frustration that currently ascends from the Federal bureaucracies responsible for administering the act.

We are concerned, of course, about making sure that proper, sufficient guidelines for the future consideration and action of the Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Tariff Commission be included in this bill, because it is of utmost importance to spell out with clarity and positiveness the congressional intent and the aims and ends which this important legislation contemplates.

I believe that the revised measure is a much improved one. It derives from much consultation with the industries, workers, and Government agencies concerned with the Antidumping Act. While laying out more definite guidelines, so to speak, the bill does not depart from the basic philosophy of the Antidumping Act and, certainly, it does not go as far as I should like to see remedial legisla

tion concerning imports go in applying proper safeguards to the Trade Expansion Act.

I feel very strongly that there can be no real relief from the present most inequitable, harmful, and injurious effects of the Trade Expansion Act until Congress adopts adequate safeguards to regulate the growing deluge of cheap goods entering the country from abroad. must be done, in my opinion, if we are to save our industrial structure from increasingly serious harm and damage from foreign, cutthroat competition.

This

Until this is done, I fear, there will be no real relief from these conditions. While this measure moves in the right direction, it covers only a limited area where dumping exists.

There are very great difficulties in first, uncovering and then checking the dumping that is now evidently being practiced by some foreign nations. Dumping is hard to prove. It requires sometimes long research, the collection of evidence, it takes a great deal of time when speedy action to shut out destructive imports is imperative.

Then, second, there are the political undertones that are emphatic, in the obvious statement that without strong support from the executive department, it is almost impossible to get favorable action on legislation of this kind.

There is not much point in Members of Congress introducing bills, however

to the adoption of the trade laws, that ruinous destructive foreign competition is stopped.

As I pointed out, this does not mean any renunciation of enlightened, forward looking trade policies adapated to the times in which we live. As Americans, we favor trade, we want trade, and we are willing to enter into all reasonable negotiations with other nations to get mutually profitable trade.

We are an open country and an open economy, and the last thing we want to do is to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world in any respect. The American people want maximum communion intellectually, commercially, socially, and cooperatively, especially in those areas having to deal with disarmament, control of nuclear energy, peace, and human betterment with other nations of good will.

These are all goals toward which we of this great Nation are working day by day, resolved, as we are, to strive for peace with full enthusiasm and determination to gain the ends that we seek of a world organized to maintain peaceful relations of brotherhood, good will, and justice.

But, frankly, the presence of dumping, cutthroat competition and other harmful, injurious practices are unquestionably impairing the development of the kind of climate we need in the world today to promote the broader goals of brotherhood and mutual cooperation we so earnestly seek and strive for.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we should do our best to try to pass a bill like the antidumping bill, and also pass other pending legislation designed to bring about better and fairer conditions in our commercial and trade intercourse with other nations, that will prevent harmful, destructive imports into this country.

I hope that the committee will take early action to conduct hearings on this bill and report it to the House, so that it may be considered and acted upon by all Members.

It is a good bill. While it does not go far enough, it is needed now-not later, and the sooner the better, because so far as our import situation is concerned, we may well say it is now a quarter to 12.

when departmental reports on them are held up, and consideration of them is shunted aside, and they are otherwise delayed, and put off, so as to give the impression that Nero is fiddling while Rome is burning.

I think that the affected industries themselves must act; their workers and labor organizations must act; public opinion must be aroused and mobilized to conduct a militant campaign to change our trade bills.

If for any reason it is not possible to prevail upon the agencies now vested under the trade bill with authority to act internationally and domestically to cut down injurious imports, it strikes me that Congress would be well advised to move to recapture its own constitutional powers over imports and make sure on its own account, as it always did prior

CIO, Calls for Immediate Senate Passage of Civil Rights Bill

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 15, 1964

Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for all those who are concerned with the achievement of equality in America to let their voices be heard. It is vitally important that civic organizations, trade unions, religious institutions and private citizens support the civil rights bill and make their support felt in Washington.

I am delighted to report that the New York Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, sponsored a civil rights rally on April 8, 1964, which adopted a resolution calling for "immediate Senate passage of the civil rights bill without weakening amendments" and urging "all trade unionists to write, and visit their Senators calling for their strong support of the bill." The resolution also urges the formation of "neighborhood rallies for passage of the civil rights bill." I want to commend the Civil Rights Committee of the New York City Central Labor Council under the chairmanship of Louis Simon for its leadership in this struggle.

The resolution follows: RESOLUTION: THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, NEW YORK CITY CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, AFLCIO, MANHATTAN Center, APRIL 8, 1964 "The AFL-CIO is for civil rights-without reservation and without delay." This state

ment by AFL-CIO President George Meany sums up the position of millions of trade unionists. The AFL-CIO has wholeheartedly endorsed the civil rights bill and if organized labor has any criticism, it is that the bill does not go far enough.

Congress and the American people cannot stand idly by and watch the daily denial of denial of the right to enjoy service in hotels, rights to Negroes and other minorities: the restaurants, and theaters; to register and to vote; to education and training; to employment and promotion. It is to right these wrongs that the civil rights bill has been proposed.

Today, we are stirred by a civil rights revolution in which those who have been discriminated against, are demanding freedom and equality. We believe that the labor movement and the civil rights movement have a common goal and a common interest. Neither can be successful without the support of the other.

However, an unholy alliance exists between rightwing, antilabor groups and the racists and you will find a race-hater. The presiand segregationists. Scratch a labor-baiter dential primary in Wisconsin only confirmed what we have long known. To defeat civil rights or any progressive legislation, the bigots and the Birchite of either political party will join forces and hate peddlers will find a willing audience in the North and the South.

The Senate debate on the civil rights bill begins its second month. We remind the

Senators of President Johnson's state of the Union message. "Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last 100 sessions combined. Today Americans of all races stand side-by-side in Berlin and Vietnam.

They died side-by-side in Korea. Surely they

can work and eat and travel side-by-side in their own country."

How can the United States claim to lead the free world when in a southern county with 1,900 white persons over the age of 21, there were 2,250 registered voters and none of the 5,122 Negroes of voting age were registered? How can the United States boast of free speech when civil rights leaders are murdered?

The time for legislation outlawing discrimination in voting, in public accommodations, in employment, in education, and in federally assisted programs is long overdue: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the New York City AFLCIO call for immediate Senate passage of the civil rights bill without weakening amendments.

We urge all trade unionists to write, and visit their Senators calling for their strong support of the bill, and we further urge our members to initiate neighborhood rallies for passage of the civil rights bill.

We call upon all our affiliates to press for passage of the bill and to initiate with their employers labor-management committees to demonstrate widespread support for this needed legislation including support of the fair employment practices section.

We recognize that passage of the civil rights bill does not mean total victory in the struggle against discrimination. But if the bill is effectively enforced many abuses will be reduced. We pledge therefore to be vigilant in order to insure enforcement.

Finally, we recognize that this effort is part of the battle against poverty and for full employment and we pledge our complete support to President Johnson in that struggle.

Quality Stabilization

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON

OF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 15, 1964

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Speaker, in recent months, quality stabilization has come under attack in two reports, one official and one academic. The official report was a "Summary Analysis" published by the Council of Economic Advisers at the request of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. The academic attack came in the form of a socalled "fact" sheet originally distributed by half-a-dozen New York area economics professors.

In his columns published in Home Furnishings Daily, February 10 and 11, Earl Lifshey, a leading proponent of quality stabilization, analyzes these two reports in detail and presents what I believe are effective replies to their criticism of this much-needed legislation. With unanimous consent, I ask permission to insert Mr. Lifshey's columns of those dates into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

IF YOU ASK ME

(By Earl Lifshey)

Mr. ARTHUR S. FLEMMING,
President, University of Oregon,
Eugene, Oreg.

GOOD MORNING MR. FLEMMING: I have read with much interest a copy of the letter dated December 20, 1963, together with a so-called "fact" sheet, I understand you circulated to many important people throughout the country seeking their support in opposing the quality stabilization bill now before Congress.

As one who has long participated in and been an observer of the Nation's merchandising mechanism in the consumer marketplace I am firmly convinced of the desirability of the basic principles which the quality stabilization bill represents. I have often gone on record here to that effect.

In your item No. 2 you state that "It (the quality stabilization bill) would cause a price rise on all brand products, including food, household furnishings, conservatively estimated as between 20 percent and 27 percent, with the outlook that further price rises would ensue." Since, as the record shows, fair traded merchandise has never accounted for more than about 7 percent to 12 percent of all merchandise sold, what possible justification is there for making such an exaggerated charge? By what law of logic can anyone assume that the passage of this law will suddenly cause a major switch in the longestablished historical pattern of merchandising practices?

In your item No. 6, you claim, "The Government itself, the largest consumer, would be adversely affected on the Federal, State, and local levels, through the forced abrogation of the system of competitive bidding." That statement is as astonishing as those made in Washington recently at Senate subcommittee hearings on this bill by Albert Kornblum, Assistant General Counsel of the Navy, and A. J. Racusin, deputy for procurement management in the Air Force, both of whom testified that the bill would greatly increase defense supply expenditures. Yet the bill clearly and precisely, in section 16, spells out the exemption of all Government agencies from the provisions of this bill; that includes, as stated in section 16(E)-"Sales to or by the Federal, State, or municipal governments or their political subdivisions or agencies." One wonders, Mr. Flemming, how explicit language can be--or what good it does to even try if its meaning is so

arbitrarily and incomprehensibly reversed?

You say that "experience has shown that there are more failures of small businessmen in States with price-fixing than in those States which do not have it." No doubt you are referring to the testimony of the former Assistant Attorney General, Lee Loevinger, at a Senate committee hearing on this bill in 1962, at which he introduced the findings of a survey his Department made on this subject. Like the technique of "repeating the big lie" often enough so that it will eventually be believed, this spurious charge continues to be repeated by uniformed per

sons.

But it fails to stand up under careful examination. In a series of three columns here (October 2, 3, 4, 1962), I revealed the fallacy of his claims by showing that: "1. His figures not only include retail business failures but also 'all distribution failures.' (It was not just small businessmen as you state.) 2. He includes businesses in which fair trade prices play little or no part. And 3. He makes absolutely no allowance for the fact that almost without exception fair traded merchandise generally for only a very small percentage of the total retail volume." My charges have never been refuted.

You state that "Alleged abuses in the form of predatory 'bait' advertising can be corrected by application of existing laws." Perhaps you know of laws and methods of which the sponsors of this legislation are unaware for correcting this merchandising malpractice; if so it would be good to have you provide that information.

Those who believe in the principles advanced by this bill do not want an end to

portunity to compete under the law of fair play before the law of the jungle has eliminated most of the competitors. Or is that expecting too much? Cordially,

EARL LIFSHEY.

I am well aware, of course, that many competition; however, they do want the opothers like yourself hold an opposite viewpoint; happily we have that great privilege in this country and I respect your right to disagree. But isn't it important, in the interests of trying to arrive at the correct conclusion in a highly controversial topic such as this, that the arguments be confined to facts and not fictions? I say that because there are a number of statements in your memorandum which, as you can readily ascertain by ohecking, are inconsistent with the facts concerning this proposed legislation.

[From the Home Furnishings Daily, Feb. 11, 1964]

IF YOU ASK ME (By Earl Lifshey)

Like many others I got quite a laugh when I read, in the special "Summary Analysis"

of the "Probable Effects of the Proposed Quality Stabilization Act on Prices, Incomes, Employment, and Production," prepared last fall by the Council of Economic Advisers at the request of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the following paragraph on page 3:

"Rising costs and reduced efficiency in retailing would put pressure on manufacturers to raise their resale prices further. The main limitation on the extent of these upward price movements would arise from an accelerated development of private brands, sold under the labels of large department and chain stores and mail-order houses. Rising prices for the price-maintained items would surely encourage the use of private brands. Needless to say, this development would not be to the benefit of either the retailers or the manufacturers of the pricemaintained items (except to the extent that the same manufacturers also produce the private brands).”

After that report appeared I wrote and wired to Walter W. Heller, Chairman of the Council, in the hope of learning more about his conclusions regarding private-brand merchandising and how he arrived at them. But since he hasn't replied to any of my inquiries, I have no idea how he did so. Maybe it's top secret-classified information and he can't talk; one never can tell.

But it's very obviously no secret to anyone at all familiar with the marketplace that retailers in general and large department and chain stores and mail-order houses in particular have not only been getting deeper and deeper into their own private brands for the past 2 or 3 years, but that they have been doing it without the slightest thought of the quality stabilization bill. The interest of retailers in and their development of private brands has been at an alltime peak for quite some time.

Sears, Roebuck, for example, points to the fact that 90 percent of its business is done on own-brand merchandise; Ward's has announced a goal of 90 percent on private brands, and almost every other chain or group has been similarly engaged. Just how much more, one wonders, can retailers be "encouraged," as Mr. Heller puts it?

There was a time, long before World War II, when retailers went in for private brands primarily so that they could have something to promote at a special low price during a sale. In those days, no self-respecting buyer would think of murdering the markup on regular national-brand merchandise.

But now-and this is the main point which Mr. Heller seems to have completely missedthe No. 1 reason for private brands is not, as his report claims, to put a "limitation on the extent of * ⚫ upward price movements" (which presumably would be caused by the quality stabilization bill) but to provide the profit which has become so extremely elusive on the deeply price cut nationalbrand products.

The readers of this newspaper need hardly be reminded of the many, many stories that have appeared in its columns during the last year or two bearing out that statement. Nor is this by any means the only place where such reports have appeared. Just a year ago, J. Gordon Dakins, the executive vice president of the National Retail Merchants Association, wrote in that organization's publication:

"Private brands are on the increase. Most large retail operations already have wellestablished private brands some of which rank with the best national brands * in acceptance *** In private brands some see opportunities to build on their own prestige, to realize higher profit margins * among other benefits."

Well, as I said earlier, Mr. Heller isn't talking. Meanwhile, the facts speak quite eloquently for themselves.

APPROPRIATIONS-PUBLIC WORKS

Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee continued its hearings on fiscal 1965 budget estimates for public works, receiving testimony in behalf of funds for their respective agencies from Vernon D. Northrup, alternate U.S. member, James Wright, Executive Secretary, and Joseph M. Breen, Budget Officer, all of the Delaware River Basin Commission; and Joseph H. McCann, Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, who was accompanied by his

associates.

Hearings continue on Wednesday, April 22.

PESTICIDES

Committee on Government Operations: Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations continued its hearings on interagency coordination of environmental hazards, with testimony in regard to the buildup of pesticides in water sources and the general environment from Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture, who was accompanied by his associates. Hearings continue tomorrow.

ALASKA EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Committee concluded its hearings on S. 2719, providing for earthquake insurance in Alaska, after receiving testimony from Representative Rivers; William Nelson, an insurance executive of Seattle; Dr. J. B. Deisher, of Seward, Alaska; Peter Deveau, mayor of Kodiak; Jeff Kibre, International Longshoremen's Union; and George Sharrock, mayor of Anchorage.

Committee recessed subject to call. 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 South

I Quit Smoking

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER

OF OREGON

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Thursday, April 16, 1964 Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I call the attention of my colleagues to an article in the same issue of Reader's Digest and on the same subject. It is "I Quit Smoking or Cooper's Last Stand." Anyone who has ever been a smoker will appreciate the personal side of this interesting article.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article by Courtney Ryley Cooper be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

I QUIT SMOKING OR COOPER'S LAST STAND (By Courtney Ryley Cooper)

The scene is deeply etched. It was a lazy Florida afternoon; on my studio floor snored my terriers, the four Marx Brothers. All in an instant I whisked away a lighted cigarette and said aloud, "No; I've stopped smoking." Here was the culmination of many years' resolutions, each too weak to stand by itself, but all forming a basis for "Cooper's Last Stand." Now I must either lick the foe or admit to being a weakling and a sucker.

Suddenly I was terrified-a sniveling sacrifice on the altar of resolution. It was the kind of afternoon for a fellow to lean back from his typewriter, forget his work for a moment and light a cig

But I had sworn off.

My smoking had gotten a bit thick. For more than 40 years I had sucked up nicotine like a filling-station sponge. Even at night I awakened many times and grabbed for a cigarette. And now I stood quivering with the knowledge of what I was in for. I didn't even have any help; my wife was out shopping. I was alone

Alone. I laughed. No need to tell anyone what I had done. No need for braggadocio, or alibis in case I couldn't stick it out. If I failed, there would be no shame. Nobody could kid me into weakening, because nobody knew.

Suddenly everything was swell. Deliberately I put some cigarettes in my pocket; that afternoon I fingered them a hundred times. At last I laid them aside. I had lived for 8 hours without smoking. Why shouldn't I be able to live 8 hours more? I refused to touch my cigarette box when I went to bed. Some way I managed to sleep, only to awaken with a horror hanging over me of something terrible I'd done

Then I heard the clock strike 4. I'd been asleep for 6 straight hours, something unheard of for years. My terror passed; now I really laughed. Snapping on the light, I opened the box and streamed cigarettes through my fingers, exulting over them. "I've got you licked," I gloated. "If I can stay away from you this long, I can stay away forever."

Appendix

when the big excitement happened I was 20 pounds underweight. I had no taste for food. I had smoker's throat, a bronchial cough, smoker's nerves, sinus trouble. The fingers of both hands were stained a deep walnut. I was ashamed to open my mouth because of the thick incrustations on my teeth, to say nothing of the brown fur on my tongue. I was a one-man furnace.

A single month brought about a great change. My smoker's pulse, which often had

pounded along at 120, dropped back to a

pleasant 72. I could really taste and enjoy food for the first time in 10 years. The smoker's throat, cough, and sinus inflammation were gone. Today if I don't sleep 8 hours at a stretch, I complain about it. The only scar remaining is the wish that I'd done all this 25 years ago.

I had attempted it often enough, but without the proper philosophy. Usually I told everyone that I was going to try to stop smoking. Or I began the tapering off technique, and all that self-delusion bilge. In a few days I was smoking like a fire engine again. How anyone afflicted with acute nervous nicotinitis can cut down on his intake is sometihng I've never learned. On the contrary, everybody who has studied the problem of smoking avers that there is only one way to decrease the intake-and that is to stop altogether. J. C. Furnas, in an exhaustive canvass of smokers, found that either you'll cut smoking off short and take it on the chin or you won't cut it out at all. From 45 of my acquaintances who have sworn off, I have discovered some rather surprising things. Those who experienced the least difficulty in quitting were those who did least talking about it. As one friend put it:

"If you're going to build bridges back to smoking even before you quit, then quitting is just a pretense. You're going to lay off for a while, go through hell and high water, start smoking a little on the sly, then get back hard as ever, meanwhile lying your head off about how you really found out it was better for you to cut down gradually."

There exists no doubt about the benefits to be derived from cutting out tobacco. Of my friends who have stopped nibbling at nicotine, all but two or three are feeling far more fit. Headaches have vanished, sinus troubles decreased. In some instances, sight has been enhanced; others mention a keener sense of smell, even of hearing. With many, there has been a lessening of indigestion and biliousness, and a greater resistance against colds or flu. Smoker's throat and cough have disappeared. While some have gained weight, most have not gained in size. Since stopped smoking, I have gained 20 pounds, and can drool easily at the thought of oysters, a sirloin steak, baked potato, and ice cream. Yet I still wear the same size clothes.

This is probably due to an increased desire for activity. A person feels better, and goes in for more exercise. The type of flesh which one puts on by abstinence from smoking seems entirely different from the inner-tube variety which attaches itself to the midriff as a result of indolence.

There is a common belief that a drink isn't

you haven't felt like smoking: "No, thanks." The offering of cigarettes is merely a mechanical social gesture. It is amazing how few persons notice that you aren't in the huffing-and-puffing class. One rule need be observed here: Always carry matches. Oddly enough, the more cigarettes you light for others the fewer times you will be asked to smoke.

Heavy smokers become accustomed to irritation of the throat and some sort of taste in the mouth, and my friends agree that this is the big, thing to beat in staying away from tobacco. In times of stress I sucked on a menthol cough drop or a mint. Others have used hard candies. But stay away from soft candies; you'll eat the whole box before you realize it.

The person who stops smoking must inure himself to the knowledge that every old association will bring a recurring desire. Once this is understood, however, it is just another apple in the bag. The desire can be squelched by a compensatory amount of reasoning which makes the craving ridiculous. This phase grows weaker the more you laugh about what a nuisance smoking used to be. Soon the thought of smoking seldom enters your mind.

One association will not bother you: the smell of cigarette smoke. Indeed it has the opposite effect; the longer one stays away from tobacco, the more obnoxious it becomes. The exhalation from another's cigarette stinks like a dead cat, and revives no memories except unhappy ones of headache, hacking coughs, a half-dead feeling, and hours in which one sits cussing himself for being able to do nothing but suck on a tube of tobacco.

Always remember this: No one ever died or went crazy from lack of tobacco. The worst that can happen to you is annoyance, for which you are repaid by better wind and pulse, and a mouth which doesn't taste like glue.

To stop smoking is a real job, but it is not as sacrificial as one likes to pretend. I wish I could assume gigantic stature and stand, Napoleonlike, with a hand in my vest while I relate terrible experiences. But I can only say that, like any other abrupt change, quitting smoking is serious, but not crucial. One must employ every possible element of one's sense of humor, whip up all the pride that ever existed-and use commonsense. After all, why fuss and worry about something that enables you to wake up rested in the morning, restores your mental clarity, and adds years to your life? An overwhelming desire for a cigarette is possibly sweeping over you right now. But why should a puny piece of paper with some tobacco inside it be allowed to push you around?

An Unhappy Secret

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, April 9, 1964

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, Joseph Alsop has had the courage to reveal

through his syndicated column a generally known fact which other writers have shunned. It is known in official quarters in Washington that Rev. Martin Luther King has among his close associates and advisers, persons who have Communist leanings. Naturally, the Communists will seek to take advantage of any movement by which their cause can be furthered and racial unrest is a prime target for their activities. Alsop's column entitled "An Unhappy Secret," appeared on April 15. I submit it for reprinting in the RECORD:

AN UNHAPPY SECRET

(By Joseph Alsop)

An unhappy secret is worrying official Washington. The secret is that despite the American Communist Party's feebleness and disarray, its agents are beginning to infiltrate certain sectors of the Negro civil rights movement.

The infiltration is spotty, as yet. But it is a very serious matter, nonetheless, that the charges of Communist influence, which have been hurled for so long by anti-civilrights racists, should now be acquiring some color of truth.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, headed by the Reverend Martin Luther King; the Students' Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, more usually called "Snick"; and the Congress on Racial Equality, more usually called CORE, are all affected in greater or less degree.

These, it should be noted, are all relatively new-fledged outfits. The older, more experienced organizations of Negro civil rights fighters, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Urban League, are quite untouched.

Official warnings have again been given to King about another, even more important associate, who is known to be a key figure in the covert apparatus of the Communist Party. After the warnings, King broke off his open connections with this man, but a secondhand connections nonetheless continues. Without much doubt, this is simply a mark of the Reverend King's political innocence, but it is disturbing all the same. The King organization and King himself are clearly the prime Communist targets. Such, then, are the facts. What ought to be made of the facts is the almost precise opposite of the kind of thing the anticivil-rights racists will say about them. For despite these facts, the Negro civil rights movement is most emphatically not "run by Communists" or "inspired by Communists."

Instead, the newer and more inexperienced Negro civil rights organizations have at length proved vulnerable to Communist infiltration. But they have been vulnerable because the grievance for which they seek redress is so shocking, and therefore so emotionally obsessive.

Every man must bear the responsibility for his own acts. Yet in this case, a heavy burden of responsibility, a vast share of the guilt, must also be charged to the white majority, which has created the grievance by injustice to the Negro minority.

The facts cited indeed constitute a strong argument for the earliest possible passage of a strong civil rights bill, and for other measures, too, that are needed to redress the Negro grievance. These facts are further proof that time is rapidly running out. Justice must be swiftly done; or gross injustice, complacently persisted in, will breed an incurable cancer in the bottom of American society.

statesmanship that the Republican Party needs at this critical juncture in the campaign. Never before has Pennsylvania had in the Governor's chair a man who could more successfully inspire and unify the divergent elements of his party. This was exemplified by his outstanding record with the legislature in solving knotty problems which his predecessors had swept under the rug.

Governor Scranton has proved his ability as a campaigner and has the winning personality, persuasiveness, and persistence required of a national leader. His friends firmly believe that Governor Scranton has presidential stature and that he is conveying to the Nation a new youthful image and qualities of integrity and dedication that are needed at this time.

He may have to acecpt a draft in spite of himself. THOMAS B. MCCABE,

APRIL 9, 1964.

Will Lenin's Prediction Come True?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNIAN

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 16, 1964

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Speaker, Lenin has predicted that the "fat capitalists" will drop into the lap of communism like a plucked apple. Recent speeches from well-known individuals are worrying the American people. Mr. Edgar Ansel

learned their lesson the hard way in the late 1930's and early 1940's-the period which was also the high water mark of Communist infiltration in the labor movement. Like the CIO, both these civil rights organizations expelled the Communist infiltrators, after a hard struggle but with total success.

Very recently, the NAACP staged a repeat performance with Robert Williams, who had been active in the North Carolina branch. This is the man who went to Cuba after his comeuppance from the NAACP, there to become a Castro propagandist.

Of the infiltrated organizations, CORE has the least serious problem. A few Communists are reported in some of the local branches, but none are known to be in CORE at the national level.

In the case of Snick, the name, Students' Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, is in itself deceptive; for the Snick leader, John Lewis, though not a Communist, quite frankly believes in quasi-insurrectionary tactics. Thus no great difference has been made in Snick's tactics, because known Communists have also begun to play a certain role in Snick.

The subject of the real headshaking is the Reverend Martin Luther King. His influence is very great. His original dedication to nonviolence can hardly be doubted. Yet he has accepted and is almost certainly, still accepting Communist collaboration and even Communist advice.

Conference

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. HUGH SCOTT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Thursday, April 16, 1964

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, on April 9, 1964, Mr. Thomas B. McCabe, Sr., president of the Scott Paper Co., commented on the press conference held by Gov. William W. Scranton.

Since I share the regard for Governor Scranton alluded to by Mr. McCabe, and since I am desirous of associating myself with Mr. McCabe's views, I ask unanimous consent for the insertion of Mr. McCabe's statement in the Appendix of the RECORD.

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

Only a man of extraordinary purpose and courage could make the statement which Governor Scranton made today in refusing the overtures of his many friends that he become an active candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

I am confident that his supporters will admire him more than ever for his candor and his desire to complete his term of office as Governor with honor and distinction. In view of the fact that he did not definitely close the door to a draft, he will undoubtedly go to the convention as Pennsylvania's favorite-son candidate.

of April 10 tells us why:

OPPOSITE VIEWS ON CUBA
(By Edgar Ansel Mowrer)

All unexpected here is nothing less than a national debate on foregin policy sparked, not by Republicans but by the very liberals who under Kennedy managed-or mismanaged our international affairs.

For the liberals are not only attempting to hold the "can win" policy of Senator GOLDWATER up to ridicule but, through their unfailing mouthpiece, Senator FULBRIGHT, to make it clear that when they talk of “greater elasticity" in our policy they mean not more but less, backbone.

Look magazine republishes what the edi

tors obviously believe to be the "primitive all over the country have popularized a speech which Senator FULBRIGHT made on the Senate floor to precisely four other Senators.

views" of Senator GOLDWATER. And liberals

So the debate is on. And it is hot. Take Cuba. Senator GOLDWATER: "We should aid anyone who wants to go in there and let If we told the Cubans that they had to get Castro have it overtly or covertly ⚫ rid of Soviet arms and equipment, I am convinced, and I am backed up by every military man I have ever spoken to, that Russia not only couldn't but wouldn't, come to the support of Cuba."

Senator FULBRIGHT: "We must abandon the myth that Cuban communism is a transitory menace that is going to collapse or disappear * . The Castro regime is not likely to be overthrown by any policies which we are now pursuing or can reasonably udertake. The continued existence of the Castro regime, though inimical to our interests and policies is not an insuperable obstacle to the attainment of our