Foreign Aid: War on Poverty Throughout store for a package of cigarettes. They live

the World

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DONALD M. FRASER

OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, April 22, 1964

in rundown country shacks of tar paper. They live in city slums. They live without heat, water, or sanitation of any kind.

Their children have no schools to go to. They have no doctors or hospitals to attend. Their life expectancy is somewhere between 35 and 40 years of age. Worst of all, many of them live without any hope at all. They see no escape from the ancient cycle of misery and despair.

POVERTY AS OLD AS MAN

These are not new conditions. Poverty,

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, in his remarks to the editors and broadcasters hunger, and disease are afflictions as old as

yesterday in the White House Rose Garden President Johnson eloquently spelled out the real reasons for our foreign aid programs.

The President compared our foreign aid programs to his declared war on poverty here in the United States. He said it was part of the same struggle to provide all people of the world with a decent way of life.

The foreign aid program is vital to our national interest, the President went on to say, because it is necessary for the continuance of world peace. This is not only a moral and humanitarian program—but one increasingly necessary to the preservation of peace in the world.

I commend the President's eloquent and moving remarks to all my colleagues in the House.

man himself. But in our time and in this age there has been a change. The change is not so much in the realities of life, but in the hopes and the expectations of the future. If a peaceful revolution in these areas is impossible a violent revolution is inevitable.

We who stand here in peace and security and prosperity must realize that we are greatly outnumbered in this world, more than 17 to 1 in population, in area, in race, in religion, in color. You take any criteria and measure yourself by that standard, and you will find that we are in a very small minority.

This knowledge has helped create the worldwide boom of vast portent which we know as the revolution of rising expectations. The meaning of this revolution is very simple.

It means that people in the rest of the world want for themselves the same things that you and I want for our loved ones, for our friends, and for our children, and that

EXCERPTS FROM PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S TALK most of us already have.
TO EDITORS

(Following are excerpts from a transcript of President Johnson's remarks and replies to questions put to him today at a meeting in the White House Rose Garden with editors and broadcasters attending a national foreign policy conference.)

I am glad you could come here before you went home to let me have a very brief visit with you. You occupy a very important place in American life. The destiny of our children is going to depend on the leadership of the present. What is written in your papers and the way in which you conduct your business helps millions of Americans in America's cities and towns in shaping the kind of world that we are going to live in.

Every night when I go to bed I ask myself, "What did we do today that we can point to for generations to come, to say that we laid the foundation for a better and more peaceful and more prosperous world?"

I would like to talk to you about one area in which we can see with some certainty the

shape of things to come. That is the fight against poverty around the world.

We are waging an all-out war against poverty here at home. We are committed to pursue that war to final victory. But we are also engaged in that same battle on 100 different fronts around the world, in 100 or more nations.

On three continents, in dozens of countries, hundreds of millions of people struggle to exist on incomes of little more than a dollar a week. In the 112 or more nations, only 6 of them have an income of as much as $80 a month, Sweden and Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

Here we ought to get down on our knees every night and thank the Good Lord for our blessings, that our income can be more than $200 a month, when more than twothirds of the people of the world have less than $8 a month.

These people have less to spend each day on food and on shelter and on clothing, on medicine, on all of their needs, than the average American spends at his corner drug

They intend that their families shall live a decent life and that they have a job that gives them survival and dignity. They intend that their children shall be taught to read and to write. They intend that the hungry shall be fed and the sick shall be treated. They intend to take their place in the great movement of modern society, to take their share in the benefits of that society.

These just desires, once unleashed, can never again be stifled. The people of the developing world are on the march, and we want to be beside them on that march. I can think of nothing that would give me more satisfaction than the knowledge that I could believe that you wielders of the pen and you molders of opinion, you leaders in public life, could take your stand this morning on the side of preserving humanity and uplifting it throughout the world.

AN ACT OF NECESSITY

Our gross national product in this, the richest of all nations, this quarter, is running at the rate of $608.6 billion. We are

asking to distribute in the form of help, aid, and military assistance to all the nations who want to have freedom less than one-half of 1 percent of that amount-3,400 million.

But because of what we call it, and because of how it has been administered, and because it is far away, we don't realize that this investment is not only one of the most Christian acts that this great, powerful rich country could do, but it is an act of necessity if we are to preserve our image in the world and our leadership in the world, and most of all, our society.

We must help developing countries because our own welfare demands it. It takes no great gift of foresight to realize that unless there is progress and unless there is growing satisfaction of just desires, there will be discontent and there will be restlessness.

The developing world would soon become a cauldron of violence, hatred, and revolution without some assistance. How would you feel if you were a member of a family whose total income was less than $80 per year? Yet

a majority of the people of the world have incomes of less than $80 a year.

Under such conditions, communism, with its false and easy promises of a magic formula, might well be able to transform these popular desires into an instrument of revolution. That is why every American who is concerned about the future of his country must also be concerned about the future of Africa, Asia, and our old friends in Latin America.

No President who looks beyond the immediate problems which crowd his desk can fail to extend the hand and the heart of this country to those who are struggling elsewhere. We help these countries in many ways, through trade and raw materials and manufactures, with the Peace Corps now working in more than 40 of them, through programs of economic assistance, through the exchange of scholars and students and ideas.

and

So I hope you will make this one of your first orders of business when you return to your homes. You can do this in many ways. Your communities can establish direct contact with communities in other countries. You can arrange for exchange of visits. You can arrange for help to schools and hospitals in a similar community, in a sister country, in a developing land.

You can try and establish scholarships to bring deserving students to your local college or to your local high school for education. You can arrange programs of study and discussion about the problems of these other countries that a good many of your folks have not read about or studied about. You can conduct exhibits or performances of the arts and music folklore of others.

If the results of your endeavors here in Washington are to gain enough inspiration to return to your desks and ask the people of our own land to lead the others in ignorance and darkness and disease and all the ancient enemies of mankind that are fighting in other parts of the world, that you are going to take up your shield and try to help them strike them down, it would be a great day in America when we met in the rose garden and launched this kind of an effort. Thank you and God bless you.

I don't know what your engagements are, but someone suggested that those of you who are from out of town, who don't have an opportunity every day to come here to the White House, you might want to ask some questions of your President. I will be glad to take some time, if you can take it. If any of you have any questions that you would like to ask, I will be glad to attempt to answer them.

Federal Water Development ProgramsResolutions of Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. VANCE HARTKE

OF INDIANA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Wednesday, April 22, 1964

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission has recently adopted two resolutions which apply directly to Federal water development programs.

The first, which applies to the Soil Conservation Service, calls for enactment of H.R. 9695, to increase the detention capacity of small watershed res

ervoirs from 5,000 acre-feet to 12,500 acre-feet. The larger reservoirs would have prevented much of the serious flood damage which occurred in southern Indiana last March.

The second resolution points to the need for recreation user fees, which would, in turn, provide increased recreational facilities. The commission has in mind specifically the Monroe Reservoir, in southern Indiana-a 10,750-acre multipurpose facility financed by State and Federal funds. Present national policy does not permit admission charges to federally sponsored recreation areas. Both of these resolutions merit the serious consideration of all Senators. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD.

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

RESOLUTION-RECREATION USER FEES "Whereas the growing public demand for outdoor recreation has attracted wide attention; and

"Whereas the growing demand for outdoor recreation has created a need for greatly expanded recreation areas and facilities; and "Whereas the provision of adequate recreational facilities and the operation and maintenance of such facilities require constantly

increasing funds; and

"Whereas experience in the operation and maintenance of public outdoor recreation facilities in Indiana for a period of more than 40 years has demonstrated that such operation and maintenance can be financed through the collection of nominal entrance and user fees without decreasing use of such facilities; and

"Whereas experience has demonstrated that use of facilities for which there are entrance or user fees greatly exceeds use of areas that provide limited facilities but require no entrance or user fees; and

"Whereas the present policy of the Federal Government to require no entrance or admission fees creates a conflict between Federal and State financing policies in Indiana: Now therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission urges the Congress to enact legislation that will make permissible the collection of entrance, admission, and other recreation user fees or charges from the users of outdoor recreation facilities by Federal agencies or State agencies licensed to operate and maintain such facilities; and be it further

"Resolved, That such fees be used for the development, operation and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities."

Adopted by the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission this 27th day of March 1964.

RESOLUTION: INCREASE IN DETENTION CAPACITY OF SMALL WATERSHED RESERVOIRS Whereas the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, administered by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has been proven to be of great value to the citizens and the economy of Indiana in the conservation and control of land and water resources; and

Whereas the utility of and the benefits from the said Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act are being limited in an increasing number of cases by reason of the existing limitation on floodwater detention capacity in any one detention structure to 5,000 acre-feet; and

Whereas there is now pending before the Congress a bill (H.R. 9695) which would amend the Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention Act so as to permit the provision of up to 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity in any one detention structure; and

Whereas such amendment would greatly increase the utility and application of the act and would enable the solution of flood prob

lems which cannot be solved under the existing limitations on floodwater detention capacity: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission, meeting in regular session this 27th day of March 1964, That the Indiana congressional delegation is hereby respectfully urged to support the enactment of H.R. 9695, 88th Congress, 2d session.

Swords Into Plowshares

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 22, 1964

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, this morning the Washington Post included an incisive editorial deploring the lack of information currently available on the economic impact of shifts in our defense expenditures.

Layoffs occasioned by the cancellation or termination of defense contracts are already imposing severe hardship, not only on the individuals and their families involved, but on entire communities who have achieved prosperity on what now appear to be the shifting sands of military expenditures.

There are now 21 bills pending in the House for the creation of a National Economic Conversion Commission which would be authorized to make a complete study of the policies which will be needed to absorb these cuts. The Post offered its strong support for a Commission and under unanimous consent I include the editorial in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES

President Johnson's decision to curtail sharply the production of uranium and plutonium and the announcement by the Russians that they will move in the same direction are most welcome contributions to the relaxation of world tensions. But as the threat of nuclear annihilation recedes, new economic problems are created. And while they do not pose issues of life and death, their solution, which fall well within the boundaries of our knowledge and experience, is essential to a healthy American economy.

Although national defense absorbs nearly 10 percent of our gross national product, there is scandalously little knowledge about how many jobs are involved or exactly how changes in the level and composition of defense expenditures affects the level of employment. But when individual programs are phrased out or when the overall level of defense expenditures declines, unemployment rises sharply in areas where defense production activities are concentrated.

There is no accurate measure of the number of persons idled by defense cutbacks or the number likely to lose their jobs when defense expenditures decline $1.3 billion in fiscal 1965. But it is obvious that the problem will grow more acute as the possibilities of a genuine detente are enhanced. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Roswell L. Gilpatric writes in the April issue of Foreign

Affairs that a further improvement of relations with the Soviet Union could lead to the elimination of strategic bombers and a 25percent reduction in the defense budget by 1970.

In the event of a sharp reduction of defense outlays, a way should be found for the orderly conversion of defense industries to civilian use. A massive conversion was easily effected after the Second World War, but the path was then cleared, as it would not be now, by a huge backlog of unsatisfied consumer's demands and an equally huge pool of liquid savings.

Without the pressure of consumer demand, there are no obvious or simple formulas for converting the military airframe industry or firms engaged in producing electronic equipment. The affected companies, many of whose managements have grown lethargic as a result of dealing with one sure customer, must find civilian products and open civilian product markets.

Last December President Johnson appointed a Committee on the Economic Impact of Defense and Disarmament. But that body has no staff, no budget and as yet precious little information about the dimensions of a problem which is likely to grow more acute. An organizational framework is required, and it would be most swiftly provided by Senator George McGovern's bill (S. 2274) to establish a National Economic Conversion Commission. Only intelligent forward planning will prevent the blessing of disarmament from being transformed to an economic nightmare.

The Political Good Fortune of Medical Research

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN BRADEMAS

OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 21, 1964

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I insert in the Appendix of the RECORD an excellent article concerning two of the most distinguished Members of the Congress of the United States and their long efforts on behalf of medical research.

I refer, of course, to our colleagues, the gentleman from Rhode Island, Congressman JOHN E. FOGARTY, and Senator LISTER HILL, of Alabama.

The article to which I refer, entitled, "The Political Good Fortune of Medical Research," is by Milton Viorst and is published in the April 17, 1964, issue of Science magazine.

The article follows:

THE POLITICAL GOOD FORTUNE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH: Two STRATEGICALLY PLACED LEGISLATORS REGULARLY ASSURE CONGRESSIONAL GENEROSITY FOR THE NIH BUDGET

(By Milton Viorst)

(NOTE. The author is a Washingtonbased correspondent. He has written for various publications, including Harper's and the Reporter, and is the author of a political biography of Charles de Gaulle, to be published this spring by Macmillan.)

Congress' generosity in the field of medical research stands in sharp contrast to its response to other domestic welfare needs. Every year, for example, little is done to meet the problems of unemployment, air pollution, urban congestion, and education.

Though the existence of these problems is generally acknowledged, Congress continues to argue about how to resolve them but reaches no consensus. Since the war, however, medical research has been a congressional favorite, almost as sacrosanct as national defense. While the proponents of other goods causes plead vainly for dollars, medical researchers have had no such problem.

The figures record the story:

In 1940 Congress voted $3 million for health-related research. By 1957 the figure had reached $186 million. Last year, it exceeded $916 million and will, in this year's budget, come close to $1 billion.

In 1957 private sources provided more funds than Government for medical research. Last year, though private contributions had almost tripled, the Government provided nearly twice as much money as private sources.

In other terms, $1 out of every $4,000 of Federal expenditures went to medical research in 1940; last year the proportion was almost $1 out of every $100.

The explanation for this phenomenon lies, in large measure, in the universality of disease and the remarkable advances made in medicine since the war.

Congressmen and Senators who live in spacious suburbs and send their children to excellent schools may be badly equipped to recognize the welfare needs of our less fortunate citizens. But they all know about cancer, fear retardation in their children, and have friends whose lives heart attacks have brought to an abrupt end.

Thus, the politics of medical research rests on the fact that illness cuts across the political lines which usually divide men in Washington. It strikes Republican voters as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, Protestants as well as Catholics and Jews. It affects the rich and the middle class, who have much influence in Washington, almost as much as it affects the poor, who have next to none. Unlike farm subsidies on the one hand and urban renewal on the other, it has equal impact on city dwellers and country folk. Medical research, unlike conservation or aid to the arts, has almost universal appeal. In practical terms, this appeal means that no powerful lobbies stand, swords drawn, waiting to slash away at the medical research budget.

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP

But medical research would never have reached the current level of Federal support if its only advantage were the negative one of having no enemies. A program, even a popular one, must have a champion. Under the American system of government the champion usually is the President, who initiates legislative ideas through his recommendations to Congress. Rarely does the leadership come from Congress itself. But medical research is a special case. Under neither Eisenhower nor Kennedy did the interest of the White House in medical research approach the passion for the program that has been generated on Capitol Hill. Without vigorous champions, one in the House and one in the Senate, each fortuitously placed to exercise his leadership, medical research might be just another Federal project, hobbling along on routine appropriations, badgered rather than spurred on by Congress, fighting to hold its own rather than seeking new fields to explore.

The bulk of the credit for the Government's massive support of medical research belongs to two men. Representative JOHN E. FOGARTY, Democrat, of Rhode Island, and Senator LISTER HILL, Democrat, of Alabama. Each is chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). Though as a general rule in Washington the longer the title the less the authority, on the Appropria

tions Committees the subcommittee chairmen exercise enormous influence, not only over the budget but, through the budget, over the departments of their jurisdiction. Since the National Institutes of Health, and HEW agency, conducts or supervises the bulk of federally supported medical research, FOGARTY and HILL possess vast power over the support of medical research. The peculiarities of the congressional power structure and the seniority system being what they are, it would have been quite normal for these posts to be in the hands of foes of medical research, just as some other, less generously supported programs have the misfortune to be in the hands of foes. But medical research has been lucky. Both FOGARTY and HILL are deeply dedicated to its objectives. Far from adopting the economizing habits that are characteristic of the Appropriations Committees, they have sought to push their programs up and up. FOGARTY and HILL have earned their reputations as friends of public health.

The two men could hardly be more dissimilar, FOGARTY, a 51-year-old New Englander, is of Irish-Catholic, workingclass background. HILL, 69, is a southern, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon aristocrat. FOGARTY, though given to wearing flamboyant bow ties, is reserved in manner, even timid. HILL is unobtrusive in dress, but outgoing and The two men get patriarchal in manner.

along well enough for professional purposes but, having nothing else in common, can hardly be considered close. Together, however, they make up perhaps the most effective leadership team on Capitol Hill.

JOHN E. FOGARTY was one of six children raised in the small Rhode Island village of Harmony. When he finished high school he took up bricklaying, his father's trade. But, intelligent and restless, he went into politice. At 21 he became chairman of the local Democratic committee and, a few years later, the president of the Bricklayers' local union. In 1940, after having failed once to get the nomination, he ran for Congress and won. But he has never given up his membership in the Bricklayers' local, and to this day he builds steps or repairs a chimney for a neighbor during vacation.

SOUGHT LABOR POST

True to his labor background, FOGARTY first sought a position on the Education and Labor Committee in the House, but he wound up with an assignment to naval affairs. It was not until 1947 that he was promoted to a seat on the coveted Appropriations Committee and then, to his displeasure, named to fill a vacancy on the LaborHEW Subcommittee. Two years later, by the accidents of the seniority system, he became the chairman of the subcommittee.

The Appropriations Committee, in those days, was the private domain of its chairman, Representative CLARENCE CANNON, Democrat, of Missouri, a shrewd legislator who was mercilessly tight fisted with Federal expenditures. CANNON and the senior Republican, equally tight fisted JOHN TABER, of New York, exercised their will through energetic exploitation of committee rules. Soon after joining the committee, FOGARTY led a revolt against CANNON and, after a bitter battle, managed by a single vote to reduce the chairman's perogatives. CANNON at 84 still rules the committee. But the revolt of 1947 ended his domination and left FOGARTY free of his veto power.

Though intensely proud of his work on the subcommittee, FOGARTY talks about it only reluctantly. His conversation is unpolished and carried on in almost inaudible tones, sometimes resembling a mumble. He seems self-conscious about the attention paid him. He is more at ease in discussing the substance of his work than he is in making abstract declarations about it. But the impression which his words and his actions convey, and which his record sustains, is

that he is a man of deeply humanitarian convictions.

"I have always acted on the principle,” he said in a moment of eloquence, that budgetary anemia-induced by cynicismis an attribute of materialism. It contradicts the notion in our society that the life and well-being of an individual-extended, restored, or eased by the scientific dedication of his neighbors is a richness beyond all value, a prize without price."

But the House is full of men of conviction. The secret, if such there be, of FOGARTY's personal influence is his meticulous attention to detail. FOGARTY boasts, without exaggerating, that no committee in Congress works harder than nis before bringing out a bill. For this, he credits Republicans as well as his fellow Democrats. But it is on him personally that the burden of leadership falls, and when pressed he admits, “I live this thing all year around." It is well established in the House that the better a chairman knows what is in his bill the greater his chances are of having it passed intact. FOGARTY, though by no means a brilliant debater, invariably possesses such a thorough grasp of his material that he can deal in virtuoso fashion with the challenges thrown at him.

Like the day the Turks were beaten at Lepanto or the Moors at Tours, FOGARTY regards April 4, 1957, as the historic day on which he turned back the tide against medical research. An obsession for economy had swept through Congress that year, largely as a consequence of the warning by Eisenhower's Secretary of the Treasury, George Humphrey, that an uncut budget would cause a depression that would "curl your hair." When the medical research appropriation proposal reached the House floor, it was submitted to a merciless attack. In the course of the next 2 weeks, FOGARTY went down to one defeat after another in voice votes on amendments. As one Congressman put it, "If the Ten Commandments had been in that bill, they would have been cut to seven." But when the time came for final passage, when every Congressman had to go on record, FOGARTY regrouped his forces and insisted that each of the amendments be reconsidered. A record number of rollcalls was held that day, 14 in all, and, except for minor losses, FOGARTY left the battlefield victorious. Since the fateful "Day of the Fourteen Rollcalls," FOGARTY maintains, his proposals for large appropriations for medical research have never been seriously threatened.

DECLINED SENATE RACE

JOHN FOGARTY does not seem to be motivated by ambition, in any conventional sense. He has received countless citations, which he cherishes, but he is not a seeker of publicity. Nor is he a seeker of riches. When he was given $5,000 in 1959 for the Lasker Award, he used it to establish the John E. Fogarty Educational Training Center for the Mentally Retarded. Since then he has set up the Fogarty Foundation, which he helps support with whatever stipends and prizes he receives, including $8,333 presented to him this past February by the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation. If political advancement were his goal, he would not have declined the chance to run 3 years ago for the Senate, to which he would almost certainly have been elected. If there is any aggrandizement he covets at all, it is the esteem he has won among men he admires. "It's a hell of a privilege," he explained in an interview, "to listen to the best doctors in the world talk about heart and cancer." A smile of pride crosses his Hibernian face when he reveals that, when he suffered a coronary attack a decade ago, he was treated by Paul Dudley White, who remains his friend and adviser.

Politically, FOGARTY is fortunate in being able to give so much time and attention to

medical research without risking the support of his constituency. FOGARTY is careful, nonetheless, to keep in constant touch with the voters. Without fail, he returns home every weekend, not only to see his wife and teenage daughter but to see and be seen by the voters. Although his district was Republican before he won office, FOGARTY received 72 percent of the vote in the last election. The voters of his district, whether sick or well, clearly approve of what he is doing.

LISTER HILL, a Senator since 1938, is not quite so fortunate politically. He comes from race-conscious Alabama, not a liberal working-class constituency. His electorate regards medical research as less important than the concerns generally listed under the heading of "States rights." In that sense HILL finds being a leader in medical research more of a hardship than FOGARTY does. He was, in fact, nearly defeated in the last election by an extreme racist opponent. Political survival requires that HILL, too gracious to be a demagog, boast that he has "stood first and foremost with Alabama and the South in defending southern ways and traditions." But though he serves the South, it is certain that he is happier serving public health.

More than FOGARTY, HILL has an intensely personal concern with the conquest of disease. His father, Luther Leonidas Hill, of Montgomery, was one of the prominent surgeons of the South. HILL proudly recalls that his father performed a successful heart operation early in the century to repair a stab wound. The Senator, named for Joseph Lister, was brought up in an atmosphere of medical learning. His father had one of the finest medical libraries in Alabama. The Senator admits unhesitatingly that much of what he does is out of veneration for his father, whom he regards as "an inspiration and a challenge." For whatever he has achieved in behalf of medical research, HILL said, "my father must get the credit."

HILL might have been a physician too, had he not found, while still a young man, that he could not stand the sight of blood. Even now, there's a note of remorse when he explains that he chose to become a lawyer instead. If he had to do it all over again, he said, he would go through the first 2 years of medical school, “if only to learn the terminology." After talking to HILL, one has the feeling that, having failed to become a physician, he is now paying his debt to medicine on Capitol Hill.

Unlike FOGARTY, HILL acquired his position of leadership over medical research by design. In the Senate it is easier for a senior Member to select his assignment than it is in the more unwieldy House. HILL, after the war, chose to relinquish considerable seniority over national defense matters to preside over medical affairs. In addition to being chairman of his money-dispensing appropriations subcommittee he is now chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, which writes legislation concerning the Public Health Service. He thus has double jurisdiction over health matters, an advantage he uses skillfully to advance his favorite cause.

As a Senator, HILL is better placed than FOGARTY to take the lead in appropriations because the Senate in recent years has been considerably more generous with Federal funds than the House. In large measure, this is because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator CARL HAYDEN, Of Arizona, is not obsessed with economy the way CANNON is. In fact, the Senate has shown itself more liberal than the House in

DOCUMENTS

But HILL, like FOGARTY, also commands the respect of his colleagues for his hard work and attention to detail. The difference between them is that HILL enjoys doing his research on medicine, while for FOGARTY it is simply a means to an end. HILL goes home at night and reads medical books and Journals. A scholarly, contemplative man, his committee work is his hobby, which he pursues not only for its rewarding results but for its immediate pleasures. It is probably fair to say that HILL does not have FOGARTY'S deep, undiscriminating humanitarian impulse. But when he takes the floor of the Senate, his colleagues cannot help but be influenced by the fact that the recommendations come forth not only from duty but from love.

HILL invariably recommends a bigger appropriation than FOGARTY, because it is easier for him to do so. In 1957 the administration asked for $126.7 million for the National Institutes of Health. FOGARTY'S Committee voted $135.7 million. HILL raised the figure to $183.2 million, which was the amount on which the House and Senate ultimately agreed. Last year the administration asked for $780 million. FOGARTY brought out a recommendation, which the House approved, of $840.8 million. HILL had the Senate vote $900.8 million. The final figure accepted by both bodies was $880.8 million.

Occasionally FOGARTY has complained that the Senate appropriation was too large and that the money could not be efficiently used. Several times, NIH funds have been returned to the Treasury, ostensibly because it was

impossible to find worthy projects to spend

them on. Though this return suggests that FOGARTY may have been right, it is usually suspected that he does not worry at all about excessive appropriations but finds the technique useful for keeping the economizers at bay. Despite his complaints, he and HILL go merrily on with their game, year after year, adding on funds where they think the funds are needed.

HILL, in defense of congressional largesse for medical research, has glowingly predicted the imminent arrival of a "Golden Age of Medicine." He insists that "within a relatively few short years the world will see a tremendous breakthrough of medical knowledge that will enable us to overcome the dread diseases that have plagued and baffled mankind through the ages. There is reason for confidence," he asserts, "that this breakthrough will yield the answer to heart disease, cancer, mental illness, the virus diseases, and the many other crippling degenerative ailments."

His prophecy of "a relatively few short years" may be unduly optimistic, and as pressures grow on the overall Federal research budget, medical research is, for the first time in a decade, experiencing a few unaccustomed pinches. But when viewed in perspective, it is clear that the medical research budget occupies one of the most enviable positions in the U.S. Congress, a fact for which the gentlemen from Alabama and Rhode Island are in large part responsible.

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

Chase

Sparkman, John, Ala------ 4928 Indian Lane Stennis, John, Miss..

Symington, Stuart, Mo..

Talmadge, Herman E., Ga..

Thurmond, Strom, S.C__.
Tower, John G., Tex..

Walters, Herbert S., Tenn__

Williams, Harrison A., Jr.,

N.J.

Williams, John J., Del-----
Yarborough, Ralph, Tex_-_
Young, Milton R., N. Dak__Quebec House So.
Young, Stephen M., Ohio__

OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

Secretary-Felton M. Johnston.
Sergeant at Arms-Joseph C. Duke.
Chief Clerk-Emery L. Frazier.
Secretary for the Majority-Francis R. Valeo.
Secretary for the Minority-J. Mark Trice.
Chaplain-Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D.

STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences

Messrs. Anderson (chairman), Russell, Magnuson, Symington, Stennis, Young of Ohio, Dodd, Cannon, Holland, Edmondson, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Case, Hickenlooper, Curtis, and Keating.

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry Messrs. Ellender (chairman), Johnston, Holland, Eastland, Talmadge, Jordan of North Carolina, McCarthy, Mrs. Neuberger, Messrs. McGovern, Edmondson, Walters, Aiken, Young of North Dakota, Hickenlooper, Cooper, Boggs, and Mechem.

Committee on Appropriations

Messrs. Hayden (chairman), Russell, Ellender, Hill, McClellan, Robertson, Magnuson, Holland, Stennis, Pastore, Monroney, Bible, Byrd of West Virginia, McGee, Humphrey, Mansfield, Bartlett, Proxmire, Saltonstall, Young of North Dakota, Mundt, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Kuchel, Hruska, Allott, Cotton, and Case.

Committee on Armed Services

Messrs. Russell (chairman), Stennis, Byrd of Virginia, Symington, Jackson, Ervin, Thurmond, Engle, Cannon, Byrd of West Virginia, Young of Ohio, Inouye, Saltonstall, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Beall, Goldwater, and Case.

Committee on Banking and Currency Messrs. Robertson (chairman), Sparkman, Douglas, Clark, Proxmire, Williams of New Jersey, Muskie, Long of Missouri, Mrs. Neuberger, Messrs. McIntyre, Bennett, Tower, Javits, Simpson, and Dominick.

Committee on Commerce Messrs. Magnuson (chairman), Pastore, Monroney, Thurmond, Lausche, Yarborough, Engle, Bartlett, Hartke, McGee, Hart, Cannon, Cotton, Morton, Scott, Prouty, and Beall.

Committee on the District of Columbia Messrs. Bible (chairman), Morse, Hartke, McIntyre, Beall, Prouty, and Dominick. Committee on Finance

Messrs. Byrd of Virginia (chairman), Long of Louisiana, Smathers, Anderson, Douglas, Gore, Talmadge, McCarthy, Hartke, Fulbright, Ribicoff, Williams of Delaware, Carlson, Bennett, Curtis, Morton, and Dirksen.

Committee on Foreign Relations Messrs. Fulbright (chairman), Sparkman, Humphrey, Mansfield, Morse, Long of Louisiana, Gore, Lausche, Church, Symington, Dodd, Smathers, Hickenlooper, Aiken, Carlson, Williams of Delaware, and Mundt.

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

Messrs. Jackson (chairman), Anderson, Bible, Church, Gruening, Moss, Burdick, Hayden, McGovern, Nelson, Walters, Kuchel, Allott, Jordan of Idaho, Simpson, Mechem, and Dominick.

Committee on the Judiciary

Messrs. Eastland (chairman), Johnston, McClellan, Ervin, Dodd, Hart, Long of Missouri, Kennedy, Bayh, Burdick, Dirksen, Hruska, Keating, Fong, and Scott.

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

Messrs. Hill (chairman), McNamara, Morse, Yarborough, Clark, Randolph, Williams of New Jersey, Pell, Kennedy, Metcalf, Goldwater, Javits, Prouty, Tower, and Jordan of Idaho.

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service Messrs. Johnston (chairman), Monroney, Yarborough, Randolph, McGee, Brewster, Carlson, Fong, and Boggs.

Committee on Public Works

Messrs. McNamara (chairman), Randolph, Young of Ohio, Muskle, Gruening, Moss, Metcalf, Jordan of North Carolina, Brewster, Inouye, Bayh, Nelson, Cooper, Fong, Boggs, Miller, and Pearson.

Committee on Rules and Administration Messrs. Jordan of North Carolina (chairman), Hayden, Cannon, Pell, Clark, Byrd of West Virginia, Curtis, Cooper, and Scott

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Mr. Chief Justice Warren, of California, Hotel Sheraton-Park, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Justice Black, of Alabama, 619 S. Lee St., Alexandria, Va.

Mr. Justice Douglas, of Washington, 4852 Hutchins Pl.

Mr. Justice Clark, of Texas, 2101 Connecticut Ave.

Mr. Justice Harlan, of New York, 1677 31st St. Mr. Justice Brennan, of New Jersey, 3037 Dumbarton Ave.

Mr. Justice Stewart, of Ohio, 5136 Palisade Lane.

Mr. Justice White, of Colorado, 2209 Hampshire Rd., McLean, Va.

Mr. Justice Goldberg, of Illinois, 2811 Albemarle St.

OFFICERS OF THE SUPREME COURT Clerk-John F. Davis, 4704 River Rd. Deputy Clerk-Edmund P. Cullinan, 4823 Reservoir Rd.

Reporter-Walter Wyatt, 1702 Kalmia Rd. Marshal T. Perry Lippitt, 6004 Corbin Rd.

Librarian-Helen Newman, 126 3d St. SE.

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CIRCUITS JUSTICES ASSIGNED TERRITORY EMBRACED District of Columbia judicial circuit: Mr. Chief Justice Warren. District of Columbia. First judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Goldberg. Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island.

Second judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Harlan. Connecticut, New York, Vermont.

Third judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Brennan. Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands.

Fourth judicial circuit: Mr. Chief Justice Warren. Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia.

Fifth judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Black. Alabama, Canal Zone, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas.

Sixth judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Stewart. Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee.

Seventh judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Clark. Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin.

Eighth judicial circuit: Mr. Justice White. Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri. Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Ninth judicial circuit: Mr. Justice Douglas. Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana. Nevada. Oregon, Washington, Guam, Hawaii.

Tenth judicial circuit: Mr. Justice White. Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming.