forming Arts. Perth Amboy, N.J., was given credit for a facility it planned to build later. The GAO reports are full of such cases. 2. The program operates like Robin Hood in reverse. It approves the taking of property by police power from ordinary citizens and selling it by advance arrangement to other, often wealthy, private citizens at prices frequently as low as 30 percent of acquisition cost. That 70-percent writedown constitutes a huge subsidy which robs taxpayers everywhere for the benefit of chosen redevelopers. For example: In Washington, D.C., according to Senator JOHN WILLIAMS, Republican, of Delaware, the city's redevelopment agency paid the D.C. Transit System, of which O. Roy Chalk is president, $1,266,605 for some property, then later leased it back to his Chalk House West, Inc., for 99 years at a bargain rental of $43,221 a year. Some of these deals extend subsidized housing to middle-income families and so widen the scope of the welfare state. When it was begun 15 years ago, Washington's slow moving $100 million Southwest Urban Renewal Area B project was supposed to provide housing at $17 per room per month. Instead, as Representative JOHN KYL, Republican, of Iowa, says, "The area is full of super-duper glass apartments which rent for $175 per month and up, unfurnished." 3. It forces poor but independent homeowners into subsidized public housing. A well-known Washington judge, E. Barrett Prettyman, spoke eloquently of the people in a well-kept area doomed because it failed to meet modern standards. "What if its owners and occupants like it that way?" he asked. "Suppose they are old fashioned and prefer single-family dwellings; suppose they like small flower gardens, believe that a plot of ground is the place to rear children? suppose these people can't afford to own more modern homes? The poor, the slow, the old, the small in ambition have no less right to property than the quick, the young, the aggressive. Are such questions to be decided by the Government?" Or Urban renewal in practice seems to displace, most often, poor Negroes. Declared Representative WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, Republican, of New Jersey, "The pattern in the District of Columbia in this regard follows the national pattern, so much so that urban renewal has come to mean 'Negro removal' in the minds of those it was intended to help." Adds the Most Reverend Patrick A. O'Boyle, Catholic archbishop of Washington: "We gain nothing by tearing down slum housing if we force the residents to create new slums elsewhere by overcrowding." In Alexandria, Va., the Durant Civic Association is struggling desperately to prevent destruction of a neighborhood of neat, clean, older houses, owned and well kept by thrifty Negroes whose families have lived there for as long as 100 years. "Where can our people buy equal housing with the money they will get?" asks A. Melvin Miller, the attorney leading the fight. 4. Urban renewal ruins thousands of small business enterprises, many of which could survive and even flourish under programs to rehabilitate rather than raze their areas. Many concerns lease their premises; when urban renewal uproots them, the owners of the buildings receive fair market value for the property, but the renters get nothing for the worth of their going businesses (which includes goodwill, customers, etc.).1 Moving to new neighborhoods where they are not known often means tragedy and heartbreak, especially for older merchants. A study by Brown University showed that 40 percent of the shops uprooted in the Providence, R. I., urban-renewal program had to go out of business. By 1970, it has been es 1 See "Bulldozers at Your Door," "The Reader's Digest," September 1963. timated, more than 200,000 small businesses will have been closed by urban renewal-a catastrophe largely overlooked in rosy descriptions of these programs. 5. The program encourages landgrabbing and hasty starts on ill-conceived projects, often followed by long periods of stagnation. About 20 percent of all projects are abandoned. Seventy percent of all land seized so far has not yet been put to the use designated. Boston, for instance, now has 19 urbanrenewal projects involving $227,960,000. When the books of the Boston Redevelopment Authority were examined by State auditor Thomas J. Buckley, he reported: "The principal result of BRA operations has been the creation of numerous parking lots on valuable lands, which have been rented to private operators at a fraction of their value. Land owned by BRA is not subject to real estate taxes, and therefore the delay is construction has cost the city thousands of dollars in tax revenues." During the period of Buckley's audit (late 1957 to early 1963), approximately $1,675,000 was paid to various contractors for maintenance and major repairs to property scheduled for demolition. Buckley was unable to find a single case in which this work was done under contract resulting from competitive bidding. 6. Urban renewal programs often enrich slum owners. A slum landlord can split single apartments in two and then, because of crowding aggravated by demolitions elsewhere, charge huge rents. Finally he sells out to urban renewal, and since slums pay high returns per square foot of space, he receives a handsome price. He takes his bonanza, pays a 25-percent capital gains tax, buys another slum, and waits for urban renewal to buy him out again-ad nauseam. 7. The HHFA in Washington-given remarkably broad discretionary powers-runs the urban renewal show. Once a city council applies for and receives Federal aid on a project, it must subordinate itself to Federal laws and regulations, under the threat of forfeiture of Federal funds. Worse, communities with their own master plans for private building suddenly find the plans within the renewal area frozen for the life of the Federal project-sometimes for as long as 40 years. Once a program is started, no one is free from condemnation on whim. If but one small structure in a block of five buildings can be declared substandard, all houses or businesses in that block can be condemned for urban renewal. Thus, local initiative to improve property is throttled, and blight is accelerated by the very law designed to cure it. 8. Community development programs may be used for the extension of political power The by whichever party is in the saddle. United States Chamber of Commerce cites two recent instances in which the administration asked 2,400 city mayors to use their influence for passage of legislation. One was a foreign aid bill, the other the plan to set up a new Department of Urban Affairs and Housing. "If this political alliance between the cities and the Federal Government were to become fully effective," the chamber warns, "the national two-party system would almost certainly be impaired, and the effectiveness of local voluntary organizations would deteriorate." These are a few of the major complaints against federally subsidized urban renewal. Flaws in its operation have become so obvious that even the lure of "something for nothing" is losing its charm. In some cities, such as Los Angeles and Richmond, Va., city councils have rejected projects after vigorous civic protests. In others, such as Dallas and Lincoln, Nebr., voters have turned down Federal aid by 2-to-1 margins. S. Howard Evans, principal architect of the highly effective community development program of the United States Chamber of Commerce, says, "The responsibility for redeveloping and revitalizing a city belongs to the people of that city, and to nobody else. Redevelopment is essential, but it must be an orderly self-help program, not a gigantic blitzkrieg. Genuine new life for a city can only be generated from within. It cannot be granted from above, or imposed from the outside by drastic action which destroys the very civic values it must have to succeed. People in cities all over America are rediscoving the classic truth that free Federal money' costs far too much." Congress must now take a full, hard look at the entire Federal urban renewal program, which, to date, has fallen far short of its goals. It must insure that adequate housing is made available to families displaced by urban renewal one of the major points President Lyndon B. Johnson made clear in calling for a "revised" program. We must end the waste, favoritism, and arbitrary use of power that helps the greedy and hurts the needy. These are the minimum steps that must be taken before a new "crash" effort in urban renewal is allowed to send still more billions down the slippery political sluiceways. One Quick Step, and a Hop Away EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks, I wish to place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at this time an editorial column, "One Quick Step, and a Hop Away," which was written by Mr. Malcolm A. Johnson and appeared in the February 23, 1964, issue of the Tallahassee Democrat, one of Florida's leading daily newspapers. Mr. Johnson is one of the most knowledgeable, clear-thinking and outstanding newspapermen of the Southeastern States. In this article he deals with the action of the Supreme Court of the United States in ruling that congressional districts within a State must be substantially equal in population. I hope that each of my colleagues will read Mr. Johnson's commentary of what could take place as a result of this decision. The article follows: ONE QUICK STEP, AND A HOP AWAY (By Malcolm B. Johnson) Just one quick step and a hop, now, and our Federal judiciary will be in a position to declare any number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives vacant, then proceed to dictate district lines in such a way as to separate your Congressman from his electorate and influence. This assumption of power by appointive, life-term judges over the constituency of the directly elected Representatives of the people should bother you-unless you are naive enough to think a moral lawyer-politician gains supreme wisdom and benevolence when someone puts a black robe on him. The Supreme Court of the United States kicked over 175 years of contrary rulings last week to decree that our Constitution, although it reads the same as before, now means districts from which a State's congressmen are elected must be substantially equal in population; and if they aren't, the Federal courts can do something about it. Since the Court conceded population equality among districts can't be achieved precisely (even through its omniscience), it left undeclared just how much inequality equals practicable equality. As in the plague of cases involving apportionment of representation in State legislatures these past couple of years, the issue of population equity in this matter of lining up congressional districts is secondary. No one will argue that we have lawmaking representation anywhere near proportionate to population, although we might debate whether that is the primary consideration in our system. We could argue, too, about whether the disparities give us bad government, or if their elimination-if possible-would improve it; but that argument has been lost in mass of arithmetic surrounding the issue, and it might be good to recall that we were warned by either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison in an unsigned Federalist paper that "nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles." THE GRAVER ISSUE The graver question today is whether the courts should, for any reason, move in on the hitherto exclusive legislative business of making representation adjustments indicated by population growth and shifts. Until a generation ago, few judges would claim the Constitution gave them any right to make or change law when it seemed to them that constitutional lawmaking agencies were moving too slowly or in the wrong direction. The Constitution hasn't been changed, but they've been declaring more and more power for themselves. This is the point at which we might try to anticipate the quick step and the hop which could bring us a judicial tyranny unless someone hobbles the Supreme Court in its eager rush. The quick step is almost on us. Already pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal is an order of three appointive Federal judges who actually laid down an apportionment of representation in the Oklahoma Legislature because divisions by the legislature, under the State constitution, and by the elective Oklahoma Supreme Court didn't suit them. It is generally agreed among shouldershrugging lawyers that, sooner or later, the Supreme Court will say that lower Federal judges, or the Big Court itself, can allot those seats in State legislatures. It logically follows that, having done it once, they can do it whenever an imbalance of population is shown-which in a growing, shifting State like Florida could be about once a year. Then would come the hop, and not a very long one: The reasoning behind the ruling last week that Georgia has an unconstitutional lineup of congressional districts is exactly the reasoning in the earlier cases on State legislature representation. So, if the Supreme Court says how many delegates to the Oklahoma State Legislature must come from each county or group of counties, it would hardly blanch at decreeing which geographical areas of the various States may send delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives. IF YOU HAD THE POWER Now, almost any small group of intelligent men could sit down and give us congressional districts and State legislature representation more nearly proportionate to population than we have-if they were clothed with the arbitrary power to do it; but who wants to grant any little group that kind of arbitrary power? The minute those nine men on the U.S. Supreme Court decide they can decree the constituency of the U.S. House of Representatives they will go even beyond the making of laws into the very realm of making government. Specifically, an unscrupulous majority of five on the Court could, right now, shift the line of succession to the Presidency by cutting House Speaker JOHN MCCORMACK out of his Massachusetts district (which has nearly 25 percent more people than another district) and making him run in a predominantly Republican district. If he lost, the House would have to elect a new Speaker who would become President if anything happened to Lyndon Johnson. More plausibly, a Supreme Court conspiracy could bring chaos to the seniority system, on which the whole House is organized and operated, by gerrymandering older members into districts where they would have to run against each other or would be at a disadvantage. A really clever redistricting, such as might come from judges who learned about political machinations in their youth, could even maneuver out of office a chairman of the powerful Committee on Rules, or of Judiciary, or Appropriations, or Armed Services or others who might be obstacles to their desires or to the ambitions of executive or military cronies. Merely entertaining a series of harassing suits that could knock a Congressman out of his district might be enough to whip him into line. TIME FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES There are just lots of ways a Supreme Court with this kind of power could gain the top hand in Washington, all in the name of giving the people more equal representa tion. men The House could bow up and refuse to recognize court-made districts and elected from them by exercising its constitutional authority to pass on qualifications and elections of its own Members; but that would require an election contest in the districts, where enforcement of court orders would be a stronger influence on ballot arrangements than efforts to hold the status quo. Also, Congress has power to remove judges by impeachment if it catches them at such tactics. And it can limit judicial authority by statute, or by proposing to the States a constitutional amendment to supersede a bad court judgment (the only amendment respecting the judiciary we've ever adopted, the 11th, was for that very purpose). It's amazing that we haven't heard a loud demand in Congress for bringing some of these checks and balances into play since the Court stuck its nose into this business last Monday. It would be even more amazing if we found there haven't been a good many cloakroom strategy conferences along this very line. For those who might scoff that the fine men on the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't think of any such skulduggery, we might recall that Thomas Jefferson said: "It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united." Change the Draft EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1964 Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, I have been much impressed by a series of arti cles relative to the imperfections of the draft, which appeared recently in one of New York City's leading newspapersthe New York World-Telegram. I feel that in publishing these articles, this crusading newspaper has performed a valuable public service in calling attention to the pressing need for updating the draft law to meet present day military manpower requirements. As the sponsor of H.R. 10211 in this House-a bill which is identical with S. 2432, the proposed legislation introduced in the other body by Senator KEATING, and which calls for the establishment of a commission to make a comprehensive study and investigation of the adequacy of the present system of compulsory military training under the Universal Military Training and Service Act-I was particularly pleased and impressed by the objective approach of these articles, and by the well-documented inequities which were found to exist under the present law. Lee Townsend present a highly effective Because I feel that these articles by review of the inequities and shortcomings of the draft-inequities and shortcomings which should be called to the attention of Members of the Congress, because of the valuable background material in the series on the need for updating the Universal Military Training and Service Act-I ask for unanimous consent to have the first of this excellent series of the New York World-Telegram articles on the draft printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. WHAT'S REALLY WRONG WITH THE DRAFT "Avoiding the draft is no more immoral than avoiding rain puddles." A STUDENT. "Attitudes toward the draft are an invitation to national disaster." A MANPOWER EXPERT. "Guys never get called for physicals but I got taken. Is that justice?" INDUCTEE AT FORT DIX. (By Lee Townsend) A Queens inductee, who knew little more about the draft than the fact that he was caught in it, recently gave this evaluation of peacetime conscription: "It stinks." Detailed study of this Nation's so-called universal military training program shows he's right. In its 15-year history, the peacetime draft system has taken the few and left the many. In an elaborate attempt to be flexible and fair it has often favored the rich over the poor, the shrewd over the naive, the highly educated over the unlettered, the unsavory over the wholesome and, most recently, the married over the single. It has taken men out of good civilian jobs and left others to stand on unemployment lines. It has made most youths feel there's nothing wrong in avoiding military service. It has made the few who get drafted feel they are members of a very unlucky minority. Postwar conscription has grown up to be a Government giant whose eyes are far bigger than its stomach. It has growled menacingly at every young man since its birth in 1948 but it has gobbled up only about 15 of every 100 New York males registered for the draft in all that time. And this figure includes everyone inducted here during the Korean war, the 1961 Berlin crisis and every other emergency of the atomic age. Selective service currently gives Uncle Sam only 7 percent of his fighting men. And there is no conclusive proof that it is very in bulldozing into effective men other branches of the service to avoid the draft. Strip away the rumors and myths about selective service and there seem to be more of these around than draftees-and you have this simple fact: If you can reach 26 without putting on a military uniform, chances are you never will wear one unless there's a war. A man can artfully avoid a call to patriotism if he reaches the "magic age" of 26 by keeping a school deferment, an "essential job," a wife-or even, in some cases, a psychiatrist. The most popular way to stay out of the Army-at least if numbers are any indication-is to flunk out. Induction stations tell about half the men hauled down for preinduction examinations that they are not physically, mentally or morally fit to be drafted. Right now in this city there are nearly 200,000 draft-age men in this group of rejectees twice the number of New Yorkers currently in any military uniform * * * even those in Reserve and college ROTC units. FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DRAFTED LAST YEAR With so many safely tucked away in one loophole or another, it's no wonder a Brooklyn draftee one of the 5,500 men drafted here last year-said in an interview at Fort Dix: "There are about 10 guys in my neighborhood who never even got called for physicals, but I got taken. What kind of justice is that?" At the beginning of last month, this city of nearly 8 million people, had only 1,500 men ripe for the draft-hardly a large enough crowd to cause a good rush-hour subway jam. These men were the only ones in the ages currently being inducted-22 to 26-who weren't deferred, exempt or unfit. And only 568 of the 1,500 had been examined. A group of Columbia students interviewed a few days ago said frankly that they thought there was nothing immoral about avoiding the draft through legal means. Sophomore Mike Teitelman-one of the 25,000 New Yorkers with school defermentssaid avoiding the draft was no more immoral than "avoiding stepping in rain puddles. No one wants to step in puddles or be drafted." DRAFT IMMORAL His classmate, Michael Flug, said: "The draft itself is immoral. Any refusal to cooperate is justified." Dan Colbert, another sophomore, felt it was no more wrong to stay out of "than it is immoral to try and pay the minimum taxes that you owe." One student said dodging the draft was "all part of the American game. It's played with the realization that you'll eventually be taken, but it's your duty to avoid it if possible. If you give in, you have no American spirit." Dr. Eli Ginzberg of the conservation of human resources project at Columbia called the current attitude toward the draft an "invitation to national disaster." A history major said he planned to earn his doctorate which, he said, should keep him deferred until he's 26. A science major boasted he would teach until he was 26 and skip the draft. TEN THOUSAND DEFERRED There are currently 10,000 New Yorkers deferred for what draft boards determine to be essential industry jobs. They include high school and college science teachers and some language teachers. Also certain mathematicians, tool and die makers, patternmakers, physicists, glassblowers, and men in a host of other jobs. If these men keep these jobs until they're 26 they will "have it made," as they say in the Army. Selective service registrants who receive certain deferments such as the ones for schools or jobs-have their draft liability extended from the age of 26 to 35. Therefore, many youths think eventually they will be called, no matter how long they Before keep a deferment. This isn't true. anyone over 26 can be drafted, every eligible man under that age has to be taken. And a New York draft spokesman said, "Selective Service officials are certain that all manpower requests of the military short of a declaration of war can be met by unmarried registrants not yet 26 years of age." A Presidential order issued last September allows you to stay a safe distance from the draft if you take a wife. SIX THOUSAND MARRIED This has already taken nearly 6,000 New Yorkers from the pool of available men, with the number guaranteed to rise sharply. The new "out" has also created a situation which points up one of the inequities of the Selective Service System. With husbands joining the thousands of other untouchables, draft officials predict that the pool of available men here will drop to the point that men of college age soon will be eyed for induction for the first time in years. At present the lowest age of call is between 22 and 23. Local draft boards have the undisputed authority to determine whether each job and school deferment should be renewed in the national interest. Faced with a shortage of readily available men, it would be possible for draft boards to decide certain students would best serve the national interest in uniform, while others are allowed to stay in the classroom. This also means that some students soon. may be taken out of college while others who came before them not only finished their undergraduate work undisturbed but were allowed to go on to graduate schoolif they had the money. RUBBERSTAMP RENEWAL There are other paradoxes, inequities, and inconsistencies in the draft which give good cause to wonder why it has gone virtually free from organized criticism so long and has been renewed with rubberstamp regularity every 4 years by Congress. For instance, a man who avoids service because he is morally unfit to wear a uniform need do nothing to serve his country. But a man who is a sincere conscientious objector usually has to work 2 years at a nonprofit, often menial job in return for the right to stay out of the Army. Last week, the Pentagon announced it would study the draft laws and procedures with an eye to possible reforms. But military officials made it clear there was little chance the draft would be abolished. Since the beginning of the Korean war, slightly more than 175,000 New Yorkers have been inducted, less than 15 percent of the 1.3 mililon males registered with the Selective Service System here. With 5,000 men now entering the New York draft reservoir each month-about twice the number who are leaving the poolchances are draft-eligible males of tomorrow will have even better than an 85 percent chance of never answering "Greetings." The Challenge of Citizenship EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. E. Y. BERRY OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I wish to include in the RECORD the very excellent speech of Arthur J. Campbell, of Deadwood, S. Dak., winner of the 1964 Voice of Democracy Contest in South Dakota. Arthur is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Robert V. Campbell, and a sophomore in the Deadwood High School. His speech, "The Challenge of Citizenship,” is as follows: THE CHALLENGE OF CITIZENSHIP (By Arthur Campbell, Deadwood, S. Dak.) Challenges they meet man every day the world over. The mountaineer scales a peak because it is there. Doctors fight the challenge of disease and astronauts circle the earth hoping to conquer challenging space. But, Americans, there is an even greater challenge facing us today-a challenge so often forgotten in the whirling pace of the 20th century, yet one so important it demands our full strength and talent. If, when confronted with this challenge, we respond we will remain free-free thinking, free acting, but if we turn away from the challenge, America's entire concept of freedom and its entire way of life will be lost as we absentmindedly look on-for the challenge of which I speak is the challenge of citizenship. Not every citizen of every nation is presented with this challenge. One look will tell you why. Look at the faces of the commoners in other lands. There are few smiles as they toil and sweat for a government and ideal that binds them in the shackles of servitude and inequality. They exist merely for the benefit of the state. To these oppressed, America means a chance to become more than a common slave a chance to dream the dreams of an unshackled individual with individual worth-a chance not only to dream dreams of success and greatness but to actually fulfill these dreams for, you see, in America the Government is a servant of the people; not the people a servant of the Government. America is truly the stronghold of freedom. Because these things are true-because our Nation represents rights and democracy and because our ideal is exclusive, we are presented with a challenge. How do we preserve and protect this ideal that makes us indiivduals? This is the challenge of citizenship. We find the answer to our question in history. What about our forefathers, those who passed the torch of freedom to us? Were they Casper Milquetoasts or Mr. Do-Nothings? When they saw tyranny closing in about them did they shrink from the challenging call to freedom or relax in their easy chairs and wait for Joe to do something? No. They fought a hard fight and many of them gave their lives to regain freedom from the jaws of tyranny. But that was not all. Those early Americans used their freedoms too. They spoke against those things which slowly would undermine the principles for which blood was shed. They considered who could best lead them and they had the interest to go to the polls and vote for these candidates. Through civil war, world wars, turmoil, and confusion-for nearly 200 years our American ideal of freedom and individual worth has endured. Now in the 20th century we too must meet the challenge of citizenship by using our freedoms wisely. It is said we never really appreciate anything unless we work and fight for it. Then work and fight for freedom we must. Around us too are those forces which would slowly undermine our way of life-corruption, tyranny, complacency. Around us are the millions who look to you and me, Americans, as the protectors of individual worth and freedom. There is the generation yet to come. Let us not pass on to them an America in which freedom is past tense because we did not meet the confronting challenge to preserve, protect, exercise, and pass on our heritage. We must meet the greatest challenge in a world of challenge. Will you join me in the meeting of this challenge-the challenge of citizenship. New Florida Times-Union Building Honors Century of Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 2, 1964 Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for 99 years my hometown daily newspaper, the Florida TimesUnion, published in Jacksonville, Fla., has been a leader in the growth and development of Florida and the South. It has taken its place among the great newspapers of this country. Recently it was announced that the Times-Union and its afternoon companion, the Jacksonville Journal-a bright and lively, wellwritten sister newspaper-would construct a modern $11 million plant to house the editorial, business, and mechanical departments of the Florida Publishing Co., publishers of the two papers. This new building will be built on the shores of the St. Johns River in downtown pulsing Jacksonville, the gateway to the space age, and the South's most progressive business and financial city. It will take its place in Jacksonville's expanding downtown redevelopment program which was accomplished primarily with private funds and local funds, not Federal loans or grants. I commend to the Members of the House of Representatives the Florida Publishing Co., which goes forth with great enthusiasm and respect into its second century of leadership in the fourth estate. An editorial from the Friday, February 28, 1964, issue of the Florida Times-Union follows: GROWTH IS A CHALLENGE TO GREATER SERVICE The magnificient new building soon to rise as an addition to Jacksonville's growing skyline, housing the most modern facilities and equipment which technical advances can provide for the publication of the Florida Times-Union and the Jacksonville Journal, represents the realization of a long cherished dream. The 11-story tower and adjoining production building, occupying a 9-acre site between Riverside Avenue and the St. Johns just west of the Acosta Bridge, will add striking new beauty to Jacksonville's midtown development which has won for the city national recognition, and which testifies to its economic strength and vitality. The new building should be well on its way to completion on January 1, 1965, when the Florida Times-Union will begin the observance of a full century of service to Jacksonville and the vast area of north Florida and south Georgia where its readership extends and where its influence is felt. The Florida Publishing Co. naturally takes pride in its record of growth in fulfilling its function as a mirror of the growth and development of the city and region it serves. The daily newspaper, more than any other institution, reflects the life and character of the community, and its success is measured directly in its accurate fulfillment of that responsibility. The ownership and management of the Florida Publishing Co. and every member of the staff who dedicate their time and talents to the production of the best newspaper possible are therefore keenly conscious that the overriding concern of their efforts is the "end product," a newspaper which meets the needs of its readers for information, thoughtprovoking comment and entertaining features, presented in attractive format and reliably delivered to their hands. Those who now carry the responsibility of serving the readership of the Florida TimesUnion are custodians of a rich heritage from those who, over the past century, have contributed so much to the building of an enterprise which is synonymous with the growth and progress of the community. The beautiful new physical plant to house the operations, therefore, is not an end within itself, but a symbo! and challenge to ever greater service. As expressed by Robert C. Millar, president of the Florida Publishing Co., "the development of the best newspaper men and machines can produce is the responsibility of which we are most conscious." Lithuanian Independence EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 representative in the United Nations and at other international forums has been passing as the protector of all subjugated peoples, especially former colonies in Africa and Asia: Therefore be it "Resolved, That we the Americans of Lithuanian descent in Lowell do hereby express our gratitude to the Government of the United States of America for its support of Lithuania's cause for freedom and for its refusal to recognize the occupation and illegal annexation of Baltic States-Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union; and "Resolved, That we Americans of Lithuanian descent are determined and united to uphold the efforts of the Lithuanian people to regain their liberation and national independence; and "Resolved, That the Government of the United States approve or endorse no agreement which would in any manner accede to the outgrowth of any past, present or future Soviet aggressive action; and "Resolved, That the Government of the United States take appropriate steps through the United Nations and other channels to stop the Soviet Union's policy of colonialism in Eastern Europe and to force the Soviet Union to withdraw its occupation forces from the Baltic States; and "Resolved, That the copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the President of the United States, His Excellency Lyndon B. Johnson; to the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk; to the U.S. Representative of the United Nations, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson; to the U.S. Senators of Massachusetts, the Honorable Leverett Saltonstall and the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy; the Representative of the Fifth Congressional District of Massachusetts, the Honorable Bradford Morse and to the press." LOUIS PIULAUSKAS, Chairman. EDWARD J. BAUMEL, Secretary. Results Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, on the 46th anniversary of Lithuanian Independence First District of Michigan Questionnaire Day on February 23, 1964, the AmericanLithuanian community of Lowell met to adopt a resolution in commemoration of the occasion. The resolution is a fine statement of the principles involved in the long battle to achieve freedom and independence once more for the embattled people of that gallant nation. Un der unanimous consent I include the resolution in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: RESOLUTION BY LITHUANIAN COMMUNITY OF LOWELL, MASS. Lithuanian resolutions committee having assembled at DLK Vytautas Club, 447 Central Street, Lowell, Mass., on February 23, 1964, to commemorate the 46th anniversary of Lithuanian Independence Day, the members of the committee, as well as the American-Lithuanian community of Lowell, unanimously adopted and passed the following resolutions: "Whereas the people and the Government of the United States believe in inalienable principles of individual and national freedom and dignity as enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Atlantic Charter and the Charter of the United Nations; and "Whereas the Soviet Union in pursuance of secret agreement between Stalin and Hitler in 1940 invaded, occupied and subjugated three independent Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia; and "Whereas Soviet occupation forces, Red Army and secret police have conducted and continue to conduct an elaborate plan of genocide, aiming at destruction of the peoples of these three Baltic nations by executions and mass deportations to remote regions of the Soviet Union; and "Whereas the Soviet Union through her EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. LUCIEN N. NEDZI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. NEDZI. Mr. Speaker, a strong interest in public issues was indicated by the heavy response to my questionnaire, sent out to voters in the new First District of Michigan. The recipients of my questionnaire borhood or party affiliation. were selected without regard to neigh It is significant that voters favor the overall record of the Kennedy-Johnson administration by over 4 to 1. This is heavier than the Democratic-Republican breakdown in this predominantly Democratic district. Of course, as the election nears, partisan feeling will increase and the margin can be expected to narrow. On foreign policy issues, the voters favor our assisting South Vietnam's fight against the Communists, and U.S. support of the U.N. But, evident from comments added to responses, there is much confusion and dissatisfaction over our Cuba policy. Much of this appears to be an emotional response, an irritation arising from Castro harangues, 11. If you are a Republican, please in- dicate your first and second choices among RECORD, I include the following article from the New York News of February 7, WORLD AFFAIRS: L.B.J. MUST GET TOUGH, Pity L.B.J. He feels compelled to run for reelection on his predecessor's peace policy just when that policy's bankruptcy is filling the international air with explosions. From Panama to South Vietnam, by way of France and Africa, the result of the policy of abdication pursued by the Kennedy ad- ministration is bursting out all over and 11.4 demanding action of Kennedy's successor. It is not his fault. He, like so many sup- porters of the past administration, was simply taken in by the fallacious assumption of the New Frontiersmen. This was that appeasement of, and economic aid to, the U.S.S.R., Indonesia, the United Arab Re- 12. If you are a Democrat, please indicate your first and second choice among the fol- 24. 2 21.1 5.3 This included the belief that American advisory action in Vietnam would contain communism until such time as all Vietnam could be reunited and neutralized. It im- plied that communism, having secured the neutralization of once pro-West Laos, would In short, the New Frontiersmen who And now history is once more revealing All this, as I said, is very disturbing to He may shortly have to give up the cur- rent comedy and send many more Amer- In short, he may have to start acting more And it would enhance L.B.J.'s place in IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, the prop- aganda drive against the quality stabili- zation bill has resulted in many news- paper editors leaping to a fixed opinion before they looked at the real issues in- Fortunately, however, there are many editors who still take the time and trou- ble to carefully examine economic and legislative problems before reaching any editorial conclusions. In this regard, the Rochester, N.H., Courier, in a recent edi- torial entitled "Protection for Consum- ers," provided its readers with a carefully reasoned statement regarding why qual- ity stabilization deserves the support of Quality stabilization is proconsumer legislation, and I urge those interested in this issue to read the Courier editorial stressing this point. With unanimous consent, I therefore insert this editorial, appearing in the January 16, 1964, edi- tion of the Courier, at this point in the Basic consideration in a bill such as qual- ity stabilization, now before Congress, must be: Is it good for the country and its con- sumers? We have to choose between two On one side is the great majority of the nearly 2 million independent retail busi- On the other hand is a comparative hand- |