knows more about military arrogance than I do and I don't believe that anyone has fought and stood up to military arrogance more than I have.

But equally we must fight against civilian arrogance that seeks to so cynically derogate and humiliate military leaders who not only have risked their lives for their country but whose intelligence and judgment is at least the equal of those arrogant smart young men, who derogate them, and whose experience is far superior to these young men.

For if we do not fight such civilian arrogance as much as military arrogance, then so surely our military leadership and establishment will degenerate into that of secondclass "yes men" who never have a thought of their own-or if they do, don't dare speak it for fear of repercussions-just as was the case in the fear-paralyzed U.S. Senate in the early fifties.

No one has more caustically crossed swords with the military than I have and no one has felt the whiplash of the retaliation of the military more than I have. But in that open controversy with the military, I have gained-rather than lost-respect for our military leaders in uniform at least for those who speak their minds themselves and openly instead of hiding behind the cloak of commentator-columnists-and I gladly rise to their defense, not so much for them personally, as for their crucial importance to the national security of our country. God bless them.

Howdy there, friends. How y'all tonight? Welcome to "Just Plain Folks," the ribticklin' tee-vee adventures of the rootintootin' Jay family starring ol' Elbie Jay, the friendliest wrangler ever to wrangle his way out of Texas.

As you recollect, ol' Elbie, his pretty wife, Birdie Bird, and their two cute tads, L'il Bird and Bye-bye Bird, have moved into this fancy white house back East. As we' join up with ol' Elbie, he and his faithful sidekick, Sancho Pierre, are in the Oval Room. And as you can see, it's right dark in there this evening.

ELBIE. Now just you wait, Pierre, till I hitch my chair up to this here desk. There now, you can light the match.

PIERRE. Coudn't I turn Chief? Just for a minute?

on the lamp,

ELBIE. NOW I ask you, son. How's it going to be if some sneaky, snoopin' reporter (and I love them all) peers in the window and catches us using up expensive electricity like it was going out of style?

PIERRE. Well, I suppose it wouldn't help your image of economy and frugality.

ELBIE. Right. That's what I keep tellin' Birdie Bird, when she gets fancy and wants to eat by candlelight.

PIERRE. What's wrong with eating by candlelight?

ELBIE. What's wrong with eating in the dark? Economy, son, economy. Now light the match and hand me that there bill I got to sign. What's it for?

PIERRE. (lighting match). Let's see. Oh, it's that $50 billion defense appropriation.

ELBIE. Fine. There. They don't call me the fastest ball point west of the Pecos for nothing. Now, no sense wasting that match. While you got it lit, get me somebody on the telephone to howdy with. How about that camel driver in Pakistan? Wait. First get me Senator RUSSELL down in Georgia. I want to tell him how I saved another $4.32 this month on electricity.

PIERRE. I forgot, Chief. more bill here.

ELBIE. What's it for?

You've got one

PIERRE. It's for $167,342.23. From the Telephone Co.

ELBIE. Well, pay it out of that coffee can labeled "Pin Money for Cheering Up Old Friends."

PIERRE (as match burns fingers). Ouch. Chief, do you really think economizing is worth the effort?

ELBIE. Pierre, son, economy is a wondrous thing. Last month, I saved $4.32 on electricity. Them fine gentleman on Capitol Hill was mightily impressed by what a careful frugal, trustworthy man I obviously am. So, because I saved $4.32, they are now about to cut the taxes $11 billion. Isn't that wondrous? And now you make sure our reporter friends get a copy of that there bill. PIERRE. The telephone bill?

ELBIE. The electricity bill, you cottonhead. Sometimes, son, I don't think you know a thing about economy in government.

Can Elbie keep up his lonely battle to save money? No matter what the cost? Tune in next time, folks. And meanwhile, as you go down the byways of life, remember what Elbie's ol' granddaddy used to say: "Take care of the pennies loud enough and the dollars'll take care of you."

The Domestic Investment Bank

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. CLARK MacGREGOR

OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, there exist in our country many highly able and well motivated persons who, because of wide experience and keen insight, develop excellent ideas and plans regarding improvements in our society. In recent days we have seen much discussion of ways to provide higher living standards for persons caught in pockets of poverty. And we are searching for new ideas.

Let us consider the following suggestion for establishment of a Domestic Investment Bank-an idea developed by an astute gentleman whose thoughtful work merits serious attention.

THE DOMESTIC INVESTMENT BANK The key to any program attacking poverty should be the establishment of a Domestic Investment Bank to function internally in generally the same manner as the World Bank does internationally.

There are two fundamental problems. One is to move industrial and commercial activities (as well as supporting services) into depressed areas or pockets of poverty. The other is a matter of training the poverty stricken to apply new skills as these activities are generated. Without facilities in which to apply skills, training programs are futile.

Experience shows that absent a totalitarian society, large scale resettlement programs are not successful. Therefore the problem is to reactivate pockets of poverty.

In my opinion the attack is not off to a good start. I am not privy to current discussions and hope I am in error. But most of what I have heard and read indicates that the major impetus to date has been directed toward what I would call palliative rather than curative measures.

By palliative measures I mean such items as welfare payments, stepping up social security, medicare, and unemployment benefits. I would also include in this category the camps that have been suggested, as I understand it, for those who cannot meet selective service standards.

These measures alleviate hardship on a temporary basis. They will always have a necessary place because contemporary society must take care of the infirm, the handicapped, etc.

With the enormous resources and energies available to America, we can, of course, virtually erase poverty here if a comprehensive attack is made on it.

A domestic investment bank could accomplish and coordinate much of this largely on a self-liquidating basis.

In effect, this was what the United States was able to do in Western Europe after World War II. If I remember correctly during the 4 Marshall plan years (1949-52), we laid out about $13 billion, I imagine a large percentage of this is recoverable to the American taxpayer as loans are repaid. I do not have figures handy. In any event, this is relatively cheap for the defense value alone. We now have strong buffers between us and Moscow. Certainly, standards of living have improved enormously.

The World Bank is a more sophisticated approach to the same fundamental problem on a global basis. Our commitment to it is about $6 billion. We have just agreed to another half-billion for the International Development Association. We (alone) have put some $4 billion into Latin America since the war. Our commitment to the Alianza is for $20 billion.

If we can do these things for others, we should be able and willing to do them for our own citizenry.

Some of the foregoing international programs work; some are in trouble; but there is nothing mysterious about them. They are all aimed at improving standards of living. This is done on an area-to-area, project-byproject basis whenever it is felt that the economy of the area in question will be improved by the project under consideration.

Note also that the World Bank, which has been highly successful in this field, makes money. I am not suggesting that each project should be self-liquidating in a domestic attack on poverty. I believe however that the cost of such an overall program need not be exorbitant and might even show a profit.

A domestic investment bank is feasible both politically and financially. Obviously, the Keyserling theory of going back to war production planning, cataloging resources, and then administering the economy as in the war days could not possibly get through this Congress.

But a "bank" is respectable. The financial community might participate. If private American financial institutions saw fit to underwrite an offering of the Inter-American Development Bank, why not a domestic

bank? The securities of such a bank could be made tax exempt (like municipals) if private participation was to be encouraged.

I believe the World Bank is prohibited by charter from making an investment where the ability to repay is shaky. This standard would have to be relaxed-but not completely.

The bank could make credits available on the following basic criteria:

(a) A "pocket" of poverty must be involved.

(b) The investment or credit will tend to raise living standards in the community in question.

(c) All local governments as well as private entities would be eligible as borrowers. (d) Ability to repay either directly or through the local taxing power should be a, but not the sole, criteria.

(e) I would give this bank (or whatever) the authority to guarantee loans made by private institutions. This is a very important exercise of a power we have largely overlooked in our international institutions except for the Eximbank.

(f) I would not distinguish between "big" business and "small" business applicants. Many of these projects are reasonably massive and would require big business.

(g) The loan guarantees of local governments should be encouraged.

(h) Rates should be low and terms lengthy where needed. All conditions should be flexible.

(i) Vital would be the extension of credit as part of the package for use in training prospective employees of the facility.

I doubt whether poverty and substandard living conditions in the various pockets of poverty throughout the country are subject to one or even a dozen stereotyped approaches.

We ought to encourage regional entities to study local conditions to evolve or pass on projects which will suit their individual needs. These should be submitted subject to approval by the Bank.

Centralized authority being what it is, these regional units should be small. Project recommendations should flow upward and not be imposed from above. The Alianza got away from this principle. This is, I think, the basic reason it is not working

well.

I think this Bank should also be engaged in continuing research. Generating economic activity, in depressed areas is only half of the problem. The people of all areas must be equipped to take advantage of job opportunities offered.

I have mentioned earlier the problem of training. I do not mean to minimize the fact that we are spawning a generation of illiterates who are coming out of our high schools with no marketable skills.

No doubt there remains a place for the biceps, but this market dwindles in relative importance as technologies improve. Ten or fifteen years ago it might have been enough that a man was willing to swing a pick. Now he must be able to operate powerdriven machines-or a computer. Obviously higher degrees of skilled training are necessary.

There is no need to repeat dreary statistics. I am certain that the people who are trying to pull together a program are aware of this matter and are seeking avenues of solution. The trouble with this situation is both political and informational. We are going to have to undo damage that has been created by our welfare, social service, and relief laws and their administration. many people, welfare subsistence has become a profession. They literally cannot afford to take a job. This is downright silly. It has the additional vice of opening up all such programs to attack-and in a society with conscience, welfare and relief programs are a necessity.

Το

I suspect that a great part of the difficulty stems from a psychology generated during the New Deal. The tragedy of the depression and attendant suffering led us to champion the rights of people—to a job, to subsistence, to medical care, to housing and clothing. Without denying these rights, I do not believe they should be automatic. With these rights go responsibilities.

The able bodied should not be permitted to make a career out of welfare. This is a responsibility which we have not emphasized. I believe that a tougher approach and overhaul of the entire welfare structure is overdue. I also think that most people would welcome it as part and parcel of the President's campaign against waste.

I also feel that the administration would have a much better chance of explaining and implementing an educational program if it were coupled with a tougher approach on welfare.

Both public information on the problems of education and training and financial assistance to schools and vocational training programs can more easily be accomplished through a bank than otherwise. Perhaps the image is a false one but it exists as a strong one.

I suspect also that there is a good deal of misinformation as to who, why and where are the poor. There are literally millions of jobs to be done in this country and millions of people who sincerely want the work. What prevents these people from getting work?

One reason is that the jobs are not where the people are. Bringing the jobs to these people is a primary function of a domestic investment bank. But there are others.

I have discussed increased training programs. But training for what? This is the question they have tried to answer in Philadelphia. This should be a function for the bank's research department.

for

I suspect without having analyzed itthat in addition to the welfare structure, we are operating under often antequated laws. systems of In Connecticut, instance, it is unlawful to put a power tool, even a lawnmower, in the hands of anyone under 18 unless this is done in the home. The original purpose-to prevent child labor-may have been worthy. The present effects are not.

In addition, therefore, to the need to rehabilitate the welfare structure, other socalled social legislation should be reviewed in the same light-a research Job, perhaps, for the bank.

In short, all relevant data should be maintained current.

There are other devices that should augment the operation of such a domestic investment bank. For example:

(a) Local areas have successfully used preferential tax treatment to attract new industry and have assisted in plant construction and obtaining sites. I see no reason why the Federal Government should not do the same.

(b) Allocation of defense contracts to depressed areas would help. There are valid objects-higher costs, lack of skilled manpower, etc. But perhaps in conjunction with (a) above and with bank help it might work particularly if the contracts are of sufficient duration to permit plant amortization.

(c) Training and educational programs have been mentioned. In this connectionand perhaps irrelevant here-it has always galled me that our schools are vacant for roughly 32 months a year and our teachers presumably moonlighting during the summer months. If the Federal Government is going to subsidize education, I feel this waste should be eliminated.

(d) The Federal Government ought to do more to spur activity in those areas affected with the social welfare which, at the same

time, do not hold out the threat of assemblyline automation. These are housing, highways, schools, hospitals, etc. These services in turn attract industrial and commercial activity. The bank can be of enormous assistance to these programs.

Urban renewal is perhaps the most vital activity of this type. From what I have seen of it, urban renewal requires overhaul. With adequate condemnation laws, it is not hard to tear down slums. The difficulty comes in rebuilding. We create extremely valuable property when we destroy obsolescence in our cities. A domestic investment bank could be most helpful in financing a program of intelligent rebuilding.

At the same time, these huge concentrations in metropolitan slum centers ought to be decentralized. Replacing cold water flats with high rise apartments as in Harlem changes nothing in the long run. Where are these highly concentrated people all going to find jobs?

(e) In spite of the fact that large-scale resettlement does not seem possible, some consideration should be given to moving people out of depressed areas on a small scale to places where they can find productive work. A domestic investment bank, or perhaps the employment service might consider some kind of relocation loan program to help people move.

There is a great deal of activity in the District of Columbia as to poverty. All of it is concentrated on what I have referred to as the palliative approach. More welfaremanufactured and artificial jobs for dropouts, etc. I do not deny the importance of temporary relief measures, but I would argue that they are utterly lacking in reaching permanent solutions to the problems of poverty.

My major reasons for suggesting a bank can be summarized briefly:

(1) To stimulate additional economic activity in depressed areas and pockets of poverty.

(2) Frankly, because a new political gimmick to dramatize the problem and some of its unpleasant aspects is required. Informed people have long complained about inadequate schooling to no avail. A bank is respectable.

(3) To assist in a program of upgrading skills.

(4) To take the curse off a more firm welfare program.

(5) To maintain and correlate data. (6) To assist in other related areas-such as tax relief, etc.

How AID Helps Communists EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNIAN

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Speaker, in the March 2 issue of the Washington Daily News, Virginia Prewett tells us how Yankee-hating, pro-Communist Miguel Arraes is making strides to obtain the Presidency of Brazil in 1965. She also shows how large AID programs have played a part in promoting his candidacy:

LEFTISTS PUSH ARRAES FOR PRESIDENCY (By Virginia Prewett) Yankee-hating, Yankee-baiting, 47-yearold Miguel Arraes, Governor of Pernambuco in Brazil's northeastern poverty belt, aspires

to be the first President of Brazil elected by stealing the credit for achievements of the Alliance for Progress.

Senor Arraes' radical leftist supporters, who include the Brazilian Communist elite, have started a national campaign to make him the far-left candidate for President in 1965. Senor Arraes was first picked a year ago by Brazil's Communists as the man to get them into national power through the polls in 1970.

Their support helped him become mayor of Recife, Brazil's third largest city, in 1959, and Governor of Pernambuco in 1962. In recent weeks, they have speeded up by 5 years their plan to make him President.

HARD CAMPAIGN

A hard-hitting campaign, especially in the underdeveloped states of Brazil's northeast, far south, and far west, promotes Senor Arraes as the man who made Pernambuco's landlords quadruple the minimum farm wage. This actually means little, since most farm labor works on crop shares or on contract.

Senor Arraes' supporters claim that as part of his get-tough policy toward the United States, he abrogated all Alliance for Progress programs when he took office, then had his aggressive state officials harry the U.S. Agency for International Development for greater benefits.

AID spokesmen in Washington categorically deny this. AID assistance to Pernambuco has proceeded "without interruption and normally" since it first began, they say. CREDIT GIVEN

The new Arraes-for-President drive gives him credit for improved social and economic conditions in Pernambuco that the Arraes government actually had only a minimal part in.

In most of the programs, U.S. loans or grants have directly financed the larger share. The Brazilian contribution has been split three ways-among a regional agency financed by Federal funds, by the Federal Government itself, and by the state government.

The United States loaned around $200,000 for Recife's water system, for which Senor Arraes takes full credit. AID financed over half of a $1.5 million low-cost housing project that provides 700 new homes for Recife, and over half of a $3 million literacy campaign affecting 100,000 adults.

OVER HALF

The United States also provided more than half the financing for a $1 million Pernambuco health program, $9 million of a $20 million industrial development project, nearly 66 percent of a $200,000 water supply improvement program, and 25 percent of a $4.8 million homesteaders project.

The new AID-sparked activity has brought hundreds of millions of new cruzeiros, many new jobs and greatly increased purchasing power into Recife. Even a U.S. national weekly recently lauded Senor Arraes for this without mentioning the significance of the AID program.

The Baltic Republics

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. MILTON W. GLENN

OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1964

cially in my district who have come from these countries, particularly Estonia, since the Soviet seizure. They have become splendid American citizens, proud of their heritage and proud of their adopted country.

The great American melting pot has performed its wonders and they and their children are and will be very important segments of the American scene, and yet it is so important that we do not forget that these three great nations are not Russian. As time goes on, I am fearful that this will be forgotten. It is therefore important that action be taken on my House Resolution 375, as well as the resolutions of many of my colleagues,

ing luxuries for foreign heads of state while our national debt built up to the point where we are the most indebted people in history.

We have been so anxious to appease that we have allowed ourselves to negotiate away our position as a world leader in commerce as well as in free world policy. In recent weeks we have been threatened in Cuba, we have been threatened in Panama despite our honorable treaty rights. We have been sharply rebuffed by the British in regard to trade with Cuba. We have been placed in a bad position in Laos and in Cyprus, both areas where many believe we have no business under the circumstances.

In our eagerness to establish a one-world policy of trade, we have placed domestic producers at the mercy of foreign competition, which in may cases is directly subsidized by the very producers who are losing the do

Along this line a recent editorial in the New York Times is noteworthy. It is entitled, "Freedom in the Baltic," and follows:

[From the New York Times, Feb. 25, 1964] FREEDOM IN THE BALTIC

A forceful reminder that Soviet Russia, which has written "anticolonialism" on its

propaganda banners, is today the biggest colonial power in the world is provided by two nations which faithfully and hopefully observe their independence days this month though now reduced to Russian colonies. They are the Baltic States, Lithuania and Estonia, which together with Latvia, shook off the Russian yoke after the First World War only to become again victims of Russian imperialism in the Second.

Their hopes for regaining their liberty are sustained by their continued recognition as independent nations by the United States and other Western Powers. But they live between hope and fear. The growing independence of the East European satellites appears to inspire a new urge for freedom in the Baltic States as well, especially in the youth no longer cowed by Stalinist terror. But the growing Russification of their homelands makes it a close race between national survival and national extinction.

Results of a Weak Foreign Policy

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. E. Y. BERRY

OF SOUTH DAKOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have asked unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD an editorial appearing in the February 20, 1964, issue of the Buffalo Times Herald. The editorial is as follows:

RESULTS OF A WEAK FOREIGN POLICY It appears that the United States is reaping the reward for its weak, almost fawning foreign policy.

Through a good number of years since the end of World War II, we have been so anxious to please that we have shared our production and our financial might with nations, allies and avowed enemies alike, across the face of the globe. In almost every case as soon as we have strengthened the recipients of our taxpayers' largesse to the point where they began to feel self

fashion or another. Nevertheless we have gone blindly on, forcing our charity upon them in many ways, in many instances buy

men, for instance, of competing on the worldwide market when American products are subject to restrictions not imposed on products imported into this country? What chance have we of influencing our allies not to trade with Cuba while we rush to trade with Russia. This is no more sensible than trying to keep the kids from playing with the bear cubs while we pet and feed the papa bear. Why should we be so naive as to expect the Reds to pay for shipments of wheat in money and good will? How much have we received of our lendlease which played such an important part in setting Russia's feet on the path to world domination?

There are many things about world trade and world diplomacy that we do not know. However there are a few facts about human behavior with which we are familiar:

1. The best neighbors are those who share a well-kept fence.

2. You don't gain the respect or confidence of a man who has promised to blow your house up by going his note at the bank to buy dynamite from you at wholesale. All you will earn is a reputation for being a sucker.

3. When you guarantee to help support all your neighbors whether you have anything for yourself or not, you are automatically headed for trouble.

Can it be that dealing with people in the millions is so much different from dealing with them individually that all basic rules of human behavior must be ignored?

It has been well demonstrated that when Uncle Sam stands up for his rights the entire world respects him. Why then, must he continually come out on the short end in conference table negotiations?

Soviet Anti-Semitism

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. NEIL STAEBLER

OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. STAEBLER. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the Jewish community within the Soviet Union is suffering under increasing persecution. In connection with this appalling situation, the Delegate Assembly of the Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Detroit recently adopted the following resolution for which I take this opportunity to put it into the RECORD:

RESOLUTION ON SOVIET ANTI-SEMITISM The Delegate Assembly of the Jewish Community Council, composed of representatives

of 340 Jewish member organizations in the metropolitan Detroit area, deplores the continuing perpetration of cultural and religious genocide against Jews in the Soviet Union by the Soviet Government. Official restrictions imposed upon the 3 million Jews in the Soviet Union deny to them their freedom of worship, isolate them from their tradition and from their coreligionists in other parts of the world, and destroy their specifically Jewish spirit.

Prohibitions against the making or importation of Jewish religious objects-of prayer shawls, phylacteries, prayerbooks, Bibles, religious calendars-and against maintaining spiritual ties with coreligionists abroad, are indications of the harsh and restrictive discriminatory measures. Jewish religious and cultural life is further circumscribed by restrictions against the Yiddish theater and press, religious schols, publishing of books in Yiddish and Hebrew. Traditional burial is proscribed and much anguish is occasioned by the suffering thus imposed.

All of these restrictions are in contradistinction to the status accorded to other nationality and religious minorities resident in the Soviet Union.

We, therefore, call upon the Soviet authorities to implement their often repeated concern for, and championship of, freedom for all nationalities and groups, by according to Soviet Jews the same status and conditions enjoyed by other groupings of Soviet citizens, and to restore to the U.S.S.R.'s Jewish citizens their rights to:

1. Jewish education in all its forms.

2. Continuity of Jewish cultural life through literature, theater, schools, press, publishing houses, and other forms of cultural expression in Yiddish and in Hebrew.

3. Reopening of synagogues to serve the religious needs of Soviet Jewry.

4. Jewish ritual observance in its traditional forms.

5. Reestablishment of religious and cultural bonds with Jewish communities abroad.

6. Be reunited with their families in other lands, from whom they have been separated.

We appeal to the Soviet Government-as a matter of urgency and elementary decencyto recognize the rights of Jews to their own language, religious and cultural expression to the degree permitted all other ethnic groups in the Soviet Union.

Our call also goes out to the Secretary General of the United Nations, to use his good offices and the machinery of this world body, of which the Soviet Union is a member nation, to act against the cultural and religious genocide being perpetrated against Soviet Jewry.

We also call upon the Government of the United States, our President, our Secretary of State, our Congressmen and our Ambassador to the United Nations, to protest to the Soviet Government, through diplomatic and other channels, against the oppressions herein detailed.

The officers of the Jewish Community Council are instructed to send copies of this resolution to the officials above mentioned and to take all appropriate measures to the accomplishment of these ends, independently and in concert with national agencies and other like-minded groups.

Is History About To Repeat Itself?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNIAN

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not think our world prestige has ever

been lower than it is today and, yet, the Johnson administration persists in its policy of appeasement. David Lawrence, in the February 24 issue of U.S. News & World Report, tells us how history may yet repeat itself, if we do not stand firm so that we can regain some of the respect which we have lost and are still losing, by our present anemic policy:

DEFINING THE "COLD WAR"

(By David Lawrence) History sometimes repeats itself. In 1937, the Western Allies refused to heed the pleas of President Franklin D. Roosevelt that aggressors be quarantined. Previous proposals that an economic blockade be imposed on the Fascist dictators also failed to secure allied support. Disunity in the West and policies of appeasement furnished the basis for the miscalculation by Hitler that brought on World War II.

Today our principal allies-Great Britain and France-are deaf to our pleas for unity in the Western Alliance. The British Government insists on furnishing economic help to Castro's Cuba. The French Government, also motivated by a desire for trade, openly embraces the aggressor government in Red China. Appeasement is in the air again. At the very time that Castro defies the United States-as he cuts off the water supply for the Guantánamo Naval Base-the British Prime Minister arrives in Washington and, after conferences with the President, announces to the press that Great Britain is to extend long-term credits to Russia and will continue to trade with Cuba.

It is time to make clear to our allies what the cold war really means. For it is a worldwide war being waged by the Communist government in Moscow with the object of subverting and overthrowing democratic governments everywhere.

We are too often inclined to regard the doctrine of "communism" itself as the sole evil. But, actually, communism is an effective instrument, a tool, in the hands of tyrannical and unscrupulous rulers. Irrespective of what economic philosophy may be fostered, the fact remains that communism is being utilized to overthrow governments established by free peoples everywhere and to bring those countries within the Soviet orbit.

We are often importuned to pursue a policy of peaceful coexistence with the Moscow Government-by which is meant that we are expected to tolerate subversion and infiltration.

We cannot safely coexist, however, with a government whose aim is to overthrow us. Just 30 years ago, we formally recognized the Soviet Government, and the record since then has shown repeated violation of pledges given us at that time. Attempts at infiltration and subversion by the Communists have been frequent.

Our own Government, under this and preceding administrations, has striven to maintain a military peace. But, at the same time, we have been confronted with threats from missile bases which the Communists erected after they conquered our neighbor, the Cuban Republic.

We must not flounder in the cold war. We should carry on the fight vigorously every day. And we can do so only by telling the truth incessantly to the Russian people and to the whole world.

We know the hostile purpose of the Soviet Government toward us-it is evident in acts recorded nearly every month of the year. We should not gloss over these happenings as mere "distresses”—the word that President Johnson used a few days ago.

We have witnessed violations of written and oral agreements by the Soviets. There is no way we can coexist with a dishonest and treacherous government.

Military force is an effective weapon, and we need to be militarily prepared in every

way. But this is not the only force available to us. Psychological warfare especially through the constant employment of moral force is equally important.

The most effective form of communication in the world is by word of mouth. Our story can be told in dozens of ways so that it will gradually reach the people of the Soviet Union.

The social doctrines of communism constitute the biggest barrier to economic progress today for the peoples behind the Iron Curtain. Their opportunities to achieve the standards of living of the free countries of the world are being frustrated by the practitioners of communism in the Kremlin.

We are not the enemies of the Russian people. We are not concerned with what ideological views they may choose to express. But we do know that there can be no peace in the world while an autocratic government-unfriendly to us-is in power in the Soviet Union.

Although we will have these intervals of so-called peace, we must face the fact that, as long as a dictatorship prevails in the Soviet Union, the people of the United States will never be certain from day to day whether or not a military conflict will emerge, either in a limited war or a nuclear

war.

Our enemy is Communist imperialism. It is directed by men who do not believe in God and hence do not believe in morality or in common honesty.

Neither we nor our allies should appease the Communists, or we shall again find ourselves in the middle of a major war.

Elizabeth Parkhurst, Connecticut Voice of Democracy Winner

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE

OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 3, 1964

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Speaker, this year's winner of the annual Voice of Democracy contest in the State of Connecticut is a young woman from my congressional district, Miss Elizabeth Parkhurst, of Chestnut Hill. He is a junior at Lyman Memorial High School in Lebanon, Conn.

The Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest is sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Miss Parkhurst will be the guest of that organization in Washington during the annual meetings of its department commanders March 7-10, and she will attend the congressional banquet on March 10 at which time the national winners will be announced. The commander of the Connecticut Department, VFW, is Frank A. Sturges, Jr. Needless to say, that I plan to attend and hope that our State entry will emerge as the national winner.

In the meantime, I am very pleased to insert into the RECORD Miss Parkhurst's speech, entitled "The Challenge of Citizenship," which I desire to bring to the attention of all my colleagues. Connecticut is very proud of this young lady and the views she expreses. Her speech is as follows:

THE CHALLENGE OF CITIZENSHIP

(By Elizabeth Parkhurst)

The word "citizenship" refers to the state of being a citizen, that is, being entitled to

certain rights and privileges and fulfilling the reciprocal responsibilities. The full meaning of citizenship involves not only rights but also responsibilities. No conception of citizenship is valid that refuses to recognize this paradox.

The rights and responsibilities linked with American citizenship are familiar to everyone. The citizen of the United States has the freedom to work where he pleases, worship as he pleases, say what he wants to say, and think what he wants to think. He has the right to choose his own leaders and to disagree with them. He is guaranteed protection in time of war, and he is guaranteed an open trial when he is accused.

He has the responsibility to vote, to support the political party of his choice and its ideals, to serve in the Armed Forces (if he meets certain qualifications), and to protect his Constitution. The American citizen has the right to be free and the responsibility to assume his freedom.

Is the challenge of American citizenship related to these rights and responsibilities? Most certainly it is.

The real challenge of citizenship is the challenge for every American to find in himself the ability to allow all other Americans the freedom to fully enjoy the rights and responsibilities due his citizenship. The challenge of citizenship is the challenge for one man to recognize the humanity in all other men. Stated more simply, it is the challenge for every American to allow all other Americans to be Americans.

We practice religious freedom. We take pride in being able to worship as and if we want to. Yet have we never spoken harshly of a person whose religion is very different from ours? Have we never questioned a candidate on his religious convictions?

We believe that all races are equal. We hold fast to the conviction that all people should have equal rights and equal opportunities. We may look with disgust at prejudice in another part of the country, yet do we not sometimes hesitate to sell property to a person of another race in our own town, for fear that property rates might go down? We have always had free and open trials and impartial juries. We would expect nothing less for ourselves if we were accused, regardless of our guilt. We could serve quite impartially on the jury trying some anonymous citizen of petty theft, or even another citizen of grand larceny; but could we, could any American find it in himself to serve impartially on the jury that would have tried Lee Harvey Oswald, or that is to try Jack Ruby?

When, and only when, every American can find in himself the ability to allow every other American the freedom to fully enjoy the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, will the greatest challenge of citizenship be met and conquered. Then, and only then, will we truly have liberty and justice for all. Then, and only then, will the challenge of citizenship be less of a challenge and more of a fulfillment of being.

The Way To Cure Poverty

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, nationwide discussion of domestic economic complications reveals the necessary interest in making use of our free

enterprise system to alleviate our económic soft spots.

Island, Ill., in an editorial of ThursThe Blue Island Sun-Standard, Blue day, February 27, effectively and succinctly discusses this subject in a practical fashion and suggests an often overlooked formula for curing poverty. I insert the editorial into the RECORD at this point:

THE WAY TO CURE POVERTY

The alleviation of poverty has been a major objective since civilization began. But a strategic goal must be accomplished by a tactical plan-that is, a method of achieving the wanted end. President Johnson's idea is to do it by heavily increased Federal spending for a multitude of projects.

Henry Hazlitt, one of the clearest writers on economic matters, in a Newsweek article says: "The way to cure poverty is not through inflation, share-the-wealth schemes, and socialism, but by precisely the opposite policies by the adoption of a system of private property, freer trade, free markets, and free enterprise. It was largely because we adopted this system more fully than any other country that we became the most productive.

"The way to combat the remaining pockets of poverty is to keep this system; to reduce government intervention instead of increasing it; to reduce government spending and punitive taxation-in brief, to increase the incentives to the initiative, effort, risk taking, saving, and investment that increase employment, productivity, and real wages." It may be that direct Government tax spending is needed in a few distressed areas. But overall, the weapons Mr. Hazlitt advocates are precisely the ones we must depend upon.

The Meaning of Disability to the Individ

ual-By One Who Knows

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WALTER S. BARING

OF NEVADA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 4, 1964

Mr. BARING. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I should like to have inserted in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a statement presented by Mr. John F. Nagle, chief of the Washington office of the National Federation of the Blind, to the Conference of Coordinators for Employment of the Physically Handicapped, sponsored by the U.S. Civil Service Commission, Medical Service Division, September 8, 1961, titled "The Meaning of Disability to the Individual." This is an excellent paperthe most meaningful and forceful on the subject I have ever read.

My administrative assistant and I have known Mr. Nagle for many years. We regard him as one of our closest friends. Mr. Nagle lost his sight at the age of 13 and thereafter attended Massachusetts Perkins School for the Blind, graduating in 1934. He studied journalism at Boston University for the next 3 years, later switched to law and received his LL.B. degree from Northeastern Law School in 1942. Four years later he was awarded the B.A. degree in public affairs from the American International College. Mean

while he was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1943 and to the Federal bar the following year, and settled down to a full-time law practice in Springfield, Mass., which was to claim his professional attention for the next 14 years.

During the years 1956-58 Nagle became, successively, recording secretary of the Greater Springfield Association of the Blind, a member of its executive board, president of the Associated Blind of Massachusetts, and a member of the executive committee of the National Federation of the Blind. In 1958 he received a Governor's appointment to the advisory board of the Massachusetts Division of the Blind, and in the same year was named by the NFB to its Washington staff.

The extraordinary range and variety of Nagle's activities for the organized blind of the national federation may be suggested by a representative sample of recent undertakings. They include appearances before various committees of the House and Senate to testify on every significant bill affecting the blind on which hearings are held; trips to State conventions of the organized blind in all reports, and panel talks; active participarts of the country to present speeches, pation in numerous other group conferences and meetings, such as a recent regional convention of the National Rehabilitation Association and a Washington Conference of Coordinators for Employment of the Handicapped-where he delivered the statement on the meaning of disability to the individual which was subsequently sent to all coordinators interviews, almost daily meetings with throughout the Nation-press and radio

national legislators and Federal administrators and, not least important and time consuming, a constant flow of correspondence with blind people, plain and official, across the land.

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE

BLIND?

In the summer of 1940, a handful of blind men and women from seven States met at Wilkes-Barre, Pa., to inaugurate a new and unique voluntary association. The fruit of that historic meeting was the National Federation of the Blind, the first nationwide organization in America open to all sightless persons-truly a federation of the blind, by the blind, and for the blind.

Since that modest beginning, the national movement of the organized blind has grown steadily in numbers, strength, and influence. In 1963 it had a membership of 37 State affiliates, and was recognized by sightless people the country over as their principal means of collective selfexpression-the voice of the independent

blind.

Two factors in particular share the major credit for the remarkable growth and success of the National Federation of the Blind; its philosophy and purposes, and the quality of its leadership.

The federation believes that blind people are essentially normal human beings that blindness in itself is only a physical lack which can be met and mastered, not an impairment of mental powers or psychological stability. Therefore all arbitrary barriers and discrimi