How the High Court can use this first amendment to support their decisions concerning this matter is beyond my understanding. Congress has never passed any legislation prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and I know of no Member of Congress who so desires. It can be logically concluded, however, that the Supreme Court has made decisions which limit the free exercise of religion.

It is well to refresh ourselves on a portion of the 14th amendment which reads as follows: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The decisions of the High Court which pertain to this question have deprived millions of Americans of their traditional liberty; namely, the right to pray and honor God anywhere, not only on private property, but on public property.

I covet for every member of this committee and every Member of Congress the opportunity to read a magnificent book by Rev. Charles Wesley Lowry, D.D. The title of the book is "To Pray or Not To Pray." We anticipate with pleasure the testimony of Dr. Lowry before this committee during these hearings.

As indicated earlier in this statement, prayers and devotional exercises are a part of the cultural bloodstream of our Nation. Invocations, devotions, oaths taken on the Bible, etc., etc., are as American and as universal as a taste for apple pie, or ice cream, or watermelon. And I hope you will forgive me for this superficial reference in my attempt to emphasize and indelibilize the idea that prayer and devotions in our public institutions is not something that a handful of religious fanatics has imposed upon us, but is a traditional part of our nature as Americans. I have been in meetings where prayers have been offered by believers of a wide variety, including Quakers, Jews, Catholics, and intensely evangelical Christians. Greek audiences made up of not only these classifications of believers, but many, many other classifications of believers invariably stand in respectful attention and in solemn quietness as these individuals have spoken to God in their own independent manner. It created no controversy, it brought on no contention, because the natural reaction of an American audience is to respect all men who converse with God, regardless of their vocabulary or their credo or background.

A constitutional amendment can easily provide for the release of students whose parents prefer that they not be subject to the customary devotions which have characterized our public institutions down through the generations. Even though such a formula to permit release were provided, I would almost be willing to wager that there wouldn't be 100 such instances in their entire population of the United States.

It is important to all of us that we recognize the priority of this sacred project. We who represent the American people are concerned and burdened by the Herculean problems that beset us, such as poverty, crime, destitute old age, etc., etc., but as for me there is no impoverishment, there is no destitution, there is no inflation or deflation, there is no loneliness in old age, or privation in childhood, or impoverishment in family life, that can equal the destitution which would befall America if we ever permit ourselves to officially outlaw the name of God in our public institutions. I may be oldfashioned and sophisticated cynics may brand me as a "Neanderthal," but I am so convinced of the importance of this program that I believe that if the elected representatives permit this denial of God and this outlawry of God to be fulfilled either by opposition or neglect that the same curse will befall our Nation which has befallen all nations and civilizations of the world that forgot and disobeyed God Almighty.

The right of our people, young and old, to pray together in any building or on any facility provided by any subdivision of government, whether it be Federal, State or local, is essential to the fulfillment of the objectives set forth in the preamble of the Constitution: "Promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

At this point, I wish to insert a statement by a college student. I highly recommend that you read his very fine remarks.

I am taking the liberty of inserting herewith a list of those organizations and groups throughout the United States who are supporting an amendment to the Constitution. While many of these people cannot come to Washington to testify at these hearings, I

am sure we will all want to take account of their viewpoints, and as far as I am concerned I am very thankful for their support.

I have not taken it upon myself to invite people or urge people to come before the committee to testify on behalf of the amendment. There were perhaps one-half dozen people who asked me to submit their requests to testify before this committee and I have done so. It is my understanding that they have written to the committee, asking to testify, and have been granted time for such testimony.

I have had magnificent support from Members of the House of Representatives and numbers of my colleagues will appear before this committee. These will include many of the 164 who have signed the discharge petition No. 3.

lives, if necessary, to preserve the right to honor God and His word in our public institutions.

The members of my personal staff here in Washington have served this cause beyond the line of duty. They are indeed dedicated people, and I want this record to show my deep appreciation for these loyal and selfrespecting individuals who have stood at my side during these months and years. They have carried an extra burden brought about by our heavy mail coming in from all over the Nation. An amazing number of telegrams and telephone calls have come to our office and have been processed with patience and courtesy by these wonderful people who have worked all hours of the night and through weekends and are continuing so to do. They love God, and because they love God they love this cause. It has never been necessary for me to bring pressure upon my helpers in order to handle this increased load. They have carried their share of this inspiring burden because of their dedication to this sacred project.

I am sure that not one person on this committee resents the heavy mail which he has received because of this activity. Occasionally I am blamed for the generating of this heavy mail, but I am not the guilty party. In fact, there is no guilt. This mail has been spontaneous and has come from the hearts of the American people. You will never receive a mail concerning any subject which more sincerely represents the hearts and souls of our people than the mail you have received in connection with this effort to guarantee the right of devotions in our public institutions. I would dread to try to estimate the volume of the mail that would pour into this place if this committee or this Congress were to go on record as

sacred devotions in our schools and other institutions.

In conclusion I would like to say that ever since June 25, 1962, I have worked as hard and as diligently in support of this cause as my time and energy would permit. In all my activities in relation to this project I vetoing the rights of our people to preserve have risen above partisan politics and have sought the cooperation of every partisan segment of the Congress of the United States and of the Nation in general. Congressmen who will appear before this committee at my behest are men and women who have disagreed with me on the normal political issues, but faith in God is a nonpartisan matter, and when we fall to our knees and address our Maker, He does not question us concerning our political affiliations. He merely says: "Come to Me all ye that are weary and are heavy laden and I will give you rest."

To the best of my ability I have kept this effort on the highest level possible and have lived up literally to the rules of the House in every conceivable way in the handlling of the discharge petition. I shall continue this

I am confident that most of the thinking on this subject has matured in the minds of the Members of this Coungress. I see no reason why our decision needs to be prolonged or delayed. Why can we not act promptly and quickly in this matter? I am old-fashioned enough to believe that a special blessing will come to the Congress of the United States and to the individual Members of this Congress who cooperate in the fulfillment of a formula which, in my judgment and the judgment of most of our Congressmen, represents the warm, passionate, inspired desires of a God-fearing people.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

effort until the desired results are achieved. New York Times Election Handbook, 1964 It is my earnest hope that this task can be completed by this Congress before the year is up. When this Congress adjourns, I shall retire, but I shall never cease to give my energies and my support to this sacred project.

I believe that I can safely say that nothing in my life has ever been or ever will be more important than this outside of my personal faith. I may sound presumptuous, but the surveys which I have made, the contacts that I have consummated and the mail that I have received lead me to believe that an overwhelming majority of the American people feel exactly as I feel concerning the matter. I take this opportunity to thank the thousands upon thousands of people all over the United States who are working in support of this cause. They will continue to do so. Thousands of volunteers, organized and unorganized, have given freely of their time and effort without hope of financial reward or without even having their expenses paid by individuals or organizations. The devotion and the dedication and the consecration of these people gives one a new faith in the fabric of American life. I actually believe that millions of these people would give their

OF

HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, a group of New York Times political reporters have produced a very useful, and very readable, book called "The New York Times Election Handbook." In a presidential election year one finds quite a few election fact books appearing on the book stalls, some good, some bad. This one is the best that I have seen.

Statistics can be dreadfully dull, but this book presents all the election statistics that one would normally want or need in a handy reference way, and also in a way that gives them flesh and blood. The men who contributed to this small volume are not only good reporters, they

are political scientists and good students of American history. The book is fairI doubt that even the most partisan party affiliate would claim that it is seriously loaded and yet it doesn't bore the reader to death by presenting candidates, issues, political strategy, and history as so much cold oatmeal. Even the most mundane political discussion can raise somebody's hackles, and yet this discussion has lively content without offense. The book might even settle some living room or office political squabbles about what happens where and when in a presidential year and is there a precedent?

For example, how many times and why was a presidential election thrown into the House of Representatives because no candidate received a majority of the electoral college vote? How does the electoral college work in the first place? How many Vice Presidents have succeeded to the Presidency? Who is up this year in the States and who won last time?

Good marks go to Harold Faber for skillful editing and to the following contributors: James Reston, Tom Wicker, Alvin Shuster, John D. Morris, Warren Weaver, Jr., Joseph Loftus, Claude Sitton, Edwin L. Dale, Jr., Max Frankel, Cabell Phillips, Robert H. Phelps, Irvin Horowitz, and John Corry.

The book is paperback, 192 pages, including tables and index, published by McGraw-Hill, costs 95 cents and is worth it.

Blue Cross Plan

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. AL ULLMAN

OF OREGON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I have been most concerned about the failure of the major insurance companies to provide adequate comprehensive hospital and medical insurance policies for our older citizens at a price they can afford to pay. Those companies which in the past few years have announced, with a great deal of publicity, the inauguration, of policies for those over 65, are now quietly raising their costs and reducing benefits.

Now comes word that the Blue Cross plans, which have increasingly carried a disproportionate share of older citizens and other high-risk individuals, are facing the necessity of pricing themselves out of existence. A recent editorial in the New York Times cites the dilemma of the Blue Cross plan which serves that city. My colleagues will be interested in that editorial:

THE BLUE CROSS DILEMMA (Editorial, New York Times, April 9, 1964, as hearings opened on the request of the Associated Hospital Service of New York to convert to a "current cost program," a proposal growing out of its precarious financial situation.)

The Blue Cross plan which serves 7,400,000 subscribers in Metropolitan New York is in grave danger. Last year it paid out $17 mil

lion more in benefits than it took in. Currently it is paying out $1.26 for every 81 it receives. Since the first of the year it has completely consumed its free surplus, and is now, with the permission of Superintendent of Insurance Henry R. Stern, drawing on its statutory reserves. Unless some quick remedy is found, he may be compelled, under the law, to take it over within the next few He is resuming hearings on the months.

whole question today.

The basic reason for its difficulties is some

thing over which neither the Blue Cross nor the insurance department has control: the tremendous increase in hospital costs. The Federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has found that the cost per day of patient care in general hospitals nearly quadrupled between 1946 and 1962. There are many reasons for this: new buildings, better equipment, broader services, and most important of all, higher wages for hospital workers.

Faced with this problem, Blue Cross is now endeavoring, in its current application, to change the basic concept under which it has operated since its initiation here in 1934. This is the community-rating concept, under which good risks are overcharged to compensate for the poor risks. It is basically a social welfare concept, not an insurance one. But in recent years more and more good risks young, vigorous, ambitious men and women-have left Blue Cross because they have found they can get better protection from commercial health insurance plans at only slightly higher costs. Thus, Blue Cross now has a disproportionate number of poor risks.

Now Blue Cross is seeking to convert to a modified experience rating system, based on insurance principles, under which various groups of members would pay different dues, based on the experience of the plan with each group. Inevitably this will mean very large, perhaps prohibitive, rate increases for many poorer risks. And even if the proposal is approved, the forecast is for an increase of about 35 percent, on the average, in rates for next year, and another 11 percent the following year.

Unless the Blue Cross plan and the medical profession which so ardently supports it can find some way of halting these mounting costs, the whole concept of voluntary health insurance, which has worked so well for the past quarter of a century, seems imperiled. One way to avoid this constant escalation of rates would be through passage of Federal legislation for medical and hospital care for the aged. This is the way to relieve the present program of the undue number of poor risks, and to hold the good risks who are now being overcharged.

Heime Eisman "Man of the Year"

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to report on the good citizens of New York City who make a continuing contribution to the improvement of the city.

has been at this location for 23 years. Mr. Eisman lives above his store and gives great satisfaction and service to the community because everyone knows him, likes him, and he takes a personal interest in everything that goes on in his neighborhood.

The Metropolitan Delicatessen Merchants Association is a fine organization and the members of the association are some of the people who make New York City the wonderful place that it is to live in. Who does not enjoy a stop at his local delicatessen at night when he is returning to his apartment from a late night at the office, or an evening at the lodge?

I always enjoy stopping at Heime Eisman's happy and warm store on West 58th Street. He is a very wise man and he does me the kindness of sharing his wisdom with me. The others who work in the store are wonderful people too and the reason is plain: they like the boss.

At the Metropolitan Delicatessen Merchants Association dinner, Heime Eisman made a fine speech; he said a lot in a very brief statement.

It is with great pleasure that I place in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the message of welcome delivered by Louis Weisberg, chairman of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Delicatessen Merchants Association, at the dinner in of honor Mr. Eisman; and also the remarks by Mr. Eisman in reply.

My congratulations go to Mr. Weisberg, to the officers and members of the association and to the guest of honor, Heime Eisman.

The annual banquet of our association is one of the events which I look forward to each year. This year we are honoring Heime Eisman one of the charter members of our association. Heime is honored for his "long years of service and devotion to the delicatessen field." He has been a member of the association's board and operates a store on West 58th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues in Manhattan.

This year the honoring of Heime Eisman has an added significance. Beginning April 22, 1964, just a month from the date of our banquet, the New York World's Fair opens its gates a potential of 70 million people. The city of New York during the months in which the fair will be open will play host to people from all parts of the United States and foreign countries.

Since the delicatessen industry is practically unique to the ecenomic life of New York City and thousands of visitors will be patronizing your stores, we felt that it only be fitting that our banquet journal devote several of its editorial pages to the "Billion Dollars Worth of Wonders." Your customers will want to see both at the fair and in the

city of New York.

serene gardens towering fantasies of glass and steel. You'll stroll picturesque promenades ** ⚫ view colorful fountains sample foods from every corner of the globe. You'll wonder at predictions of things to come *** gaze at re-creations of things past. You'll see water shows ⚫ theater creations ⚫ circuses * * sports events * fireworks hear symphonies and brass bands. In this olympic of progress you will truly see the best from all the world.

HEIME EISMAN, PRESIDENT-OWNER, RADAR
FOOD STORE

On this occasion, which marks the 32d anniversary of the Metropolitan Delicatessen Merchants Association, I feel quite honored, not only because the association which I have been a member of for over 30-odd years, but the year of 1964 marks a historical milestone the opening of the New York World's Fair.

Our organization takes pride in presenting to you not only a journal to honor me but, more significantly, it is devoting its editorial pages to the New York World's Fair.

My friends in the delicatessen industry have asked me to give you a short biography of my life. I began my career as a counterboy in Reubens Restaurant, famous the world over for its fabulous sandwiches and exotic dishes. Within a year I became assistant headman. After I had felt that I

was experienced enough in the art of preparing delicatessen foods, I opened my first store in the neighborhood where I am now located. I raised a small family. My daughter is a graduate nurse and my son became a teacher.

I halve always been interested in civic affairs and I am known as a joiner. Many years ago I joined the Masonic order and took the necessary degrees to become a 32d degree Mason and Shriner. I was very active in B'nai B'rith and in charitable organizations. One might call me a philanthropist, since I am vitally interested in those who need help.

My hobbies consist of chess and swimming and, wherever possible, with what short time I have away from the business I devote to these activities.

I want to thank each and every member of the association, as well as each and every officer and director with whom I have had the privilege of working these many years, and whom I have come to respect and admire. I want to thank each and every jobber, wholesaler, and manufacturer who has joined with us in celebrating the 32d anniversary of the Metropolitan Delicatessen Merchants Association, and without whose help and cooperation this affair might not have been possible.

Ominous Implications of the Wheat Program

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ANCHER NELSEN

OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, an editorial which appeared in the April 14 edition of the Southwestern Miller has been brought to my attention by Mr. C. M. MacLeod, chairman of the board of Hubbard Milling Co., in Mankato, Minn. The significant comments of this editorial raise many questions pertaining to the administration and possible economic implications of the re

cently enacted wheat program, and it merits the careful consideration of all those Members of the House who have an interest in protecting the economic status of our Nation's agriculture and those industries which depend on it. Under unanimous consent I place the editorial in the RECORD at this point:

COMPLIANCE WITH HEAVY HEARTS

Milling is an industry that comprises men of stout hearts. They are men who have contended with about every conceivable difficulty in business-great supply variations from drought and pestilences, baffling wheat price fluctuations resulting from wars, depressions, inflation, tariff manipulations, impractical Government controls, processing taxes which the Supreme Court invalidated and the falsities of food faddists. Notwith

standing the multitude of trials and plagues, flour milling is today more economically and more scientifically operated than ever in the interest of consumers. Behind this fact is the will of millers to progress and their dauntlessness in their business, which ranks among the very oldest in the world. With this record, milling will muster all of its capabilities and loyalties to the Nation to comply with the wheat certificate program finally voted by the House of Representatives after midnight last Wednesday by a very narrow margin. But the stout hearts will be heavy, heavy over the failure of the agricultural planners and Congress to recognize the wisdom and logic of the industries deeply concerned that urged simpler, more equitable and more workable solutions of the problem of wheat.

Millers and bakers, now supplying flour and bread to American consumers at the

smallest margins of any American industry, are saddened as they confront submission to this certificate scheme. They are saddened by evidence that it was finally voted under circumstances which prompted charges of "raw and bloody power politics" in the House. Still another charge, made in the midst of limitation of debate on the eve of the voting on the measure in the House, was that the procedure was debasing the character and the integrity of that legislative body. The final vote on the bill, H.R. 6196, was announced as 211 to 203. The Senate had previously passed the bill by a vote of 53 to 35 early in March. The Agriculture Department, which formulated the measure, and the administration engaged in almost unprecedented lobbying and dealing to obtain its adoption, casting aside the incontrovertible pleas and objections of milling and baking.

Washington reports even indicate that the pressure from the administration included telephoning by President Johnson to Members of the House to enlist affirmative votes. The President's telephoning is said to have extended "till well after midnight Wednesday." Many in the breadstuffs industry seriously wonder whether the President would have lined himself up for the enactment of this measure if he had studied it as assiduously as he lobbied for it.

BEWILDERMENT WITH INITIAL OUTLINE

It is to the credit of the Department of Agriculture that, simultaneously with the signing of the new legislation by President Johnson on Saturday, it issued the first outline of the manner in which the certificate program will be implemented. The outline, appearing in full in other columns, clarifies some points but is far from complete and has been followed by an intensification of the bewilderment which millers had feared. It is revealed that the effective date on wheat marketing certificates on domestic processing and on wheat exports will be July 1. The first announcement also discloses that all wheat ground into flour ahead of July 1, or all flour on hand in any

position as of that date, will not be subject to marketing certificates. But millers in the more northern regions, the spring wheat States, the Far West, and the Pacific Northwest, are bewildered over the situation in which they will find themselves with new crop wheat to be subject to the loan of only $1.30 not to be available to them until after July 1, in instances not before August. Even in the Southwest and the South, the earliest harvesting regions, the July 1 date for the certificate start is not being viewed as equitable to all of the millers in these regions.

To assist in avoiding interruptions in milling operations where the harvest is later than July 1, the Commodity Credit Corporation will offer wheat it owns for sale after July 1 at the higher of the market prices or the statutory minimum of 105 percent of the 1964 loan of $1.30 plus carrying charges. But in what position will millers find themselves in areas where harvests are later than July 1 and where the CCC has no wheat of their required qualities for sale?

Besides the questioning on the availability of wheat at the start of the certificate program, millers are awaiting decisions on the methods that may be employed in making the certificate payments.

CONFUSION AND CONTEST ON PRICES

That the Department of Agriculture is still not realistic on probable price developments under the certificate program is indicated by this statement in the first outline of the plans to be followed in operating it:

"USDA officials pointed out that the combination of market prices for 1964 crop wheat and the certificates will price wheat for domestic use at prices close to those prevailing during the past few years. In view of this, along with the fact that wheat prices are a very small factor in retail prices of bakery products, there will be no significant effect on these prices as a result of the wheat certificate program."

This assumption on the part of the Department of Agriculture is groundless and alarming to milling and baking. It had been hoped that the facts cited in recent days on price changes in the certificate program would prompt the Agriculture Department to recognize the realities of costs and markets, but it has failed thus far in that respect. In fact, the bare outline of the certificate program points to material uncertainties over wheat price levels and costs on flour to millers and bakers. Certificates will be distributed to farmers amounting to 70 cents a bushel on domestic marketing and 25 cents on export marketing with the quantities of each to be equal to 45 percent of the normal prodction of allotted acres irrespective of the actual harvests. With this income, it is already indicated that growers will be in a better position financially to withhold their 1964 harvest or to impound it under loans or purchase agreements, and thus may bolster open market prices. Feed and other crop adversities may add to the withholding of wheat and the bolstering of prices above the basic loan. This is highly important.

The Department has intimated that it will use the selling authority of the CCC to hold down wheat prices, but in that it faces a contest with growers which may be affected by politics in this national election year.

ADVANCE ON BREAD TO CONSUMER

In asserting that wheat prices will be close to those prevailing in the past few years, the Department continues to ignore the fact that the $2 market of the 1963-64 crop year was based on a loan of $1.82 plus an 18-cent direct payment that was made for voluntary acreage reductions below allotments. Thus, as pointed out repeatedly but ignored by the Department, the combination of a $1.30 loan plus a certificate of 70 cents will mean a cost on wheat for milling at least 18 cents a bushel higher than on the 1963 crop. Every

additional risc in wheat over the loan, level of $1.30 will force further advances in flour, so bakers fear higher costs that will force advances on bread to consumers.

The true reactions from the certificate plan were presented to Congress in a letter from the Continental Baking Co., which last year showed a net profit equal to only 1.85 cents per dollar of sales, as against the average of 5.7 cents per dollar for 4,000 corporations. The letter, sent by Continental to Representative CHARLES B. HOEVEN, of Iowa, follows:

"Continental Baking Co., the largest wholesale bread bakery in the United States, is seriously concerned by the proposed wheat certificate plan. Under the plan the minimum increase per bushel of wheat will be from $1.82 to $2 which represents a minimum increase in flour costs of 50 cents per hundredweight. Our purchasing experts have good reason to believe that wheat and flour prices will increase even more than the amounts stated above. A 50-cent-per-hundredweight increase in the cost of flour will cost this company $5 million annually which represents one-third of its present net income. Profit margins on sales in the industry are low enough and cannot be justifiably lowered any more; consequently this increase in flour cost in all probability can mean nothing but an increase in the price of bread to the consumer. We urgently request your support in defeating this measure."

Partly for political reasons, the Agriculture Department wants no bread price advance as an outcome of its certificate scheme, but the $1.30 farm loan base on open market prices will encounter a lot of resistance from the growers even with the certificate payments. The value of wheat as a feed in relation to corn and the general economic reactions from a wheat loan of $1.30 after a loan of $1.82 in 1963 add to the doubts of maintenance of a $2 base cost for milling.

CONSTITUTIONALITY NOT DETERMINED Besides all of the uncertainties and questions that have followed in the wake of the passage of this legislation, another factor clouds the outlook for its implementation. This is the question of the constitutionality of the certificates, which was raised in the course of the debating in Congress and which

is now being discussed in and out of Washington. The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States previously held that the Federal processing tax was not constitutional prompts doubts of the validity of the certificate levy. The validity question has already been raised in connection with the 25cent-a-bushel certificate on exports in view of the provision in article I, section 9 of the Constitution that states that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." It is also being claimed that the certificate bill contravenes article I, section 7 of the Constitution because it was originated in the Senate, not the House. A court test would precipitate enormous repercussions in the wheat and flour trade.

CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS OF MILLERS

for redemption by CCC and are nothing more or less than direct payments to wheat growers. They constitute a Government benefit and a Government cost and should be subject to usual appropriation procedures. We believe such benefit should be paid for through the usual means of taxation and not force flour millers to become tax collectors. We regard the forced sale of certificates to flour millers as strictly a new form of taxation and we believe an undesirable and regressive form of taxation. We should not pretend that Government costs have been reduced by hiding some of them behind a new form of Government revenue."

Arlington Struggle To Maintain Dignity

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Speaker, we have just completed a week in which many thousands of visitors have come to Washington to observe their Government in action. One of the most beautiful capitals in the world, this city attracts the attention of all our people, and deservedly so.

Because of this great interest, however, some problems have arisen. Frank M. Best, associate editor of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Journal, has spotlighted this most difficult matter in the latest issue of the magazine, and he has drawn the support of the Hartford Courant, the Nation's oldest newspaper, which has reprinted the article. Mr. Best's story is entitled: "Arlington Struggles To Maintain Dignity."

The Courant comments that Arlington National Cemetery, where President Kennedy and thousands of other war veterans are buried, is truly a national shrine. We are nearing another Memorial Day in the history of our country. Our people believe that we must preserve the places of last rest for our veterans with appropriate reverence and quiet.

I would think it fitting in the coming weeks to give special concern to the steps needed to strengthen the dignity of Arlington as it undergoes more national attention in the coming years than it has had for generations.

I offer Mr. Best's piece for reprinting in the RECORD: ARLINGTON STRUGGLES TO MAINTAIN DIGNITY (By Frank M. Best)

Arlington National Cemetery-crowded by throngs of visitors to President Kennedy's grave-is finding it increasingly difficult to bury the dead and maintain their final resting places with dignity.

Thoughtless picnickers who leave mounds of litter in their wake and vandals who steal flowers from grave sites are desecrating the Nation's most famous cemetery.

The picture will grow worse as Memorial Day approaches.

Cemetery Superintendent John C. Metzler pledges that he and his 150-man staff will continue to perform their burial and maintenance functions in "an acceptable manner," but concedes that there are formidable "roadblocks."

With thousands of tourists converging on

Washington-many of them going to or from the World's Fair-scores of heavy buses each day are taxing narrow roadways at Arlington far beyond planned capacity.

On recent weekends, more than 100,000 visitors have come to the Kennedy grave site. The crowds will increase.

The great majority of the visitors to Arlington are orderly and respectful.

But others are not, says Superintendent Metzler.

Large numbers of thoughtless sightseers are trampling upon grave sites in the area near the Kennedy enclosure. Many lounge on grave markers which offer prime vantage points. Other mount the tombstones for better camera angles.

Eating or selling food within burial areas at Arlington is prohibited. Nonetheless, the trash cans are full and overflow with discarded soft drink containers, candy wrappers and sandwich bags.

Film boxes, wrappers, and discarded cigarette butts litter the ground.

Mr. Edward C. Staples, owner of the Columbia Florist, 3100-B Columbia Pike, Arlington, says of the floral thefts at Arlington: "It's a damn crime. I don't see how people could be so morbid."

He elaborated: "We belong to three florist wire associations. We get nice orders for $25 or $35 on wreaths to be placed on General Pershing's grave and others. The people go over to see the tributes, and they are not there."

Mr. Staples cited the case of a lady cuswreath to a tombstone in section No. 42. tomer who received permission to tie a "When she returned, the wreath was gone and was found in another section," the florist said.

Mr. Dan Conklyn of Conklyn's Florist, 2046 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, says flower stealing is "not really any problem. I think it can happen at any cemetery. People think it is a shame for a plant to dry up and they take it home. It happens at every major cemetery."

Mr. Metzler, who has held his present post since 1951, told J. & R.:

"Because of its size (400 acres), Arlington, like all other large cemeteries, is the victim of individuals who have no sense of guilt in removing flowers from gravesites other than

their own."

Mr. Metzler added:

"We're rendering a service to the public. We want to do it as easily, nicely, and gracefully as we can. And once in a while we have roadblocks.

"One of our biggest roadblocks," he ex

plains, "is trying to accommodate the thou

sands who wish to visit Arlington. The roads at Arlington were never built to accommodate those big buses.

"One of our biggest problems is to route our funerals to get them off the roads the buses use."

"We go all out," Mr. Metzler emphasizes, "to bury the dead-as many as 24 or 25 a day-in as dignified a manner as possible and sometimes this is difficult."

Most of the crowds, Mr. Metzler says, are orderly, respectful, and courteous, but comments: "While we put up barricades, we find some who walk over gravesites. There are Just some people who fail to appreciate what Arlington stands for."

For him, Mr. Metzler says, "Arlington is the shrine dedicated to the military and it contains the history of our country engraved in granite."

As Mr. Metzler guided a J. & R. reporter on a tour of the cemetery, with its 123,000 gravesites, his meaning was clear.

There are unknown soldiers from every war, except the Revolution. There are Revolutionary heroes. Marble and granite slabs index the Nation's history-Custis, Wainwright, MacArthur, Dulles, Pershing, Wood, Pate, and thousands of others.

And there are also at Arlington kids drinking soda pop while their parents rest their weary bodies on a fallen soldier's tombstone.

L.B.J. Trusts Khrushchev

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNIAN

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Speaker, apparently some of our leaders never learned from history. I am convinced that President Johnson will try to make a deal with Cuba, if the American people do not wake up.

This opinion is expressed by David Lawrence in two articles which appeared in the New York Herald Tribune on April 22 and April 27:

[From the New York Herald Tribune, Apr. 22, 1964]

TODAY IN WORLD AFFAIRS: FORGIVE AND FORGET POLICY SEEN APPLYING TO CUBA

(By David Lawrence) WASHINGTON.-There seems to be a new motto that describes the trend in American foreign policy-"forgive and forget."

The new mood is reflected in developments in Cuba. It has been revealed, for instance, that the Soviet Union is planning to turn over the operation of its antiaircraft missiles in Cuba to the Castro government on May 1, and will withdraw about 3,000 of the 4,000 Soviet troops now in Cuba. It is not clear yet whether Moscow will retain a veto over the firing of the missiles or whether the power of decision will be left with the Russian technicians who are to remain on the island.

Not a single public protest, however, has been made by the U.S. Government to the Soviet Government over the continued presence on Cuba of Soviet technicians and missiles. The last official word on the subject, so far as the public is concerned, was spoken in October 1962, at the time of the missile crisis. Despite efforts then to bring about an immediate withdrawal of all Soviet forces and missiles, the United States has had to be content with a long-drawn-out maneuver. But the Soviets still maintain their original position. They insist on giving armed assistance to a government in this hemisphere, and a military base has been established by a European power in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine and of a recent resolution by Congress.

The tendency here is to assume that nothing serious will develop and that, even if the Castro government fires any of its antiaircraft missiles and damages or downs any of the U-2's or other planes which are engaged in occasional air inspection of Cuba, the United States will not hesitate to take retaliatory action.

But the controversy is deliberately confined to the United States and Cuba. Apparently the crime committed by the Soviet regime in invading the Western Hemisphere and supplying arms and weapons and technicians to a country only 90 miles away from the United States is to be forgiven or forgotten. Certainly there is a hesitancy on the part of the government here even to mention it in any public way.

There is, moreover, a desire in Washington to "play ball," if possible, with the Soviet regime in the hope that some propaganda advantage can be obtained in the international debate over reduction of armament. Thus, while much emphasis is placed on the

agreement just made to reduce the production of uranium, this really has no military significance. It is designed entirely to produce a psychological impression that the chances of peace are being constantly improved. The truth is that both sides have plenty of nuclear strength to devastate each other's territory.

Such mutual agreements as the ban on nuclear testing in certain categories and now the curtailment of uranium productionboth agreements without provisions for inspection are, of course, part of the Soviet effort to give the impression that it has no hostile purpose toward the West. This is designed to invite further trade with the West and perhaps even to obtain financial help from the United States by way of longterm credits.

The objective of Moscow is to produce the right atmosphere for commercial interchanges in order to help overcome some of the Communist economic difficulties.

But even while there is an outward appearance of friendliness and peacefulness on the part of the Moscow Government, the U.S. Government is constantly being informed of the infiltration by Soviet agents in different countries in this hemisphere as well as in Africa. The Soviet plan for taking over more and more governments, just as happened in the case of Castro, has not been modified.

Meanwhile, an effort is being made here to put some courage into the Organization of American States. A few of the governments in Latin America which have maintained diplomatic relations with the Castro government are beginning to talk of breaking off. But there is no sign yet that any government, including the United States, is willing to sever diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government-which, of course, is at the root of all the trouble.

For the next few months not only the United States but some of its European allies are evidently going to try to "play ball" with Nikita Khrushchev and elicit from him periodically further expressions of good will and peaceful intentions. Yet not a word is being said about the record of bad faith the Soviet Government has made in the last few years throughout the world. It has infiltrated country after country. It even reached the point of supplying arms to the Cuban Government and setting up missiles in close proximity to the United States. But there seems to be, inside Government circles here, a disposition to avoid any controversy with the Soviet Government about this and to regard the past as past. There is uneasiness among some Members of Congress over such a policy of forgive and forget.

[From the New York Herald Tribune, Apr. 27, 1964]

TODAY IN

WORLD AFFAIRS: CHARGE SOVIETS VIOLATE PLEDGE ON CUBA MISSILES (By David Lawrence) WASHINGTON.-An ignominious defeat has been administered to the U.S. Government, a blow to its prestige and influence in world affairs. Russia has deliberately violated a pledge to the American Government and once more defiantly threatens the safety of this country.

This turn of events comes as a surprise to the American people, who were being assured by President Johnson only a few days ago that the agreement to limit uranium production was an indication of the peaceful purpose of the Soviet Government and that a new wave of good feeling had begun.

But the Russian leopard, it has been disclosed, has not changed its spots. In utter disregard of the resolutions of warning adopted by Congress 2 years ago, the Soviet Government has assumed the right to engage in military operations in this hemisphere that are plainly aimed at the United States.

When the American Government demand

ed in the autumn of 1962 that the Russian missiles and troops be removed from Cuba, the Soviet Government promised in an exchange of notes with President Kennedy to remove the missiles and agreed to a system of inspection by the United Nations to verify whether good faith was being observed.

But Castro-doubtless with the connivance of the Russians-declined to permit the inspection. Accordingly, the United States reserved the right to continue aerial reconnaissance as a meausre of protection to the American people. More than 600 flights have been made by American planes during 1962 and 1963, and the diplomatic issue as between Russia and the United States has, outwardly at least, remained dormant. Now Cuba has issued its protest asking the U.N. to support her demand that the American airplane flights be discontinued. Russia immediately announced her concurrence in the Cuban demand.

Thus have the Kennedy and Johnson administrations been grossly deceived by the Soviet maneuvers. Also, inside the United States a certain amount of brainwashing has occurred and there are even strange suggestions heard in our midst that it would be better to let a few thousand Russian troops or "technicians" remain in Cuba so as to prevent a trigger-happy Castro from setting off a military conflict by shooting down American airplanes. This implies a reliance on the alleged peaceful intentions of the Soviets which is contradicted by the latest events.

The Russian official newspapers, for instance, in articles last Friday-unquestionably inspired by the Moscow governmentdeclared that there is no reason why Russia should not supply Cuba with weapons. The flights of American airplanes were denounced as violations of Cuban sovereignty and of the U.N. Charter as well as of international law. Yet the U.N. Charter explicitly recognizes regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine.

The controversy is significant mostly because it reveals that, instead of an improvement in Soviet-American relations, there is underneath no letup in the hostility and intrigues of aggression emanating from the Communist regime in Moscow.

The simple truth is that a small country 90 miles away from our shores was militarily strengthened by Russia, as dangerous missile bases were established in Cuba in 1962. When the United States, in self-protection, takes steps to find out if the menace has been removed, this action is construed in Moscow as a violation of international law. The right of self-defense and the adoption of precautionary measures against attack is inherent, of course, in the sovereignty of every country, and there was no justification in international law or in the U.N. Charter for the original dispatch of 15,000 troops to Cuba by the Soviet Government or the construction of missile bases on an island more than 4,000 miles away from Soviet territory. The only object of such an expedition was to threaten the safety of the American people.

This flagrant violation of international rules has been further aggravated by the manifest dishonesty and unmorality of the government in Moscow, which pretended in its notes to the late President Kennedy to be willing to agree to international inspection of Cuban missile bases and now goes back on its word. Under the circumstances, aerial reconnaissance by high-flying planes is inevitably the right of the U.S. Government.

The net result of the whole controversy could be to convince the American people that further parleys on disarmament with the Moscow regime can hardly be risked and that any agreements signed will not be worth the paper on which they are written so far as compliance by the Soviet Government is concerned.