THE THORNY PROBLEM OF VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 24, 2005
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: March 3, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

1964
Approved For Rase 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403RM200130033-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 4311
Minute Man memorial building. This mag-
nificent undertaking assumes a broader sig-
nificance because it is to be built with your
members' contributions, given voluntarily,
by those who understand this vital military
tradition and its value to posterity.
In a democratic republic, the people need
to be continually reminded of the value of
their freedoms, and of their obligations to
serve this freedom. R.O.A. members
justly take pride in the fact that, as
true volunteers in what must be our
eternal vigilance, you again are leading the
way to establishment of a great and living
national shrine for a vital national commit-
ment through the historic military tradition
of the United States.
I am deeply concerned with the trend of
derogation of the military. As in any group,
there are dangerous men and bad actors
among the military. But as in most groups,
they are very much in the minority. I have
had my personal experiences with some of
them. I know how ruthless they can be. I
know how they can conduct campaigns of
vilification-how they can make pious denials
before congressional committees-and a few
years later, after it is too late, how the
commentator-columnists to whom they have
fed their vilification and prodded to echo
that vilification, belatedly realize and confess
privately that they have been used and then
apologize to those who have been vilified.
I know that there are militarists who dan-
gerously advocate reckless warfare. I know
that there have been militarists who defy
law and order. I know that there are mili-
tarists who charge our Presidents with being
traitors, selling our country out to the Com-
munists.
I know that there are these dangers and
evils among some militarists-but they are
very, very rare indeed-and seldom do such
irresponsible militarists rise to any position
of any great authority. They are so rare
that never has militarism presented ,a danger
of dictatorship to our country or even the
slightest risk of a military takeover and the
usurpation of our traditional civilian con-
trol of the military.
I know that there is a strong military-
industrial complex-the kind that President
Eisenhower warned against in his closing
days as President. I know that we have to
guard against that complex getting too strong
in its pressures on both the executive branch
and the legislative branch of our Federal
Government.
But I also know that the military-indus-
trial oompleac has not reached proportions
beyond the control of the public-and espe-
cially an aroused public opinion expressing
itself at the polls. I know that this military-
industrial complex will never control the
executive branch or the legislative branch
regardless of how many retired generals and
admirals work for defense contractors-and
regardless of how. many Members of Con-
gress are in the Reserve.
It has become quite the vogue of some to
have two favorite whipping boys-the mili-
tary and the Congress. These detractors
are by no means limited to the press. They
are to be found not too infrequently in the
Pentagon among the smart young men who
have never experienced war responsibilities.
Some of these smart young men have come
to regard and treat admirals and generals
as though they are errand boys to be seen
but not heard. The higher the rank the
more the delight in the derogation and
humiliation that is heaped upon the very
men who led the forces that saved our coun-
try in wartime, while some of their smart
young detractors were growing up back in
the safe confines of this country that bombs
did not touch-or even before some of these
smart young detractors were ever born.
Now Congress has long been the traditional
whipping boy-but in the acquisition of a
companion whipping boy in the military-
a very juicy and special target has been
gained-the citizen-soldier in the Congress.
I won't belabor a defense of the reservists
in the Congress for they are fully capable
of taking oare of themselves. And if they
can't take care of themselves-if they are
improperly in the Reserve-if they are tak-
ing undue and unethical advantage of being
in the Reserve-then the electorate will bake
care of them at the polls.
What does disturb me 1s the broader pic-
ture of the trend of derogation of the Re-
serve--of the citizen-soldier-the w inute-
man, if you please. It is somewhat like the
days prior to World War II when many peo-
ple ridiculed reservists on 2 weeks training
duty as playing war, when contemporaries of
active and conscientious reservists laughed
at the reservists and derided them. -
I shudder to think what would have hap-
pened to our country had the pre-World
War II reservists been so fainthearted and
so thinakinned that such derogation would
have caused them to leave the Reserve.
Thank God, they had the fortitude and pa-
tience to stick to their Reserve guns and not
give in.
I shudder to think what our country would
have done without our Reserves to call up
in the Berlin crisis-for history's first use of
the Reserves for cold war purposes-for a
show of force and determination to get the
message loud and clear to Khrushchev. I
am certain that he would never have backed
down on his Berlin threat and it not been
for the callup of our Reserves.
I shudder to think what our country
would have done without our Reserves in
the Cuban crisis and the nuclear confronta-
tion in which Khrushchev backed down. For
example, what would our Air Forces have
done without the magnificently immediate
response of the Air Force Reserve?
Yes, the detractors of the Reserve-those
who say there is no need for a Reserve-those
who would make errand boys out of our top
military men-can attack the military and
the Reserve all they want to-but I don't
think the American people can be fooled as
to the importance of our military Reserve.
Yet, we must face up to facts and to
realism. As the years go by after a war and
after a threat to our national security, there
is the tendency of those who have not known
war or who have had made so little sacrifice
in war or been so little inconvenienced by
war, if at all-to forget the need of the mili-
tary and the Reserve-or to regard them as
an unnecessary lost in time of peace and to
be ridiculed.
Therein is a mission for your organization
and for each of your mmebers individually.
Therein is a minuteman mission for each of
you-to protect your country's national se-
curity through constant education and re-
minder of the civilian population of the im-
portance of military strength, and particu-
larly that strength embodied in the Reserve.
We must always maintain civilian control
of the military. We must always fight
against military arrogance-and no one
knows more about military arrogance than
I do-and I don't believe that anyone has
fought and stood up to military arrogance
more than I have.
But equally we must fight against civilian
arrogance that seeks to so cynically derogate
and humiliate military leaders who not only
have risked their lives for their country but
whose intelligence and judgment is at least
the equal of those arrogant smart young
men, who derogate them, and whose experi-
ence is far superior to these young men.
For if we do not fight such civilian arro-
gance as much as military arrogance, then
so surely our military leadership aired estab-
lishment will degenerate into that of second-
class "yes men" who never have a thought of
their own-or if they do, don't dare speak
it for fear of repercussions-just as was the
case in the fear-paralyzed U.S. Senate in the
early fifties.
No one has more caustically crossed swords
with the military than I have-and no one
has felt the whiplash of the retaliation of the
military more than I have. But in that open
controversy with the military, I have
gained-rather than lost-respect for our
military leaders in uniform-at least for
those who speak their minds themselves and
openly instead of hiding behind the cloak of
commentator-columnists-and I gladly rise
to their defense, not so much for them per-
sonally, as for their crucial importance to the
national security of our country.
God bless them.
NEW YORK TIMES CRITICIZES AP-
POINTMENT OF OIL LOBBYIST
DICKERSON TO TOP OIL LOBBY
POSITION
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
New York Times has won an enviable
reputation for integrity. It is always at
the top of every list of great American
newspapers. Its editorials are respon-
sible and careful.
So when the New York Times speaks
its concern over the appointment of ari
oil lobbyist to a top OR policymaking po-
sition in the Interior- Department that
editorial deserves thoughtful considera-
tion.
But the Times has done more than this,
in light of the Dickerson appointment it
calls in today's editorial for the President
of the United States to reverse his policy
decision delegating authority over the oil
industry to the White House, as the
Times puts it: -
One way to protect the national interest
and to make sure that the oil lobby doesnnot
unduly influence oil policy is to keep com-
plete authority in the White House.
Mr. President, in view of the growing
concern over the implications of the ap-
pointment of oil lobbyist Joe Dickerson
as head of the Office of Oil and Gas, I
once again call on the President and Sec-
retary Udall to reconsider this tragic ap-
pointment and to replace Mr. Dickerson.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torial from today's New York Times en-
titled "Making Oil Policy" be printed in
the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MAKING OIL POLICY
When President Johnson decided to trans-
fer authority over national oil policy from
the White House to the Interior Department,
we questioned the wisdom of the move. Un-
derstandably, the President wanted to keep
the powerful oil lobby at arm's length. But
oil policy is too important to be left to any
single department, which might find it much
more difficult than the White House to resist
the oil lobby's pressures.
Joe T. Dickerson has now been appointed
to head Interior's Office of 011 and Gas, the
bureau mainly responsible for setting oil
policy. There is no question about Mr.
Dickerson's qualifications as an oil expert.
He has been engaged in the oil business since
1923. Since 1960 he has been executive vice
president of Mid-Continent Oil & Gas As-
sociation, an exceedingly active element in
the oil lobby. Mr. Dickerson himself has
been a registered lobbyist, and was recom-
mended for his post with the Interior De-
partment by the National Petroleum Council,
a group composed entirely of oil company
executives.
Lobbying is a legitimate and honorable
occupation. But, as Senator WILLIAM PROx-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8
 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8
MIRE nos pointed out. It Is doubtful that any-
one who has lobbied so effectively and for
so long can "act as an Impartial, objective
referee between the oil Industry and the
consumer." Noting that Mr. Dickerson's
superior, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary In
Charge of Minerals, is a lifelong oil producer
who still possess large holdings, Mr. Psox-
MrRE argues that consumer Interests have no
effective voice.
Mr PROxmIRE wants the President to recon-
sider the appointment of Mr. Dickerson.
In view of Mr. Johnson's desire to protect
the consumer, he ought to reconsider his
decision to give up Immediate control over
oil policy. The President is ultimately re-
sponsible for whatever decisions are made on
oil. One way to protect the national inter-
est and to make sure that the oil lobby does
not unduly Influence oil policy Is to keep
complete authority In the White House.
PHILIPS BEE SUPPORTS QUALITY
STABILIZATION
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, one
of the finest small cities in Wisconsin is
Philips, located in the beautiful north-
central part of our State. Many times
in the past 10 years I have walked
through this beautiful town, talking with
every proprietor and customer in each
place of business. The Philips Bee Is the
town newspaper and it is a high quality
production in every respect.
A visit to the shop of the Philips Bee
Is a visit to a small business operation
that is well equipped, efficiently organ-
ized and obviously making a success in
one of the toughest and most competi-
tive fields in the world: printing.
All this is background for my calling
the attention of the Senate to an excel-
lent column carried in the Philips Bee
on February 13 supporting the Quality
Stabilization bill. The Philips Bee itself
as a small business understands the se-
rious problems of survival in small busi-
ness these days. Because of its very close
day-to-day association with local retail
businesses in Philips It knows what seri-
ous difficulties small business is in and
how vital quality stabilization is to its
very life.
I ask unanimous consent that the
column entitled "Washington Letter"
from the February 13 Issue of the Philips
Bee be printed In the RECORD at this
point.
There being no objection, the column
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
[From the Phillips (Wis.) Bee, Feb. 13. 19841
WASHINGTON LETTER: QUALrry Is No BARGAIN
(By Robert Nelson Taylor)
The discounters are out to kill the qual-
ity stabilization bill, designed by congres-
sional sponsors to protect the quality of
products by the American housewife.
They charge that the sponsors-leaders
of both political parties--desire only to im-
pede "progress" of the giant merchandisers.
in the face of their own boasts that they
will "take over lock, stock, and barrel, by
1970. 80 percent of the retail business in the
country."
Every housewife knows that price alone
is no indication of value. She knows too
that manufacturers of national brand mer-
chandise spend millions on research and ad-
vertising to develop her continuing loyalty.
But first they must build quality Into their
products because they know that she pre-
fers slightly higher priced quality merchan-
dise to shoddy goods.
The unethical mass merchant literally
steals the good reputation of national brand
products by using them as loss leaders to
build up store traffic. But he does not tell
the housewife that he makes up these loses
by overcharging on hundreds of unknown
products.
Purpose of the discounter la to drive small
merchants out of business to control a mar-
ket area so that he can dictate the wholesale
prices at which he will continue to handle
a manufacturer's products. If the manu-
facturer complies, this usually means a sac-
rifice In quality.
Quality stabilization protects quality by
giving the manufacturer the option to re-
fuse the use of his good name and reputa-
tion in unethical and deceptive advertising
and to permit him to establish a fair retail
price on products bearing his trademark.
5o It is easy to see why discounters oppose
this measure. They are not Interested in
quality, but price alone--to bait the Ameri-
can housewife with "cheap" merchandise.
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, at this
time of emphasis on economy in Gov-
ernment it is well to examine closely all
serious suggestions for reducing Federal
expenditures.
The Government Economy Committee
of the National Association of Manufac-
turers has studied the President's budget
and has made a number of detailed rec-
ommendations for savings, recommen-
dations which deserve careful consider-
ation.
In the interest of calling attention to
these recommendations r ask unanimous
consent that a brief summary of the
committee's report be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the report
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT
ECONOMY COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL
BueGrr FOR 1985. ADOPTED BY THE NAM
BOARD of DIRECTORS, FEBRUARY 12, 1984
It is gratifying that the President has
submitted a budget estimating actual spend-
ing in fiscal year 1985 slightly below the esti-
mate for fiscal year 1984, but it is disturbing
that the requested new authority to spend,
If granted, would result in a significant
Increase In spending totals after 1965.
Substantial reductions in the levels of both
the authority to spend, and the projected
spending in many separate activities in rascal
year 1965, are necessary in order to:
1. Compensate for the tax reduction now
in the final stages of enactment.
2. Prevent a buildup In spending In fiscal
years after 1985.
3. Assure final spending In fiscal year 1985
below the President's estimate.
These reductions could and should be
achieved by:
1. Stringent congressional screening of Ex-
ecutive requests for new obligational au-
thority, reducing the spending authority
granted in a maximum number of line
items in each apropriation bill.
2. Congressional refusal to enact proposed
legislation or expand existing legislation
which would Increase Federal participa-
tton in areas of State. local, or private func-
tion and responsibility.
3. Executive and congressional action to
curtail the scope and improve the manage_
ment of r)ntinuing activities.
The NAM Government Economy Commit-
tee's study of the Federal budget for 1965
on a line-by-line basis suggests reductions
of $6.6 billion In nondefense areas from the
Executive request for $103.2 billion in new
spending authority. If realized these reduc-
tions in spending authority would result in
a drop of $3.9 billion from the $97.9 billion
of estimated expenditures in Ascal 1985.
The results of the Government Economy
Committee study, as summarized in the fol-
lowing table, are endorsed as a step toward
greater economies to be achieved by con-
gressional screening of all line items in the
budget.
Suggestions on the
Number 19G5 budget
of line
items Cut In Effect on
spending spending
iautborityj
Agriculture:
ILEA - t
oIller_____--.______ 17
Subtotal ._.__L-__-.__876.1 7763.0
Forei?n aid
9 748 4 560 0
-
{
Independent offices: IJ
Housing and Home]
9
eterans' Adnrinis-
Iration_ I 5
rattier--- --------- I 6
Subtotal
Interior....
$429.0
448.1
125.8
455.5
$383.0
380.0
115.5
54.5.0
83.8 44.0
209.3 76.2
874.4 780.7
7
t.:dwr-health, Educa-
tion, and'.i-elfere:
labor___ ____________
Educanon
i'ublicHcaltli Service-
weirar--------- _.__
Other_-__
Subtotal
Military acni,truetion___
Public works-- -.______
'treasury-l'ost Ollltr:
'rrcury -....--
Post Of im -_---
Slur, Justice Com.
m,?rce, and judici.
ary:
Subtotal. ----------
Special allowances:
Poverty -------------
Contingencies--------
I VIETNAM
9
53.8 24.3
296.0 20$1.9
1,360 9
7 9 273.9
479.9.4
315.5 299.2
29.4 19:3
2,481.5
73.6
117.6
45.4
29.3
898.7
67.1
95.8
28.9
29.3
17.2 l9 I
710.5 U. ti
237.7 ~ 71.7
500.0
500.0
- 1,000.0 550.0
127 6,535.8 3, 869.
THE THORNY PROBLEM Ol
N
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, in
recent weeks Walter Lippmann has
brought his great Intelligence to bear on
that thorniest of problems, Vietnam.
In several excellent articles he has shown
that there may be alternatives to the cur-
rent dilemma of defeat and withdrawal
or expansion of the war into a Korea-
size conflict or worse. His ideas are
provocative and realistic, and I ask unan-
imous consent that his most recent col-
umn, which appeared in this morning's
Washington Post, be printed in the REC-
ORD at this point for the benefit of those
Senators who may have missed It.
There being no objection, the column
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8
 1964
Approved For Re4gase 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP66B00403R0944200130033-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
[From the Washington Post, Mar, 5, 1964]
CONCERNING VIETNAM
(By Walter. Lippmann)
The Vietnamese war poses the difficult
question of whether it can be discussed re-
sponsibly in public. For any discussion of
the problem of the war is an admission that
there is a problem, and this carries with it
some doubt about the success of a military
solution by the methods we are now em-
ploying. To admit that there is any doubt.
at all might, there is reason to fear, trigger
the collapse of the very fragile fighting mo-
rale of the South Vietnamese Government
and people. I think this may well be true
and that the officials who keep wishing that
Senator MANSFIELD would be silent and that
the press would not talk about the matter
are not beset by imaginary fears.
Yet this poses a grave question for public
men and for the responsible press. Should
they hide from our people this undeclared
quasi-war, which has ben waged surrepti-
tiously, and can lead either to a defeat or to
a full-scale war of incalculable consequences?
It would not be necessary?to discuss the
Vietnamese war seriously if the choice be-
fore us were, on the one hand, to keep on
doing what we are doing in South Vietnam-
if necessary for 25 years-or, on the other
hand, to win the war in South Vietnam by
attacking North Vietnam. For myself, I do
not believe that this is the real choice which
confronts us. It Is, I believe, supremely im-
probable that Americans will be able to fight
a 25-year war on the mainland of Asia; it
is, I am convinced by the specialists I have
talked to, most improbable that what is es-
sentially a civil war in the south can be
stopped by bombing cities in the north.
The nearer and the actual danger is that
the government in Saigon will be overturned,
as it has been twice in the past few months.
It might be overturned by a junta which
will call for the end of the war, the neutrali-
zation of South Vietnam, and the departure
of the Americans. Something very like this
has already happened on a small scale in
Cambodia, an adjoining part of what used
to be Indochina. Such a neutralization of
South Vietnam would indeed be a defeat
for the United States, and it is in order to
prevent such a defeat that General de
Gaulle's intervention in southeast Asia is
relevant.
General de Gaulle is not proposing the
neutralization of South Vietnam. He is
proposing the neutralization of what used
to be French Indochina and, if possible,
the whole of southeast Asia-of North and
South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and per-
haps Thailand and Burma as well. This
general neutralization would be under in-
ternational guarantees given by Red China,
the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain,
India, and the United States.
Quite obviously, such a political solution
would be very difficult to work out, and it
may well be that it is now too late to at-
tempt it because the situation in the south
has been deteriorating so rapidly. I am,
neverless, in favor of trying for it or, more
exactly, of letting General de Gaulle try for
it. For unless Secretary McNamara comes
back from South Vietnam persuaded that a
military solution is possible, the alternative
to trying for the general neutralization of
the whole region may be collapse and de-
feat in Saigon.
At present our position in Vietnam is like4
that of a man on a bicycle who must keep
going in order not to fall down. I think
we must and should keep going. We must
not and we cannot withdraw. We must try
to avoid the defeat which the neutraliza-
tion of South Vietnam alone would mean.
What we should do, I believe, is to make
plans and dispositions for the continuing
presence of American power in this area in
order that if and when general neutraliza-
tion is proposed, we shall have significant
bargaining pow
,or.
Though a general neutralization of the
area would certainly be difficult to bring
about, it is not inconceivable and it is not
altogether impossible. Ho Chi Minh in North
Vietnam has no desire to be ruled by the
Chinese. Access to the food grown in the
south would be tempting to him. The re-
duction of the risk and threat of a great
war between China and the 'United States
would be a benefit to him. As for Red China
itself, there is always the problem of the
long disputed and dangerous frontier with
the Soviet Union in the north, and a bar-
gain which tranquilized the borderlands on
the south might therefore be attractive.
I am not forgetting that it is easier to
fail than to succeed. But the future would
be brighter if some kind of political solution
could be brought about.
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT, ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL RELATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Ad-
visory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations has submitted its fifth annual
report to the President of the United
States, the Vice President, and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Members will recall that this Commis-
sion was established by Congress in 1959
for the following basic purposes:
First, to bring together representatives
of the Federal, State, and local govern-
ments for consideration of common
problems;
Second, to provide a forum for discus-
sion of the administration of Federal
grant programs;
Third, to give critical attention to the
conditions. and controls involved in the
administration of Federal grant pro-
grams ;
Fourth, to make available technical
assistance to the executive and legisla-
tive branches of the Federal Government
in the review of proposed legislation to
determine its overall effect on the Fed-
eral system;
Fifth, to encourage discussion and
study at an early stage of emerging pub-
lic problems that are likely to require
intergovernmental cooperation;
Sixth, to recommend, within the
framework of the Constitution, the most
desirable allocation of governmental
functions, responsibilities, and revenues
among the several levels of government;
and
Seventh, to recommend methods of
coordinating and simplifying tax laws
and administrative practices to achieve
a more orderly and less competitive fiscal
relationship between the levels of gov-
ernment and to reduce the burden of
compliance for taxpayers.
The Commission is composed of repre-
sentatives of the public and of each level
of government. The senior Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. ERvIN], the senior
Senator . from South Dakota [Mr.
MUNDT], and I have served on the Com-
mission since its establishment. On the
House side, Representative FOUNTAIN, of
North Carolina, chairman of the Inter-
governmental Relations Subcommittee
of the House Committee on Government
Operations, and the original sponsor of
the bill creating the Commission, and
4313
the Congresswoman from New Jersey,
Mrs. DWYER, are also charter members.
The other House Member is Representa-
tive KEOGH, of New York.
In addition to the six Members from
Congress, the Commission has three
members from the executive branch: the
Secretary of the Treasury, the HEW
Secretary, and the HHFA Administrator.
Other members include four Governors,
four mayors, three State legislative
leaders, and three elected county of-
ficials. The public is represented by
three members, one of whom is the Com-
mission's Chairman.
A year has elapsed since the submis-
sion of the Commission's fourth annual
report, and it is appropriate that the
Senate be informed of the Commission's
activities during the past 12 months.
Other Members of Congress have joined
me in the past in calling attention to
specific Commission reports, and I am
sure they will do so in the future.
At the outset I should again like to pay
-tribute to the distinguished Chairman
under which the Commission has pro-
ceeded, Mr. Frank Bane, of Virginia, a
man known to many of you for his life-
time career of constructive work and
leadership in the Federal, State, and local
governments. President Eisenhower first
appointed him as Chairman of the Com-
mission; President Kennedy reappointed
him for a second term in 1962. Mr. Wil-
liam G. Colman, the Commission's ex-
ecutive director, ably supervises the pro-
fessional staff which as of December 31,
1963, numbered 24.
Serving on the Commission has been a
stimulating and rewarding experience
for me. I frankly enjoy discussing and
debating major questions of Federal-
State-local relations. I may not always
agree with the majority view on par-
ticular subjects, but I never have left
a Commission meeting without new in-
sights concerning present-day intergov-
ernmental relations.
During the past 12-month period gen-
eral meetings of the Advisory Commis-
sion were held in March, June, and Sep-
tember 1963, and this year in January.
The following major reports requiring
implementation were adopted during
the course of these sessions:
First, "Transferability of Public Em-
ployee Retirement Credits Among Units
of Government"-A-16, March 1963.
Second, "The Role of States in
Strengthening the Property Tax"-A-17,
June 1963, two volumes.
Third, "Industrial Development Bond
Financing"-A-18, June 1963. .A very
important study on the role of equaliza-
tion in Federal grants was given pre-
liminary consideration at the September
meeting and adopted last month.
Last year the Commission published
another in its series of studies which are
primarily of an informational nature,
not requiring legislative or executive im-
plementation. This technical study,
entitled "Performance of Urban Func-
tions: Local or Areawide"-A-21, Sep-
tember 1963-was designed to encourage
a fresh look at urban services by those
concerned with the fragmentation and
inefficiency of municipal functions in
metropolitan areas. This analysis,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8
 4314
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
along with its predecessors, has been
made available in order to provide much
needed reference material to State and
local governments.
All of the Advisory Commission's re-
ports have been widely distributed.
Federal, State, and local legislative and
administrative officials, as well as pro-
fessional, business, and academic leaders,
have given them considerable attention.
Two ACIR studies were reprinted last
year In order to meet the continuing de-
mand. An additional four are now out
of print but summaries are available for
two of these.
You will be interested in what has oc-
curred as a result of these reports and
other activities. Since it Is a continuing
national body, the Commission is not sat-
isfied with merely drafting studies and
making recommendations. Its members
are anxious to see their recommenda-
tions put into effect and have devoted a
significant share of their energies to
stimulating andencouraging the adop-
tion of its recommendations at the per-
tinent levels of Government. Six prob-
lem areas at the national level were em-
phasized last year:
First. In the report, "Governmental
Structure, Organization, and Planning In
Metropolitan Areas," the view was ex-
pressed that Federal grants to metropoli-
tan planning agencies under section 701
of the Housing Act, as amended, would
be more effective if provided on a con-
tinuing rather than a project basis. The
Housing and Home Finance Agency sub-
sequently determined that continuity
and financial support of the kind rec-
ommended by the Commission could be
provided under existing legislation. As
a result, the Urban Renewal Administra-
tion Issued a directive on August 23, 1963,
authorizing use of section 701 funds by
metropolitan and regional planning
agencies on a continuing as well as a
project basis.
Second. In the same report, the Com-
mission suggested that the coordination
of Federal programs providing financial
assistance for physical facilities within
metropolitan areas be Improved. It rec-
ommended that applications for certain
Federal grants-in-aid be reviewed and
commented upon by an areawide plan-
ning agency prior to final consideration
by the Federal agency concerned. Bills
implementing this recommendation were
Introduced in the 2d session of the 87th
Congress-S. 3363 and H.R. 11799-but
no action was taken. In the 1st session
of the 88th Congress I reintroduced the
measure-S. 855-and Representative
FLORENCE DwYER and Representative
ALBERT RAINS introduced companion
measures in the House-H.R. 1910 and
H.R. 2168, respectively. The Senate Sub-
committee on Intergovernmental Rela-
tions held hearings on S. 855 last May.
After six executive sessions the subcom-
mittee reported an amended bill to the
Senate Committee on Government Op-
erations, which approved the bill for
floor action. It passed the Senate on the
23d of last month.
Third. To carry out the recommenda-
tions made in the Commission's report
entitled "Coordination of State and Fed-
eral Inheritance, Estate, and Gift Taxes,"
the following bills were Introduced in
the 1st session of the 88th Congress:
H.R. 5039, KEOGH; H.R. 6206, FOUNTAIN;
and H.R. 6207, DwYER. These bills are
still pending before the House Ways and
Means Committee.
Fourth. To implement the Commis-
sion's recommendatloci for increased
flexibility at the State level in the han-
dling of certain public health grants and
to provide for uniform apportionment
and matching formula for such grants,
the following hills were Introduced in the
1st session of the 88th Congress: H.R.
2487, UwYER; H.R. 6195, FOUNTAIN; and
S. 1051, MUSKIE. Cosponsors of my bill
include Senators BARTLETr, ERvnN, Me-
CARTIrY, McGEE, MOSS, MUNDT, NELSON,
PEARSON. PROUTY, RANDOLPH, TOWER,
and WILLIAMS of New Jersey. These
bills are pending before the House Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce and the Senate Labor and Public
Welfare Committee.
Fifth. In 1961 the Commission
adopted a report dealing with State and
local taxation of privately owned prop-
erty located on Federal areas, and rec-
ommended that Federal agencies be
authorized to retrocede existing Federal
legislative jurisdiction to State govern-
ments with respect to various lands and
properties. It also endorsed a legislative
proposal along these lines which had
been developed earlier by the Senate
Government Operations Committee staff
with the cooperation of the Justice De-
partment In order to implement recom-
mendations outlined in the 1956-57 re-
port of the Interdepartmental Commit-
tee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over
Federal Areas Within the States. Leg-
islation to carry out this proposal was
Introduced by Senator MCCLELLAH-8.
815-last February at the request of the
Attorney General of the United States.
Identical bills were introduced In the
House-H.R. 4068. ScswENCEL, and
H.R. 4433. DAwsoN.
Hearings on S. 815 were held last
August by my subcommittee, and the
measure is now being considered In ex-
ecutive sessions.
Sixth." In 1962 a Commission report on
intergovernmental responsibilities for
water supply and sewage disposal in
metropolitan areas recommended that
the Federal Water Pollution and Control
Act be amended (a) to Increase the ceil-
ing for sewage treatment grants for a
single project from $600,000 to $1. mll-
lion; (b) to authorize a ceiling of $4 mil-
lion instead of $2,400,000 for combined
sewage treatment projects serving sev-
eral communities; and (c) to authorize
a 10-percent Federal financial incentive
for those treatment works consistent
with a comprehensive areawide plan for
urban development. In the 1st session
of the 88th Congress I introduced S.
649 to carry out these and other objec-
tives. Cosponsors are Senators BAYH,
CLARK, DOUGLAS, ENGLE, FOND, GRUENING,
HART, HUMPHR#Y, INOUYL, LONG of Mis-
souri. MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY, MCGEE,
Moss, NELSON. NEUSERGER, PELL. RAN-
DOLPH,RIBICOFF, WILLIAMS of New Jersey,
and YOUNG of Ohio. Representative
BLATNIK Introduced a companion mea-
sure in the House-H.R. 3166. My bill
March 5
includes a number of other legislative
proposals dealing with Federal enforce-
ment power, additional grants, and
organization matters on which the Com-
mission took no position. The bill
passed the Senate in October 1963; hear-
ings on the House bill have now been
completed by the House Public Works
Committee.
In the same 1962 report, the Commis-
sion advised amending the public fa-
cility loan program so as (a) to remove
population ceilings and permit joint ac-
tion by communities in meeting water
and sewer needs, (b) to tighten eligi-
bility requirements for use of wells and
septic tanks under the FHA mortgage
insurance program, and (c) to provide
insurance for site preparation and de-
velopment costs of water and sewerlines
and systems. Representative DWYER'S
H.R. 9080 implements this proposal.
The Commission also recommended
that the President direct the appropriate
Federal departments and agencies to
evaluate present enforcement powers and
financial incentives to control industrial
pollution in order to determine how their
effectiveness may be im?roved through
changes in procedures, ]policy, or statu-
tory revision, and the roles of State and
local governments in such programs. In
response to this recommendation, the
Public Health Service contracted with
the Institute of Public Administration to
evaluate possible measures for providing
financial and other appropriate incen-
tives to encourage industrial population
abatement. It is expected that this re-
port will be completed in the near future.
The Advisory Commission has been as
concerned with the implementation of
their State and local recommendations
as with their Federal. A wide variety of
recommendations for State legislative
action were distributed to State and local
officials during 1962 and 1963. These
proposals, designed to improve State,
local, and interlocal relations, were dis-
tributed In the form of draft bills. Most
of these bills have met with the approval
of the Committee of State Officials on
Suggested Legislation, of the Council of
State Governments, and have been in-
cluded in the Annual Programs of Sug-
gested State Legislation submitted by
the council to the Governors and State
legislatures. The year 1963 witnessed
enactment by the States of many mea-
sures which incorporated substantially
all or a significant part of the draft
language proposed by the Advisory Com-
mission. These measures covered six
recommendations: First, the grant of
permissive authority for interlocal co-
operation and other local government
action to meet local problems, particu-
larly those In metropolitan areas; sec-
ond, Imposition of stricter standards for
municipal incorporation; third, estab-
lishment of a State office of local affairs;
fourth, investment of Idle cash balances;
fifth. State government action to acquire
or preserve '"open space"; and sixth.
State financial and technical assistance
to urban areas for mass transportation.
The full story of State legislative ac-
complishments in these areas was set
forth in an address which I recently
placed in the RECORD. I wish to again
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130033-8