1834 the first superintendent of the gallery. Wil- liam W. Vaughn, now aide to the Vice Presl- dent, assumed his duties as assistant to Mr. McGrath. The Senate Radio Gallery was authorized on April 25, 1939, in Senate Resolution, 117 which was sponsored by tho late Senator ‘Warren W. Baibour, Republican, of New Jer- sey, and myself. A small space, 150 square feet, just off of the ladies’ gallery, was set aside for use of 82 radio news workers then accredited to the gallery. In the vernacular of newsmen, this became the Radio Gallery. Informal use of this space was made by Macon Reed, Jr., rep- resenting Transradio Press, and Francis W. Tully, Jr., of the Yankee Network, for several months. Also, during the special session in the fall of 1939, some radio newsmen worked out of this space, but it was not until Febru- ary 15, 1940, that the gallery became acti- vated under the direction of the executive committee of the Radio Correspondents’ As- sociation. This committee consisted of Ful- ton Lewis, Jr., of Mutual Broadcasting Sys- tem; William R. McAndrew, of National Broadcasting Co.; Fred W. Morrison, of Transradio Press; and Albert L. Warner, of Columbia Broadcasting System. The present executive committee super- vising the operation of the gallery is as fol- lows: Elmer Davis, American Broadcasting Co., chairman; William R. McAndrew, Na- tional Broadcasting Co., vice chairman; Fran- cis W. Tully, Jr.. Washington Reporters, Inc., secretary; Willard F. Shadel, Columbia Broadcasting System, treasurer; Howard L. Kany, Associated Press Radio, member at large; George E. Reedy, the Arrowhead Net- work, member at large; Rex R. Goad, Trans- radio Press Service, member at large; Albert L. Warner, American Broadcasting Co., mem- ber ex officio. The gallery activities are still supervised by D Harold McGrath. He now has three assistants: Robert C. Hough, of Purcellville, Va., who started as a page in the Senate, Con J. D'Andrea, of Wilmington, Del, who for 10 years, was widely known among the Mem- bers of the Senate as he presided at the family gallery door. The third assistant is Robert Mercer, of Nashua, N. H. In 1941 the working space of the radio newsmen was expanded by the addition of an area 9 feet by 14 feet. With the war years membership grew rapidly. In March 1946 a large committee room, which had been occu- pied by Leslie Biffle as secretary of the major- ity, was vacated when Mr. Biffle became Bec- retary of the Senate. Senator Byrp, of Vir- ginia, chairman of the Rules Committee, then proposed to his committee that this space become allocated to the radio news workers. This was done. Five special sound- proof booths were constructed—one assigned to each major network and one made avail- able for the use of independent broadcast- ers. Before the work of constructing these booths began, however, the space was put to use. On April 15, 1945, Senator ALBEN W. Barker, then majority leader, spoke amidst the construction scaffolds on the death of President Roosevelt. A few days prior to this Senator JOSEPH O’MAHONEY had made a@ recording in these quarters. On November 8, 1945, the gallery was for- mally dedicated by President Harry Truman, keeping a promise he had made to Mr. Mc- Grath when he was Vice President. As far as it is known, this is the only room in the Capitol that has ever been dedicated by a President. All Members of the Senate were invited guests of the occasion and more than 70 attended. Nearly every accredited mem- ber of the gallery also attended. There are now 166 accredited members in the gallery, compared to 32, 10 years ago. An average of seven broadcasts a week orig- inate in the Senate Radio Gallery. In addi- tion, straight reporting by representatives of all affiliated organizations makes the place a busy one. Recently television became a part CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the gallery activities and television shows are frequent. Of the original 32 members who were with the gallery in 1940 the following are still accredited: H. R. Baukhage, American Broad- casting Co.; Walter Compton, Dumont Tele- vision; Rex Goad, Transradio Press Service; Fulton Lewis, Jr., Mutual Broadcasting Co.; W. R. McAndrew, National Broadcasting Co.; Stephen J. McCormick, Mutual Broadcasting Co; Robert E. Lee Moore, Transradio Press Service; Fred W. Morrison, National Broad- casting Co.; Macon Reed, Jr., Transradio Press Service; Francis W. Tully, Yankee Net- work; and Albert L. Warner, American Broadcasting Co. The executive committee of the Radio Correspondents’ Association which super- vised the operation of the gallery under the Senate rules are also officers of the Radio Cor- respondents’ Association, which is the or- ganization for the radio and television fra- ternities in the Nation’s Capital. The or- ganization, through its membership, repre- sents virtually every radio station in the United States. Since 1940 the executive committee of Radio Correspondents’ Association has had a job of accrediting radio news correspondents attending the national political conventions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Those who have served as presidents of the association are: Fulton Lewis, Jr., 1939- 40; Albert L. Warner, 1940-41; H. R. Bauk- hage, 1941-42; Fred W. Morrison, 1942-43; Eric Sevareid, 1943-44; Earl Godwin, 1944-45; Richard Harkness, 1945-46; Rex Goad, 1946- 47; Bul Henry, 1947-48; Albert L. Warner, 1948-49, and Elmer Davis, the present presi- dent, 1949-50. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to join the distinguished Senator from Iowa in expressing the apprecia- tion of the Senate of the splendid serv- ices which have been performed during the past 10 years by the radio corre- spondents’ gallery. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Recorp a further statement relative to this matter. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. President, I would like to join the dis- tinguished Senator from Iowa in expressing the appreciation of the Senate for the splen- did services performed during the past 10 years by the members of the radio corre- spondents’ gallery. As we all know, many millions of Ameri- cans rely upon radio reporters and com- mentators to give them the latest news about the operations of their Government. With the members of the press and the television reporters, the radio men have made it possi- ble for the American public to be the best- informed public in the entire world. I wish to extend my congratulations to every member of the radio gallery and to give special commendation to D. Harold McGrath, who has served so capably as super- intendent of the gallery since it was estab- lished 10 years ago. Before he became super- intendent of the gallery, Mr. McGrath was secretary to the late Lewis B. Schwellenbach of Washington State, who was a Member of the Senate for a number of years. I know that Mr. McGrath and the other members of the gallery will give distinguished service in the years to come, as they have done in the last decade. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I should like to join the distinguished ma- jority leader in extending congratula- tions to the radio correspondents and commentators for the services they have rendered here in 10 long years. I know that I am speaking the sentiments of all FEBRUARY 16 the Senate when I say that we congratu- late the members of the radio and tele- vision correspondents’ gallery on the services they have rendered. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Recorp a self-explanatory statement on this subject. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: The junior Senator from Nebraska joins in observing the tenth anniversary of the Senate Radio Gallery. It has been a pleasure to be associated with the men and women of the Radio Gallery in the dissemination of news. They have a great responsibility to the people, and they are discharging it well. The men and women of the Radio Gallery have a responsibility for fairness and ac- curacy over the air waves. These belong to all the people and the men and women of the Radio Gallery are using the radio channels by permission of the people through the Federal Communications Com- mission. And this Commission has a responsibility to prevent abuse of this privilege by radio commentators who thrive upon scandal—real or manufactured. On this joyous occasion, in which the men and women of the Radio Gallery celebrate the tenth anniversary of their admission, is no time to point to violations of the ethics of the radio profession. Rather do we salute the vast majority of reporters and commentators who conscien- tiously and sincerely perform their duties. And my congratulations go to Harold McGrath who has been superintendent of the Radio Gallery for this decade. BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT— REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC AD- VISERS Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, at the end of December, the Council of Eco- nomic Advisers submitted to President Truman its fourth annual report to the President, entitled ‘‘Business and Gov- ernment.” This report has been gen- erally welcomed as & most instructive and stimulating document. The editors of the well-known Cath- olic magazine, America, have considered Business and Government so significant that they made arrangements for a spe- cial symposium, bringing together the views of economists in all sections of the country. This symposium appeared in the issue of February 11, 1950. . One of the participants in this sym- posium, Prof. John H. Sheehan, who is head of the department of economics at the University of Notre Dame, makes the following interesting statement: The report of the Council of Economic Advisers and the very fact that we have such a body of professional advisers are encourag- ing signs. Another statement of particular inter- est is found in the section of the sym- posium written by Rev. Joseph D. Mun- jer of St. Patrick’s Seminary, Menlo Park, Calif.: The usual snipers at all reports from Wash- ington administrative agencies— Writes Reverend Munier— have been forced to admit the soundness and saneness of the comments of the Coun- cil of Economic Advisers on the relations be- tween business and Government. Even ,ts recommendations for the future are hard to
1950 smear, namely, that our business system must assume more responsibility for the long-run common good and must embrace more fully the goal of continuous production and em- ployment, especially through concerted effort to combat serious economic downturns. Finally, let me quote briefly from the statement of Charles J. Walsh, who is a@ member of the department of eco- nomics at Fordham University: I believe this report will eventually be regarded as an important milestone on the road to an improved relationship between private business and a democratic Govern- ment, on the basis of which the enterprise system may flourish, social improvement be promoted and essential freedoms preserved. * © © The Council deserves thanks for giving purposive direction to all Americans striving for a free, dynamic, progressive s0- ciety. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have inserted in the body of the Recorp at the conclusion of my remarks the symposium from America from which I have just quoted. There being no objection, the sympo- sium was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: GOVEry MENT AND Business: A SyMpostuM GROWTH AND STABILITY So compact a work as the 38-page fourth annual report to the President by the Council of Economic Advisers cannot, with adequate justice, be commented upon briefly. Its general title, “Government and Business,” indicates its breadth and vital importance. Dealing primarily with general principles of Government-business relationships, in a country dedicated to individual freedom and the common good, the report is also filled with concrete ideas. It merits careful study. From the section Trends in Government's Attitude Toward Business, two propositions may be singled out for comment: (1) “Efforts to promote expansion of * * * total production and income are more significant than measures to ‘redistribute’ the current product;” (2) “Flow of income to different parts of the economy should be viewed as an economic no less than a social problem * * « [to make practicable] a stable and expanding economy.” Proposition 1 recognizes that, from the whole pie of our total production, some of the cooks have received inadequate pieces. But taking heart from our “notable expan- sion in production” in the war and postwar years, the Council believes we “can create within less than a generation a truly good standard of living for all.” In aiming at this desirable and necessary social goal, the Council logically advances the second proposition: namely, intelligent attention must be given to economic actu- alities and possibilities. For instance, we must encourage and provide “sufficient funds and incentives for growth of productive facilities [concomitantly with] a sufficient flow of income to ultimate consumers to clear the markets of goods.” This is the formula needed to avoid periodic overpro- duction and dangerous depressions. Though difficult to carry out, this proposition ex- presses good logic, ethics, and economics. An economic system for freemen must have as its proper end a decent livelihood for all, This has been Catholic teaching for cen- turies, emphasized by Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Unfortunately, from the late eighteenth century to the 1920's, too many people followed the false philosophy of economic individualism. Then the depression despair of the 1930's swung some toward the notion that free enter- prise was dead or unworkable. World War II, however, proved the vigor and productive CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE possibilities of free peoples cooperating as free persons and responsible social beings, This wartime lesson in the necessity of co- operation by increasingly interdependent members of society has, fortunately, not been lost. The Report of the Council of Economic Advisers and the very fact that we have such a body of professional advisers are encourag- ing signs. At the close of his article on the Report of the President’s Council of Economic Ad- visers (Am. 2/4) Father Masse announced that this week we would publish the opin- ions and analyses of a panel of economic ex- perts on the subject. America herewith pre- sents a symposium of opinions submitted to us on specific parts of the report. Completely rejected in the report is the despairing philosophy of the 1930's of “eco- nomic maturity” and stagnation. Instead, it voices a positive philosophy of growth and stability. We are getting back on the right road in our thinking about the relationships of government and business. (Prof. John H. Sheehan, head of department of economics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Ind.) SECULAR STAGNATION The latest report of the Council of Eco- nomic Advisers marks a momentous turn from the attitudes which prevailed from 1932 to 1949. I is the first major indication that Truman’s Fair Deal has a distinct philosophy in its own right. Nowhere is this change more evident than in the Fair Deal’s repudiation of the doctrine of what is called in economics ‘“‘secular stag- nation.” During the 1930’s it was widely held that American business had reached the height of its expansive power. The 1932 depression was often called a crisis of over- production. Support for this thesis was gathered from the pitifully low rate of busi- ness investment during the 1930's. There were two corollaries to the stagna- tion thesis. The first was the need for equal- izing incomes through taxation and wage increases. Since investment was to be at a low level, a high rate of saving (resulting from high income) would be dangerous. Pur- chasing power, not savings, was wanted. Secondly, if redistribution of incomes did not provide full employment, the indicated area of economic expansion was in the field of public works. Government investment was to take care of workers who became surplus through technological advance or population gains. The newly espoused Fair Deal philosophy holds by contrast that our American pro- ductive capacity still has enormous room to expand before it outgrows our needs and wants. We need higher incomes, in terms of real goods and services, and not merely a re- distribution of existing production totals. By raising real incomes we can buy more and better food, housing, and other necessities, as well ag comforts and luxuries. The corollaries to this thesis are clear, and the report indicates that the President’s ad- visers may be willing to accept them. In fact, the anguished cries in the Nation show that doctrinaire antibusiness liberals have so interpreted the report. In the first place, this new program logti- cally calls for certain adjustments in tax policy. It is widely agreed that present tax policies either discourage investment or channel it into socially unhealthy patterns. There is little equity capital available for small business today. Existing economic ex- pansion ts achieved either by way of loans or by withheld profits of the large and success- ful corporations. Secondly, the Government could aid busl- noss by clarifying its regulative programs. Without sacrificing antitrust and similar controls, these programs could be made defi- nite and thus remove business uncertainty. Thirdly, positive means could be found to stimulate equity investment. One device is the formation of investment funds, privately 1835 organized but partially guaranteed by the Government. Finally, labor could contribute by a more Tealistic wage policy. Wage increases could be tied to productivity and not permitted to wipe out reasonable profits. The new approach by the Council of Eco- nomic Advisers appears to harmonize well with Catholic social teaching. The present Holy Father has stressed the need for great- er production and for the stimulation of small and medium-sized business. The em- phasis upon cooperation rather than class struggle is likewise in harmony with the Catholic tradition. In this light, the new stress in the Fair Deal ts welcome. (Rev. John F. Cronin, 8. 8., assistant director, so- cial action department, N. C. W. C., and aus thor of Economics and Society, Economic Analysis and Problems, Catholic Social Ace tion.) WATCHDOG AND HELPER The Council assures us that in a stable and expanding economy there 1s room for big business and smal) business. This is begging the question. Is not the concentration of economic power itself a cause of instability and contraction in the economy? How would Government expenditures increase employ- ment unless more goods and services were produced? The monopolist has the power to absorb the increased purchasing power in higher prices and, by restricting output, to check the hoped-for increase in employment. In choice federalese, the Council lays its finger on the chief flaw in our antitrust policy: “Under our system of law and ad- ministration, many adjustments to new site uations are made interstitially without or- ganic reconstruction of the legal framework.” What would be the agony of Lippy Durocher if in a tight game with the Dodgers the ume pires were free to invent a new rule inter- stitially, that is, between the innings. No legal framework means no book of rules. Indeed the Council is right in saying’ “We are still a long way from having completed the necessary rethinking of problems involv- ing business size and practices.” At the other extreme, the solution is not to emasculate antitrust legislation. In our opinion the Federal Trade Commission should be obliged by Congress to lay down rules of the game showing what constitutes monopoly or collusion as of a given time. Revisions should be integrated periodically with indus- trial developments. Then we should not only have flexibility, but no business could be punished for “violations” which are not cov- ered by existing definitions and rules. The Council, however, is certainly right in shifting the emphasis from supervising to assisting business in its complex operations. In 1949, with a gross national production of $258,700,000,000, the Federal Government spent more than $43,100,000,000, while Fed- eral, State and local governments together spent around $60,6C0,000,000. The Federal debt is now more than $256,800,000,000. The Council is modest, if anything, when it says: “The fiscal, credit, monetary, and other fa- cilitative operations by which the Govern- ment may promote an environment con- ducive to business expansion are at least as important as the more traditional watchdog functions.” How can Government spending and taxing of this magnitude fail to affect the climate within which families and busi- nesses make their decisions? Recalling the hard fact that economics and politics do not mix, I must make a reservation. While approving the new trend I can only pray that the expenditure and revenue programs of the Government will in very truth be consistent with the progress and stability of the private economy, There is a strong case for counter-cyclical fiscal actlon—surpluses in good times, defi- cits in bad. The Council states in part II of its report that we are now enjoying a re- covery movement; and that we are justified
1836 in having an optimistic outlook for the coming month. Why, then, should it be necessary to increase transfer payments (social-security and farm-benefits payments to veterans, and other disbursements by Federal and local governments) to an @n- nual rate of $17,000,000,000 in the first half of 1950? Could we not spread out over a longer period of time at least the $2,800,000,- 000 in GI insurance dividends? Or does the fact that this is an election year influence the Government's facilitative operations? (Rev. Cyril McKinnon, 8 J, director, Mare quette University Labor College ) HIGH-LEVEL FRODUCTION The usual snipers at all reports from Wash- ington administrative agencies have been forced to admit the soundness and sanenees of the comments of the Council of Economic Advisers on the relations between business and Government. Even its recommendations for the future are hard to smear, namely, that our business system must assume more re- sponsibility for the long-run common good and must embrace more fully the goal of continuous production and employment, especially through concerted effort to combat serious economic downturns This concerted effort, it is suggested, could be facilitated by more serious study of measures contributing to the stability and growth of our economy. But the council feels that individual study and action may not be enough to head off depressions unless accompanied by some in- stitutional approach which will ensure con- certed and massive private action. The alert and informed Catholic cannot fail to find in these recommendations echoes of papal suggestions for economic recon- struction. Our Catholic principles lead us to oppose handing over to the state all responsi- bility for the welfare of the citizenry. We in- sist that business has the primary duty of creating jobs and providing for the security of its employees. In their 1940 statement on the church and social order, the Ameri- can hierarchy said that the goal cf con- tinuous production and employment de- pends on a reasonable relationship between wages and salaries, as well as on a har- monious proportion between income and prices. “Because eccnomic society has not followed the moral laws of justice and charity, the principles of interdependence huve been violated and we have precipitated unemployment with all its consequent hard- ships and misery.” By all means let us have education on those decisions which affect the relationships between wages and prices. But it will demand more than the studied awareness of the problem to bring about the concerted action necessary to ensure the sta- bility and growth of our economic system. Some institution will have to watch the chiselers, will have to bring into line those who have never mede a decision except for their own profit But what institution can do this? Government alone? Management alone? Labor alone? Most certainly not. To win the war it was recognized that all groups had to work together and sacrifice to- gether to gain a common objective Why should there be any diffcrence in time of peace? The Catholic proposal, first stated In Pope Pius XI's encyclical On Reconstructing the Social Order (1931), suggests the establish- ment of a collaborative framework to replace the outmoded system of irresponsible self- interest. “Industry council” is the best term to describe what the Pope had in mind. All interested parties would bo represented in the government of the councils and all authority would be delegated from the bot- tom. Such an instrument of economic de- mocracy gives real hope that the social aspects of vitul private decisions would re- ceive due consideration, and also promises to insure consistent private action for the general economic good. (Rev. Joseph D. Munter, member, faculty of St. Patrick's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Seminary, Menlo Park, Calif., and author of Some American Approximations to Pius XI's “Industries and Professions.”) ECONOMIC CONTROLS The fourth report of the Council of Eco- nomic Advisers marks a significant turning point in official thinking about the relation- ships between business and government. Although its conclusions have not as yet received the attention they deserve, I be- eve this report will eventually be regarded as an important milestone on the road to an improved relationship between private business and a democratic Government, on the basis of which the enterprise system may flourish, social improvement be promoted, and essential freedoms preserved. What the report amounts to is an effort to frame an economic charter for Americans: “There s room for a broad effort to formulate or restate a philosophy of the relationship between business and government; * * * in our economic life no less than in our political, there is a need for some common philosophy to hold us tcgether."” The formu- lation of this common philosophy provides a framework within which business, labor, the farmer, and the administrator can be united in pursuit of a set of common objectives. It also provides a set of criteria by which specific legislative proposels may be Judged and administrative policies selected. A democratic society cannot endure unless there is agreement on basic objectives There can be disagreement on specific poli- cies to achieve these objectives, and this disagreement can form the basis for com- peting political organizations But if our basic objectives must be constantly sub- jected to test in the political arena, stable political and economic progress becomes im- possible. The key ideas in the Council's formulation of its economic charter are, in my opinion, to be found: (1) In the Council's final eman- cipation from the economic ideas and influ- ences of the 1930’s (‘‘We have now moved far enough away from the depression of the early thirties to start looking ahcad, and to appraice the heartening evidence that free enterprise and free government have blended their varying strains into a rewarding ef- fort"); and (2) in its rejection of specific Government controls as the answer to the basic economic questions confronting the American economic system. The Council stresses the creation of a climate favorable to business and urges that the main con- centration of economic policy should be upon encouraging stability and growth within our free enterprise system itself. The sloughing off of the economic psychol- ogy of the thirties (stagnationism, etc) is a tremendous accomplishment. Consciously or unconsciously, it has colored Government economic thinking—including that of the Council itself—and found expression in law, regulations, and attitudes which, in many instances, penalized business and subjected enterprise to hampering restrictions. These included the laws which discouraged savings and investment, stressed income redistribu- tion rather than its increased creation, weak- ened incentives, and narrowed the area of private decision. The rejection of direct Government con- trols as the answer to economic problems reflects experience both in this country and abroad. We have learned that controls create as many problems as they solve, or even more—if you control prices, prices no longer perform their rationing and allocating func- tions; if you hold down the cost of living without restricting incomes—including ‘wages—suppressed inflation results; where suppressed infiation exists, incentive is de- stroyed, production is discouraged, resources misdirected, and both morals and morale are sapped by black markets. To be effective, controls must be total, and total central control is administratively im- FEBRUARY 16 possible in a free society. The authoritative London Economist in summing up British experience has said: “The value to the com- munity of having its economic decisions dis- persed among a million heads, instead of concentrated on a hundred, has been vastly underrated.” The Council deserves thanks for giving purposive direction to all Americans striving for a free, dynamic, progressive society (Charles J. Walsh, member, department of economics of Fordham University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and former Chief of the Office of Export-Import, OA.) THIRTY-SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF DEC- LARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF LITHUANIA Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, this is the thirty-second anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of Lithu- ania. This anniversary is not being publicly observed in Lithuania itself be- cause that nation, like so many other little nations of Europe, is now under the tyrannical domination of Soviet Russia, I have prepared a brief recital of the his- tory of the Lithuanian struggle for free- dom, and a description of the current situation in which those courageous little people on the Baltic find themselves today. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to insert in the Rrecorp these remarks and the statement to which I have referred. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA DAY Mr President, may I be permitted to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that today is the thirty-second anniversary of Lithuania’s Declaration of Independence. The month of February is marked by the birthday anniversaries of some of the greatest champions of human dignity and freedom— George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Gen Thaddeus Kosciusko. The history and character of the Lithuanian people may be fittingly associated with the characters of these three great men. The Lithuanian Declaration of Independ- ence sighed and proclaimed in a small room, at a secret session of the Council of Lithu- ania in the city of Vilna, during the German occupation in the First World War, marked the resurrection of an old nation-state after a period of 115 years of Russian occupation and 3 years of German occupation For Lithuania had been an independent king- dom and, then, a grand duchy since the boe- ginning of the thirteenth century. While valiantly defending themselves against the invading hosts of Teutonic knights and then against the Mongols, the Lithuanians had formed a national state and expanded their rule over vast areas of the Ukraine and White Ruthenia. Centuries before our own Decla- ration of Independence, the Lithuanians practiced complete religious and linguistic toleration in doaling with the Catholic, Orthodox, Mohammedan, Jewish, and pagan subjects of their vast empire. Old Lithuania, confederated with Poland in a dual commonwealth, was dismembered among the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian autocracies in 1795. There was a mass in- surrection against this development. The insurrection was headed by Gen. Thaddeus Kosciusko, who is shared in historic tradi- tions by the United States, Poland, and Lith- uania. That insurrection was suppressed by united Russian, Prussian, and Austrian forces. There was a brief revival of freedom for 6 months in 1812 when Napoleon permitted the restoration of the Grand Duchy of Lithuanta. For more than a century, Lithuanians suf- fered oppression. That period was punctu-
1950 ated by sporadic revolts. All Lithuanian printing was suppressed between 1864 and 1904. Military conscription was imposed. Russian Cossack regiments roamed the coun- tryside applying the whip and the gallows— in peacetime—and shutting down Catholic churches. Churches could not be repaired. No crosses could be erected without the per- mission of the Russian military police. The clergy were shadowed and restricted to the boundaries of their particular parishes. These repressions forced more than 1,000,- 000 Lithuanians of military age into volun- tary exile in western Europe and America. Other thousands were exiled annually to Siberia. Books were printed in the United States and Germany and were smuggled into Lithu- anin. The Lithuanians avoided Ruesian schools and raised their literacy standards by means of clandestine schools, through a system of traveling tutors, whose instruction was supplemented, during long winter eve- nings, by parents who supervised their chil- dren’s education in their homes. Eternal vigilance had to be maintained against night raids by the Russian police and troops seek- ing Lithuanian prayer books and primary readers for seizure and destruction. These oppressive tactics failed completely. It was during this black-out that the Lithu- anians experienced their national renaissance. It was a historic frony that, in literacy stand- ards, Lithuania ranked fourth—after Fin- land, Estonia, and Latvia—in the Russian Empire, despite all the repressions. Thirty-two years ago the Lithuanians found ® great ally in their struggle for liberty in President Woodrow Wilson. Their terse Declaration of Independence was explicitly based on the recognized right of nations to self-determination They won their inde- pendence, after a prolonged struggle against Russian bolsheviki, Russian Czarist troops, and German forces By the Moscow Peace Treaty of July 12, 1920, Russia renounced forever all claims to Lithuania. The Constituent Assembly of Lithuania promulgated a democratic consti- tution and a republican form of representa- tive government. Lithuania was admitted into the League of Nations In 1921, and won American recognition in July 1922 Lithu- ania actively participated in the peace ma- chinery of the League of Nations. She was a signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. She had nonaggression and friendship treaties with both Russia and Germany, and she maintained close relations with Latvia and Estonia and Finland. A good-neighbor policy failed, however, to save Lithuania. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pacts of 1939 sealed the fate of Poland, Lith- uania, Latvia, and Estonia. Soviet armed forces overran Lithuania in June 1940, Just as Hitler advanced on Paris in the west. The Baltic States were forcibly annexed by Rus- sia, and the Soviet regime embarked on & systematic campaign of genocide to depopu- late the culturally superior Baltic countries. That record of genocide was recently placed before the Subcommittee on Genocide of the Sonate Foreign Relations Committce by a spokesman of the Lithuanian American Council. The Government of the United States never recognized the fruits of Nazi-Soviet collabo- retion in lawlessness and aggression The United States Government faithfully adheres to iis original policy statement of July 23, 1940, and continues to recognize the sover- eignty of Lithuania and the other Baltic nations. The diplomatic and consular mis- sions of free Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonla continue to protect the sovereign interests of those countries in the United States. America may well be proud of this policy. We know that it has won us the deep grati- tude and loyalty of 7,000,000 Balts. I am glad to note that the observance of the thirty-second anniversary of independ- ence of Lithuania coincides with the promise XCVI——116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE by the State Department of Lithuania-lan- guage broadcasts by the Voice of America. The State Department has requested appro- priations for this purpose, and the proper subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee has approved this request for funds. I know that this development is gratifying to the 1,000,000 Americans of Lith- uanian descent. It will be welcome news to Lithuanians listening clandestinely to the overseas radio in their enslaved homeland. The Voice of America will not be heard di- rectly by the hundreds of thousands of Lith- uanians in Siberian exile—but the Voice will reach them through others. Our hearts go out to the oppressed free- men of Lithuania. It is our hope, as it ts theirs, that the tron curtain will collapse ultimately and the Lithuanians will regain their well-deserved liberty. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, today is being observed in a great many com- munities of our great country as the thirty-second anniversary of the decla- ration of independence by the people of Lithuania I have prepared a statement of the historical significance of that anniversary, and I ask that it be placed in the body of the REcorp at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. President, today is being observed in @ great many communities of our great coun- try as the thirty-second anniversary of the declaration of independence by the people of Lithuania. Rather than celebrate the anniversary of this significant hallmark in the history of the Lithuanian people with joy, as in the past, the observance this year is marked with sadness and reproach over the tragic fate of a small but viable people whose freedom and prosperity were brutally violated by its totalitarian neighbors. There is no feeling of Joy among the multi- tudes which will converge tonight, and the following week end, in the halls and auditoria sclected by our fellow citizens of Lithuanian descent for the solemn observance of an event that had culminated the long struggle for huren freedom and political independ- ence of this ancient and progressive Baltic people. How could there be any joy when these good Americans are painfully aware that their kith and kin in Lithuania are being oppressed, persecuted, exploited, massacred, and exiled to the Arctic and Siberian death camps? A great many Lithuanian American families are mourning for their dear ones, victims of the Nazi and Soviet conspiracy against peace and humanity. Even Ameri- can citizenship failed to protect from exile a dozen or more native-born Americans mar- ried to Lithuanians. The declaration of tndependence by the Council of Lithuania promulgated at a secret session held in Vilnius, or Vilna, dur- ing the German occupation of the country, on February 16, 1918, spoke simply of the recognized right of nations to self-determi- nation and notified the Governments of Ger- many, Russia, and other countries of the reconstitution of the independent state of Lithuania, ordered on the democratic foun- dations, * * * and the severance of all ties which had formerly bound this state to any other nations. Only a nation with an inborn sense of its own human dignity, to quote Immanuel Kant, the great philosopher who had sprung from the Prussian branch of the Lithuanian people, could express the achievement of its long-sought objective in such simple matter- of-fact words. Indeed the road to freedom had been tortuous and long, 1837 Fiercely contesting the Teutonic order’s invasion from the west and north and the Slavic and Mongol invasions from the east and south, the Lithuanians had formed an independent kingdom tn the first decades of the thirteenth century. It was exactly 700 years ago, in 1260, that Mindaugas, the wise ruler of Lettovia, had accepted baptism and a royal crown from the Pope. Unfortunately, the perfidy of the would-be apostles caused a reversion of the Lithuanian people to pagan- ism, During the next 160 years the Lithu- anians waged an unccasing defensive war against the hosts of crusaders from all of Europe. Generation after generation of the Lithu- anians were born under the sign of ceaseless warfare, and they were obliged to repulse continuous raids of the crusaders who at- tempted to baptize Lithuania with fire and sword and yoke of slavery. Prussian and Livonian kinsfolk were lost to the Teutonic Knights. But while defending themselves from the west and north, the Lithuanians extended their benevolent rule over the vast steppes, marshlands, and forests of the Ukraine and Whiteruthenia to form an empire stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The Lithuanian expansion, unlike the modern Soviet expansion, meant a liberation from the heavy Tartar yoke. Under the heathen Lithuanian rulers the Catholic and orthodox, as well as the Mohammedan and Jewish subjects, enjoyed tolerance and equalit, and a full cultural autonomy. When the opportunity came, Lithuania be- came a Catholic country in 1387 when her ruler, Jogaila, was elected to the throne of Poland. Five hundred and forty years ago, in July 1410, the Teutonic Order was finally crushed on the fields of Tannenberg by the allied Lithuanian and Polish armies under the field command of Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania. In their eagerness to prove their newly accepted Christianity, the Lithuanians attempted their only crusade against the Tartars in 1399, and suffered a great defeat on the banks of the Vorskla tn the Ukraine Nevertheless, they turned this defeat into victory, inasmuch as the Mongol might itself was mortally wounded in that battle and the Mongols were no longer capable of carrying their invasion westward across the Lithuanian dominions. The vic- tors soon enough accepted Lithuanian over- lordship, and Tartar settlers became one of the most loyal segments of the Lithuanian state society. But Muscovy had risen on the ruins of the Tartar empire. Since 1447, Lithuanta was forced to defend her empire from the Mus- covite subjugation. The constant Musco- vite aggression sapped the country’s strength and led to the Polish-Lithuantan Union, the formation of a dual Commonwealth of Po- land and Lithuania in 1569. The loose dem- ocratic structure of the commonwealth was unable to survive under the concentrated blows by the Muscovite totalitarian autoc- racy. The Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuanta, called the eastern bastion of liber- alism at the time, was dismembered among the militaristic powers of Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772, 1793, and 1795. The great mass insurrection of 1704, under Gen, Thaddeus Kosciuszko, who is acclaimed by the Lithuanians as their native son, by the Poles as their great leader, and by the Amer- ican people as a veteran of the American Revolutionary War—failed A nation born of the struggle for basic human liberty went down fighting in the defense of its human liberty and political freedom. Acting in close coordination with the Poles, every generation of the Lithuanians between 1794 and 1950 had striven to regain the nation's freedom. There was a brief flash of hope when, in 1812, the Lithua- nians had secured—for 6 months—thetr inde- pendeuce under Napoleon, Following the
1838 heavy Russian reprisals, the suppression of the very geographic name of Lithuania, the closing of the country’s university, the tightening of serfdom, and the bonding of former freemen, the Lithuanians revolted again in 1831. This insurrection produced the epic of heroism and the fame of Count- ess Emily Plater, the “Lithuanian girl cap- tain.” In 1834, several hundred Polish and Lithuanian veterans of that insurrection were deported to the United States on board of Austrian men-of-war. The attempt at insurrection in 1848 was crushed in the bud but the great mass uprising of 1863 and 1864 held the world’s attention for two whole years It was the blood and herotc sacrifices of the Lithuanian and Polish patriots that helped remove the threat of an European intervention in the United States during our own Civil War. A total blackout descended on Lithuania in 1864 For 40 years, from 1864 to 1904, the Russians forbade all printing in the Lithua- nian language and attempted to make Rus- sians out of Lithuanians. More than a mil- lion hardy Lithuanians fled abroad during that period, usually just before they were due to be called to perform military duty. Books were printed in the United States and Europe, and were smuggled into Lithuania by thous- ands of book carriers—a unique profession of champions of freedom of thought not known anywhere else. The Lithuanians avoided state schools and taught their chil- dren at home  Repatrs to churches were banned by the Russian authorities, but the Lithuanians bravely faced Russian Cossacks’ lances and whips when the latter attempted to shut down their temples. Tens of thous- ands were exiled to Siberia Other thousands languished in prisons for their possession of prayerbooks, prime readers, gospels, and other books in the Lithuanian language. And when the Russians lifted the language ban in favor of a censored press—by military censors in peacetime—they noted with sur- price that, while Russia proper was sinking into illiteracy and backwardness, the Lithu- anians were ranking fourth in literacy stand- ards within the Russian Empire, ranking next after the Finns, Estonians, and Latviius. No one wept when the Russluns were evict- ed from Lithuania in 1915 by the German troops. A regime harsher than that in Bel- gium was instituted by the Germans, and the country sufiered great material aud physical and moral losses. But hope was in the air. There was expectancy following the American entry into the war. The Lithuanians knew that their 1,000,000 Kinsmen in America would not let them down while they were to fight for freedom. Rejecting the German pressure for union with Prussia, the Lithu- anians proclaimed their full independence on February 16, 1918. The first cabinet was formed on Armistice Day, and the country feverishly sought to organize self-govern- ment. The invading Russian  bolshevik forces were expelled by the fall of 1919, the German-Russian White forces were beaten in November 1919, and first free elections to a constituent assembly were held in April 1920. Peace was signed with Russia on July 12, 1920, at Moscow and Russia renounced “forever” any and all claims to Lithuania. Soon there- after Lithuania was admitted to the League of Nations and earned American de Jure rec- ognition in July 1922. Cultural, educational and economic stand- ards were rapidly rising Lithuania re- mained on the gold standard even during the great depression. Private initiative in industry and business was encouraged by the government of farmers’ sons, and Lithuania was a happy and prosperous country, mind- ing its own business and readily co-operating in the peace machinery of the League. She vas bound to Latvia and Estonia by tics of close politicul and educational collaboration, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Friendly relations were established with Poland in 1938. Lithuania was a signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Litvinov Defini- tion of Aggression Pact, and she had nonag- gression and friendship pacts with Germany and, since 1926, with the Soviet Union. The country was confident of its future in this enlightened century. She was a law-abiding member of the international community, and she thought that her neighbors were minded likewise. But there was the Hitler-Stalin deal of 1939, the partnership in aggression between two totalitarian would-be conquerors. The excellent relations and friendship with the Soviet Union proved to be no asset, Lithu- ania was invaded in June 1940 and annexed to the Soviet Union within a few weeks. The erstwhile friends presently revenged themselves upon the innocent Baltic popu- lations by enslaving them, by imprisoning and exiling educated classes, by confiscating the lands and personal and real property of the victimized nation, by massacring and tor- turing prisoners, by despoiling the churches. The outraged people rose in arms in June 1941—and the German advance came within the next few days. A provisional government was proclaimed by the insurgents. But the Germans suppressed this government and wanted to convert Lithuania into an ex- plotted nonself-governing colony, @ part of the Ostland The Lithuanians resisted. Just when the Supreme Lithuanian Com- mittee of Liberation consolidated all resist- ance into a closely cooidinated network, the Russians returned. The Nazi occupation cost Lithuania 300,000 lives. The two Rus- sian occupations cost the country some 700.000 lives. But the Lithuanians continue to resist, and the Russians occasionally roar in anguish at this stubborn resistance. For dustance, Soviet officinl propaganda = ac- knowledges that torcible  collectivization fales badly in Lithuania, and that the great- est abstention from voting in the Soviet Union and in the annexed areas is registered in Lithuanta. Recalling this country's record of mis- placed confidence and errors of policy at Yalta and elsewhere, one cannot help being proud of the fact that the United States Government maintained a consistent and unyielding policy on the issue of Lithuanta and the Baltic States. In spite of the Rus- sian insistence and the many temptations of exigency the United States refused to recognize the fruits of the Soviet collabora- tion with Nazi Germany and faithfully ad- heres to the original policy statement of July 23, 1940. The legations and consulates of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are func- tioning freely in this country and enjoy com- plete freedom of action in representing the interests of their enslaved countries. It in- spires the hope of Nberation not only among the Baltic peoples but among their fellow sufferers in the other areas of Europe. It is encouraging that the Sovict Depart- ment has moved to provide for Lithuanian language broadcasts over the expanding Voice of America. Our help is indeed war- runted in orlenting the people of Lithuanta regarding the true interpretation of world developments. Mr, President, I am uware that in a num- ber of States the governors have proclaimed Republic of Lithuania Day. Let us pay our respects to the gallant and dignified Lithu- anian freemen suffering the indignity of enslavement under the Soviets. May their liberation come soon. We need this little country and its great people, and they necd our encouragement. Mr. MYERS. Mr. Prasident, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a statement prepared by me on Lithuanian Independence Day. FEBRUARY 16 There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: LITHUANIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY Today marks the thirty-second anniver- sary of the declaration of independence by the people of Lithuania. This anniversary fg being observed today in a great many communities of our great Nation, particu- larly wherever a group of American citizens of Lithuanian origin or descent is found. As in the past few years, Governors of a@ number of States have proclaimed this day to be Republic of Lithuania Day. It is fit- ting, therefore, that we pause to pay our sin- cere respects to our many citizens of Lithu- anian background and to encourage their untiring efforts in behalf of liberty—for their ancestral land and for other countries presently enslaved by Soviet totalitarian ism. We had a recent occasion to be reminded of the unceasing struggle of practical ideal- ism against the onslaught of barbarianism. I have in mind the third Lithuanian American Congress held recently in the city of New York and its resolutions soberly evaluating the present international situa- tion and calling for specific remedies in various fields of our foreign policy. The Convention for the Prevention and Punish- ment of the Crime of Genocide, which is presently pending before the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification by the President, was singled out for our particular attention by our fellow citizens of Lithua- nian origin who insist on a speedy ratifi- cation of the Genocide Convention. They are well aware that this convention will give no immediate benefit to their kith and kin in Lithuania and in Siberian death camps. Nevertheless, they want the convention to become a part of international law and to serve as a deterrent to the conspirators of the Kremlin at whom the Lithuanians point an accusing finger, I, for one, am glad that the hearings recently conducted before the Subcommittee on Genocide had provided an opportuity for Lithuanian Americans to air their grievances and to demand a “day in court” before public opinion. The memorable declaration of independ- ence proclaimed by the Lithuanian Council at Vilnius (Vilna) on February 16, 1918, sig- nifled the resurrection of an old nation- state rather a fulfillment of ambition by non-selt-governing nationality. This dec- laration was based “on the recognized right of nations to self-determination" but, at the same time, it declared “the reconstitu- tion of the independent state of Lithuania, ordered on the democratic foundations, and the severance of all ties which had formerly bound this state to any other nations” This simple and terse statement, characteristic of the Lithuanian race, carried a great con- vincing weight because of the long and hon- orable record of this smal] people fighting for freedom with unparalleled determina- tion and dignity. Lithuania became a member of the League of Nations in 1921, after negotiating a peace with Russia by the Moscow Treaty of July 12, 1920, by which Russia forever renounced any and all claims to Lithuania, The United States granted its de jure recognition in July 1922, and excellent relations were main- tained between our two countries since then. The two decades of independence marked extraordinary progress in every phase of life. Education was made compwisory, in either state-maintained or private schools, in- cluding the schools for the national minori- ties where all subjects were taught in He- brew, Yiddish, Polish, German, Latvian or Russian, Nine university-level institutions
1950 were in operation by 1940. The country en- cournged private initiative in industry and trade, and subsidized the young industries, such as sugar beet, flax and meat processing industries. Monetary stability was success- fully niaintained, and gold standard was re- tained even during the great depression. Grain production was rapidly giving way to dairying and cattle breeding, balancing in- ternal prosperity and providing profitable ex- port and import trade with the United States and Great Britain. The port of Klaipeda, or Meme!l, has rapidly grown from a former German naval and fishing haven into a busy international trade mart. Inte) national ob- ligations were scrupulously observed, and the young republic enjoyed confidence abread. Lithuania was active in all inter- national undertakings for the preservation of peace. Her international disputes were settled by arbitration and by the World Court She was active in the League of Nations. She was a signatory of the Kel- logg-Briund Pact, of the Litvinov Definition of Aggression Pact, and she had nonaggres- sion and friendship pacts with Germany and the Soviet Union. Friendly relations were maintained with Latvian and Estonia, and since 1938 with Polund. It is remarkable that Lithuania was the first country to defy the Nazis despite the proximity of Germany; in 1985 she prosecuted the Nazi plotters against her territorial integrity, and she readily accepted the Jewish and anti-Nazi German refugees from Hitler's terrorism Then came the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pacts of 1939, followed by the nonageression and mutual assistance pact with the Soviet Union whereby Russia imposed limited military garrisons upon Lithuania, In spite of the strict neutrality main- tained by Lithuania during the first year of the war, Russia invaded Lithuania in June 1940, as Hitler's legions marched into Paris and the British were at Dunkirk. Within a short space of a few weeks, Lithuania was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union and the Russian NKVD took over Some 2,000 per- sons were immediately arrested and deported to Russia, and the Russian NKVD engaged in compiling long lists of the people’s enemies slated for Nquidation. The week of June 14-21, 1941, the Russians executed the first major operation of genocide by uvroot- ing some 35,000 men, women and children. Heads of families were separated irom their wives and children and were either massacred or shipped to Arctic Russia, while the women and babes in arms were resettled in Siberia in slave labor camps This operation pro- voked greatest indignation and #2 mass insur- rection; more than 100,000 Lithuanians rose in arms during that week, and when the German troops marched into Lithuania on June 22, 1941, they entered the cities for the most part already seized by the Lithuanian insurrectionists. A provisional government was proclaimed and took over the adminis- tration. However, the Germans elected to suppress the insurrection and to make Lith- uania a part of their Ostland colony. The provisional government was forcibly dis- banded 7 weeks later, the armed forces— which had suffered some 15,000 casualties in fighting the Russians and, in some instances, the Germans—-were disarmed and interned. The country was stunned for a while. The Jewish massacres conducted by the Germans and manhunts for forced labor reawakened the people and resistance was born. It is re- markable that, of all the countries under German occupation, Lithuania and Poland were the only two nations that failed to pro- duce SS legions for Hitler, in spite of the bitter anti-Bolshevik sentiment prevalent in both formerly allied peoples. All of the Ger- man schemes of mobilization failed, in cone trast with the popular response when a home guard was permitted to be formed in 1944. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Noting the enthusiastic response to a call to arms by native authorities, the Germans at once attempted to incorporate the raw re- cruits into German armed forces. The Lith- uantans refused to take an oath of allegiance to Hitler and refused to go beyond their own frontiers. Then the Germans struck from ambush and disarmed the units. Some men escaped to the forests, others were sent to slave Jabor camps and auxiliary air corps construction battalions in Germany. By thet time, however, the Lithuanian resitst- ance was firmly consolidated and unified under the coalition of the Supreme Lithu- antan Committee of Liberation, Passive re- sistance was transformed into an active re- sistance, and both the German and incom- ing Russtan forces were fought by guerrilla units. Hundreds of thousands of people at- tempted to flee before the onrushing So- viet Lorces—but the Germans would not per- mit them to cross the frontiers, In conse- quence of this German policy, only about 80,000 Lithuanians reached the safety of western Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzer- land, France and Sweden. The meager news emanating both from angry Soviet comments and from the under- ground resistance sources which manage to send armed missions across the iron curtain show that Lithuania continues to resist the Soviet enslavement The latest issue of the Soviet Embassy Bulletin in Washington shows that only 200,000 farms were collec- tivized. When this disclosure is evaluated in the light of economic prewar statistics it shows that the tremendous Soviet pressure and series of deportations failed to drive the Lithuanian farmers into kolkhoz detention camps, only one-third of the country’s tarms were collectivized Every year since the second Russian occupation even the fictional prefabricated Soviet election statistics dis- close the greatest ratio of resistance in Lith- uania The percentages of voters are placed at 91 to 94 percent, instead of the customary 99-plus or 150 percent of participation. Even in citing the background of elected officials, the Russians attribute only 11 percent of party membership among the officials of Lithuania It is not at all surprising. In a country of 3,000,000 people the Communist Party had a membership of barely 1,500. Among these, less than 600 Communists were of Lithuanian race We must be painfully aware that of the 14 prewar Catholic bishops, not 1 is left at the post. Only about one-fourth of the coun- try’s churches remain open to worshippers, and less than 25 percent of the clergy are outside prison walls Total manpower losses since 1940 amount to roughly 1,000,000 peo- ple—one-third of the entire population, Columns ot prisoners are being driven to Si- beria every month, und serles of mass de- portations follow every drive for collectiviza- tion But the spirit of freedom survives among the outraged population, and resist- ance continues. I am proud to note that the United States did not abandon the Lithuanian people. The legation and consulates of Lithuania are open in this country, and our country never recognized the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, never recognized the fruits of Nazi-Soviet conspiracy in aggres- sion, in spite of the many temptations of exigency. Among the thousands of victims of aggression and war admitted to this coun- try under the displaced-persons program, about 18,000 Lithuanians were already ad- mitted to the United States to seek a new life in freedom And Iam also proud to note that the Lithuanian people did not abandon the United States; they continue to fight for freedom, with the Atlantic Charter on their lips and in their hearts. Their hopes of ulti- mate liberation are reposed in the success of American leadership in bringing the mad- dened wo1ld back to its senses, in disinte- 1839 grating the totalitarian conspiracy at world domination, and in rolling the fron curtain back into forgotten nightmare. They should be encourhged by the fact that the State Department had requested appropriations for the next budgetary year to expand the Voice of America facilities by in- cluding broadcasts in the Lithuanian lan- guage I am confident that the requested appropriations will be granted by Congress. I pay this well-deserved tribute'to the val- lant Lithuanian people, and I express the fervent hope that their suffering and tribu- lations will end in their ultimate reclama- tion of liberty and independence as one of the family of sovereign nations, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a statement prepared by me in regard to the thirty-second anni- versary of Lithuanian independence. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recor, as follows: Mr. President, the world can well afford to stop and recall today that the people of Lithuania won their independence from Russin on February 16, 1918, 32 years ago. It is one of the tragedies of our times that the liberty achieved by the Lithuanians was brutally taken from them again on June 15, 1940, when the Soviet Union took over Lithuania by force of arms The Soviet commissars seized the small Baltic republics without regard to their solemn pledges to respect the sovereignty of Lithuania and the neighboring Baltic States of Estonia and Latvia For the past 9 years the sons and daugh- ters of Lithuania have dedicated this anni- versary to expressions of their determination to regain the freedom Lithuania lost in the Second World War. Every Member of the Senate knows that the United States of America will never waver in its determination to see that all people have the right to choose thfe form of gov- ernment under which they will live. That feeling among Amcricans 1s as strong today as it was on July 23, 1940, when our Govern- ment protested against Soviet plans to draw the Lithuanian people into the Soviet Union by the mockery of a Communist election. The principle of freedom for all peoples was emphasized time and again by the United States and by Russia in the proclamations issued during the war and after the postwar conferences. The Soviet Union has violated its pledges. The United States has lived up to its prom- iscs We have never for one second recog- nized the right of the Soviet Union to absorb the Republics of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. Where it has been physically pos- sible, we have given direct aid to free people struggling to maintain their liberty. The proof of our determination to halt communism and to liberate captive peoples shows very clearly in the great program for world recovery which we have launched. We have tirelessly worked for peace at the council table of the United Nations, and we shall increase our efforts to attain world progress through that great international organization. We have answered the threat of Communist penetration in Europe with the Marshall plan, which has renewed the economic life of western European nations. We have united with the democratic coun- tries in the Atlantic Pact to make it abso- lutely clear to any aggressor that an attack against one of the Atlantic nations will be regarded as an attack against them all. We are backing up this pact with the most powerful weapons the world has ever known. We have stopped the march of. world com- munism in Berlin, in Greece, in Turkey, and
1840 in Korea. We have opened our doors to homeless people from the Baltic States and other countries which have suffered under the heavy hand of dictatorship. We are going to liberalize our displaced ‘persons law in the near future. However, we must have no illusions. This fight to win freedom for all the captive peo- ples of the world may take a long time. We must strive constantly and patiently to con- vince the people of Russia and all other Communist-dominated nations that the fear-inspired aggressiveness of their leaders can only end in their destruction. Through an amplified voice of America and other methods, we shall expose to the Russian people the reckless follies of their leaders. Our steady pressure for peace must be accompanied by political, econonric, and military alertness to convince Communist leaders that attempts at ruthless expansion are not worth the risk to them. Then slowly but surely Communist leaders will be compelled to recognize the futility of their global dreams. Then one day the people of Lithuania and all other nations now in bondage will be able to live out their lives in peace on their own free soil, THE COAL CRISIS Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a statement which I have pre- pared on the subject of the coal crisis which now grips our Nation, a crisis which not only affects America’s health but which affects industry and agricul- ture as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this statement be printed at this point in the body of the CoNcRES- SIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, Mr. W1LEy’s statement was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: America DEMANDS END TO COaL CRISIS—-THE Pupiic WELFARE Has BEEN CRUCIFIED TIME AND AGAIN—LASOR LAW Must BE STRENGTH- ENED “When is the White House going to take decisive action to end these repeated coal crises?” This is the question which has come to me in hundreds of telegrams and Ietters from all over Wisconsin. Like my colleagues, I have heard from citizens and public officials alike rightly demanding an end to John L. Lewis’ repeated outrages against the public welfare. So I, too, ask this question of the Presi- dent of the United States, of the Democratic administration, and the Democratic Party: “When will you take decisive action to show John L. Lewis that it is the Federal Government which decides national policy rather than John L. Lewis or any other single tyrant in a labor union?” The welfare of 150,000,000 Americans has been crucified time and again by these re- pented coal stoppages. There is complete demoralization in the coal industry because John L. Lewis’ arbitrary strikes have become as “certain as death and taxes,” as old Ben Franklin used to say. The Democratic Party stands guilty of the worst blundering in the history of the United States labor relations. If the present strike continues, the American economy may be dealt a blow from which it will take years to recover, if at all. MY REPEATED APPEALS TO WHITE HOUSE I, for one, have taken up appeals for action on literally dozens of occasions with the White House, with the National Labor Rela- tions Board, with the Solid Fuels Adminis- tration, and with every other Federal source involved in this question. However, my repeated appeals to the Presi- Gent, like the appeals which have been made by other Senators and Representatives, have been ignored. My insistence on a stronger labor law has not been heeded. Time after time, dating all the way back to 1929, I have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE demanded on the Senate floor that we once end for all strengthen the national labor relations statute. I have introduced legis- lation for that objective. But the Demo-= cratic majority in Congress, instead of allow= ing the labor statute to be strengthened, has absurdly insisted on repealing it. OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT Mr. President, our Government is based on three soparate and coequal branches—legis- lative, executive, and judicial. We in Con- gress can only pass laws. The President must enforce them. We in the Senate and House have no constitutional powers to en- force laws. That is the job of the President, and it is a job in which he has miserably failed. PRESIDENT HAS MADE MOCKERY OF TAFT-HARTLEY LAW Had the President acted earlier in invoking the provisions of the law which Congress gave him, our Nation could have been spared the present crisis. Instead, he chose to delay and delay and delay. At long last he appointed a three-man fact-finding board and gave it 7 days to re- port—a mere 7 days, although the Steel Board had been given 57 days for a compre- hensive fact-finding job. What a mockery of real fact-finding to have stalled so long and then rushed in so late with appointment of the board. Obviously time is running out. Speed is now essential. But time is running out because the President himself delayed action for so long. Now the mine union criticizes the board because obviously insufficient time was available for its hur- ried work. SUMMARY OF PRESENT CRISIS Now, let us summarize the situation, as follows: 1, The President hus, at long last, grudg- ingly invoked the national emergency pro- visions of the Taft-Hartley law. I person- ally had pleaded with him, as did my col- leagues, to take action many, many weeks ago, but he has only just come around to tuking action at this late date. Even now, the 400,000 miners refuse to go back to work, and the Federal injunction is not applied to them as individuals. So what does the Chief Executive now do? He tries to wash his hands of the situation. 2. The President has, in effect, confessed that the Taft-Hartley law, far from being a slave-labor law (as has been rid.culously charged) is essential to protect the national welfare against a key stoppage such as this. Thus, too, the Democrats are swallowing and gagging on their own false words. For years, they have misrepresented the Taft-Hartley law. Now, they admit it is essential that the Government possess a law such as this to de- fend its very life, VOTERS ‘VILL NOT FORGET DEMOCRATIC DOUBLE- DEALING 8. The Democratic majority stands accused of permitting one man again and again and again to paralyze the Nation at will. The people of Wisconsin, like people all over the country, will not forget this fact. They will remember when they go to the polls next No- vember that the Democratic administration has coddled and pampered the labor tyrants and has encouraged them to crucify the pub- lic welfare, in addition to impovorishing the families of laboring men themselves. THIS STRIKE SITUATION CAN PROVE THE WORST BOOMERANG AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ITS HISTORY 4. The people will remember that the Re- publican minority in Congress has been fighting to preserve the Taft-Hartley law and to strengthen it. Obviously, the Taft- Hartley law needs more teeth against those who defy it or who continue crippling strikes once a Taft-Hartley inJunction has run out. 6. The people of Wisconsin and of all America will remember that we sympathize, FEBRUARY 16 of course, with the difficulties experienced by American miners. We appreciate the prob- lems that they are up against. We know that coal mining is a difficult, dangerous occupa- tion. But we know, too, that it is the miners and their stricken families who have suffered most from these repeated and oftentimes un- necessary strikes. COAL DEALERS HAVE BEEN BADLY HURT 6. We know, too, that coal dealers through- out the Nation have suffered tremendously because of these repeated stoppages. Coal dealers face competition from other sellers of different types of fuel. Coal dealers, by and large, small-business men, making @ come paratively small income, cannot possibly stand to have their economic throats cut once a year by John L. Lewis’ stoppages. QUOTATIONS FROM WISCONSIN MESSAGES TO SENATOR WILEY I could quote now from literally dozens of messages received from coal companies, from lumber firms which sell coal, from municie pal officials, from State officials, appealing to the administration to take action. I have in my hand a message which was sent by the Wisconsin coal bureau, of which Mr. Roch P. Botsch is president and Mr. W. F. Ehnmann is manager. This bureau sent o telegram to the President way back on January 24. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this message be .rinted at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and that it be fol- lowed by excerpts from several other letters and telegrams which have come to me from Wisconsin, These excerpts could be supple- mented by literally hundreds of others from all over my State. These messages have en- dorsed my fight for a stronger labor statute. DEMOCRATS DID NOTHING WHILE CITIZENS SHIVERED No, Mr President, the people of the United States will not forget that the Democratic administration, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic President stood by with folded hands while the Nation has shivered and frozen in the biting cold of winter and while unemployment has spread. The peo- ple will not forget when they go to the polls that the administration, which pretends to be the farmer’s friend, has allowed dairy plants to be closed down because of the shortage of coal. They will not forget that hundreds and literally thousands of indus- trial plants in Wisconsin and elsewhere are closing, in addition to railroad schedules be- ing interrupted. The people of America will not forget this crucifixion of their rights. No one gloats over the fact that the Demo- cratic Party will be smashed by the anger of the American people because of this coal crie sis for which the Democrats are responsible. This crisis ts too big for partisan politics. But let the President be aware of the poten- tial fate of his party and, what if more im- portant, the terrible results to the American people if the present strike continues, EXCERPTS FROM WISCONSIN MESSAGES MILWAUKEE, WI., January 24, 1950. Th2 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED StaTEs, The White House, Washington, D. C.: Coal dock inventory running dangerously low on West Bank Lake Michigan docks. Survey shows less than half the amount of coal on hand as compared with same date last year. In order to take care of neede of the area more than a million tons must be shipped all rail directly from mines during the balance of the burning season to offset this shortage. To accomplish this, mines will have to go on a 5-day production basis at once. Some grades of coal are in such critical supply that industries requiring this type of coal will be compelled to shut down. Cheese factories, milk and food processing plants will be the first to be affected. Short- ages of domestic sizes are extremely acute. Hardships and suffering have only been pre- vented because of mild weather. Seasonal
1950 weather would bring disastrous results. We implore you to use your authority to get full production at the mines at once. ‘Wisconsin Coal BuREAv, INC., Rocu P. Botscnu, President. From Appleton, Wis.: “We supply Appleton’s hospital, mental hospital and old people’s home, etc., besides many homes and other industries. We are almost out of coal. Temperatures below zero all this week. Need coal immediately.” From Watertown, Wis.: “A survey Just completed in Watertown, Wis., discloses coal supplies on hand to care for not more than 2 weeks’ need. Our situa- tion is approaching a critical position. Re- spectfully urge you to use all authority at your command to prevent suffering in this city which may arise from inadequate fuel supplies.” From Madison, Wis.: “The coal shortage at our dairy processing Plants in Wisconsin is very serious and alarming. We have 9 days’ supply on hand after which if no coal is received the dally milk production from our Wisconsin farmers will probably go by the sewer route. Yester- day I wired the President. If there is any- thing you can do within your power, do it. The Wisconsin farmers and dairy processing plants never needed your help as much as 1s needed now. Please act.” From Wisconsin Dells, Wis.: “It 1s very unfortunate that we have a President who can think of nothing but politics and who has no consideration for the general welfare of the people. I believe it is high time that we find out whether one man can shut down the commerce of the United States whenever it suits his own whim.” MARKETING QUOTAS ON POTATOES— AMENDMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AD- JUSTMENT ACT Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I intro- duce and send to the desk a bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. This bill deals with mar- keting quotas on potatoes. In view of the importance of this bill, I ask that it be printed in the Recorp, and also appro- priately referred. There being no objection, the bill (S. 3049) to amend the Agricultural Ad- justment Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. Lucas, was read twice by its title, re- ferred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That title III of the Ag- ricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amend- ed, is amended by inserting after part VI of subtitle B thereof the following new part: “Part VII—MARKETING QUOTAS—POTATOES “LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS “Src. 360. (a) Potatoes are a basic source of food for the Nation and are produced throughout the United States on nearly 2,- 000,000 farms. The production and market- ing of the commodity provide employment for a large number of people and are of na- tional interest. Potatoes are marketed on a Nation-wide market and, owing to causes beyond their control, farmers producing the commodity and persons engaged in the mar- keting thereof are unable to regulate effec- tively the orderly marketing of the commod- ity. verne marketing of abnormally excessive and abnormally deficient supplies of potatoes acutely and directly affects, burdens, and obstructs interstate and foreign commerce, Abnormally excessive supplies overtax the facilities of interstate and foreign transpor- tation, congest terminal markets, depress the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE price of potatoes in interstate and foreign commerce, and otherwise disrupt the orderly marketing of such commodity in such come merce. Such surpluses also result in dis- astrously low prices of potatoes to producers, destroy the purchasing power of such pro- ducers for industrial products, and reduce the value of the agricultural assets support- ing the national credit structure. Abnor- mally deficient supplies result in an inade- quate flow of potatoes and potato products in interstate and foreign commerce with accompanying injurious effects to the instru- mentalities of such commerce and with ex- cessive increases in the price of potatoes and potato products in interstate and foreign commerce. Such shortages also result in unreasonably high prices for potatoes and potato products to consumers and the loss of market outlets for potato producers. “It is in the interest of the general wel- fare that interstate and foreign commerce in potatoes and potato products be protected from such burdensome surpluses and dis- tressing shortages, and that potatoes be made available in adequate volume to meet do- mestic consumption and export requirements without impairing or wasting the soil re- sources of the country. “The entire production of potatoes is avail- able for marketing in interstate and foreign commerce. All marketing of potatoes is either in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce. The marketing of that portion of such commodity which enters directly into the current of interstate and foreign commerce cannot be effectively regu- lated without extending the regulation, in the manner provided in this part, also to that portion which is consumed within the State of production. “NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA “(b) Whenever the Secretary determines that the total supply of potatoes for the next marketing year will, in the absence of & marketing-quota program, likely exceed the estimated requirements for domestic con- sumption and export for such marketing year by such amount as will make a marketing- quota program necessary to effectuate the declared policy of this act, the Secretary shall proclaim a national marketing quota for the crop of potatoes available for marketing in such marketing year. The Secretary shall also determine and specify in such proclama- tion the amount of such national marketing quota in terms of the total quantity of po- tatoes required, together with the estimated imports, to make available a supply equal to the estimated requirements for domestic con- sumption and export for the marketing year for such crop. Such proclamation shall be made not later than September 1 imme- diately preceding the crop year for the crop for which the quota is proclaimed. “REFERENDUM “(c) Within 60 days following the issuance of the proclamation provided for in subsec- tion (b) of this section, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum, by secret ballot, of farmers who would be subject to farm-mar- keting quotas to determine whether such farmers are in favor of or opposed to the quota so proclaimed. If more than one-third of the farmers voting in the referendum op- pose the national marketing quota, such quota shall become ineffective upon procla- mation of the results of the referendum. In lieu of the question whether such farmers favor the national marketing quota so pro- claimed, the Secretary may submit in the referendum the questions whether they (1) favor such quota for the One crop and also favor quotas for the three crops beginning with the crop for which such quota is pro- claimed, (2) oppose quotas for such three crops but favor quotas for the crop for which such quota is proclaimed, or (8) oppose quo- tas for both the one crop and such three 1841 crops. If two-thirds or more of the farmers voting favor quotas for the three crops, no referendum shall be held for the second and third crops and a national marketing quota shall be in effect for each of such three crops for which a national marketing quota is pro- claimed under subsection (b) of this section. If more than one-third of the farmers voting in the referendum oppose quotas, such result shall not affect or limit the proclamation and submission to a referendum in any calendar year, as Otherwise provided in this subsection, of a national marketing quota for any subse- quent crop. The Secretary shall proclaim the results of any referendum held hereunder within 30 days after the date of such refer- endum. “APPORTIONMENT OF NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA “(d) (1) The national marketing quota for potatoes, less the quantity set aside for apportionment under paragraph (5) of this subsection, shall be apportioned by the Sec- retary among the several States on the basis of the production of potatoes in each State during the five calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which such quota is proclaimed, with such adjustments @s are deemed necessary for abnormal con- ditions affecting production and for trends in marketings or production: Provided, That the Secretary may, if separate data are avail- able, establish production areas in any State and the term ‘State’ as used in this section shall be deemed to include any such produc- tion area. “(2) The State marketing quota, less the quantity set aside for apportionment under paragraph (4) of this subsection, shall be apportioned by the Secretary among counties in the State on the basis of the production of potatoes in the county during the five calen- dar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which the national marketing quota is proclaimed, with such adjustments as are deemed necessary for abnormal conditions affecting production and for trends in mar- ketings or production. “(3) The Secretary shall provide for the apportionment of the county marketing quota among farms on the basis of one or more, as the Secretary determines may best effectuate the purposes of this act, of the following factors: Past marketing, produc- tion, or acreage of potatoes, taking into con- sideration the marketing quotas, acreage allotments, or production goals previously established for the farm; land, labor, and equipment available for the production, storage, and marketing of potatoes; abnor- mal conditions affecting production; and crop-rotation practices. “(4) The Secretary shall provide for the apportionment of not in excess of 5 per- cent of the State marketing quota among farms on which potatoes are to be produced during the crop year for which the quotas are established but on which potatoes were not produced during any one of the imme- diately preceding 3 years on the basis of land, labor, and equipment available for the pro- duction, storage, and marketing of potatoes; crop-rotation practices; and the past potato- producing experience of the producers on the farm. “(5) The Secretary shall provide for the apportionment of not in excess of one- half of 1 percent of the national marketing quota among farms eligible for a quota under paragraph (4) of this subsection which are situated in States in which the amount reserved under paragraph (4) is in- adequate to provide fair and reasonable quotas for such farms on the basis of the factors set forth in paragraph (4) of this subsection. “ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS “(e) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the Secretary, on the basis of the estimated yield per acre of potatoes for
1842 the State for the crop for which the national marketing quota is established, may convert the State marketing quotas, including that portion reserved under subsection (a) (4) of this section, into State acreage allotments and apportion the same among counties and farms in the States on the basis of the appll- cable factors set forth in subsections (d) (2), (a) (3), and (d) (4) of this section. The Secretary may also, on the basis of the estimated yield per acre of potatoes for the State or county, convert into an acreage allotment the amount reserved from the national marketing quota pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) (5) of this section, and allot the same among farms 88 provided in that subsection. “PERSONAL HISTORY “(f) Notwithstanding the foregoing pro- visions of this section, in any State, county, or other administrative area in which the Secretary determines that a substantial por- tion of the production of potatoes is carried on by persons who normally produce the commodity on different farms from one year to the next, the Secretary, in providing for the establishment of marketing quotas or acreage allotments for farms in such State, county, or area, shall consider the past acre- age or marketings of potatoes by such per- sons, in addition to the other factors required to be considered. “AMOUNT OF FARM MARKETING QUOTA “(g) (1) If farm marketing quotas are established for potatoes without acreage allotments, the farm marketing quota for any crop shall be the smaller of the number of commodity units established as the farm marketing quota or the actual production of potatoes on the farm. “(2) If farm acreage allotments are estab- lished for potatoes, the farm marketing quota for any crop shall be the actual production of potatoes on the farm less the normal pro- duction of the acreage planted to potatoes on the farm in excess of the farm acreage allotment. The normal production from guch excess acreage shall be known as the ‘farm marketing excess’: Provided, That the farm marketing excess shall not be larger than the amount by which the actual pro- duction of potatoes on the farm exceeds the normal production of the farm acreage allot- ment, if the producer establishes such actual production to the satisfaction of the Sec- retary. “(3) No farm marketing quota shall be applicable to any crop of potatoes on any noncommercial potatu farm. “PENALTIES “(h) (1) Whenever farm marketing quotas are in effect with respect to any crop of pota- toes, the farm marketing excess, or the mar-~ keting of potatwes in excess of the farm mar- keting quota, shall be subject to a penalty at a rate per unit equal to 50 percent of the parity price per unit for potatoes as of Octo- ber 15 immediately preceding the crop year in which such potatoes are produced. “(2) If a farm marketing excess is estab- lished for potatoes, such excess shall be re- gerded as available for marketing and the amount of penalty and the amount of pota- toes to be disposed of pursuant to this sub- section to postpone or avoid payment of the penalty shall be computed upon the normal production of the acreage on the farm planted to potatoes in excess of the farm acreage allotment. If a downward adjust- ment in the amount of the farm marketing excess is made pursuant to the proviso in subsection (g) (2) of this section, the differ- ence between the amount of the penalty or the quantity to be disposed of as directed by the Secretary computed upon the farm marketing excess before such adjustment and as computed upon the adjusted farm marketing excess shall be returned to or allowed the prodtccr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE “(8) The produce: shall be Mable for the payment of the penalty provided herein and the person in the United States to whom the potatoes are marketed by the producer shall be Hable for the collection of the penalty, the amount of which may be deducted from the price paid to the jucer. The person Mable for the collection of the penalty shall, upon failure to collect such penalty, be jointly and severally liable with the producer for the payment of the penalty. The person liable for payment or collection of the pen- alty shall be liable algo for interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date the penalty becomes due until the date of payment of such penalty. “(4) The penalty on the farm marketing excess of potatoes may be postponed or avoided by disposing of such excess in such manner not inconsistent with the purposes of this act as the Secretary shall prescribe, including, in the discretion of the Secretary, delivery to the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion or any other agency within the Depart- ment. The Secretary shall issue regulations governing such disposition, and, unless oth- erwise specified by the Secretary therein, any quantity of potatoes disposed of shall be of those types and grades which are represent~ ative of the entire crop produced on the farm. Upon failure to dispose of the farm marketing excess within such time as may be determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the penalty on such excess shall be due and payable. Any potatoes de- livered to any agency of the Department pur- suant to this paragraph shall become the property of the agency to which delivered and shall be disposed of at the direction of the Secretary in a manner not inconsistent with the purposes of this act. “(5) Until the penalty on the farm mar- keting excess is paid, all potatoes produced on the farm and marketed by the producer. shall be subject to the penalty provided by this subsection and a lien on the entire crop of potatoes produced on the farm shall be in effect in favor of the United States for the amount of the penalty. “ADJUSTMENT AND TERMINATION “(1) Nothwithstanding any other provision of this section— “(1) the Secretary is authorized in the proclamation of a national marketing quota for potatoes to announce that, if the quota 1s approved, farm allotments established for potatoes shall be tentative allotments, If the Secretary determines with respect to any crop of potatoes for which a marketing quota is approved tn the producer referendum that the supply, either actual or prospective, of potatoes available for marketing from such crop in any producing area or areas during any period of time is depressing or is likely to depress the farm price for potatoes to such an extent as will substantially impair the effec- tuation of the purposes of this act with respect to potatoes, the Secretary is author- ized to reduce the acreage allotments estab- lished for all farms in the area or areas con- cerned by such uniform percentage not in excess of 20 percent as he determines is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this act with respect to potatoes, “(2) if at any time the Secretary has rea- son to believe that farm-marketing quotas in effect for potatces will cause the amount of potatoes which is free of marketing restric- tions to be less than the normal supply for the marketing year then current, he shall cause an immediate investigation to be made with respect thereto. If on the basis of such investigation the Secretary finds the exist- ence of such fact, he shall proclaim the same forthwith and shall specify such increase in, or termination of, existing quotas as he finds necessary to make the amount of potatoes which is free of marketing restrictions equal the normal supply. FEBRUARY 16 “(j) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act or any other law or action taken pursuant thereto— (1) farm-marketing quotas shall, unless disapproved in the referendum held as here- inafter provided, be in effect for 1950 crop potatoes planted after the enactment of this part VII, and the farm-acreage allotments established for the purpose of eligibility for price-support operations for 1950 crop potatoes shall be the farm-acrenge allotments for the purpose of such farm-marketing quotas; “(2) any farmer who is dissatisfied with his farm-acreage allotment shall be entitled to have such allotment reviewed pursuant to the provisions of this act upon application made within 15 days after the enactment of this part VII. “(3) within 45 days after the enactment of this part VII, the Secretary shall conduct a@ referendum among farmers who would be subject to farm marketing quotas for 1950 crop potatoes to determine whether such farmers are in favor of or opposed to such quotas. If more than one-third of the farm- ers voting in such referendum oppose such quotas, such quotas shall become ineffective upon proclamation of the results of such referendum, and no price-support operations shall be carried out for potatoes which would have been subject hereunder to such quotas. This disapproval of such marketing quotas shall not affect the right of eligible producers to price support for 1950 crop potatoes plant- ed prior to the enactment of this part VII.” Sxc. 7. Subsection (b) of section 301 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1988, as amended, is amended as follows: (a) Paragraph (7) is amended by adding thereto the following: “ ‘Marketing year’ for potatoes means any period determined by the Secretary during which substantially all of the crop of potatoes is normally marketed by the producers thereof.” (b) Paragraph (10) is amended by adding a new subparagraph (D) as follows: “(D) ‘Normal supply’ of potatoes for any marketing year shall be (1) the estimated domestic consumption for the marketing year for which such norma] supply is being determined, plus (ii) the estimated exports of the commodity for such marketing year, ad- justed for surplus or deficiencies caused by abnormal conditions, changes in marketing conditions, or the operation of any agricul- tural program In determining normal supe ply, the Secretary shall make such adjust- ments for current trends in consumption and for unusual conditions as he deems neces- sary.” (c) Paragraph (13) is amended by adding @ new subparagraph (F) as follows: “(F) ‘Normal yield’ for any farm in the case of potatoes shall be the average yield per acre for the farm during the three crop years immediately preceding the year in which such normal yield is determined, ad- justed for abnormal weather conditions, for trends in yields, and for changes in cultural practices. If for any such year the data are not available or there is no actual yield, then the normal yield for the farm shall be appraised in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, taking into consideration abnormal weather conditions, the normal yleld for the county (determined in the same manner as provided for the farm), and the yield in years for which data are available.” (d) Paragraph (16) is amended by adding @ new subparagraph (D) as follows: “(D) ‘Total supply’ of potatoes for any marketing year shall be the estimated pro- duction of potatoes In the United States during the crop year in which such mar- keting year begins, plus the estimated im- ports of potatoes into the United States during such marketing year.” (e) New paragraphs ere added as follows: “(17) ‘Potatoes’ means all varieties of Irish potatoes or any regional or market classifi- cation, type, or grade thereon.
1950 “(18) ‘Crop year’ in the case of potatoes means the period from December 1 of one calendar year to November 30 of the fol- lowing calendar year. (19) ‘Commercial farm’ in the case of potatoes means any farm planting three or more acres of potatoes, or such smaller acre- age of potatoes as the Secretary determines to constitute the production of potatoes pri- marily for commercial purposes.” Sec. 8. Sections 2, 301 (b) (1) (B), 301 (b) (6) (A), 301 (b) (9), 361, 371 (b), 373 (b), 374 (a),375 (a), and the first sentence of cec- tion 373 (a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, shall be deemed to include potatoes in addition to the agri- cultural commodities specified therein. Src 9. Section 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 is amended by adding a new subsec- tion (d) reading as follows: “(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, (1) if producers have disapproved marketing quotas proclaimed for any crop of potatoes, no price-support operations shall be undertaken for such crop; and if marketing quotas are approved for any crop of potatoes, price-support operations shall be Mmitec to potatoes which may be marketed without penalty; (2) the Secretary may also require that appropriate marketing orders under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, be in effect for po- tatoes in applicable regional, production, or marketing areas prescribed by the Secretary as a condition to undertaking price-support operations for any crop of potatoes or for the potatoes produced in any such regional, production, or marketing area, and (3) the Secretary may limit price-support opera- tions to potatoes which, under the terms of such marketing orders, or under market- ing practices prescribed pursuant to sec- tion 401 (c) of this act, may be marketed or transported in the normal channels of domestic commerce ” Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I desire to detain the Senate for a few moments to discuss what I believe all Senators, and the people of the country as well, recognize as a very important problem. At the present time, we have an agri- cultural program which has been in ex- istence for a great number of years. On the whole, that program has worked successfully, especially with respect to what are known in the act as the basic commodities. When we speak of the basic agricultural commodities, we are speaking primarily of crops which are controlled through marketing quotas and acreage allotments. One of the nonbasic crops which has had no marketing quotas is the crop of potatoes. Everyone knows that as a re- sult of the failure of Congress to enact rigid controls with respect to marketing agreements and marketing quotas for po- tatoes, the Treasury of the United States has been compelled to expend many mil- hhon dollars of the taxpayers’ money. The situation is so acute, and the psychological effect of the present pota- to program upon the entire farm pro- gram 1s so great, that I believe it ad- visable for Congress to act vigorously and firmly. This morning the Committce on Agri- evlture and Forestry, of which the dis- tinguished Senator from Oklahoma I Mr. Tromas! is chairman, by a vote of 6 to 2, added the following amendment to the so-called cotton allotment acreage bill: No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the en- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE actment of this act, unless marketing quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes. Mr. President, a number of Senators, commenting upon this amendment, have said that the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have approved an extremely drastic proposal thismorning. The Sen- ator from Illinois agrees it is a drastic proposal, but the time has come when the Congress of the United States must take drastic action in order to clear up the potato problem. The amendment, if adopted by the Congress, will tell the potato growers that they cannot expect further support prices until effective and rigid controls are enacted by the Congress. So, in order that they may know exactly what we have in mind, I have just introduced a bill, which will be referred to the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry, with a view of the committee holding im- mediate hearings, in order that not only the potato farmers but also the con- sumers, the Department of Agriculture, and all others interested in the problem may have an opportunity to present testimony. Mr, President, I am proposing a meas- ure that will at long last give the Secre- tary of Agriculture the authority he needs to administer a proper price sup- port program for potatoes. The bill I have introduced, to amend the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act, would deal with potato production much in the same way as we now handle the basic commodities. The Secretary would have authority to set marketing quotas and to exact rigid penalties from those producers who ex- ceed their quotas. These changes in the law would apply to that part of the 1950 crop of potatoes which is planted after the enactment of my bill. I recognize that, since a frac- tion of the 1950 potato crop has already been planted, the restrictive provisions of these amendments will not apply equally to all potato producers. At this date, however, only about 10 percent of the 1950 crop has been planted and, if these changes are enacted promptly, they will cover all but a very small part of the 1950 crop. Also, Mr. President, if the amendment which was approved by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry this morn- ing is adopted immediately by the Con- gress, it will take care of the 1950 crop, with the exception of about 10 percent, which is already in the ground. I may say parenthetically that the 10 percent of the crop of potatoes which is already in the ground represents potatoes which seldom rely upon price support. As a general rule, they are a special brand of potatocs which really bring more in the open market than the supported price. The time has come when Congress must unequivocally face the problem of Potato surpluses and promptly enact a sound and practical price-support pro- gram. Simply because a small portion of the 1950 crop has been planted should not dissuade us from taking action now toward correcting this problem which is growing more critical each successive year. The cost of supporting the 1948 and 1949 crops of potatoes will run around $325,000,000. We cannot afford 1843 another costly year. Bringing the 1950 crop under proper restrictions, as a con- servative estimate, will save the taxpay- ers at least $50,000,000. These changes in the Agricultural Act which I am recommending will not only bring the 1950 crop under effective super- vision but will also enable the Secretary of Agriculture to set up a permanent workable program for future crops. The hopeless inadequacies of our pres- ent laws have been clearly brought home to us over and over again. It cost the taxpayers $224,000,000 to support the 1948 crop of potatoes. The 1949 crop will cost the Government close to $100,- 000,000. In the 7 years potato price supports have been in operation the pro- gram has cost the taxpayers close to one-half billion dollars. Mr. President, when the figures are analyzed, it will be seen that the taxpayers have been com- pelled to pay $500,000,000 in the period of the last 7 years for the supporting of potato prices alone. It is time for the Congress to take the kind of drastic ac- tion necessary to prevent a continuation of these unholy and unjustifiable sub- sidies under the potato program. The iaws under which the Secretary today must administer the potato-sup- port program are substantially the same as those which were in force during the war. The only difference is the level of support. Any impartial judgment must lead to the conclusion that the laws which were adequate during the war are wholly ineffectual and ill-adapted to the postwar potato industry. This fact is conclusively established by the record. The total cost of the price-support program for potatoes during 3 years of war was less than $40,000,000. The total cost for the four postwar years will ex- ceed $450,000,000. Our present laws, while adequate dur- ing the war, are wholly unsuited today. The reason is clear. Our objective during the war was to stimulate production. Price supports alone accomplished this: they rewarded those producers who would plant more potatoes. The Secretary today, however, cannot prevent the accumulation of sur- pluses by price supports alone, and that is virtually all we have as long as there are no penalties against exceeding acre- age allotments. The use of acreage allotments, with no means of enforcing them, rewards the noncooperating producer who exceeds his allotment and who then pours his pota- toes upon the market at the Govern- ment-supported price. The price of po- tatoes must be supported in the market place. This is done by the Government purchasing potatoes grown by those pro- ducers who cooperate in confining their acreage to their allotment. Since potatoes are perishable, they cannot be effectively stored as collateral for Government loans, es is done with the basic commoditics. The alternative is for the Government to purchase the potatoes. I should like to discuss for a moment the view which seems to be entertained by many people who are writing me about this subject. They appear to think that all the surplus potatoes, which belong vo
1844 the Government are stored in ware- houses somewhere, and that all that needs to be done is to move in some box- cars, load the potatoes, and send them to charitable or eleemosynary organiza- tions qualified to receive them under the amendment offered last year by the Senator from Oklahoma. But the truth of the matter is that practically all the surplus potatoes are in the cellars and basements of the farmers themselves. It is this fact that makes it difficult to distribute the surplus. The number of bushels of potatoes the Government must purchase from the co- operating producers, and the price it must pay for them are pushed skyward by the noncooperating producers dump- ing millions of bushels on the market. It is this overplanting and excessive marketing that must be corrected. It can be done only if the Secretary is em- powered to set marketing quotas and to exact penalties from those who exceed them. Potatoes will then be brought under « workable program such as we now have for the basic commodities like tobacco and cotton. Mr. President, unless the potato grow- ers are willing to be placed under some kind of program, similar to the tobacco, corn, wheat, and cotton programs, they are not entitled to any support whatever. The amendments which I have offered should attain this result: They would permit the Secretary to set up a national marketing quota in terms of bushels of potatoes. The question of accepting or rejecting this quota would be submitted to the producers by referendum. This national quota would be distributed among the States on the basis of the State’s production over the last 5 years. The State’s quota would then be broken down among counties and then among farms. In the case of the 1950 crop the referendum would be conducted within 45 days from the date of enactment. The Secretary would have a choice, under my bill, of using quotas in terms of bushels alone, which I contend fs the one sure way of stopping the overproduction of potatoes; that is, to allot them on the basis of bags or bushels, and not through the acreage system. Or, if he wishes, the Secretary may calculate the quota in terms of acres, and use acreage allot- ments. He can do either. In either case a producer who exceeds his quota or his acreage allotment could market the excess only upon paying a penalty for each bushel marketed. Such penalties should substantially take the profit out of the excess production of potatoes. The Secretary of Agriculture in an official report stated that fewer pro- ducers yearly are cooperating in restrict- ing their acreage to their allotments, With the profit taken out of this excess production there should be greater com- pliance and cooperation with the De- partment of Agriculture. I want to emphasize particularly one provision contained in these amend- ments. It would empower the Secre- tary to establish better marketing prac- tices in any production area without the necessity of first obtaining agreements with the producers, as is now the case. Under these marketing practices, price supports would be limited to the com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mercially acceptable qualities and vari- eties. This would relieve the Govern- ment of the obligation to purchase at support prices inferior grades of pota- toes. This alone would save many mil- lions of dollars. In other words, only those potatoes which come up to the standard, so far as size and grade are concerned, will be entitied to the support price. Potatoes left in the cellars on the farms will re- ceive no support price, and the individ- ual who attempts to place those potatoes on the market will suffer the penalties provided in the bill. Furthermore, the Secretary has found it difficult to keep the potato program in bounds because of the steadily increas- ing yields per acre. Even with general compliance with acreage allotments there can be large surpluses as @ result of stepped-up yields on the same number of acres. The yield per acre has increased more than 50 percent since the war. This has come about by closer planting, im- proved fertilizing, increased use of irri- gation, and the planting on better lands. This steadily increasing yield makes acre- age allotments by themselves inadequate as more potatoes are being grown on fewer acres. The potato producers who are using improved fertilizer, greater ir- rigation, and who are planting their rows closer together, potato on potato, prac- tically, are the individuals who are de- stroying the confidence of the American people in the potato program. I hold no brief whatsoever for the in- dividual farmer who is constantly at- tempting to evade a fair and just law. The Congress of the United States en- acted a law, providing price supports to keep the commodity at a decent level, and we find that some farmers are cul- tivating less acreage, but, at the same time, are increasing fertilization and planting potatoes closer together, and, in reality, raising more potatoes on a half acre of land than they formerly raised on an acre. Those are things which have been going on, which this bill intends to prevent and, at the same time, give the honest potato grower the benefit of the support program to which he js entitled. The bill introduced by me deals with this problem by giving the Secretary the discretion of using quotas in terms of bushels rather than in terms of acres. If the Secretary, however, chooses to use acreage allotments he can cope with the problem of increasing yields by the au- thority given him by this bill to read- just acreage allotments by 20 percent when it becomes apparent that potato production under the original allotments will result in large surpluses. So, either through the bushel check or through the 20-percent check, in my judgment, the bill will take care of the situation. The American public is in favor of a sound farm program and favors one that includes proper supports for potatoes. The public recognizes also that stable farm prices are essential for the con- tinued prosperity of our whole economy. However, the public will not stand very Jong for the continuation of a program which has ceased to have any relation- ship to a sound farm policy but which, FEBRUARY 16 {nm fact, is doing injury to our economy. I wish to emphasize as strongly as I can that if we permit such policies to con- tinue the public may lose faith with a good part of our whole farm program, The bill which I have proposed should be given serious and prompt considera- tion and acted upon without delay by the Senate. We cannot afford to per- mit our whole farm program to be dis- credited by following a policy which is completely ill-adapted to the problems of today. Mr. President, I mean exactly what I say in that last statement. The farm program in my section of the country has worked well. The farmer in that locality is better off today than he has ever been in his history. Certainly the Congress of the United States will be realistic about this problem and will take steps to solve the potato question which threatens the whole farm pro- gram, including price supports for the basic commodities which have market- ing quotas. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. ANDERSON. Myr. President, I congratulate the majority leader on the introduction of his bill and on the action taken this morning in announcing that price supports will be eliminated unless marketing quotas are provided. A hasty reading of the bill leads me to believe that it is similar to a bill which was in- troduced by the senior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THomas]. I express the hope that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry will call hearings upon his bill and the bill introduced by the Senator from Iliinois and that we may move promptly to make marketing quotas pos- sible for American farmers. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from New Mexico for his contribution. The Senator from Oklahome (Mr. THomas] last year in- troduced a bill somewhat similar to the bill which I have introduced. There are some differences between them. The two bills can be considered together, and from the two, Mr. President, I am cer- tain, in view of the able Members who constitute the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, all of whom are vitally in- terested in a sound farm program, we can develop a program which will take care of the potato situation. My purpose in introducing the bill was to do the very thing the Senator from New Mexico has suggested. I hope it will result in bringing about concrete action for the benefit of the potato growers themselves. I believe tt will be possible to save ap- proximately $50,000,000 this year on the potato program. That is extremely im- portant, and that is the reason why I suggest we take drastic action, and in reality repeal the support program for potatoes; if Congress will go along with that kind of program, even though it be drastic, we can feel certain that we can enact the kind of legislation which will take care of the potato farmers and, at the same time, save the Treasury of the United States much money.
1950 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that the Senator from Illinois still has the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hory in the chair). The Senator from Illinois has the floor. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to ask the distinguished majority leader a ques- tion, if I may. Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the distin- guished minority leader. Mr. WHERRY. Ido not want to take the floor away from any Senator, but I am very much interested in the bill which has been introduced relative to controls and marketing quotas. I am also inter- ested in another phase of the question which the distinguished majority leader did not mention in his remarks. I am asking for information. Recently I read in a newspaper the statement that in the city of New Orleans a million pounds of potatoes which were imported from Canada were being sold in that market, and of course they received the benefit of the support price. At the same time the Government is selling potatoes for 1 cent a hundred pounds in order to get rid of the sur- plus. I should like to ask this question: Has there been any extension of the agreement which was once made between our State Department and Canada and other nations which import potatoes relative to the quotas which the distin- guished majority leader has mentioned? It is my understanding that there have been imported into the domestic market from other countries millions of pounds of potatoes which have had the benefit of the support price, and, if I am cor- rectly informed, the Canadian farmers Jast year increased their acreage 10 per- cent while our farmers decreased their acreage 10 percent. Does the Senator have anything in mind along that line relative to restrictive legislation? Mr. LUCAS. That question was not discussed in the committee. It is of importance, of course. It is my under- standing that the potatoes which have gone into the market at New Orleans were shipped by water from Canada. Potatoes can be shipped from a port in Canada to New Orleans more cheaply than they can be shipped from Maine to Philadelphia, Mr. WHERRY. I understand that. At the same time they were sold in direct competition with the American producer who was operating under the support price. Mr. LUCAS. That is correct, no doubt, but it has nothing to do with the prob- lem which is before us. The problem that we are concerned with here would exist whether there were potato imports or not. Mr, ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I discussed this matter briefly with the distinguished minority leader a minute ago when he asked me the same question. I could not give him a very satisfactory answer. That particular matter came up at a hearing and was brought to the attention CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the committee by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster]. There was an agreement between Canada and the United States limiting the quantity of potatoes which could be delivered to this country. I regret to say that I do not recall when the agreement terminated, but it was some time during the year 1949. The Senator from Maine asked who had allowed it to lapse, and, so far as I know, the question was not answered, and I do not know who allowed it to lapse. I do think it is an important question and ultimately should be answered. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished Sen- ator from New Mexico a question. Does he know whether the Secretary of Agri- culture, or possibly the Secretary of State, has the authority or used the au- thority to terminate the agreements about which he is talking? Mr. ANDERSON. I regret to say that I do not know. What I do know is that the Canadian Government has certain rights to export to the United States at a certain lower rate of duty potatoes which would ordinarily carry a higher rate of duty. Theoretically they could export a good many potatoes to this country, but the Department of State, working with the Department of Agri- culture, negotiated an agreement with Canada whereby Canada would not ex- port, in either 1948 and 1849, more than a certain number of potatoes. I under- stand that agreement has been termi- nated. I do not know whether it was terminated by its own limitations, or whether it was terminated at the re- quest of the Canadian Government, or was terminated at the request of our Government. I merely say to the dis- tinguished minority leader that that was a question the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster] raised, and which was not answered. I think it is an important question to be answered, but I do not have the information, and I do not think any member of the Committee on Agri- culture was furnished the information. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator for the answer he has given me. I hope the distinguished chairman of the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry may propound that question, in discussing and considering proposed legislation. I should like to ask another question of the Senator from New Mexico. Realizing that the distinguished Senator has been Secretary of Agriculture, and has had wide experience, does he feel that the importation of potatoes from other countries has had an impact upon the domestic market, or does he feel that such importation is a minor question at this time? Mr. ANDERSON. I think it has a very great impact on the American mar- ket. Iam not an economist, as the Sen- ator knows, but distinguished economists who have been consulted by the Depart- ment of Agriculture have worked out es- timates as to what happens when there is a surplus. If there is a surplus of 5 percent, it does not result in the price dropping 5 percent, ordinarily it may drop 10 percent, or if there is a surplus of 10 or 20 percent, it might result in a drop of 50 percent. Every time there 1845 are a few more bushels, it disturbs a market which is already in trouble. When there was demand for the product in this country slight importations were insignificant, but when, as this year, there is a surplus of potatoes, any aggra- vation of it is many times more effec- tive than in ordinary periods Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator know whether or not acreage limitations have been imposed on the farmers in the importing countries, whether their acreage has been increased or decreased, or if they are controlled in any way whatsoever in producing potatoes? Mr. ANDERSON. I am not definitely informed as to the potato situation in Canada, but my understanding is that the farmers there have had increased acreage, and have no restrictions upon it. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I am interested in the bill which has been in- troduced by the distinguished majority leader, because many potatoes are grown in Nebraska, and there is a problem there. I should like to propound another question to the distinguished former Secretary of Agriculture. Does he feel that under the present law the Secretary of Agriculture does have the authority to put into effect marketing agreements which would accomplish the purpose which the majority leader is seeking through the bill he has introduced? Mr. ANDERSON. In reply to the dis- tinguished minority leader I should like to say that under the present law the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to put into effect marketing agreements. However, in my opinion marketing agreements would not accomplish so much as would be accomplished by the legislation proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Agricultural Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma ([Mr. Tuomas], or by the senior Senator from Illinois |[Mr. Lucas]. In my opinion it is necessary to put into effect marketing quotas, in order to maintain a com- pletely effective program. I believe that the provision for marketing agreements provided in the Agricultural Act of 1948, and repeated in the Agricultural Act of 1949, would be somewhat effective, but I do not believe they would be completely effective. The principal reason why the program would not be completely effec- tive is that marketing agreements work very well in industries in which the peo- ple who produce the goods want the agreements to work. An example of that is the citrus industry; the citrus growers want the program to work, and loyally cooperate to make it work. In the po- tato-growing industry most of the trou- ble is caused by the growers who are not interested in making the program work. Therefore, I believe that the legislation proposed by either of the distinguished Senators is necessary, and is the only way in which complete control can be had in the industry. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement, and I should like to ask the Senator this con- cluding question: If the Secretary of Ag- riculture had put into effect the market- ing agreements to which the distin- guished Senator has referred, would it
1846 have solved the problem which now con- fronts us? Mr. ANDERSON. In fairness to the Secretary of Agriculture it should be pointed out that he did state that in 1950 marketing agreements would be re- quired. He is now trying to bring about control through marketing agreements, and I am sure that in 1950 he will do all he can, in the absence of any legisla- tion, to make those marketing agree- ments effective. It is my opinion that the agreements will not be completely effective, and therefore that legislation is necessary. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator feel thet the Secretary of Agriculture has gone as far as he can go, or could go with the legislative authority which he now h.s at hand, in order to accomplish the purpose? Mr. ANDERSON. As far as he can go with the legislative authority he has at hand now. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Swanson, one of its reading clerks, communicated to the Senate the intelligence of the death of Hon. Schuyler Otis Bland, late a Repre- sentative from the State of Virginia, and transmitted the resolutions of the House thereon. A PLEA FOR WORLD DISARMAMENT Mr. TYDINGS obtained the floor. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield so that I may suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. TYDINGS. I appreciate the kind suggestion of the minority leader that he would like to have a quorum call so that more Senators might be on the floor. Ivowever, they will have the opportunity of reading my remarks. I am making them more for the country at large, to be perfectly frank about it, than I am for the Senate, although I am not leaving out the Senate, by any means. On January 28, 1946, 4 years ago, I in- troduced in the Senate a resolution re- questing the President to invite all nations to a world disarmament con- ference aimed at abolishing all means of waging war, except a limited number of small arms, and providing for inter- national inspection of all countries be- fore disarmament, during disarmament, and after the disarmament takes place. On March 18, 1947, I reintroduced this identical resolution. That was nearly 3 years ago. On February 6, 1950, for the third time I have brought this same resolution before the Congress and the country. At the time the resolution was first introduced, in 1946, it was but a few months after the close of World War II. At that time, the United States alone possessed the atomic bomb. Interest in the proposal, while encouraging, did not focus sufficient to compe) action upon it. In 1947, we still had sole possession of the atomic bomb. However, reports were widespread that other countries were considering ways and means of making it, so they might possess this weapon, too. Interest again was encouraging on the proposed resolution, and while in- creased over the year before, it was still CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE not sufficiently focused to bring about adoption of the proposal. This year, when I presented the same resolution, two new factors enter into the picture: (1) Russia now has the atomic bomb and the means of making more of them; (2) both countries are embarked upon the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb, which if successful would allegedly kill as many as 10,000,- 000 people with a single blast. Thus, bombed out of our security and complacency, this proposal has now attracted not only widespread attention but growing and intensified support. It is too bad the original proposal was not acted upon when first offered. That was the most favorable time. Then friendly relations between ourselves and poten- tial enemies were less strained. Then we alone had the bomb. Then we occu- pied, from almost every angle, unlimited advantages of incalculable worth at the bargaining table. That favorable mo- ment was lost. It has as yet not gone beyond recall. At some future date, the United States and Russia will each have the hydrogen bomb and the means of manufacturing more of them. This brings us face to face not with theory but with reality. Consequently, a tremendously accentu- ated interest is now evident in the pro- posal first offered 4 years ago. Soon, very soon, people all over the world will know that before dawn a single bomb may wipe out the entire population of New York, or Philadelphia, or Chicago—or Paris, or Rome, or Brus- sels—or Moscow, or Petrograd, or Stalin- grad. But, Mr. President, the development of the first hydrogen bomb is not the end. It will not be the most decisive weapon mankind will ever construct. No sooner will the hydrogen bomb be a reality than a@ new bomb—the X-bomb—will be on its way. The new bomb will be to the H- bomb what the H-bomb is to the atom bomb. It will be many times more dev- astating than the hydrogen bomb which is now in the process of construction. Nor will that be the end. No sooner will the new, more powerful bomb be perfected—which we may call the X- bomb—than a new means of mass de- struction will occupy the minds of scien- tists and military men all over the world. Every nation able to do so will want to have a more devastating weapon than has any other nation. All history sup- ports this. History demonstrates that the nations of the world, between wars and during wars, attempt to surpass all their rivals in the construction of more potent weapons. Those who have had contact with the men who devised the atomic bomb know that with the creation of it the hydrogen bomb was inevitable. Similarly, men who have worked along with these scien- tists know that the H-bomb—the hydro- gen bomb—is not the last of the great weapons, Simultaneously with the building of the H-bomb—and later on, with the building of the more powerful X-bomb— and still later, with the construction of yet more powerful weapons, science and invention will search to find ways and FEBRUARY 16 means of more quickly and accurately delivering these great weapons on their intended targets. Soon bigger planes carrying in them- selves increased air defenses with greatly increased speed, capable of flying at higher altitudes will be in the skies. These new planes will carry scientific in- struments which make the delivery of the bomb largely independent of human failings. Planes will be built that are more certain of hitting the desired spot in the enemy country than those which presently exist. This is so elementary that I only out- line this sequence to stimulate the imag- ination of those who, in the face of the gathering storm, have continued to look forward to a normal future and to lay normal] plans. With the building of the great bombs— the A, the H, and the X—other scientists and inventors will be delving into other mass-killing possibilities. There will be advances in bacteriological warfare and the means of transmitting a wide variety of communicable and contagious diseases to men, women, and children, domestic animals and plant life. These would be called into play in any war where the great bombs are used, because total de- struction will be the objective of each belligerent in another great world war. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an inquiry? Mr. TYDINGS. I should prefer not to yield until I complete my statement. I appreciate the Senator’s interest, but I should like to develop the subject in sequence, and then I shall be delighted to yield to any question the able Senator from Missouri may wish to ask. There is more to tell but this should be sufficient to outline the case. Thus, with the unfolding years, we may look ahead to the awesome possi- bility of the ultimate destruction of the civilization which mankind has been thousands of years creating. Wemay be nearing the end of the highway called the road of life, and drawing close to that sharp turn downward when it be- comes the highway of death, not for Just some millions of us, but for all of us. Last Sunday Prof. Albert Einstein, com- menting on the H and future bombs, said that with their invention “annihilation of any life on earth is within the range of technical possibilities.” This is ultraexpert testimony. It can- not be brushed aside. It will not be re- butted by any of the other great scien- tists of our day. It supports, it drama- tizes, and to all intents proves that another world war will mean the killing of not millions, but billions of men, women, and children on this planet. That is the grim prospect. This is the stark reality of future warfare. The stores of giant explosives are being in- tensified and increased everywhere. An accidental spark or a deliberate act may touch off these unimaginably powerful weapons rapidly accumulating in the ar- senal of world destruction. At the moment, Mr. President, we live in the age of force. Recently we have seen its application in a great world war. Mighty Japan was brought to her knees. The towering military structure of Hit-
1950 ler’s army of yesteryear was annihilated. Much of Europe, particularly Germany, was made a desolate battleground and shambles. The death toll in that strug- gle was mountainous. It probably ran in excess of 15,000,000 persons. That war was not confined to the battlefield. It was fought everywhere. No targets that impeded advance were spared. Each belligerent struck at its foes and the foes struck back wherever the slightest advantage could be obtained. Men did not fight other men in uni- form alone; they fought and overcame everything that stood in their way. They wrecked churches and cathedrals, factories and homes, palaces, and monu- ments—all, including noncombatants, were mowed down by the relentless scythe of modern war. The wave of destruction reached its crest with the annihilation of the popu- lations of two large Japanese cities. All the Allies approved this action, which, in each case, in a single second, wiped out the lives of 135,000 men, women, and children in Japan. The will to conquer completely and quickly was strong and recognized no barriers. In that struggle the Americas were spared. In the future they can only be spared, if at all, if this Nation recog- nizes the clear peril—if we have the com- posite will, ability, and means, and make the sacrifices necessary to Keep a new war from reaching us. Even though we keep it away from us, that may not save us. Dr. Einstein tells us that. These grim facts of modern existence have filled our beings with emotions. They have crowded our minds with new ideas. There are literally scores of proposals offered. One group says our safety depends on the formation of an Atlantic Union. That, they say, will save us. But the radioactive air waves will not respect man-made treaties, Mr. President, if war eventually comes. Another group wants world govern- ment, with an adequate police force. That, they say, will save us. Just how we are to avoid having two world gov- ernments is not made clear. It is ob- vious that the Russians and those allied with them will not enter a world govern- ment in which those allied with us pre- dominate. Thus, there is likely to be two world governments, if this idea is put to the test. If we have an Atlantic Union, we may then look for the creation of an eastern European-Asiatic Union. Thus, if either of these two edifices are erected, the lines will be the same; the two great forces will sit opposite each other as they do now. If war comes, the same bombs and armaments will destroy civilization. It is not my purpose to analyze in detail nor to embrace or oppose particu- larly these propositions today. In sum, all of them leave the world divided into two armed camps, Thus in any case the world finds itself running feverishly, but running on a treadmill. There will be lots of motion but no progress. The dangers that caused these actions still remain to con- front humanity. They are but realine- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ments of the existing potential belliger- ents. The basic issues remain un- changed. Their motivation, to be chari- table, is defense, not settlement or secu- rity. None of them, in my opinion, goes to the root of the matter. Confronted with these varying pro- posals, the emotions and the thoughts of millions, the Secretary of State of our Nation has been looking at the modern world lately. On February 8, 1950, Mr. Acheson made some extemporaneous re- marks upon the essentials of peace. He outlined the difficulties of achieving peace. In sum, his statements pointed to one single conclusion: that we and the other democratic nations of the world, on the one hand, and Russia and those associated with her, on the other, must sit and sWeat it out. All that the Secretary of State could hold before us was this: We must cre- ate strength everywhere in the world, that is, wherever we can. He said that if we do this, there is hope that the Rus- sian people may reexamine their policy and change their point of view. Thus, he said, while we remain strong and steady and while we wait for the Russian people to reexamine themselves and their policies, the time may come when we can get an atmosphere of good will and establish a peace that will reconcile our various difficulties. The Secretary of State may prove to be a prophet. He certainly is on firm ground when he says that for the time being we must remain strong, build up strength, and wait for an opportunity to achieve better things. I quote the Sec- retary of State, as follows: 80 I would like to ronclude these remarks by stressing again that it is a good thing to examine our course, it is a good thing to look at every possibility which comes up. We must continue to do that; we must. re- member always that the road to peace is long and difficult In the world as it is today, but we must never waver in pursuing that goal. We must never for a moment doubt the possibility of achieving it. That is where the Secrevary holds the door a little ajar. I would be happier if he were to open it. From the Secre- tary’s remarks it would seem that what the two great alinements of nations in the world are doing for the moment is playing checkers with each other. As we attempt to build up strength, cer- tainly the Russians will attempt to build up strength. We are attempting to checkmate the Russian moves toward our king row. The Russians are at- tempting to checkmate our moves toward their king row. What the Secretary says is that it is his hope that eventually both sides will stop playing checkers. The board on which Russia and our- selves are playing checkers is the volatile map of the world, peopled by 2,000,000,- 000 human beings. The checkers them. selves are the great mass-killing weap- ons and the great armed might which each side is building up. Obviously, as the moves with such checkers take place, the danger of conflict with modern weap- ons increases. In this game of checkers, both sides are trying to occupy the same squares on the checkerboard. If at some point they quarrel over who right- 1847 fully should have this or vhat square, conflict ensues. That conflict will not be just starting another war. The truth is that in all probability in that war the slaughter will be many times as great as was the slaughter in all the other wars of human history combined. The ulti- mate prospect in such a war is that the wreckage—spiritual, economic, and fi- nancial—will be so strewn around the earth that, at best, the efforts through- out the ages to improve the lot of man will be set at naught. At worst, there will be nobody left to commence the re- building of civilization. Again Dr. Ein- stein is an outstanding supporting wit- ness to this possibility. To be more specific, if the Secretary believes “it is a good thing to look at every possibility that comes up,” then I believe it is a good thing for him to try another roadway than the one he evi- dently has selected to travel. That road- way is to recognize the grim facts of life, the grim facts of future war, and having done that, to invite all the nations of the world to a world disarmament confer- ence devoted exclusively to the purpose of world disarmament, with world-wide inspection before, during, and after such disarmament as is agreed upon. It would appear to me that world dis- armament—and this is what my sena- torial friends who are here may be par- ticularly interested in—would have many advantages to the Russians as well as to ourselves. I would assume that the Rus- sian people, by and large, instead of working long hours and giving up a sub- stantial part of their earnings to the waste of war and preparation for war, would rather spend this money for better homes, better clothing, better food, bet- ter living standards, and better oppor- tunities. We certainly will want those things for ourselves, too. I would likewise assume that the Rus- sians might like world disarmament be- cause Russia wants security for herself. It is plain that she opposes the building of a “cordon sanitaire” around her bor- ders, just as the Marshall plan and the North Atlantic security alliance is our way of stopping Russia from building a “cordon sanitaire” around us. I would assume that prior to any dis- armament conference Russia would try to build up strong points all over the earth for her protection, just as our Sec- retary of State and our own country say we must continue to build up strong points all over the earth for our protec- tion, The truth is that Russia’s primary objective is security for Russia. Our primary objective is security for the United States. Each group constantly calls the other group wrong. Each side strives to show all mankind that the other fellow is a wicked villain, while he is the knight in shining armor. Evi- dently there must be in the world many people who think we in the United States are wrong. We know there are many who think Russia is wrong. Thus the issue is clouded with propa- ganda, allegations, and recriminations on both sides. As I see this matter, what the world wants is a clarification of the issue. It wants to find out who has really good intentions and who has not. The
1848 world wants a verdict not built on charges and counterchareges but built on acts and on facts that are beyond rea- sonable dispute. The world wants a ver- dict, which must spring ultimately from the conscience of all mankind, as to which of the two great leaders, Russia or ourselves, is responsible for the arms race, for the constant threat of a total, incinerating war which will wreck all the pillars and bring down upon us all the whole edifice of civilization. I believe we are willing, eager, and able to lay the case of the United States and our associates before the world’s jury. We want peace. We are willing to work for peace. We propose that each side show his good faith to really obtain peace before the bar of world public opinion. So if in good faith the President of the United States invites the heads of all nations of the world to a world disarma-~ ment conference devoted to that single subject, we would begin presenting our case to the world jury. We would teil all mankind that our country desires a real disarmament over the next several years, down to a limited number of light weapons for each country, sufficient only to keep internal peace and order. That language is clear and under- standable. It would be understood from Cape Horn to Point Barrow, from the Cape of Good Hope to the North Cape, and all the way around the Equator. Thus, every man, woman, and child in the world will know sooner or later that this Nation is intent on achieving real peace, on bringing nbout real world disarmament, of course with proper safe- guards, that the United States stands for a settlement of international disputes without recourse to the battlefield. If Russia accepts this invitation in good faith progress will have been made and real achievement could follow. If Russia refuses to accept our invita- tion, then everyone will know where the responsibility for the arms race really lies. The blame for the specter of the looming indescribable war can then he justly placed. If the negotiations of the world dis- armament conference are carried on openly, all will know who is acting in good faith and who is acting in bad faith, as the debate and negotiations unfold. Whether the conference will succeed or fail, none can predict. The gloomy will say it 1s foredoomed to failure. The optimist will hold out hope of accom- plishment. But whether or not it suc- ceeds or fails, it will serve one wholesome purpose. That is, it will clear the at- mosphere of the charges and counter- charges, the pressure and the counter- pressure, the moves and the counter- moves, which are inherent in an unwill- ingness to face the real issue. If the Russians refuse to accept the President’s invitation, we shall find that out. If, having accepted it, they do not come with honest intent to achieve its purposes, we shall find that out. In either of these contingencies, the world will know; and if Russia refuses to negotiate, then this Nation will gird it- self to an extent commensurate with the real threat of attack upon us and the nations allied with us. We will have at last ended or at least mitigated the inde- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cision in millions of minds as to who is wrong and what really is holding back the operation of the peace-making ma- chinery of the world. Blame is likely to attach where blame is justified. Face- to-face dealing will have replaced the long-range, indirect maneuverings which have marked the last 3 years, As I write this address, I have just been told that Mr. Winston Churchill, former premier of Great Britain, is reported to have said that if elected, he is consider- ing pursuing a course of direct dealing with Russia to clear up this great inter- national misunderstanding. Now that Mr. Churchill wants a show- down on the great imponderable pur- poses, some of the cynic; in our own coun- try who hesitate to make a trial, saying it is no use, may soften their opposition at least a mite. I commend Mr. Churchill’s vision, his common sense and his courage. Evi- dently he is not satisfied just to sit and sweat it out. Some may say that what is proposed is a superhuman effort. World disarma- ment is a superhuman effort but all the efforts in that direction are small in comparison with the efforts that all men, including ourselves, are making and must make to embrace our only other alterna- tive—all-out defense for war. I have previously pointed out what I believe are weak and impractical at- tempts to achieve security through atomic or hydrogen bomb control alone. I do not wish to cover this ground again today. In sum, I have said that even if we have such an agreement—to con- trol the hydrogen and atomic bombs— even if it is working, even if no bombs exist and none are being manufactured, all the other weapons used in Europe in the last war still remain. I have like- wise pointed out that if war starts with these other weapons, the minute 1t starts the agreements to contro] the manufac- ture and use of atomic and hydrogen bombs end. That is because the life of these agreements depends upon inspec- tion. The moment war comes, inspec- tion stops, and each of the belligerents, able to do so, begins manufacturing atom and hydrogen bombs immediately. It will be a real race to get these things first. In another war, they would cer- tainly be used. Therefore, these at- tempts to control the atomic and hydro- gen bomb alone are simply truces for their control between wars when they would not be used anyway. I repeat, they do not prevent their use during war and cannot, no matter how they are worded or what the agreements contain. There must be complete world disarm- ament, with proper inspection, if the hydrogen and the atomic bomb are not to be manufactured and not to be used. To prevent their use, war itself must be destroyed. Unless war is destroyed, the use of the atomic and the hydrogen bomb, or any of the other great weapons now in the offing cannot be prevented. Attemps to contro! the atom and hydro- gen bombs are good preliminary steps only. They might open up an avenue for future action, but they in themselves alone are not guarantics that the hydro- gen and atomic bombs will not be used in another war. FEBRUARY 16 ‘We should remember that the war In Europe, from 1939 to 1945, was fought without the use of a single atomic bomb, without the use of a single hydrogen bomb; and, even if there were no other and greater weapons than those used in World War II, the prospect of another world war without hydrogen bombs and atomic bombs should give us pause. But if we have another world war, the use of the atomic and the hydrogen bombs, agreements or no agreements, is in- evitable. In such a conference as I have pro- posed disarmament would not precede complete agreement. It would follow such agreement, Disarmament would not take place except under proper in- spection. Inspection would continue after disarmament, to see that it was maintained. Thoughtful men may say “Such a con- ference will fail.” No one can predict its outcome with certainty. Maybe it will. But this should not deter us from the undertaking. We should try to sur- mount the difficulties, not cringe in sur- render before them. The effort toward world disarmament is fraught with no realistic danger. If an invitation is ex- tended, all eyes will turn to Russia. When Russia speaks, we will know what the score is. But assuming that the conference is had and it does fail, then there will be such a terrific patriotic response every- where that men of good will will know that the only alternative we have left is a defense as strong as we can build it. Mr. President, I am now beginning to come to some new matter in connection with the discussion of this subject. No, Mr. President, if failure comes to this enterprise, world disarmament, we will be better rather than worse off for having undertaken it. In the last war, what we and our allies fought for was partial disarmament. We fought to disarm our enemies—com- pulsory partial disarmament. If war comes again, we shall fight for the same thing—to disarm whoever our enemies may be so they cannot attack us. This will be done by force. That is the whole purpose of warfare, to conquer and dis- arm by force our adversaries. Now let me go back to the statement of the Secretary of State that we must build up strength everywhere we can and keep our nerves steady, and so forth. We had better look over our own de- fenses at home first, if that is to be our policy. Unless we are strong, then neither we nor the democratic nations that are dependent upon us can survive. Are we strong enough? ‘The only way we can measure our strength is by con- trasting it with the strength of a poten- tial enemy. What is the strength of our potential enemy? Russia must be the core of this potential enemy strength. How strong is Russia? Russia has 200 divisions, of which it is safe to say more than 100 are well-equipped, trained, bat- tle-tested, and ready for immediate emergency. The other 100 divisions are not in the excellent shape of the first, ap- proximately 100, but can be quickly readied in emergency.
1950 Mr. President, first, we have not one- tenth of this force in being. On land, Russia at the moment is the strongest military force in the entire world, be- yond all peradventure of doubt. Fur- thermore, it is in Europe and Asia. In Europe, we have commitments so we would have to transport our forces to fulfill our engagements. Second. In the air, Russia is prob- ably about equal to the United States. In some categories, like fighter planes, she probably has more than we have. In other categories, such as strategic planes, we probably have more than she has. I am reluctant to state any fig- ures, but I think these generalizations are completely accurate. There is not much margin of difference in the over- all Russian and American air forces. Third. On sea, taking up the third arm of defense, we are vastly superior and in a position to sweep the sea clean of sur- face ships. Our Navy is gigantic in its fire power, in its range, and in its mod- ern mechanization. However, a new ele- ment has entered into the picture— the improved submarine. These, equipped with proper weapons, are many, many times more difficult to destroy and their ability is greatly increased to de- stroy surface ships, such as the ships of an enemy convoy. It is going to be dificult, and I would emphasize, very difficult, with present-day equipment to keep the sea lanes open as they must be kept open, first, for raw materials from distant lands for our factories. It is going to be difficult to keep the sea lanes open, secondly, to transport the millions of men who may have to be transported to foreign battlefields be- fore the war draws to a close. We must remember that our forces are now in Eu- rope and in Asia, and we cannot aban- don them. In atomic bombs we are far superior. We have been at the business of making them longer. Our stock piles are obvi- ously much greater than those of the Russian... However, this is an advantage that may be temporary. There can be no assurance that it is permanent. We are told that both nations are working on the H-bomb. We believe we will have it first and in greater numbers, but this can be at best but an optimistic conjec- ture. There is no certainty at the pres- ent moment concerning who wil] have the advantage in the acquisition of this great decisive weapon. Let us go on to see what effect each of the two great countries is making to augment its military strength. What I am about to say is disturbingly arresting. In 1949, only last year, Russia had the largest budget in the whole his- tory of the U. S.S. R. Many of their expenditures were for additional mecha- nization. Much of the money was de- voted to the expansion of heavy industry. The weakest links in the Soviet economy were strengthened through the medium of additional appropriations. All of these measures are the twin brothers of military preparedness, It is estimated— and I hope this sentence will be remem- bered—that in 1949 Russia was expend- ing for war preparations 85 percent as much as she spent for war prepara- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tions in 1941, the year that Hitler invaded that country. It is estimated that Rus- sia is spending this year for war prepara- tions two-thirds as much money as she spent in 1945, the last year of World War II. There are many items for new con- struction for industrial support of the Russian armed forces, for scientific re- search, for security operations, and for strategic stock piling. Mark these figures well, Mr. President. The Russian budget for all purposes, peace and war, I estimate will absorb 75 percent of the total national income. In the United States, with our budget of $42,000,000,000 for all purposes, peace and war, we will absorb 18 percent of our national income. But here is the figure which brings us up sharply. The Rus- sian budget will absorb about 30 percent of the national income for military pre- paredness alone. In the United States our military expenditures of $14,000,000,- 000 will represent only about 6 percent of our national income. Nearly one-third of every dollar every Russian man, woman, and child earn is already devoted to military preparedness. In the United States, our small expendi- ture of $14,000,000,000 represents only approximately 6 percent of the total in- come of the men, women, and children of the United States. These facts and figures clearly show that Russia 1s making a supreme all-out effort for total and complete military supremacy. These facts and figures show that Russia is making, in financial outlays, two-thirds of the military effort she made when fighting Hitler in 1945. There is no evidence that this great ef- fort is to hait. The indications are that it will continue, and, if possible, be in- tensified. Up to the moment, I agree in the main with Secretary of Defense Johnson, that our defense arrangements, considering our great stock pile of atomic bombs, have been sufficient for our own protec- tion and for the protection of those al- lied with us These defenses, as a whole, and our stock pile of bombs in particular, would make it inadvisable for any nation to start a war involving us. This situa- tion has been a mighty contributing fac- tor to such peace as we enjoy at this critical time. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that, with the atomic age, Amer- ica in many respects has a vulnerability matched by few other nations. We have many great cities, teeming with millions of persons. Russia has fewer cities and they are wider apart. Our great cities, from the standpoint of geography, are exposed. Many of the Russian cities are not so clearly vulnerable. Russia, hav- ing industrialized later than ourselves, has been able to scatter her industrial life more than we have. Russia as a nation occupies more of the world’s sur- face than does the United States. Before the day of the airplane and the atom bomb, our great oceans shielded us and gave us time in which to pre- pare. The utility of these oceans as bar- riers to attack by an enemy has dimin- ished greatly and will continue to dimin- ish with the coming of the interconti- nental bomber and the new giant bombs, 1849 So I think, if we are not able to have an adjustment of our difficulties with the Russians, from here on out we will have to take a completely new look at our defenses. If we are not able to stop the arms race, through the medium of world disarmament or something approaching it, we shall have to be stronger in the future than it was ever necessary for us to be in the past in peacetime. This conclusion seems to me to be inescapable. Any weakness might invite attack. Only by being at least equal or, if possible, superior to any potential foe, can we best hope to avoid attack. In a word, if an understanding with the Russians with appropriate disarmament is impossible, we are going to have to have more, much more, national defense in a score of categories than has been required up to the present. We dare not fall behind in the arms race, without running the risk of disaster and losing our allies on the European Continent. There has always been a widespread tendency to underestimate the Russians. People have forgotten that after Hitler had conquered Poland, subdued France with her widely publicized army and Maginot Line, overrun Belgium and Hol- land, and driven the flower of the Brit- ish Army across the Channel at Dun- kerque, he then attacked Russia in 1941. It was almost a universally held opinion then that Russia would not last 6 weeks. I heard nothing but that on the floor of the Congress and on the streets of the towns and cities of America. The Russians retreated gradually to Petrograd, Moscow, and Stalingrad. During this interval, Russia amassed an army of tanks, an unbelievable pool of artillery and other weapons, and in- creased her plane production, At Mos- cow, the Russians threw their new im- plements and all their might into the fray. The finest panzer divisions of Hit- ler were met outside of Moscow and deci- mated. The Nazi retreat began. The Russian factories continued to turn out weapons at an unbelievable rate. They produced the best tank in the whole world, and it is so today. In a series of great battles, they drove the Germans all the way back to Berlin. Instead of 6 weeks, with defeat, as predicted, there was 4 years of determined fighting, with victory. That was the gross underesti- mation of Russian military power 9 years ago. In 1945, we had produced our first atomic bomb for war purposes. It was used in August of that year and adver- tised to the whole world. Again there was a gross underestimation of Russia’s ability to make this bomb. It is true that her ability to manufacture this weapon was aided greatly by the disclo- sures of Dr. Fuchs. However, instead of producing the atom bomb from 1952 on, the Russians produced the bomb in 1949. Again, the optimists who said, “All is well,” had made another grave miscal- culation. Maybe it will take three lessons of underestimation to teach us that over- estimation is a safer course than under- estimation, when the whole of civiliza- tion is at stake. I still see in many quarters a desire to look down on Russian military might and industrial ability, in
1850 the face of facts that have twice as- tounded the world. Even today, in the United States Sen- ate, the slowness with which military measures are considered and passed is absolutely appalling. The bill to provide modern wind tunnels, indispensable to the building of supersonic planes, was delayed for months by parliamentary objections. The same was true of the authorization for the NACA scientists. These scientists are the men who must devise the new equipment and instru- mentation required for the new giant planes. The same was true of military housing, although our troops, upon which we must all depend for safety, were liv- ing under appalling conditions both here in the continental United States and overseas. Through the Russian system of gov- ernment, they take action upon things quickly. If our democratic processes are to survive, military legislation must henceforth be considered with more speed. Time is important. Time saved can mean the prevention of the outbreak of another war. It can mean life or death to many persons now living on this planet. We must likewise begin to overhaul our civilian defense. There is likely to be not enough time to do this if the threat of war, or war itself, comes quickly. In the volatile state of world affairs, this may and could happen. If during the war a great bomb should hit one or more of our large cities, the death toll may run into the millions. In addition to the dead, hundreds of thousands may be in- jured. If no provision is made to deal with this while we yet have time to do it, many of those injured will die who could have been saved by preparation. Until the possibility of war is dimin- ished we should begin to organize and teach our policemen, firemen, teachers, doctors, nurses, and others the best means and methods of meeting this pos- sible emergency. Plans for keeping order when attack is imminent will have to be laid. Plans for evacuation where pos- sible will have to be worked out. Indeed, considering the possibilities of @ sneak attack, Pearl Harbor fashion, we may well consider some forms of in- specting ships bound for our harbors while they are still at sea. The possi- bilities are too pregnant with disaster to permit ships to come willy-nilly into our harbors without this inspection on the outside. It would be simple under pres- ent practices to bring an atom or hydro- gen bomb to this country in the hold of a ship and wipe out the population of one or more of our large cities. We can- not let this side of national defense pass by unattended. I could outline many more additional measures of defense which it would seem wise to undertake from now on out. Those mentioned, however, serve to illus~ trate my point. What I have said here is not in criticism of our defenses up to the moment. It is said as a warning— &@ grave, deep, Sincere, and, I hope, long- sounding warning—to all our people that our safety henceforth will require more, rather than less defense—more effort, rather than less effort; more planning, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE rather than less planning; more sacri- fices, rather than fewer sacrifices. There is no other road we can walk with safety. There is an increasing need for more and more research and development in defenses to be used against the new improved submarine, against tanks, against planes, against guided missiles, and a score of other things now in the purview of modern national defense. Yes, Mr. President, in the present state of world affairs the arms race now under way will bring burdens we have not heretofore had to bear. All military men agree that the best deterrent to war is to be so strong that the enemy will fear to attack. Certainly our best hope of continuing to live is to be strong enough to destroy our potential enemies quickly when war comes. If war goes on too long, with atomic and hydrogen bombs, even the victor may be van- quished, All of these thoughts have brought me to the conclusion that it would be the part of wisdom, at this critical point, to find out which of the two alternatives we must grasp. Can there be world disarmament with in- spection before, during, and afterward? Is the accomplishment of this goal im- possible? If it is tried and found to be impossible, then our people, and people all over the world, will know who is re- sponsible for the failure of the greatest humanitarian enterprise ever under- taken by man. The world will likely place the blame upon those who have de- nied mankind his right to live in peace. If world disarmament is tried and suc- ceeds, it will have been the greatest ef- fort any government or governments, person or persons have ever made to preserve and advance civilization. If it fails, we will be no worse off. Then we shall embrace, with new vigor and under- standing, the only remaining alterna- tive—solid, unmistakable, adequate de- fense for us and those associated with us. If disarmament is not possible, this Nation and those associated with us will rise to the challenge. Instead of disuarm- ament, then we shall renew our efforts for an armed truce. Yes, Mr. President, that is the score. We will either have peace through world disarmament or will keep on as we are now going and intensify our efforts. All the world is poised on the horns of this dilemma. Like Mr. Churchill, I would like to know the answer. I would like to get a clarification of the issues in dispute. What we want, in plain American, is a clean show-down. Must we walk the roadway to possible war with all of its sacrifices? Must we give new thought and effort and sacrifice to preparedness against attack? Or is it possible, on the other hand, to remove the fear of war by stopping the arms race? Is it pos- sible to find a formula where the east and the west can do business without the burden, the fear, and the unlimited disaster of another world war? The stakes are high but they are worth playing for in the light of Dr. Einstein’s utterance: Annihilation of any life on earth is within the range of technical possibilities. FEBRUARY 16 I repeat that statement for the sake of emphasis. Dr, Einstein last Sunday said: Annihilation of any life on earth ts within the range of technical possibilities. These are grave, ominous, and chal- lenging words. So I renew my plea to the President of the United States and to the Secre- tary of State, to call a world disarma- ment conference of all nations. Let us see if we cannot remove, by courageous, determined, and honest effort, from the minds of the Russians and those associ- ated with them, and from the minds of our own people and those associated with us, the fearful and darkening threat of the possibility of the last great war of them all, which carries with it the pos- sible extinction of all humankind. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have inserted in the Recorp im- mediately following my remarks an ar- ticle entitled “Churchill and Another Talk,” written by Mr. Walter Lippmann, and published in this morning’s Wash- ington Post. Although the article is not “on all fours” with some of the thoughts I have expressed in my remarks, I find a point of agreement with Mr. Lippmann’s statement that we must do something other than sit still and wait for disaster. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Topay AND TOMORROW (By Walter Lippman) CHURCHILL AND ANOTHER TALK Mr. Trum.n must have thought of his own campaign when he read that Mr. Churchill, winding up his campaign, had sald “I cannot help coming back to this idea of another talk with Soviet Russia on the highest level.” Except that Mr. Churchill, rather than Chief Justice Vinson, would do the talking, the idea that Mr, Churchill] came back to has also been Mr. Truman's idea. It has long been Mr. Churchill’s idea Two years ago—when there was no election cam- paign in sight—he told the House of Com- mons that “with all consideration of the facts I believe it right to say today that the best chance of avoiding war is, in accord with the other democracies, to bring matters to a head with the Soviet Government and by formal diplomatic processes, with all their privacy and gravity, to arrive at a lasting settlement. There is certainly enough for the Interests of all if such a settlement could be reached. Even this method, I must say, however, would not guarantee that war would not come but I believe it would give the best chance of preventing it, and that if it came, we should have the best chance of coming out of it alive.” Mr. Churchill is not famous as an appeaser, & pacifist, a wishful thinker, a fellow-traveler, or as an idealist who does not understand the realities of power and of the existing sit- uations of fact and of the nature of the Soviet state. If then, even he feels that there should be “a supreme effort to bridge the gulf between the two worlds so that each can live thelr life, 1f not in friendship, at least without the hatred of the cold war,” no lesser man is qualtfied to dismiss the idea. The question is what the talks at the high- est level would be about if they were to offer any chance of producing a settlement of the kind Mr, Churchill is suggesting. Perhaps it 1s possible to make an informed guess about the general character of those talks. Indeed, that is indicated in Mr. Churchill’s
1950 own remarks. The two worlds, he said, should be able to live their lives—which can mean only, I take it, that the cold war is not to end in unconditional surrender but in a negotiated settlement which establishes the limits of our respective spheres of infiu- ence. That is the kind of settlement which Churchill and Stalin were beginning to ex- plore back in 1944, and they had made some progress with it in the Balkans. Settlements of this type do violence to the Principles which we have espoused since Wilson’s time. We have believed in one world or none, and we have thought that the idea of an agreed division into spheres of influence which reflects the balance of power belonged, as Secretary Hull once declared, to “the unhappy past.” But now, as we contemplate the unhappy present we shall have to ask ourselves whether we do not prefer two or three or four worlds to none at all. We shall have to ask ourselves whether the classic method of settling conflicts may not be the only method. I believe it is, and that the new approach which the people of the world are demanding will bring us to the rediscov- ery of the older approach which we aban- doned before mankind was ready to live as one in one world. For in the history of great powers the agreed division of influence has been the only alternative to a war for universal dominion. It is most unlikely, however, that a set- tlement of this type could be reached by divicing the whole world into two and only two great spheres of influence. If that were attempted, there could be no agree- ment. For it would mean an attempt to agree on whether each country was to enter the Soviet orbit or the Atlantic Community. The attempt to do just that is what broke down the four power negotiations and pre- cipitated the cold war. For the cold war is a struggle to bring Germany, Japan, and many other nations into one coalition or the other. It is waged on the fundamental premise that the two alliances must be everywhere in close contact, that everyone must be in one alliance or in the other. But that is not necessary, and in fact it is not what is probably going to happen. An agreed division of the classic type could be reached, and could be made to last, only if Russia on the one hand, the English-speak- ing powers on the other, recognize the right and the utility of many nations for their own security and survival not to enter into either military coalition—but to constitute themselves as buffers and mediators, and in- deed as guardians of the balance of power. This is the missing component in all our previous discussion of how to deal with the cold war—to take as our premise that, as the Times (London) put it last week ‘“‘the world need not necessarily be divided into two rigid and hostile camps,” that “it may be convenient to both sides that certain areas should be allowed to preserve—or made to keep—a kind of neutrality.” American public opinion is not, I venture to think, sufficiently aware how strong are the forces, just under the surface of official life, which are in motion all over the Old World in Europe and in Asia toward disen- tanglement from the two dangerously en- tangling alliances, I think it not improbable that these forces will gather momentum the longer we and the Soviet Union remain frozen in positions which offer no prospect of escape from the utter devastation of atomic warfare. The human instinct of survival, the national instinct to be inde- pendent, will not long tolerate the idea that tho fate of mankind is to be determined ex- clusively in Moscow and in Washington. The day may come, perhaps not so dist- antly, when a European statesman, another Canning, will arise to proclaim the doctrine that Russia and America are both of them new great powers, and that the Old World CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE must now be called in to redress the balance of the New. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEH- MAN in the chair). Does the Senator from Maryland yield to the Senator from Colorado? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I desire to associate myself wholeheartedly and completely with the superb statement which has just been made by the chair- man of the Armed Services Committee. Certainly it has been sobering, it has been challenging, and it has been stimu- lating. It is an understatement. I hope that what he has said will provoke us into seriously facing the situation which he has outlined and which he has not exaggerated. Mr. TYDINGS, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his more-than-gener- ous remarks. He and I have served to- gether on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. I know that he regrets, as I regret, that it is not possible, for secu- rity reasons, for us to make full disclo- sure of many of the matters that come to us. I know that the implications of the atomic and hydrogen bombs and other possible weapons are of concern to him, as they have been of concern to all of us who have served on the com- mittee. I thank the Senator for his sup- port. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mary- land yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Sena- tor from New Jersey. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I should like first to commend the distinguished Senator from Maryland for his very able presentation of the subject he has dis- cussed, and to tell him that I am pro- foundly interested in his suggestion, which I shall certainly study with the greatest of care. I should like to ask the Senator whether he contemplates the possible joining of his proposal for a disarma- ment conference with the spirit of the suggestion of the Senator from Con- necticut [Mr. McMaHon] a few days ago that we would express our willingness to cooperate in steps for the further development of the backward areas of the world in order to eliminate any pos- sible cause of war. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I do not know whether the Senator from New Jersey was on the floor of the Senate at the time, but I attempted to say that if we got an agreement to outlaw the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb, and all the other weapons which were used in Europe during the war, even if no bombs were in existence, or were being manufactured, the same tension would exist in the world which is now present with the atomic bomb in existence. The tension might be mitigated a bit, but it would still remain. I pointed out that the war in Europe was fought without any atomic or hydro- gen bombs, and that the devastation was terrific. I pointed out that if we could get an agreement not to possess or manu- facture hydrogen or other bombs, it Mr. 1851 would be predicated upon inspection, that if war came, as it has come in the past without these weapons, inspection would be impossible from that moment on; that thcrefore the treaties for con- trol.would be abrogated, and that each of the belligerents that could do so, would start making the bombs, and would surely use them, just as we used them in the last war. So, if we confined it to that segment it would be an encouraging step that might lead to further progress, but would not be an answer in itself. The able Senator from Connecticut proposed that, and also proposed a peace offensive. I would not take issue with anything he has said. I think his im- pulses of mind and thought are very much like my own. But I feel that cer- tain things would happen. I have just said that Russia is devoting 30 percent of the entire income of all her people to military preparedness. If we had disarmament she would not heed any of the $50,000,000,000 fund suggested by the Senator from Connecticut. All the energy and ingenuity of the Russian people could be turned to developing bet- ter homes, developing Russia's resources, exploiting her land, producing more food, producing more clothing, building more schools and providing more recreation. So that if disarmament could be secured, the peace offensive, with ali the energies turned loose because of disarmament, would follow as a matter of course. Iam not opposed to what the Senator from Connecticut offered, but I think if dis- armament can be secured the peace of- fensive will come as a matter of course. If we do not succeed in obtaining dis- armament, all the money in Christendom will not, in my opinion, buy peace. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I am glad he brought out that point. But it seems to me that the proposal made by the Senator from Connecticut is a wonderful one. Let us move to go ahead with a peace offensive. It seems to me we have got to move into that area. Mr. TYDINGS. Yes. I will not oppose, or vote against the proposal of anyone who has devoted thought to this subject, as most of us have. The Senator from Connecticut has a proposal which differs from mine. I like mine better because, after thinking over the subject for a great many years, I could find no other ultimate terminal. I can find many in- termediate terminals, but it all comes back to the fact that unless we can bring about disarmament, fear will continue; each nation will move a little further each year toward arming itself, and eventually we will get back to the same point again. I am willing to consider any proposal which may be offered. I do not like the attitude of sitting and waiting. That is not in the American tradition. It is not in line with our way of life or our way of thinking. I like effort. The fact that we may fail 10 or 15 times should not deter us from making a new effort, particularly when so much is at stake. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Sen- ator from New Jersey would like to iden- tify himself with the last statement made by the Senator from Maryland, possibly
1852 with all his statements, but particularly with the last one. I do not like to sit and wait. I think we want to explore. As a member of the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee holding hearings on various proposals, such as the one for a world federation, the pro- posal for an Atlantic union, and so on, I welcome all such suggestions, because we should explore them, and we should be thinking in terms of ‘Where do we go from here?” in a positive way. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his state- ment. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his contribution. While I was engaged in my statement I neglected to say that my suggestion does not spring from fear, so far as I am able to interpret my own emotion. It springs from what I think is the com- mon-sense idea of what is good both for Russia and for ourselves. I do not want anyone to think I have made this speech because I fee] we are weak. I believe we are the strongest nation in the world today. I believe that because we have strength we can afford to take the action I propose, when we know that some other nations which may not be so strong can- not afford to take such action. The strong always arc and of right should be the leaders of progress. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I agree with the Senator in that statement. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland now yield to me? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Senator from Missouri, but I want to apologize first. He was the first Senator who asked me to yield to him. I should have yielded to him first. Mr. DONNELL. I assure the Senator from Maryland that fs all right. Mr. TYDINGS. I proceeded to yield to Senators in the order in which they rose, from those nearest to me to those farther away. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, before asking questions, I should like to take this opportunity to express the apprecia- tion of this one Senator for the most able, scholarly, instructive address de- livered by the Senator from Maryland, as well as for the solemn and thoughtful warnings and analyses, suggestions, and exhortations, which are contained with- in his address. I remember having heard at least a portion of an address along similar lines, delivered by the Sen- ator several years ago, although as the days have gone on and changes in cir- cumstances have occurred, he has pro- jected himself to meet the new condi- tions. While I am not at this moment making any commitment as to my own position respecting his suggestions, I wish to say that I think the Senator’s presentation is a highly challenging one, and deserving of the careful and solemn thought of every Member of the Pnited States Senate. I thank him or it. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from Missouri, and I may say that praise coming from him in the general form it js, is high praise, indeed. Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator. Will the Senator now yield for a few questions? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TYDINGS. do so. Mr. DONNELL. I may say that the particular question I had in mind when I sought to obtain the Senator’s con~- sent to yield some little time ago has been very fully answered by him. I may tell him, in order to satisfy his possible curiosity, that it related to whether he had observed, or intended to discuss the observations by Dr. Hin- stein. The Senator has discussed so fully and completely the observations by Dr. Einstein and his reference to the possibility scientifically of every human life being destroyed by the great bombs of the future, that I believe my ques- tion has certainly been adequately an- swered. But there have occurred to me, as the Senator has spoken, a few other questions to which I should like to obtain his answers. Mr. TYDINGS. If I can answer I shall be delighted to do so. Mr. DONNELL. In the first place I should like to ask the following ques- tion: The Senator has commented upon the great expenditure which Russia is today making upon military prepared- ness, upon preparations of a warlike na- ture, or at least with respect to warlike equipment, and the like. I should like the Senator to tell us whether in his judgment the North Atlantic Treaty has acted in any way as a deterrent against such action taken by Russia. I should appreciate the Senator’s observations. Mr. TYDINGS. Whether it has en- couraged such action or deterred it? Mr. DONNELL. Yes. Mr. TYDINGS. Of course, it would be quite difficult for the Senator from Maryland to give the Senator from Mis- sour! an accurate answer to that ques- tion. It would have to be a guess. My opinion is that even without the North Atlantic security alliance and the armed implementation plan Russia would have done pretty much what she is doing any way. I do not think I would be com- pletely honest if I did not say the fact that we did that made it easier for Rus- sia to do what she ts doing. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Please let me finish. Mr. DONNELL. I was not quite clear, however, as to what the Senator observed just a moment ago. Mr. TYDINGS. The fact that we did, however, project and put into being the North Atlantic Security Alliance certain- ly made it easier and a matter of more importance for Russia to do what she is doing now than probably otherwise would have been the case. In the opinion of the Senator from Maryland, the Russians, up to the time the North Atlantic Security Pact became a reality, were concentrating their propaganda and a great deal of their force on the line of tension in Europe. It seems to me that with the coming of the North At- lantic Security Alliance I detected to some extent a recession of the Russian force at that point, and reliance on such measures as blocking traffic, aggressions, one might say, which necessitated the airlift. But the main Russian effort was the putting forth propaganda and pressure in the Far East, I am delighted to FEBRUARY 16 Now that China has fallen and that great area pretty well allied with Russia, I am beginning to wonder if there will not be, after some other things happen in that area, a return to Europe of the force which was temporarily released there, resulting in the pressure in Europe being heightened and perhaps holding in store for us great difficulties. Mr. DONNELL., Would the Senator agree, in view of his observation made a moment ago, that perhaps the North Atlantic Treaty has made it easier for Russia to do what she has been doing? Would the Senator agree with me that the North Atlantic Treaty affords a very plausible excuse on the part of Russia to increase her arms, on the ground that the participants in the North Atlantic Treaty are building up an armed force which might prove to be an offensive force against Russia? Mr. TYDINGS. I would have to say to the Senator what I tried to say in less detail earlier, that what each of us ifs doing is predicated on what the other is doing. It is pretty much like batting a ball back and forth to see how long it can be kept up in the air. So long as it does not drop, well and good. But when it is dropped, trouble may come. They do something and we counteract It. We do something and they counteract it. As I see it, we are playing checkers on the world checkerboard. There is the H-bomb, the atom bomb, and all those things in the way of power politics. Per- haps there is no alternative. Perhaps we have to do that. But I should like to submit the case to the jury of world opinion and find out who is right or wrong—I think I know—but let us sub- mit the case and see who will block a settlement, so that the nations and peo- ples of the world who may be in doubt will know, as near as humans can come to know, who is responsible for this point and counterpoint which is continually going on. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I believe the Sena- tor’s illustration of point and counter- point and the playing of checkers on the world’s checkerboard is most excellent and thoroughly in point. I do not know whether the Senator will agree with me, but I respectfully call his attention to the fact that upon the floor of the Senate at least some Senators who opposed our entry into the North At- lantic Treaty took the view, which has been so graphically set forth by Viscount Grey in his history of World War I, and other historical events in England, that the building up of a great, powerful mili- tary force by the North Atlantic Treaty would necessarily involve a heavy risk, and that Russia might, in playing this game of checkers, feel that it was ob- ligatory upon her, or at least that she would have an excuse to consider it ob- ligatory upon her, to build up her own power, as I take it she has done, as the Senator has so graphically indicated this afternoon. Mr. TYDINGS. I respect the Sena- tor's point of view. I do not want to throw idle compliments around, but I
1950 have always looked on the Senator from Missouri as a man of profound integrity of thought, and even though he may not agree with my point of view, I have great respect for any point of view he holds. As I see it, it was necessary for us to make that move in Europe because the Russians were trying very hard to win Italy and France, and to put pressure on some of the small Scandinavian coun- tries at the time the North Atlantic Treaty was projected. If we had not done what we did in Europe, it is possible that we might have lost some of our allies there. They might have been brought in behind the iron curtain. I do not say they would have. I say it is possible. So, therefore, there is always the imponderable to which none of us can give the complete answer. I can see how one man would take the view that it would have been better not to take the action we took. JI can see how another person equally well versed in the facts would take the view that such action should have been taken. I thought that was our counterpoint. Evidently, many persons thought it was our point, which brought on the Russian counterpoint. So it is simply a question of where one starts and where one stops. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WirTHERS in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Maryland yield to the Senator from Missour1? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Does the Senator from Maryland consider that if a dis- armament conference were called, as he has so eloquently and powerfully argued should be done, it would necessitate, in order that the disarmament agreement be carried out, an amendment striking out article III of the North Atlantic Treaty, reading as follows: In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the parties sepa- rately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. In the Senator's opinion, would it be necessary, in order to carry into effect a disarmament program upon which such a conference as he advocates might agree, that article III of the North At- lantic Treaty, which I have just read, be either amended or repealed? Mr. TYDINGS. I do not think that would be necessary, because if all the na- tions agreed to a disarmament plan, it probably would contain a clause to the effect that all prior agreements or com- mitments contrary to the covenant therein set forth would be repealed and set aside, insofar as they might be in conflict with that covenant. I would imagine that in various parts of the world there would be many docu- mtents and papers bearing on that sub- ject; and it would not be practical to make changes in all of them. SoI would imagine that the point to which the Senator from Missouri refers would be taken care of without difficulty. My fear is whether it would be possi- ble to agree upon a disarmament plan. If the disarmament plan or pact were agreed to, it seems to me its provisions XCVI——117 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE would either nullify, amend, or change in whatever other way were necessary, any earlier pacts to which all the other nations had set their hands and seals. Mr. DONNELL. Including article It of the North Atlantic Treaty? Mr. TYDINGS. Ido not think it would have to be named specifically, although I do not say, without further thought, that it would automatically be termi- nated. But I would say that, in a broad way, anything with which the disarma- ment plan interfered would be nullified from then on, whereas agreements with which the disarmament plan did not interfere would not be affected by it, of course. Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator; I think he has answered my point. I should like to inquire of the Senator relative to the assurance recently given by Mr. Louis Johnson. I think the Sen- ator from Maryland took the view that he agreed with some, or possibly all, of Mr. Johnson’s observations in regard to our national security. Mr. TYDINGS. I took the view that, by and large, I thought our defenses up to the present time had been adequate. I then took the view that from now on we must reexamine them and, in all probability, strengthen them. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator from Maryland believed, did he not, the coun- try would not be safe if it accepted the reassurance given a few days ago by Mr. Johnson, namely, that if we were struck at 4 o'clock, we would be ready at 5 o'clock? Mr. TYDINGS. I believe Mr. John- son’s statement is accurate. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator from Maryland would not think, would he, we should rest on our oars in that respect, and that the national security should give us no concern? Mr. TYDINGS. I believe what Secre- tary Johnson said is accurate; I make that statement on the basis of my own knowledge of the situation rezarding our national defense. If we were struck at 4 o'clock in the morning, I believe retali- ation would be on the way by 5 o’clock. I think that statement is accurate. I believe that our defenses up to now have been adequate. So I believe in the correctness of what Mr. Johnson has said. In view of all the circumstances, and in the light of the statement I made to- day, and in the light of what is happen- ing elsewhere, I believe that from now on we must make a reexamination of our defense picture, and must make up our minds that we shall leave no reason- able thing undone in an endeavor to prevent the outbreak of a war which well could annihilate us. Therefore, I believe we must do all we can to be 50 strong as to make it impossible for any other nation to overwhelm us. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator from Maryland referred to the possible con- tingency that perhaps Russia would not agree or would not accept an invitation to such a conference. Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; I said that. Mr. DONNELL. I can well appreciate the logic of examining in advance what would be the eventuality if that should occur, 1853 Let me ask the Senator whether in his opinion it would be necessary, in order that such an international agreement of disarmament would be effective and ben- eficial, that every nation of any size or material strength should become a par- ticilpant and should join in such an agreement. Mr. TYDINGS. That is a very proper and logical question, and I turned it over in my own mind a good many times. The first thing we think of is that if we got the big nations together and if they agreed, we would not have to bother about the other nations; but it occurred to me that no one knew the extent to which the disarmament would go, and that it is quite possible that we could reach the point where some of the small- er nations would have weapons which the larger nations would outlaw. So, as a general proposition, it would be a fine thing to get the entire world back of this plan, rather than to have the big nations play politics with one another. Therefore, it would seem that the wiser course would be to have what we might call all the reasonably strong powers—not only the great ones, but the smaller ones who have reasonable strength—enter into the agreement, so the relativity would be continued all the way through, so far as arms are con- cerned. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland indicate whether he has given thought to the possibility, as he put it a moment ago, in the earlier part of his remarks, that some small nation, through scientific in- genuity and skill, actually might develop a greater ultimate strength, by reason of the ownership of a few hydrogen bombs, than some of the other nations, which have greater material strength, might have acquired, and that therefore it would be essential to have every nation, if possible, enter into such an agree- ment? Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct and it is a good thought. Upon thinking the matter through, I believe we would want all the nations to enter into the agreement, in view of almost any consideration which might enter into the picture. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator tell us whether he thinks that if such a conference were called, in considering all the problems involved, during the course of the conference :t would develop that each nation would be required to give to the others an inven- tory of what it possessed, including bombs—the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, or whatever other bombs there might be; and if the Senator thinks it would be necessary to do that, let me also inquire whether he thinks there would be any danger that if our country were to lay on the table a statement that :t had so many atomic bombs and so many hydrogen bombs and so many plants for making each of them, some other nation, after learning that, would refuse to enter into the agreement or would violate the terms of the agreement, thus placing us at ao great disadvantage. Mr. TYDINGS. I have given a great deal of thought to that matter. Of course, no one can devise a law or a rule