by quoting a Panamanian student leader as follows:

All that we know is that Washington is far more afraid of Castro than Fidel is of Washington. And Castro is on our side.

I do not accept the accusation that Washington is afraid of either Castro or the opportunistic leaders of Panama, even though the nervous nellies in charge of our foreign policy seem to be obsessed with the idea that we must be everlastingly withdrawn from a position of firmness. Thus it is that I am delighted that President Johnson has refused to commit this Nation beyond a willingness to sit down and talk with Panama and has reaffirmed that we are not going to surrender our sovereign rights as a prerequisite to resumption of diplomatic relations, which is of far more importance to the Panamanians than it is to us.

And who knows? Perhaps out of this Panamanian fiasco will be born a new policy of firmness in our interchange with other nations and having taken a firm stand with friend and foe alike we shall thereafter maintain our position, the wails of spineless allies or domestic appeasers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Meat Imports

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ROBERT DOLE

OF KANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Speaker, the growing concern throughout the livestock industry over the impact of beef imports on domestic cattle prices is reflected in the resolution adopted at the convention of the Kansas Livestock Association at Wichita, Kans., on March 14, 1964.

Livestock producers view as completely unrealistic and inadequate, the recently announced voluntary import cutbacks by Australia and New Zealand. They are convinced enactment of legislation is the only solution to this problem, and I submit the resolution and invite the attention of my colleagues to it:

RESOLUTION ON MEAT IMPORTS Whereas the State of Kansas now ranks fourth in the production of beef cattle; and Whereas the increases in the raising and cattle feeding of beef have contributed greatly to economic growth and employment in the State, and we deplore the sharing of our markets with those of other countries to the extent that it is a detriment to our own industry: Be it therefore

Resolved, That we request the Congress of the United States to enact legislation restricting the importation of all meat to 6 percent of the total domestic consumption during the year 1963; and

Whereas the American National Cattlemen's Association has requested immediate enactment of Federal legislation setting quotas for limiting meat imports: Therefore

be it

Resolved, That the Kansas Livestock Association support the endeavors of the Amercan National Cattlemen's Association in securing the restriction of imports, and hereby

commend any efforts of the Kansas congressional delegation in securing the passage of H.R. 10351 or similar legislation in the immediate future.

Dr. Ruth E. Wagner

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD

OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the President recently has called attention to the need for a greater recognition of the part women have played in the professions.

I am happy to inform my colleagues that my congressional district of Oakland County, Mich., counts itself fortunate on this score.

A great many of our residents in Oakland County owe their good health and even their lives to Dr. Ruth Wagner.

Dr. Wagner retired last year after 39 years of medical practice. Recently, the Daily Tribune of Royal Oak, Mich., published an article about Dr. Wagner and her early life which I think my colleagues will find interesting:

RETIRED DR. RUTH WAGNER RETAINS
PHYSICIAN'S CONCERN

Dr. Ruth E. Wagner, first woman doctor in Royal Oak, often delivered babies by coal oil lamps, with the nervous father holding the lamp. "Once," she recalled, "a grandShe mother held the only lamp in the house. went to the kitchen for more hot water and the lamp went with her. I was left, in total darkness, to tie the umbilical cord.

"Dr. Ruth" hung out her first shingle in at Thirteen-Mile and Rochester 1924, Roads-painting her own sign incidentally. Even that was a professional job, for she had studied medical drawing at Johns Hopkins Hospital, under Dr. Max Broedel, the best in the business.

She has lived at 315 Ellen, Royal Oak, with her longtime friend, Mrs. Thomas Gillmor, since the death of Mr. Gillmor in 1957. They have a summer place in Windsor.

"My 39 Years in Medicine"-she retired last June-were reviewed by her as speaker at the Friday meeting of the Ezra Parker Chapter, DAR, which she and her mother joined together in 1935.

But the lady doctor evidenced her continuing interest by concluding her review of the past with a warning for the present.

"I'd like to shout from the housetops: Read again Rachael Carson's best seller 'Silent Spring.' As a physician I urge it. Every word is true. You will be aware that the threat of enemies at war is no more destructive than our 'enemies' who, in the name of progress, by insecticides and herbicides to control insects and weeds, are destroying our forests, our food crops, and polluting our water supply. The book is now in paper back form, at 75 cents.

"Yes, there's something you can do about it. Write your Congressmen, urging them to vote for measures prohibiting the wholesale spraying of our farms and forests. Perhaps some salvage of wild life and flora can yet be accomplished."

Detroit, where they performed a tracheotomy. Unfortunately, she died that night.

"Great alarm spread through the area, as parents realized that their own youngsters had been exposed to this deadly infection. We telephoned Lansing for aid in this emergency. By motorcycle the State police delivered several hundred doses of diphtheria antitoxin.

"Next morning we set up a clinic in Oak Ridge School. Dr. Palmer Sutton, Dr. Fred Reid and I gave shots to all children, as well as adults, who came. We worked all day and far into the night, but it was worth it. Not one person who received the antitoxin contracted diphtheria.

"Today a case of diphtheria is rare. Yet when I started practice it was quite common. So common that I frequently could diagnose it when entering the patient's home by its distinctive odor. Many cases of so-called croup turned out to be diphtheria."

LIKED WHAT SHE SAW

Dr. Ruth brought more than technical skill to Royal Oak. Wanting to get away from apartment life in Detroit, she came out to look the town over, and liked what she saw. Her deepening affection for its people over the years proved to be mutual. She was named Best Citizen of the Year in 1952 by the Royal Oak Chamber of Commerce.

Her wide range of interest includes charter memberships in the YMCA and the Royal Oak Soroptomists. For many years a clubroom was available in the basement of her office at Eleven-Mile and Center to organizations needing a meeting place. She moved into these familiar offices in 1936.

Michigan State University added her to its Distinctive Alumni in 1961. And she was chosen Top Medical Woman of the Year by the American Medical Association in 1958. SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL

"In the 1920's hospital facilities were extremely scarce in this area," said Dr. Ruth. "Detroit and Pontiac hospitals were usually too crowded to accept patients from Royal Oak. I decided to have my own hospital, and in 1929 bought a 100-year-old, rambling white house on Sunnybrook at Rochester. We soon had 20 beds for adults and 7 cribs for infants. It was not easy to meet all the requirements of the Michigan Fire Department Child Welfare Commission and American Hospital Association. We were indeed proud when approved by the American College of Surgeons, the highest honor a hospital can receive. I operated Sunnybrook from 1930 through 1940.

"Finally, however, came the realization that hospitals had become 'big business'. Labor costs shot up, as well as food and medical supplies. Gone were the days when we could swap medical care for a load of potatoes, a freshly butchered pig, or a few days' work in our laundry or sewing room."

She was a member of the William Beaumont Hospital staff for its opening in 1955 until her retirement.

BECAUSE OF VITAMINS

"Probably the question I have been asked most frequently over the years is this: 'How did you happen to choose the practice of medicine?'

"Well, my first love was home economics. In 1916 I was graduated with that major from Michigan Agricultural College (now Michigan State University) at Lansing. A new word, 'vitamin,' had begun to appear in articles of the day while I was still in college. It was discovered that diseases in many cases, were the result of nutritional and vitamin deficiencies. I just had to know the why and wherefor of this new theory. The logical place to find out was medical college. So I enrolled at the Detroit College of Medicine, and graduated in 1922."

ONCE A TOWN PUMP

When introducing her warning Dr. Ruth said, "Before the advent of the Daily Trib

une," there was a town pump at about Eleven-Mile and Rembrandt. Women of the town gathered daily to exchange the news, and to fill pails with clear, pure water.

"But gone are the days when Mother Earth furnished this pure, healthful water. One of the tragedies of our time is that, in the name of progress, the flora and fauna by which nature provided purification of water, are being destroyed by man's mixing of poisonous chemicals with the waste of industry, and powerful detergents with our household sewage."

Financing the U.S.S.R.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Speaker, it is reported that high Government officials are turning over in their minds the possibility of acceptance of an astounding proposal by the Soviet Union that we extend the Reds long-term credit on goods exported to them, a request that is nothing short of preposterous.

The case against extending long-term credit to the U.S.S.R. and helping to boost the Red economy on the installment plan is well stated in an editorial, "Financing the Russians," which appeared in the March 10 issue of the Los Angeles Times.

Under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the editorial at this point:

FINANCING THE RUSSIANS

With straight face and excessive gall, the Russians again are seeking long-term credits from the United States in order to finance a major expansion of trade between our two countries. The idea should be rejected forthwith.

It is true that the whole question of East-West trade, to begin with, is complex. It is made even more complex for the United' States to approach because of the emotional content often embodied in the popular arguments both in favor of and opposed to an increased flow of goods between the rival blocs.

But one point in the debate is simplicity itself:

Whatever the levels East-West trade may reach in the future, it would be dangerous for the free world to increase exports to Communist nations on the basis of long-term

credits.

It is one thing for the United States and other Western nations to sell nonstrategic goods to the Soviet bloc for cash or gold or on short-term credit, as in the case of our recent sale of wheat to Moscow. Then an almost immediate exchange of values takes place, with each side giving and taking in what it deems to be its own best interest.

That approach can be defended. Quite another matter is selling to the Russians on an extended installment plan, which U.S. law prohibits pending settlement of the Soviet Union's outstanding lend-lease debt.

But even once the lend-lease debt negotiations are concluded, for the United States to let the Soviet defer payment for imports over a prolonged period would amount to financing ourselves some portion of the Soviet economy's growth.

And that, of course, would be utter foolishness.

In presenting the Soviet suggestion to an American Government delegation on Friday, First Deputy Premier Alexei Kosygin declared that the Soviet Union could supply the United States with anything we now buy from West Europe and at lower prices.

In which case, one is tempted to wonder, why do the Soviets anticipate a need for long-term credit? The fact is that anywhere Soviet goods have found their way to free world markets their quality very often has left much to be desired. And most of what the Soviet Union has to offer, the United States doesn't need.

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the Soviet official's suggestion was his implication that Washington should consider extending the same trade credit terms to Moscow that Moscow grants in its aid programs to underdeveloped nations. That is, on a 12-year basis at 2 percent interest.

As ridiculous as that may seem, it was perhaps no more so than the subsequent comment by the head of the American delegation that received the proposal, Under Secretary of Commerce Clarence D. Martin. Martin said that he felt Kosygin's proposals are worth considering. Decidedly, they are not.

Seneca Indians Deprived of Rights

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ALVIN E. O'KONSKI

OF WISCONSIN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. O'KONSKI. Mr. Speaker, while the Senate of the United States debates the question of civil rights, the U.S. Government is completing an act of true deprivation by the Government itself of the property rights guaranteed not only by the Constitution of the United States, article XIV, but by the U.S. treaty of 1794 with the Seneca Indians.

Stalin himself could not have broken a treaty more faithlessly than the U.S. Government, in breaking the treaty with the Seneca Nation.

The least that the Senate of the United States could do would be to stop their discussions long enough to pass the bill to truly protect civil rights as meant by the Constitution of the United

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the Congress a most noteworthy project that has been adopted as an official function of the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of Kiwanis International.

The project is called Kiwanis Pennies for Sports and Olympics-KPSO-and its primary purpose is to help finance U.S. Olympic teams. To participate in KPSO, members of the many Kiwanis clubs in the district are asked to donate at least a penny a week toward the

cause.

The project has met with fine success. The district has already collected over $7,000 and hopes to increase that amount by at least $5,000 more by the time the first official presentation is scheduled to be made at the forthcomin Los Angeles June 28 to July 2. Being Kiwanis International Convention cause of the success of KPSO, Kiwanis clubs in other districts have inquired about KPSO and at least one has started an identical project.

Kiwanis Pennies for Sports and Olympics was initiated because of a desire to have strong teams represent the United States in the Olympics and also due to the belief that financing of Olympic activities should be regarded by Americans as a special citizen undertaking which should not be turned over to the Federal Government by default.

The California-Nevada-Hawaii District is showing how this can be done in an organized and effective manner under Kiwanis Pennies for Sports and Olympics. The officers and members of participating Kiwanis Clubs merit a warm vote of thanks for their fine work.

Mr. Speaker, an excellent article on this subject by Haynes Johnson, staff writer, Evening Star of March 17, 1964, follows:

SENECAS BITTER AS UNITED STATES IGNORES TREATY

(By Haynes Johnson)

The gates will begin to close on the Kinzua Dam in northwestern Pennsylvania this spring. The Allegheny River will rise and flood the lowlands winding through the mountains 35 miles back to Salamanca, N.Y.

As the land disappears, so will the oldest active treaty the United States has, the treaty of 1794 with the Seneca Indians. With it goes the Senecas' way of life.

Even before that treaty was signed, George Washington had solemnly pledged to the Senecas "that in the future you cannot be defrauded of your lands, that you possess the right to sell, and the right of refusing to sell your lands."

"Hear well, and let it be heard by every person in your nation," Washington wrote Cornplanter, Half Town, and Great Tree, chiefs of the Senecas, "that the President of the United States declares that the General Government considers itself bound to protect you in all the lands secured by you by the treaty that, therefore, the sale of your lands in future, will depend entirely upon yourselves."

The Senecas did not sell their lands; they are being taken. What the Government had promised never would happen is happening. CONCERN OVER TREATIES

"We are hearing a great deal about treaties these days," Senator SCOTT, Republican, of Pennsylvania, told his colleagues recently. "Concern is expressed over whether the Soviets might violate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or the Panamanians the canal treaty, or the Cubans our Guantanamo Base treaty. But small attention has been given to * one of our very oldest treaties, a treaty with the Seneca Indians.

"These people have not been compensated for the loss of their homes and lands. They are growing desperate, and angry, and they have every right to do so. At a time

when the Senate is about to take up historic paradox indeed if we did not meet this urgent civil rights legislation, it would be a sad obligation to the Seneca Indians."

This week the story that began 170 years ago may come to a close on Capitol Hill. In

keeping with that history of proud men and broken pledges, even the final act is obscured by greater events and surrounded by ironies. HEARINGS TO START Tomorrow, the Senate Interior Committee is scheduled to begin hearings on a bill to For provide compensation to the Senecas. although the dam is nearing completion and some 700 persons must move by October 1, the Indians have not yet received a penny to assist them.

But here, too, the Senecas' fate is uncertain: The bill to aid them comes up in the midst of the sound and fury of the civil rights debate. If a filibuster develops, it will further delay the final act of the Seneca story.

After lengthy hearings, the House last month passed a bill providing $20,150,000 for reparation, relocation, and rehabilitation for the Senecas. While the Senecas felt the bill did not provide enough, they backed it and urged immediate action in the Senate.

Last week, the Senate Interior Subcommittee cut the bill by 64 percent, approving only $9 million.

Although the subcommiteee met in executive session, the cuts in the bill seemed to result from a reliance on a "formula" used for Indian settlements in the West. In some Western cases, Congress used a per capita amount of $2,250 for the members of a tribe as compensation for rehabilitation.

The Senacas contend that such a formula ignores their needs and the promise of President Kennedy to help them create a new way of life. As a spokesman said, "This explains why American Indians still believe that our Government sometimes speaks with a forked tongue.'"

BETRAYAL CHARGED

To the Indians, the Senate committee action only added to a feeling of betrayal. They point out, bitterly, that 3 years ago the Government gave the Pennsylvania Railroad $20 million for a 28-mile right-of-way taken for the Kinzua project.

"As if it were not bad enough faith to cut the heart out of the Senecas' treaty-protected land, a group of Senators in the Interior Committe seems intent on also cutting the heart out of Seneca hopes for an effective new way of life," said Walter Taylor, a representative of the Senecas from the Philadelphia Quakers. "This type of pennypinching at the expense of national honor we call perfidious political parsimony.

"We look for some senatorial soul searching on both practical and moral grounds. It is hard for conscientious Americans to comprehend how some Senators will work to spare citizens the burden of 11 cents each in constructive reparations for our unilateral violation of a solemn treaty.

FLOOD CONTROL DAM

"We are just hoping that the Senate will not ask us to pay the high cost of cheapness in our legislative efforts to make amends for a very great wrong."

The problems for the Senecas did not occur overnight. For more than 30 years the Army Corps of Engineers has been talking about building a dam at Kinzua to protect from flooding a vast area extending 200 miles south of Pittsburgh.

In 1938 Congress authorized a comprehensive flood-control system in the Ohio River Basin-including construction of an Allegheny reservoir and a dam at Kinzua. Some funds were appropriated for studies and exploratory work, but nothing further was done until the early 1950's.

PROPOSAL REJECTED

In the meantime, the Senecas fought for their land. They retained Dr. Arthur E. Morgan, former president of Antioch College and at one time chief engineer of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He came up with an alternative proposal in 1957 calling for construction of a dam on Conewango Creek and

of a reservoir to divert water back into farmland and Lake Erie.

The Corps of Engineers rejected the proposal as too expensive and otherwise impractical. Dr. Morgan, in a letter to the late President Kennedy in 1961, contended that the Corps of Engineers was making a "hundred million blunder" because he believes construction of a Conewango reservoir will be necessary within 25 years anyway.

model for the union of the American colonies.

For more than 170 years the Senecas have relied on the pledge made by George Washington, who said: "Remember my words, Senecas, continue to be strong in your friendship for the United States as the only rational ground of your future friendship."

"I know it will sound simple and perhaps silly," George Heron, president of the Seneca Nation, told the House subcommittee, "but the truth of the matter is that my people really believed that George Washington read the 1794 treaty before he signed it, and that he meant exactly what he wrote."

After construction began in 1960, the Senecas made their last appeal-to President Kennedy. In the summer of 1961 the President wrote the head of the Senecas:

"Even though construction of Kinzua must proceed, I have directed the departments and agencies of the Federal Government to take every action within their authority to assist the Seneca nation and its members who must be relocated in adjusting to the new situation. *** I pledge you our cooperation."

PLEDGE STIRS STUDY

His pledge initiated more than 2 years of study and consultation. Encouraged by the President's word, the Senecas and public and private agencies worked to plan a new and

creative way of life. Plans were prepared

for relocation, for education, and for employment.

The most ambitious proposal was to create a Williamsburg-type of development-to include a reception and information center, a library and auditorium, cabins, an Indian village, a nature museum, and a theater. The Senecas themselves would be able to participate in the activities.

A large part of the money for that plan was cut in the House bill-and it has been slashed even more in the Senate version.

One of the complicating factors in the controversy lies in what is "just" compensation. To the Indians, money cannot replace their land and the land of their ancestors.

As Dema Stoffer, a Seneca woman who lives on the reservation, told a House subcommittee:

"You have seen our beautiful valleys and streams and the woods, a real Indian country, that the Senecas have loved. It is a way of life that we are being forced to forego. *** It afforded us isolation, sanctuary, security, and now the Senecas are filled with fear and anxieties. * We have groped

our way in the dark, not knowing if our request would be granted."

The Kinzua Dam will take 10,500 acres out But of the 30,469 acres in the reservation. the land that is being taken includes almost all of the fertile lowlands.

When the reservoir is completed, it will chop the reservation in two.

New York State now is planning a fourlane, limited access expressway through the Indian lands, which will further bisect the

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Speaker, in the March 1964 issue of the Reader's Digest they printed an article by Allen Drury, author of "Advise and Consent." The title of the article is "The Dangerous Game of 'Let's Pretend"." This article certainly sets forth in detail how this country, by constantly making accommodations to our enemies, is not only losing friends throughout the world but in all probability, approaching a situation which may result in war.

Mr. Drury's article follows:

THE DANGEROUS GAME OF "LET'S PRETEND" (By Allen Drury)

We cannot avoid the burden that history has placed upon us, of facing up to and turning back Communist power wherever it tries to advance. And "risk of war" is not a sufficient reason for refusing to consider the realities.

The United States is in many ways the most powerful nation on earth. Its people enjoy a way of life which, despite shortcomings, gives them, generally, a more comfortable and rewarding socety than that of any other people. Its supremely human form of government stumbles and blunders, yet has repeatedly proved-most recently in the smooth transition of power after the tragic murder of its President-to be one of the strongest, most stable governments history has ever known.

Yet there has developed in this land in recent years a grave and crippling hypnosis whose outward signs are easy words and comfortable slogans, a dangerous rationalizing, a determined glossing over of unpleasant truths. It induces in those who suffer from it the fateful notion that, if you pretend long enough and hard enough that certain things are not so, they will miraculously become not so.

"Let's Pretend" was once a game that children played. Now, unhappily, grown men play it, and even base upon it policies of great nations-thereby throwing away bit by bit the world of stable foundation they might have if they were honest enough to face the cold reality of the world as it is. This applies to almost every problem that confronts us.

FROM X TO Z

Do we recognize, for instance, that a truly safe disarmament treaty requires adequate inspection? Why, of course we do. But see how it goes.

In year A, we demand z number of inspections. Our opponent shouts, and says

"No." Instead of saying firmly, "We're sorry, this is it," in year B we narrow the demand down to y inspections. This doesn't make our opponent happy, either. So in year C we reduce our position still further, to a number of inspections. And presently, when it suits our opponent's purposes to conclude in 2 weeks a nuclear test ban treaty he has been deliberately holding up for 7 years, we find ourselves-just as he has told us all along we would-down to no inspections.

The tragic thing about this performance is not that our resolution has failed us, not that we have given up the only sensible position, but that, in the process of becoming somewhat more unsafe, we have managed to convince ourselves we are still safe. We have managed, both as a people and as a government, to rationalize retreat into advance, defeat into victory. And by just so much have we moved further toward our opponent's candidly declared objective—our own destruction as a free people.

WHITTLED DOWN

There is southeast Asia. We know quite well that our position there is being whittled away. It is shaky in Laos, equivocal in South Vietnam, desperate in Cambodia. We know this. But we pretend it isn't so. We pretend and quite sincerely-that we are being stanch, standing firm, and that we will take a stand. The problem is that, by the time we do, the platform on which we take our stand may very well have been whittled down to nothing at all.

And there is Cuba. In our heart of hearts we know that the spectacle of a great nation accepting the lifting of a piece of tarpaulin on a ship at sea as proof of a pledge kept by a hostile power is a genuinely pathetic sight. But somehow we manage to convince ourselves that an opponent we know we cannot trust (for we have caught him secretively trying to put nuclear missiles in our backyard) has suddenly become trustworthy, that we were right to abandon our demand for the on-site U.N. inspection.

And in the same fashion, we think, or we guess, that 3,000 or 6,000, or 10,000-Soviet troops have been removed. Eventually we come to believe this, and once again we have managed to convince ourselves that surrender of our position has made us stronger. NICE PEOPLE?

Even more fundamentally, there is the nature of our opponent. We had in Dallas a graphic demonstration of what our opponent's philosophy can do to a twisted mind grown sick upon it. Communism has been spreading hatred and violence for almost 50 years. Yet despite steadily mounting evidence of its nature, there have been many Americans, some in very influential positions, who have desperately pretended that the Communist conspiracy is just a nice group of misguided people with whom we can get along if we keep treating them with decency-a decency they cannot understand and do not respect.

The record clearly shows that these are not nice people. They are not going to be persuaded by soft words and gentle approaches. They can be persuaded only by superior strength and the determination to use it if necessary as President Kennedy proved in the initial showdown in Cuba. Yet there are Americans, even now, who pretend that if we just continue retreating before the Communists we will, by moving backward, somehow move forward toward a genuine and stable peace.

So it goes in other matters. There is the United Nations. We know it is in desperate straits. We know we are probably the only power with sufficient dedication to it, and sufficient financial leverage to support it, to force a revision of its policies so that it truly lead the world to peace. And yet, rather than face the facts, many of us pre

tend that, if we just claim vehemently enough that the U.N. is perfect, it will somehow become so.

Such is the American attitude, baffling to our allies, self-defeating to us.

RISK OF WAR

There must sometimes come, for all of us, the staggering realization that our pretense of "things are really going all right" just isn't true. Why then do we do it? One reason is the wistful hope that all bad things will go away. A more fundamental reason is fear the fear of having to do something about a given difficulty confronting the country, if you once admit candidly that it exists.

On many occasions in recent years, a familiar little drama has occurred. A Senator or a Representative or a member of the administration is under questioning by reporters on matters affecting foreign affairs. Sooner or later the guest advocates some strong course of action. Then: "Senator," he is asked in a hushed, disbelieving tone of voice, "do you mean you would really do that, even at the risk of war?"

And such an awesome place does this question hold in the national legendry that 9 times out of 10, instead of saying bluntly what his own intention and national integrity demand-which is "Yes"-the legislator ducks and dodges and weasels and triequivocates. His interrogator retires umphant.

That "risk of war" is a favorite bugaboo, no one can deny. It gives great support and impetus to "let's pretend." But examine it for a moment.

War today is horrible beyond concept-at least the kind of war we all assume would come in a major showdown between the free world and the slave, obliterating in one fiery instant all that we hold dear. But does that make the principles of freemen any less valid? If it does, then why don't we give up right now? Why don't we abandon the biggest pretense of all-that there is anything worthwhile in freedom, anything worth saving of this Republic which has been handed down to us to preserve and pass along? If we are so afraid of the consequences of being true to our heritage and our country, why not forget about it right now, and save all this wear and tear on the national budget and our own nervous system?

To state the proposition thus is to demonstrate at once its absurdity. Of course, we are not going to give up. Of course, we are not going to abandon our principles and our country.

If we wish to keep this life-with all its liberties and freedoms-we must be prepared to give it up. If we wish to live, we must be ready to die. Only by being unafraid of war can we avoid war. And being unafraid of war does not mean feeling no worry or terror about it. The citizen who did not feel thus would be a fool indeed. It means being able to accept that fear and go on from there, with the courage expressed in a littleused verse of the national anthem: "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just."

RIGHT IS RIGHT

Almost

Of course, no sane person wants war. But, by the same token, we cannot let ourselves be bamboozled into believing that war is indeed the only alternative to surrender-that a firm, steady, unyielding, unbelligerent policy will lead inevitably to disaster. more than anything else, we have to fear the idea that there is no way open to us, with all our power and infinite resources, to combate our opponent without bringing on allout nuclear war-and that therefore we must close off discussion of other ideas and not try to develop them as cogently and effectively as we can.

The imperative first step in this latter process is to banish another contention,

that there are no answers to the world's major problems-that there are, to use the parrot phrase, "no permanent solutions," and we should, therefore, stop trying to find any. As with the fear of war, this argument can be used to paralyze all action and defeat all attempts at constructive thought. It can be used to justify doing nothing, particularly if what must be done carries with it the risk of war.

These two ideas are the most powerful weapons of today's do-nothing party; those who say we can't expect a solution in Berlin, or expect to eliminate the Soviets from Cuba, or stand firm for a truly safe disarmament treaty, or do anything, in fact, that entails any risk-because (1) there are no permanent solutions, and (2) it may mean war. If this policy is followed long enough, there will be one permanent solution-with or without war-the elimination of the United States as a free republic and a factor in world affairs.

We must seek solutions as though we really mean to find them, because that is the job history has given us, however much we may wish it had not. It is the job of saving freedom, as we have saved it before and as we are going to save it now, for the simplest and most commanding of reasons-because what is right is right. If we are committed to the support of right, as the United States is by history, and by choice, then it does not matter how many horrors may be threatened or how many fearful weapons may be waved in our face by Nikita Khrushchev. We have to defend the right, and that is all there is to it.

If we do not, we lose all self-respect, all honor, all decency. We also, in this happy 20th century, lose our safety, our liberty, our democracy, and our lives.

A TIDE-TURN MOMENT

We must be brave enough to look at the world as it is, and do the things necessary to set it on a course that truly leads to peace. There were a couple of weeks in October 1962, for instance, when we were brave like this-but where has it gone now? Dissipated on the winds of a billion words, vanished down the hallways of timorous compromise and unnecessary concession. There was a moment when we had the world united behind us-not just the free world but, one suspects, behind their jailers' backs the peoples of the slave world as well-in the great hope that we had at last turned the tide and were really going to start leading the Earth up the long hill toward sanity and peace.

But we took one step-and stopped, at the moment when we had our opponent on the run, at the moment when we should have insisted, calmly but with absolute firmness, that unless U.N. inspection in Cuba was started at once, we were coming in *** that unless Soviet troops were removed at once, we were coming in * that unless

a revision of positions all around the world was undertaken, we We were coming in. stopped. And now, of course, when such proposals are made, there comes the cry, "You don't want a war, do you?"

Well, right now, of course, these voices may be right. The world's support has been lost, the hemisphere's support has been fragmented, the Soviet Union, having tested us with lifted tarpaulins and solemn promises, has concluded that the United States was once again just talking big. To insist upon these things in Cuba, as of this moment, might mean war.

But we should not forget, for these international crises are matters of timing, that if that October's moment had been seized and made the most of, we would really have turned the tide. We let the chance slip.

But who knows when such a moment may come again?

NO CARELESS INCH

We should not be belligerent-we should simply be firm. We should be willing to negotiate with the Communists anytime, anyplace, on any subject- but we should not be the only ones to grant the concessions and make the retreats. We should insist, without the slightest yielding, on every single right that is We should never seek agreement just for the sake of having an agreement. We should agree only if by agreeing we strengthen the free world and advance the cause of freedom. And we should never, under any circumstances, give them the careless inch which with them always becomes the irrecoverable mile.

ours.

We don't have to talk tough. We just have to be tough. Every single time we give a hint of it, the Communists switch course and try some other tack; the last thing they want is an all-out frontal showdown. That is why it seems so fantastic that we should so consistently argue ourselves out of the unflinching firmness which may well be our only salvation.

It is true that firmness carries with it the possibility of great risks. But weakness carries with it the certainty of national suicide. Our opponents are not playing "let's pretend." They are playing for keeps. It is time we began to play in the same spirit.

Let us take heart therefore. The passage

gleams out. It awaits the brave. So let us be.

Let us achieve, finally, in all the areas of conflict where history demands of us that we show our true colors, that just and honorable peace for which our hearts, in common with those of all mankind, cry out.

School Devotionals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DON FUQUA

OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, the Florida Jaycees recently passed a resolution dealing with the reciting of prayers and reading of the Bible in our public schools.

I feel the Members of Congress should be apprised of this act on the part of this fine organization and am, therefore, having a copy of this resolution reprinted here:

RESOLUTION, FLORIDA JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

"Whereas the right to have prayer and Bible reading in public schools has been set aside by decision of the U.S. Supreme Court;

and

con

"Whereas the Florida Jaycees are cerned that such prohibition can seriously damage the foundation on which this country was built; namely, a recognition that our society must live in proper relationship with the Almighty: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Florida Junior Chamber of Commerce adopt as its policy the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit the offering, reading from, or listening to prayers or Biblical Scriptures, if participation therein is on a voluntary basis, in any governmental or public institution or place.

"SEC. 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid

Veterans of Foreign Wars is Robert T. Luttrell III, 809 Southwest 37th Street, Oklahoma City. It is with pleasure and with pride that I include his speech in the RECORD and commend it to the attention of my colleagues.

THE GAME OF DEMOCRACY

(By Robert T. Luttrell)

The stands are quiet. The lights are out. A few stray remnants of programs, popcorn boxes, and coffee cups are all that remain in mute testimony to the mighty conflict that is now ended. The players have trudged to the locker room. The spectators have hustled home. The score? not important for the game belongs to history. But just a few short hours ago the crowd was alive, the teams were vying, and everyone was participating.

it's

Football has become typically American. One of the most outstanding reasons for its popularity is the fact that, from beginning to end, a challenge exists. Everyone realizes this and the spectators project themselves into the conflict. The team plays well because of audience participation.

Ladies and gentlemen it's kickoff time in Washington, on Capitol Hill. The whistle blows and the debate is underway. It's a vital game, and at stake are vital issues. The capacity of the stadium is more than 180 million, but only a few are present.

The players are there. They are ready to play for the fans, but few of the spectators are there. This game can't be decisive. The players represent the people but without support, without participation, they cannot know what they represent. The legislators are ready to push through to the goal line, but they need a vocal indication of what goal to push toward. It's a lonely game to play without support and there's a hollow ring to victory in an empty stadium.

Where was the capacity crowd? Many people say, "I'll read about it in the newspapers," but then it is too late.

You had a ticket. Where were you? Your ticket to the game of democracy was the ballot you cast in the last election. Did you throw away that ticket? Did you hand it in and then go home? Or did you participate in the game from start to finish? Your child is admitted free-with a participating adult. Did he miss the game because you didn't want to participate? The life blood of a

democracy is the voice of the people, but you can't voice anything if you aren't in the stadium.

It's kickoff time and the stands are packed. There's the whistle beginning this, another great conflict on a vital issue. Ladies and gentlemen listen to the roar from the stands, from the people, giving incentive and support to their team. The game is over and the score is overwhelmingly in favor of the people.

The stands are quiet. It was a beautiful game, a beautiful day, a wonderful place. And tomorrow will be another game. Will you be there?

Participation is the challenge of American citizenship. It is America.

A Penny or Two Saved EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DONALD C. BRUCE

OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 18, 1964

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Speaker, the old adage, “Save the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves," is well known to all of us.

Our colleague, Congressman EARL WILSON, is highly praised in an editorial which appeared in the Madison, Ind., Courier entitled "A Penny or Two Saved." I commend Congressman WILSON in his efforts to bring about a more economical procurement of our defense necessities. The editorial follows:

A PENNY OR TWO SAVED Ninth District Congressman EARL WILSON continues to win skirmishes in his running fight with the military over procurement and sole-source buying.

A 2-year fight to force purchase of an Army airborne radio into open competition has been won, WILSON told his colleagues this week. WILSON said the Army has agreed to abide by a recommendation of Comptroller General Joseph Campbell to buy half of its fiscal year 1964 requirements of the AN/ARC 54 through competitive bidding.

The Army originally planned to buy all of the radios by sole source methods from the developer who was paid by the Government to design and perfect it. WILSON opened an attack in September 1961 against continued sole source purchase of the equipment. The case came to a climax in a letter from Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Logistics, Paul R. Ignatius, to Comptroller General Joseph Campbell stating the Army has changed its sole source plan and will go competitive in buying the radio.

WILSON first attacked sole source purchase of the ARC 54 on the floor of the House on July 17, 1963. In that speech he said he had referred the ARC 54 case to the General Accounting Office for a full study and report. On September 27, the Comptroller General reported to Representative WILSON in a 6-page letter which traced the procurement of the ARC 54 since its inception.

The GAO report concluded: "Every effort should be made to effect procurement of the radio sets for the balance of fiscal year 1964 on a competitive basis at the earliest possible date."

WILSON reported those findings to Congress October 7.

The GAO advised the Secretary of the Army of its findings, WILSON said, and on October 22 Campbell wrote to WILSON that, while the Army feels it must buy 853 of the radios