19,000 salary up to something over $2 million-borrowed thousands upon thousands of dollars with or without collateral-bought a townhouse where girl friends did considerable entertaining-engaged in various enterprises with Government officials and Government contractors-and took the fifth, along with various associates.

Well, if that's all we'll ever know about Bobby Baker's doings, the inquiry smells of whitewash. And there has been less talk about his "little book" of late. Could that imply a deal?

Which Senators have so much to hide that they would prefer to bring shame on the Senate itself by having all the Democrats, in effect, collectively take the fifth?

[From the Minneapolis (Minn.) Morning Tribune, Mar. 26, 1964]

MEDALS FOR CAUTION, NOT FOR COURAGE Democrats on the House Rules Committee have refused to call a number of witnesses proposed by the Republican minority in the Bobby Baker inquiry, thus triggering that minority's "whitewash" charges. Among those whom the Democrats rejected was Presidential Aid Walter Jenkins who, one witness indicated, had solicited advertising for the L.B.J. Co.'s television station in Texas as a sort of insurance rebate.

Committee Chairman JORDAN, Democrat, of North Carolina, takes the position that the investigation has already produced enough evidence to illuminate the need for revising Senate rules bearing on conflicts of interest. He thinks further testimony would be repetitive.

But the inquiry has hardly touched the Senators themselves as it revolved around the unsavory financial dealings of the former secretary to the Senate majority. Today the areas which the committee has not investigated loom formidably large and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Democratic Members have been less interested in doing a thorough job than they have been in skirting potential political embarrassments in a campaign year.

Have the Republican Members no political motives in pressing for new witnesses? Of course they have such motives but in this case, it seems to us, they also have the public interest on their side. That interest is not satisfied by an investigation which throws a protective aura of immunity around Senators or even Presidential aids.

The committee Democrats seem to be saying that it is better to play safe than be sorry. This may win them medals for caution but precious few for statesmanship or courage.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, Mar. 26, 1964] TOO BAD

The chairman and the majority of the Senate Rules Committee apparently have decided to ring down the curtain on the Bobby Baker investigation. From the first they gave the feeling that they had been pushed into the whole thing only by the insensitive press and they had tried before this to get away from those embarrassing details and up onto the broad plains of principle. Now they have succeeded. It is too bad. What is lost is not a "carnival," a "circus" or a "partisan field day," to quote a few of the reasons given earlier for letting Bobby off the hook. What is lost is the chance to find out just how involved the Senate majority staff and, for that mat