A58 eftort that underlies great legislative achieve- men Tf we at times seem indifferent, or even apathetic to the changing tides of political sentiment sd quickly reflected in the chang- ing personnel of Congress, it is because we have learned the curiously repetitive pat- terne of history, We have learned to recover quickly from our grief at the defeat of old friends, for we know that the ultimate wisdom of the people will either send them back or provide sub- atitutes in the form of new friends. We have, likewise, learned to restrain our enthusiasm when that same wisdom of the people removes fram Congress an occasional thorn in the side of the body politic; for we have learned that with every change of season, nature provides new thorns. Every 2 years we stand here on the side- lines—stlent witnesses to the phenomenon of a national election, and await the result with fatalistic fortitude. We read the returns, we say to ourselves: “What hath God wrought!” And with this reverent ejaculation bid farewell to old faces and warm welcome to those who return or who, for the first time, have won their spurs in free and fair elections. Experience has taught us that the people send good men and women, by and large, to Congress, men and women above the aver- age in intelligence, accomplishment, and in their jealous regard for the public welfare and the institutions established to advance it. Our experience, in this connection, goes back a long way in the life of our Nation, however brief 1t may be in the history of the world. Last summer we passed the one hundred and sixtieth anniversary of the decision by Congress, reached on July 16, 1790, to estab- lish in this area a seat of government, under exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress. It was a close decision, reached by the narrow margin of 3% to 29 in the House and 14 to 12 in the Senate. But it was a decision that held. And 10 years later Congress came to Washington. Just a few weeks ago we passed the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that first meeting of Congress in Washington. On that day, November 22, 1800, 138 mem- bers of the second session of the sixth Con- gress met for the firet time in the new Capli- tol. Only a part of the Capitol building had been made ready for this event. Members of that Congress lacked such bare necessities of life in legialative Halls as foam rubber cushioned seats, the soft glow of indirect lighting, the man-made miracle of regulated accoustics and the g’amour imparted by graceful draperies of fetching hue, hung from roofs that fabricated steel will not permit to fall down on the heads of those below. President John Adams, who welcomed this Congress to Washington doubtless had this in mind when he said with prophetic opti- mism: “Although there is cause to appre- hend that accommodations are not now 60 complete as might be wished, yet there is great reason to believe that this inconven- fence will cease.” Ladies and gentlemen, those of you who have visited the newly decorated Chambers of House and Senate so recently prepared for your illustrious presence will agree, I believe, that inconvenience has indeed ceased. Pertod. President Adams left to the Members of this Congress decision whether they would immediately exercise the powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Consti- tution tn the Congress of the United States. “If tn your opinion,” he said, “this im- portant trust ought now to be exercised, you cannot fall, while performing it, to take into view the future probable situation of the Territory for the happiness of which you are about to provide. ‘You will consider it as the Capital of a great Nation advancing with unexampled rapidity in arts and commerce, in wealth, and in population; and possessing, within {iteelf, those energies and resources which, if not thrown away or lamentably mis. directed, will assure to it a long course of prosperity and self-government.” That first Congress which met in Wash- ington did not choose to exercise the trust imposed by the Constitution. There were other things to think about. Many years passed before Congress began to think of Washington as the Capital of a great Na- tion, or to provide for its development in accordance with that concept. But it is that concept which has grown deeper with the years. We find, in the beautiful city we know today, increasing evidence that Con- gress shares the pride of all good Americana in their Capital and is motivated by a desire to make its development symbolic of the achievements, the strength, and aspirations of a great Nation. We, who live here, share with the Members of Congress responsibility for making this desire our living guide. I ask your indul- gence in briefly examining some of the attri- butes of the unusual partnership which brings us together in that great enterprise. Under the terms of the Constitution, it is you who make all the decisions. You tell us, for example, in addition to the Federal taxes that all Americans pay, the sort of local taxes we must pay. In this respert you have shown great ingenuity. We pay personal- and business-income taxes, real- and tan- gible-property taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes—taxes on the oi] with which we are anointed at birth and taxes on the casket in which we are laid to rest when, tired of paying taxes, we seek that total exemption found only in the grave. More than 50 percent of the District's real property is exempt from any taxation, be- cause of its ownership by Government and other privileged institutions, and other means must be found to make up in revenue what is lost through this extraordinary and increasing proportion of real property ex- emption. The different sections of the country from which you gentlemen come prefer different kinds of taxes. So, when all of you are to~ gether in the legislative Chambers on Capi- tol Hill, there seems to be an irresistible temptation to apply here everything that each one of you has learned about back home. The amount of money from these taxes has become quite substantial. This year, sitting as our local legislature, you will be called on to appropriate about $135,000,000 to support our local government and its undertakings. More than 90 percent of this money is raise? through purely local taxes. In addition to the decisions regarding local expenditures, you must enact all the legis- lation which enables the money to be spent, and in the course of a long session of Con- gress thie legislation takes the form of soores of separate bills, dealing tn minute detail with the many problems that enter into the conduct of a great metropolitan community. This responsibility can be an onerous one, and we of Washington appreciate that fact. You are elected to Congress by the people of your districts, or your States. You natu- rally feel that it is to them you owe your primary allegiance. If your activities in connection with the constitutionally im- posed duty of legislating exolusively for this Capital City appears to the voters back home to take too much of the time they feel be- longs to them, you may be criticized for it. At least that is the theory, though in prac- tice there are few men indeed whose con- structive work for the Nation's Capital has gone unappreciated, here or back home. As evidence of that let me cite the happy cir- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cumstance which finds every member of the House District Committee of the Bighty-first returned to the Eighty-second, There was one casualty in the Senate Dis- trict Committee. But I do not remember that Senator Pepper ever attributed his de- feat to anything he did for the District of Columbia. My recollection is that he at- tributed his defeat to Senator Smarzzas. No Member of Congress in recent years worked more conscientiously and more con- splcuously for the District than Everett Dmxsen, of Mlinois. What does he do? Goes pack home and gets himself elected to the Senate. Do you need any further proof that work for the District of Colum- bia carries ita own reward? Members of Congress are subject to the often conflicting pressures of groups of voters back home, working through the industri- ous agents of these groups in Washington. These groups are forever seeking to have things done, or left undone, in Washington because of the possible effect on things they wish to have done, or left undone, back home. And you must often walk a tight- rope between these pressures from abroad and the best interests of the people for whose Government you—and only you-are re- sponsibie. We of Washington understand these things. It is because we understand them so well that we place extraordinary value on the services of Members who are assigned to the committees charged with direct re- sponsibility for local government. But the Members of Congress who win our undying gratitude are those who do not look for the hazards, but who seek the oppor- tunities of service to the Nation which lie in serving the best interests of the Nation’s city. Many of the great men in Congress have found that opportunity and have left with us cherished memories, permanently engraved on the cornerstones of the Capi- tal’s history. As we understand you, so those whose service lengthens in Congress come to un- derstand us. They know we live under one of the most curious political contradictions to be found anywhere in the world—men and women whose accidental residence in the Capital of a Nation dedicated to the principles of self government are denied all means of partici- pation in that Government. They know that often we do not agree among ourselves. One of the sources of oc- casional annoyance on Capitol Hill is this inability to agree. In this respect, of course, we are not unlike other Americans, one of whose prized possessions is the right to dis- agree. The difference is that we lack here the normal means of resolving disagreement by electing representatives of our own choos- ing to speak for us in Congress. For as long as Congress remains in exclusive control of the American seat of government—a provi- sion which I believe moat citizens agree ts wise—Congress is our local government and it is in Congress, rather than in one of its agencies, that we need representation. Experienced Members of Congress know that there are two Washingtons. There ts the political Washington, the Washington that is a figure of speech or a state of mind rather than a physical entity. This ts the Washington that governs 4 great Nation and which has become a sort of Capital of the world. It provides an arena in which there is a continuing struggle for power between antagonistic interests and ideas and where an occasional Christian is thrown to the Hons to enliven the interest of the vast audience. Betng a great public spectacle, it attracts the usual retainers and concessionaires—the lobbyists, the pressure groups, the socielly and politically ambitious, the climbers, the echemers, all staging thelr own little side- shows or hawking their wares on the fringes
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the big show. This ts the Washington most often pictured to the country—-a con- fused, quarrelsome, gossipping, backbiting, meddlesome Washington, plunging irom crisis to disaster, then climbing back to crisis again, But there is the other Washington—the Washington of faithful public servants, of self-respecting American men and women in private employment. In this Washington there are more wage earners off than on the Government payroll. But whether off or on, they are found working loyally together at their jobs, proud of thelr city, proud of their country, ambitious for their children, sup- porting their churches, working for better homes, better schools, better libraries, better playgrounds, all of the things that go to make a better community and a better un- derstanding of how to live together. You will quickly learn to know that first Washington, for it is the Washington that you hear most about. It is the Washington which your people back home may resent and even fear, and you will want no sugges- tion from any source that it has infected ou. y What we want you to know is that second Washington. For you will find-that this is the real Washington—the Washington that js made up of your kind of folks, the sort of people you know back home and whose votes sent you here to Congress. The people of this real Washington make their homes here. They do not change with each new political crisis or election, here today. and gone tomorrow. They do not think of Con- gress as an unwieldy, unpredictable, or un- dependable organism of big government. They think of it as a group of men and women chosen by the people to solve the in- creasingly complex problem of making suc- cessful a great experiment in representative government, The people of this real Washington respect you. They want you to know them. For they believe that when you learn to know them you will think of them as friends and neighbors whose interests and whose destiny as @ community are very closely bound up with your own. Heartbreak Highway EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts, Mr, Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing editorial from the New York Times of January 7, 1951: HEARTBREAK HIGHWAY Kighth Army troops retiring southward be- low Seoul are traveling a road they know— and hate. Down this thoroughfare last sum- mer passed the battered regiments thrown into a doomed battle to check the North Korean advance. They retreated under a killing aun and in clouds of dust. The weeks went by and the reinforced United Nations troops marched victoriously forward. Now in the deadly cold of winter they are again be- ing driven south. The dust ts still there, As an Associated Press dispatch spoke of it, it is dust that ‘coated the face, clogged the nostrils, turned eyes into watery red slits, and filled the mouth with so much sand you felt your teeth were wearing away.” Beside this tragic route Ne the graves of many dead. American casualties alone have now passed 40,000, with a death toll, not yet brought down to date, of 6,761. No wonder the GI's call the passage south from Seoul Heartbreak Highway. The Korean veteran in the bitterness which accompanies even an orderly retreat in the presence of overwhelming numbers of the enemy may well ask himself whether these dead have died in vain. It is hard for us at home who have not borne the burden of the battle to find any words to answer him. But if the time comes when the United Nations is strong in honor and in power to enforce its decisions, if the time comes when no weak nation is exposed to aggression, if the time comes when there is a world law of frecdom and justice—then surely the nations will look back to the graves in Korea through an atmosphere no longer obscured by the dust of confiict and will say with certainty that the blood spilled in Korea was not wasted, and that out of it, even after long torment, there did come “a new birth of freedom.” Who Is Fighting the UN War?—United States Gets No More Aid Against Fresh Enemy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the President deliver his first address to the Eighty-second Congress on the state of the Nation. Surely these are troubled days in which we live. Our people back home seem more alert and more appreciative of our plight than do Members of Congress or the Presi- dent. While it is a fact that technically as a Nation we are not at war, in reality we are at war. Strictly speaking we are one of the members of the United Na- tions making our commitments in Korea; but, as a matter of fact, we seem to be practically the only member of the United Nations supplying either men or material in Korea. As members of the United Nations, we are, in a sense, part- ners in an undertaking. Partnership agreements are serious. Partners can make or break you. While we have hoped and prayed for the success of the United Nations, unless other mem- bers of this compact give immediate evi- dence of their intentions to carry a greater portion of the load, prospects are not bright. Attached hereto I enclose, as a part of my remarks, an excerpt from the January 12 issue of the United States News and World Report: Wno Is FicHTING tHE UN War?—UNITED States Gets No More Aw AGaInst Fresh ENEMY United States troops can’t count on much more outside help for the next phase in Korea, Others have put up about all they plan. Communists, in fighting men, hold almost & 2-to-1 advantage. And there are millions more where those came front. On the other side, United States casualties alone are more than twice the total troops sent in by other UN allies, The start of one more inning ‘n Korea finds the line-up changed greatly on the A59 Communist side, but virtually unchanged on the side of the United States and the UN. A whole new team js thrown in by the Communists. Chinezge now make up two- thirds of the Communist forces. North Ko- reans, mainstay of the Communist side in the first 6 months of fighting, take second place. Communists, in land forces, have 444,000 men involved, as shown on the accompany- ing map They have little artillery, few tanks, little air support. Their air arm has Russian planes with pilots of unknown na- tionality, probably Chinese. : UN combat troops total a little under 275,- 000. The bulk of these is provided by the United States. American combat forces in Korea number around 150,000. South Ko- reans come next with a strength of probably 100,000. American casualties are around 50,000 so far, and South Korean losses are very heavy. No new troops are being supplied by UN countries, although Colombia is preparing to send a battalion later. Canada, which or- ganized a brigade to fight in Korea, proposes to send most of it to Europe, instead. The Canadian battalion already in Korea still is undergoing training. Britain is leaving her ground strength in Korea at 10,000, pointing out that her far eastern fleet has been serving as part of the UN naval forces almost since the outbreak of the Korean trouble. Australia has a ground unit of 1,500 in action. Turkey's force, originally 4,500, has suffered severe losses. France has 1,400 soldiers in Korea. She says she cannot furnish more because of the war she is fighting against Communists in Indochina. Siam’s unit numbers about 1,200, as does that of the Philippine Republic. Forces of Belgium and Luxemburg, New Zea- land, Greece, and the Netherlands are smaller. No other countries have furnished ground forces for the war in Korer, although some are giving naval or air support. India, with the third largest population in the world, has sent a medical unit, but no fighting men, A medical unit, not combat troops, has been furnished by Sweden. Latin America is not represented at all among the UN ground forces at this time. Argentina, which spends a large part of her budget on a big and well-trained army, is keeping her soldiers at home. Brazil and Mexico, the two other big countries in Latin America, have good-sized armies, but no troops fighting in Korea. While some small countries have offered recruits, these offers have not been accepted because of the time required to train inexperienced men. The United States thus, is furnishing the major part of the ground troops fighting the Communists in Korea. Although General MacArthur pleaded for help from other members of the UN, the 24,300 soldiers he actually has received from them amount to less than half the casualties suffered so far by American Ground Forces. Change of Rules EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, much misleading information has been put forth from administration sources on the action of the House in restoring to its Committee on Rules the
A&0 control it formerly had to direct the flow of legislation before the House. Radio commentators and newspaper columnists who follow the Fair Deal line would have us believe that this action gives the com- mittee autocratic power over all legisla- tion. This is not true, for it merely re- stores the rule that was adopted after the historic fight spearheaded by Senator George W. Norris, when he was 8 Mem- ber of the House, to take dictatorial pow- ers away from the Speaker. The rule was in effect until the beginning of the Eighty-first Congress, In operation it gives the Committee on Rules the power to consider the relative importance of all bills reported by legis- lative committees and schedule for ac- tion those that the responsible leader-~ ship of both parties believe should be considered. When the motion was made 2 years ago to change the rule by per- mitting committee chairmen to bring a bill before the House if the Rules Com- mittee had not reported it within 21 days, I voted for it. Experience has convinced me that the change has not only proved costly to the taxpayers but could bring disaster to the Government’s financial structure. As an illustration, I would point out that in the Eightieth Congress legislative committees reported bills that would have cost the taxpayers $20,000,- 000,000 more than the revenue estimated to be received by the Government in those 2 years. In spite of the false propaganda on this subject there are two effective ways to bring legislation before the House with- out the approval of the Rules Committee. On Calendar Wednesday, which occurs twice each month, chairmen of legisla- tive committees may bring up bills for consideration of the House that have been reported by their committees. Any Mem- ber who desires to have a bill considered may prepare a petition to have the com- mittee discharged from further consid- eration of it and, when he has secured the signatures of 218 Members, a major- ity of the House, it will automatically come up for action. I am not willing to go back on the handiwork of Senator George W. Norris. It was his efforts which finally resulted in a change of the rules that took from the Speaker dicta- torial powers. I am no} willing that we should go back to that rule or to permit @ small handful of radicals to disturb normal legislative procedures. While I did vote for the change in the rule 2 years ago, I now realize that experience has shown that it does not work. It was for that reason that I voted to restore the rule, The Wisdom of the People EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask Permission to insert in the Rzcorn, this editorial from a recent issue of the Tid- ings, official weekly publication of the archdiocese, of Los Angeles. I concur wholeheartedly in the deductions there- in, The editorial follows: Tar Wrsv0om or THE Pror.s ‘There is still the torrent of words in cor- rect syntax and measured cadence, phrased impeccably. There fs still the alr of de- tachment, the aloofness of an ivory tower, the sustained calm as the columns crumble. There is still the icy disdain of the oom- monsense of the American people as it awakes in the swift surge of disaster. And Secretary Acheson grimly the un- deviating course which, with the shame of further appeasement, can only increase the gathering peril. There must be no reexamination of policy, no searching of the national soul as our diplomacy scrupulously adheres to the evil commitments of Yalta, never revealed fully to the American people, never approved by our elected representatives in plenary ses- sion. How can the Nation hope for the Dlessings of peace from such perfidy, such dishonor? The friends we favored fast fade away in our plight, bored by our cynicism and sophistry, Only the brave souls of lead- ers, to whom we refused the of velor and the bond of fellowship, stand ready to ald us even in thelr helplessness of our own making. The President must heed the will of the people as It rises in unanimous chorus over the land. This is the voice of a people in- flamed with love for this land of sanctuary, in dread lest the noble temple of America be leveled in the dust, who know our roots In the story of the conquest of a continent, and who in the aid of freedom have by talent and enterprise and hard work and competence and wholesome Lving builded this Nation wisely and well. There are no echoes in this volce of traffic with an evil thing, of conces- sion to cunning and injustice, of fellowship with the face of cruelty and slaughter, of unconcern with the fate of heroes, saints, and martyrs. This is the voice of the real America which muat again prevail in the councils of the Nation. For it is our mounting determination that our leaders must shake off the dust that has marred the noble facade of the temple of America since our disastrous recognition of Soviet Russia in 1933. We confess now that our own moral eclipse and lack of political insight and interest, made easy the infiltra- tion by artful propaganda of something for- eign to the American scene, and we reel to- ward disaster as the dizzying pattern stag- gers to its fateful culmination. It is not too late to purge the poizon. There is yet time to return to the well-springs of strength. Repudiation of the evil is our high reeolve and with it the calm appraisal of guilt both at home and abroad. We can now make only spiritual repara- tion for our abandonment of the Baltics, our betrayal of the valor of the Poles and tts glorious Christian traditions of a thousand years, our unconcern with the faith and freedom of the Balkans as they slipped into a new night of terror and tyranny. We take meager comfort in the fact that thelr fate was never submitted for approval to the gen- erous heart of America, and can only wonder how supposedly Christian stateamen could have been bewitched by the illusory amile on the face of an atheistic despotism. As a people we begin to make spiritual reparation for the shame of Yalta and Tehran and Potsdam. The people too look about to see what can be salvaged of the national honor. We give ald to Tito in the forlorn hope that tyranny will crush tyranny, unmindaful of the demo- cratic hopes and aspirations of the vast ma~ jority of the suffering Slavs and Croats, ‘These in their sorrow cry out to us that tears water no crop, and that if there ia drought that fills the land witt famine, it ls because a despotism no less crushing than the Krem- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lin’s quenches the fires of hope and even of iit e. ‘We make ag yet only hesitant approaches to eniist in our cause the valor of Spain. Potsed below tne Pyrenees is a people, alone in Europe, which has the will and the courage to defend the culture of Europe and the Christian faith, with scythes if necessary, and ald voted by Congress 6 months ago has been deliberately withheld by the President who has callously remarked that; even with the withdrawal in part of United Nations sanctions againat Spain, it will be a long time before there is an exchange of ambassadors. And our leaders ignore the will of the people in the Far East. Even while the hordes of Mao are dealing decimation and death to our forces in Korea, we still neu- tralize Formosa and immobilise the half mil- on hardened carmpaigners of Chiang who, by a diversionary maneuver in south China, could not only relieve the pressure in Korea, but with the help of querrillas on the main- land and aided by internal unrest, could re- win China to the circle of free nations. With China slave, not only Asia but the world is imperiled. With China free, the Red march js ended. These are the deep-seated findings of the wisdom of the people as it searches its soul in the fearful crisis, and with neither re- crimination nor hysteria America looks to its leaders for a clearer vision and a newer strength. An Impossible Job for the United States of America EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE POUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I am including a news column by Father James Gillis, C. 8. P., who calls attention to a situation that is im- possible for the United States. I include it at this point and commend it to the membership of this House: Impossistz ror Ons Nation TO Repagss Wrones or Wortp—Wuars Rieat Wirn THE WORLD (By Father James Gillis, C. 8. P.) Some weeks ago in this column, under the caption “Resist aggression everywhere?” I discussed the obligation of the United States to remedy the wrongs and cure the ills of the world. On December 7, Walter Lipp- Mann wrote on virtually the same subject. If I had written after, instead of before him, I might have borrowed a quotation he made from a memorandum of Gladstone to Queen Victoria, It seems that in their day there were some Englishmen who thought that England should do for the world what eome Americans now think we should do. Gladstone, though somewhat af an idealist, refused to take on any such impossible task. Lippmann quotes fram what the Prime Min- ister wrote to the Queen tn 1869: “Is England so uplifted in strength above every other nation that she can with pru- dence advertise herself as ready to undertake the general redress of wrongs? Would not the cansequence of such professions and promises be either the premature exhaustion of her means, or a collapse in the day of performance? Is any power at this time of teday werranted in assuming to tteelf this comprehensive obligation?” England was not strong enough in 1849 to undertake the general redress of wrongs.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Neither is America strong enough to do so in 1950. The familiar sonnet by Emma Lazarus which was placed on the Statue of Liberty runs, in part: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.” That could be said in good heart in 1895. T doubt if we would dare ask Europe and Asia to send us all their tired, poor, huddled masses today. As far back as 1814 Thomas Jefferson, com- monly considered the father of American democracy, wrote to John Adams his sus- picton that the Canaille of the cities of Europe if permitted to come to our shores would pervert our American freedom to the demolition and destruction of everything public. Elsewhere he spoke with contempt and apprehension of the mobs of great cities which he egaid “would do to our form of government what sores do to the human body.” But thut danger is as nothing compared with what will happen to us if, not waiting for the poor, tired, huddled masses to come to us, we go overseas to find them, feed them, clothe them, fight their battles for them, free them from the tyrants that oppress them. It is beautiful, no doubt, to have a heart as big as the world, and it is understandably Christian to share one’s goods with others. But I wonder what a purish priest would say, or a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, if a family in the parish were to impoverish itself by giving away more than it could afford, and if the father of that family borrowed money which he could never pay buck, just to make himself a good fellow by handing out to others what he had bor- rowed, let us say from the church. Is charity synonymous with improvidence? The civil law takes the control of money or the administration of an estate away from an incompetent trustee. But a government also can be extravagant and irresponsible. If it runs up a debt of $250,000,000,000 and keeps on pouring out other billions and tens of billions, scattering all over the world the resources which it is supposed to hold in trust for its own citizens, that government might well be declared unfit to function. Such, I suppose, was in effect what Glad- stone told Queen Victoria: “England is rich and powerful’—she was in 1869—‘but she is not in a position to pay the debts of all the countries of the world, build their armies and navies, and fight their battles.” Mr. Lippmann suggests that Mr. Truman and Mr, Attlee take advantage of the prin- ciple handed down from Gladstone. I would go further and say that we at least should take counsel from common sense, not dissi- pate our resources and waste the lives of our young men in the mad effort to do what no other nation in all history ever attempted to do and what no nation is called upon to do—the impossible. Moral Requirements in a Three-Pronged Peace Offensive—By the Reverend Dr. O. Frederick Nolde EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. 0. K. ARMSTRONG OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, there was held yesterday in the Washington Cathedral a service of prayer and dedi- cation for the Members of the Eighty- second Congress, sponsored by the Wash- ington Cathedral and the Washington Federation of Churches. At this signif- icant service, an address was delivered by the Reverend Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, Dean of the Graduate School of the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Phila- delphia, and director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs. I am sure many Members of this Con- gress will desire that this address be made available for their use and, there- fore, I include Dr, Nolde's address in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Mora, REQUIREMENTS IN A THREE-PRONGED Peace OFFENSIVE As we move into the second half of the twentieth century, the horizon of a peaceful world seems far-distant and the path leading to it is darkened by low-hanging clouds of war, The hearts of many are gripped by despair, for they find no secure chart or compass for the road they must travel. For them two alternatives seem inescapable. The one leads to total global war and the prospect is terrifying. The other requires appeasement and, while the timid find it tempting, the courageous revolt against {t and the wise reject it because they know that it merely postpones the evil day. Men are Gisposed to say with the Preacher of Old: “Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” A mood such as this does not befit the Christian. In yielding to defeatism, men deny the faith of Christianity. The world picture is dark and no effort to relieve it by shallow panaceas is justified. Nevertheless, to every individual Christian there is avail- able the eternal gospel of Jesus Christ with its assurance of forgiveness, of comfort, and of strength. Moreover, the truth of Chris- tianity has meaning for every situation which man faces, be it in his personal experi- ence or in the context of world relationships. The greatest danger before us, too often unperceived, is that in frustration and fear we become preoccupied solely with personal and national well-being. On bended knee, our people and their representatives in gov- ernment should pray Almighty God, not for safety and security as ultimate good, but for a new vision of service. Our national policy ought to flow from a profound con- cern for people—for all people in every land—with a penetrating understanding that our interests are best served when we serve the interests of others. With full recognition to our shortcomings, we must remember that the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, not to condemn but to save the world. These are eternal truths, and in them the moral imperatives which can give direction to a peace offensive find their source and their impulse. THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE The effective application of Christian truth for the healing of the nations requires its interpretation in the Nght of immediate realities. In a vast upsurging which began long before the First World War, peoples of every race, color, and creed are clamoring for equality of personal status and for a fair share of this world’s material goods. We are caught in the swirl of a world-wise revo- lution. While some societies have been re- invigorated and over 700,000,000 people have attained political independence, the upsurge continues with undiminished force. Competing to meet the demands of this world-wide revolution are two major sys- teme—the one requiring uniformity of thought and practice under governmental coercion, and the other seeking to preserve individual freedom with responsibility. Whereas about one-third of the human race is currently under Soviet domination, it is significant to note that there is no country A61 where the people have voluntarily accepted the system of Soviet communism. The United States, having lent economic asaiat- ance to a degree unequaled in history, is viewed with mingled feelings of gratitude for ite generosity, jealousy because of ita power, and suspicion as to its future intentions or demands. The competition between the two systems of life—which could and should be peace- ful—became an imminent and open threat to the peace with Russia’s apparent willing- ness to use or to encourage force in expand- ing the area of Communist control in Korea, The United Nations authorized an interna- tional police action which has, on varying grounds and in various ways, been opposed and resisted by North Korea, by the peoples’ government of China, and by the U.S. S. R. To the ideological conflict has been added a conflict of military power wherein the au- thority of the United Nations is challenged and flouted, In response to the threat of Soviet military power the United States as well as other countries have undertaken a far-flung pro- gram of military preparation. The reality of the situation is that the world is divided into two armed camps and that governments which oppose the expansion of communism are making strenuous effort to build a mili- tary power sufficient for any emergency, Moral decision as to the course we should follow in face of this explosive situation re- quires at least an attempt to forecast its prospects and dangers. Two possibilities seem to lie ahead, The first is that Russia will in the very near future start a third world war by direct or indirect aggessive action. The second possibility ts that Russia, following known tactics of advance and re- treat, will for a period of time so modify its effort to expand by force as to seem to make our military preparations foolish or unneces- sary. I respectfully submit that grave peril awaits us if we do not reckon with both pos- sible eventualities. THE MORAL IMPERATIVE The outlook is precarious, whether of global conflict in the near future or of long- drawn-out tension. Yet we dare not shrink from it. To us in our day comes the awe- some and searching question which the Prophet Micah addressed to the people of Israel: “What doth the Lord require of thee?” Our national tradition and our pro- fession, if not always our practice, make an evasion of that question unthinkable, Two presuppositions provide the back- ground from which our answer must be projected. The first is the conviction that God in His goodness makes available strength in proportion to the needs of the hour. Christianity was born and bred in adversity, and Christians have risen to great- est heights when confronted by the most critical tests. God will provide strength at this moment of history if we will only use what he places at our disposal. In the sec- ond place, we hold to the belief that even in this trying hour a third world war is not inevitable, and we must act accordingly. In accepting that view we do not delude our- selves, Recent events have considerably diminished the margin of possibility. We are on the brink of a precipice. To avoid being plunged into the abyss, we must exploit to the full every possibility which that thin margin affords us. Conscious of our true strength and dis- cerning the goal of our immediate striving, what shall we now do? The full text of Micah’s question offers a clue to the moral imperative as we face the dilemma of today. “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to ao justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with Thy Gad?” In order to derive this timeless message a directive which re- lates to present need, I venture to propose that the people of the United States and their representatives in Government are called upon to manifest a dignified humility,