of Congress, received a communication from the Health Insurance Association of America. In its letter and purported summary of facts, the HIAA argued against legislation to provide hospital insurance to the aged through social security on the grounds that present methods are sufficiently effective. Since receiving this document I have had the opportunity to evaluate the contentions and allegations it contains. The distortions I have discovered shock me. It may be helpful to my colleagues if I share with them my analysis of the claims of the HIAA relating to the ability of private insurance plans to meet the needs of the Nation's aged. ADEQUATE PROTECTION Existing programs, according to the HIAA, "provide adequate protection of our people." How does this claim stack up against the actual facts? While "adequate protection" may be hard to define, one reasonable measure might be how the protection available to older people compares to that held by the younger population. According to HIAA testimony before the Ways and Means Committee last November, it seems that the benefits provided in policies for the aged are about one-third less than the benefits provided to the younger population. In order to grasp the full significance of this fact, one must remember that average spending by aged persons for hospital and nursing home care is more than three times that by younger persons, and care of people over 65 is more than twice as much as that of the rest of the population. This hardly adds up to a picture of “adequate protection." EXTENT OF COVERAGE In July 1959, the HIAA estimated before the House Committee on Ways and Means: By the end of 1960, just 18 months hence, 65 percent of the aged needing and wanting protection will be insured; by the end of 1965, 80 percent of these people will be insured; and by 1970, 90 percent will have such insurance. In July 1961, the HIAA told Congress: In 1969, the proportion of those at ages 65 and over who will have health insurance will be at least 60 percent, may well be as high as 75 percent, and most probably will reach 68 percent. These predictions and projects have confused the issue, carefully avoided the key question of quality of coverage, and distorted the facts. And now, in the material distributed to Members of Congress, the HIAA states that 10,300,000 aged-or 60 percent-had some form of voluntary health insurance in 1962. The U.S. Public Health Service, in the national health survey, has found that only 9.1 million, or 54 percent of the aged, had some form of voluntary health insurance between July 1962 and June 1963. The methodology employed by the HIAA in surveying and reporting is subject to serious question. For one thing, the HIAA projects coverage data applicable to policyholders of all ages and applies to the aged. An additional serious distortion occurs when the HIAA as sumes duplication of coverage among the aged to be similar to that of the total population. This is not the first time that HIAA coverage figures have been in error. In September 1956 the HIAA estimated 68.3 percent of the population with hospital insurance. The Social Security Administration's study of health insurance coverage by age and sex, September 1956, showed this percentage to be 63.6. In July 1958 the HIAA estimated 71 percent of the population with coverage. The Health Information Foundation's household survey at that time showed the percentage to be 65. In the July-December 1959 period, HIAA estimated 72 percent with hospital insurance. The U.S. National Health Survey found only 67.1 percent with such coverage. It appears the validity of HIAA estimates is improved when the result is reduced by about five percentage points. The Subcommittee on Health of the Senate Special Committee on Aging has announced it will begin hearings in April of the coverage of our older citizens under Blue Cross and other private health insurance plans. The committee will go into such matters as the number with coverage and the quality and scope of such coverage. I am anxious to see how the findings of the committee investigation compare with the assertions of the Health Insurance Association of America. PROTECTION DESIGNED ΤΟ MEET INDIVIDUAL NEEDS? The communication we received from the HIAA concludes with this sentence: The voluntary system, with its ability to design its protection to meet individual needs, supplemented by existing local and State programs, can far more effectively meet these needs than a massive, new Federal program of standardized benefits. The facts indicate that the opposite is the case that it is the needs of the insurance industry that are being met by the coverage now being offered to the aged. Even in so-called open enrollment schemes, as in all other forms of individual and family insurance and as in the State-65 plans, strong underwriting limitations inevitably appear to the disadvantage of the aged. There is at least a 6-month waiting period on coverage of preexisting conditions. There are lower limitations on lifetime benefits, while for the younger population, the benefits are not lifetime but are in maximum force for each illness or for each calendar or illness year. There are coinsurance and deductible provisions which impose additional burdens on the aged which do not appear in coverages available to the younger population. There are various other underwriting devices employed to reduce the risk of the carriers. These include arbitrary ratesetting at levels so high, with built-in reserves so substantial, as to entirely eliminate any risk of loss to the carrier. There is plenty of risk left to the insured. The conclusion-the claims to the contrary of the hucksters notwithstandingis inevitable. Voluntary health insurance simply does not have the ability claimed for it. It cannot provide the aged with the protection they need. Older people have substantially larger than average hospital and other health care needs. They use three times as much hospital care as the younger population, and they have special need for long-term care. Their incomes are generally much lower than those of the rest of the population. Voluntary health insurance, with its ability to design its protection to meet individual needs of the aged has, in fact, designed protections for the aged which provide fewer benefits at higher costs and with more stringent underwriting considerations than those available to the rest of the population. The Challenge of Citizenship EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN B. ANDERSON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the Members' attention the speech selected as the first-place winner in the Illinois State Voice of Democracy Contest. Its author is Miss Linda Banning, a 17-year-old girl from Rochelle, Ill. After reading the text of her remarks, I am sure you can readily understand the reason she was singled out for this honor. Her insight into our national problems and the necessity for finding a solution to them, reflects thought and perception far beyond the comprehension of most teenagers. Furthermore, she has leveled a challenge to all Americans, both teenage and adult, which if met would do much to improve our way of life. Speaking as her Congressman, I know I speak for all citizens of Illinois when I commend this young lady for a most articulate and thought-provoking presentation. The text of her remarks follow: THE CHALLENGE OF CITIZENSHIP (By Linda Rae Banning, senior student, Rochelle Township High School, Rochelle, Ill.) Citizenship of the United States of America challenges me, you, and roughly 180 million other Americans. To me, a 17-yearold white girl in a rural community, citizenship says one thing; to an aged Negro who has seen virtually no progress in civil rights during his lifetime, it says another; and to a countless number of segregationalists in Mississippi, citizenship says still something else. And yet I am an individual-a single unit and must tell you the demands that citizenship makes upon me. Citizenship-the principles which I embrace as an American citizen-challenges me to learn, to understand, to grasp. Citizenship demands that I, and I alone, decide what I feel is just, and having made this decision, strive to bring the action I advocate into being through peaceful, yet deliberate behavior. Citizenship demands that I understand the needs for change and yet see the danger in it. I must realize the need for Federal control, and yet see the folly in uncontrolled central power. Citizenship challenges me to read, to comprehend, the complex social, political, and economic forces which inhabit our community, our Na tion, indeed, our world. For these forces, and my reaction to them, will shape my life, or perhaps my death. Thus, I must learn. Citizenship offers me another challenge to love. To love my America, for you see I am free-free to laugh or to cry, free to praise or to scorn, free to walk or to run, to speak or to remain silent, to love or to hate. Yet, I must love; I am challenged to love, for hate and its blindness will undermine all those principles for which countless millions and one-have fought and died. Yes, I love my family, my friends-yes, you, you-and yet this is not enough. For I must reach, and touch, and help that small Negro child who asks, "Mommy, do white puppies hate us, too?" Yes, I must love. Citizenship offers me still one more challenge that, to live-not to exist, not to vegetate, but to live. To live to learn, and having learned, to teach; to love, and having loved to spread love to others; to help, and having helped, to motivate others to help their friends, neighbors, fellow countrymen. For my life, although a gift is mine, and I must use it, work it, live it to my greatest capacity. After seeing a poem by a 16-year-old girl I found myself wondering at the hopelessness of life: "A rather dull pencil on an open book A neatly written homework paper And suddenly I realized that my youth, my life, my citizenship, my America, is what I make it. The assassination of John Fitz gerald Kennedy made me wonder, "Why?" "What a waste of human greatness." And yet, perhaps, President Kennedy served America greater in his death, for we now seeor should see-that we, either through our action or our lack of action, had a part in his death. We did not learn; we did not love; we did not live. We let hatred grow and prosper and finally strike-we, you and I. Thus I must live. Consequently, citizenship in the democratic Republic we call America challenges me to learn, to understand, and grasp, to love to all my potential and to live to my greatest capacity. Simply, citizenship challenges me to learn, to love, and to live-to learn to love to live. Jackson, president, and all his personnel. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the text of the citation: Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. has achieved a dramatic expansion of air cargo export shipments through an intensive program of promoting overseas trade for U.S. industry. The airline has found markets abroad for nonexporting firms, aided them to participate in trade fair and trade center exhibits, arranged business contacts, advised them on foreign merchandising, financing and credit in addition to providing many other services. This program, which has helped to develop outstanding exporters, reflects credit on Seaboard World Airlines and its employees and has contributed materially to the economic growth of the United States. The 202d and 203d Atlas Launches EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. BOB WILSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 1964, a satellite employing a U.S. Air Force Atlas/Agena combination was launched from Point Arguello in California. About 1 hour later, the Air Force successfully launched another Atlas from Cape Kennedy in Florida. A newspaper headline recording these events might have said, "Ho-Hum-Two More Atlas Launches," as in fact a newspaper in Santa Maria, Calif., did in recording a similar Atlas ICBM launch many months ago. Aside from the fact that these two launches marked the seventh time that an Atlas missile had been launched from both the east and west coasts on the same day, they were in fact rather routine flights, but not ones we should take for granted. These particular launches were the 202d and 203d Atlas flights and I call your attention to them because of their Commerce "E" Award to Seaboard World deep significance to the Nation's defense Airlines EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOSEPH P. ADDABBO OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 3, 1964 Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege and pleasure today, March 3, 1964, to be present at a ceremony at the Department of Commerce when Seaboard World Airlines, Inc., Seaboard World Building, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, N.Y., received the much-coveted "E" Award of the Department. The presentation was made by the Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., Under Secretary. I am indeed proud that this outstanding organization is located in the Seventh Congressional District of New York which I have the honor to represent. My sincere congratulations go to Richard M. and space exploration programs, and to the economical well-being of a sizable segment of our Nation's population. I am proud of the fact that the Atlas which was developed by the U.S. Air Force and which is being used in space applications by both that service and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is manufactured by General Dynamics/Astronautics in San Diego, Calif. I am also proud of the fact that Atlas, originally a weapon system conceived and developed under the greatest pressure in order to add to the effectiveness of the Nation's deterrent capacity, has proved itself a most vital machine, so capable and so reliable that it has been designated to carry the brunt of the Nation's space exploration ventures for years to come. Atlas has more scheduled launches during the 1960's than ever before for missions of the Air Force Systems Command and NASA, a demand so great that a new standardized Atlas space launch vehicle called SLV-3 or Atlas-3 has been designed. This standardized vehicle will produce lower long-term costs while increasing flexibility and flight reliability. Development of this standardized vehicle is an excellent example of how existing space systems can be improved to satisfy new requirements. Improvement of a flight proven system such as Atlas is inherently more efficient and economical than designing new vehicles for new missions. Research and development costs are already expended and Atlas has certainly proven its reliability. During 1964, Atlas will be used as the launch vehicle for a wide variety of the Nation's deep space and Earth orbiting flights. These will include launches of Ranger vehicles to the Moon, Mariner vehicles to the vicinity of Mars, Project Fire, atmospheric reentry test vehicles for the manned Apollo program, an eccentric orbiting Earth satellite for geophysical observations and launches of the Centaur orbiting high energy space system which is also built in San Diego. The Centaur spacecraft, developed at the same facility which produces the Atlas, proved the feasibility of liquid hydrogen as a rocket propellant in its highly successful flight last November, and it is the U.S. universal orbiting high enerNASA missions or potential future DOD gy space system suitable for peaceful adaptable for uses on NASA and DOD applications. The Centaur is readily developed boosters as well as the Atlas. Research now in progress can insure the technological growth of the Centaur necessary to retain U.S. leadership in space for many years to come. What does all this mean as far as the significance of Atlas to the Nation is deserves our highest commendation for concerned? First of all, the Air Force the courage it took to develop the country's first ICBM. The fundamental concepts of the Atlas missile were considered quite daring during its original development phase. Many eminent scientists skeptical about its chances of success. and engineers were frankly and openly But it worked, and the Air Force officers as well as industry's representatives who had the courage to develop it initially deserve a great deal of credit which in most cases has so far been denied them. Their foresight gave us an ICBM which added its strength to the Nation's deterrent profile in a far shorter period of time than is usually necessary to bring a new weapon system into being. The task of creating this new weapon system, and the task of constructing its operational bases, both of which were handled by the Air Force and General Dynamics Astronautics, represent a triumph of American teamwork. You may not remember that the first Atlas flew in June 1957; that the first Strategic Air Command operational Atlas flight took place in September 1959; and that the first Project Mercury manned orbital flight was in 1962. You may not remember that Atlas was the first missile to hurl itself into orbit in December 1958, broadcasting President Eisenhower's Christmas greeting from special communication equipment in its nose cone. You may not remember that Atlas placed the first American payload on its path to the moon in April 1962, or that Atlas still holds a world's record for distance for a ballistic missile, well over 9,000 miles, and that this record was set in July 1961. What you probably do remember is that Atlas successfully launched the four U.S.-manned Mercury orbital vehicles. You may also be aware of the fact that the Atlas base activation program was not quite finished when the Cuban crisis came about in the fall of 1962, but that Air Force/industry teamwork was again brought into play to produce operational readiness for a significant number of Atlas launch facilities ahead of time to add significant weight to the country's firm stand in the face of Russian threats. This was another example of Atlas coming through, doing its job quietly but extremely effectively. Atlas has served the Nation as a good soldier, both as a defensive weapon and as a space vehicle. During the early phases of the Mercury program, the seven astronauts visited the Atlas plant in San Diego. At a meeting with astronautics employees, Astronaut Gus Grissom admonished those present to "Do good work." The fact that these highly motivated and highly skilled individuals have done good work is apparent-the role of the Atlas ICBM has expanded far beyond it's original concept; the company, working in concert with NASA, has developed the Centaur vehicle; new ways of further improving the Atlas are being used at the present time to make the proved vehicle even more efficient, for instance: Studies indicate that an Atlas using 30 percent by weight fluorine-oxygen mixture called flox could achieve a 88percent increase in payload for 100-nautical-mile-high orbits, and a 65-percent payload increase for certain other combinations. Studies like this, which could result in improved performances and decreased cost, prove that companies like the one which developed the Atlas are truly a national resource, bringing together creative thinking and sound management which are essential ingredients in the successful pursuit of our space efforts. There are people who claim that the Atlas missile is being made obsolete by other newer vehicles, but this is obviously not true. Some of the earlier Atlas operational launch facilities may well be phased out in the relatively near future, but these are the ones which were constructed very early in the Atlas operational program with the single aim of providing the Air Force with functional ICBM's at the earliest possible datetime being the principle consideration. Those launch facilities are very poorly protected from potential enemy attack, and it makes real sense to maintain only those launch facilities which afford the greatest amount of protection and are, therefore, the most economical-when the total missile force is sufficient to deter attack. But even as the early Atlas launch pads are phased out, new applications for the versatile Atlas are being developed, new projects are being designated for Centaur. Looking forward to continuation of these highly successful and valuable pro grams, it seems appropriate on the occasion of the 203d Atlas launch to pause and single out those individuals, companies, and branches of the military service which have been responsible for this accomplishment. Based on the record, this same Air Force-industry team is capable of solving the increasingly complex systems development problems that face us in the future, in space, so that some day this team may be responsible for another routine headline which says "Ho-HumAnother Manned Space Vehicle Left Its Launch Pad Today." It Depends on Whose Constitutional Rights EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNIAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Speaker, there have been many instances of violation of the constitutional rights of Americans by this administration. We all recall the leak of material about a witness who put the finger on Bobby Baker; we have the uncontrovertible evidence that, in Tennessee, counsel for one of the defense witnesses has been constantly watched; and now we learn, in New York, that the sanctity of the mail has been violated. Post indicates that even that newspaper A recent editorial in the Washington is shocked: PEEPING AT THE MAIL It turns out that Roy Cohn said no more than what was true when he charged the other day that the Federal Government had ordered a watch on all mail addressed to his lawyer. An assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the perjury-conspiracy case in which Mr. Cohn is a defendant admitted the fact in court on Saturday. Federal District Judge Dawson denounced it as shocking. In a mail watch, the Post Office is supposed merely to inspect envelopes, noting the name and address of each writer to the subject of the watch. Post Office authorities assert that they do not delay delivery of the mail by this procedure. They also assert that they do not open any first-class letters or read the contents by any electronic or other device. Mail watches are frequently undertaken at the request of law-enforcement agencies. But is is hard to understand what assistance a mere mail watch can give to law enforcement. Its principal effect, we surmise, is to create a great deal of anxiety-anxiety that a list of correspondents is being compiled and may be used for some sinister purpose, anxiety that, despite the protestations of the Post Office Department, the contents of first-class mail are being inspected. As a matter of fact, that anxiety is much more widespread than it ought to be in a free country. A Post Office Department which admits mail watches is not fully believed when it denies opening the mail; and in the same way a Federal Bureau of Investigation which admits tapping a few telephones in violation of the law is not fully believed when it denies tapping many telephones. Nothing is more calamitous to the climate of a community than pervasive distrust and anxiety of this kind. If the law does not specifically forbid mail snooping as it forbids wiretapping, it ought to be amended to do so. Confidence in the privacy of communications is too valuable to Americans to be breached for the sake of a minor aid and convenience to the police. The Challenge of Citizenship EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, this year the Massachusetts Voice of Democracy contest sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars was won by a young lady from Melrose, Mass. Miss Sheila C. Nevin's fine winning effort on the subject "The Challenge of Citizenship" is one of the best discussions I have seen of the importance of individual effort in achieving a more civilized world. Under unanimous consent I include Miss Nevin's address in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: THE CHALLENGE OF CITIZENSHIP (By Sheila C. Nevin, 45 Appleton Street, Melrose, Mass.) In contrast to the general uproar in Congress that morning, a young Senator from Kansas silently took his seat at the impeachment trial of a President. Though his eyes were fixed on his briefcase and his forehead wrinkled in obvious meditation, Edmond Ross could feel the piercing pain of every eye glaring into his wearied face. These eyes sought what they could not find in Ross' numbed expression. Would this Senator, who was the determining factor in the attempted removal of President Johnson, vote "guilty" or "not guilty"? Finally, the oral balloting began. A few minutes later, amid utter and desolute silence, the full, distinct, and unmistakable cry "not guilty" resounded on the bleak walls of Congress. Ross, by following the mandates of his conscience, had determined not only the future of a President but also his own. In his own words, and I quote, "I almost literally looked into my open grave. Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever." Edmond Ross was given a challenge-and because he fought nobly and gave freely of all he had he gained the victory. He succeeded where so many of his contemporaries failed. With this dramatic story in my mind I try to make application to my own life. Am I accepting the challenge of citizenship? Of what does "challenge" consist? I have always considered a challenge as a force which tends to draw forth all the best that I have to offer. It is something more desirable than mere pleasure. It is something almost sacred in the eyes of an individual. Citizenship is a challenge. But how much can I do? I certainly can't run for office and I don't have the right to vote. I don't even have my driver's license yet. But there are many things I can do. I can begin to work a little longer, a little harder, and with more purpose than I have done. And by doing so, I will begin to learn, to understand, and to love the goodness that surrounds my life. For in learning-learning the facts which constitute the truth-learning about other people, other ideas and ideals, most important, learning about myself and learning why I am what I am, and why I am where I am, and where I want to go, and how to get there; then, through this basic knowledge I will begin to understand how we are all alike and yet so different so perfectly and individually molded. And through learning and understanding I will begin to love to love the very essence of life itself. And then my heart will be drained of the poison that can hurt, subordinate and even hate other creatures. And in its place will be developed kindness, tolerance, and service toward my fellow beings. This is my way of accepting the challenge of citizenship. The Great Almoner EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANK T. BOW OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call attention to an incisive critique of the 1965 budget by Raymond Moley which merits the attention of every Member of the House. The article follows: THE GREAT ALMONER (By Raymond Moley) A number of generally prudent businessmen have greeted President Johnson's protestations of economy with somthing like enthusiasm. They have believed not only that Mr. Johnson has talked about economy but that in his budget he has used the ax to cut below the anticipated $100 billion level to bargain prices of $98.4 billion for the fiscal 1964 and $97.9 billion for 1965. That's what the headlines said. But we must read the fine print to get the reality. And the best of the fine print I have seen is the speech to the House by CLARENCE CANNON, the venerable chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, delivered immediately after the presentation of the Johnson budget. CANNON pointed out the vital distinction between the expenditure budget and the new obligational authority budget. He said: "Congress acts upon the new obligational authority budget. • * Congress does not act directly on the more widely known expenditure budget. The important long-run barometer to spending is the trend of new obligating authority." This is "higher not lower than the current year * ..it does not point out to any lasting reversal of the upward trend of Federal spending." WELFARE, UNLIMITED With CANNON'S wise admonition in mind, I have tried, with the aid of a skilled analyst, to determine how Mr. Johnson plans to become the superalmoner of all time. A complete compilation of all the proposed costs of welfare activities is impossible because there are so many pockets of welfare in almost every Government agency. But a careful examination of the budget reveals the amounts spent and proposed to be spent in certain categories which I include under the term "welfare." These are housing and community development; health, education, and welfare, including social “insurance"; labor, veterans, and the new attack on poverty. Several new programs have been added under these categories since 1960. New obligational authority (hereinafter designated as NOA) in 1960 was $25.5 billion. For the same and added programs for 1965 meeting called by the Lithuanian American the NOA estimate is $37.9 billion. Some apologists have told us ad nauseam that nothing much can be done about spending because the costs of defense have been and will be so high. I suggest a comparison between welfare NOA and all other Federal authorizations. For 1960 the figures were $25.5 billion for welfare and $75.6 billion for all other authorizations. For 1965 the NOA for welfare is set at $37.9 billion and all other, including defense, space, and foreign aid, at $97.7 billion. Thus the increase for welfare is 48 percent. The increase for all other is 29.8 percent. BIG 1964 SPENDING CANNON points out with supporting facts that the Johnson expectation of $93 billion revenues for 1965 is totally unrealistic. He also points out the oldest budgetary contrivance in history. The Johnson budget builds up supplemental requests for 1964 to make the picture for 1965 look much brightThus spending or the expectation of spending in 1964 whets appetites in an election year. er. An example of this is in the estimates for the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The President requests or will request, according to his budget, authorizations of $2.2 billion for 1964 and $749 million for 1965. This excites the interest of contractors and others who will figure in the election prospects. It will also sweeten the voters in the large cities in this election year. Few politicians ever look beyond the next election. In his speech CANNON refers to a favorite object of his ire, "back-door spending." One instance is a supplemental $1.4 billion for the urban-renewal program. "There may be others," he adds. This is, he says, "inexcusable, indefensible, and irresponsible practice." Finally, there are those who say that what we save in defense we ought to spend on the "public sector." But spending, for any purpose, money we do not collect in taxes means inflation. That takes from the very people who get the handouts as well as those who need and expect no Government help. Lithuanian Independence EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HENRY C. SCHADEBERG OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege on Sunday, February 23, to be the principal speaker at the commemoration of the 46th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the Lithuanian Nation, held under the auspices of the Lithuanian American Council at St. Peter's Hall in Kenosha, Wis. I can report to you that this is a group of dedicated Americans who are well aware that the hopes of freedom for those of their ancestors still residing in Lithuania under Communist domination against their will is closely allied with the policies of the United States of America. Under permission previously granted I include with my remarks this resolution which was adopted unanimously by the group present at the meeting: RESOLUTION BY AMERICANS OF LITHUANIAN ANCESTRY We, Americans of Lithuanian ancestry, residing in the Kenosha, Wis., area, met in a Council on February 23, 1964, at St. Peter's Hall, to commemorate the 46-year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the Lithuanian Nation, did make and adopt the following resolution: "Whereas in 1940 the Soviet Union illegally seized, annexed, and began sovietizing Lithuania and the other Baltic States, depriving their peoples of their human and property rights, and still occupies and rules these nations to this day; and "Whereas the Government of the United States denounced this criminal aggression by the Soviet Union and has firmly refused to recognize the Soviet rule in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia; and "Whereas the Soviet keeps seeking ways and means, direct and indirect, to gain recognition of its illegal colonialism in the Baltic States, for this purpose recently offering a nonaggression treaty between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact bloc, and an agreement to settle all boundary disputes without the use of armed force: Therefore, be it "Resolved, That we urge our Government to be wary of entering into any agreements with the Soviet Union which would imply the recognition of the Soviet rule in the presently captive states, freeze the present boundaries and territory designations, and/ or preclude the possibility for the Lithuanians and other captive peoples to use whatever means would be necessary and available at an opportune moment in order to rid themselves of the onerous Soviet yoke and regain their freedom and independence; be it also "Resolved, That we request our Government to place the matter of the liberation Lithuania and all the other Soviet captive of the world's newest colonies-occupied countries before the United Nations and demand through the United Nations immediate withdrawal of all Soviet troops, ruling apparatus, and colonists from Lithuania and all the other captive nations. "Resolved, That we send this resolution to the President of the United States and copies thereof to the Secretary of State, to the majority and minority leaders of both Houses, to the Senators from our State and Members of Congress from our districts, and to the local press." VLADAS SKIRMUNTAS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964 Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, on last Friday evening a packed banquet hall at the Sheraton-Park heard an outstanding address by a great lady. Many of us in Congress were privileged to be present on this occasion. It was the annual midwinter meeting of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States. The occasion was the acceptane by Senator MARGARET CHASE SMITH, of the 1964 Minuteman Award from that organization. Her address was forceful, stimulating, and highly interesting. It must be cataloged as a significant contribution to the cause of an adequate defense supported by a strong Reserve program. Mrs. SMITH was formerly a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve. She knows the subject of Reserves intimately. Interestingly, her address dealt substantially with congressional service in the Reserves and her treatment of this subject is lucid, helpful, and encouraging. Particularly do I invite attention to this fine address of those who have questioned the Reserve programs or who would, in other ways, weaken the defenses of the Nation. Mrs. SMITH's able statement makes sense and is a recognition of patriotism in those who serve in uniform whether as a Regular or a Reservist. The address follows: "I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT OUR COUNTRY WOULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT OUR RESERVES" (Address by the Honorable MARGARET CHASE SMITH, U.S. Senator) Major General Frank, officers and members of ROA, distinguished guests, my colleagues in the House and Senate, and friends, I am highly honored by the Minute Man Award. I accept it with great pride and deep sincerity. I shall always treasure it, just as I have treasured my association with the Reserve and my legislative and administrative efforts on the Reserve. I am particularly happy to have the presentation made by my good friend, RALPH YARBOROUGH, the distinguished Senator from Texas, a reservist himself. RALPH, I deeply appreciate your kindness. President Lyndon Baines Johnson has had a distinguished Reserve career. He was decorated in World War II as a Naval Reserve officer for heroism with the Silver Star. And let me be even more specific. All during his service on Capitol Hill-in the House, in the Senate, as Senate majority leader, as chairman of the Senate Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, and as the Vice President-he remained in the Naval Reserve proudly and never with any shame or embarrassment. His predecessor, President John F. Kennedy, was Naval a Reserve officer all during the time that he served in the House and the Senate-and he, too, was proud of his Naval Reserve status which he retained during his congressional service. And I would be remiss if I did not mention the third Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, who proudly retained his status as a colonel in the Army Reserve all during the time that he was on Capitol Hill, both as a Member of the Senate and as the Vice President. I was particularly proud of Harry S. Truman, who, in his delightfully and characteristically frank manner, last year in no uncertain terms expressed his disgust with those who contended there was a conflict of interest in a Member of Congress being in the Reserve. What a refreshing contrast he was to those of faintheartedness when the heat was on. Now I don't want to make this praise onesided, and leave the Republicans out. I point with pride to the fact that Richard M. Nixon proudly retained his officer status in the Naval Reserve all during the time he served on Capitol Hill as a Member of the House, of the Senate, and as the Vice President. Further, the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 1960-Henry Cabot Lodgeproudly retained his officer status in the Army Reserve all during the time that he served on Capitol Hill as a Member of the Senate. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge personified the spirit of Members of Congress when he resigned from the Senate during World War II-gave up his Senate seat-to go on active duty for war service. There were several others like Jimmy Van Zandt and Al Vreeland who did likewise. Members of the Congress who are also active reservists are making a major contribution to national security. Their attendance at drills furnishes a daily testimonial, and inspiration, to the whole Reserve program and is a contributor to the substantial prestige the Reserve Forces have earned, not only in the military establishment, but throughout the national community. ROA has given significant support to the programs. I also should like to compliment your association upon its vision in planning for development in the Nation's Capital of your Minute Man Memorial Building. This magnificient undertaking assumes a broader significance because it is to be built with your members' contributions, given voluntarily, by those who understand this vital military tradition and its value to posterity. In a democratic republic, the people need to be continually reminded of the value of their freedoms, and of their obligations to serve this freedom. ROA members justly take pride in the fact that, as true volunteers in what must be our eternal vigilance, you again are leading the way to establishment of a great and living national shrine for a vital national commitment through the historic military tradition of the United States. I am deeply concerned with the trend of derogation of the military. As in any group, there are dangerous men and bad actors among the military. But as in most groups, they are very much in the minority. I have had my personal experiences with some of them. I know how ruthless they can be. I know how they can conduct campaigns of vilification-how they can make pious denials before congressional committees and a few years later, after it is too late, how the commentator-columnists to whom they have fed their vilification and prodded to echo that vilification, belatedly realize and confess privately that they have been used and then apologize to those who have been vilified. I know that there are militarists who dangerously advocate reckless warfare. I know that there have been militarists who defy law and order. I know that there are militarists who charge our Presidents with being traitors selling our country out to the Communists. I know that there are these dangers and evils among some militarists-but they are very, very rare indeed-and seldom do such irresponsible militarists rise to any position of any great authority. They are so rare that never has militarism presented a danger of even dictatorship to our country or the slightest risk of a military takeover and the usurpation of our traditional civilian control of the military. I know that there is a strong military-industrial complex-the kind that President Eisenhower warned against in his closing I know that we have to days as President. guard against that complex getting too strong in its pressures on both the executive branch and the legislative branch of our Federal Government. But I also know that the military-industrial complex has not reached proportions beyond the control of the public-and especially an aroused public opinion expressing itself at the polls. I know that this military-industrial complex will never control the executive branch or the legislative branch regardless of how many retired generals and admirals work for defense contractors-and regardless of how many members of Congress are in the Reserve. It has become quite the vogue of some to have two favorite whipping boys-the military and the Congress. These detractors are by no means limited to the press. They are to be found not too infrequently in the Pentagon among the smart young men who have never experienced war responsibilities. Some of these smart young men have come to regard and treat admirals and generals as though they are errand boys to be seen but not heard. The higher the rank the more the delight in the derogation and humiliation that is heaped upon the very men who led the forces that saved our country in war time, while some of their smart young detractors were growing up back in the safe confines of this country that bombs did not touch-or even before some of these smart young detractors were ever born. Now Congress has long been the traditional whipping boy-but in the acquisition of a companion whipping boy in the military-a very juicy and special target has been gained-the citizen-soldier in the Congress. I won't belabor a defense of the reservists in the Congress for they are fully capable of taking care of themselves. And if they can't take care of themselves-if they are improperly in the Reserve-if they are taking undue and unethical advantage of being in the Reserve then the electorate will take care of them at the polls. What does disturb me is the broader picture of the trend of derogation of the Reserve of the citizen-soldier-the minuteman, if you please. It is somewhat like the days prior to World War II when many people ridiculed reservists on 2-weeks training duty as playing war, when contemporaries of active and conscientious reservists laughed at the reservists and derided them. I shudder to think what would have happened to our country had the pre-World War II Reservists been so faint-hearted and so thin-skinned that such derogation would have caused them to leave the Reserve. Thank God, they had the fortitude and patience to stick to their Reserve guns and not give in. I shudder to think what our country would have done without our Reserves to call up in the Berlin crisis-for history's first use of the Reserves for cold war purposes for a show of force and determination to get the message loud and clear to Khrushchev. I am certain that he would never have backed down on his Berlin threat had it not been for the callup of our Re serves. I shudder to think what our country would have done without our Reserves in the Cuban crisis and the nuclear confrontation in which Khrushchev backed down. For example, what would our Air Forces have done without the magnificently immediate response of the Air Force Reserve? Yes, the detractors of the Reserve-those who say there is no need for a Reservethose who would make errand boys out of our top military men-can attack the military and the Reserve all they want to but I don't think the American people can be fooled as to the importance of our military Reserve. Yet, we must face up to facts and to realism. At the years go by after a war and after a threat to our national security, there is the tendency of those who have not known war or who have had made so litle sacrifice in war or been so little inconvenienced by war, if at all-to forget the need of the military and the Reserve-or to regard them as an unnecessary cost in time of peace and to be ridiculed. Therein is a mission for your organization and for each of your members individually. Therein is a minuteman mission for each of you to protect your country's national security through constant education and reminder of the civilian population of the importance of military strength, and particularly that strength embodied in the Reserve. We must always maintain civilian control of the military. We must always fight against military arrogance-and no one |