During his 14 years as principal of the high school, Crowe has been chairman of the chamber of commerce Youth and Industry Week, a program to familiarize high school students with occupations in business and industry.

Before his assignment to the high school, Crowe was supervisor of the school board's bureau of veterans education and training. While supervisor of the city school's drafting department, he wrote a text on drafting now used in the public high schools.

He and his wife, Helen, have a son, Brian, who is a senior at Indiana University. An older son, Mark, is employed in the Navy Department in Washington, D.C.

[From the Chicago Daily Calumet] HONORS CROWE AS MAN OF THE YEAR James W. Crowe, 62, of 2217 East 69th, Chicago Vocational principal, has been named "Man of the Year" by the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce.

A committee of chamber members selected Crowe for his civic activities.

Crowe, principal for the past 14 years, has been chairman of the chamber of commerce youth and industry week, a program to familiarize high school students with occupations of business and industry.

Crowe is past president of the South Chicago chamber, having served two terms.

Crowe and his wife, Helen, have a son Brian, a senior at Indiana University. Mark, an older son, is employed in the Navy Department in Washington, D.C.

Crowe was supervisor on the school board's bureau of veterans education and training before his assignment to CVS.

He wrote a text on drafting now used by public high schools while he was supervisor of the city's school's drafting department.

He is a graduate of Lane Technical High School, and Loyola University where he holds two degrees-a bachelor of science in education and a master's degree in education.

Crowe is a member of Local 10, Carpenters' Union, American Federation of Labor.

He taught shop and drafting at Lane for 18 years. He was supervisor of teacher training for the U.S. Navy at CVS 1941-42, and wrote the text for the course "Principles of Trade Teaching."

Crowe was chief of training for War Manpower Commission of Metropolitan Chicago from 1943 to 1945.

Crowe also served as: Educational adviser for Rehabilitation Commission, Department of Illinois American Legion, 1944-54; past treasurer, Illinois Industrial Arts Association; principal, CVS High School since 1950; principal, CVS evening school since 1950; president, Illinois Council of Local Administrators (industrial education); coordinator, Region III, American Industrial Arts Award Competition, 1960-61; member, Education Committee, Association of Commerce and Industry, Chicago.

[From the Southeast Economist] CHICAGO VOCATIONAL SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IS MAN OF THE YEAR

James W. Crowe, principal of Chicago Vocational High School, was named "Man of the Year" at the annual awards dinnerdance of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce held in the Jovial Club, 9615 South Commercial Avenue.

The coveted honor, awarded to outstanding chamber members, went to Crowe for his longtime civic activities in the community, including his work during the area's annual Youth and Industry Week. The special event is held to help young people select future careers and advise them of the qualifications and opportunities available with the aid of business and industrial leaders.

Crowe, who has been the principal at CVS for the past 14 years, is a past president of the South Chicago Chamber. Before his

assignment at CVS, he was superintendent of the bureau of veterans education and training of the Chicago public schools. Previously, he was supervisor of the drafting department of the Chicago schools and author of a drafting textbook still used at vocational schools.

During World War II he served as Chief of Training of the War Manpower Commission of Metropolitan Chicago.

Crowe attended Lane Technical High School and holds both a bachelor and masters degree in education from Loyola University.

He is past president of the Vocational School Administrators Association and past treasurer of the Illinois Industrial Educational Association.

Attorney Samuel Maragos, president of the chamber, said of Crowe: "The choice of the man of the year committee was an excellent one in naming a high caliber of dedicated worker and fine person such as Mr. Crowe."

Committee members included Dr. Alvin Lieberman, 8148 South Kingston Avenue; George Rooney, 2152 East 78th Street, and John Siovic, 9234 South Bennett Avenue.

Corporate Profits and Economic Growth

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS

OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, in his column in the Washington Post on April 6, Harold B. Dorsey points to an undertone of worry about the possible adverse effects on the economy of forthcoming wage negotiations. He notes that a misunderstanding of corporate profits figures might create public support for excessive labor demands that would create inflationary pressures and/or lower profit margins.

Contrary to the commonly held opinion, corporate profits are just beginning to show signs of recovering from the subnormal level that has been stultifying economic growth for the past 6 years. This healthy improvement in corporate profits has neither come out of the hide of consumers or of labor, according to the column.

As Mr. Dorsey points out, a misunderstanding of the corporate profits figures that leads to an excessive increase in labor costs might very well lead to an inflationary boom-and-bust pattern in the economy.

The article follows:

TRUE IMAGE OF EARNINGS TREND NEEDED

(By Harold B. Dorsey) NEW YORK, April 5.-The budget of business news continued favorable last week and the stock averages established another new record. Nevertheless, one can sense the development of an undertone of worry about the possible adverse effects on the economy of wage negotiations.

The concern is not a fear of fair and reasonable wage adjustments. Rather, it centers around the evidence that a misunderstanding of the corporate profits figures might create public support for excessive labor demands that would create inflation pressures and/or lower profit margins.

Inflationary price behavior would restrain a rising volume of consumption—both here

and abroad-with an adverse effect on employment. Lower profit margins would reduce the incentive of business to make the capital investments which lead to more and better products for consumers and more and better jobs for employees.

The current issue of the First National City Bank letter points out: "Because newspapers and other accounts play up the news of record profits, whether for individual companies or all corporations, earnings trends are easily misinterpreted and are not considered in relation to the growth of the economy, wage payments, taxes, sales or capital investment. Public opinion polls have consistently shown that people generally have exaggerated notions about how large profits actually are."

It is much more than a coincidence that record corporate earnings are accompanied by new records for employment, payrolls, sales, and practically all of the broad measurements of the economy's welfare. The good earnings should be looked upon as a favorable sign for continuing economic growth. It is unfortunate that they are being looked upon as a target for labor to shoot at.

For example, the UAW's Walter Reuther has stated that the automobile industry could afford to reduce the price of cars by $200, give labor a very large increase in hourly pay, and still record a satisfactory return on its capital investment. If his formula were to be applied to one of the automobile producers, it would seem likely that this company-and the jobs of its 33,000 employees could not survive.

A second producer would certainly operate in the red under this formula. The other two companies would show such a reduction in their earnings that they could not afford to make the large capital expenditures needed to create more jobs and to maintain the efficiency that is so important in this mass production business.

One of the primary reasons why this column became so optimistic about the outlook for business activity and employment last autumn was the evidence that corporate profit margins were showing signs of recovering from the subnormal level that had been stultifying economic growth for the preceding 6 years. The corporate earning figures are now justifying that anticipation.

The First National City Bank letter gives a picture of the 15-year downward trend in manufacturers', profits as a percentage of sales and capital investment. These measurements were at subnormal levels from 1957 through 1963. The figures of 1962 and 1963 showed a moderate recovery from the lowest level in many years.

There is being created in the mind of the public the erroneous impression that this moderate recovery is exorbitant and that it is coming out of the hides of labor and consumers. This image is simply contrary to the facts. Prices have been unusually stable and the number of people employed and weekly payrolls per worker have risen to new record levels.

An attack on business profits conflicts with the economic program now being espoused by the administration. One of the most important objectives of that program is to encourage American and foreign capital flow into American enterprise by improving the attractiveness of such investments.

Business analysts and investment managers are beginning to appraise more carefully the business prospects for 1965. All of the foregoing observations are an integral part of these calculations. If a misunderstanding of the corporate profit figures is going to encourage excessive increases in labor costs, then we may have an inflationary boom-and-bust pattern. If the higher costs are to come out of profit margins instead of higher prices, then the growth of activity

and employment will turn sluggish again as a result of disappointing business capital expenditures.

The Critique of Democratic Foreign Policy

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JAMES R. GROVER, JR.

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, a most candid, disturbing, and thought provoking presentation and anlysis of America's foreign policy during the Johnson and Kennedy administrations was made recently in a speech by Dr. Michael Szaz, Ph. D., assistant professor of history at the Graduate School of St. John's University.

Dr. Szaz's background in international affairs surely qualifies him to make such a comprehensive review. He is the author of countless magazine articles on world affairs, including a book entitled "Germany's Eastern Frontiers." His new work, "The Great Power Conflict Since 1945," will soon be released.

This speech by Dr. Szaz, whom I do not know personally, was delivered at the Wycoff Republican Club in Ridgewood, N.Y., and came to my attention in view of its timeliness and in view of Dr. Szaz's active political life on Long Island. I do not sponsor it in the spirit of partisanship, and I do not subscribe necessarily to all of its premises and conclusions, but since it analyzes the "better Red than dead," appease and accommodate, philosophy of the ultraliberals in a historical setting, it makes interesting reading.

I include this address in the RECORD at this point, and urge my colleagues to give it their attention:

Ever since the fall of 1961, Democratic spokesmen assert that we are winning the cold war by successfully containing Communist aggression and subversion. Considering Communist unity a thing of the past, the Washington thinkers coming from Harvard via the left road to coexistence consider the latter as the epitome of peace and security. No action that could distribute tranquility within the Communist bloc is adovcated, lately we seem to bail out the Soviet Union from her self-made economic crises. If we do so, Messrs, Stevenson and Rostow believe that somehow a worldwide détente may be attained and free world and Communist interests sublimated within the framework of the United Nations.

If wishful thinking could achieve the same result as an impassionate analysis of events, the gentlemen from Harvard and their Democratic superiors would have approached utopia more than any other American administration. Yet their assumptions remain imprecise, often incorrect, mistaking effect for cause and unwilling to face reality. They know that doing so would mean to risk defeat in 1964 because of the indignation an open confession of their policy failures would create in the American public.

Take the assertion that there is no more Communist monolith. Yet, the conflicts dividing Khrushchev from Mao, Hozha from

Tito, are consequences of Communist successes and strength. Despite its substantial power, political and ideological content, this conflict would disappear once the adversaries were faced with any real danger from the West. Khrushchev, Pravda, and its Peiping daily equivalent all bear me out on this.

A perusal of the American press, even of the New York Times, will, however, show that the Sino-Soviet conflict became a serious problem to Western unity as well. Not that it had to become one. Unified Western and Japanese policies could have greatly aggravated preexisting Communist difficulties. This could have checked Communist designs, as a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Western powers could have used the conflict for a daring political-economic thrust into Eastern Europe in order to widen the gap between the Russian and local Communist leaders. For, faced with the unpleasant choices in the inter-Communist struggle, they, too, cannot any more completely disregard the nationalist and democratic aspirations of their people.

DISINTEGRATION OF THE WESTERN ALLIANCE

As a result of Democratic policies, the chasm between the allies in the West became abysmal since 1960. After the Paris Summit breakup in May, 1960, there were few major inter-Allied disagreements. Perhaps the British were advocating a little softer policy while the Germans were more adamant about the need of Communist concessionss, but on the whole, Allied unity survived the trying year of 1959. This occurred despite open Communist threats at Berlin and the undermining effects of the Democratic campaign in the press and the Senate on alleged missile gaps and second-rate American military power based either on sheer ignorance or irresponsible political demagoguery. differences of opinion with President de Gaulle of France did not yet threaten NATO or Franco-American cooperation.

What is the situation today?

The

Administra

tion spokesmen openly regard France as a dangerous competitor in Western Europe and describe her President as a disguised enemy of the free world. France herself is moving into strange directions by Red China's recognition, while maintaining a hard stance toward the U.S.S.R. Could not the Communist argue that their split is adequately matched by the gradual, but seemingly inavoidable, disintegration of NATO? Do not our continental allies discern with outmost concern the scepter of the former Kennedy and the present Johnson administration to pressure them into opposing, not the Communists, but the De Gaulle regime, in order to become worthy of our support?

Many people will, of course, state that President de Gaulle is impossible to get along with, he wants a neutral Europe and our withdrawal from there. It is also charged that he fails to realize France's inability to achieve nuclear parity with the United States and the U.S.S.R. and that he is discause loyal to the Western of freedom. There might be a kernel of truth in all these accusations. Certainly, the Gaullist concept of an Atlantic Community and France's future is different from ours. De Gaulle does not believe in the permanency of American presence in Europe and does not even desire it. He refuses to regard NATO as a supranational organization despite the contrary view of past and present American administrations.

Yet despite the panegyrics on the grand designs of our late President, it is actually President de Gaulle who has had the broader vision among the Western leaders. His concept is, however, not that of a united world under the auspices of the United Nations. To him the nation state still forms the only possible nucleus of popular allegiance and power and he considers disregarding this fact weakening our resistance against the

as

If na

Communists. One might disagree with him on the future, but for the present his arguement is validated by the nation-state controlled policies of all great powers. tional considerations control policy, then no major power can deny itself nuclear weapons, the ultimate defense. To acquire them thus becomes a matter of national survival, for any great power will insist upon making the ultimate decision about its continuing existence. In the French view, NATO may not deprive any state of its defense decisions, though it does form an integrated alliance united by similar cultural values. The very fact that the United States fails to place all her forces under NATO remains a case in point for the French President.

Some of these differences existed already under the Eisenhower administration without a breakdown of communications between Paris and Washington. For under President Eisenhower American policies were conducted in accordance with American national interests despite the one-world sermons of some second-echelon policymakers.

It had been the "grand design" of the late President that exacerbated the dispute into a major struggle for NATO member allegiances decisively weakening that organization. The design was to transform the Atlantic world into a supranational, Americancontrolled community. It was launched without adequately explaining to the American people its ultimate ramifications and in the face of open French protest. Preferring to give credit to the intellectual propensities of the White House braintrust, I do not believe that it really aimed at the creation of such a community. The chimera of Atlantic unity was to counteract the attractive concept of a confederated Europe under FrancoGerman leadership, friendly to the AngloSaxon world but independent in world politics, that seemed to please the peoples of Germany and other continental countries.

As slogans can never replace policies, our defense efforts were altered to facilitate the split between France and other NATO members. The Skybolt project, based on a treaty with Britain, was abandoned and in the subsequent Bahamas agreement the Kennedy concept of nuclear integration via submarines was forced upon the Macmillan government. This deprived the British of their only effective asset toward the European Economic Community, i.e., their ability to contribute substantially to the creation of a European deterrent upon their entry into the European Community.

When President de Gaulle reacted violently, he had been immediately denounced as a megalomaniac, a wrecker of NATO. I personally heard a New York broadcast asserting that the other members of EEC had held a secret meeting designating De Gaulle rather than Khrushchev as the major danger to the free world. The propaganda campaign against De Gaulle lasted all summer of 1963 and included President Kennedy's trip to Western Europe.

The campaign achieved unfortunate results. The French President became even more intransigent and replied to our challenge in Western Europe by entering southeast Asia, Africa, and recently also Latin America as a competitor for the allegiances of people. In the meantime, NATO keeps floundering, unable to agree on common nuclear defense problems despite the missile ship project of the former Kennedy administration.

NEUTRALISM AND AMERICAN POLICIES The emergence of France as a worldwide competitor was not the result of devious planning. Both sides were in part prisoners of their own political dynamics. The chasm now involves policies toward neutrals, allies, and the Communist bloc alike and on the latter problem the future of the Western alliance will depend.

The administration accuses France of wrecking free world unity by recognizing Red China. Yet no matter how distasteful the step must be to any right-thinking American, we, too, are striving for a détente with the Soviet Union. We are shipping or preparing to ship tens of millions of tons of grain in order to ease the shortages incurred by Communist mismanagement in Russia. In August we signed a test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in order to keep France out of the nuclear club. We fall to use our economic leverage for political purposes toward the Communist bloc. We have conveniently forgotten the bloody origins of the Hungarian Kádár regime and continue to call understanding and accommodation with Russian and satellite Communist leaders.

The wheat deal with Russia was advertised by the late President as a one-shot, cash and carry deal in order to improve our balanceof-payments situation, stabilize the wheat price on the domestic and world markets, and help to secure employment to longshoremen by the use of American vessels for the delivery of the grain. All these assertions were proven false in the course of the negotiations. Transportation rates are subsidized by taxpayers' money while we are selling the grain to Russia at world market price, considerably lower than the subsidized price our farmers receive from the Government. Thus no savings to the taxpayer, only an added transportation subsidy. It was described as a dollar and gold transaction and payment would be received within 6 months. We all know, however, what happened in December in Congress where considerable arm twisting was employed by the President to secure a free hand in order to authorize loans up to 18 months by the Export-Import Bank to Russia and guarantees to private sellers in case of Russian default. Thus, no, or only infinitesimal improvement of the gold deficit position of the United States. Recently only a combined pressure of ILA and public opinion forced the administration to ban the vessels trading with Cuba under foreign flag in the deal and assured that the 50-percent provision would be observed.

By all these policies we are violating and abandoning the principles of the Eisenhower, nay even of the Truman administration. We are also bending backward in order to please neutralist nations. The administration seemingly believes that the new neutralist countries, their greedy hands extended in order to extract, by blackmail or supplication, enormous grants from the two adversaries, are in a tenable moral and political position. We no longer consider the defeat of communism as the beacon of peace, rather we hope for the relaxation of totalitarianism in Communist dictatorships while accepting the prospect of a half-free, half-slave world. Smear tactics have been employed against anyone ranging from Senator Goldwater, former Vice President Nixon to Professor Possony who dare to raise their voices against these disastrous policy trends. Too many columnists, and official and semiofficial spokesmen, denounce them as warmongers as not to suspect an organized effort. Today's liberals are so mesmerized by the shadow of the atomic cloud that they no longer regard their own national values of any relevance. Yet I, for one, cannot believe that freedom and dignity of the individual and Christian and humanistic ideals of life and society have become obsolescent and unworthy of the supreme sacrifice, if need to be. The late President also had to prove in October 1962 that brinkmanship must be used in any major crisis should Communist aggression not prevail.

The righteous anger of the New Frontier is usually directed not at the Communist governments, but at regimes which, either pressured by domestic insurrections, colonial revolts or peculiar historical traditions and political immaturity, repress their urban

liberal elements. To the administration philosophers they are enemies of freedom and democracy (some of them truly are, too) while the reportage from Communist capitals has undergone a subtle, but constant, change and not the positive is accentuated in the Communist, and the negative in authoritarian countries.

CONCLUSIONS

To tell the story of our decline in Africa and Latin America since 1960 would fill volumes. The errors were, however, inevitable once the false promise of accommodating communism had been adopted. Of course, New Frontier and Johnson administration public relations men do not call it accommodation. They call it a struggle for peace, in order to avoid nuclear war and to establish a workable world order and a community of nations. These lofty ideals deeply rooted in people's consciousness are used to spread the concept, of one worldism. But the reality of political power and ideology is not upset by euphemistic descriptions.

And the reality is that we are in the midst of a death and life struggle against Russian national power augmented by the satellites and by Communist international conspiracy. It helps us little that conflict of interest remains the inexorable law of history and that after the demise of the West a new struggle would ensue between the Russians and Chinese. By that time we would be dead or jailed, our children no longer free, no longer able to pursue studies and enjoy the fruits of their initiative. We would all be, with some exceptions, lower-class cogs in the all-controlling, tyrannical machine of the Communist state.

Far be it from me to accuse the Democratic administrations of consciously helping such a situation to arise. They are composed of honest Americans believing in the basic principles of our constitutional Republic, no matter how misguided on certain ramifications of these principles. The problem lies in their constant refusal to see the international situation in its true light. No matter how noble the intention, it may produce the evil it abhors. The appeasement politicians of the 1930's wanted peace and to avoid the horrors of an air war where innocent city populations would be bombed. They could even point to the latent Communist danger lurking in Hitler's back in case Europe had exhausted itself in a war. Yet they failed, and their failure only produced sweat, tears and millions of people dying on the battlefronts, in bombings and the gas chambers. The horrors of a nuclear war will not be avoided by what is called a mature acceptance of accommodation. This road will only lead to the rise of the atomic cloud over our cities when the ultimate showdown is fought as it could not have been avoided by a constructive foreign policy. Let us hope that the American people will not let the administration inch their way to the point of no return by an ignorance of reality, weakness of resolution and mistaken humanitarianism.

What the United States needs is not only steadfastness in holding our own. We need "a new policy of exploiting the enemy's weakness politically, economically, and psychologically. The Republican Party has shown between 1952 and 1960 that, despite occasional setbacks, the United States can regain the initiative and successfully contain and repel Communist expansionism.

We need hope, not resignation. We need impassionate analysis, not utopian concepts. Last but not least we need a sense of mission, the American mission which is to bring the torch of freedom to mankind, not to conquer and rule, but to present them with the Aladdin lamp of truth so that they might also know the blessings of liberty and evils of tyranny. Let us all dedicate ourselves to this cause in the 1964 campaign and we cannot fail to achieve victory.

Boston Needs a Mirror

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM M. TUCK

OF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. TUCK. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues and to place in the RECORD an editorial from the April 5 issue of the Danville Register, published in a community that is proud to consider itself typically American and typically southern. The travail brought upon this community from outside in recent months causes it to recognize a sister city in St. Augustine, Fla.

This editorial is particularly timely at the moment, made so by developments of the last few days. In presenting it, I do so in the hope that not only every Member of Congress, but every person in America, may read it and find reason to cogitate.

The editorial is as follows:

WHEN BOSTON NEEDED MRS. PEABODY When the Irish-Americans march on St. Patrick's Day, just about everybody finds a wee bit of Irish in their ancestry, or at least some sympathy for the Irish patriots who died for the auld sod and some friendship for the Irish politicians at home.

This is true in New York, where there are more Irishmen than in Dublin. It is true in Philadelphia, where there are more Irish Catholics than Quakers. And it is true in Boston, where the Irish have run the Proper Bostonians to the far side of Back Bay. And, to be sure, it is true in Danville, Va., where wearin' o' the green makes Irishmen-for-aday of most of us.

In Boston, the NAACP got into the high spirits of the day set aside for St. Pat. They gained permission to put a float in the parade and then quickly decorated one consisting of two wooden superstructures on a flatbed truck that supported banners which read:

"From the Fight for Irish Freedom to the Fight for U.S. Equality-NAACP Boston."

There were United States and Irish flags and a large photo of John F. Kennedy. When the parade formed, this was one of the 20 floats moving.

What happened? The New York Herald Tribune reported: "Spectators along the 4mile parade route hurled stones, beer cans, bottles, eggs, and tomatoes at the float enIn addition to the stoning and the bottle tered by the Boston chapter of the NAACP. throwing, four teenage boys in the crowd held up a banner-'Nigger Go Home'-as the float passed."

All this happened in the capital of Massachusetts, where Gov. Endicott Peabody presides, and where his mother, a militant integrationist, was not reported taking any part in the effort to create an atmosphere where Negro Americans can join with any other Americans in celebrating a festive day. Where was Mrs. Peabody on St. Patrick's Day?

The answer is probably that she was busy attending a meeting at which plans were made for the wives of Episcopal bishops to go to quiet old St. Augustine, Fla., which makes Boston seem, by comparison, a boom town of the Yankee traders, and see what publicity coals they could heap on the flameless racial situation there.

Upon her return to Boston this week, Mrs. Peabody said she would continue her fight

for racial equality wherever she was asked to go.

Well, it might not be polite, but may we suggest that Mrs. Peabody concentrate on cleaning up Boston Common before she returns to the ancient park in St. Augustine? When Boston can provide an example for St. Augustine or anywhere else, then Mrs. Peabody and others in her Florida invasion may have something constructive to point to as an accomplishment. Their visit to the St. Augustine jail and their appearance as expert witnesses in a court jurisdiction case did little but point out that Mrs. Peabody and her friends had fled from more racial prejudice in violent form in Boston than they saw anywhere in the South. They really were needed at home-Boston.

Douglas MacArthur

SPEECH

OF

HON. HARLEY O. STAGGERS

OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, the long procession of the years of the 20th century rolls inexorably on. The United States of America emerges from the obscurity of a provincial power and gains a stature unmatched in human history. Its population doubles, and the vigor and ingenuity of its citizens grow hour by hour. Science and industry are in ferment. Brilliant figures light the scene, generating power and plenty and magnanimity. Intricate machines take over labor, both human and animal, and pour forth a stream of wealth for the service of man. Intelligence is cultivated and put to useful work. "There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Dominant citizen-kings unfold the mysteries of democracy, and disappear into the mists of the past.

Through all the convulsions of a civilization forging a re-creation of the world, a military star of the first magnitude glows with undimmed splendor. The United States is, by instinct and by deliberate choice, not a military nation. But growth brings conflict, and the United States could not escape the fate of its waxing economic and political power. There have been wars in rapid succession, and in all of them the name of MacArthur stands out with a solar light that cannot be extinguished. A valorous father spread luster on the name. The son added grandeur and glory and nobility.

The record of the days of the long years of the service of Douglas MacArthur to the Nation is written. The details are too familiar to all of us. The record began on the Plains of the Hudson before the dawn of the century. It ended on the deck of the Missouri in a Japanese harbor.

Or did it end there? No, the culmination came when the superb warrior turned into a sagacious statesman. Stern necessity compelled Douglas MacArthur to overwhelm the military ambitions of a Nation deluded by false promises. Nobility of character urged him to rebuild that Nation on a grander

scale, with rightness and good will as its foundation stones.

Honors have been heaped upon Douglas MacArthur to the limit of our feeble power to bestow. General of the Army, wearer of the Congressional Distinguished Service Medal, the adulation and hero worship of millions.

We are most thankful that length of years was granted to our general. That

lead to far greater spending in the future than in 1965."

So far the budget has indicated a reduction of only 1,200 personnel of the 2,500,000 on Government rolls. Presumably more than 1,200 will be required to administer the new Office of Economic Opportunity which is being set up to conduct the socalled war on poverty. This Office alone will cost $10 million a year.

The closing of the naval facility and the saving of salaries of its skilled workers will

for about a month.

In those who come after him, then, may his career go on. And for their encouragement and guidance, may they diligently con the books in which his record is written, wherein "lies the soul of the whole past time, the articulate voice of the past when the body and material substance of it has altogether vanished like a dream."

Defense Cuts Pay for Socialism

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. BOB WILSON

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following:

IT IS ALL SO UNREALISTIC-DEFENSE CUTS PAY FOR SOCIALISM

The Naval Repair Facility at San Diego is ordered closed to save $1.4 million a year, throwing several thousand skilled workers out of jobs, and then the administration opens an attack on "poverty" with a program of "make-work" for the unskilled and marginal businesses and farming at a cost of more than $900 million a year.

Pardon us if we seem a bit baffled by it all. President Johnson's "economy" budget has been subjected to some severe examination of late, and its balancing act seems to be based on an optimistic assumption that the gross national product will rise to a $623 billion level this year, or about 6.5 percent over 1963. The only visible reduction in expenses is being made at the cost of the defense program, and these "savings," if that is what they are, will be used to pay for more social welfare projects.

Secretary of Defense McNamara even has suggested that closed military installations, presumably such as the San Diego Naval Repair Facility, be used as training centers for the proposed "work corps" of 100,000 young people.

This does not seem to indicate that installations now are to be closed entirely on a basis of cost of operation, as they apparently are not all to be eliminated, but made available, if wanted, for nationalization of a large section of American youth. These stations will not be operated without cost.

The economy program seems to be an illusion. The Tax Foundation has examined the budget and reports:

"There is little evidence of success in curtailing or eliminating existing programs. Nor does there appear to have been significant accomplishment in establishing priorities among domestic civilian expenditure programs. Proposed new programs would

AFL-CIO Board Approves Establishment of Mortgage Investment Trust EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 1964, the AFL-CIO Executive Council recommended to the general board the establishment of a mortgage investment trust to help AFL-CIO affiliates and welfare and retirement funds to invest in mortgage loans and thus to stimulate desirable housing construction and to increase employment in the home construction industry. The general board has approved the creation of the trust.

Both the council and the board are to be highly commended for their action, which will undoubtedly stimulate the economy by the production of more housing where it is needed.

The executive council's recommendation follows:

STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, BAL HARBOUR, FLA., FEBRUARY 24, 1964

The AFL-CIO Executive Council recommends to the AFL-CIO General Board the establishment of a mortgage investment trust to provide a mortgage investment program for all affiliates of the AFL-CIO and any qualified labor-management welfare pension or retirement plan; and an auxiliary housing corporation to provide seed money and to encourage local nonprofit sponsors, for the development of lower income housing.

The mortgage investment trust is to be a common trust permitting the pooling of funds under one trust agreement for the proportionate benefit of each participant.

The mortgage investment trust would thus offer an opportunity for participation in a well-organized mortgage investment program under competent management, obviating the need for separate agreements with trustees by each AFL-CIO affiliate or welfare and retirement fund desiring to invest a portion of its financial resources in mortgage loans.

The participating unions and welfare and retirement funds, as well as organized labor as a whole, would benefit as follows:

(1) The pooling of funds would provide a medium to create socially desirable housing projects and at the same time create additional employment in the construction trades and allied industries that provide material, furnishings, appliances, and other necessities for these new developments.

(2) Through the lending of seed money to local nonprofit housing corporations sponsored by labor or other public interest organizations, housing for moderate income, and

elderly members of participating organizations would be financed with below-market interest rate loans from Government funds, to permit substantially lower rents than now charged in regularly financed housing proj

ects.

(3) A massive attack would be made on America's tremendous unmet housing needs.

(4) A higher interest return would be obtained on investment in Government-insured-and-guaranteed mortgage loans than on investments in Government or other bonds with the highest degree of safety.'

The mortgage investment trust, formed by investments from affiliates of the AFL-CIO and qualified labor or labor-management welfare or retirement plans of such amounts as each organization deemed advisable, would be governed by a board of trustees of 10 members selected from the representatives of the participating organizations.

Under the direction of this board, a qualified mortgage investment trust manager would deal with mortgage bankers and other bank officials that would acquire and service mortgages in different parts of the country for the trust.

The auxiliary nonprofit Housing Seed Money Corp. would be organized, with the trustees acting in a dual capacity as corporate directors, to support the initiation of nonprofit rental housing for moderate-income and elderly families. The projects would be owned by local nonprofit organizations sponsored by labor and other public interest organizations, under available Federal aid programs, and would require very modest equity or "seed money" investments.

The trust would confine its investments to federally insured and guaranteed mortgage loans to finance owner-occupied homes and multifamily rental housing projects. This policy would assure an extremely high degree of investment safety and produce a reasonably high interest return on investments.

Thus the mortgage investment trust provides an ideal vehicle for the investing, with the full guarantee of the U.S. Government, of funds that must not be handled in a speculative manner yet should earn the highest possible interest return, putting them to a practical and useful social purpose.

The AFL-CIO executive council therefore recommends to the general board:

(1) That the mortgage investment trust and the auxiliary housing corporation be authorized immediately.

(2) That the president of the AFL-CIO be instructed to name a committee of the executive council to implement this resolution at the earliest practicable date.

(3) That all affiliates of the AFL-CIO and all eligible pensions and retirement plans be encouraged to participate and that the details, policies, and benefits of the mortgage investment trust and the auxiliary housing corporation be widely publicized throughout the trade union movement.

(4) That annual reports on the progress of the mortgage investment trust and the auxillary housing corporation be made to the AFL-CIO executive council and the AFL-CIO general board.

A Move To Better Defense

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH

OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Speaker, I believe that every Member of the House is aware of the tremendous contributions

being made by the Honorable EARL WILSON of Indiana, by his untiring efforts to prevent waste in purchases being made by the Department of Defense. I certainly applaud these efforts and commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WILSON in his accomplishments. On June 11, 1963, the Indianapolis Star ran an editorial commending Mr. WILSON's efforts. I am sure that it will be of interest to the Members. I submit this editorial to the RECORD.

A MOVE TO BETTER DEFENSE Representative EARL WILSON of Indiana has introduced a bill aimed at cutting down abuse of negotiated contracts in the Defense Department and related agencies.

His proposal would set up a joint congressional "watchdog" committee to keep track of contracts awarded without competitive bidding. It would require public disclosure of the reasons for use of negotiation instead of competitive bidding on each such contract. It also would require the keeping of a public log of all contacts with government officers and employees pertaining to negotiated contract awards.

Eighty percent of all defense buying is done on negotiated contracts, Wilson said.

The Congressman also charged that a "system of lunches, good will excursions, wining and dining, and gifts and entertainment" is costing the taxpayers billions every year by influencing the channeling of contracts to favored suppliers at unnecessarily high prices.

Usually we shudder at any proposal for establishment of a new governmental unit, whether of Congress or the administration. But this one ought to pay its way many times over.

Besides the possibility of substantial savings, this proposal could result in more efficient and effective defense buying. It might be one of the pathways-of which many are possible-to better defense at less cost.

We hope it succeeds.

John Crow Selected

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ED EDMONDSON

OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, on April 14, the National Civil Service League will honor 10 Federal Government employees with the presentation of Career Service Awards.

These awards have been given for the past 10 years in recognition of outstanding competence in public service, and winners are chosen from the ranks of Cabinet officers, heads of Federal agencies, and the District of Columbia Commissioners.

One of this year's award recipients will be John O. Crow, Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to John for this well-deserved recognition?

During my six terms in Congress, I have come to admire John Crow as a friend, and to greatly respect his ability and dedication as a public servant.

His knowledge of the problems con

fronting the Indians and his sincere desire to help the Indian people have endeared him to all of us who are also deeply interested in Indian affairs.

John Crow richly deserves this honor for his more than 30 years of sustained dedication to public service. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert in the RECORD the text of a Tulsa, Okla., Daily World article announcing Mr. Crow's award and giving an interesting history of his career.

The article follows:

FORMER COMMERCE MAN HONORED FOR HIS SERVICE

COMMERCE. A former resident of this community who attained recognition first as an athlete and later in a career with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is being honored this month by the National Civil Service League, an organization that recognizes outstanding competence in public service.

Oklahoma Cherokee Indian John O. Crow, Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has been named one of 10 Federal employees to receive the Career Service Award. Winners are chosen from the ranks of Cabinet officers, heads of Federal agencies and the District of Columbia Commissioners.

Crow is formerly of Commerce and a 1929 graduate of Commerce High School. He was born near Salem, Mo., but moved with his parents to the little mining town when he was 6 months old.

He graduated from Haskell Institute as a star football player and went on to play pro football with the Boston Redskins (now Washington Redskins).

Crow, an expert in the complex Indian realty field, entered service with the BIA in 1934, as a temporary clerk at the Fort Totten Indiana Agency, North Dakota. Successive assignments took him to the Truxton Canyon Indian Agency at Valentine, Ariz., where in 1942 he was made superintendent of the agency; he also served as superintendent of the Mescalero (Apache) Indian Agency in New Mexico; the Fort Apache Agency, Arizona; and the Unitah-Ouray Agency, Fort Duchesne, Utah.

He went to the central offices of the Bureau in Washington, D.C. in 1956 as Assistant Commissioner for Resources and in 1960 was made chief of the BIA Branch of Realty.

In February, 1961, the late President Kennedy appointed Crow to serve as acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, pending the subsequent appointment of Dr. Philleo Nash, the present Commissioner. After this, Crow was named Deputy Commissioner of BIA, the post he holds today.

He attained recognition in Oklahoma in 1961 as a member of an expert group headed by Cherokee Chief W. W. Keeler, charged with recommending plans for the reorganization of the BIA and development of an improved policies program.

He receives his award for sustained superior service in the Bureau of Indian Affairs throughout a career that began 30 years ago.

Atlantic Unity

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DONALD M. FRASER

OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, more people are aware every day of the restless state of world affairs. They are disturbed almost every morning with the