Page images

and prices sliding further downward with every harvest. Quick action with effective legislation was imperative.

You know what happened as well as I do. In early 1961-in record time-we passed an emergency feed grains bill-and it was the first major legislation President Kennedy signed into law. The success of the new plan exceeded the highest expectations. Feed grain surpluses was slashed some 13 million tons in the first year alone; and further cuts were made in 1962 and again this year. By 1965, the feed grain surplus may well be a thing of the past.

Here in South Dakota, through voluntary signups, about 60 percent of the eligible feed grains acreage has been included in the program in the 3 years of its operation. This single program, in the first 2 years, 1961 and 1962, meant an additional $31 million income for South Dakota farmers-and-on the basis of 1963 signups, the boost this year will amount to nearly $16 million. That is close to $50 million added farm income for your State, from just one new program over the past 3 years.

Along with the emergency program, higher support prices for feed grains meant higher market prices steadily above 1960 levelsfor participants and nonparticipants alike.

Corn surpluses today are nearly gone and prices are at the highest levels in 5 years. Storage problems have eased, with more space available to farmers and the trade. More corn is stored where it belongs-on the farms where it is grown-and where it will be used.

Wheat also posed a major problem in 1960. Legislation enacted 22 years earlier could no longer cope with the realities of advanced techniques. At that time, without planting a single grain, we had enough wheat on hand to meet our domestic needs for 2 years. A billion bushels of the surplus was Hard Red Winter wheat-and that stockpile was equal to the demands of both home and foreign markets for another 5 years. We were drowning in wheat.

Although supports had pretty well maintained prices, which was not the case with feed grains, the critical oversupply situation ruled out sweeping the wheat problem under the rug again. Congress responded in 1961 with an emergency wheat program. Coupling the new program with expanded wheat exports, wheat surpluses have gone down a quarter of a billion bushels.

Overall, the wheat and feed grains programs have reduced our stocks by something like 1 billion bushels since 1960, helping to raise net farm income nearly $1 billion over that year's figure-and at the same time saved more than $800,000 a day in shipping and storage costs.

Without minimizing the real magnitude of the problems confronting you, I cannot agree with the purveyors of gloom and doom who say agriculture is dying.

How can a business that has increased its output per hour of labor 200 percent in the last 20 years be dying? How can a system which has conquered hunger for 190 million Americans let itself be overcome by the problems of abundance?

Those who say agriculture is dying simply do not know what they are talking about. It is true that the number of farmers has declined. But the number of farmers who obtain an adequate income from farming is on the increase.

Family farms with $10,000 a year or more in marketings are the most rapidly expanding sector of American agriculture. During the 1950's, the number of farmers making $10,000 or more all but doubled-going from 334,000 to 648,000.

Along with our changing agricultural technology, we are witnessing another type of change that which is coming about in world conditions.

A year ago, we talked of expanding our trade with the European Common Market,

but gave no thought to trade with the Communist bloc.

But now, there is a very noticeable and direct change. We are at odds with the Common Market over poultry tariffs and other import duties, and there is talk at all levels of the possibility of expanded trade with Russia and other European countries in the Red bloc.

Much of this speculation was touched off by the Russian-Canadian wheat deal. Canada has sold so much wheat that she had to call off further sales until her ports can catch up on loading.

An increase in exports seems assured because of adverse growing conditions which caused a short wheat crop in much of Europe-particularly Poland and Rumania. I can see a number of advantages to the national economy in expanding our trade with Russia and the other countries within her sphere. It would bring a more favorable balance of trade, since Russia would pay with gold. We would reduce surplus supplies and storage costs, and the indirect threat they pose toward farm prices. Directly, it means the farmer probably would get better prices for his grain this year. Wheat presently is selling for about $2.12 a bushel, the same as a year ago when the support price was 18 cents higher.

There are even more significant gains that could be made. It could contribute to a further easing of East-West tension, and bring a more peaceful world atmosphere. And it would help show the world the superiority of the family farm system the commune system of the Communist society.

There have been other changes, too. Changes in Congress, which is now oriented to an urban society through shift of representation from rural areas to the cities.

The farm bloc is no more.

We must now sell our farm programs to the city Congressmen in order to enlist their support. We have to be able to justify the programs, both as to achieving results for the farm problems and the farmer, but also as they affect the people who live in the cities. In other words, the farm program cannot result in higher food prices, or the

Congressman who represents a city constituency just cannot go with it. He cannot justify to the people he represents a farm program which does not reduce surpluses and costs, as well as increasing the buying power of the farmer.

We must use gentle persuasion, backed with strong justification, to get the votes to pass farm legislation.

Under such conditions, it is difficult, at

best, to pass farm legislation. When agri

culture interests themselves are divided over what should be done, when they speak with many voices at a time when one strong voice is needed, the task is virtually impossible.

One of the greatest needs in agriculture today is unity as to goals and how to achieve those goals. Agriculture must once again speak with one voice. Then your representatives from the farming States will be able to act for you with greater surety.

Your Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, while among the newest arrivals in the U.S. Senate, is fast becoming one of the most effective farm spokesmen on Capitol Hill. That in a few short months, he has gained such a firm grasp of the farm situation hasn't come as any great surprise to those of us who knew him to be a proven legislator from his fine record as a Congressman. We know, too, that he also has a clear picture of world agricultural problems and needs, for we had witnessed firsthand the amazing job he did in heading up the food for peace program during 1961 and 1962.

I agree with Senator McGOVERN that the outcome of the May 21 wheat referendum has left the wheat farmer in a difficult posi

tion for crop year 1964. His bill calling for a voluntary wheat certificate program shortly after the vote shows how alert he is to the problem that confronts the wheat farmer next year-and in succeeding years, if nothing is done. I know that during your meetings and discussions here, you will be considering this proposal and its implications. If you find that it meets the test of close scrutiny, I know that you will get behind it.

But whatever you determine regarding this particular bill, you will always find GEORGE MCGOVERN fighting in your corner for balanced equities for the farmer.

He is not alone in that fight. The number of Americans who are regaining an awareness of continuing farm problems is growing. There is an increasing recognition of the unavoidable truth that a healthy and prosperous farm economy is the key to strength in every phase of business and industry. When the farmer prospers-so does the business of every Main Street in America.

The abundance we have created through the family farm has not been food and fiber alone. An even more important product has been a moral strength that runs through every segment of our modern society. It is a continuing force that cannot be abandoned.

We must not give in to the gloomy prognosticators who say that agriculture and its allied businesses are on the decline.

Rather, we must continue to vigorously seek ways through which agriculture may contribute even more to the national wellbeing-and play an even greater role in the heritage we today are building for the generations of the future.



Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. President, my attention has been called to a superb address by Mrs. Agnes E. Meyer, which she delivered at the honors convocation of Syracuse University on April 23, 1963. The address is entitled, "What Shall We Do?" It centers on some of the most fundamental challenges confronting the American people.

As the Members of the Senate know, Mrs. Meyer is one of our most distinguished Americans. She has long been a champion of improved educational standards for the youth of the United States. Her courageous voice has been heard through the Washington Post which her late husband brought to such a position of distinction in the world of journalism. She is a civic-minded and public-spirited citizen in her own right of the very first order.

I commend her address to the Members of the Senate and ask that it be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

WHAT SHALL WE DO? (Address by Agnes E. Meyer at Honors Convocation at Syracuse University, April 23, 1963)

One of the proudest moments of my life occurred in June 1954 when this distinguished university gave me an honorary degree. It had special significance for me because only a few months previously I had been the first American to condemn the late Senator Joseph McCarthy at the height of his unsavory career as a menace to the American way of life. You young people, who have forgotten the neurotic fear of McCarthy that

prevaded our country, can scarcely imagine how unpopular I was with our powerful rightwing factions. Some fanatics publicly berated me; one woman even sought to attack me physically. What then was my surprise, my happiness, my gratitude, when your chancellor, trustees, and faculty, in the midst of such disparagement, had the courage to give me a citation which honored me as "one of the most forceful and effective spokesmen of our time for American freedom."

It may interest you to know that at your age I could not have foreseen what my life work was to be. Let me confess that I have not been chosen to address you on achievement day because I was myself a great achiever during my college years. Nor were most of the bright undergraduates who were my boon companions. "We loafed and invited our souls," to paraphrase Walt Whitman. We indulged in endless discussions as to the meaning of life which interested us far more profoundly than our seemingly irrelevant academic careers. We were convinced that the unexamined life was not worth living. We were concerned, as one member of our little socratic group put it, "to be and to know and to do." We were what today would be called "poor" but we were unaware of it because material possessions were not so important then as they are today. Yet we well knew that some day we should have to earn a living. What strikes me, as I look back on our enjoyable and not unfruitful irresponsibility, is that the whole college atmosphere of the preWorld War I days was very different from that of today. Time itself moved at a slower tempo. We felt a deeper sense of leisure. We were busy living and less driven to watching the clock than we are today. For time's measure is change; and since change has been so terrifyingly accelerated we have become more conscious of time and the pressure to use it for achievement. I am sometimes tempted to feel a sense of commiseration with the youth of today that the pressures for success should be forced upon them at such an early age. But it has its advantages as well as disadvantages. To learn to work hard at an early age in a scholarly, systematic fashion is of immense value if you do not allow the present day rat race for marks to obliterate the true love of learning. We, on the contrary, were more free to rebel against academic authoritarianism and though we were not exactly beloved by the faculty, there was more indulgence toward extreme individualism and even eccentricity than there is today. Thus you are more tempted toward conformity and acceptance of the status quo, especially if you see your high achievement as a path to joining the lockstep of the status seekers.

Therefore, instead of trying to formulate my own apprehensions of the influence of contemporary life upon your thinking, let me quote a distinguished scientist and educator, Loren Eiseley, who had this to say to a student body at another university: "In this era of carefully directed advising, in this day of grueling college board examinations, and aptitude tests, I have been permitted just once to cry out to our herded youngsters, 'Wait, forget the dean of admissions who, if I came today in youth before him, might not have permitted me to register, be wary of our dubious advice, step softly until you have tasted those springs of knowledge which invite your thirst. Freshmen, sophomores, with the beautiful gift of youth upon you, do not be prematurely withered up by us. Are you uncertain about your destiny? Take heart. I, at 50, am still seeking my true calling. I was born a stranger. Perhaps some of you are strangers, too.'"

I may be quoting Eiseley because I am too timid to make such an impulsive appeal to you. For his words reflect exactly what

happened to me; I too was a stranger to the world of reality when I finished college and graduate work. Not until the accidents of life confronted me with the hypocritical injustices of our supposedly democratic society, did I taste those springs not only of knowledge but of passionate conviction, which fuse mind and emotion, integrate the personality, and bestow upon us that curious sense of freedom which comes from a feeling of commitment to a great and all-engrossing purpose.

I am happy and honored to have been chosen to congratulate all those of you whose distinguished records are being celebrated tonight. But I beg of you to keep your minds open to all the adventures of life so that when unexpected opportunity knocks on your door you will have retained the freshness of mind to recognize it, seize upon it, accept it even though it may be a challenge so serious that the burden is a heavy one to carry.

For even those of you who are now convinced what your life work is going to be, great surprises may be in store for you. So far you have successfully run the course laid out for you by the university. But the real test will come for each one of you when you enter upon the course you mark out for yourselves. Achievement is one thing; creativity something very different. It is different because it demands not only knowledge but independence of mind, the courage to differ with authority, endurance, patience, and ability to accept the inevitable defeats which even the strongest cannot escape. To be sure, our Nation needs millions of capable workers in the vineyard, but it needs, above all, the free creative spirits who can give our hard-pressed Nation the leadership it so sorely needs in every major walk of life. The rapid accumulation of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, and the progress of technology are so overwhelming that the leadership of our complex, urbanized, technological society can no longer come from the self-made man who frequently rose to eminence in our former simpler, agricultural era. Henceforth, the humane, highly trained, wise type of leadership our country needs can only come from our universities.

Therefore, as one who is confronted by more and more difficulties in the battle to encourage social progress and human freedom, I wish to outline as best I can some

of the most serious obstacles to the maintenance of individual liberty that our Nation is facing here at home-obstacles which you, too, will have to face.

I realize that our freedoms and our very lives are also threatened from abroad. The maintenance of peace, disarmament, and coexistence with Communist governments are crucial issues. But I shall discuss domestic crises because I have confined my own efforts to creating a more orderly society here at home as a big enough task for one person and on the theory that we must first grow stronger on the homefront before we can be successful in meeting our international responsibilities.

The threats to freedom and justice within our own borders are equally serious, and yet we must discuss them one by one. Therefore, I shall first take up the menace of bureaucracy, next the growing influence of the radical right and lastly, though perhaps it is even more urgent, the growing impatience of minority groups, especially the Negro, with our shameless indifference to his human rights as an American.

You will be entering a world which ever since World War II has become more and more bureaucratized whether in the armed services, industry, labor, or the Federal, State or local civil services. The term "organization man" has become a cliche, as a byproduct of any technological society. This trend toward bigness and an ever-increasing bureaucracy cannot be reversed. The more efficient we become, and our Soviet rivals are

compelling us to become ever more efficient the more our interrelated bureaucracies are bound to expand until their tentacles affect the lives of every individual in our mass society. And wherever you may be active you will be obliged to play a part in the struggle to maintain human freedom in these vast organizations, unless Americans become content to imitate the enemy and accept totalitarianism.

Long before Communist governments existed, as far back as 1907, Max Weber, the famous German sociologist, foresaw the menace to democracy in what was then only a comparatively small civil service. He pointed out more clearly than anyone has since that an over-routinized civil service has a tendency to produce a caste of mandarins, or what we now call organization mentalities, who grow alien to the cooperative, comdemocratic petitive, formative processes through tenure of office. Max Weber, at the beginning of this century, could not foresee the dangerous but inevitable increase in the many new kinds of bureaucracy in our modern society. But he warned even then that merely our increasing number of civil servants, if not kept responsive to the will of the people, might eventually lead democracy into a new kind of serfdom establishing the dictatorship of the expert official. With the present tendency on the part of democratic society to become ever more scientific and rationalized, the onward march of various military-industrial-professional bureaucracies is the most recent but also the most dangerous contemporary element in the structure of domination.

A more recent student of this problem, David T. Bazelon, says in an article in the autumn number of Partisan Review: "The issue for the world is planned democratic control, or Soviet type bureaucratic terror control. Since the purpose of the new (cold) war is to preserve the freedom inherent in a democratic system, the time to fight for democratic planning is now and the place is here. We lose if we do not organize and we lose if we do not organize on democratic lines. The struggle against totalitarianism is not a simple we-they combat. It is, most profoundly, a struggle against the conditions of modern life-ours as well as theirs. The war begins at home."

It will take all our ingenuity to live in such a highly organized society, while preserving the highest possible measure of freedom for the creative spirit. I am convinced it can be done if we recognize the dangers we face and make up our minds that the problem of democracy versus bureaucracy must be thought through. But I agree with Mr. Bazelon: "How to decentralize power in a highly organized bureaucratic society" is one of our greatest issues. Bazelon claims it is the one true issue.

One solution has been found by those truly democratic nations, the Scandinavians, who have established an official watchdog called an Ombudsman, an administrative official, or watchdog, whose duty it is to prevent administrative injustice and to see to it that the citizen obtains his rights from his government. In Denmark his most important power is to investigate any civil or military activity of public officers upon receipt of a complaint, or on his own initiative, and to bring action against a state authority or a public officer or employee for alleged error or negligence. These guardians of individual rights are appointed by the legislature, and though they can be dismissed at any time, the legislature cannot interfere with their handling of individual cases. This is too hasty a description of an important step toward the protection of human freedom from the pressures of civil and military bureaucracy. In our country such protection should be extended to workers in industry and to members of big labor unions. It is one proof, however, that we need not succumb to the enhancement of administrative


power in a modern state, if we are deeply determined to preserve human liberty under any and all circumstances. As experts in your various fields, you are apt to be in positions where you can be influential in finding other solutions for this difficult problem. Now let us glance at those groups who consider themselves the only true defenders of American ideals-the radical conservatives. They are a greater threat to freedom than is generally realized because they constitute our most irrational elements in a period of triumphant irrationalism. Their influence is growing because their nationwide campaign is well-heeled with money, because there is no strong, well-organized liberal movement to oppose them, and chiefly because it is a passionate movement in a society most of whose members are too prosperous and to lethargic to take an interest in anything but themselves. many citizens move about in our technological society in a state of shock which makes them indifferent to social progress, civil rights, equal opportunity for education, and especially to the welfare of the impoverished one-third of American families. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said on October 3, 1930: "Progressive government, by its very terms, must be a living and growing thing. *** If we let up for one single moment, or one single year not merely do we stand still, but we fall back in the march of civilization." In our country today, the march has all but halted. Rooseveltian liberalism is coasting along on the dwindling impetus of the New Deal and, alas, the New Frontier of President Kennedy is not yet in sight. If the radical right is riding high, it is because the American people are confused by the multitude of responsibilities they face now that we are part of one world, and the richest part at that. They are suffering from what I have often described as moral and mental battle fatigue. Thus the love of conformity, of standardization of thought, and running with the herd is no mystery.

People are too bewildered to do their own thinking. This leaves them wide open to irrationalism and mass hysteria of which such organizations as the Birchites, and the Minute Men, are good examples. What are some of the ideas the medicine men of these movements are peddling to the people? They are against the income tax, social security, and aid to foreign countries. Such liberal trends, they maintain, are nothing but a preliminary step to communism. "I equate growth of the welfare state," says Dan Smoot, who is heard on 32 television and 52 radio stations, "with socialism and socialism with communism." That leads naturally to the conclusion that the Government is infiltrated with subversives. Robert Welch went so far as to claim that President Eisenhower was a "tool" of the Communists. In fact, rousing the fear of communism to a frenzy, not only as an external but an internal threat, is an essential weapon for the radical right. And this in spite of the fact that the membership of the American Communist Party is at its lowest point, and its former influence in the labor union movement nonexistent. Yet all the mistakes of domestic and foreign policies, says the extreme right, would be impossible for our great, undefeated country if our political leaders were not either outright Communists or under their influence.

How account for this frenzy and why has it such a wide appeal? Daniel Bell analyzes the composition of the radical right as smalltown, middle-class people who have lost their ascendancy in an urbanized, technological society. "Today the politics of the radical right is the politics of frustration," says Mr. Bell, "the sour impotence of those who find themselves unable to understand, let alone command, the complex mass society that is polity today."





The radical right is a growing movement precisely because it is an attempt, however fearful and futile, to reestablish "the good old days," which were anything but good, the simple virtues of individual initiative and self-reliance, above all it is an attempt to escape from the frightening disarray of modern life. It is a pathetic desire to arrest time and change instead of throwing our weight into an attempt to guide change toward constructive ends.

How then do we defend ourselves against frustration and pessimism in so complex a period of transition, when the times are out of joint, when the old beliefs are dead and new ones have not yet come into being? Robert MacIver, professor emeritus of Columbia University, answers this question in his recent book, "The Challenge of the Passing Years."

"It is by dedication to a way of life so fulfilling to the personality or offering such promise of future fulfillment that the time is thereby redeemed."

Pay no attention, therefore, to the radical right when it shouts that liberalism is dead. To be sure, it is now on the defensive in our country. But liberalism, as a political and a social movement, can never die because like democracy itself, it is the middle ground between the unendurable slavery of rightwing or leftwing authoritarians, between our American radical rightwing of today and the Communist governments, both of whom claim that they and they alone possess the absolute truth. But since the radical right threatens to take over the Republican Party and even worries the Democratic administration with its demands for war on Cuba, and war in general as the answer to Communist aggression, it behooves all freedom-loving Americans to assert that they reject the absolutes of our own rightwing, as we reject the absolutes of communism-that we no more wish to impose our absolutes on other nations than we shall yield to their absolutes. Then the middle course or coexistence will become possible. Another name for this middle course is liberalism. It is the path of reason and compromise which alone can create unity out of diversity; it is the greatest motivating force of democracy, and thus the only hope in a world of competing ideologies that peace will eventually reign amongst men. I must confess, however, that some of what I call the fair-weather liberals are now losing their nerve and running away from one of our major battles-that for equal rights for our Negro fellow citizens. Now that Negro leadership is becoming aggressive in many parts of our country, even some of the liberals who formerly supported equal rights for all minority groups are complaining that the Negro wants to go too far, too fast. Yet the white leadership cannot run away from this crucial situation without inviting tragic results. To be sure, what the Howard University sociologist, Franklin Frazier, called the "folk Negro," in contrast to the educated, well-to-do members of the race, is becoming rebellious, and even violent. Instead of behaving like our effete liberals who wish to stem the tide of Negro demands, we must face the validity of their claims for recognition as full American citizens who have waited patiently for justice ever since the passage of the 14th amendment, 90 years ago.

Those of us who live in the Nation's Capital are only too well aware how complex the task of true Negro emancipation has become, due to the rapid influx into Washington, as into all major northern cities, of the penniless, slums of the South. They crowd into the illiterate Negroes from the urban and rural District of Columbia with false hopes that a better life awaits them in the seat of the Federal Government. Given these high expectations, the grim reality they encounter overcrowded living conditions, no opportunity for work, no human contact except with

other Negroes enduring the same hardshipsis all the more frustrating.

As a result racial tensions have become acute in Washington. We have had one major race riot at a football game between two high schools, when the white team won, and minor rowdyism after a baseball game. But the whole city lives in fear of worse outbursts to come unless we use all of our community resources to ease the existing interracial tensions.

What has to be done to achieve equal rights for the Negro is obvious enough. Special efforts will have to be made to get work opportunities, especially for Negro youths since they represent the future. We must let the Negroes out of the ghetto life to which they are now condemned. This calls for more and better housing programs. Above all, we must provide them equal opportunity for a suitable education, unless we wish to pay the higher cost of keeping millions of the untrained, both Negro and white, on permanent relief. This last solution calls for a revolution in public education, especially in our antiquated provisions for vocational training.

Please do not think that I simply preach these doctrines without acting upon them to the best of my abilities. As I am convinced that the best long-range solution of equal opportunity, not only for the American Negro but for all of our underprivileged children, lies in suitable education both for the highly gifted and those of less ability, I have just launched, with the help of a large membership representing every State in the Union, a grassroots movement calling for more adequate financial support of public education, whether through local, State, or Federal funds. It is called the National Committee for Support of the Public Schools. It is not a lobbying group. It approaches the problem of financing public education from a new point of view. At our first national conference held a week ago, the speakers, most of them not educators but economists, pointed out that education has always been the explanation of our country's high per capita productivity, and that better public schools geared to this era of automation will more than pay their cost by a constant reinvigoration of our economy.

Why do I confront you, on a day that should be confined to congratulations, with the fact that you will graduate into a dangerous world? I am told that the young people of today want nothing but security, a toehold on the ladder of bureaucracy, early marriage, and a nice house in some uninspiring suburb, from which the breadwinner sallies forth each morning to an equally uninspiring job that promises success as the price of conformity. My friends, I don't believe it. You are much better educated than we were at your age, more experienced and more sophisticated. I am convinced that you are all, achievers or nonachievers, more capable, more eager, and better prepared than was my generation to rise to the demands of this historic, difficult period in our Nation's history.

But this warning I will add, out of the depths of my own experience: unless you have the courage to walk alone, and suffer the arrows of misfortune without flinching, I advise you to play it safe and avoid the lifeand-death problems I have all too hurriedly outlined for you. If you do play it safeand refuse to fight for freedom at this crucial period, not for yourselves alone but for mankind-you will undoubtedly lead a happy but a very dull existence. You will be a part of the ballast which the winds of freedom probably need, if only to keep the ship of state on an even keel.

Life today is exhilarating only to those who welcome its risks. There are plenty of reasons why you should not jeopardize your careers by participating in the grinding ordeal that confronts all those who would


rather die than surrender to the totalitarian threats that confront us, not only from abroad but within our own country and

within our own breasts.

All I can tell you as encouragement is that the dangerous life has exquisite compensations. For most Americans love courage and welcome with relief and with gratitude any voice that expresses their latent hopes and aspirations.

Let me once more quote Professor Eiseley on the perils of the adventurous life. In Bimini, on the old Spanish Main, a black girl once said to him something as valuable to him as it is to me: "Those as hunts treasure must go alone, at night, and when they find it, they have to leave a little of their blood behind them."

It is to me deeply significant that this wise primitive woman should have voiced what our great philosopher, Emerson, said in his essay on intelligence: "God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please. You can never have both."

With that challenge, my friends, I bid you good night and wish you well.

Recently, however, and especially after reading the heavy criticisms in the just published report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have become convinced that parts of this program have now become comparable to coffeea matter of habit.

My own experience with foreign aid goes back to 1946, when, at the request of former Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, at that time head of UNRRA, I investigated the Chinese part of his program.

Later that year, I met the mayor in Cairo and went over in detail what I had found, reporting that our people said the standard "commission" in China was 20 percent; but that the commission on UNRRA products, in some parts of China had risen to 80 percent.

We can be sure there is no comparable "commission" in our current aid program; but we also know, based on the current Foreign Relations Committee report, that there is a great deal of waste

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is and mismanagement which can only rethere further morning business?


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? there is no further morning business, morning business is closed.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROBERTSON obtained the floor. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] provided it is agreed that I may do so without losing the floor. I understand that he is required to leave the Chamber, to fulfill an engagement, and that his remarks will not exceed 10 minutes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, would the Senator prefer to have a brief quorum call?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have no objection.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Very well.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Then, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call

the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.


Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, everyone who has followed the foreign aid program over the years knows the great amount of good it has accomplished, especially during the years shortly after World War II.

sult in less effective results in the actual execution of the program.

In recent years, I have paid visits to Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East. During these trips, I was interested in, and constantly asked about, the foreign aid program.

What stood out consistently was the obvious need for more training for most of the people handling the giving and lending of these billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money.

It would seem that this matter of adequate training should be of special interest to the Congress, because we are the ones who have been appropriating this aid money-appropriations that now total over $100 billion, not counting some $36 billion for offshore military expenditures.

My trips brought out the fact that most Foreign Service members of the State Department are better trained than other American representatives working in such ancillary agencies of State as the Agency for International Development-AID.

Few people realize, however, the extent to which the great increase in the number of people now representing this country abroad is concentrated in these ancillary agencies. Only recently, one of our colleagues told me that at a station he visited in a foreign land, of 42 American representatives, only 4 were members of the State Department.

After noting the degree of lack of training that was characteristic of so many of these our representatives, in January 1959, I introduced a bill for the establishment of a Foreign Service Academy-S. 15, 86th Congress.

The basic idea behind this proposed Academy, presented nearly 5 years ago, was that if the United States could afford three academies to train its youth for the hot war we all pray will never come, surely it could afford one Academy to train its youth-in this case women would be included-for the cold war in which we are now engaged.

I ask unanimous consent that an article written on this subject in August 1959 be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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


(Cheers from the author of "The Ugly American": We showed this article to Comdr. W. J. Lederer, coauthor with Eugene Burdick of the best-selling "The Ugly American," which deals with the foreign-service personnel problem. Here's what he says about Senator SYMINGTON'S proposal: "Senator SYMINGTON is justifiably worried because too many Americans now stationed overseas are amateurs. In this article he has come up with a solution aimed at making our representatives sentatives abroad intellectually vigorous, tough and well-trained. His plan is one of the best long-range methods for keeping America strong I know.")

Since World War II, the United States has spent nearly $60 billion in an effort to prevent countries from being taken over by the Soviet-Chinese empire.

It is no secret that, because American representatives were not properly trained for their jobs, much of this money has been wasted.

Americans sent to a foreign country too often do not speak or read the language.

How would you feel if a foreign official came to live in your own town who could talk to you only through an interpreter?

But judging on the basis of admitted linguistic deficiencies of our Foreign Service personnel, this often happens abroad.


The United States should have a Foreign Service Academy to train young people for efficient service in diplomatic missions throughout the world.

We now have three schools-West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academywhich prepare our youth for a possible hot war. Surely, we can afford one which will equip them to serve their country in the cold war in which we are now engaged.

The Foreign Service Academy should, like the service schools, charge no tuition. I also suggest that both men and women be eligible to attend and that there be no physical requirements beyond reasonably good health.

In the technological, psychological, political and economic fields, the Communists are planning for the years ahead. We are not.

But in spite of this enormous expense, it was revealed last year by the Advisory Committee of the Foreign Service Institute that:

Fifty percent of our entire Foreign Service officer corps does not have a speaking knowledge of any foreign language.

Seventy-five percent of the new men coming into the Foreign Service do not speak a foreign language.

Llewellyn E. Thompson, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, is the only U.S. ambassador in a Communist country who speaks the language of the country to which he is assigned.

Our representatives don't understand other cultures. Western thinking and standards just don't go over in some of the important countries of Asia and Africa whose cultures have existed for thousands of years, and have developed differently from ours.

Asians have a new phrase: the "Golden Ghetto." To them it means the plush places where American diplomats and other representatives hold their cocktail parties, dinners and other social events.

Because they have been inadequately schooled in the language and culture of the country, our representatives live an isolated life, associating mostly with other Americans. The shifting winds of popular sentiment do not reach them. Our Embassy in Baghdad did not know of last year's coup in Iraq, for example, until it was well underway.

In contrast, the Russians are making a planned, determined effort to develop the most linguistically proficient diplomatic corps in the world. In Russian elementary and secondary schools, foreign languages are compulsory. Bright students begin to study languages at the age of 8.

The best students eventually end up in the National Institute of Foreign Languages; and there they are given an intensive fiveyear course. As a result, an estimated 9 out of every 10 Russians sent abroad read, speak and write the language of the country to which they are assigned.

These Russian foreign-service personnel are thoroughly grounded in the culture and economy of those countries, are "experts" before they arrive.


For some time the Soviets have had an Institute of Foreign Relations, supervised by their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This Institute is the principal source of their future diplomats. Enrollment is around 1,000; the course is 6 years long. In the third year students begin to specialize in the problems of a particular area. In the final years they study intensively the country to which they have been assigned.

The United States does have some institutions for training diplomats; and some universities have graduate schools with special programs devoted to various regions of the world. The State Department conducts language courses for Foreign Service officers and other interested Government personnel.

But these programs are uncoordinated and casual compared to the training efforts behind the Iron Curtain. It will take years to develop a comparable task force of trained American representatives. But we can and should begin that preparation now.

That is why I introduced in the Senate last January 9 a bill to establish such an Academy, stating: "The ultimate future of the world, whether it is to be free or slave, will not be settled on the battlefields, but rather in the minds of men.

"Dedicated, well-trained representatives are at work for the Communist cause all over the world. We have not matched this effort, either in size or degree of training." This proposed Academy would establish a four-year, tuition-free college for the training of overseas representatives.

Students would be selected on the basis of merit, and required to take competitive entrance examinations.

Although the Academy would be under the direction of the Secretary of State, it would prepare young men, and women, to serve in any of the governmental agencies which operate overseas.

Besides the usual basic college courses, the Foreign Service Academy would offer instruction in the language, culture, history, and economy of foreign countries.

Its faculty could be drawn partly from the ranks of retired foreign-service officers. To our young people, the latter could transfer the immense value of their personal experience as gained in years of oversea assign


Besides producing better trained diplomats, a Foreign Service Academy could also give more of our youth a chance to serve our country. Minor physical handicaps bar a great many brilliant and responsible young men from the military academies. A Foreign Service Academy would give them their chance. And it would offer opportunities to women, too.


Lt. Gen. James M. Gavin, one of the Army's great strategic planners, with a hero's combat record, was an orphan at the age of two. He was adopted into the family of a Pennsylvania coal miner. A college education was beyond his dreams. If Army officers were picked, as nearly all Foreign Service offi

cers are chosen-from the campuses of our colleges-Jim Gavin would never have had an opportunity to serve his country.

That is why, at the Foreign Service Academy I propose, the students who are successful in the competitive entrance examinations would have their tuition paid by the Government in return for a commitment to serve their country abroad.

If we are determined to remain a free people, we cannot continue to be indifferent to the energetic and effective Communist missionaries Moscow is now sending to the four corners of the earth.

Every Communist revolutionary sent out to infiltrate, divide, and conquer must be matched by a free world advocate of "lasting peace through justice and law"-someone thoroughly trained in the language, the economy and the customs of the country to which he or she is assigned.

Tomorrow is too late. We must start today to train our people to merchandise the most valuable commodity in the world-the American way of life, with its individual dignity and its investment in freedom.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, if the Congress does not take steps to insure that those to whom these billions of dollars are trusted have reasonably adequate training, what right have we to appropriate the money?

The legislation in question was promptly attacked, however, for various reasons by various people; and because the need for better training has now become so obvious, these attacks were hard to understand.

But they were effective. The proposed Academy got nowhere; and so is better than none, 4 years later, last finally, with the premise that half a loaf January, I gave up on my concept of the right Academy and volunteered to introduce a bill that was drawn up by the administration-S. 865.

As will be noted, this latter bill was also drawn up in recognition of the need for more training, even though the nature of the Academy it proposed was basically different from mine.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill in question be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

S. 865

(In the Senate of the United States, February 20, 1963, Mr. SYMINGTON (for himself, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CLARK, Mr. ENGLE, Mr. FONG, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HART, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. LONG of Missouri, Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. McGEE, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MONRONEY, Mr. Moss, Mrs. NEUBERGER, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. SMATHERS, Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, and Mr. YARBOROUGH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:)

A bill to provide for the establishment of the National Academy of Foreign Affairs, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "National Academy of Foreign Affairs Act of 1963".

FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY SEC. 2. The Congress hereby finds that the security and welfare of the United States require that our commitment in the struggle for peace and freedom throughout the


world continue to be strengthened by the development of better trained and more knowledgeable officers of our Government and others concerned with the increasingly complex problems of foreign affairs. complexity of such problems is clearly evidenced by the threat of world communism, the rapid emergence of new countries striving to be politically independent and economically viable, and new patterns of thought and action affecting the political, economic, and social intercourse among nations.

The Congress further finds and declares that our responsibilities can be fulfilled more effectively by the establishment of an institution at which training, education, and research in foreign affairs and related fields may be undertaken on an interdepartmental basis which would support integrated United States efforts overseas and at the seat of government. The United States can assure that its position as a leader among nations shall be maintained and improved through maximum utilization of its potential by pooling the best of American minds and resources to create a great institution that will carry forward our American tradition of academic freedom and will serve as America's complete and total commitment to freedom and peace in the world.


SEC. 3. There is hereby established the National Academy of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Academy") which shall be an agency of the United States, and shall be located in or near the District of Columbia. The Academy shall be established for the purposes of training, education, and research in foreign affairs and related fields, both in the United States and abroad, and for promoting and fostering related programs and study incident thereto. The Academy shall be maintained for officers and employees of the Government, and others when deemed to be in the national interest. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SEC. 4. (a) There shall be a Board of Regents of the National Academy of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). The Board shall determine policy and provide guidance to the Chancellor of the National Academy of Foreign Affairs in the execution of the powers, functions, and duties of the Academy.

(b) The Board shall consist of

(1) the Secretary of State, who shall be the Chairman;

(2) four members designated by the President, from time to time, from among the officers of the United States who are required to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;

(3) five members appointed from private life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and

(4) the Chancellor of the Academy. Members appointed from private life shall be United States citizens of outstanding attainment in the fields of public and international affairs or education. The first members so appointed shall continue in office for terms of three, four, five, six, and seven years, respectively, from the effective date of this Act, and the term of each shall be designated by the President. Their successors shall be appointed for terms of five years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member whom he shall succeed.

(c) The Board may—

(1) establish visiting committees from among its membership or otherwise to inquire periodically into matters relating to the Academy which the Board desires to be considered; and

(2) call in advisers for consultation.

« PreviousContinue »