tute a danger to the Nation, but could pro

duce a local disaster. Seasoned defenders

point out that their job is to protect the Nation and any danger to the Nation will involve multiple aircraft or missiles. This they can detect.

Because the Russians have a submarine capable of launching missiles, radar rings the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coastlines of the Nation. The same type of detection system is employed. Although persons operating the system did not say that the computers are capable of distinguishing between missiles and aircraft, it is logical to assume that they can. Ready for firing along our coastline are missiles to destroy

missiles.

Probably the most likely point of attack in the event of an assault from Russia would be the polar region. The North American Defense Command is composed of Canadian and U.S. people completely assimilated for efficiency. Radar stations like those we have in Houma are located throughout the Nation, and even larger stations ring the Arctic region from points in the Pacific Ocean through Alaska and Canada into the Atlantic Ocean. These stations must have more critical detection devices because the real danger would come from missiles fired in Siberia. These weapons, with atomic warheads, would fly over the North Pole at altitudes of 100,000 or more miles, and impact on targets in the United States.

Just as the radar station in Houma reports to a computer in Alabama, the radar stations in the polar regions report to area computers. All of the systems and all of the computers are tied into Colorado Springs, Colo., where the central command of all of these operations are located.

The efficiency of the system for detecting missiles launched in Russia was demonstrated for newsmen at Colorado Springs where giant computers possess the ability to plot the course of any missile or missiles launched in Russia, locate the point of impact, predict the time of impact and keep a scoreboard on the progress of the weapon. At the same time, the computers are activating destruction systems that are designed to destroy the weapon before impact.

The weakness in the system is not in detecting or identifying the approaching danger. The computers are even able to demonstrate how certain they are of their information. The danger is in destruction.

Ideally, our people would like to destroy the weapons over Siberia or the polar regions. They do not have the speed and accuracy capability in their weapons. Our interceptor aircraft cannot fly far enough or fast enough to accomplish this task. They must depend on destruction over the North American Continent as the missile enters the earth's atmosphere. An error or malfunction here, at the moment preceding impact, would be disastrous. There is a confidence in our existing weapons, but military people always seek better odds. They want destruction capabilities in outer space and over the North Pole.

This is our defense system as it was demonstrated for Louisiana and Alabama. It is not flawless, but it probably is the best system in the world.

The Bobby Baker Case EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. HUGH SCOTT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the

Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD several important editorials on the Bobby Baker case.

There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Trenton (N.J.) Times, March 1964]

BOBBY BAKER WHITEWASH

To get right to the point, it is doubtful if a weaker, shoddier, more palpable whitewash job of investigating has been done in Washington in years than the Senate's "in

quiry" into the Bobby Baker case.

The indication now is that the farce will be ended soon by the votes of Senator JORDAN of North Carolina, and others on the Senate Rules Committee, who from the beginning showed no stomach for really digging into a dirty business and giving the public the whole story.

Senator JORDAN'S statements that the job has been done doesn't hold water. To take one point:

Don Reynolds, a Maryland insurance man, testified that at the behest of Walter Jenkins, an aid to the then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, he bought time on a Texas TV station owned by the Johnson family, with part of the commission he earned on sale of life insurance to Mr. Johnson. Jenkins denied this-but the committee has never called him for questioning.

Or again:

There was a story that Bobby Baker asked Robert S. Kerr, son of the late Oklahoma Senator, to label as a "gift" the sum of $40,000 Baker received from the Senator before his death. Kerr, Jr., said he knew nothing about it. The committee, as far as the public knows, again did nothing.

And, more recently, the testimony that the name of an accountant affixed to Bobby Baker's income tax return had been forged

does the committee brush this under the rug, too?

Any resemblance between this flimsy pass at the Baker story and a painstaking investigation is strictly accidental and in form only certainly not in substance. Ever since the disclosures first broke the Democrats have been running away from them-it is, after all, an election year. Senator GEORGE SMATHERS, of Florida, got a bit tangled up in the flypaper at one point-and who knows what other Senators might also if the lid really came off?

Senate Democratic Leader MIKE MANSFIELD, a man of candor, agreed the other day the Baker case is certain to be a political issue this fall. That apparently seems a lesser evil to Senate Democrats than pressing an honest investigation which would give the public the truth in a situation that had some of the "best" names in Washington heading for the exits.

[From the Columbia (S.C.) Record, Jan. 25, 1964]

BAKER CASE CRACKS WIDE OPEN

For weeks, the Washington word was that the case of Pickens native Robert G. Baker would be given the kid-gloves treatment with a quite little inquiry designed to corroborate Senator MANSFIELD'S parting summation: "His great ability and dedication to the majority and the Senate will be missed."

The planners counted not on the obdurate desire of newsmen to pursue the facts diligently, without favor, and the patient research of Senator WILLIAMS, of Delaware, "the conscience of Congress."

had leaked out, the Democratic "wall of secrecy cracked," wrote Mr. Hayden.

The three Republicans on the investigating committee CURTIS, of Nebraska, COOPER, of Kentucky, and Scorт, of Pennsylvaniaagain and again moved for normal official publicity. But the six Democrats, JORDAN, of North Carolina, HAYDEN, of Arizona, CANNON, of Nevada, PELL, of Rhode Island, CLARK, of Pennsylvania, and BYRD, of West Virginia, "just as adamantly" said "No."

The Republicans have been, and are now. right. The Senate is on trial, as Senator CASE, of New Jersey, has said. It may well be that Members of the august body are not within the purview of the present committee, but the revelations dictate a relentless pursuit of truth completely detailed, no matter whom the investigators might embarrass.

The New York Times has said editorially that "Congress has no code of ethics to guide its Members on possible conflicts of interest between their private business pursuits and their duties as legislators." This is not quite true. Congress does have a code of ethics, approved by the Senate after previous House endorsement on July 11, 1958. (The complete code was published here on Thursday, January 23.) This code can be, and should be, applied to the activities of all Senators and Government employees mentioned in the committee's investigation.

Point 8 of the code instructs that Congress shall "expose corruption wherever discovered." If there is such in the Baker inquiry, the public has a right to know and the Senate a responsibility to discover. [From the Roanoke (Va.) Times, Feb. 29, 1964]

THE COUNTRY WANTS THE TRUTH The affairs of Robert Baker, who built a fortune of $2 million while secretary to ly coming to light. But it still appears the Senate's Democratic majority, are slowthat the most intriguing aspects of Mr. Baker's spectacularly successful career are not going to be probed very deeply, if at all.

There have been suggestions at various times about Mr. Baker's relations with prominent figures. But at these sensitive places the Rules Committee has preferred not to be inquisitive, drawing the curtain, as it were, over embarrassing implications. There has been conflict of testimony involving a White House aid, there have been references to Mr. Baker's handling campaign funds for Senators, and there have been questions about his associations with persons of questionable character, and about party girls. The full truth about his affairs obviously will never be brought to light as long as the committee adheres to its defensive contention that its business is not to investigate Senators.

In response to a committee subpena, Mr. Baker pleaded the fifth amendment protecting him from testifying against himself and handing over his private papers. He is entitled to that constitutional protection as is everyone else.

However, Mr. Baker also invoked the sixth amendment which guarantees the right to trial by jury in criminal prosecutions. He contends he is being subjected to "legislative trial." If this claim were valid, no committee of Congress would be on firm ground in an investigation related to legislative purposes. The resolution authorizing the Baker investigation states that the committee shall determine whether there have been conflicts of interest involving present or former Senate officers and employees. The purpose is to reform loose practices which is plainly within the scope of legislative pur

pose.

The investigating committee need not be defeated by Mr. Baker's refusal to testify. It has in hand already much evidence and can, if it chooses to do so, obtain more from other sources. What is needed is vigorous

Bulletin, Mar. 18, 1964]

RECESSED UNTIL WHEN?

Three choices lay before the Rules Committee of the U.S. Senate which has more or less been investigating the financial and other activities of Bobby Baker, ex-secretary of its majority (Democratic) caucus.

The investigation could have been pressed down every pathway until no doubt was left as to the degree of corruption or carelessness involved, and the extent to which this had infected the law-making processes.

Or, the investigation could have been choked off early.

Or, the investigation could be suspended indefinitely. There is now a recess which cynics are already suggesting will last until after election day next November.

It will seem to many that the Rules Committee has chosen the worst of the three choices if it chooses to abandon further efforts to get all the facts.

Enough has been adduced at the protracted hearings to satisfy everyone that Baker was not a desirable employee of the American people. He was a man who became a millionaire on a $19,500 salary-a very good trick if it can be done honestly-and what has been learned of the ways in which this was accomplished suggests that some Senators in both parties have not been too eager to continue the inquiry.

The possible political effects of this investigation have been self-evident from the beginning, and partisanship was seldom clearer than at the end. Senator CLARK, usually indentified with good government, found himself compelled as a Democrat to become the principal advocate for shutting down the probe, while his Republican colleague, Senator SCOTT, had the happier role of demanding that the probe continue until all pertinent information had been exposed.

But the public is not concerned with the partisan aspects. It has had a look at some of the things that go on in Senate corridors and back rooms, and it is disturbed by what it has seen. In the absence of convincing

proof that the Senate has done its best to reveal the whole story, suspicious will linger that much is being swept under the rug.

The Rules Committee has an opportunity to clear the air. It should not blow the chance.

Panama Crisis: Investigation by International Commission of Jurists

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, in my remarks in the Appendix of the RECORD of March 16, 1964, on the subject, "Panama Crisis: High Panama Officials Prevented National Guard From Preserving Public Order," I commented at some length on a recently reported inquiry on the isthmus by an International Commission of Jurists conducted upon the request of the National Bar Association of Panama.

Because the press accounts about this Commission, its authority, purpose and scope were not complete in some respects, I requested specific information from the

Panama Canal policy matters, may be fully informed in the premises, the indicated exchange of letters follows: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C.,March 6, 1964.

Hon. DANIEL J. FLOOD,
House of Representatives.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN FLOOD: I am replying to your letter dated March 6, 1964, concerning the International Commission of Jurists investigation in Panama. In response to your questions:

1. The full name of the organization is the International Commission of Jurists, and the three observers are: Prof. A. N. Belinfante, professor of law at the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Mr. Gustaf Petren of Sweden, assistant professor of public law at the University of Stockholm and secretary general of the Nordic Council; and Mr. Navroz Vakil, attorney-at-law and former solicitor to the Government of Bombay, India.

2. The Commission sent the three observers in response to a request from the National Bar Association of Panama.

3. The National Bar Association of Panama charged that U.S. military and police forces stationed in the Canal Zone violated articles 3, 5 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These articles provide: Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person;" article 5, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;" article 20, "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association." It is our position that these charges are completely unfounded.

4. The United States is represented at the investigation by a team headed by Mr. Joseph Califano, General Counsel of the Army. He has been in Panama with his assistants

for some time preparing to answer the Panamanian charges. The Commission observers have been hearing testimony and receiving evidence since last week and expect to conclude the proceedings shortly.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of the ICJ report on Cuba. The membership is 1 of 2 copies of this report available of the ICJ is shown in this report. As this in the Department, I would greatly appreciate it if you would return this copy when it has served its purpose.

A

If I may be of further help in this matter, please let me know. Sincerely yours,

FREDERICK G. DUTTON, Assistant Secretary.

Is There Any Less Need for Milk Today?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF

HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON

OF WASHINGTON

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a very thoughtful and though-provoking article has been written by Ray Crabbs, a member of the Snohomish chapter of the Future Farmers of America.

In bringing it to my attention, Elvis Eaton, executive secretary of the Cow Milker's Association in Hoquiam, Wash., pointed out that a national magazine recently referred to farming as a "deadend job" in listing occupations that boys and girls can look forward to in the future.

Mr. Eaton said that the educational system should be credited for having the fortitude to "list the occupational possibilities as they see them and with statistics that can show their conclusions are correct," but also asked this question:

Are we going to ignore these warnings and let the food basket of American deteriorate

and eventually get into the hands of a few corporations?

What he has said prepares the way for the article which our Future Farmer Ray Crabbs has written. I ask unanimous consent to have his article, entitled "Is Milk a Thing of the Past" printed in the Appendix of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

IS MILK A THING OF THE PAST?

Ask yourself, Is milk a thing of the past? Have you turned to something other than milk because of some statement made by a very few doctors in the United States? These are a few questions I am going to help you answer in the next few minutes.

Did you know that milk contains all of the basic food nutrients essential for a balanced diet? Milk contains on the average 106 percent of the daily minimum requirements of calcium, 40 percent protein, 33 percent iron, and 25 percent vitamin A. These percentages are on 3 glasses of milk a day, which may be obtained for a mere 18 cents.

Still in President Kennedy's latest statement he said, “10 percent of our people still have an inadequate diet. The most serious deficiencies are in the very minerals and vitamins, such as calcium and vitamin Amost prevalent in milk."

A few years ago some people gave up milk entirely, when a few doctors said milk could cause heart trouble, because of its high cholesterol content. According to the American Medical Association this is not true. They stated that not enough research had been done to know whether fat caused heart trouble or not. They also said that cholesterol could not be cut down without proper medical supervision.

There are several reasons why. One is, an individual cannot know how much cholesterol his blood contains until

A second reason is, a person's entire food intake must be precisely regulated to lower cholesterol. A mere substitution of foods here and there is not sufficient; in fact, it may result in a serious health problem.

There is much to be learned about cholesterol and the other aspects of nutrition. The American diet, however, provides all of the nutrients essential to good health. This nearly perfect diet wasn't accidental, it resulted from many long hours of research and know-how.

For this reason neither the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council nor the American Medical Association's Council on Food and Nutritions has seen a need to change the fat intake for the general public.

This means one thing, milk has been unjustly blamed for the increased number of heart trouble cases in the United States.

Still many doctors and people agree that it is animal fat that causes heart trouble. I ask you, can this be possible when the consumption of animal fats has dropped 44 percent in the past 40 years and the consumption of vegetable oils has risen 171 percent. It appears to me that the vegetable oils are the cause of high cholesterol and heart trouble, but I am not trying to put the blame on vegetable oils. I am, however, trying to show you that milk is not to be blamed for the high number of coronary ailments.

The doctors who disagree with this statement are the people who are hurting the consumption of milk.

In 1961 the daily per capita consumption of milk was 0.76 of 1 pound. This is only 11⁄2 glasses a day. In 1960 the daily consumption of milk was 0.78 of 1 pound and 1959 it was 0.8 of 1 pound. In the past 3 years the consumption of milk has dropped 19 pounds, which is more than it has dropped in any 3 consecutive years since 1910.

One and one-half glasses of milk a day is not enough for many people. In fact, people may live entirely on nature's most perfect food. Dad has told me how his father lived for as much as a year at a time on milk and milk alone. He lived to be 92 years old and I am not saying that if you drink a great deal of milk you will live to be 92 years old, but people naturally live longer if they are healthy. Milk is a good way to stay healthy and in good condition.

However, for some people a glass and a half is, well, a glass and a half too much. A large number of these non-milk-drinking people would much rather buy a magic potion from a door-to-door salesman. Of course, this potion has the power to do everything from lowering cholesterol and weight to growing hair on a bald head.

It is much more serious than most people realize. In fact, according to the American Medical Association the annual "take" for these cure-all doctors or as they are more commonly called "health quacks" is more than $500 million. This money is taken from the innocent and the hopeful, who are usually the ones who can least afford it.

Quacks exaggerate small symptoms and turn normal physiological phenomena into dread signs of ultimate suffering and death. The quacks realize that most people are vulnerable to the power of suggestion, so they seek to make them sick, in order to sell their cure-all medicines to help them become well again.

The main aif of the quacks is to frighten the public into buying their products. They must make the hale-and-hearty people physiologically sick. The easiest way to do this is to tell them that the food they eat is nutritionally inadequate or may cause a serious disease.

The sales of these magic potions is a serious defect in the U.S. economy. People would be much better off buying a quart of milk and fresh vegetables, than to pay high

prices for worthless medicines.

There is another serious defect in the U.S. economy; these are the unproved statements of some doctors. A few doctors have said that milk is not good for humans. Some radical doctors claim that milk is not good for infants and that infants should be raised on coffee. These statements are based on beliefs and not on proof. Nevertheless, they hurt the consumption of milk. These statements frightened the public into turning to polyunsaturated oils. Even many levelheaded dogs have been forced to eat dog food with polyunsaturated oils added.

In 1952, the consumption of vegetable oils in Europe was much higher than the consumption of animal fats. Now, the trend has changed; the European people have realized that milk is a very important part of the human diet. Humans and animals have lived for hundreds of years without the help of unsaturated fats.

Many people ask, why it is that some animals don't drink milk past infancy? There is one very simple answer to this questionmost animals do not have the opportunity, while man has recognized the need for milk.

I ask you again, Is milk a thing of the past? As for me, milk will never be a thing of the past. Milk is far better today, than it was several years ago, because of our more advanced techniques of processing and refrigeration and there are several plans being considered for the future improvement of milk. One that is being considered is the solids-non-fat testing program, that would detect the exact amounts of all nutrients in milk.

However, these decisions do not lie in my hands alone; they lie in your hands and the hands of every American citizen. I know that if you carefully consider the information that I have presented to you in the past few minutes, you will realize that milk is nature's most perfect food; and that it should be a very important part of the present and future diets of our Nation.

Use and Misuse of Public Resources

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JAMES G. O'HARA

OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as our population continues to grow, the need to protect our remaining recreation resources becomes more and more imperative. Unless we remain vigilant, we stand in danger of losing forever some of our most precious natural resources, and our children will not have an opportunity to enjoy that which our forefathers left to us.

There are few who have done more to promote wise conservation of our natural resources than the junior Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF], with whom many of had the privilege of serving in this body.

I noticed recently that our former colleague has not lost his zeal as a conservationist. An article by Senator METCALF in the January 1964 Sierra Club Bulletin relates how a legislative effort to help preserve our fish, wildlife and recreation resources apparently has been resolved

by an administrative decision. I was pleased to note that one of my State's great conservationists, Congressman DINGELL, was associated our colleague, with the junior Senator from Montana and others in this endeavor.

In calling the attention of the House to Senator METCALF'S article, I should like to remind my colleagues that he is no Johnny-come-lately in the conservation field. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952 and during his first term, he was cited for distinguished service to conservation by the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Parks Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the wilderness Society, and the Wildlife Management Institute. As the Sierra Club pointed out in an editor's note, Senator METCALF "has earned a reputation as one of the best friends of conservation on Capitol Hill.”

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Senator METCALF be inserted at this point in the body of the RECORD.

STREAMS AND HIGHWAYS: USE AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES

(By Senator LEE METCALF)

This is the story of the use-for a timeof vast public resources to damage or destroy other vast public resources. That this use. or misuse, of public resources has been stopped is a tribute to the strength and effectiveness of America's great conservation organizations, among them the Sierra Club.

With Public Law 87-61, enacted in 1956. this Nation embarked on the biggest road construction program in its history. As amended, it provided for the 41,000-mile national system of interstate and defense highways to be completed by 1972. Basically. 90 percent of the cost of this system is coming from our Federal taxes, the other 10 percent from taxes collected at the State level. By 1972, there will have been a steady flow of Federal aid money for 15 years, averaging more than $2 billion a year.

Soon after ground was broken on this expanded program, we began to realize that those farsighted conservationists of the past. who had laid out what was to become a nationwide network of recreation lands, were in reality the master highway planners of all time. This was documented by reports from throughout the Nation that present-day highway planners were indeed building on the past-through one recreation area and on to the next.

It became obvious that the public investment in the highway program was damaging valuable public fish, wildlife, recreation, and indirect damage and came from most of our other resources. Reports were of direct and States. Direct damage resulted from building highways in stream beds and from removing-for fill and for use in making concrete the stream bed gravel that is so vital to fish spawning and fish food production. Meandering streams, lined with erosioncontrolling vegetation, were bulldozed into always ruined. sterile chutes, alternately scoured and silted,

If there were no considerations except economic ones, this construction could be defended only by the economically ignorant. Much of our recreation is water based; a study in California found 80 percent of it to be. Hundreds of fishermen who spend thousands of their dollars in nearby communities are attracted to a mile of good fishing stream. If that meandering stream is replaced by half a mile of high-speed, limited access highway, these fishermen, sitting on their billfolds, will speed past the communities and go on to areas that are either

unspoiled or that have been developed with a consideration of recreation resources.

In 1962, Director Walt Everin of the Montana Fish and Game Department wrote of a highway being routed into a trout stream to avoid the cost of moving a powerline. In Utah, State engineers opposed spending $325,000 to redesign part of a high-speed highway and thereby save the sport fishery resource of part of the Logan River, where fishermen spend more than $400,000 a year. A California survey showed that the gravel being scooped out of salmon-spawning beds in Sacramento Valley to build highways produced a crop of salmon worth up to more than $1,600 an acre per year and that the average annual value to sport and commercial fishermen of salmon spawned in this region is $6.5 million.

When it became apparent that highway planners were not even consulting the agencies charged with managing the recreation resources being threatened, I introduced S. 2767 of the 87th Congress. It would have required clearance by the Secretary of the Interior for Federal aid highway projects. Acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary would satisfy himself that conservation of recreation resources was considered in highway plans and surveys.

Support for this measure and its successor, S. 468 of the 88th Congress, came from every part of the country. So did evidence of publicly financed destruction of public resources. Among the reports were ones from:

California: Arthur Grahame, in Outdoor Life magazine ("Are You a Sap for the Ribbon Cutters?"), wrote: "Construction of Interstate Route 80 ruined Donner Creek, a trout-productive tributary of Truckee River in the beautiful Lake Tahoe country. The Fish and Game Department didn't learn of the stream's danger until after roadbuilding had been started. Then it was too late to make changes in the contract.”

New York: The New York Times editorially called attention to a proposed expressway aimed at a wildlife sanctuary in Westchester and Putnam Counties. Conservationists petitioned Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to change the proposed routing of a highway that they said would destroy 23 miles of the historic Beaverkill-Willowemoc Rivers in Sullivan and Delaware Counties. New Hampshire: The State Audubon Society protested the routing of a highway through Franconia Notch, some of it through State recreation land that had been purchased by private citizens, many of them schoolchildren.

Massachusetts: Although recognizing that the Neponset River "in its present condition has little to recommend it from the recreational water use point of view," Publisher Henry Lyman of the Salt Water Sportsman wrote that pollution of that river 'is gradually being lessened" but that highway plans would "destroy the marsh habitat."

South Dakota: Biologists report that where there were once 1,200 miles of trout streams in the Black Hills, a renowned recreation area, there are now only 160 miles that will support trout. They attribute the major portion of this loss to highway construction and the sediment pollution it produces.

Montana: A report, published late in 1961, showed that 24 streams or segments surveyed that year had lost 78 miles of their original channel to highway and railroad construction.

Utah: Highway construction threatened both the scenic beauty and the fishery resource of spectacular Logan Canyon.

Maryland: The Baltimore Sun commented editorially on what highway builders did to the most popular trout stream in that area: "Throughout most of its length the stream has been scooped out,

diverted, and generally manhandled, and the wilderness along its borders which provided much of its charm scraped off by bulldozers, the banks bare, the stream itself a river of mud."

Pennsylvania: Executive Director Albert M. Day, of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, wrote that a trout hatchery and 8 miles of "beautiful trout water" above it

would be ruined from siltation and that "the blasting in this limestone area may even disrupt or ruin the springs."

As Gen. Omar Bradley put it: "If we are not careful, we shall leave our children a legacy of billion-dollar roads leading nowhere except to other congested places like those left behind. We are building ourselves an asphalt treadmill and allowing the green areas of our Nation to disappear."

Integral parts of the "green areas" to which General Bradley referred are the streams, rivers, and lakes that provide millions of Americans with recreational opportunities.

As this pressure of highway construction on natural stream values increased, nearly every major conservation organization went on record in support of legislation to counteract it. At its March 1962 meeting, the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board approved the principle of S. 2767 "because of the beneficial results that must come in the field of water pollution abatement as a necessary result of this action."

The Izaak Walton League of America, at its 1962 convention, resolved that "in highway construction, advance planning definitely provide for the protection of water resources, fish and wildlife, and recreational values, and that the costs of adequately protecting the range, the watersheds, the forests, the wildlife, and the scenic values be considered normal cost of highway construction and included therein."

Among resolutions adopted by the National Wildlife Federation in 1962 was the one headed "Public Roads":

"Federal and State highway programs are causing major problems in the management of natural resources, particularly fish and wildlife. Not only are major amounts of land being removed from agricultural use, but highway construction is disrupting streams, invading the sanctity of public parks, forests, and wildlife refuges, and creating barriers to migrations of big game herds. Some do not allow access to public lands. The National Wildlife Federation proposes the principle that highway construction be considered in the same light as water development and that fish and wildlife and recreational values be adequately considered in the advance planning of any road program and any wildlife losses be fully mitigated."

Part of my voluminous files on this subject include my own effort to determine the extent to which highway construction was threatening our rivers and streams. I addressed questionnaires to fish and game management officials in each of our 50 States. All replied.

I asked 10 questions, one of them being: "Are trout streams or other important fishing streams or lakes adversely affected by highway construction in your State? Thirty-six of the 50 States answered affirmatively, although the extent of the damage varied.

Perhaps more significant were the responses to the question: "Do you feel that additional legislation at the Federal or State levels is necessary to bring about a satisfactory degree of coordination of highway and wildlife conservation interests and objectives in your State?" To this question, fish and game management men in 41 States replied: "Yes." Two States were undecided, and seven saw no need for action in this area.

Early last year I reintroduced the bill to protect streams from highway damage, cosponsored this time by Senators FRANK MOSS, of Utah; ERNEST GRUENING, of Alaska; and GAYLORD NELSON, of Wisconsin. In the House, companion legislation was introduced by Congressmen ARNOLD OLSEN, of Montana, and HENRY REUSS, of Wisconsin. Congressman JOHN DINGELL, of Michigan, took a different route to the same objective. He proposed to amend the Coordination Act to make it apply to Federal-aid highway projects. (The act now provides for mitigation of damage to fish and wildlife resources and their possible improvement as a a result of Federal construction projects.)

Our concern was shared by Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges, who has jurisdiction over the Bureau of Public Roads. After making its own inquiry into the problem and after consultation with others concerned, the Bureau of Public Roads issued an instructional memorandum last June 12. It set as its goal suitable coordination between State highway departments and the conservation agencies.

As a minimum, the Bureau order requires State highway departments to submit plans to State fish and game agencies "at an early stage," and to give those agencies "full opportunity to study and make recommendations" to the State highway department prior to submission of the plans to the Secretary of Commerce for his approval.

The memorandum set the first of this year as the deadline, after which State applications for Federal aid for highway construction "shall contain a statement that the State highway department has considered all facts presented by the State fish and game agency and the effect the proposed construction may have on fish and wildlife resources." According to the memorandum, this statement should include:

"(1) a description of the measures planned as project expenditures to minimize the effect of the proposed construction on fish and wildlife resources;

"(2) a description of any measures proposed by the State fish and wildlife agency to accomplish this purpose, which differ from those proposed by the State highway department; and

"(3) to the extent that measures proposed by the State highway department and State fish and game agency differ, an explanation of the factors considered by the State highway department in arriving at its proposal."

Thus, administrative action apparently has achieved the objective of legislative proposals that sought consideration of fish and wildlife resources in our highway program. From now on, planning for the preservation and conservation of our streams will be a component part of highway programing from the survey stage. It will be, either under this administrative action, or under legislation that will be introduced and pressed if administrative coordination is not effective. The effectiveness of the regulation will depend upon the cooperation of those concerned with building highways and with managing our recreation resources. It also will rest on the awareness and alertness of conservationists. The demonstration of those characteristics in forcing the administrative action leaves me no reservations about the conservationists. Already there are suggestions that coverage of the Public Roads Bureau order, or subsequent legislation if it is necessary, be broadened to include State and local parks, historical sites, and recreation land around cities acquired under the "open spaces" program.

'We legislate on the basis of experience. In a year or so, we will have documented experience on which to judge the effectiveness of administrative coordination.

From Welfare to Self-Support

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON

OF WASHINGTON

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, as Congress takes up the program which our President has requested so that the war against poverty may be adequately joined, I am reminded of a program undertaken in Washington State a few years ago which has been most successful.

It concerns vocational rehabilitation. Through training, a total of 1,400 persons have been taken off the welfare rolls. The program is directed by the Washington State Vocational Rehabilitation Division. Training is not limited to those with physical handicaps. The same services are extended to welfare recipients whose handicaps are not physical, but are substantial enough, to cause them to resort to welfare for their living.

This program was undertaken in 1955. Such handicaps as these are faced and overcome: lack of education, lack of motivation, lack of self-confidence, lack of skills, and sometimes simply a lack of knowing how to apply for work.

This program is helping in the President's fight against poverty. It has been supported by State funds since 1955. The question now being asked is why, when money is given out to other agencies to fight the battle of poverty, could not some of their State money be matched in order that they might work

with at least a major portion of the cases on the rolls awaiting rehabilitation service. We have, in Washington, a waiting list of 1,500 persons right now, to receive the training which enabled their 1,400 predecessors to become self-supporting.

I ask unanimous consent to have the following story, taken from the Seattle Times of March 10, printed in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

There being no objection, the story was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MOTHER OF FIVE FIGHTS WAY OFF WelfareEARNS COLLEGE DEGREE

(By Marjorie Jones)

Seven years ago, Alicia Carlington, alone, expecting her fifth child and with only a ninth-grade education, looked like the poorest possible risk to ever get off the welfare rolls.

She upset the odds.

Today at 28, Mrs. Carlington is a slim, attractive, confident, and articulate young matron with a college degree. She has been off welfare almost 2 years.

Mrs. Carlington has a job as a medical technologist, specializing in cytology, the study of cells. Her work involves the Papsmear test for detection of cancer. She expects to be a registered cytologist by fall.

"I love my profession," she said, "and it's the kind of work that provides me with an opportunity of helping others."

Although she was fired with ambition, Mrs. Carlington is quick to admit she owes much to many.

"Nobody makes it on their own when they are where I was," she said with an infectious

smile.

Mrs. Carlington was married at 15 and separated from her husband at 21. Her only working experience was 2 months as a waitress before the fifth child was born. She was forced to seek aid-to-dependent-children help.

Although she was told "nobody ever goes to school on ADC," she was determined to finish high school. With the aid of a counselor at a high school in Olympia, where she was living, she got six teachers to help her.

She picked up her assignments after school and returned them the next day. The teachers did the work after their regular classes.

"I was too dumb to realize what I was asking," Mrs. Carlington said. "Now I know only someone desperate would think of such a crazy thing."

Without her knowledge the counselor applied for her entrance to the University of Washington but lacking English and history

she was turned down.

"I did a year's work in 6 weeks, applied and was accepted at Seattle University, but grade-prediction tests," she said. on a year's probation on the basis of my

Seattle University offered her a president's scholarship.

"It was based partly on my test score, but I'm sure there also was sympathy," she said. "I wasn't that good academically."

Mrs. Carlington moved her brood to Seattle. The going was rough.

It became rougher the next summer when she was told her welfare aid would end. If

she could go to school she could work, authorities figured.

"The State division of vocational rehabilitation for the nondisabled saved the ship," she said.

John Murphy, vocational rehabilitation officer here, went to bat for Mrs. Carlington and tailored her case to fit the program.

The $100 a month she earned in her senior

year, interning at Providence Hospital, helped out. She baked bread and studied the food ads "like the stock market" to make ends meet.

She was graduated in 1962, receiving the Best Student of the Year Award from the Society of Medical Technologists. She also won an American Cancer Society scholarship to attend the University of Oregon 6

months.

Mr. and Mrs. David L. Dunlap, of Olympia, her parents, cared for her children while she was in Oregon and helped in many other ways.

"I'm grateful to all who took a chance on me," she said. "More than anything, I'm glad my children will grow up in a home where education counts.

"Had I stayed on welfare I figure the chances are that two of my five children might themselves go on welfare," she said.

"And if I hadn't been able to complete my own education, I'd probably be back on welfare, too."

Need Pay Raise

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. GEORGE W. ANDREWS

OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include in the RECORD an editorial which appeared in the Chronicle, Pascagoula, Miss. Mr. Ralph Nicholson, president and publisher of the

Chronicle, is also president and publisher of the Dothan Eagle, Dothan, Ala.: NEED PAY RAISE

Too bad the proposed increase in pay for Members of Congress and several grades of Federal employees were and maybe had to be included in the same bill.

Our concern, however, is for the underpaid Senators and Representatives. We advocate increases for them without prejudice or reference to the others referred to above

Last week the two-part bill was defeated Subsequently, Representative JAMES H. MozRISON, Democrat, of Louisiana, its supporter introduced another to take care of the Federal employees but did not include anything for the Members of Congress. He said be expects the new one to pass. Whether a subsequent proposal to take care of the legislators will come later remains to be seen

Members of the Senate and House now get $22,500 a year. The proposed raise amounted to $10,000 annually per man and would cost the taxpayers about $5 million annually That seemed like too big an increase, even though it's chickenfeed compared with other expenditures of the Federal Government. The Peace Corps gets 23 times that much and the foreign aid program 800 times.

Congress can appropriate millions and even billions for other departments of the Federal Government, much of it essential, some of it wasteful, and arouse little public outcry.

But voting something for themselves, especially a large amount, really stirs up opposition. For this reason, many legislators who want, need, and believe they deserve more pay were afraid to vote for it. They face their constituents this year.

In this current instance the legislators followed long-established practice. A bil was introduced which if passed would have provided the big increase in pay all at once This happened at a bad time-just after President Johnson had launched his great economy drive. There he was, turning the lights out in the White House to save money, and they were after more money for them

selves.

At home the Congressmen do a successful selling job every 2 years and the Senators every 6 years when they get elected. But they failed when they tried to get something for themselves in Washington. In some respects it's their own fault.

They acted as if they never heard of the installment plan or never thought of using it for their own profit. A $2,000 increase in pay for each of the next 5 years likely would arouse little and certainly less opposition. If they tried that next time they might win.

The Civil Rights Bill

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STROM THURMOND

OF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 23, 1964

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to call to the attention of Senators an excellent editorial which was publishd on March 9, 1964, in the Evening Herald, of Rock Hill, S.C. The editorial is concerned with the so-called "civil rights" legislation, and is addressed to the Members of the Senate. It it entitled "Statesmanship Wanted." Originally the editorial appeared in the Aiken Standard & Review of Aiken, S.C. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Appendix to the RECORD.