A134 Fifty-three Democrats, 35 Republicans (in- cluding Tarr), 1 Progressive favored ratifi- cation, ‘Two Republicans voted against ratification. The North Atlantic Pact was ratified in 1949. The Senate vote was 82 to 18, with 18 votes to spare over the two-thirds majority. Fifty Democrats were for ratification, 2 against, Thirty-two Republicans were for it, 11 (including Tart) against. A foreign-military-aid bill was passed in 1949 by the Senate, 55 to 24, and by the House, 238 to 122, Powerful President: The second fact often overlooked is that foreign policy is set by the President—not by Congress, not by people who write letters to Congress, not by a former Président. Mr. Truman’s policy is to keep on fighting in Korea, send more troops and arms to Europe, build up armed services at home. And he believes he has ample power now to move additional troops to Europe without asking Congress for more authority. Existing treaty: The third fact that many people fall to see is that the United States, by formal treaty, by acts of Congress, al- ready is committed to defend her European allies against attack. The North Atlantic Pact, in effect, says an attack on any member nation Is an attack on all. Thus, regardless of the viewpoint expressed by letter writers, Congress may be expected to keep on supporting internationalist poli- cies and programs, and to send more, not fewer, American men into military service abroad, screened FCC Examiner Linked to Reds by Radio Firm EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. E. E. COX OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Willard Edwards, from the Washington Times- Herald for January 10, 1951: FCC Examiner Linxten ro Reps sy Rapio FmM (By Willard Edwards) An attack upon the legality of decisions by Federal officials alleged to have Commu- nist affiliations or sympathies has created a stir in Government circles. This unique legal move could have far- reaching consequences affecting dozens of bureaus, particularly those of a quasi-judi- cial nature, which issue thousands of rulings firecting American citizens in every welk of e, The question was put before the Federal Communications Commission last Novem- ber 17, it was learned, in the form of a peti- tion for construction permits by the Gretna and Lower Coast Radio and Broadcasting Co., Gretna, La. LAWYERS GUILD NAMED Reversal of an initial adverse ruling was requested on the ground that the hearing examiner was & member of the Washington board of directors of the National Lawyers guild, recently described by the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party. The committee recommended that the lawyers guild be placed on the Justice De- partment's subversive list and that the guild be required to register as an agent of a for~ eign principal. 1t recommended further that members of the guild be barred from Gov- ernment employrnent because the organiza- tion was an arm of the international Com- munist conspiracy. The request for rejection of the decision was stated in the petition as follows: “The purpose of the FCC, as provided by Congress, is to serve the interest, necessity, and conventence of the people of the United Btates. ‘“TYDINGS’ DEFEAT CITED “International communism is a criminal conspiracy, having for its alm the overthrow of the Government of the United States. “The majority of the people of the United States are opposed to international com- munism, in all forms and under all condi- tions, and they are particularly opposed to persons holding positions of trust in the Gov- ernment who are even suspected of having sympathies for international communism, “This statement is supported by the action of the people of the State of Maryland on November 7, 1950, in defeating for reelection Senator Tydings, chairman of a senatorial committee which is alleged to have ‘white- washed’ certain governmental departments which it had been alleged contained em- ployees who were Communists or had Com- munist sympathies. “HOUSE REPORT QUOTED “Every American is entitled to have his business with the Federal Government ate tended to by persons who are not Commu- nists, who are not Communist sympathizers, and who are not suspected of being such.” The document then recites the House com- mittee findings on the Nattonal Lawyers Guild and notes that the report identifies the FCC examiner as an official on July 1950, of the Washington chapter’s board of dl- rectors. “On information and belief,” the petition states, “Chairman Wayne Coy of the FCO knew, or in the reasonable and efficient exer- cise of his duties should have known, of the affiliation of this high-ranking employee as & member of said guild and member of its board of directors. “For the very obvious reasons set forth, Gretna and Lower Coast Radio & Broad- casting Co., Inc., is entitled to have the ini- tial decision rejected and set aside and a rehearing ordered before a trial examiner who is not affliated with the National Law- yers Guild.” Mass Hypnotism EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GEORGE M. RHODES OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I include the following article by Ralph W. Page, from the Philadelphia Bulletin: Mass HyPnotisM—PropacaNnpa Mitts SpeNnp Hvar Sums To Swar ConoRigs anp Pusiic OPINION (By Ralph W. Page) Conducting pressure upon Congress and public opinion has become big business. The Buchanan House Lobby Investigation Committee reports that this synthetic opin- ion racket amounted to over half a billion dollars during the first 6 months of this year. Ten organizations each spent over €100,000 bombarding Congress and flooding the coun- try with their demands. The Committee APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for Constitutional Government (Fascist vere sion) alone spent half a million, The worst of this is not the effect upon Senators and Representatives, It is the im- pact of these gigantic propaganda mills upon the knowledge and judgment of the whole country, Even if these richly endowed or mass or- ganizations accurately and honestly pre~ sented their sides in current controversies they would be 3 menace—tending to drown out all other valid considerations. But al- most without exception these lobby ma- chines distort the record beyond recogni- tion and hypnotize the public mind by end- less reiteration of untenable propositions, » OTHER THREATS TO INDEPENDENT OPINION Independent opinion is further threatened by enormous publicity funds in the hands of professional agen*s of such aggregations as workmen, farmers, managers, and doctors be- cause it is assumed that all of the myriad members accept and support without ques- tion the biased and provocative partisan ver- sion of facts presented by the hired advocate. Examples would fill a library. The American Medical Association spent Over $347,000,000 screaming that the proposed health insurance is socialized medicine under which no man could select his own doctor. Both assertions are false. But the repetition has convinced most physicians that they are gospel. The only reason that the unions failed to produce a monolithic opinion in labor circles that Taft-Hartley is a slave-labor act is be- cause the business publicity hounds spent tice as much to assert that it was a libera- fon. A prime example ts provided by the electric utilities industries. They consistently con- tend that the Government is enslaving the people and wasting their substances by gen- erating electricity in such works as the Grand Coulee, the Hoover, and the Tennessee Valley Dams. WATER RESOURCES REPORT BRINGS FIRE Their latest is an hysterical blast at the re ort of the Water Resources Policy Com- mission. The Commission merely stated the irrefutable proposition that the water in a river basin should be so managed as to best preserve all of its necessary usages. Since this categorically requires further Federal multipurpose dams, the chairman of the electric companies’ public information program blandly broadcasts that the Com- mission obviously had failed to listen to the people and has written g report ignoring their expressed wishes. In other words, the people are to believe that their interest and wishes are identical with the power interests who want no water policy whatever. What About Unemployment Compensation? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL T. CURTIS OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr, CURTIS of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, late in the last Congress H. R. 8059 was introduced dealing with unemploy- ment compensation. That bill died with the ending of the Eighty-first Congress, but that bill has been reintroduced in this Congress as H. R. 6225. Mrs. Elinore Morehouse Herrick has written an excel- Jent analysis of that proposal. This
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD should be of interest and the article {s as follows: . “POLITIORING” rw Socta, LEGMRLATION—Fep- RRAL ENCROACHMENT ON StaTx FUNCTIONS Is Catuxp Puan in H.R, 8059 (By Elinore Morehouse Herrick) The “politicking” in social legislation by Federal administrators is very disturbing, Only & week-end notice of bearings on H. R. 8050 radically affecting the unemployment compensation system was given recently by @ subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. Although employers who pay the full cost of unemployment com- jon were taken by surprise by these almost furtively announced hearings, Secre- tary Tobin and his cohorts were on hand with ed statements, H.R. 8050 scraps the original concept af unemployment insurance as a way to cushion the shock of unemployment to the worker who loses his job involuntarily through no fault of his own. It would make payments to strikers mandatory, contrary to the policy of some States. Payments would be made to persons who quit their jobs for “good personal reasons.” The entire concept of “guitability” of employment by which States have attempted to safeguard their funds from abuse is broadened to make payments to persons who voluntarily quit “unsuitable” jobs or who are discharged for cause. Even & person who is discharged for theft will get benefits, It would substitute uniform Fed- eral standards for those which have been tailor-made by State legislatures to fit condi- tions in the various States. It would substi- tute Federal administration for State over the heart of the law, namely, the determina- tion of the individual’s right to unemploy- ment benefits, The statements of Secretary Tobin and Mr. Goodwin, Director of the Labor Depart- ment’s Bureau of Employment Security, were interlarded with references to staff reports, advisory council reports, etc, etc., to bol- ater their arguments on specific points, These frequent references to reports of seem- ingly impartial groups conveyed the impres~ sion—as they were intended to do—that there was overwhelming and disinterested expert opinion in favor of their position. Yet the 1948 report of the advisory commit- tee to the Senate Committee on Finance throws an entirely different light on the pic- ture presented by the administration spokes- men. It states: “The majority approves the basio principles and arrangements of the present State-Federal system * ° * the State is the proper unit to determine the benefit provisions which will meet the vary- ing conditions in different parts of the country.” A minority report written by a labor man on behalf of five dissenters advocated a com- pletely federalized system. That, {t seems to me, is also the goal of the Secretary of Labor. In spite of the finding of the mafor- ity of the advisory committee that the States had improved their systems, Mr. Tobin told the House subcommittee “until there is some degree of uniformity established in respect to amounts and duration of benefits, indi- vidual States alone will be most reluctant to raise their benefit standards.” This simply 4s not the fact, es State experience has proved. Some further improvements in State laws should unquestionably be made which are included in H. R. 8058. For example, no one can quarrel with the thesis that involuntary unemployment lays as great a hardship upon the sole employee as it does upon the per- son who is one of several hundred in the ahop. H.R. 8089 seeks to broaden the cover- age, as bas been done in the Social Security Act. The bill would raise the taxable base from $8,000 to the first €4,800 of wages, the tax being solely paid by employers and not & joint contribution as in the case of old-age and survivors insurance. The cost to em- ployers, therefore, would be increased greatly, and, as Secretary Tobin pointed out, “would be passed on to consumers.” He es~ timates that the increase in costa of the pro- posed minimum standards would be about 80 peroent for the Nation as a whole and for individual States will run from 10 percent to 90 percent. It ts when we come to the uniform high benefits, the introduction of dependency benefits into a wage system heretofore based on the degree of skill required and the amount and quality of work, and the criteria for disqualifying benefit claimanta that the gravest questions of public policy arise, ex- cept for the overriding one of whether we should switch to a federalized system. H. R. 8069 assumes a weekly wage of $60 and the single individual would get 50 per- cent or up to 980. A person with three or more dependents would get 70 percent of his wage or up to @42 a week. By the time the various authorized payroll deductions are made the $60 is dangerously close to the maximum benefit allowable. No one can tell exactly the extent to which this narrowing of the gap between take-home pay and un- employment compensation would lead people to ask themselves, “Why work?” We know that this happens. New York, Obio, and California, to cite a few, have all had to fol- low up beneficiaries who were wintering in resort areas such as Miami Beach rather than looking for work—New Orleans seems to be the latest resort favorite for the unemployed. If dependency benefite are paid as a means of making up part of the wage loas of the unemployed, the logical next step is to say that the family man should get a higher wage than the single man and the larger the family the higher the pay without regard to the quantity or quality of work. In countries where this has been tried industrial activity has been notably less efficient than here in America where workers enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. By requiring that all States pay benefits for a flat 26 weeks the current practice of relating total benefits to past earnings would be destroyed. This would mean that an un- employed person could receive more in bene- fits than he received while working. Secre- tary Tobin thus does only Up service to the idea of distinguishing between the worker who is only casually attached and the one who ig permanently attached to the labor market. Under H. R. 8059 both would get benefits for 26 weeks, regardless of the length of his past employment. In discussing the proposed uniform stand- ards for disqualifying claimants, Mr. Good- win is surprisingly frank. There are three objectives: “To limit the reasons for which a disqualification may be imposed, to prohibit the reduction or cancellation of benefit rights for any cause, to establish a maximum period during which benefits may be postponed. « »* “* Yor example, a claimant could be disqualified only tf he left suitable work without good cause attributable to the em- ployer. Moreover, it makes the disqualifica- tion applicable only to those who leave suitae ble work because claimants should have the same right to leave an unsuitable job with- out incurring a disqualification as they have to refuse unsuitable work.” Remember that unemployment insurance legislation was intended to protect the worker from the full shock of involuntary unemployment incurred through no fault of his own. Br. Goodwin carefully explains that the second objective of the proposed bill is to prohibit the cancellation or reduction of benefits for any cause. He makes it platn that an employee discharged for theft from his employer could have his benefits post- poned, not canceled, but only if a court then convicted him of a crime. An employee who stole from someone else and was discharged pecause therefore his employer regarded him aga poor risk could draw benefits along with the honest man laid off because of Jack of work, Not even the person who files a fraudulent claim will lose future benefits but will only have to wait longer to get them. Mr. Goodwin explains it thus: “A longer pe- riod of postponement is contemplated tn those relatively few cases in which a worker has been disqualified for a discharge of gross misconduct connected with his last work that has resulted in a conviction of a crime or for deliberate misrepresentation to obtain benefits.” Who will interpret these uniform Federal standards? The Federal Government, of course. Thus Secretary Tobin or his agents wilh determine whether old or new employ- ment is suitable, whether the personal rea- sons for quitting a job were proper. This comes about because the Federal Govern- ment would have the right to decide whether @ State was in conformity with the Federal statute and to cut off the funds for admin- istration In a nonconf State. If this is not Federal control of the unemployment syatem I do not know what it is, Secretary Tobin renews hig fight on the Knowland amendment which would preserve to the States the right to have State courts interpret the laws before the Federal Gov- ernment could intervene. Secretary Tobin told the House subcommittee that workers should not have to go to court to collect their unemployment compensation. With this any impartial person would agree. But this is not the real issue in Secretary Tobin's fight on the Knowland amendment. He cannot achieve his goal of uniform national standards if the States are permitted to re- tain their State laws and have them subject to review by State courts. He cannot require payment of unemployment benefits to strik- era while a State law subject to interpreta- tion by State courts postpones or prohibits payments to strikers. The attempt of Federal administrators to encroach upon State functions is made plain in H. R. 8059. Mr. Tobin admits that the costs of unemployment {insurance are passed on to consumers. As one consumer I don’t want to pay for the benefits given to a man who tried to cheat the unemployment insur- ance system or who quits his job voluntarily, or who quits for a good personal reason which Secretary Tobin is going to appraise. Por the man who fs involuntarily unemployed for ® cause beyond his control I shall be happy to pay higher prices, State Department Comments EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LINDLEY BECKWORTH Or TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I desire to include in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp a letter from the State Depart- ment; also I include the pertinent part of a letter I received from A. M. Willis, dr., of Longview, Tex.: DEPARTMENT oF STATE, Washtngton, January 8, 1951. The Honorable Linorey BEcKWworRTH, House of Representatives. My Dear Me. BecKworrH: I have received your letter of December 46, 1950, acknowl- edged by telephone on December 28, with which you enclosed a letter from . who recommends careful considera- tion of the foreign policy advocated recent- ly by the Honorable Herbert Hoover. Thank you for making correspondence available to the Department for comment,
A136 Basically, the United States is striving to insure the development of world conditions in, which all peoples will be able to conduct thetr affairs in peace and with full protec- tion for the fundamental rights and freee doms to which all men are entitled. Tragi- cally, the achievement of this policy, which coincides with the interests of all free peo- ples, is being challenged by the leadership of the Soviet Government which, by main- taining great armies and persistently re- fusing to cooperate in measures to maintain either through the United Nations or otherwise, has cteated potentially dangerous situations and a sense of foreboding and tension throughout the world. The threat of Communist imperialism confronts not only the United States but all peoples who believe in the free way of life. The present policy of our country is based on the concept that the security of each one of the nations of the free world is closely tiled up with the security of all these na- tions. The great lesson of this century has been that this is the only policy which gives any hope of ultimate success. It is the na- tional policy which has grown out of deci- sions of the executive branch, of the Con- gress, and of the people of the United States over a period of years. It has been put into action through our membership in the United Nations, through aid to Greece and Turkey, the European recovery program, the North Atlantic treaty for common defense, the program for assistance to underdevel- oped areas and the mutual-defense assist~ ance program, all of which have been en- acted tnto legislation by the Congress and have had the broad support of the people. A policy which would desert this concept of common security would reject the entire broad strategy for freedom. It would re- quire the United States to isolate itself from the rest of the world and to try to survive alone. This deceptively attractive policy holds out a false promise of security, and the consequences of it must he understood clearly. It was discussed at some length by Secretary Acheson in his press confers ence of December 22, 1960, in which he re- ported on the Brussels meeting of the North Atlantic Council. A copy of his remarks is enclosed for your constituent’s information, In the course of his remarks, Mr. Ache- son disclosed that the National Security Council, composed of the President, Cabinet officers having responsibilities in interna- tional affairs, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly considered such a policy as that outlined by Mr. Hoover and has re- jected it for many reasons. Mr. Acheson mentioned six of them, which are: (1) This completely defensive policy would enable the Boviet Union quickly to conquer the entire continents of Europe and Asta: (2) it would place at the disposal of the Kremlin military resources and economic power vastly supe- rior to our own and give the Soviet Union 8 strategic position catastrophic to the United States; (3) it would enable the Soviet Union to develop power which could destroy our own and which would undoubtedly be used for that purpose; (4) this vast balance of power in favor of the Soviet Union would put us at such a disadvantage that it would be impossible to negotiate for a peaceful settlement of differences; (5) under such conditions the United States would have to accept whatever terms would be imposed or fight entirely without allies to maintain physica] existence itself; and (6) physical existence—-if that—would be all that is left, for the entire American heritage would be undermined. T am also enclosing other material which may be of interest to your constituent, and Tam returning his letter as you requested. Sincerely yours, Jack. K. McFatt, Assistant Secretary. LONaview, Tex., January 9, 1951, Hon. Liverery BackworrsH, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Dear ConcressmMan; I write in regard to the present debate on foreign policy. As you know, this Nation and the world are in grave danger. There are certain men in the country like and who are seeking to disunite our people. To fur- ther discredit the administration, they have suggested that we should withdraw our help from Western Europe until the nations com. prising that territory have themselves raised and equipped armies of such numbers “as would erect @ sure dam against the Red flood.” In other words, we should withdraw our help until no help is needed. To keep trom being labeled “isolationist” they sug- gest that we help Britain to the extent Brit- afin will cooperate. In our world of atomic- guided missiles, defense of Britain would be an impossibility with Russian armies com- pletely in control 20 miles away. There- fore, this suggestion is meaningless. Now, Congressman, I submit that if these men succeed in this policy, our Nation 1s doomed, The facts are that today there are 200,000,000 free people in Western Eu- rope, The facts are that the land in which these people live contains an industrial capacity greater than that of the Soviet Union. The facts are that if Russia is al- lowed to get this industrial area for her own, she will then be able to take Africa, the rest of Asia, and then move into Latin Amer- ica. The uranium we now get from Africa, which is vital to our atomic-energy pro- gram, would no longer come here, but would go to the Soviet Union to make atomic weapons to use on us, In addition, Congressman, you are of course familiar with the North Atlantic treaty, ratified by the Senate in 1949. I have read this treaty and it 1s my understanding that in it the United States, Canada, and 10 ‘Western European nations pledged their faith to give continuous mutual aid and come to one another’s assistance in the event of armed attack. In view of this treaty, would any nation in the world be justified in put- ting any credence whatever in the written or stated word of the United States should the suggestions of and be followed? To be sure, Congressman, the peoples of West- ern Europe must help themselves, But they will not help themselves unless they are Jed, and there are only two nations in the world capable of providing that necessary leader- ship—the United States and the Soviet Union. Therefore, we must take the lead in helping those 200,000,000 people to provide adequate defenses for themselves. History records, Congressman, that would- be dictators have only been defeated by a coalition of free nations, Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler were all defeated by such a coalition. We cannot beat Russia alone, We need ail the help we can get; Western Europe, a rearmed Germany, a rearmed Japan, Spain, Tito, and everybody who will fight if necessary. As to ‘s assertion that the President does not have authority to send troops abroad, any student with a cursory knowl- edge of history knows that he is wrong. Presidents Jefferson, Polk, Theodore Roose- velt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roose- velt all exercised their constitutional right as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to use the forces of the United States as they thought necessary. In several instances the Gupreme Court upheld that right and every attempt to question it was successfully re- futed. « « © They are either blindly ignorant or purposely trying to disunite our country in the Interest of keeping alive their morally bankrupt political party. They ought to be APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD exposed, and it 1s up to you and other people with brains to do it before it is too late, Very sincerely yours, A. M. Wiis, Jr. Fast Cargo Ships EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH OF MASSACHUBETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent discussion on the floor of the House in reference to fast cargo ships, I include at this point in the Recorp the following quotation from an article by Vannevar Bush entitled “The Weapons We Need for Freedom,” as re- printed in the Reader’s Digest for Janu- ary 1951: The day of the convoy may be over, and we certainly need to develop and build in quantity cargo carriers of such speeds at sea as to be immune to submarine attacks, and means such as we used at Normandy to land cargo in spite of mines. There 1s no point in discussing airlift when millions of tons of cargo must be moved thousands of miles, if 1t can be done by fast cargo ships virtually immune to submarine attack, Extension of Time for Educational Courses for Ex-Servicemen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr, Speaker, together with other members of the Massachusetts delegation in Con- gress, I received this week a letter from the New England College of Pharmacy, of Boston, Mass., urging the early enact- ment of legislation that would extend the time in which ex-servicemen can start their courses under the Servicemen’s Re- adjustment Act of 1944, and complete them. As many of you know, the Administra- tor of Veterans’ Affairs issued a ruling last July that permits veterans who have started GI bill studies and interrupt them to go back into active military or naval service, to resume their training within a reasonable period following their re- Jease from active service, even though they get out after the dead-line date. Such veterans must meet three require- ments; The conduct and progress in his GI bill course must have been satisfac- tory. The amount of training he may obtain after he gets out of uniform will be limited by his remaining GI bill en- titlement. And his course may not ex- tend beyond the wind-up of the GI bill program on July 25, 1956, At the request of the New England Col- lege of Pharmacy, I am introducing a bill
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD today that would extend the cut-off pe- riod for 2 years beyond the present re- quirements. Under existing law, the July 25, 1951, cut-off date applies to World War II veterans discharged before July 25, 1947. For those few discharged afterward, the cut-off date is 4 years from date of discharge. My new bill will take care of those veterans who have not in- itiated their training before reentering the military or naval service. Following is the letter to which I re- ferred above: New ENGLAND COLLEGE oF PHARMACY, Boston, Mass., January 4, 1951. The Honorable Enrru Nourse RocErs, House of Representatives, Washington, D, C. Dean Mus. Roaers: The New England Col- lege of Pharmacy, a nonprofit educutional institution, incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts, which is fulfilling a crying need at the present time in Massachusetts; namely, the supplying of competent pharma- cists, is humbly seeking your ald and assist- ance on behalf of the veterans and citizens of Massachusetts. At the present time, and for the past 10 years, and possibly for the next 10 years, there will exist an acute shortage of compe- tent registered pharmacists in our State. Due to the limited facilities there are in the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, ‘Western Massachusetts School of Pharmacy, and the New England College of Pharmacy in regard to chemistry, materia medica, pharmaceutical laboratories, there is a short- age of available facilities to fulfill the pres- ent needs. Prior to this year all of the schools have had to turn away students be« cause of this limited laboratory capacity. Many of the veterans who had enrolled for the present year as freahmen have gone back into the armed services, having been in the Reserve. Other applicants who could have taken their places are also in the Reserve and have been recalled, especially the younger men. This has resulted in a situation that will create an injustice to these young men and women on their return from the service, inasmuch as the present law requires that they be enrolled and start their course by July 25, 1951. None of the three Massachu- setts pharmacy colleges now have acceler- ated courses; their courses all start in Sep- tember and October. We cannot say when the present crisis will be terminated, so that these veterans can resume thetr studies. Pharmacists and pharmaceutical chemists 1n the large drug companies in the United States are in great demand and young men completing their courses can get an immediate position with salaries ranging from @65 per week in Greater Boston to over $100 a week in the Middle At- lantic and Southern States. The board of trustees of the New England College of Pharmacy, because of the afore- said situation. have voted to ask your ald in extending the time in which the servicemen can start these courses and complete them. For that reason, we are enclosing a proposed amendment extending the period of starting studies for 15 months so that the boys may start in September of 1951 and September of 1952, especially these boys who are now tn the Reserve. This will protect their rights. If, in your wisdom, you think this time is too long or too short, we shall gladly accept any changes of date you want to make. In any evont, we respectfully urge and re- quest that the entering time be extended until at least October 1, 1961, so that the discrimination against schools having regu- lation courses and not accelerated courses will not hurt the veteran. May we aak you to introduce the enclosed amendment to cure this Injustice, and we are sending a request to other members of the Massachusetts congreasional group in Washington for their support. Thanking you on behalf of our schools, the veterans who will be helped, and the public of Massachusetts who will be served by such an amendment, we are Respectfully yours, Maatin E. ADAMO, President. Consranring N, Mrriano, Dean. Withdrawal From Korea EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. R. POAGE OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ‘ Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rc- ORD, I include the following letter: ConGress oF THE UNITED StTarss, House or REPEESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., January 8, 1951. Mr. . Waco, Tez, Dear Frrenp: Your recent letter in which you suggest our withdrawal from Korea un- doubtedly expresses a widespread and, I fear, growing view. I know that from the stand- point of purely selfish politics it would be smart for me to simply ride with the tide, but I cannot do such a thing when I feel that that tide is simply leading us onto the rocks. ‘ I think we all naturally feel, without rea- soning it through, that if we could but re- pudiate our world-wide commitments, that we could return to the relatively happy and secure days of the past. When we stop to think it through, every one of us knows that it is impossible to make such a return. The one thing that is inevitable in this world is change. The world has changed tre- mendously in your lifetime and mine. It has grown exceedingly small. As the time required to reach distant points has been re- duced, their importance to us has increased. Senator Tarr and Mr. Hoover say, in effect, that we should defend the United States only at our own shores and on our own soll. I am compelled to take exactly the opposite view. When considering the defense of America, I like to take a globe and look for that spot on the globe which is farthest from central Texas. I believe that that will be somewhere in the South Indian Ocean. If it were within my power I would try to start the defense of America at that spot. I fear that if the enemy were to march up the Little River Valley or over the Bosque Moun- tain, no amount of home-guard preparation could save us Of course, I realize that I have pictured two extremes, but I hope I have been able to picture the two basic philosophies which are in conflict. Certainly we must choose one of these two concepts in shaping our entire policy of national defense. If Presi- dent Hoover and Senator Tarr are right, it will be possible for us to abandon the rest of the world to the Communists and live a contented, peaceful, and prosperous life be- tween the two oceans and between the Guif and Canadian borders. This is an intriguing prospect, and I think that I am sufficiently selfish to grasp it if I could believe that it ‘was anything more than an illusion. I can- not, however, believe that we can allow more than 90 percent of the population, territory, and resources of the world to fall into com- munietic hands and survive as an island of democracy and free enterprise. On the con- trary I think we would certainly succumb without the necessity of any communistic A137 military invasion. I don't think any nation can survive the alr age by living to itself alone. I know you will say, “But neither President Hoover nor Senator Tarr contemplated go- ing as far as you are suggesting.” It is true that neither admitted that he was drawing the linea where I have drawn them, and pos- sibly neither realized it, but is it not equally true that if we follow their philosophy, the boundaries will ultimately be exactly where I placed them? Nor does it seem to me that the Senator and the ex-President clearly recognize that we are now engaged in a world-wide con- filct of ideologies—a conflict between the idea of a godless communistic society on the one hand against a theistic (if not in all coun- tries Christian) society in which the rights of property and individuals are recognised on the other—a conflict between dictatorship and democracy, This confitet is in my opin- jon now under way. It is much larger than a simply armed confitct between the United States and Russia. It involves every means of existence. It includes diplomatic, eco- nomic, and propaganda warfare as well as armed conflict. Declared war between the two most powerful nations of the world, of course, overshadows the other elements of the conflict, but these other elements are nonetheless of tremendous importance and could greatly influence the outcome of the larger conflict. The fighting in Korea is a part of this larger conflict Just as is our effort to aline the democracies of Europe on our side. The question then arises, can we with- draw from Korea and expect the United Nations to survive? You will probably agree that such action would be as disastrous to the United Nations as was the failure of the members of the League of Nations to pre- vent aggression in Ethiople, but you will probably say, a8 80 many undoubtedly feel, that the United Nations has failed anyway, and that it is not worth saving. I agree that it has accomplished relatively little, but I cannot agree that it is not worth making an effort to establish collective security in this world. I know of no other way in which we can in ages to come expect to bring about world peace. I, for one, am not going to quit working for world peace. But it would not simply be the United Nations that would lose were we to now abandon the Korean Republic to the Reds. Our own Nation would incur the same con- tempt which Britain incurred after Prime Minister Chamberlain attempted to appease Hitler through British acquiescence in Hit- ler’s aggression, Mr. Chamberlain un- doubtedly honestly belleved, as did many more, that he had saved the lives of British boys, and he did save them for possibly 10 months. But the very next year Britain was engaged in the most terrible confilct in her long history, and the loss of British life was heavier than she had ever known. Doubtless we could retreat from Korea with a mintmum of momentary losses, but were we to do so, would we not openly invite communistic aggression in every other part of the world? Surely we could not expect the Communists to much longer delay a thrust into the middle eastern oil flelds. Would we resist that aggression? Iran ts much farther from American bases than is Korea from our base in Japan and the loss of American lives would doubtless be even greater than it has been in Korea, On the other hand, can we afford to allow the Com- munists to take this great supply of ol! which is so essential to them if they are to carry on any long-continued conflict with America? Without additional oll Russia faces one of the same handicaps which did 80 much to defeat Hitler. Surely, were we to withdraw from Korea, the Chinese Communists would be free to provide overwhelming forces to push the