Dole: (inaudible) in the U.S. House of Representatives and speaking by direct telephone communication to members of the Associated Industries of Kansas at their annual meeting held in the Hotel Jayhawk in Topeka. Although the group to which we spoke was made-up primarily of businessmen, most of the questions we were asked were the same sort of questions I have been receiving in recent letters from my constituents in our big First District. Therefore, I asked the Associated Industries of Kansas and the National Association of Manufacturers for a copy of the tape recording made of the questions and answers so I could make it available to my people back home. Now I'm proud to be a member of what I consider to be one of the finest state delegations to serve in Washington, and I know you will share my enthusiasm for the straightforward answers given to the people by their senators and representatives on questions of vital interest to every American citizen. So, it's with a great deal of pleasure I introduce the tape recording at this time. Walter, moderator: Good afternoon, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here presiding over this informal caucus of the Kansas delegation. And without any further ado, I'd like to tell you who is here. To my left, Senator Frank Carlson and Senator James Pearson, Representative Garner Shriver, Representative Robert Dole, Representative Joe Skubitz, Congressman Chester Mize and Congressman Larry Winn Jr. To observe seniority here just for a few moments, I would like to introduce Senator Carlson, who really needs no introduction to any Kansas audience and certainly no introduction here. He's had a long and distinguished record in both the Senate and the House, and he's well known and respected by leaders of both political parties. As a former stockman and farmer before embarking on a long and distinguished career as a Republican congressman and senator, he's been telling me about his concern over the rainfall problem in Kansas. We had a problem here. For two days it rained cats and dogs, but it's nice today, Senator Carlson, welcome. Carlson: I want to assure you it's a real privilege to have an opportunity to be with the entire Kansas delegation speaking indirectly and still directly to you fine folks of the Associated Industries of Kansas. As mentioned, I would hope we'd get some of the rain that's been going to waste back here, out in the great wheat producing sections and all over our state. As a matter of fact, Washington and the nation is greatly concerned about the drought situation in the Midwest. As I say, it is a pleasure to visit with you, and that's just what we're going to do. This session of Congress is getting underway and we have the usual problems, taxes and civil rights and deficit financing and inflation on our domestic scene and of course we have some problems in the international scene. Walter: Senator Carlson, let me ask you. I understand that the entire Kansas delegation has been getting mail, and heavy mail, on this consular treaty bill, which is due up in the Senate this week. Is it not, sir? Carlson: Well, I'm glad to report to this fine group meeting in Topeka that the consular convention or treaty is now the pending business in the United States Senate. It's a very controversial problem and a controversial issue. It's been my privilege as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to attend the open and executive sessions of this committee. We've had extended hearings on it and we've had witnesses both for and against it, opponents and proponents. And based on the testimony that I have heard, I'm convinced there's much misunderstanding about the effect of this treaty among both groups. Now, this treaty was sought by Washington primarily to give the American Embassy in Moscow a better legal basis for protecting a large number of American tourists who travel in Russia. This Treaty would secure rights for our Americans in the Soviet Union that they do not now have. As a matter of fact, last year we had over 18,000 Americans travel in the Soviet Union, and some of them had some very severe difficulties because we did not have some consular treaties or consular offices open so that we could make contacts with them. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union refused to let us make them. Under this Treaty, they would be required to let representatives of our government meet with them, try to help them in their difficulties. And I think from that basis, it would be helpful. Now there's some real objections to this treaty, and we just well missed them. One of them is, I think it's poorly timed. It's poorly timed because the Soviet Union, we might just as well be honest about it, are furnishing great supplies to the North Vietnamese in this war that we are involved in in Vietnam. On the other hand, this, in my opinion, does merit approval for the simple reason that if we're going to live in this world of ours, it's shrinking in size every day, we best make some small steps to try to get along with people who we must live with and work with. And again I say, this is a very difficult problem facing the Senate at the present time and we will no doubt be debating it for the next four or five days, probably vote next week. Walter: Thank you, Senator. Next visitor with us today is Senator James Pearson, who you know, was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Schoeppel in 1962. Since that time, Senator Pearson has been twice elected to the Senate. He serves on the Armed Services Committee and on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee. In addition, he serves on the Senate Ethics Committee and the GOP Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senator Pearson, you've just returned from a trip to Western Europe, and I wonder if we could have some of your observations on that visit. Pearson: Well yes, first, let me say, as the Senator Carlson did, that I appreciate this opportunity of being on this panel. One of my great problems actually is communication to get home and to talk to people as often as possible. With a great preoccupation in Southeast Asia, I thought it most appropriate during the recent congressional recess to go to the NATO countries in Western Europe, and to there seek some understanding as to the new structure of the Western alliance. And given the French pullout and the denial of French soil and French troops and the overall strategy and planning and the defense of Western Europe. And with that in mind, I did visit some four or five countries and came to the conclusion, held prior to the visit and after the visit, that we could substantially reduce our troop commitment in Western Europe. Let me say that in when NATO was founded in 1949, certain conditions existed at that time. The Soviet threat was a real possibility. The economic burden on the Western European nations to maintain their own conventional forces was one they couldn't bear at that time. The credibility of our commitment to defend Western Europe, even though we'd come into World War One and won World War 2, was against the background of isolationism and neutralism. And finally, we sought to maintain a place there to ease the introduction of Western Germany into the family of nations and in the great new unity, economically and politically, we sought in in Western Europe. I think we can reduce some of the six divisions there, possibly down to 2. And I think this is true not only because of changed conditions. The Soviet threat is still a possibility, but not a probability. The economic ability of the Western European nations now is proven beyond doubt to the untrained eye. Almost the prosperity there is far reaching. If we can't prove our credibility of 20 years of maintaining troops there, I doubt if we ever will, and there's no doubt that Western Germany has taken a vital part into our- the unity of Western Europe. Two more points, I've spoken too long. But let me say that my persuasion on this point is balanced out against two other factors. One, our great commitment in Southeast Asia, and second, the very serious problem of the deficit of balance of payments. This isn't to say that I would seek to give up what the Pentagon calls a symmetry of power or a flexible response. They use those terms to mean that we can meet any force at any level, rather than to reduce ourselves between the two great alternatives of a nuclear war and surrender. But I think it's the office and the job of the Western Europeans now under changed conditions to provide for their conventional defense. Walter: Thank you, Senator Pearson. Next, Representative Garner Shriver.He is serving his fourth term in Congress. During his first two terms, Mr. Shriver served on the Judiciary Committee and then in the 89th Congress was recognized by assignment to the House Appropriations Committee. He serves on the Subcommittee for Labor and Health Education and Welfare, and is the ranking Republican member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Welcome Congressman Shriver. Shriver: Thank you, Walter. And all of us are grateful for this opportunity to visit with our fellow Kansans. You mentioned that I'm a member of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations. As a member of that committee, I am now in the midst of hearings that is hearing the justifications from the agencies, the bureaus and departments of government for the budget requests. I am mindful, as is every person in this audience, of the urgent need of a determined effort to hold down and cut back on federal governmental spending where possible and where prudent to do so. In his State of the Union message to Congress on January the 10th, President Johnson predicted that total spending by the federal government of $135 billion in the 1968 fiscal year, which will begin on the 1st of July. This would represent an increase in federal spending of 55 and a half billion dollars a year since the last Eisenhower year. That is 76% of an increase in six years time. Of course, we're supporting a large war in Vietnam, which is costing an estimated $2 billion a month. But if we subtract $24 billion for the annual cost of the war, federal spending in the year 1968, according to the president's estimate, will be 34 and a half billion dollars or 45% higher than the last Eisenhower year. I believe, and I think that most Americans would agree, that the Congress should take a hard look at the budget recently sent to the Congress. Federal government spending is important to every American citizen in two basic ways: It represents the manner in which tax funds are used, and the increased spending in recent years has been a major factor behind the rising cost of living. Walter: Thank you, Representative Shriver. Our next guest is Congressman Robert Dole, who, of course is from the Big First District of Kansas. Mr. Dole is also serving in his fourth term. And as you may know, he has an impressive combat record from World War 2, where he served as an infantry officer with great distinction. In Congress, he serves on the House Agriculture Committee and the Government Operations Committee. Bob, I think you have a few remarks about farm prices. Their stability and so forth. Dole: Yes, well, thank you very much. Well, I certainly say hello to everyone in the audience in Topeka. I think this is a splendid idea and hope you'll have it again. Let me say that first of all, those of us in Congress who represent the farm constituents, and that includes all of us in the Kansas delegation, are receiving numerous letters reflecting deep concern over lower farm price levels and rising farm costs. The scissor effects of these opposite moving forces are creating financial disasters on the land. A 20% drop in wheat prices, for example, accompanied by a 4% increase in costs, leaves the wheat grower further behind in the efforts to obtain parity of income. A 74% parity ratio reflects the basic arithmetic, but not the personal heartaches, and I think there are a number of reasons for this, and let me name just two or three or four. First of all, an inflation of costs due to fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the administration. Secondly, A continued policy of dumping grain into the market which enables the trade to get from the government that which they would otherwise have to buy from the farmer on the free market. Also withholding PL-40 exports in order to stabilize wheat prices and thereby restraining increases in the consumer price level. Now I think it's fine to criticize, but we also must make recommendations, so to improve the market, I would say this. I think there are three or four things we can do. First, as Garner has mentioned, we can restore fiscal sanity by eliminating the wasteful expenditures which are resulting in budgetary deficits and result in cost inflation. Secondly, Freeman could announce immediately that the current wheat stocks will be insulated from the market, as proposed by President Johnson, I might add, back in February 1965. Third we can announce that substantial PL-480, or Food for Peace, authorizations will be provided, since there is every indication that in most parts of the country, we'll have a large crop in 1967. And then finally, we can eliminate the power, which has never been given legislatively, of the Council of Economic Advisers to misuse the wheat grower in a mistaken effort to hold down prices by downward pressures on the wheat price structure. Now these efforts by the Council of Economic Advisers have been successful. And I would say that we should appoint immediately someone at the White House level who has experience in agriculture, and these are my recommendations and my comments on farm prices. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Dole. Now, it's my pleasure to introduce Congressman Joe Skubitz, who represents the 5th District of Kansas. Some of you, I'm sure, will remember his service as the administrative assistant to Senators Clyde Reed and Andrew Schoeppel. Mr. Skubitz was elected on his own to the 88th Congress in 1962, and he's now in his third term. In the House, he serves on 2 important committees, Public Works and the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees. He is the ranking Republican on the important National Parks Subcommittee of the Interior Committee. Just recently, Mr. Skubitz was appointed as the Assistant Whip for the minority leadership for the region comprised of Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma, and that's a tough job. Social Security is now a matter of importance before the Congress and Mr. Skubitz has introduced a bill concerning this matter. Joe, let's hear about it. Skubitz: Thank you, Walter. First, I want to join my colleagues in sending best wishes to the members of the Associated Industries of Kansas. I think that perhaps one of the major bills that we'll be considering this session of Congress will probably be changes in the Social Security Act. As most of you know, the President has submitted his proposals and the Republican Party has also presented an alternative program. The major differences between the president's proposal and the one submitted by the Republican leadership is that the President recommends an increase in the Social Security tax and also raises the taxable earning base. Now the Republicans are opposed to any increase in the Social Security tax. President Johnson also proposes that we raise the minimum under Social Security to at least $70, with an average increase of 15% for all people now receiving Social Security. Republicans, in turn, are recommending that we have an 8% increase across the board. And we maintain that this increase can be made without any increases in the Social Security rates. Another difference between the two proposals that are before us is that the President does not recommend any automatic increase for meeting the increased costs of living, and the Republicans maintain that inflation today requires that such a clause is necessary, and that when the cost of living goes up 3 percent, the benefit should also be increased 3 percent. Now the question comes up, where are the Republicans going to get the money? And the feeling of the Republicans here in Washington is that, since the cost-of-living increase is always accompanied by an increased cost in wages, that persons automatically will pay more into the fund than this in turn will take care of any increase to meet the cost of living. If one reads some of the fine print in the president's program, we find that the president plans to delete the $600.00 exemption, which is now given to persons who are 65 years of age or older. He also recommends that we repeal the retirement income credit. And third, the President also plans to tax Social Security and railroad pensions, and these pensions have been considered tax free since 1940 [nineteen-hundred and forty]. To these proposals, the Republican Party is opposed. Personally, I agree with the President that we ought to increase the minimum. I think it ought to go to as high as $80. However, I think that if such a proposal is acted upon by the Congress, that it should be taken care of by a direct appropriation from the Treasury of the United States. I feel this way because I think that it's the Congress of the United States and the Executive Department, through the spending programs that we have proposed, that has been largely responsible for inflation, not the people that are now earning Social Security. I agree with the Republican position, though, that the increase for the ballot should be limited to 8% and that we ought to have a 3% cost of living clause in the bill. I think also that any bill that we pass on Social Security should be any person, any recipient, should be permitted to waive an increased benefit if that increase would reduce other benefits that he's receiving under some other retirement program, because all of us have seen what happened to the veterans during the- because of the last increase that was given under Social Security. I think, too, that any Social Security bill that we might pass, or any amendment, should raise the minimum from 1500 to at least $2000, but we should also have a provision that's an automatic- that there should be an automatic adjustment, that in case wage earnings went up, that the cost would go up accordingly. I, in turn, am planning on introducing a bill along this line come next week. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Skubitz. Our next guest is Chester Mize, who is the representative from the Second Congressional District of Kansas, and currently he is serving his second term in Congress. Congressman Mize has drawn upon his background and experience as an active businessman in northeast Kansas for his work on the House Banking and Currency Committee, and in particular on the Small Business Subcommittee. He has served on two Republican leadership special task forces in the past year on major public issues, and in connection with his committee work, Congressman Mize has become extremely knowledgeable in the area of East-West trade. Chet, let's hear from you. Mize: Thank you, Walt. I certainly am no expert on East-West trade. I first want to say hello to all my friends in AIK. I well remember being with you in person last year down in Wichita, I believe it was. During the last few years, the pressure on the administration to do something about East-West trade, especially the type of trade that US exporters are losing to other Western nations, has been increasing. Now such pressure has come mostly from private exporting interests, sometimes reinforced by members of Congress. Now, the President has asked the departments of the Treasury, State, and Commerce, to explore ways and means of squaring our national security objectives with the increasing pressures to expand our trade with the Soviet Bloc nations. Now one of the first steps has been to get the business community to give its comments to the Department of Commerce, as well as suggestions to further such trade within the present limits of our official national interest policies. The United States policies on trade with the Soviet Bloc are closely tied to our international political objectives. In the past, our Department of State has defined these objectives as first to prevent the communists from extending their influence and domain, second to achieve agreements and understandings which reduce the danger of a devastating war, and finally to encourage evolution within the communist world towards national independence, peaceful cooperation, and open societies. Now, if expanded trade with the east can be utilized as a useful tool in our repeated attempts to bring peace to the world, well then let's consider the matter carefully. But many of us feel that if trade we must, let us use it intelligently by, at the very least, demanding and obtaining meaningful concessions that will bring the world a step closer to peace. And I'm sure we would all agree that over the long pull, any increased contacts with the Communist bloc nations, cultural or commercial and so forth, may contribute to World Peace. And anything we can do to encourage them and the production of consumer goods for their peoples, we should do, for the more they do of this, the less they can devote to military hardware, forces, and facilities. But in conclusion, may I observe, that there are many trade hindrances between ourselves and the Soviet bloc nations, such as special tariff barriers and even if these were lowered, I don't see any boom in trade. There's very little that we want or need to purchase from them. And of course, we would insist on being paid in hard currencies for any exports, which most of them have very little of. So really they can't buy too much from us. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Mize. Our next guest is Congressman Larry Winn Junior, who is the newest member of the Kansas delegation, having been elected last November. Congressman Winn is from Johnson County, Kansas, and represents the third district and before coming to Congress, he was engaged in the home building business. He has served as the national director of the National Association of Home Builders and Vice President of the Home Builders Association of Kansas. As a new member, he has been selected to serve on the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, as well as on the House District of Columbia Committee, which of course runs our town, in a manner of speaking. Congressman, you've been to Cape Canaveral, or Cape Kennedy rather, several times since coming to Congress. Can you tell us what your impressions are on the space program, particularly in light of the recent Apollo tragedy? Winn: Well, yes, Walt. I first want to say hello to Dick Hunter and my friends and the Associated Industries in Kansas, and they're fine meeting out there. I want to say, too, that it's a great privilege for me to be a member of this fine Kansas delegation here in Washington. It's been a marvelous experience. And I would also say, speaking of the trip to Cape Kennedy, as a member of the non-investigating team, but as a member of the subcommittee, in doing some investigative work on the Apollo accident, that we've had two trips. We first went to Downey, California, to inspect the prototype of the Apollo so that we could see what makes it tick and how it's constructed. And then the following week we took a trip to Cape Kennedy, which was the second of this series of investigative trips. I would say that at the present time, there's no doubt that the Apollo accident will slow down our space program for several reasons. The investigations and the reports are only really beginning and there are a great many more investigations to be held on this subject. At the same time, there are many changes to be made in the Apollo capsule and in the Saturn 5. So, I think this definitely will slow down the space program. I might point out too on another vein that I think the space and the science and astronautics program offers great opportunity for the state of Kansas, and I'd like to mention that I've already made some contacts with, and interviewed some people in NASA, and have invited them to come to the state of Kansas, and also some of the prime contractors on the West Coast to come to Kansas and see our facilities. Because I honestly think that we can do just as good a job as they do in the East Coast, and the West Coast, and certainly the state of Texas. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Winn. I'm sure that you gentlemen out there in Kansas after hearing these brief introductory remarks from your delegation here, certainly realize that there is a great, wide area of interest. It s quite an outstanding group, really, something we didn't tell them before, I've just been given word that there is a large number of Kansas State legislators at the luncheon out there. So, you've been on the air talking to possibly some of your critics and hopefully some successors. [laughter] Have you got any questions? Any questions now out there? Unnamed man: (inaudible) Contractor and was making note. But I don't think he's playing. First of all, gentlemen, thank you very much for being at our disposal this noon, which must be a very busy time for you as it is for the legislators that are in the room with us today, and I think that even though there may be a Democrat or two in the room, they'd like to give you a hand and I'll hold on to the phone so that you can hear that. [applause]. By golly, I saw a Democrat applaud. If I may address a question, we had a- [microphone feedback] we had a little questionnaire that we sent out to our members and asked them to ask questions of you, Senators and Congressmen, and if I may address the first question to Senator Carlson. Senator Carlson, are you there? Carlson: I'm here Unnamed man: Sir, according to our newspapers, the President has evidenced some lack of enthusiasm for his original proposal on the repeal of the investment credit. And what do you think is going to happen in this connection on the part of Congress? Also, what will happen to the president's proposal on a 6% surtax? Carlson: Yeah. Well, that's not only a good question, it's a very timely one and I'm glad to discuss it. I do happen to be a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which deals with taxes on the Senate side. First, with in regard to the 7% investment tax credit, I opposed its repeal last fall. I told the Secretary of Treasury when he was up and pled with me for help to getting it repealed, that it would be a mistake. I think it's been proven already that it is a mistake. There are several economic indicators that are pointing downward, some very seriously, and I am introducing a bill to reenact it at the earliest date. It's my personal opinion that. It will be reenacted much before December 31st, 1968 [nineteen-hundred and sixty-eight] or January 1st, the end of this year. In regard to the 6% tax that the president- the surtax that he proposed on corporate and personal incomes, my personal opinion is that Congress is not going to pass that tax. As a matter of fact, I think the President has already determined, he won't say so publicly, but I think he senses the situation and is not going to press it too severely. So, I have every reason to believe that the 7% investment tax credit is going to be restored at an early date. And secondly, we are not going to pass a 6% surtax on corporate or personal income taxes. Walter: Senator Carlson, that's such an important issue with everyone. Taxpayers, particularly, and who isn't a taxpayer, that I'd like to poll the rest of the delegation to see if there's an agreement that that's about the way they read it out, too. Anyone disagrees with Senator Pearson? Nobody disagrees. So, let's take the next question out there. Unnamed man: Thank you, Walter. Senator Pearson? Pearson: Yes? Unnamed man: How are you? Pearson: Fine, thanks. Unnamed man: Say hello to John [Bailey?] for me. [laughter] Pearson: I sure will. Unnamed man: Senator, the question that most of our people wanted us to address to you was simply this. When we talk about the Vietnam situation currently, we hear the views of Senator Bobby Kennedy to stop the bombing and so on, as opposed to the views of administration. In your opinion, what do you think the consensus of the Congress is relative to the 2 views? Pearson: Well I- Well the direct answer to your question would be that it's my opinion that the consensus in the Senate, that'd be all I'd speak for, would be with the President. And I assume that you'd want me to enlarge upon that. Let me first say that generalizations aren't particularly fair and you're not going to be able to really divorce the political personalities from this difference of opinion, but they don't mean anything to me. If we could find a peaceful solution in Southeast Asia, I wouldn't particularly care who got the credit. First of all, as to the two positions, and I said, to repeat, generalizations aren't fair, but I think the administration and the President's position would be one of escalation and this is against the background of several new types of action in South Vietnam. One of them is the mining of the rivers in North Vietnam and another is the use of long-range artillery across the Demilitarized Zone. A third would be the naval bombardments against the coast of North Vietnam. Senator Kennedy's proposal the other day in the Senate set forth the concept that we would stop bombing in the north, and it was made in reference to the Kosygin visit and talks in London. That we would then cease to increase our men and material on either side, have an international policing team to check us out of the 17th parallel, to then proceed with the negotiations, announce we're ready within one week, to remove the U.S. presence, and I take it that means some international police force to come in and take our position, as they did in the Dominican Republic, and then to bring all the parties together at the negotiating table. The administration says they've tried this. It simply hasn't brought any results whatsoever. And all of the discussion and debate about South Vietnam and our position there, it just seems to me that certain facts are hard and clear, and we're going to have to live with them. The first is that why or how we got into Vietnam is almost now a question of historical interest. The point is, we're there. 407,000 troops in the seventh fleet off shore. And the next fact is that whether or not it was in our national security to draw a line in South Vietnam and say across this line, Communist aggression will not be tolerated in Asia, whether that was a proper place to draw that line by the administration is likewise an academic question. The truth is we drew it. And we're now there committed on that line. And so, the alternatives, and I haven't heard anybody seriously propose that we withdraw, the alternatives are to continue as we are with the heavy burdens that that impose or to inch forward by degree to a further escalation and a quick termination of the hostilities. The judgment on that particular question actually under the Constitution is with the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who has at his command all the facts and circumstances. Walter: Thank you, Senator Pearson, and we're ready now for another question, if you have one. Unnamed man: Yes, we certainly do. And thank you, Senator. Congressman Shriver, we'd like to ask you, through a vote of the membership, the way we worked this out, we got about 5 questions put together for each of you. And this one is, paraphrasing what we've gotten in our letters: I have read that a recent public opinion poll conducted 4 NAM indicates the public favoring, by an 8 to 1 ratio, cutting the budget instead of raising taxes. In the final analysis, is it the Congress that will have to do something about this? What can we expect will happen during this session? Shriver: Well before I attempt to answer that question, I would like to take this opportunity of extending greetings to the members of the Kansas legislature who are present. After 12 years in the Kansas House and the Kansas Senate, I feel close to them and I am in sympathy with them. You ask what will happen in this Congress relative to reduction of spending and/or increasing taxes and so forth. And of course, it would be presumptuous for me to attempt to accurately predict what this 90th Congress will do. But let me say that there's a great deal of thought being given to ways and means of effecting substantial, meaningful reductions in the governmental spending program as advocated by the executive branch of government. Just a little while ago I had lunch with Maurice Stans, a former director of the federal budget who served with great distinction during the Eisenhower years and with all 21 members of the minority of the Appropriations Committee, and we have a lot of real ideas on how to proceed in effecting reductions. Now, in a long period of legislative work in Kansas and here in Washington, I've never seen a budget that could not be materially reduced. Frequently, more is asked for than is actually needed. Sometimes the executive branch asks for more than is needed, realizing that the legislative branch will reduce. The outlook for significant cuts in this $135 billion budget is much better than in the Congress before, in this 90th Congress than in the 89th Congress. There are a number of new members of the house and many of them ran on an economy platform, and I think this was a real issue in the election of last November. But let me mention a few places where this $135 billion spending program could be cut back. In this year of an expensive and very costly war, should the so-called war on poverty be increased to half billion dollars as asked for? Would it not be prudent to leave these programs at this year's level? Another area of large spending could be reduced to half billion or more would be foreign aid. The economic assistance programs administered by the Agency for International Development will have on hand, at the beginning of the 1968 fiscal year, over $4 billion of unexpended balances from prior years' appropriations. I submit that there is real opportunity to make substantial reductions in this program. Another large area of federal spending is in the space program. This program could well be stretched out over a little longer period of time and extended into other years when we're not heavily engaged in war spending and defense spending without harming the programs, nor without harming progress in this area. A cut of a half a billion dollars, 500 million, which is only 10% in this area of spending, would not be out of line with prudence and with good judgment. There are many smaller items of increase in this budget. One good example, the National Teachers Corps provides-- there's provision in this budget for $36 million for this new and experimental program. This compares with 10 million voted for 1966 and 8 million for 1967. As a matter of fact, there are 22 new programs funded or requested for funding in this budget, and 14 of them will yet require authorizations by the Congress. What I'm saying is that these are merely some examples, and every item bears close scrutiny, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agree that spending and inflation were major issues in last November's election, and they agreed that most Americans voted for economy. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Shriver. And now we're ready for another question. Unnamed man: Thank you, Congressman. Congressman Dole, how are you? Dole: Fine. Very fine questions. Unnamed man: [laughter]. Glad to hear you haven't got the flu. We've got some of that around. That's our question. [laughter]. Congressman, we would like to ask you, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, would you care to comment on what effect the outcome of the recent elections in India would have on the food aid program in that country? Dole: Well, I could probably answer it better tomorrow because we happen to take it up on the floor tomorrow, but let me say that I think the election of people in India will have a long-range effect. I don't think it'll have any effect on our food aid program for this year. It might be of interest of people there to know that we've supplied a lot of aid to India, I think most people recognize that. Last year aid from all sources, including food aid and foreign aid and every other aid source approximated $1 billion and that's a lot of money, a lot of taxpayers' money just for one country. The food aid alone this year will exceed a half billion dollars, but I would point out the other alternative is literally starvation in India. I had an opportunity to visit India last December and saw with some great surprise some of the real problems they have, and I think we should understand that there- it's a country of five hundred million people. About two and a half times our population. They have many problems with cows and rats and other things that we don't really understand or appreciate the fullest extent. And besides, they're a relatively young country, only had their independence from Britain about 20 years. This year, specifically in calendar year 1967, India is requesting imports of around 10 million tons of food and that's a lot of food. You could translate that into between 3 and 400 million bushel of wheat, for example. Give you some idea of what the total amount is. Now, it's our policy this year, and we think we're moving in the right direction, that yes, we are a great humanitarian country. Yes, we want to do our share, but I think there's also a recognition by members of Congress that there must be more than one humanitarian country in the world. And I believe this view is also shared by the President. So, we're making an effort and considering a resolution tomorrow on the House floor, not certain, Jim or Frank, when it may be considered in the Senate, of more or less matching the food aid commitments from other countries. In other words, we're still saying that this great country of ours is willing to put up half the food aid in India. But we feel that at least half of it should come from other countries. Yes, such countries as Russia and West Germany and others who have better balance of payments positions than we have and frankly others who have more surplus food commodities now than we have. So I would guess that specifically that the long range answer is that I think in large part, many members lost their seats in Parliament in India because of the Indian food crisis, and I think this may be a good omen because it may mean that they're really going to buckle down in India and really try to help themselves and really pick up agriculture by its bootstraps in that great country. Walter: Thank you, Congressman. I wonder if Senator Carlson would care to comment on that question, too. Senator, how important does American agricultural production loom in the world political picture? Carlson: Well, of course, in the world political picture and in the economic picture, as far as our nation is concerned, it is most important. And our nation has been generous in supplying food to hungry people and to people in underdeveloped countries. And we're now going to continue that, but we cannot feed the world. We just will make up our minds to that effect. And I think as Congressman Dole has well mentioned, we're beginning to look seriously at this problem. We're going to insist that other countries help us in this program and we have some multilateral cooperation in the way of food programs, and I think that's working out nicely. Congressman Dole got an amendment to the session last year to get some food specialists over in these countries so they can help produce their own food. And I hope that program will be most helpful. Just want to mention one more item, and that's the importance of agriculture in our export trade. Many people might have the impression that electronics and chemicals and maybe steel and automobiles was our number one export. As a matter of fact, agricultural products is the greatest export this nation has. $7 billion worth last year and that's important to the state of Kansas. Walter: Thank you, Senator. We're ready for another question from out there. Unnamed man: Oh yeah, I was just watching a couple of senators leave. Oh, here go some more. Well, they're going back to work. What are you guys doing in Washington? [audience laughter] Walter: Let me tell you that our program is originating from the private office of [U.S. House] Minority Leader Jerry Ford [Gerald Ford], who very kindly let us have the facilities. And these gentlemen are about 20 paces from the floor of the House. And if the bells start ringing for a vote, they're going to desert me. Unnamed man: May I ask Congressman Skubitz a question? Mr. Skubitz, has the Adam Clayton Powell scandal disrupted work in Congress? And what import do you think it will have? Skubitz: Well, I can't say that it's actually disrupted the work of Congress. I will say that I think that the Congress spent too much time on it. And perhaps out of all of it, there may come some code of ethics, but I think if we do develop a code of ethics, it shouldn't apply just to congressmen and senators. It ought to apply to all of our officials down at the Executive Department as well. I get abused sometimes when I think of the number of my colleagues who've gone forth through the years making speeches and castigating the Supreme Court for acting as a legislative body. And yet when this bill was before us, all of them turned out to be constitutional lawyers. I think the thing- I think that we took the appropriate steps when we excluded Congressman Powell, I think it's now up to the courts of this country to either sustain or reject our position. I will say this, that if Mr. Powell should run again and is elected, the facts are as they were presented to us recently, I'd vote to exclude him again. Mr. Powell wasn't the only person that was on trial during this hearing. But so was the Congress of the United States. I don't know of any man in the Congress of the United States in recent years that has brought more criticism upon the Congress and the legislative bodies than Mr. Powell. And I think we had a duty to act in this case. You know the Constitution provides that each house shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its members. It's true that the Constitution establishes the qualification of age, citizenship, and residence. But in my opinion, these are only basic qualifications that every Member has got to meet to get his foot inside the door of the House of Representatives. But they're not the only qualifications. I think there's other qualifications besides age, residence, and citizenship. Certainly, I can't conceive of the House of Representatives being forced to admit, say, a murderer or an idiot or a thief. Furthermore, if the House of Representatives has the authority under the Constitution to punish its members for disorderly conduct, then I think it can reasonably be implied that they have the right to judge the qualifications of the membership. It seems to me that any person that serves in public life, be it a congressman, a teacher, or a preacher has got a duty to conduct himself in his affairs in a manner that will reflect credit and integrity upon the church, the school, or upon the legislative halls in Congress. And in a sense, every man in these positions must bear the conscience of society. I think that Mr. Powell, we couldn't judge him on just being a man. He's more than that. He's a lawmaker in this country and although he's elected by the people of the 18th District of New York, he's also a United States Congressman and has a duty to the taxpayers of the people throughout this country. He was given his day in court. He refused to appear. And the facts that were uncovered by the committee not only supported the charges that were made against Powell, but they uncovered other abuses. Frankly, I think the Supreme Court would make a mistake if an attempt to force the head on collision with the legislative body on this issue. But I sometimes think, too, that perhaps the collision along this line is long overdue. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Skubitz. That seemed to cover the entire subject. [audience applause] We're ready for another question now. Unnamed man: We're still clapping. Congressman Mize. Mize: Yes. Unnamed man: Good morning. Mize: Good morning. Unnamed man: We have read about the proposal to merge the Labor and Commerce Department. Would you comment on this and tell us the status of the proposal and what you think might happen? Mize: Well, as you know, one of the few surprises in the President s State of the Union message was this proposal to combine the existing labor and commerce departments into a Department of Business and Labor. I reacted at that time by saying that this proposal would need more clarification for me because at that time I couldn't imagine what could be accomplished through such a merger. Now the president expanded a little more in his economic message and pointed out how the two departments share many common objectives and where their interests and activities coincide or overlap. Since then, we've learned that the merger is still growing and could possibly take in a bureau under Treasury as well as some of the functions under the Department of Interior. Other recommendations are coming in on the average of about one a week and a new title is even being kicked around. They're thinking about calling it the Department of Economic Affairs. Now we won't know what's in the whole package until we get the specific plan in a presidential message which should be coming down a few weeks. But from the way the thing is snowballing, I'd say we'd better get to it pretty soon or we'll have more than one department can handle. Now as you know, the President has a pretty good record for creating new departments. With a little help, he got through the 89th Congress the new Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I'm not so sure, however, that he's going to continue to bat 1000%, as Senator Mike Mansfield said that this proposal was like trying to marry the National Association of Manufacturers to the CIO. I don't think it was intended to infer that this would have to be a shotgun wedding, but there are plenty of people just like myself who are interested in this marriage, and we want to know what chances the offspring are going to have. If it can be shown that the merger will save some money and eliminate duplication and confusion, and at the same time bring business and labor closer together, then it could be a good thing and we ought to get behind it. But at this point I'm going to have to stand by my original statement and demand some more clarification of the whole thing. Walter: Thank you, Congressman Mize, we're ready for another question now. Unnamed man: I can't help but tell Congress Mize that if the NAM and the AFL-CIO did get married, the offspring would probably go to prison. [audience laughter] I got a dirty look from George Dickey -- that's because of the catalyst -- [inaudible]. But anyway, Congressman Winn, we would like to ask you, sir, as the newest member of our Kansas delegation in Washington, how do you view the work of a congressman based on your tenured service since January? Winn: Well, first I would say it's been a tremendous experience. It's hard work, but it's most challenging and enjoyable. And obviously I'm in top company here today. I do feel, however, that it's a tremendous obligation to the people of the nation. I think I had this brought home more forcefully to me when I first- when I made my first trip home and I flew over Kansas City, KS, Johnson County, and part of the Third district, and I looked down and saw all the lights. And all of a sudden it dawned on me that I was representing all those people back here, but so far - and knock on wood - that the people are supporting my votes and my stands on the key issues so far, And this does make me feel like that I really know the basic thinking of my constituents. I might say, too, that already there have been over several thousand bills that have already been introduced. I have introduced two of those. I think I've introduced seven I guess, which might be a little unusual, but two of them that I'm really sold on. And we've mentioned it already, I won't belabor the point, one is the Standards and Ethics Committee and I have introduced a House resolution to ensure proper standards of conduct by the members of the House, by the officers and employees of the House, in performance with their duties. And this would include the naming of the relatives that are on their paid staffs, and I'm quite sure this might not be popular with some of the men. And to report violations by a majority vote of the committee of any law, but to the proper federal and state authorities. And one thing that I have already found because several people have talked to me, is that a great many of these men or some of these men don't want to disclose their financial interests either. But I think this is important if the image of Congress is going to be improved, that Joe mentioned, and these are just a few of the things. But it's a tremendous experience and it's hard, hard work. Walter: Thank you, Congressman. I wonder if you have a general question for the entire group? The bells rang just a few seconds ago, and there is apparently a vote about to be taken on the House floor. These gentlemen are going to have to leave in a very few minutes here, but let's have one more question. Unnamed man: Yes, we do have a general question, did you all hear the bell? [laughter] No, we all so much appreciate the time that you very busy people have given, and I think these very busy people would like to applaud you very busy people for just a moment.[audience applause] Thank you again. Walter: Thank you.