The United States provided military and economic assistance to French Union Forces for 71⁄21⁄2 years. After the Communist conquest of the China mainland in 1949, Ho's followers were supplied from Red China.

IN 1954

The French were on the verge of collapse by 1954.

Former Vice President Richard M. Nixon, in a supposedly "off-the-record" speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, said the United States would have to send troops to Vietnam, if there was no other way to prevent its fall to the Communists.

With the Korean war fresh in mind, Nixon's remarks raised a storm of protest in Congress and the press. Senator John F. Kennedy demanded that administration say whether "we are about to enter the jungle and do battle with the tiger." He urged "independence at once" for Indochina.

Former President Eisenhower told newsmen he was bitterly opposed to involving the United States in a hot war in Indochina. He claimed it would be a "terrible tragedy." Former Defense Secretary C. E. Wilson predicted a military victory was both possible and probable.

France, Britain, and the Soviet Union negotiated truce agreements at Geneva on July 21, supposedly ending the war by dividing Vietnam into a Communist North and a free South at the 17th parallel.

The United States refused to become a party to these agreements. Former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles warned that & Communist victory would lead to Red domination of all of southeast Asia, posing a grave threat to security of the entire Pacific.

Eisenhower said "the agreement contains features we do not like," but avoided calling it "appeasement." Adlai Stevenson termed it "A victory for communism," in which the United States "defaulted and France salvaged what she could.".

Ho Chi Minh promised over Peiping radio to "liberate" the rest of Vietnam. He said the Communists would use the cease-fire to "adjust the military zones as the first step toward our final goal."

The State Department said in a 1961 documentary:

"Even as they were negotiating the Geneva accords ⚫ the Communists were making plans to take over all of Vietnam. Trained and well-disciplined party members were picked to remain in the south *** arms and ammunition were cached in hundreds of carefully selected spots throughout South Vietnam."

YEARS 1955-60

Ngo Dinh Diem, a Roman Catholic and anti-Communist Nationalist, replaced the playboy emperor, Bao Dai, as leader of South Vietnam. Diem was hailed as a miracle man in pulling the country together.

The State Department said:

"When the republic of Vietnam was born in 1955, its economy was a shambles. Years of foreign occupation, wartime bombing, bitter fighting with the French, and internal battles with dissident elements had left confusion in their wake.

"The years 1956 to 1960 produced something of an economic miracle in South Vietnam Prewar levels of production were achieved and passed ・・・ South Vietnam was outstripping the North in the same fashion that West Germany has exceeded achievements of the 'Socialist' East. The leaders in Hanoi could not accept that prospect."

In 1959 the Communists launched a campaign of terror against the people of South Vietnam, using torture and assassination. "They killed hundreds of village chiefs and other local schoolteachers, even wives and children, have been among the victims," the State Department reported. "It is a program that relies on every available

officials

IN 1961

One month after the U.S. presidential election in 1960, the Soviets began supplying arms and ammunition to Communist forces in Laos by airlift out of Hanoi. By March 1961 Communists in battalion formations had launched a major offensive with heavy artillery, machineguns, mortars, and armored

cars.

Former President Kennedy in a dramatic TV appearance on March 23 warned the Soviet Union that the United States "will not tolerate the loss of Laos to the Communists." He called for a neutral and independent country as pledged in the 1954 Geneva agreements.

Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman negotiated new agreements at Geneva supposedly guaranteeing the neutrality of Laos under a coalition government.

The Communists, however, continued to make gains. A State Department official said "The most important route for Communist reinforcements and supplies coming into South Vietnam is through Laos."

An international control commission including India, Canada, and Poland has never been allowed to function behind Communist lines in southeast Asia, any more than a similar neutral nations commission in Korea.

U.S. involvement in the war has grown steadily since late 1961 when advisory, support, and training units were sent to South Vietnam along with large amounts of military equipment. American troops began ferrying South Vietnamese units in airplanes and helicopters, giving them logistics and communications support, and guiding them in combat.

The "strategic hamlet" program was launched to fortify villages against hit-run attacks by Communist guerrillas.

IN 1962

Former President Kennedy told newsmen March 14 there were no U.S. combat troops in Vietnam. He said that if a constitutional decision were required on sending in American armed forces, "I would go to Congress." Communist forces increased from 12,000 in 1961 to more than 20,000 men in 1962. McNamara said after a trip to Saigon that U.S. aid had enabled the Diem government to "take the offensive." General Taylor announced in Manila "the Vietnamese are on the road to victory."

Diem told his national assembly October 9 that South Vietnam, with 200,000 troops in the field, had "reversed" the advantages won by Communists in 1961. American correspondents, however, claimed the war was being lost, or would take years to win.

Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi promised to "outlast" American aid by keeping up guerrilla warfare for 10 years if necessary.

IN 1963

When a Bhuddist religious controversy broke out in 1963, Kennedy appointed Lodge as his new envoy to Saigon, and hinted the United States might like a change in the

Government of South Vietnam.

The Diem regime was overthrown in a military coup on November 1-2 when artillery and planes supplied by the United States for anti-Communist warfare attacked the presidential palace.

Meanwhile, President de Gaulle, of France, recognized Red China, and proposed that both North and South Vietnam be transformed into a unified, "neutral" state with French aid if the Vietnamese were prepared to throw off "foreign influence" wielded by the United States and Communist nations.

American officials reacted with anger and amazement. President Kennedy rejected the proposal, pledged the United States would not withdraw from South Vietnam until the Communist menace had been crushed. "After carrying this load for 18 years," he

Returning from another inspection trip, McNamara and Taylor issued a White House statement saying "in their judgment, the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965." McNamara thought 1,000 American troops could be withdrawn by the end of 1964.

President Johnson assumed office on November 22. He met immediately afterward with Ambassador Lodge, pledged his administration would carry out U.S. policies toward Vietnam established by the Kennedy administration.

IN 1964

McNamara told Congress January 27 that the Communists had made "considerable progress" since the coup that overthrew the Diem regime. He reported the "new Government has more support than its predecessor." The new Government, or military junta, was overthrown in another coup on January 30.

President Johnson rejected the De Gaulle plan for neutrality as being against "the interests of freedom." He warned in a speech at Los Angeles February 21 that the suppliers and directors of Communists in South Vietnam were playing "a deeply dangerous game."

The State Department later sought to dispel reports that the administration was considering carrying the war to North Vietnam with the same guerrilla tactics the Communists are using in the south.

McNamara and Taylor returned from another trip to Saigon, lauded Premier Khanh for his "leadership and military ability," and pledged U.S. support for South Vietnam for "as long as it takes" to defeat the Communists.

The White House said that Khanh had produced "a sound central plan for prosecution of the war." Following a National Security Council meeting March 17, President Johnson announced the U.S. Government would send increased economic and military assistance to support the war plan of the new Premier.

That is where the situation stands today.

Eulogy of Gen. Douglas MacArthur

SPEECH

OF

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, April 6, 1964

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow Members in expressing my sorrow over the death of General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur. As one of the millions of American servicemen who served under General MacArthur during the Pacific campaigns of World War II, I have personal recollection of some of his greatest triumphs.

Certainly, in the proper judgment of military observers, General MacArthur has earned a place in history as one of His our greatest military geniuses. World War II strategy was almost flawless in its development and was especially noteworthy for the fact that his plan produced effective recovery of territory from the Japanese with a minimum loss of American lives.

We are all mindful of the frustrations to which General MacArthur was subject during his command of the forces in the Korean war. He was one of the first victims of foreign policy decisions which

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 9, 1964

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, it was a real pleasure to learn recently that the U.S. Navy is creating an Institute of Naval Oceanology. Although it appears to be much less than the commitment this country should be making to the study of inner space, it is a step toward the type of oceanography program I had been advocating for some time.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I insert in the RECORD a short article by Mr. John G. Norris, from the Los Angeles Times, which discusses the new Naval Institute of Oceanology in more detail: NAVY CREATING INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY STUDY

(By John G. Norris) WASHINGTON.-The Navy is creating a Naval Institute of Oceanology here to speed

the scientific and military development of

inner space.

The Institute will coordinate research, development, and applications work in oceanography, which many believe should be pushed with the same vigor as the national space program.

There has been criticism in Congress and the scientific community about the fragmentation of effort in oceanography, and some have urged the establishment of an independent agency similar to the National Aeronautics and Space Agency.

RUSSIA PROGRAM

They declare that Russia has a larger oceanography program underway than the United States and cite the words of Soviet scientist G. V. Petrovich: "The nation which first learns to understand the seas will control them, and the nation which controls the seas will control the world."

The exploration and exploitation of the oceans could be of immense importance militarily and perhaps even more as a source of food, water, minerals, and chemicals for the world's exploding population.

Rear Adm. Denys W. Knoll, the Navy oceanographer, disclosed the decision to set up the Naval Institute of Oceanology. Full details of the reorganization have not been worked out, but it clearly falls far short of being a "NASA for inner space."

"We visualize the Naval Institute of Oceanology becoming the focal point of oceanographic effort for the Navy, other Government departments, scientific circles, and industry," said Knoll.

Whether such coordination of effort will satisfy those who want more centralized direction remains to be seen. But Navy officials feel that coordination rather than merger of activities is the best way to make

progress.

FORT GULICK, C.Z.-The Panama Canal controversy has given the South American Reds, Fidelistas, Panamanian leftists, and Yankee haters in general an opportunity to make a propaganda target of a little publicized project called the School of the Americas.

After the recent riots, denunciations of the school appeared in Panama's newspapers.

The School of the Americas is operated in the Canal Zone. Uncle Sam has put a lot of money and brains into it. In a very real sense, it is a keystone in the military security of South American nations against armed subversion and revolution.

TEACH GUERRILLA WAR

Big role of the "school" is to teach Latin American military men techniques to fight successfully insurgency and guerrilla war. How well it does this can be judged by the fact that Fidel Castro is very unhappy about the existence of the school, and its site.

The Cuban leader and his Panamanian henchmen would like to see the present canal treaty torn up and a new one negotiated

which would reduce the U.S. control of the zone area, because, among other considerations, squeezing the United States out would squeeze out the school.

By and large, the School of the Americas and its activities are popular with Panamanians. For one thing, it pleases them that the school's instructors all must speak Spanish to teach the 31-odd courses.

FOUNDED IN 1949

The school occupies a sprawling piece of tropical, sunbathed land sandwiched in between lakes, canals and heavy jungle which, like the rest of the zone, is leased from the Republic of Panama.

It was founded in 1949. At first, it trained U.S. Army technicians but by 1963, emphasis had switched and 1,397 students who graduated were Latin Americans, while only 41 were from the U.S. Army.

Overall total up to December 31, 1963, is 14,903 Latin American students and more than 8,000 U.S. graduates. The Latin AmerCubans. ican graduate group includes 291 pre-Castro

Says the U.S. commandant, Col. H. J. Muller, Jr., "Latin Americans from all countries come here. They exchange ideas. While their countries themselves might not always be on the best of terms with each other, their delegates here in the school mix well."

Intelligence value of the school is great, since it is an ideal chance for our people to meet and watch in action top military men from Latin America and can keep in touch with them as they move up through various commands in their own countries. EXTENSIVE COURSES

Courses themselves vary from 2-week counterinsurgency courses to 40-week command, staff, and cadet courses, all aimed at establishing internal security and nationbuilding practices necessary to stamp out Communist-led and Communist-fed insurrections, including counterinsurgency operations, military intelligence, police work. command and staff training, infantry and jungle operations as well as paramilitary, political, sociological and psychological defense.

Here are the number of graduates, by countries:

Nicaragua, 2,729; Ecuador, 1,564; Costa Rica, 1,554; Panama, 1,347; Colombia, 1,321; Venezuela, 1,015; and several hundred from various other areas.

The Air Force Academy's First Decade

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 9, 1964

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the following article from the ArmyNavy-Air Force Journal and Register on the "Air Force Academy's First Decade":

THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY'S FIRST DECADE Ten years ago on 1 April 1954 President Eisenhower signed the legislation authorizing establishment of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

In that short time, this newest of service academies was set up and has graduated five classes. Even before its first class was graduated in 1959, USAFA won academic accreditation as an institution of higher learning by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools.

It lists among its other acocmplishments:

Academic success has been remarkable as

shown by the scores achieved by cadets on the graduate record examination in camparison with those of graduating students at 231 representative colleges and universities throughout the country. The class of 1962 ranked first in the social science area among the 231 schools, and the classes of 1959, 1960, and 1961 were second.

The USAF Academy was the first undergraduate school in the Nation to establish a Department of Astronautics.

The Engineering Council for Professional Development authorized the Air Force Academy to award engineering degrees, making

it the first service academy to receive this

accreditation.

Of the Academy's all-military faculty 21.6 percent have doctorates and the remainder master's degrees.

Military training motivation was revealed in 1962 when 85 of the cadets gave up their leave to enroll in paratroop training at Fort Benning, Ga. No cadets were eliminated and 1 cadet was first in a class of 700.

Cadets at the Air Force Academy complete & 4-year program of academics, military training, and physical training totaling 1862 semester credit hours, whereas engineering schools require 140 to 145 hours and the average liberal arts college 120 to 130 hours. Furthermore, half of the cadets enter courses in an enrichment program, as a result of which 25 percent of the graduates have earned majors in one or more areas.

For some years, USAF Academy leaders have sought authority-it would require legislation to confer master's degrees. There has been some opposition. Certainly, in view of USAFA's outstanding record, the proposal should be thoroughly explored before a final decision is made.

Credit for the Academy's remarkable achievements in such a short span of years goes to many. It goes, for example, to Gen. Curtis E. LeMay and his predecessors as Chief of Staff, who have insisted that top priority be given to the assignment of instructor and administrative personnel for the Academy. It must go, too, to the fine caliber of officers who have served as Superintendents of the Academy: Lt. Gen. Hubert R. Harmon, 195456; Lt. Gen. James E. Briggs, 1956-59; Lt. Gen. William S. Stone, 1959-62, and Maj. Gen. Robert H. Warren, the present Superintendent.

The services and the Nation have reason to be proud of this addition to the national academies at its 10th anniversary.

studying home economics in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States. The national organization is composed of chartered State associations which are made up of local chapters. Kentucky was the first State to charter the Future Homemakers of America. Cosponsors are the Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the American Home Economics Association.

I am proud of the local chapters, in the Second District of Kentucky. They conduct programs that give the homemaking student training and experience in home management, child care, family relations, and community service. Through their participation in civic projects, they demonstrate their sense of good citizenship and become highly valuable members of the community. Assisting and guiding their endeavors are the home economics teachers who devote the extra hours that have made this a vital organization.

To attain the Future Homemakers of America goal of helping individuals improve personal, family, and community living, the national projects for the period 1962-65 are: First, you and your values; second, focus on family friendship; third, marriage calls for preparation; fourth, stay in school; fifth, action for citizenship. An example of a project in action is the stay-in-school project.

Using slogans such as “Diplomas Open Doors-Stay in School," "Dropouts Are Leftouts Stay in School," and "If You Don't Learn, You Won't Earn-Stay in School," they encourage their school friends to graduate. They assist potential dropouts by tutoring in problem subjects, advising on workable study habits, and sponsoring financial assistance when needed. The limitless possibilities of each of these projects reveals the scope and depth of this organization which so ably develops mature, skilled, responsible young women.

The complex nature of our modern society has, of course, a direct effect on the American housewife. The mastering of household skills, rearing of children, and the continual developing of herself as a creative, intelligent member of society are challenges for which she must be prepared. And, today, over 12 million women are assuming the dual responsibilities of homemaker and job

America

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM H. NATCHER

OF KENTUCKY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 9, 1964

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Speaker, this year Future Homemakers of America Week is observed from April 5 through April 11, and it is with pleasure that I pay tribute to this fine organization which prepares our young women to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

The membership of more than onehalf million is drawn from those junior and senior high school students who are

America recognizes the multiplicity of roles expected of women today and helps prepare them for their responsibilities to themselves, their families, and their communities.

The invaluable quality of a homemaker is her ability to bring love, harmony, and a knowledge of God to the family unit. Without the family's working together as a whole, each member respecting the distinctiveness of the other, the child would never appreciate the value of cooperation and of respect for the rights of others. It is in the home that the child is exposed to, and adopts, a reverence for God, and a deep understanding of America's goals and purposes. The complex role of homemaker is vital to our strength as a free and Christian Nation. Again, I salute

the Future Homemakers of America for their past achievements and wish them continued success in all of their future endeavors.

Promoting the Arts at the Local Level

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. PAUL G. ROGERS

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 8, 1964

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since the early days of the Republic the performing arts have received the support of the American people, but unfortunately this has been limited in great measure to only the largest cities, such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Even in Washington, with the exception of the fine National Symphony Orchestra, the performing arts are relatively recent arrivals.

Fortunately, all this is changing. Today, in many medium size cities across the country efforts are underway, or already in operation, to bring the arts to all the people.

One such program which has met with an enthusiastic reception is the Academy Royale Theater at Palm Beach, established by Mr. Frank J. Hale. A nonprofit educational institution for the purpose of developing a center for the performing arts, with particular emphasis on ballet, the theater has been founded almost singlehanded and with great energy and enthusiasm by Mr. Hale. A successful industrialist, and former performer himself, he has given of his time, energies, and resources to guide the community effort needed to make the theater a success.

The theater, in addition to bringing to Florida internationally known artists will further scientific and educational research in the field of the theater and the ballet.

Perhaps the best illustration of the value of this enterprise, and its success, can be seen from the following letter, received by Mr. Hale from the music director of a well-known theater on Long Island:

We heard increasingly enthusiastic reports about the Academy Royale Theater

We took those with the usual grain of salt growing out of every present local patriotism.

Attending the opener of your 1963-64 season

afforded me to form a personal opinion of the whole project ... Your theater is a jewel, an oasis in the desert. You are carrying the flag of the decentralization of the arts without which our country will never achieve the cultural level of the great nations of the world.

The people of Palm Beach are to be commended for their interest in, and their support of, the Academy Royale Theater. The community is indeed fortunate to have the valuable talents of Mr. Frank Hale to lead the theater from idea to fulfillment. It is sincerely hoped that other areas will follow the example of towns like Palm Beach, and encourage greater participation in the performing arts.

Cotton-Wheat Bill

SPEECH OF

HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, April 8, 1964

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the elimination of twoprice cotton is not only of great merit but is overwhelmingly approved by the American people.

The textile industry has been for years beset by a series of adverse legal and economic developments, of which twoprice cotton is one, responsible for serious dislocations. The adoption of this bill will lift at least one heavy, competitive burden from this gravely afflicted industry and its earnest, industrious, hard-working employees.

How such an unfair concession to foreign industry, so discriminatory against our own industry, so injurious to its workers, so disastrous to its interests, so totally unsound either as a foreign aid or trade measure, on the whole so objectionable from every standpoint, is like many other things that have been done by this Government in the fields of foreign aid and foreign trade wholly impossible to understand on any rational basis.

Two-price cotton should have been repealed long ago. So let us repeal it now once and for all, and never allow a similar tactic to bedevil and besmirch our foreign aid, trade or agricultural programs.

Regarding the wheat provisions of this bill, I am not exactly cheering them. I have long been at variance with many of our farm programs.

However, many erroneous statements have been made concerning the wheat provisions of this bill. I am assured, however, from responsible committee members, Government officials and experts in the field that this bill will not involve a bread tax nor will it cause an increase in bread prices.

It would be a distortion of economic realities to contend that the bill, of itself, will cause any increase in the so-called staff of life upon which our consumers and people depend.

Moreover, we have our overall agriculture surpluses to consider. These surpluses are very costly to the Government and to the economy and the people. They are unjustified, highly detrimental and must be resolved at the earliest possible time, although the efforts to date of several political administrations have not borne much fruit.

I have struggled hard to try to find adequate solutions here, but the hard core of the farm problems have tenaciously resisted any practical solution.

It has been my view that every administration should be entitled to try its own plan, if it seemed at all feasible. Accordingly, I have felt that these plans had to be judged on their own merits and when they were clearly unjustified or a bad second edition of previously enacted laws that had failed to accomplish the results claimed for them, they should be rejected.

Admittedly, the wheat provisions of this bill must definitely be placed in the category of legislation which represents another try to find solutions.

It is on this basis that I can find support for the entire bill, and I hope that what is being done here today will work out satisfactorily. After all, some effort must be made to establish a practical, workable, sensible, economical farm program. We can no longer delay coming to grips with these extremely complex, difficult and costly farm programs. I hope this bill will provide part of the answer to these problems.

Address by E. William Henry, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Before the National Association of Broadcasters, Chicago, April 7, 1964

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. OREN HARRIS

OF ARKANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, April 9, 1964

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, April 7, 1964, the Honorable E. William Henry, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, made a most interesting and thought-provoking speech to the National Association of Broadcasters at their annual convention held at the Conrad-Hilton Hotel, Chicago, Ill., which I wish to call to the attention of the Congress. I, therefore, ask that it be included in the Appendix of the RECORD.

The speech follows:

ADDRESS BY E. WILLIAM HENRY, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEFORE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, CONRAD HILTON HOTEL, CHICAGO, ILL., APRIL 7, 1964

Governor Collins, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am doubly honored on this occasion. It is not only a privilege to address this distinguished association, but a high honor indeed to speak to the same group that heard Governor Collins yesterday and who will tomorrow listen to Dr. Billy Graham. Collins to Henry to Graham-if that combination doesn't give you religion, I suppose nothing will.

Several months ago I was chatting with a well-known syndicated columnist. We agreed that sometimes criticism-of a political candidate or any prominent figure-proves to be a blessing in disguise. This columnist confided to me that some years ago a Congressman, up for reelection, had come to him and pleaded to be criticized in one or two articles which would be carried in the Congressman's local newspaper. "He figured," said the

columnist, "that if I criticized him, he would

surely be reelected."

The other side of that coin we all know

praise from one source can result in condemnation from another. So, when LeRoy Collins faced your board of directors last January, I remained tactfully silent. Now, as I speak to you for the first time as chairman I feel obligated to say to you-as my first order of business-that in Roy Collins you have one of the most able and conscientious men that it has been my privilege to know. A lawyer by profession, a great State's chief executive by popular demand, and a first

class human being by every sound standard, he is a wonderfully effective advocate for have him and I am proud to share this platyour cause. You are fortunate indeed to form with him today and to call him my good friend.

One of the three luncheon gatherings at your annual convention is traditionally set aside for the Chairman of the FCC to speak his piece. Without changing that format, I'd like to put the spotlight briefly on my

fellow Commissioners seated here at the head table.

These Commissioners are collectively bi

partisan but individually independent. Their differening philosophies reflect their diverse backgrounds. Overall, they represent an amalgam of experience and ability which this industry and the public have seldom if ever had at their service.

You all know Commissioner Lee Loevinger, our newest acquisition. He is the highly competent ex-member of the Minnesota Supreme Court and ex-Assistant Attorney General of the United States, whose abilities

compensate for his retiring, shy, soft-spoken manner. He assures me that he is not really against multiple ownership, but his wife also confides that each of their children is allowed but one toy.

Ken Cox is the only man in the history of the Commission to be "dropped in" from Chief of the Broadcast Bureau to Commissioner, and you broadcasters are fortunate to have a man on the Commission who knows as much about your industry as he does. He is our expert on television allocations, and the only Commissioner who thinks as much, if not more, of local live programing than I do.

man.

Fred Ford has served the Commission with distinction in many capacities, ranging from general attorney through Chief of the Broadcast Bureau's Hearing Division to ChairHe is the only member, who, at the drop of a hat, can deliver a well-rounded speech on every major section of the ComHe is a man of high munications Act. principles-but whose golf score is not as

low as he claims.

Next in line up the ladder comes Robert (Ultrahigh Frequency) Lee, the only Irish Catholic Republican Commissioner from Chicago on any Federal agency. As you know, his wit is as unique as his background. As a 10-year veteran of Commission battles and a former FBI agent, he is the FCC's candidate for broadcasting's big brother.

fore he decided to go straight. A former Bob Bartley was once one of you-beprofessional broadcaster, he remains an unprofessional Texan, a dedicated public servant, and our Defense Commissioner who needs no defending. All commissions should have one Bob Bartley.

Rosel Hyde-who has been affectionately dubbed "the old grey fox"-completes the picture. He is a Mormon with only one wife, who doesn't have to smoke or drink to have fun, a career public servant, and a high-class individual in every sense of the

word. As senior member of the Commissions, he votes just before I do-but not always the same way.

The members of this distinguished group occasionally fail to recognize the brilliance of their chairman's proposals, but I am delighted to take this occasion to express publicly my appreciation, and I'm sure yours as well, for the manner in which they discharge the high public trust reposed in them.

Having talked about the Commission as individuals, let's discuss them for a moment as a voting body. What has our record been since we saw you in Chicago last year?

The regulation of advertising time standards, better known as overcommercialization, has been in the forefront of late. You all know what happened, but let me suggest to you again that there may be more in our notice terminating the proceeding than readily meets the eye

I would have preferred a rule. A Commission majority, however, preferred to continue the case-by-case approach, and in a democratic society compromise is a way of life. The Commission still has not indicated the number of commercials or the percentage of time devoted to advertising that will cause some application, some time, to be honored with a designation for hearing. But it has made a start by letting you know that renewal applications from stations showing the highest levels of commercial activity will be given a thorough going over. Having looked closely at a few of these applications, we have found it necessary to write to some licensees about the nature of their commercial policies, how they mesh such policies with public need, and the reasons for their departures in practice from the policies they profess to follow.

In this way we are moving toward the development of sound regulatory standards in this field. The process may be painful to some, more painful, I think, than a rule would have been, but it is healthy and necessary.

I would also remind you, when and if the Commission decides to look reality in the face and put overcommercializers to the test of a hearing, you may want a specific rule then as much as you shun it now. You might even then recognize that legislation to prevent rulemaking in this field is not a protective barricade, but a sandbag in disguise. In this same vein, we have instituted an inquiry into loud commercials. In my mind there is no question but that action should be taken by the Commission, and that a solution can be found I am also pleased to note that your code board, under the able direction of Howard Bell, has the problem under study.

Recorded commercials are louder than program content-ninety-nine and fourty-four one-hundreths percent of the time. You may slice them lengthwise or crosswise, color a discussion of them with technical terms, and put meters in front of them that register different things at different times, but most radio and television commercials are simply too loud. You do not have to live in an apartment building and be aware of your neighbor's television set only during the commercials in order to recognize the problem. It is noticeable in your living room and mine.

A man from Florida recently wrote me an interesting letter on this subject. He said: "DEAR CHAIRMAN HENRY: Television has had its share of criticism, but I want you to know that I get a great deal out of it. I was inspired by President Kennedy's appeal to this country for physical fitness, and I think the television stations are doing their bit.

"On the particular stations I listen to the commercials are so loud that I must get up about 8 times every 15 minutes to go to my set 4 times to turn the commercials down, and 4 times to turn the program up. I am in great physical shape because of it, and I want to compliment the television industry for its cooperation."

We know that television commercials are intentionally made loud for two reasons: first, to make an impression on the average viewer; and second, to hold the attention of Aunt Nellie who heads for the kitchen to stir the soup at every program interruption. We also know that loudness is primarily a matter of excess compression and that the elimination of such compression, though not the complete answer, will go a long way toward solving the problem. It remains for the Commission to require the elimination of excess compression in a manner consistent with sound regulatory and administrative practices. This is all that remains.

Here is a perfect opportunity for the broadcasters to be of help-to be positive rather than negative, to be progressive rather than

reactionary. You won't lose a single customer and your sponsors can still make their pitch without the change of one single word. A few of you have been helpful; more should do likewise.

As William B. Lewis, chairman of the board of Kenyon and Eckhardt, has told you, "sooner or later the pitchman will pass in radio and TV as he has passed on the midway. The faster you boot him out the easier your public relations will be, and the happier your image."

Also during the past year the Commission renewed the licenses of the Pacifica Foundation radio stations which had been on deferred status for over 3 years. Complaints originally came to the Commission from several sources and varied from disgust over allegedly obscene programing to charges of the possible affiliation of key personnel with the Communist Party.

Now, when a regulatory agency is called upon to handle allegedly obscene Communists, it indeed has a hot potato on its hands. The Pacifica potato was admittedly handled gingerly for too many months, but I am proud that the Commission showed its calluses while I was its chairman. It issued a forceful, broad-gaged opinion clearing Pacifica of the charges levied against it. In my judgment, this action will stand as a bulwark against the enemies of free broadcasting and free speech.

At every public meeting of broadcasters I have attended, a speaker has only to declare himself in favor of "freedom" to be rewarded by an automatic burst of applause. But oratory is easy; firm action is difficult. Surely, if ever there was a time when the freedom of broadcasting was at stake, this was it. Who took the action in this case?

Which State association sent delegations to Congress charging that the FCC had deferred the Pacifica licenses for an unwarranted period and was operating outside its jurisdiction? Which of you wrote me a letter urging the Commission to dismiss these charges and to reaffirm the Commission's time-honored adherence to the principles of free broadcasting? Where were your libertarian lawyers and their amicus briefs-your industry statesmen with their ringing speeches? Did the sound and fury reach no ears but ours?

If broadcasters or their advocates felt involved in this issue, there is no evidence in our records to indicate those feelings. Apparently, not one commercial broadcaster felt obliged to make his views known to the Federal Communications Commission. As it has done time and again the FCC itself stanchly upheld and protected broadcasting's right of free speech and expression for the people of this Nation.

Your contrasting reactions to these two struggles overcommercialization and Pacifica Foundation-cast a disturbing light on the basic motivations of an industry licensed to do business in the public interest. And you might similarly gain insight into the reasons why, for all your magnificent services to the public, your critics remain vocal. When you display more interest in defending your freedom to suffocate the public with commercials than in upholding your freedom to provide provocative variety-when you cry "censorship" and call for faith in the Founding Fathers' wisdom only to protect your balance sheet-when you remain silent in the face of a threat which could shake the first amendment's proud oak to its very roots-you tarnish the ideals enshrined in the Constitution and invite an attitude of suspicion. You join the forces of crass complacency-in an industry and at a time in the history of this Nation when complacency of any sort is both misplaced and dangerous. There is no such complacency, I assure you, in the halls of the FCC.

For this is still an age in which we need all the excellence and all the greatness we

can muster. Government cannot create excellence by fiat-businessmen cannot create it simply by spending money. But we can work together to produce the conditions under which excellence and greatness can grow. We can at least try to make our actions in the service of freedom match the high-flown words we use to praise her.

I could talk for quite a while on other subjects that have cropped up during the last year-our efforts to enforce the rules now on the books against those few who refuse to abide by them, multiple ownership, responsibilities under the fairness doctrine. our new program of collecting fees for the filing of license applications, the proposed new program forms for television and radio, increased activity in our inquiry into the control of networks over the sources of program supply-to name but a few. But I would rather devote my remaining time to a subject that concerns me perhaps as much as all the foregoing put together. It is a matter which lies shrouded in the mists of the future. Its exact shape is imperceptible, but its growth is of vital interest to everyone in this room. It approaches on cat feet, but with the appetite of a ravenous tiger. It has been given a number of names, but they all mean the same thing. I refer, as you may have guessed, to pay television.

Pay television is an enigma. No one knows the answers to the questions it poses. But since "the beginning of wisdom is an admission of ignorance," let us examine the subject-not as experts-but as neophytes in search of the best method of realizing the vast potentialities of the television medium.

You all know that the Commission has authorized a program of experimentation with subscription television, that one experiment is being conducted in Hartford, Conn., and that another has been approved for Denver, Colo. Several years ago there was a considerable hassle over the question of whether there should be any experiments at all with pay television and, if so, what the scope of the experiments should be. That controversy was settled when the experiments were limited to prevent competitive damage to our advertiser-supported television system as a whole. Indeed, some proponents of pay television claim that the restrictions are so stringent that they prevent any significant test of what pay TV can accomplish. In any event, our experimentation with pay television via broadcasting stations is proceeding cautiously and under carefully controlled conditions.

But life in a free society is never that simple. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." The technology of modern communications does not stand still, and neither do the imaginative entrepreneurs who look for ways to serve new and unmet public needs. The communications industry, of which broadcasting is a part, is the most dynamic in the Nation. A broadcasting transmitter was once the marvel of the age. But now communications satellites soar overhead. Lasers and masers are workaday concepts. And the wire-thrust from the center of public attention by the glamour of radio communications-prepares for a comeback in a new

form.

Transmission of communications by wire and microwave is becoming increasingly less expensive. Low-cost cable may soon be available. Experiments with the transmission of television signals over a pair of telephone wires are underway. It may soon be economically feasible to transmit television signals by microwave between metropolitan areas and to distribute a multiplicity of these signals to every home in every metropolitan area by wire. "Talk-back," or two-way communication between one's living room and the transmitting studio, may soon be commonplace. Your wives may one day respond