APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ple of the Philippines. The continuing interest of the American people in the well-being of the people of the Phillippines, no matter who happens to be the temporary trustees of public power here, is best manifested tn the decision to keep Cowen in Manila. It is a wise decision. It is better to have man who, because of ignorance or ee prestige, specially if he is a “lame duck,’ Ukely to be hand in glove with the present regime whose fumigation has been repeatedly And {t 1s an assurance that American aid will go direct to the people, and not into the waiting pockets of known grafters and other undesirable elements who have given the Filipino people a black eye, at home and Water Resources Development in California EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE P. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 3, 1951 Mr. MYLLER of California. Mr, Speaker, M. C. Hermann, quartermaster adjutant of the Department of Califor- nia, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, is an outstanding veteran leader in California. “Sam” Hermann has earned a place as a leader in the national veteran move- ment and is so recognized in veteran circles, No veteran leader has given closer study to the effect that a national water policy will have upon the lives of veterans than has he. For many years he has been in the forefront of the fight for water policy in the Central Valley that will serve the men who fought for us. On December 19, 1950, Mr. Hermann made a statement before a subcommit- tee of the Fublic Lands Committee meet- ing in Sacramento, Calif, Because it is so pertinent to this vital subject I take pleasure in making it available to my colleagues by inserting it tn the Concresstowan Recorv. It follows: Stavemenr or M. C. Heemauy, Quatreamis- vee-AvsuvakT oy THe DEPAarMEwr oF CaLrrognts, Verseams oy Poszion Warns or vse Unrren States, Beror: tax Svuscom- Merrer oF THE House Pus.ic Lawps Com- MITTRE aT SACRAMENTO, DECEMEER 10, 1950 Mr, Chairman and members of the con- gressional committee, my name ts M. C. Her- mann, and J am quartermaster-adjutant of the department of Californie, Veterans of Poreign Wars of the United States, an organ- tsation representing the interests of around 100,000 veterans, all of them with a record of service overseas in the Armed Forces. My business addresa fs 107 Veterans Butiding, Gan Francisco, Calif. In 1044 the Veterans of Foreign Wars made ite first public declaration on water resource development in California. At that time special interests were attempting to break down the protections of reclamation law against water monopoly and speculation. We began by saying we do not want the 160-acre water limitation repealed, under- mined, or weakened. We want veterans to have the greatest chance possible to make a home for thetr families on lands supplied with water by the Federal investment. Our position has had fullest support of reso- lutions by the National Encampmente of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. From 1044 to this day, we have made strtement after statement be- fore committees of the Congress, asking for the complete, early and unified development of water resources in Central Valley under the Federal reclamation law. We do not want the water of Central Val- ley developed as “flood control” projects under “flood control” law, and as separated projects. The Central Valley Basin ts a uni- fied watershed, and under a unified recla- mation project for irrigation and power gen- eration, we shall not worry about floods, for there will be no damaging floods. This is a good time to set some of the record straight. This Nation faces an im- pending crisis, and it is no time to cover up the record when it serves the national interest better to expose it to the light. I have no intention of questioning the motives of any person or organization or official of whom {I shall speak, But neither do I shrink from calling a spade a spade when the public record proves that it is a spade. Certain interests in this State have gone to the greatest Iengths to defeat reclama- tion law, particularly its eminently fair pro- vision that says no one landowner is entitled to water for more than 160 acres of land. The VFW wants that provision enforced, and the American people want it enforced, as the fate of every attempt to repeal it after public hearings has shown. These interests, carrying a banter in- scribed “flood control,” have been prepared to risk even damaging floods like the current ones, in order to destroy that protection in the reclamation laws against private water monopoly and speculation, While they com- plain of floods, they complain of equal treat- ment under the 160-acre water limitation even more. On this, the record, as they have made it, is clear. In arder to escape the 180-acre water Nmitation (perhaps for other special pur- poses as well) certain interests, whom I shall identify from their own public record in ® moment, have gone to extraordinary lengths to persuade Congress that reclamation proj- ects ere not really reclamation projects but flood-control projects Instead. The absurdity of this has been documented recently by a study made for, and publiahed by, the Hoover Commission on iwation of the Ex- ecutive Branch of the Federal Government. Al3 ‘That study shows how the Army engineers, during the period while it seemed necessary to persuade Congress that Kings River and Yulere Lake project was not a reclamation project but a fiood-control project, esti- mated the raito of flood-control benefits to irrigation benefits et 1.19 to 1; but after authorization to the Army engineers was se- cured and appropriations for construction were made and work was begun, then the estimate fell to a ratio of only 0.63 to 1. In other words, to call the project “flood con- trol” was phony; time brought the truth that the project is really for reclamation, which most people knew from the beginning. I speak of this particular project on Kings River and in Tulare Lake Basin, because it is a good illustration, and is causing the Vet- erang of Foreign Wars serious trouble in our effort to obtain farming opportunities for qualified veterans. There are 300 square miles in Tulare Lake Basin with virtually no homes and no towns, more than half of it owned by 25 individuals or corporations, and we are afraid it will stay that way uniess reclamation law 1s enforced and the project is integrated into the great reclamation pro- gram for the Central Valley Basin. That is our long run interest in Kings River and the Tulare Lake Basin—and on Kern River as well. At the present time Pine Fiat dam on the Kings River is under construction by the Army engineers; that is where the coffer- dam recently gave way, and where upper Kings River water users, especially those around Centerville, were flooded. I am not blaming the engineers for the collapse of the cofferdam under unusual stress; simply identifying the project in relation to current flood conditions. The Tulare Lake Basin water-storage dis- trict and the Kings River Water Association, for their purposes, have been willing to Im- pose long delays on construction of the very dams and reservoirs that would prevent the floods that are now occurring. They have been successful in Imposing these delays. They have also succeeded so far in breaking the unity of the Btate water plan for Central Valley and In evading the equitable provi- sions of the reclamation law, including the provisions for repayment of the public in- vestment. As the study made for the Hoover Commission says: “It may well be that the Federal Government will never turn a thin dime for a large part of the irrigation bene- Ats provided by this project, and the bene-~ fits will accrue to the present owners of land rather than to the small independent farmer around whom the whole philosophy of Fed- eral reclamation has been built.” I hope that this committee in its fuller Geliberations will examine into this record of the collapse of public policy on the Kings River and Tulare Lake project. It is long, detailed, and documented. I have joined in presenting that record to Co: upon other occasions, notably before the Senate Committee on Army Civil Functions Appropriations for 1951, pages 745-749. Congresaman Joun F, Suxupey, of the Fifth San Francisco District, supported my state- ment, and our position was carried to the Senate Moor on August 1 and 4, 1950, by Sen- ator Pau. H. Dovarss, of Winols, himself & distinguished veteran thoroughly aroused te the stake of veterans and of the public in reclamation and the 160-acre water limita- tion; Senator Dovonas’ documentation of the record of evasion on Kings River appears in the CoNazzssiona Recomp, volume 96, part 9, pages 11482-11485 and pages 11816- 11817. Pull discuasion of Senator Dova.as’ ‘Contentions at that time was prevented only on the point of order that his proposal in- volved legislation. In other words, rectifica- tion of the Kings River and Tulare Lake altuation Js possible only through the work Of legislative committees. As the appropriate
Al4 legislative committee of the House of Repre- sentatives, I respectfully request that you examine into this condition and that you take appropriate action. As a first step, I recommend that you integrate Kings River and Tulare Lake project into the basin-wide program of the Bureau of Reclamation for Central Vaney. The record is a long one, and I am re- fraining from repeating it here in the in- terest of economy of your time. I trust you will interpret my restraint in that light, and will not underestimate the seriousness of my purpose in calling it, with the places in the public record where it may be found, to your attention. Today our press carries numerous state- ments about the necessity for flood control, For example, our new junior Senator was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 28, 1950, a8 saying: “If anybody needed to be convinced of the need for flood control, he ought to take a flight over the flood area. Having seen the damage caused by the current flood conditions, it will give me and other California Representatives a very potent argument to get appropriations for flood-control projects.” From my preced- ing remarks to this committee, I am sure that you will understand that it 1s not flood control that Central Valley needs, but reclamation. Do not be misled by the double meaning of the words “flood control.” Today some men are claiming hindsight, from whom we have had reason to expect more foresight. According to the San Fran. cisco News of November 21, 1950, Mr. Charles L. Kaupke, Kings River watermaster, was quoted as saying: “If dam and reservoir were in operation, Kings River water users wouldn't be flooded.” According to the San Francisco Chronicle on December 14, 1950, Mr. Edward Hyatt, formerly State engineer, told the Commonwealth Club that contro- versies between the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have delayed needed work, He sald: “Authorized projects which should have been built years ago could have helped to prevent the recent floods which crused $20,000,000 worth of damage in north- ern California.” If these men, and others similarly respon- sible for public water policy in the Central Valley over past years could only have fore- seen what now we all see—that we need not only controlled floods but also water for irri- gation and for all the power we can get to run our defense industries—we should all be much better off. It is even possible that there might be no flood damage at all on the Kings River. The story of delay and obstruction is simple and it is a matter of public record, As early as 1940 the Bureau of Reclamation held legal authorization to proceed with construction of Pine Flat Dam. True, some delay was caused by World War II, but that was not the only, or perhaps the main, delaying factor in get- ting a dam at Pine Flat that would control floods and generate power. On March 14, 1940, for example, the Tulare Lake Basin water storage district, instead of getting behind an appropriation to the Bureau to commence construction promptly, passed a resolution requesting Congressman Gearhart to introduce a bill providing an alternative authorization to the Army engineers. With an authorization to the Bureau of Reclama- tion already in hand, more than 4 years passed by while Kings River and Tulare Lake interests did their work getting an Army engineer authorization, and an additional year before an appropriation could be got to start construction, As a telegram from the Tulare Lake water storage district, placed’ in the hearings of a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee by Mr. Kaupke on May 27, 1945, said: “Over the several past years we have been required to incur much expense in order to assist in preventing this project from being undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation.” The telegram does not give reasons why the district felt required to ob- struct the very construction that would con- trol flooding over its lands, It would be incorrect to saddle the Tulare Lake Basin interests with entire responsi- bility for the program of delay. The record of a House Appropriations Subcommittee about the same time in 1945, shows southern San Joaquin Valley interests blocking appro- priations to the Bureau of Reclamation on Kings River on the expressed grounds that the Bureau program would provide for prompt generation of hydroelectric power, and that this would not ocour if the Army engineers should be authorized to construct the project. (Hearings before the subcom- mittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 79th Cong. lst sess., On the Interior Department appropria- tion bill for 1946, pp. 1373-1386.) During these years of delay and construc- tion of a dam that would control floods, serve irrigation, and generate power on the Kings River, I have found no public statement by Mr. Hyatt, then State engineer, urging prompt appropriations to the Bureau of Reclamation to get the Kings project going. Later on, however, he became very active when there was a chance to get an appropria- tion for the Army engineers. Following a gesture of impartiality between Reclama- tion and Army engineers as agencies of con- struction, his representative in Washington said, “If appropriations are postponed now, the delay in getting flood relief will be a year or a year and a half. The need is ur- gent.” He did not say why the urgency of need for flood relief did not move the State engineer to support earlier appropriations to the Bureau of Reclamation that would have afforded the same relief sooner. The position of the State engineer’s office ig all the harder to understand because the State water plan, drawn up by the engineer's office, declares Pine Flat Dam to be an in- tegral part of basin development. The State engineer's report of 1931 says “It was con- cluded that Pine Flat Reservoir should be included as a unit for ultimate development of the State water plan for the San Joaquin River Basin.” Unless the State engineer’s office has changed its mind from the days when the Btate water plan was drafted, we should be entitled to expect now, as a mini- mum, that it will give its full support to the complete integration of Kings River and Tulare Lake Basin project into the Central Valley Basin development. The truth is, the only way to provide stable and adequate water supply conditions and flood control on that 300 square miles of Tulare Lake Basin is to do as the State water plan originally required—make Kings River and Tulare Lake project a unified part of the Central Valley project, and enforce the reclamation law. This will support family farms and thriving towns. Speaking of the need for unity of develop- ment of Central Valley water resources— legal unity, administrative unity, economics unity—California wants full development, and most Californians know that without unified development we will never get full development. We all know that the more profitable has to help pay for the less profit- able, in order to make the full development economically sound. The Governor of this State has spoken the wishes of the people when he said “California needs to make the fullest use of its water resources.” The State water plan was drawn to accomplish that purpose. Do not be misled, therefore, when the State engineer's office forgets the high purpose of its own great, unified plan, and appears willing to lend a hand in the de- struction of unity, as on Kings and Kern Rivers. Similarly, do not be misled by the declara- tion of the State director of public works, who told the President's Water Resources Policy Commission in June 1950 that “each unit should be analyzed as to its economic APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD justification at the time of the need for cone struction.” For I am confident that the Governor knows, even if his director does not, that economic unity is the best and probably the only way ever to secure the fullest use of our Central Vailey waters. Do not be misled by the endless repeti- tion of spokesmen on Kings River that the Bureau of Reclamation is going to deprive any water users of their water rights. There igs purpose behind the repetition, but the statement, on the face of it is false. Recla- mation law specifically requires the Bureau to respect those water rights, and the courts of the United States are open to anybody who thinks his rights are not being pro- tected as required by law. I have not lost faith in the integrity of either the American Congress or the American courts, and I see no reason why that faith should be under- mined by any differences of opinion on the Kings River or in Tulare Lake or anywhere else. Finally, do not be misled by the outcries about socialism and about Federal bureau- crats and Federal domination into thinking that the people of California do not want Federal assistance. The acreage limitation and public power protections against mo- nopoly and speculation are the real target of those who seek to stir a false antagonism between State and Federal Governments. The Veterans of Foreign Wars knows full well that veterans’ opportunities for em- ployment in our factories and on the land depend on full development under the rec- lamation law, We have not witnessed the benefits of land openings to veterans by rec- Jamation in northern California, the curtail- ment of employment in the San Francisco Bay area in 1948 because of power shortage, and the decision of industries to locate else- where because of unfavorable power quan- tities and rates here, without a growing con- viction in the soundness of the Federal rec- Jamation program for Central Valley, which 1s Just the elaboration of the State’s own water plan. We ask you to consider the reclamation plan for the Central Valley Basin, printed as Senate Document No. 118 of the Eighty-first Congress, and then to take the earliest steps you can to put it into operation. It will serve the needs of the veterans and the peo- ple, the West, and the Nation in peace or m war. The New Isolationism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFFORD R. HOPE OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mr. HOPE. Mr. Speaker, the recent speech of former President Herbert Hoover on foreign policy is being widely discussed throughout America. While I do not agree with all that Mr. Hoover said, I believe his address was timely and that he said some things which very much needed to be said at this time. I fee] sure that his address has done much to clear the atmosphere of uncertainty which has prevailed in the field of for- eign affairs and that it will do much to bring about the development of a sound American foreign policy. One reason the Hoover proposal sounds good to so many people is because it seems clear and definite as contrasted with the weakness and vagueness of the policy that has been followed since the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD end of World War Il. Millions of Ameri- cans feel that our diplomats have lost everything we gained through World ‘Warll. They know that we have neither the military or economic strength to con- tinue the policy of globalism which in- volyes trying to put out the fires of communism wherever they break out. While I feel that a continuation of our present reckless foreign poli¢y, which is being carried out without any apparent consideration of its costs or ita results, would be a fatal mistake, I am just as much opposed to a return to a policy of isolationism which is what a literal ac- ceptance of Mr. Hoover's proposal would mean, Somewhere between globalism and isolationism ‘here is room for a sound, realistic American foreign policy. In a recent issue of the Hutchinson News Herald, of Hutchinson, Kans., there is contained an excellent editorial which points out in a most effective way the weaknesses of the Hoover proposal. Be- lieving that this editorial will be of in- terest to every Member of Congress and all who read the ConcrEssionaL RecorpD, I am including it herewith under leave to extend my remarks, It follows: Tue New Iso.aTIONIsM The new isolationism, for which Herbert Hoover is major spokesman, proposes we voluntarily withdraw from Europe and Asia and pin our survival hopes on building a fortress America. It is a defeatist policy. The loss of ground:-—of staging areas and allies—spelis defeat whether we retreat willingly or are beater back. The Hoover policy is based on three as- sumptions: 1, That we can live, economically, cut off from the rest of the world. 2. That we can keep alive cherished po- litical Mberties and social goods, cooped up in a fortress. 8. That eventually we will win because communism is bound to rot from within and be overthrown. First, in theory, the Western Hemisphere is self-sufficient. World War II proved that for & short period we can get along without world trade. Over the long pull we couldn't do it without a completely changed and controlled economy. Once we reached the plateau of full armament, the economy would have to be locked into place. Second, living for years behind fortress walls could only mean the security meas- ures the term suggests. No one comes in. No one goes out. Security police become the rulers. Liberty could survive a short period of war emergency. Could it survive decades of being on guard? Finally, will Communist dictatorship die of its own evil? What dictatorship ever did? The Romans, Napoleon, Hitler, were not over- thrown from within; they were defeated or softened up by aggressive forces from with- out. The Russian Communists have perfected & control system old dictators never dreamed ct. Terror has become a scientifically ad- ministered drug, designed to parplyze those who would revolt. The Roman Empire was weakened by over- expansion, The Russians might suffer the game, If they get too many puppets, sooner or later one will get out of hand. But if the Kremlin needn’t worry about wa, snug behind our fortress, it can easily put down any dissenters. : Tf we no longer even offer to help the Titos, Russia will not le: the Tits live long. ‘This is the weakest assumption in Hoov~ er's argument—that Russia will fall scon enough to prevent us falling victim to our isolation. The whole policy is spoken and acclaimed . because we interpret the Korean defeat as a general defeat. Actually Korea is a result of the success of our foreign policy, not of ite failure. We whipped the Communists in France, Italy, Berlin, Greece, and nursed the breach in Yugoslavia. From 1947 on, Russia lost stead- fiy in the west. She had to turn Hast to find a victory. We lost in Korea. Should we give up now all we have won elsewhere? We might well take a cue from our enemy who doesn’t run poming to the dugout when he has a bad nning. Gallup Polls — REMARKS HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN oF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January €,1951 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to call the attention of the Mervbers of the House to two Gallup polls, one dated December 20 and one dated December 22, 1950, which for some reason or other failed to appear in the Washington Post, the local Washington paper that carries the Gallup polls. I feel that the Members of the Congress should avail themselves of these polls. Mr. Speaker, being a newspaper pub- lisher myself, I am very sure that inas- much as these polls were issued just prior to the Christmas season or to Christmas itself that probably—in fact I am sure—the only reason why they were not printed was because of the heavy lineage of advertising at that par- ticular season of the year. These polls follow: Unrren States Pusrrc Cetrican Towarp AD- MINISTRATION’S Forxian FPouicr tm ASIA, Sorver SHows—Masoriry Cau Ir Poor Jos; Wrow Variety or Mistakes Ciren By VOTERS IN OPINION STupYy (By George Gallup, director, American Institute of Public Opinion) PRINCETON, N. J., December 19.-—An over- whelming majority of Americans think that the United States Government has done a poor job in handling our foreign policy in a. A wide variety of mistakes are named by voters interviewed on the question in a na- tional opinion survey, with no one item get- ting more than 20 percent of the vote. The largest number criticize the military on the grounds of poor preparation and inadequate intelligence in Korea. Others say we were too easygoing in our attitude toward Asiatic Communists. Still others insist that our main mistake was in abandoning Chiang Kai-shek and ignoring the Chinese Nationalists. Some also say that our major error was in going into Korea in the first place. All persons questioned in this survey were "Doe you think our Government in Wash- ington has been doing a good job or a poor job of handling our foreign policy in Asia— that ls, in Korea, China, atc.?” The national vote is: Percent Go0d Job..---------2nne--neveenen-eeee 17 Fair Hnenesttawonsnanacanvananwnnnne B1 Poor Job .-2.-nnwenncwenwenecceeennee 80 NO OPINION. nnwnnenensennnananwesen non 12 Total ..ncccnmeneraweccennnn--—-- 100 Al5 Opinion splits along nes, with Republicats more critical of our Aalatic policy than Democrats are. But even among Democrats the weight of opinion is unfavor- able, aa the following table shows: MAJOR MISTAKES NAMED All voters in the sample were next asked: “What mistakes, if any, would you say our Government has made in handling the situ- ation in Asia?” Here is a summary of the results: Percent Military situation criticized, poor prep- aration ~......---.--..------ wawwwenn 18 Too lenient with Reds, too soft........ 11 Intervention in Asia a mistake, should have stayed out of Korea....-....-.. 9 Failure to back Chiang.......-.-..--... 9 Lack of foresight, should have antici- pated fighting China.......... eoeeee 6 Inconsistency in Asia policy.. -~ 4 Miscellaneous _........ ween - 13 No mistakes made........... - Don't know........-.------- wemnnwenee 25 101 The table adds to more than 100 percent because some voters named more than one mistake. Here are some voters’ comments typifying the point of view of those who criticize the military aspects of our Astatic policy: “Our intelligence was weak in not finding out what the Chinese would do.” “We should have handled Manchuria bet. ter. No foresight.” “Our defense was on paper; we weren’t prepared,” “Our mistake was not having enough men and equipment now to fight with.” Other comments: “We ignore Chiang but we don’t recognize Red China; we've fallen between two chairs.” “It all goes back to Roosevelt and the deals he made with Ruasia.” ‘she mistake was in not giving MacArthur full power.” “Our whole policy was fickle and incon- sistent. First we encouraged the Reds in China and now we find they're fighting us.” “The blunder was in thinking the Chi- nese Reds were only agrarian reformers and wouldn't do what Moscow told them.” “We bungled, gambled-—-and lost.” WEIGHT oF OPINION FouND UNFAVORABLE TO AcHESON; Views Srurr sy Parry Linss— Survey Finps REPUBLICANS 8 To 1 FoR His ResicNation, WHiILe Democrats Favor Him (By George Gallup, director, American In- stitute of Public Opinion) Princeton, N. J., December 21.—Despite continual attacks against Secretary of State Dean Acheson and demands for his resigna- tion, public sentiment ts divided on the question of whether he should step down from office. More voters say they are against him than for him—~but opinion divides to a consider- able extent partisan lines. Republicans want him to go, by a vote of about 3 to 1. But among Democrats the weight of opinion rests in the Secretary's favor by a smal) margin. In answer to the question, “Will you tell me who Dean Acheson is?” approximately one-third were not able to identify the name. These facta are revealed in an opinion gurvadg amnne oo halansedt amen aantinn aft
Al6 the voting population. The study was con- ducted by the Institute using methods which enabled it to forecast the recent congressional elections with an error of only 1 percentage point. Al persons who could correctly identify Mr. Acheson were asked: “In general, is your opinion of Dean Acheson as Secretary of State favorable or unfavorable?” Percent Favorable......--.-- weemnnnenenennnnee 20 Unfavorable... 2. enn en newer ee nn 81 No opinion ....... wemewennewwmenncawee 15 66 Could not identify....... wwemewnnecnne 384 100 Here is the national vote on the final survey question: “What do you, yourself, think—should Dean Acheson stay om in his present posi- tion, or should he be replaced?” Percent Stay on_... ~~. eee ne 21 Replaced... ~--- 80 No opinion ......-.....-- wnnne 15 66 Could not identify....-.-....-....-... 84 100 PARTY SPLIT Virtually all the attacks on the Secretary have come from Republicans, both in and out of Congress. Democratic leaders, from the President down, have stanchly defended him. In fact, when the Secretary flew to Brussels this last weekend to a meeting of the 12 At- lantic Pact nations, the President in a pub- lic statement declared: “Secretary Acheson goes to this meeting with my complete confidence.” The partisan nature of attitudes toward Secretary Acheson can be seen from the following vote in the survey: Repub- licans Percent | Percent Btay on.... - 13 26 Replaced 43 19 No opini 4 14 70 59 73 Could not identify...... 30 41 27 erwecenencces 100 To a considerable extent Secretary Ache- son's own popularity as a Cabinet member is linked with the popularity of President Tru- man. In recent months this has been at a comparatively low point in surveys by the institute. Questions Face Us EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE P. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 3, 1951 Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Daily Review, of Hayward, Calif., published a pertinent editorial under date of December 22, 1950. These are soul searching days in which the American people must choose the right course to follow or jeopardize the future of our democracy that is our vaunted way of life, The Nation needs more editorials like this, not the rantings of the Monday- morning-quarterback-type of armchair strategist or the self-anointed foreign affairs expert. I am happy to have permission to in- clude this down-to-earth editorial by a typical American newspaper man in the REcorp. It follows: QUESTIONS FACE Us If former President Herbert Hoover has done nothing else in this time of national emergency, he has placed before the Ameri- can people the problem of determining our foreign policy. For some years we have been handed a foreign policy from the national administra- tion without any explanatory notes. Often- times we found our policy was not really what we had thought it, or had been changed since previous information. In short, we were without a policy except, perhaps, in the highest of policy forming groups within the State Department. We can't agree with the conclusion of our distinguished former President 100 percent. Even before he spoke we imagined there would be difference of opinion on his sugges- tions. That is natural. This is our democ- racy; each of us has varying ideas of how it should be run. Now is the time for us to compromise our differences after discussion. One thing is sure: We must make our Na-~- tion the “Gibraltar of western civilization.” No other people are in a position to lead the fight against communism. But should we build up our Navy and Air Force without vastly increasing the size of our Army? Should we make England and Japan our frontier of defense, or should we try to hold Western Europe and free portions of Asia? Should we try to build up our forces to a set point, then balance the budget and build up our economy? Or should we continue to strengthen our forces until all threat of Communist invasion ends? Should we cut off dollar and military aid to Europe, leaving that area to its own re- sources, or should we try to aid in building them while butiding ourselves? These are the questions. We, the people, must give the answers in our hearts 80 rep- resentative government in Washington can be truly representative. Lowell’s First Amputee of the Korean Conflict EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing article from the Lowell Sun, tell- ing the story of Lowell's first double amputee of the Korean conflict. It is well worth reading, for it shows clearly the fine attitude of the young veteran, his cheery hopeful outlook for the fu- ture, and his bravery in facing that fu- ture with his physical handicap of two artificial legs. The article follows: Lower.y’s First AMPUTEER or TH1s War Says Stop Commiurs mv Korza—Prc. Rorert E. Dixon Lost Boru Lacs in Tarau Barrie (By Thomas C. Gallagher) LowsiL.—A pink-cheeked boy of 18, who lost both legs while fighting with the First APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Marine Division at Taegu, believes that Com- munist aggression must be stopped in Korea, if it is to be stopped at all. Expressing this conviction in an inter- view at his home today was Pfc. Robert E. Dixon, United States Marine Corps, son of Mr. and Mrs. Bertrand E. Dixon of 24 Bar- cley Street in the Highlands. Lowell's first amputee of the Korean confiict, he ts cur- rently on leave from United States Naval Hospital in Oakland, Calif. RED TIDE WILL SPREAD “If we pull out of Korea the Communists will not only take over there, but will quickly move on to Formosa and eventually into Japan" young Dixon pointed out, adding: “With a Communist fifth column already hard at work in Japan, I don't think the Communists would have too much difficulty enveloping the country.” He freely admitted, however, that some of his fellow marines held divergent views. Although morale was high, the young ma- rine stated, not a few fighting men felt that they were fighting and dying “for nothing” and asked the question: “What are we out here for, anyway, and what are we fighting for?” ENLISTED AT 17 The war was a brutally short one for Pri- vate First Claes Dixon, who, at the age of 17, left Lowell High School to enter the Marine Corps. His parents signed the necessary papers after he “pestered them for weeks.” A brother, Bertrand, Jr., only other child of the Dixons, had been a marine in World War II. Intent on making the Marine Corps his career, young Dixon went through the nor- mal training and, in October of 1949, was shipped to Hawaii, On September 1, with a contingent of re- placements, Private First Class Dixon land- ed at the port of Pusan, Korea. Early on the morning of September 4 he was asleep in a fox hole at Taegu A gen- eral advance against the North Koreans was scheduled to begin that day—an advance which was ultimately to push the Korean Reds to the Manchurian border and bring the Chinese Communist hordes pouring into Korea. EXPLODES MYTH This is the way he tells it: “I was awakened by the sound of artillery. It was the Commies. A shell came whining over. There was a blast, and I must have passed out. “Once I read where you never have to worry when you hear the whine of a shell, because you never hear the one that hits you. Take it from me, it just isn’t so.” All the details of what happened there- after are not clear to Private First Class Dixon, He does remember that three bud- dies managed to get him into a jeep and move him back to an aid station, where a hospital corpsman administered blood Plasma. GETS PLASMA He was bleeding badly, and considerable Plasma was required to keep him alive, After a period of hospitalization in Japan he was transferred Stateside. Frequent blood transfusions over a 2-month period made his excellent recovery possibile, "I jus, couldn't keep count of all the blood they gave me, but it was enough so I guess there just isn’t very much of my own blood left,” he said with a grin. In connection with his many blood trans- fusions, he had this to say about the Red Cross: “The Red Cross undoubtedly saved my life. Blood was made available to me not only in Japan and in the Oakland hospital, but on the battlefield in Korea, when I needed it most. I learned that all of it was blood collected by the Red Cross,” He had an interesting observation to make on the Japanese.