Raw Footage of a Morse v. Packwood Debate in Portland (Oregon)

This is October 26th-- 25th 1958. The confrontation at the city club at the Masonic Hall in Portland between Senator Morse and the challenger Senator Packwood, Republican. Each will have two minutes and then it will not be a debate. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman of the Subcommittee on Latin American affairs and is on the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. He has as you know been a leading voice in foreign policy matters. Mr Robert W. Packwood, the Republican candidate is like Senator Morse, a city club member. This is an intra-club discussion here. This is Mr. Packwood's first appearance before the club. He was born in 1932, is the grandson of William H Packwood, or great-grandson, who attended the first Oregon Constitution Convention in 1887. He attended Grant High School, Willamette College, graduated from New York School of Law where he was a

Root-Tilden scholar, President of the Student Body, and has been a practicing lawyer in Portland since that time. In 19, uh, he was for one year, however, clerk for Chief Justice Warner Warner on the Oregon Supreme Court. In 1962, Mr. Packwood was elected to the Oregon Legislature and has returned to the legislature regularly since, where he has served on the Labor Management, local government and elections and reapportionment committees and been active in other state legislature work.

He was instrumental in calling the first Dorchester Conference in 1965 which assembled prominent Republicans to discuss Oregon's solutions for it's political problems. So you can see that we have two outstanding men who address us today. I am now going to yield the podium to Senator Morse. I do wish to say this though that as far as the timing is concerned, we have to run a strictly, and arbitrarily, and it will be done on this basis although some of you may be disappointed that a questions is not quite answered. And one of the candidates may be happy that he didn't quite have the opportunity to answer it. <laughter> But without more ado, Senator Morse. <clapping> Mr President, Representative Packwood, members of City Club, and our many many television guests. I am honoured to participate in this discussion which is really an example of putting democracy to work. And I appear before you asking for your support for my re-election on the basis of my record of 24 years of dedicated service to the

people of Oregon in the United States Senate. And I want to tell you that I stand on that record and I have put it in a little booklet setting forth the issues that I have been faced up to in those 24 years which is all the issues involving over 4000 roll call votes in the Senate of the United States. I ask for your support also because of as a result for that length of service in the Senate of the United States. United States I am now in a position to exercise great influence and power for the state of Oregon in the Senate of the United States. Because if re-elected I will become Chairman of the Senate Committee in Labor and Public Welfare, which is the committee that sends more legislation on domestic issues to the floor of the Senate each session than any other committee the Senate because of this broad jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction over all education legislation, all poverty legislation, all labor legislation, and jurisdiction over

all health, science research, hospital legislation, 85% over all governing legislation, all railroad retirement legislation, and 85% of the rest of retirement and pension legislation, and jurisdiction over about 10 other miscellaneous topics. Now I want to point out that that is a very powerful committee from the standpoint of the interest of the state and the country. What it really amounts to is in far as to that Chairmanship is concerned is Oregon parliamentary deposit in the legislative bank of the Senate of the United States. Along with that, I want to report to the people here and over the television that I am also Chairman of some powerful sub-committees, the committee on Latin American affairs that handles all of our Latin American affairs, legislation through the foreign relations committee, a chairman of a very powerful committee known as the committee of small business dealing with retail and marketing problems affecting small business, of great concern to this state. It was that committee, I might say, under my chairmanship that conducted the hearings in regards to the recent log export issue that the Forest Service and others will tell you is the most important conservation measure that has been passed in the Congress of the United States in the last quarter of a century. That is going to mean millions of dollars as we proceed under it to the economy of this state, the lumbermen will tell you as well as again as your government witnesses will tell you that it saved for the state of Oregon a minimum of 10,000 jobs of men that would have been thrown out of employment if we did not bring an end to the policy of seeking to turn our National Forests into Japanese tree pines. Then also I served as a chairman of the subcommittee of the District of Columbia committee, jurisdiction over the police and the fire department, the schools and public welfare. How would you like that for a trinity of problems? Before his terrible assassination, Bob Kennedy was my right arm on that committee as we sought to work on the serious crime problems of the district and the ghetto problem and the educational problems of the district. Then I happen to be chairman of the special subcommittee dealing with Indian Affairs-- of great importance to the state of Oregon. And I've served on a series of other committees. But I want to say that as a member of the foreign relations committee that I deal with the one issue that pales all other issues combined into insignificance. And that is the issue of the war in south Vietnam and the necessity of our bringing it to an end and stopping the killing of American boys in south Vietnam in a war they never should have been sent in the first place [clapping] and this we must resolve on an honourable basis through multi-nation negotiation. It is so important that I stress this position of mine I have held as you know for years is for 4.5 years I have one of the leaders in the opposition to our involvement of this war and been pleading for a multi-nation negotiation for the settlement of that war. It will never be settled on a bilateral basis. The best we can hope for is a truce. The reason it is going to be settled on a bilateral basis is that no matter what we agree with to the north Vietnam we still got Asia to deal with. And to settle it, we have got to bring to an end a foreign policy that started back in 1953 and 1954 with then secretary of State John Foster Dulles. And that foreign policy is the

is based on the premise of American military containment in those underdeveloped areas of the world where we select for that containment and that is how we got into the mess in south Vietnam. The insistence in the part of the then Secretary of State that we've become involved in a military containment policy in Asia. He even wanted us to get ourselves involved in the Indo-China war and was responsible for our spending more than 2 billion dollars in helping the French in the Indo-China war. Indo-China War. So I want to stress the fact that in my position on the foreign relations committee and I am the fourth ranking member in that committee I should continue to do what I have battling for for the last 4.5 years. And that is to insist we adopt a foreign policy whereby we stop our military containment policy in Asia or for that matter elsewhere in the world and insist that other nations of the world join us in carrying out their treaty obligations too. To see forth that we substitute the role of international law and procedures of peacekeeping under existing treaties for the jungle law of military force which we're practicing in Southeast Asia, which Russia tried to practice in Congo and which will never lead to peace. Well don't forget, may I say to this audience, that after the dropping of that bomb on Hiroshima everything before became ancient history. And all that was left for mankind was the principles of morality.

and the institutions of international law to be applied to the seven disputes between nations. And therefore I seek re-election to the Senate because of my position on that committee and I am perfectly willing to stand on the record that I have made in regards to my work on that committee. I am only urging that we recognize that we've got to come

to what Franklin Roosevelt pointed out in Tehran, when he advocated the setting up of an international economic and literacy trusteeship for all of Indo-China. It ought to be spread to all the underdeveloped areas of the world as we have done it under the alliance for progress program which came out of my subcommittee on Latin America. When Jack Kennedy was a member of that committee, he and I proposed a program that developed under the alliance for progress program based on these two principles and don't ever forget them, the only hope for ending totalitarianism in the world is to see to it that we export economic freedom of choice for the individual and literacy. You make the masses of the underdeveloped areas of the world economically free and we gotta do it in Southeast Asia when we get through with the shooting You make them free and literate. Then be willing to stop being overnighters and give time for our evolution of self government to develop their own system of self government. And may I close on this issue by saying.

All I have been urging is that we pay attention to the advice of a general Ridgway, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a General Gavin, the top military strategist of the Pentagon A great field commander in World War II, a great ambassador to Paris, a General Shoup, the former commander of the American Marines, who are urging us to stop the escalating. Well for four years, I have pleaded for de-escalation and I have pleaded for the adoption of the Ridgeway program, falling back to the lines of defense that we can hold without escalating of course the escalating is killing the boys and then may I say (gavel pounding in the background) move on to the settlement of the war. (clapping) Mr Packwood? (clapping) You know I think Senator Morris . has put his finger on the key. We can't talk about student dissent and

draft dodgers fleeing to Canada. We can't talk about a 25 billion dollar deficit or unfunded poverty programs or unfinished public works projects without talking about Vietnam -- because we aren't going to fund those projects, we aren't going to turn off the dissent, until we solve Vietnam. So let's look at it, because the Senator and I do look at it a bit differently, I think. And I don't think you can look at Vietnam right now, without looking a bit at its history to understand how we got there. You go back and you'll recall that Indochina, North and South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos were all part of the old French Indochina colonial empire. France ruled it as a colony rather badly until 1954 when they were defeated by the Communists at Dien Bien Phu, They had already asked President Eisenhower to send American men to Indochina and he said "No, we are not going to send large masses of American troops to fight in Indochina.

So the French were defeated. And then at the Geneva Conference, France simply abandoned all of Indochina, said 'That it is not our responsibility,' and they left. The Geneva Conference created the independent states of Cambodia and Laos and divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel. And very soon after that, Premier Diem, the new Premier of South Vietnam asked for our help. We agreed to send a small training contingent to teach the Vietnamese army to undertake its own defense. Now, I think it's important to remember that -- to teach the Vietnamese army to undertake its own defense. And at the time, President Eisenhower suggested that two reforms "Clean out the corruption in your government," and land reform, and by land reform he meant the purchase of the land from the absentee French landlords and the selling or the giving or some way getting it into the hands tenant farmer peasant who cultivated it, so that he'd have a stake, as Senator Morris

talked about, so that he'd have a stake in its government, and a willingness to fight for it. Premier Diem said that would happen. Well, you know what the upshot of it is. It's 14 years later, we've now got five hundred thousand men, and then some in Vietnam. 200,000 casualties. We obviously haven't taught the Vietnamese army to undertake its own defense. The corruption is as ripe as ever, and the land reform has never been undertaken. And so we still see in a country of 16 million people, 10 million of them living on farms, half of them tenant farmers, paying 30 to 60 percent of their expected crop and rental due to an absentee landlord and it's hardly a system calculated to win the support, for the Saigon government of the tenant farmer peasant in South Vietnam. The Communists of course promise land reform, that's a phony, you know it and I know it. They'd liquidate the peasant if they ever controlled the land.

We're committed to the policy of returning the land to the landlord. We aren't going to win in South Vietnam with that kind of a policy. When I talk about land reform, I'm not talking about some pie in the sky reform. 18 months ago the State Department contracted with the Stanford Research Institute to study of land reform in Vietnam. Can it be done, how soon it can be done, when will it be put into effect, what will it cost, the whole gamut; and Stanford Research Institute studied it, and this is what they found. It can be done. They drafted the law. It can be done immediately as soon as the South Vietnamese Congress will pass the law. It can be put into effect immediately in the areas that we hold. It can be held out as a promise of reform to the areas that we don't. And the appalling thing is the entire cost of the program, to purchase all of the arable land in South Vietnam is 500 million dollars -- fair market value.

The cost of the war for one week. And the Saigon government won't undertake the reform, the reform and they won't undertake the reform basically because the people who . own the land run the government. I think we say to the Saigon government what President Eisenhower merely suggested 14 years ago. You undertake these reforms, you clean out the corruption in its government, you undertake a land reform program that will give the peasants of this country a stake in the government, and we'll stay. But if you won't undertake this program, then we're getting out. Because I'm not going to waste American lives, and fritter away American dollars in a futile attempt to save a country that won't undertake the reforms that make the saving of it possible possible (clapping). Now that distinguishes, I hope, my policy from President Johnson. Let me distinguish it from Senator Morse's.

First, I will not vote against the military appropriation budget for Vietnam. Senator Morse has. I will not vote against it, as Senator Morse has, because the vote against it, is a vote for unilateral, unconditional surrender in Vietnam. Because what we're saying to our negotiators in Paris, and what we're saying to Hanoi is, 'when the money runs out, we're leaving.' No matter what, no matter what reforms are undertaken, no matter what circumstances may change we're leaving because we've cut off the money. And I will not support an unconditional, unilateral retreat from Vietnam. (clapping). Secondly, I disagree with our approach I think, to Vietnam, and perhaps the leadership, generally.

You're not going to find me, as Senator Morse, calling my President drunk with military power. You're not going to find me vilifying the Secretary of State, castigating the Secretary of Defense, and all of the Senators and members of Congress who happened to disagree with me on Vietnam or for that matter, on anything else. You're not going to find me doing it for two reasons. One, there is always a possibility, it's not likely, there's always a possibility that I might be wrong; (clapping) Secondly, if I ever want to bring them to my way of thinking, the last thing I want to do, is to challenge their integrity, challenge their honesty, challenge their intelligence, because I've yet to see a group -- and I don't care if it's the US Senate, or the Oregon legislature, or a

trade union or the PTA or your church group. I have yet to see a group, where the leader was the person who was always attacking the members, the President, holding the group up to ridicule in public. Because in my experience in any group if you're going to be a success as a leader, you've got to grant to others, the same tolerance for their sincerely held ideas that you demand for your own (clapping) Lastly, and this is the one that grieves me the most. I hope it's obvious that I disagree with President Johnson's policy but I think what President Johnson is trying to do, is set up a representative government and then get out of Vietnam. I think he's going about it wrong, but I don't think he's going to create a representative government with the policy. that he's following. But the policy is to get out. When Wayne Morse, as he did 7 weeks ago, can say that

our aid in Vietnam is identical to the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, then to me that belies a misreading of foreign affairs that is colossal. Because our policy at least, from President Johnson to Wayne Morse, is to get out; and the Russian policy in Czechoslovakia was to get in -- to destroy the only representative government that that hapless little country has had in 35 years. And Russia didn't give a hoot, whether or not, the government that they created was anything other than a docile, subservient, Russian puppet. And anybody who confuses those two policies, to me, has forfeited any right that he has, to remain in the United States Senate. (clapping) We've gone about 10 days (gavel pounding) Time's up (clapping). Thank you gentleman. Do we have a question?

Mr Chairman. Paul Meyer of the City Club Mr Packwood, you stated that President Eisenehower's policy would be to tell the South Vietnamese that they did not accomplish these reforms we would get out. How do you square that with your statement that we should not get out now even though we won't do it What I said, Paul, was that President Eisenhower suggested two reforms: land reform clean out the corruption in the government. Unfortunately, he did not

insist upon those reforms and nothing was ever done. We sent the first training contingent, they were there for a while, President Kennedy escalated our commitment, President Johnson escalated it again. It's unfortunate that President Eisenhower didn't insist upon them because I would insist upon them. I'd say to that government, you undertake these reforms because I'm not squandering American lives, and wasting American dollars, in order to save you if you won't. If they will undertake the reforms, if they will give the peasants a stake in that society I'll stay, but if they won't, I'm getting out. Senator Morse. I will say very quickly what was wrong with the Eisenhower policy was that it was based on Dulles policy of military containment, that's why we didn't insist upon those reforms. May I also point out, that the policy is not to get out of Vietnam as far as the Dulles program is concerned, that was brought up by Secretary Rusk in those unfortunate remarks he made in a press interview not so long ago. We're there and we knew it for thirty months before that press review but our lips were sealed. We're there for a major reason of maintaining a military presence in Southeast Asia. Now as to land reform, we have already turned over to the Mandarins in charge of South Vietnam's government.

the many millions of dollars for land reform. And it's failed, and it will always fail as long as you have these Mandarins in control. We're killing American boys to keep them in power. And that's why you got to set up a different form of government in Southeast Asia if you're ever going to bring economic freedom to the mass of the people. And that's why I'm calling for a coalition government (clapping). [Moderator] This question is directed to Mr. Packwood. I think the next question must go to Senator Morse. Have we a question for Senator Morse? Pardon me for just a moment. Will those of you who have questions, kindly make your way to the aisle to either side so you that you can approach the microphone quickly.

[Questioner] I'd like to address this question to Senator Morse if I might. [Moderator] Yes, would you please proceed and then we'll let Dr Leven ask his, shortly. [Questioner] None of these domestic issues were really raised here today, In full blown discussion and one of the questions I'd like to ask is what about the tax incentive provision for the... (gavel pounding) Could I just finish it? No (laughter) Taxes... [Voices overlap] [Moderator] Another question please, to Senator Morse. I'm Dr Leven, member of the City Club. The Senator said he is now going to be, if elected, a chairman of a very powerful committee. In the years that he has been in the Senate, he's had seniority over 8 men who have now chairmaned (gavel pounding) Gentleman the time has expired and you have not reached your question. We... are not... I can't allow under the rules that were agreed upon,

these long questions or these rhetorical statements that leaves beyond the 30 second level. Now I suggest (clapping) I suggest that these questions can be phrased, if they are to the point, within the 30 seconds. and I have no authority to extend it. Mr. Bledsoe -- Herb Dalton, member of City Club to to Senator Morse. What is your position on right to work laws and would you oppose or favor the enactment of such legislation in Oregon? Well, I have always opposed right to work laws because right to work laws constitute a stigmatizing of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Congress should not delegate any authority under that commerce clause. All workers in this country ought to have a uniform application of United States laws. The position that I have taken is that the national Labor Relations Act and the Federal Labor Laws should apply to all workers in interstate commerce. But the right to work laws seek to delegate that authority to the state. I've opposed it on Constitutional grounds; I shall always oppose it in the state of Oregon

(clapping) A question for Mr. Packwood? Oh, pardon me. Comment. We're talking specifically about 14 B of the Taft-Harley Act and whether or not I'd vote to repeal it. I would not. I would leave to the state the choice of whether or not they want to have a right to work law and if I had my choice in Oregon, I would work against it and would not have one. (clapping) My name is Royald Caldwell and I'm a member of the city club. This question is for Mr. Packwood. After Senator George Murphy finished campaigning for you, he hurried back to California to campaign for Rafferty. And since Rafferty represents an ultra conservative branch of the Republican Party will you support him. (gavel pounding) Another question for Mr. Packwood? Yes I have one. I will ask the one that I think was asked over here

Mr. Packwood what is your position on the right to dissent in this country? What is my position on the right to dissent in this country? If we're talking about people carrying pickets, the funny looking, barefooted, beard wearing guys... they're not my cup of tea, but if they want to go up in the hills and raise turnips or if they want to go down here in the Multnomah County. courthouse and get a permit and parade around like the rest of us have a right to do That's their business. I'm not going to stop them from protesting the war or the draft or anything else they want to do but when they cross that line, and when they start to say that this society is so rotten that that it's got to be destroyed in order to save it, they I say "Stop!" When I see a guy like that crazy kid at Columbia University sitting in the President's chair with his feet on the desk and smoking. a cigar, I get mad. And I'd put that kook in the pokey until he's learned to live by the laws like the rest of us have to live by. (clapping) (clapping)

(clapping). I would add to what the Representative Packwood said, we have got to enforce the law in this country and the right to dissent does not carry with it the right to violate the law or decide for yourself what law you are going to obey and think you ought to be given some kind of an excuse for disobeying it. I have made that very clear. In my work in the Senate, President Johnson asked me to speak following the Newark riots and the Detroit riots on this very subject of enforcement of the law, I have made it very clear that anytime anyone violates the law, the law must be enforced against the violator. I want to say however that we do have this precious Constitutional guarantee to dissent within the law. The dissenters as well as other people must stay within our system of government bylaws if we are going to retain our freedoms. (clapping). Mr. Chairman: I'm [?]Juvenal Scanlon[?]....a member of the City Cub. I have a question for Senator Morse: Senator if your

seniority is so significant, why is it that Oregon ranks last among western states in federal investments. [Morse] Well let me say first in regard to my seniority, some implication that I'm not chairman of a committee, well you don't get to be chairman of a committee unless the people heading the committee resign or are defeated or die off, God forbid. And I have been on this committee under Senator Hill for a good many years, second in position; he's now leaving, and I get the chairmanship. Now let me say that as far as Oregon is concerned, your assumption is not true, your assumption is not true if you take into account the federal investments in this state are quite an entirely different thing from getting returns from the defense contract in other states. We happen to rank second in the nation in regard to the Interior Department developments in our state. We happen to rank third as far as army engineers, public works in this state. And that credit goes to the whole delegation. And I'm proud of your delegation that we've had for twenty four years of service in the Senate. We have brought Oregon into a great position. The economic (gavel pounding)-- comment now Mr Packwood. Let me take Wayne Morse's own literature I have this piece from his headquarters before they knew who I was and I can't get it anymore. You add up everything Oregon gets, dams and reclamation projects and research grants and here is what the Senator

says. For every dollar Oregon pays in federal taxes, we receive a dollar and fifty cents in return return. That's right. But every state in the West gets more from the federal government than the federal government taxes here. And every state in the East pays more in taxes than the federal government spends. The basic reason is public lands. When Senator Morse went to the Senate in 1944, we were third from the top of all of the states in the West when you compare to what we got as opposed to what the federal government taxed. Today it's 1968, 24 years of Senator Morse later and we're last. Oregon gets a dollar fifty, California a dollar sixty three, Washington a dollar eighty three, Idaho a dollar ninety three, Nevada 203, Utah 286, Montana 301, Arizona 350, and Alaska seven dollars and thirty three cents. We can't afford any more seniority. [audience laugher, applause] [applause]

[applause] [Audience Member] I'm Campbell Richardson, a member of the city club. Mr. Packwood how would you compare your type of campaign to that of Senator Morse? [Packwood] The campaign in terms of money and people. I didn't get into this with the assumption that I could outspend Senator Morse. I haven't got the access to the money that he does, but I thought I could get access to the people. We've got volunteers between 40 and 45 thousand people who've put up lawn signs and who go door to door. I think Bob Duncan learned the lesson in the primary that you can't outspend them. When Senator Morse raised 312,000 dollars as against Bob Duncan's 60,000-- raised 270,000 from out of state, he's got more contributors in New York than he does in Oregon and he raises more money in Los Angeles County than he does in Oregon. I can't touch that.

But I still think that people mean more than money that people who believe in a candidate who will work for a candidate will give shoeleather and time and belief can still beat money. [applause] [Senator Morse] May I say good naturedly, We've just had an illustration in the difference between our campaigns. The office I hold belongs to you and I do not intend to drag it through the gutter of ad hominem attacks, which is the basis of my opponent's campaign and he's just demonstrated it in the misrepresentation of the statistics that he gathered. [crowd booing] Let me point out in regard to the campaign financing, this campaign, where do you see his financial reports and mine? For I happen to know what the republican party is putting up for his campaign. Now may I say, we have got a very serious problem in regard to these allegations he is making about the statistics about the rating of Oregon.

This is typical of his misrepresentation throughout this campaign and I hope to take a few minutes to answer those misrepresentations based on his dollar and dollar and fifty cent ratio, because there are so many things he hasn’t told you that puts Oregon in a much better position economically than those statistics would lead you to believe. [New speaker] I am Paul ?Mealy?, a city club member. Senator Morse, would you state your position on the admission of Red China to the United Nations and recognition by the United States? [Morse] I have recommended for years and years on the Foreign Relations Committee, and a majority of our committee favor too, that Red China should be admitted to the United Nations, and let me tell you very quickly why we ought to do it. I take you back to October 1962, we almost entered into a nuclear war, and the reason we didn’t was President Kennedy had available the diplomatic channels in Moscow and the diplomatic channels in the United Nations. We had no diplomatic channels into China. She has no diplomatic channels in the United Nations. And let’s not forget if we get into that war, and that’s not Wayne Morse testifying, but your top state and defense witnesses testifying, if you get into that war, you’ll be there from 10 to 20 years, and it would be very doubtful whether we’d even come out as a victor.

We cannot any longer drop our iron curtain against China, we need diplomatic intercourse and we need it now. [applause] [Packwood] I don't think we want to fool ourselves into thinking that we're not talking with China simply because she's not in the UN. We meet with the Chinese in Warsaw, we meet with them when we need to negotiate with them from time to time in secret. I don't think that letting them into the United Nations is going to change China. I think we make a mountain out of a mole hill when we say should we let them in or should we not let them in. The thing that galls me, I hate to ask any nation in this world to join the United Nations that day after day and week after week and month after month violate and flagrantly says they won't pay any attention to any of the edicts of the very organization that we're asking her to join and I am not prepared to let her in until she's willing to show some faith that she'll live up to the charter of that organization. [applause] [New speaker] My name is Don Wagner, member of the City Club. Mr.

Packwood, do you agree with the restrictions on log exports that have recently been imposed and what steps would you take in the future regarding this? [Packwood] Do I agree with the restrictions on log exports. Yes I do for this reason. Basically I'm a free trader; free trade is a two way street. The Japanese wanted the right to come over here, buy our logs, take them home to Japan, mill them in their own mills, and sell them in their economy, and they won't let American lumber producers sell in that economy. I've had American-- Oregon lumbermen tell me that if they were allowed to compete economically so that they could retool, if they were allowed to get into the Japanese market, they could compete with the Japanese, but the Japanese won't allow that. And I'm not prepared to let them come here take the logs without restriction, take them home, and then shut up their markets to us. If they want to let us into their lumber market, I'll let them into our

log market. If they don't want us in their lumber markets then I think we wisely restricted their access to our logs. [applause] [Morse] Now, I made it very clear that we should never let them into our log market beyond the ceiling that we had fixed, you know why? Because we have trusteeship, obligations to future generations to see to it that these national forests are administered in a manner that will maintain in perpetuity an adequate supply of wood products for each oncoming generation. Listen to the forest service because my amendment, may I say, was perfected in consultations with the forest service. And they will tell you that we do not have logs in surplus, we’ve got to maintain our control of these logs to have a sound sustained yield from these forest programs for years and years to come. And Alaska prohibits—it has since 1928—the exportation of logs. Canada doesn’t export logs. What we’re saying to Japan, we’re

willing to export this ceiling and no more, we’re willing to enter into contract to sell you finished lumber. We’ve got to do it because this log situation means that Canada takes over our lumber. [Moderator] Question for—[applause] Question for Senator Morse, Howard ?Glaser?, city club member. I appreciate, senator, hearing more about the economic benefits that Oregon has enjoyed, particularly in terms of the character of these economic benefits. [Morse] Well first let me point out that we have established here in this state, a private enterprise economy in contrast with a defense economy that exists in a good many states involved in my opponent’s statistics. Don’t forget that in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Montana, people of those states pay much less taxes into the federal treasury than the people of Oregon on a per capita basis because we have this very high income for our people. And when you take into account what we get out of these natural resources, development, which

are not included in these statistics, the benefit that comes to the economy of this state, let me say, those statistics take on an entirely different coloring. For example, the people of New York pay 10 dollars in taxes for every dollar they get back from the federal government. You’ll find that that’s true of many a great industrial state, and so here in the western part of the united states, that would be relatively a good tax position of our people makes a big difference in the big picture. [Moderator] Care to comment here? [Packwood] I hate to get into an argument with the senator by seniority, I took my figures from exactly the same sources that he took his dollar and 50 cents from. The Office of Economic Opportunity spending programs of all expenditures in every state that I listed. There's no variance from the source. As far as military appropriations, Oregon gets 99 million, Alaska 85 million, Montana 78, Nevada 29, Oregon

14. I don't call those military complexes. But let's forget seniority for a minute let me take you back about 14 years to a quote from Senator Morse. 'Never confuse seniority with ability because when you go to the mat, ability will win every time.' When you've got a chance to replace an incumbent U.S. senator, even if he is a committee chairman, with a dynamic young legislative leader, take the opportunity. That's why he supported Dick Neuberger against Guy Cordon. [applause] [New Speaker] I’d like to ask—My name is Charles Davis, member of the city club. I’d like to ask a question of each of the candidates. With respect to the omnibus crime bill and with respect to the restriction of the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. [Morse] Well I want to say I voted against the omnibus crime bill, so-called “safe streets bill”, I was a co-sponsor of Title 1 which was the administration bill. Had it been

left as that bill, I’d have been enthusiastically for it, but I voted against it because of Titles 2, 3, and 4 that were added to it. Honeycombed with unconstitutionality. Title 2 dealing with Miranda, Reid, and ?Mallory?. Title 3 dealing with the electronic wiretapping and other types of wiretapping. And Title 4 dealing with the gun control bill. I didn’t teach constitutional law for years to walk out on my teachings just because I walked into politics. Take my prediction today: Titles 2 and 3 will clearly be found to be unconstitutional in many respects, and Title 4 will be modified by the courts, if we even get that into the court. That’s why I voted against the “safe streets bill”. We’ve got to have Title 1 and I think we’ve got to have it now and in a large independent bill which should come by next January that does what? Gives to the court, gives to the prosecutors, gives to the marshals, gives to the police, the support they need. [Applause] [Packwood] Had I been in the Senate I would have voted for the "safe streets bill" even though I had some misgivings about Title 4

which was gun control. The senator alluded to his teaching in constitutional law. As I recall when I took the course, acts from legislative bodies were presumed constitutional and I think what Senator Morse is saying is they're presumed constitutional unless Senator Morse says they're unconstitutional. But as I recall, it was the court, not the legislature, that makes the decision. I think the police are going to have to have a legitimate wiretapping provisions because organized crime exists on gambling and gambling information is passed by wire or orally. Not in writing. And I'm not going to keep the police in some kind of a 17th century limbo trying to compete with 20th century computer organized criminals. I think that under close court scrutiny, and that's what the wiretap provisions are, you've got to have a warrant, that is perfectly legitimate for the police under those court scrutinized conditions to use wiretapping. [Applause] [New speaker] Steven Hill, member of Portland City Club. Mr. Packwood,

in view of the fact that you are here today for a face-to-face confrontation with Mr. Morse, what is your opinion of Mr. Nixon's reluctance to do so with regard to Mr. Humphries? [applause] [Packwood] I can't speak for Dick Nixon, if I were running for the presidency of the United States and his position, I'd debate, but his decision to make and I think the debate is good and in the public interest and I'm frankly glad after five months of the senator saying he would not meet me in debate and would not accept a common platform that he changed his mind and agreed to meet me. [applause] [Morse] I want to say that there’s no question about the fact that under these circumstances I think that Richard Nixon should debate. I want to say when Mr. Humphries was here and I tried to learn from good teachers, he satisfied me in his plea for debate with Nixon

and that I ought to arrange for this meeting today and I’m very glad that Mr. Packwood joined us. I think it is good for democracy in Oregon. [applause] [New speaker] I’m Norman Stoll, a member of the city club. I’d like to ask each of the speakers what do you regard as the central issues in the presidential campaign? [Packwood] What do I regard as the central issues in the presidential campaign. I don't think they differ from the issues that are important in the campaign between Senator Morse and myself. Obviously Vietnam is the key issue because of the moral problems it causes, the financial problems it causes in this country. Law and order, by whatever name you call it, whether you're talking about civil rights or plain crime in the streets and by this I mean the purse snatching, door rattling robber or organized

crime are obviously problems. Dissent, and I separate that from law and order, dissent and the problems we face on our campus are undoubtedly critical. To that I've got to add a 25 billion dollar deficit, the six percent inflation and all of the economic problems that have gone on in this country and have plagued this country under the recent Johnson administration because I don't think we can any longer afford the [Morse] I would add to that only by saying that I think foreign policy is probably the major issue that confronts us, but don’t overlook the domestic ones. On the domestic front, let me say, we have got to see to it that we make the savings in our national budget so we can meet the domestic crisis. That’s why you find your senator voting for great cuts in foreign expenditures. May I say outside of Vietnam, but as far as Vietnam is concerned, of course I have voted against the appropriations for Vietnam because of the check—the constitution of the United States calls it a check—that we would stop voting the money the tightline falls from six to nine months, you wouldn’t have a bullet or an airplane and say to the president ‘there’s

going to be no more money, you’re going to have to change your course of action in Vietnam,’ then we would end the war and those that are voting the money are voting the money to kill American boys in Vietnam. Stop appropriating the money and they’ll have to bring them home and the sooner the better. [applause] [New speaker] Mr. Chairman, Lloyd Hamill, member of the city club. I’d like the opinion of both speakers on where they stand with regard to tax incentives for business to hire the hardcore unemployed. [Morse] Well I want to say that it is one of the programs that we are supporting in the congress of the United States. You’re going to have to bring the private segment of the economy in to helping us solve the problems of the ghetto, you’re going to have to carry out that Kerner report and that Kerner report’s going to cost an awful lot of money. And it can’t be done entirely by the taxpayers of the country. We’ve got to do it also by getting the private segment of the economy to get in there as a partner with the federal government to do it, and I have already in

the Senate time and time again made my position perfectly clear on this. May I also point out, we're going to do the same thing in meeting the educational crisis. I've got a bill, may I say, in the senate now, and I will introduce it again if I'm back there in January. It's going to draw the private segment of the economy into building the school we need. We’ve got several hundred thousand boys and girls going to school just a half a day a day and you’re cheating them out of a high school education because they can’t qualify for high school. And we’ve got to work out a joint program. [applause] [Packwood] More than most Oregon legislators I've had some experience I guess in dealing with the ghetto because my legislative district includes Albina. Obviously one problem comes through over and over and that problem is jobs, decent, relevant, jobs. I think the National Alliance of business deserves credit, this is the organization headed by Henry Ford

nationally and Glenn Jackson here, when they say we're going to put to work the 500,000 hardcore unemployed-- unemployable in this nation by 1971. To me, business should have help, because a business is willing to undertake a job of that magnitude, and Lord knows the government failed to do it, I think they deserve some tax credit or tax incentives for the job training programs that are obviously going to be expensive. I think the human resources Investment Act which has been before Congress for many years and would do just this, should be passed because in some way, somehow, we’re going to have to pull the teeth of the causes of urban unrest, and jobs is the principal problem. [applause] [Audience Member?] Mr. Packwood, we all know of the great good you’ve done for the Republican party of Oregon, but in view of your attacks on Senator Morse’s achievements for Oregon, could you tell us what you’ve done in six years in the legislature for East Central, Albina, education, the stinginess of Salem? [Packwood] I'm

almost embarrassed about the education one. In 1965, the only time the Oregon Education Association had a right and wrong record for what was good for education what was bad, they had 15 issues and I was right 15 times, and was wrong none in their estimation as to what was good for Oregon education. As far as what's good for the state, and this is what I'm looking at because I'm a state legislator, I introduced most of the Metropolitan Study Commission legislation that passed the last house of representatives unfortunately failed in the Senate-- one or two of the bills passed-- most of them passed the House of Representatives. I introduced the bill to give liquidated damages in civil rights cases for discrimination because of failure to rent or sale because of race, and this of course relates directly to Albina. Introduced a bill to attempt to control air pollution exhaust on automobiles and I think these are adequate enough and I could go on further. [applause]

[Morse] A brief comment on the Albina situation. I happen to be the one that has helped the Albina cooperation establish a program out there for the training of jobs skills for the unemployable. We had to do it, I finally had to go to the white house to do it, but as Mr. ?Niedemeyer?, Mr. Webb, and others connected with the Albina corporation will tell you, they are on the way to the establishment of a private corporation in Albina that is going to be a pilot program to show what private in Albina that is going to be a pilot program to show what private industry can do in ?jobs in America? [inaudible] we’ll add some 200 or 300 of them in the Albina area, we’ve got contracts out in the first department to start training and developing the skills in the hands and the minds to make them employable in self-sustaining jobs after this pilot program is over. [applause] [New speaker] Well that’s the end of the Packwood-Morse

confrontation, Warren attended it. And it was not so good to hear them and that the performance on television came through much better. The word performance is a Freudian slip. October 25, 1968.