Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

consumers and taxpayers would appear to have grounds for challenging it in the courts. During the debate Representative THOMAS B. CURTIS, Missouri Republican, questioned the constitutionality of the legislation.

He pointed out that the wheat section of the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to collect as much as a half billion dollars annually from flour millers and wheat exporters under price support provisions. This authorization, said Representative CURTIS, was added in the Senate and makes the bill a revenue measure of substantial proportions. Article I, section 7, of the Constitution states that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House.

Representative CURTIS contends, moreover, that these provisions authorize what in effect are processing and exporting taxes, which are also unconstitutional. Beyond that, said Mr. CURTIS, the legislation gives the Secretary of Agriculture the direct power of taxation, "which this Congress has refused to give even the President of the United States."

These questions deserve to be cleared up. Taxpayers and consumers who have to foot the bill for subsidies designed to enhance the administration's chances at the polls next November at least are entitled to know if it's legal.

Wheat Argument Continues

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. PAUL FINDLEY

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, April 13, 1964

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, Drew Pearson provides another chapter in the continuing wrangle over whether the United States should continue to fill Khrushchev's

wheat-shortage hole. The Johnson administration wants to back away from the requirement that 50 percent of any shipments be in U.S. vessels. American unions object.

Here is Mr. Pearson's inside report on the latest argument, as printed in the April 12 Washington Post:

THE WHEAT ARGUMENT: CABINET MEMBERS, UNION LEADERS DISCUSS SALES TO SOVIET UNION

(By Drew Pearson)

Three Cabinet members attended a closeddoor meeting with leaders of the Longshoremen's and the Seamen's Unions recently to try to solve the question of shipping wheat to Russia in foreign-flag vessels.

The issue involved a sharp conflict between American farmers and American labor as there is a probability that the Russians will buy more wheat next year if shipment at a low freight tariff is accomplished this year. Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman told labor leaders that Russia was probably in the market for about $200 million worth of wheat next year, if the present contracts are fulfilled. This would mean a big lift to American farmers. However, if the unions force 50 percent of American wheat to be shipped in American vessels at a higher cost, further grain sales to Moscow are probably off.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk strongly supported Freeman.

Present at the closed-door session, in addition to Freeman and Rusk, were Luther Hodges, Secretary of Commerce, and Assistant Secretary of Labor James Reynolds. Representing labor were AFL-CIO President George Meany; Joe Curran, president of the National Maritime Union; Teddy Gleason,

boss of the International Longshoremen; and Paul Hall, boss of the Seafarers International Union.

"You are putting us on a tough spot," Freeman said. "If we continue to enforce the 50 percent restriction, we will sell no more grain to Soviet Russian on anybody's ships. We have played out our hand."

"To put it another way, we will be forced out of the East European grain markets," added Rusk.

"Do you mean to say that you will sell in those markets, without the 50-percent guarantee to protect the jobs of American seamen?" asked Meany.

"Yes, I do," replied Freeman. "There won't be any protection for anyone if we are squeezed out of the market. We have to make up our minds pretty soon. I am looking at this in the national interest. I understand the problems of the maritime industry, but I also must think about our grain surplus."

"That's where you and I differ, Mr. Secretary," snapped Meany.

Joe Curran backed him up. "The real villains in this controversy," he said, "are the grain profiteers, the big private exporters who are not thinking of the national interest. They want to use cheap maritime labor on foreign flagships to transport the grain."

Curran pointed out that some Liberian and Panamanian vessels were owned by American interests, but were registered under a "flag of convenience," giving them arbitrary powers to fix wages below the American scale. He charged that the State Department had always countenanced this practice.

"Well, I'll have to deny that," bristled Rusk. "The State Department does not approve profiteering of any kind."

He added that his Department was trying to move grain to Soviet Russia and its satellites to fulfill a contract and was being seriously hampered by the 50-percent restriction.

"Unless we remove the restriction, we sell no more grain to Soviet countries. It's as simple as that," said Rusk.

"If you do away with the restriction, you are throwing the grain shipments up for grabs to the most unscrupulous operators," argued Gleason, head of the International Longshoremen. "What's to stop Russia from trying to use its own ships to carry our grain? My union doesn't make foreign policy, but if that happens let me tell you that our men will never touch a hammerand-sickle ship."

Hall, the Seafarers boss, Curran, and Gleason brought out that they agreed to load and operate grain shipments to Russia only because Assistant Secretary of Labor Reynolds had assured them the 50 percent restriction would be maintained. Reynolds nodded his head in agreement.

One point developed was that for every bushel shipped, a subsidy of 71⁄2 cents goes to the grain dealers from the U.S. Government.

There was also some acrimony over the claim of the big grain dealers that they could not get vessels over 32,000 tons into Russian harbors. Yet when Under Secretary of Commerce Martin went to Russia, they told him they could take any size ship.

Union leaders had proposed that the SS Manhattan, which has a displacement of 100,000 tons and doesn't require any larger crew than smaller ships, was available to carry wheat. But Continental Grain, Inc., gave the argument, later shown to be erroneous, that the Russians would not take the Manhattan.

Myer Feldman, economic aide to President Johnson, recommended that in view of the divergent positions, a grievance committee be established as soon as possible. This was done.

Just before the meeting broke up, Gleason remarked to Freeman: "We'll see you on the picket line, Mr. Secretary."

"I've been there before,” replied Freeman. "And he has too," said Meany.

King-Anderson Bill

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 7, 1964

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in an advertisement that appeared in the March 5 issue of the Courier, the Wayne County Medical Society criticized the proposal which I have sponsored together with many other Congressmen for hospital insurance for the aged under social security. The medical society calls the proposal bad medicine. This proposal, known as the King-Anderson bill, is, of course, not bad medicine. Nor is it good medicine. It is not any kind of medicine. The bill would simply provide an improved way for people to pay certain health costs in old age. People

would contribute while they are working and are best off toward hospital insurance in old age when their incomes are reduced.

What reasons are given by the medical society for opposing the King-Anderson bill? The first reason is that the bill would only cover older people hospitalization costs and related health costs and would not pay doctor bills. That is true but it is also true that the King-Anderson bill offers older people better coverage than is carried by the majority of the aged who have health insurance. I have my suspicion that doctors would not be more favorable to the proposal if it provided broader coverage. In any event, with their hospital insurance paid for through social security, the money older people now spend on generally inadequate coverage could be used to buy private insurance against doctors fees and other kinds of health insurance. Thus, they could have far broader protection than any but a very few older people now can afford.

The medical society's second criticism of the King-Anderson bill is that the few well-to-do aged would benefit along with the other aged. But why should they not? People qualify for social security because they have contributed toward the program, not beacuse they have proved they meet a means test. That is the big difference that makes social security acceptable and public welfare programs demeaning to most Americans.

Also, the very wealthy aged would get relatively little out of the King-Anderson bill that they are not already getting through medical deductions on their income tax. Such deductions can produce tax savings amounting to more than three-fourths of their medical expendi

tures.

The medical society says that the King-Anderson bill would lead to the complete socialization of the medical profession. But the King-Anderson bill has

nothing to do with socialized medicine. And enactment of the bill would in no way change the fact that there is no support for the socialization of medicine in the United States. Most Congressmen are not doctors but they also are not as foolish as the medical society seems to think when it says it is inevitable Congress will adopt socialized medicine later if it improves social security now.

It was only a few years ago that organized medicine fought a losing battle against adding disability benefits to social security because it considered disability benefits in the European tradition and public relief to be the American way. Congress overrode the AMA objections then and very few people believe the AMA was right. I am sure that after social security hospital insurance is adopted just as few will believe the AMA was right in opposing this bill.

Even the medical society assumes the adoption of the proposal will gain its supporters votes. Even the doctors then seem to be agreeing that the people will like it. What better endorsement can the proposal have?

The Civil Servant: Who Is He?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN M. MURPHY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, April 13, 1964

Mr.

Mr. MURPHY of New York. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following from a series of articles by Morton A. Reichek, which appeared in the Staten Island Advance, March 25, 26, and 27, 1964:

THE CIVIL SERVANT: WHO IS HE?-OverorgaNIZATION CALLED WEAKEST LINK IN GovERNMENT-PART 3

(By Morton A. Reichek) WASHINGTON.-R.M. is a management analyst in the Federal aviation agency who has held executive positions in private industry. He has some penetrating observations about civil service.

"The weakest link in Government is overorganization in the middle ranks," he says. "There is a fetish about assistants. Every division chief has an assistant division chief. His boss, a bureau director, will have an assistant director and even a special assistant His subordinate, a branch chief, will have an assistant branch chief.

"The assistants have authority but no responsibility. Each represents an extra channel through which all paper must flow. The assistant is the one man in ten to whom President Johnson alluded who is not productive."

Overorganization in middle management does not exist to the same extent in private industry, R.M. claims. "In business, you're always running against previous figures on labor costs, production, net sales, or profits. If you're not improving, you're under pressure to do so. One way is to cull the stuffing out of middle management. By and large, the same kind of pressure isn't here in Government."

But R.M. argues that the devotion to duty and the individual productivity of the average Government worker is generally on a par with that in industry.

A lawyer in a large regulatory agency, H.W. also defends the individual civil service worker, but criticizes the system:

A

"The Government fosters mediocrity. good man can get lost. The tendency is to promote solely on the basis of seniority. In private business, a good man is identified early and can be moved up faster.

"In Government, it's hard to get rid of an inefficient person. You can eliminate his job. But if he has seniority rights, he can 'bump' someone else in a similar job who may be much better but has less seniority."

A longtime Government economist who quit to join a large Washington consulting firm, L.T. agrees that the Government "lacks a ready mechanism for weeding out the inefficient."

Often, he recalls, "it was the hack who was more adept at bureaucratic infighting and procedure than on doing his job who was able to hang on."

R.H. is an engineer for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who formerly worked for several aircraft manufacturers. He deplores tendencies to generalize that industry people are superior to Government workers, or vice versa. "On both sides," he says, "my experience is that you have some people who goof-off and some who break their backs.

"In NASA, I've seen groups organized for special assignments who have to sit around doing nothing when the job ends. But in private industry, working as a test engineer, we used to sit on our hands for hours waiting for mechanics to install an engine before we could touch it. This was because there were strict jurisdictional rules over who could do what. Doing similar work in Government, I've never been faced with this kind of waste."

Says E.G., a budget officer for the Navy Department with experience in private industry: "In any large organization, Government or business, you can't control what You have to delegate everyone is doing. authority. In the process, someone is going to take advantage. You can't completely keep track of everyone."

M.G. was an engineer for the Navy and NASA before joining a private firm. "You'll find the same ratio of competent to incompetent in both Government and industry. The 10 percent Mr. President talks about reflects the norm in the population. One guy in ten is always being carried by the others."

A.B. is a scientist in the Army who monitors defense research contracts. "From what I've seen," he says, "there are as many or more 'drones' in industry who live on cost-plus Government contracts than there are on the civil service payroll."

An attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, B.A., who was formerly on the staff of a major trade association: "Generally there is no more boondoggling and makework in Government than in industry. It's probably harder to fire the less productive person in Government. But even in industry, there's a tendency to paternalism which protects the deadwood, assuming the man has built up long tenure in his job."

O.E., an economist in the Defense Department, says, "Sure there's make-work in the military. For purposes of national security, you have to keep men in uniform ready to fight or to provide a cadre in case of an emergency. So you make work to maintain him in uniform.

"Then you put on civilians as part of the supporting establishment. But you can't apply normal standards to this kind of operation."

S.R., a top-level administrator in the State Department: "It's difficult to get rid of the inefficient. We have built-in checks to prevent arbitrary or political discharges. This inhibits getting rid of people not fitted for their jobs. Which is more important, the individual or the job? In our system, it's the individual."

THE CIVIL SERVANT: WHO IS HE?-LACK OF PROFIT DRIVE MAKES EFFICIENCY COMPARISONS DIFFICULT-PART 4

(By Morton A. Reichek) WASHINGTON.-The charge is frequently made that the capabilities of individual Government workers and of Federal agencies as a whole are inherently inferior to private business because the profit-and-loss incentive for greater efficiency is missing in Government.

Thomas D. Morris, an Assistant Secretary of Defense who was for many years a private management consultant, sees some merit in this argument.

Says Morris: "Compared to top Government career managers, industry executives are more prone to be self-starters and to take greater risks. This is the custom in private enterprise. Man-to-man competition determines those who succeed to top responsibilities.

"Furthermore, the profit and loss environment-in which compensation is based directly on what the individual contributes to company profits-is a powerful day-to-day stimulus."

Morris sees offsetting factors, however, which favor the civil servant. "As a generalization," he says, "top-level career civil servants have more education and greater breadth of interests than their counterparts in private industry. The industry men are apt to focus their interests within a particular industry or profession."

Morris also claims that the Government official "generally tends to be more flexible and responsive to changes in leadership. He has learned to adjust to new programs and policies brought about by changing administrations."

The question of who is more efficient or productive the Government man or the person in industry-can never be answered with any precision. The working conditions of the two sides differ so much that direct comparisons are not very meaningful.

John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, recently made an offthe-cuff observation that the Social Security Administration can administer an insurance account at a substantially lower cost than a private insurance company.

But officials in the agency's Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance are embarrassed by the claim. They say it's unfair to compare their costs with a private firm's. Under the social security system, for example, employers are compelled to keep records for the Government which a commercial life insurance company would have to maintain on its own.

The Bureau of the Budget, which is pushing programs to measure productivity of Government agencies and individual Government worker output, cites two cases where private management consulting firms recently made comparative studies.

The consultants examined the Bureau of the Mint's manufacturing activities and the now-defunct Government-operated steamship line which operated from the Canal Zone to New York. The consultants concluded that the two government programs were more efficient than comparable private operations.

On the other hand, a recent audit of Navy shipyards and private yards by an accounting firm hired by the Pentagon showed that the private companies were considerably less costly.

In neither case can it be said that the conclusions reflect on the capabilities of individual workers involved.

The Budget Bureau's productivity measurement program is designed to give Government managers a tool, comparable to industry's profit-and-loss statement, to gage efficiency and to project budgets. In brief, the program determines the ratio of inputs of labor, money, and other resources to an agency's output.

Pilot studies have been conducted in five Government agencies. In the Treasury Department's Disbursement Division, which writes the Government's checks, and in the Veterans' Administration's Insurance Service, it was decided that measurements of productivity are feasible. Both agencies are essentially engaged in mass clerical operations.

But since most Government agencies do not produce a tangible item that has an easily measurable cost, it's unlikely that productivity measurement can be extended very widely in Government.

So far, the Budget Bureau's studies have shown that the rate of increase in Government productivity-in areas where this can be measured-is pretty much in line with the average 2- to 3-percent annual productivity rise attained in private industry.

The Bureau is also encouraging measurements of work output by individual employees engaged in routine, production-line types of activity. The purpose is to develop norms of performance say, of a postal clerk-then to compare an individual's actual performance to the norm. No attempt has been made to relate the results to workers in private industry because of the difficulties in across-the-board comparisons.

THE CIVIL SERVANT: WHO IS HE?-AUTOMATION CUTS COSTS, HALTS INCREASE IN WORK FORCE PART 5

(By Morton A. Reichek) WASHINGTON.-A Veterans' Administration Insurance Service employee processes 2,000 policies a year, 4 times as many as 12 years ago, slashing handling costs per policy from $9.03 to $3.88.

At the Treasury Department's Disbursement Division, similar accomplishments have been made. The agency now issues roughly 200,000 checks and bonds annually per employee. Back in 1935, the average annual employee output was only 30,000.

Comparable hikes in output for mass clerical operations have been recorded by several other Government agencies.

These sharp increases in Federal productivity have resulted from Washington's pioneering use of automation in data processing and other managerial improvements.

The productivity advances have permitted the Federal Government to hold its overall rate of employment fairly stable during the past decade. This has been achieved in the face of an expanding population, a growing economy, and of what one official describes as "an increasing desire by people for more Government services."

There are now about 2.5 million civilian employees on Uncle Sam's payroll-about the level of employment in 1953.

Of this number, about 86 percent have job protection rights of the competitive civil service system. Most of the others work for such agencies as the FBI, CIA, AEC, TVA, and the Foreign Service which have similar merit systems, career benefits, and job protection rights. Only some 2,000 do not have these benefits and rights-Presidential appointees, top-level policymakers, and ones with special jobs "involving close personal relations" with these officials.

During the past decade, there have been some sharp ups and downs in Government job totals. Employment rose in 1961 and early 1962 because of the space program's

expansion and military buildups in the Berlin and Cuban crises. But Government jobs now number 3,500 less than a year ago.

Despite President Johnson's highly touted talk of economy in Government, total civil service employment will not be reduced. The outlook is for a stable level of Government jobs over the next 18 months, assuming no crises in the domestic economy or in international affairs. A rise of about 1 percent, or 25,000, may even occur.

This is the overall picture. But the Defense Department plans to lay off about 70,000 civilian workers in the next 31⁄2 years as nonessential bases across the country are shut down or scaled back.

Civil service, however, remains in the labor market. This year, for example, at least 250,000 persons will be hired just to take care of regular employee turnover.

While Federal employment may inch up in the near future, the goal is to trim the number of Government workers in relation to the total population. Ten years ago there were 146 Federal employees to every 10,000 people. In 1962 this ratio fell to 133 per 10,000 people.

Says B. B. Bray, Jr., staff director of a House subcommittee which has been investigating manpower utilization in the civil service:

"The cardinal problem in Government has been the lack of a hard-nosed, objective method of determining how many people you need to do a specific Government job. Too often in the past, this has been determined on the basis of historic precedent."

President Johnson's new policy is designed to correct this defect. By clamping tougher controls on Federal employment, the President wants to inject a greater sense of urgency in the drive to improve Government efficiency.

The goal is to revise such an appraisal of the Government worker as was recently made by Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges. A onetime vice president of Marshall Field & Co., Hodges has been in Washington for 3 years.

"I have in all candor and kindness," he said, "found two things that bother me in Government service. A small minority of us Government workers, us bureaucrats, if you please, are inclined to continue doing things that are unnecessary or outmoded or that plainly duplicate what others are doing. The second thing is the inclination of some of us to do a poor, inefficient job, and hide behind the liberal policies of the civil service to protect us."

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY

The Public Printer, under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, may print for sale, at a price sufficient to reimburse the expenses of such printing, the current Congressional Directory. No sale shall be made on credit (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 150, p. 1939).

CHANGE OF RESIDENCE

Senators, Representatives, and Delegates who have changed their residences will please give information thereof to the Government Printing Office, that their addresses may be correctly given in the RECORD.

LAWS RELATIVE TO THE PRINTING OF DOCUMENTS

Either House may order the printing of a document not already provided for by law, but only when the same shall be accompanied by an estimate from the Public Printer as to the probable cost thereof. Any executive department, bureau, board or independent office of the Government submitting reports or documents in response to inquiries from Congress shall submit therewith an estimate of the probable cost of printing the usual number. Nothing in this section relating to estimates shall apply to reports or documents not exceeding 50 pages (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 140, p. 1938).

Resolutions for printing extra copies, when presented to either House, shall be referred immediately to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, who, in making their report, shall give the probable cost of the proposed printing upon the estimate of the Public Printer, and no extra copies shall be printed before such committee has reported (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 133, p. 1937).

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE

Additional copies of Government publications are offered for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C., at cost thereof as determined by the Public Printer plus 50 percent: Provided, That a discount of not to exceed 25 percent may be allowed to authorized bookdealers and quantity purchasers, but such printing shall not interfere with the prompt execution of work for the Government. The Superintendent of Documents shall prescribe the terms and conditions under which he may authorize the resale of Government publications by bookdealers, and he may designate any Government officer his agent for the sale of Government publications under such regulations as shall be agreed upon by the Superintendent of Documents and the head of the respective department or establishment of the Government (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 72a, Supp. 2).

RECORD OFFICE AT THE CAPITOL

An office for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, with Mr. Raymond F. Noyes in charge, is located in room H-112, House wing, where orders will be received for subscriptions to the RECORD at $1.50 per month or for single copies at 1 cent for eight pages (minimum charge of 3 cents). Also, orders from Members of Congress to purchase reprints from the RECORD should be processed through this office.

PRINTING OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTRACTS

It shall be lawful for the Public Printer to print and deliver upon the order of any Senator, Representative, or Delegate, extracts from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, the person ordering the same paying the cost thereof (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 185, p. 1942).

HIGHLIGHTS

Daily Digest

Senate debated civil rights bill.

Chamber Action

Routine Proceedings, pages 7568-7572

Senate

Bills Introduced: Two bills and two resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 2730-2731; S.J. Res. 167; and S. Res. 308.

Page 7570

Bill Referred: H.R. 10723, making appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal year 1965, was referred to Committee on Appropriations.

Page 7495

Pages 7495, 7503-7568

Civil Rights: Senate debated H.R. 7152, proposed Civil
Rights Act of 1963.
Meeting Time: By unanimous consent, it was agreed
that when Senate recesses on Tuesday, April 14, it shall
be until 10 a.m. Wednesday, April 15.
Page 7572
Quorum Calls: Four quorum calls were taken today.

Pages 7495, 7525, 7536, 7549

Program for Tuesday: Senate met at 10 a.m. and recessed at 12:13 a.m. until 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 14, when it will continue on H.R. 7152, civil rights.

Committee Meetings

(Committees not listed did not meet)

Pages 7503, 7572

APPROPRIATIONS-INDEPENDENT OFFICES

Committee on Appropriations: Committee began hearings on fiscal 1965 budget estimates for independent offices, receiving testimony in behalf of funds for their respective agencies from Edward D. Welsh, Secretary and Acting Chairman, National Aeronautics and Space Council; and Dr. Donald Hoinig, Director, Office of

Chamber Action

Science and Technology, who was accompanied by his assistants.

Hearings continue tomorrow.

FOOD MARKETING PRACTICES

Committee on Commerce: Committee continued its hearings on S.J. Res. 71, to establish a National Commission on Food Marketing to study the marketing of food from the farmer to the consumer, having as its witness Esther Peterson, Assistant Secretary of Labor, and Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs.

Hearings continue on Thursday, April 16, when Secretary of Agriculture Freeman will be heard.

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee continued its hearings on S. 1658, authorizing construction of the Central Arizona project, Arizona and New Mexico, and on proposed comprehensive water plan for the Pacific Southwest, having as its witnesses Representative Baldwin; and Hugo Fisher, administrator of the Resources Agency of California, who represented Governor Brown.

Hearings continue tomorrow.

KENNEWICK DIVISION EXTENSION

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee held hearings on S. 2630, authorizing construction of the Kennewick division extension, Yakima project, Washington, receiving testimony from Carl Lee, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, who was accompanied by his associates.

Hearings were adjourned subject to call.

House of Representatives

Bills Introduced: Three public bills, H.R. 10817-10819,
and two private bills, H.R. 10820 and 10821, were
introduced.
Page 7493

The House met briefly but did not transact any legislative business.

Program for Tuesday: Adjourned at 12:29 p.m. until
Tuesday, April 14, 1964, at 12 o'clock noon, when the

D276

Fishing for Fun

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON

OF VIRGINIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 14, 1964

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, one of the finest men that I have been privileged to know in my public life is former President Herbert Hoover, who recently celebrated his 94th birthday. When he was President of the United States, I was chairman of the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries. In that capacity, to promote interest in Virginia in all phases of wildlife conservation, I helped to organize a large number of Izaak Walton League chapters. In recognition of the splendid contribution to the cause of better fishing being rendered by the then Secretary of Commerce, Hon. Herbert Hoover, the Virginia chapters of the Izaak Walton League had me present to President Hoover on their behalf a very fine bamboo fly-casting rod. A few years ago, I asked President Hoover if he still had that rod and he said that he did; that he had often used it, and that he treasured it very highly.

One of the finest speeches that any Government official has ever made concerning the Federal fisheries policies was made by President Hoover at an annual meeting of the Izaak Walton League in Chicago on April 12, 1924. That speech is too long to be reprinted in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD but since this is the 40th anniversary of when it was made, and a season of the year when the minds of all trout fishermen are thinking of dogwood blossomsVirginia's State flower-oak leaves the size of squirrel's ears, and trout in limpid pools, eager to rise to a properly presented fan-wing Royal Coachman, I deem it to be both pertinent and proper to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD, excerpts of Mr. Hoover's Chicago speech of 40 years ago.

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

One dominant thing lays upon my memory from a long ago reading of Izaak Walton. That is its placid flow of a calm and peaceful spirit; of good will toward men and fishes.

A fisherman must be of contemplative mind for it is often a long time between bites. These interregnums emanate patience, reserve, and calm reflection-for no one can catch fish in excitement, in anger or in malice. He is by nature possessed of faith, hope, and even optimism or he would not fish; for we are always going to have better luck in a few minutes or tomorrow. All of which creates a spirit of affection for

Appendix

fellow fishermen and high esteem for fish. These are the essential qualities of good fishermen. This should also be the attitude of good governments toward fish.

In the city of Washington, where I have temporary abode, this spirit does not always exist in matters of fish-and also other questions that you know of. You may have noticed lately a lack of harmony and friendly feeling amongst some of our residents. According to the public press, they even exchange mean and unpleasant remarks of one another on various subjects; for there are too few fishermen in public life. And there are vital national problems in fish.

There are large governmental problems affecting our game fishing. Obviously, these are matters in which State control is dominant. The contribution of the Federal Government is through assistance by scientific investigation, through rescue work and through the Government hatcheries. The depletion of our game fish is going on with heartbreaking acceleration in these past few years. The extension of the Federal and State activities in propagation is most urgent.

The automobile with its easy transit to all

fishing centers and the growing spread of fishing as a stimulus to outdoor life makes it necessary that we should study the whole field of Government activities and inaugurate new policies. If we do not we shall see our greatest national instructor of the calm and contemplative mind fail right in the middle of a most hectic civilization. It can not become too long between bites or patience will not endure.

In these times of decreasing fish we are catching many fish which are still infants in arms, despite any State regulation to the contrary. Thus we are destroying our breeding animals. Hatcheries cannot propagate all the fish or even a small proportion. I wish to make a proposition to your league. Among your members are many fishing clubs who hold considerable preserves. Within these preserves it is possible that young fish could be protected until they have reached maturity and could be made a source of spawn in the surrounding streams. It is possible that cooperation could be set up with the Department by which the private fishing clubs could contribute something financially and by administration the Department could contribute much in the supply of young fish and scientific investigation, under which the clubs could take care of the matter from then on, maintaining the stock not only of their own streams but systematically spreading it into the neighboring streams, for every true fisherman must have an affection for his neighbors and especially for the barefoot boy where we all started our fishing careers. I would be glad if your league could set up a committee to study this subject.

I need not extol to you the joys of outdoor life, its values in relaxation, its contribution to real and successful work. All these things have been covered by your stimulating convention. The spiritual uplift of the goodwill, cheerfulness, and optimism that accompanies every fishing expedition is the peculiar spirit that our people need in these troublous times of suspicion and doubt. They ought all be sent fishing periodically, and if they are to be sent fishing we must build up the opportunities for them to fish. Life is not comprised entirely of making a

living or arguing about the future or defaming the past.

Nor is this association formed solely for the extension of your own pleasure and gratification. You, as the men interested in fishing, have also a responsibility in the protection of our great food supply. It is through such organized support as yours that the policies which I have recounted to you of the Department of Commerce can be carried through to success.

Ralph Yarborough Day in El Paso County

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JACK BROOKS

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 14, 1964

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, each of us knows full well the tremendous re

sponsibilities and burdens which a senior U.S. Senator must carry. This is particularly true, of course, of Senators who represent States of large populations.

With these almost overwhelming responsibilities personal attention to local problems requires an almost superhuman effort and a fierce devotion to each individual citizen and his personal life.

This effort and devotion manifested by the senior Senator from Texas, our good friend and distinguished colleague, RALPH YARBOROUGH, has been paid welldeserved tribute by the citizens of El Paso, Tex., and it seems entirely appropriate to mark this honor.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution approved by the County Commissioners Court of El Paso County designating April 10, 1964, as "Ralph Yarborough Day" in El Paso County, follows:

THE STATE OF TEXAS, County of El Paso:

Know all men by these presents, ThatWhereas the Honorable RALPH YARBOROUGH, senior Senator from the State of Texas to the the Congress of United States, is a former resident of El Paso County; and is, therefore, well known to many of the residents of this county, and is familiar with many of the problems confronting the local government of this county; and

Whereas Senator YARBOROUGH has never failed to take an especial interest in matters affecting this county, and has on many occasions assisted El Paso County by furthering and sponsoring Federal Government projects for El Paso County, and has participated in many ground breakings and dedications, honoring this country with his presence, including the dedication of the El Paso City-County Building, the New Sun Bowl Stadium, and the John F. Kennedy Manor, among others; and

Whereas Senator YARBOROUGH has now introduced and is attempting to have the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch designated a national park, and is further assisting this

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »