AAG A tact which Js often forgotten is that.the ‘wage per hour js only part of the leborer's income. The number of hours is olao impor- tant. The increased hours in August 1950, plus the increase in hourly wage, has in- creased the weekly income from $54.70 in August 1949 to 980.28 in August of 1950. ‘This is an increase of a little over 10 percent per week. Note how closely this increase ratios to the price increase for livestock. In addition, we have had the reemployment of about 8,000,000 workers in industry and the military forces who were unemployed in 1949. As @ result, the national-income level will be at least 10 percent above that of the last quarter of 1940, and this will be reflected in at least 10% increase in the over-all dollar expenditures for goods at retail, including meat products. With the approach of the heavy market- ing season the price of livestock may be re- duced to some extent and will be reflected at retail levels, The buying power as indi- cated by current weekly earnings will mean @n increased per capita consumption of meat. As I have pomted out, we have the feed supplies to produce the meat. This feed supply can be utilized if necessary by & proper price on livestock to induce the feeding of the grain to hogs and cattle which serve as a meat factory. But should the price level drop like it did in the latter part of 1949 the hoga will not be Kept on the farm for a longer feed and will go to market at too low a weight to bring about the meat production which our ability to consume will require. Failure to carry over & greater supply of meat from heavy marketings will cause prices to sky- rocket next summer and bring on the rigid price controls which should be avoided. On the basis of the record, there 1s no rea- son why livestock prices cannot be controlled through a voluntary program of production, processing, and distribution. Price ceilings , do not produce a single pound of meat, and because of the many factors involved in pricing the many varieties of meat price ceil- ings can very easily curtail the very produc- tion we will require. A brief analysis of mistakes under the OPA and the problems inherent in fixed price ceilings might be helpful in arriving at a solution. OPA PRICE CEILINGS In establishing price ceilings under the control bill which has been passed by Con- gress, it is stipulated that no ceiling shall be placed on farm prices below the parity level, or the price in the period May 24 to June 24, 1960. As I have pointed out, the parity equation is the average cost of production plus the average profit. It is arrived at by a compari- son of the prices the farmer receives to the prices he paid. In the prices the farmer pays we have the wage level, the cost of raw materials, management and capital expense, taxes, and the average mark-up or profit that is included in the selling price of goods, To establish this parity price as the yard- stick without any flexibility will tend to re- duce production, Our economy is wide- spread and has a great deal of variation. We have submarginal farms, submarginal busi- ness operations, and in many cases sub- marginal resources. For example, we have the good farmer with good soil and then we may have a poor op- erator on a farm with poor soll. With the price ceiling at parity or the average price level, the submarginal operation will not produce unless the production is subsidized or unless the production can be sold at a higher price in the black market. We need the submarginal production to add to the total. The same is true in our business op- eration, both in the packing industry and our retail outlets. Subsidies are unsound in principle and operation, . FLEXIBLE PRICES - A much more effective program would be @ support price at 00 percent of parity and a ceiling at 110 percent with an average of 100, In fact that is exactly how our economy should operate in peacetime and the laws of exchange are continually trying to maintain the average of 100. In this connection it might be well to point out that with corn supported at 90 percent of parity, a market for livestock at less than 90 percent will tend to curtail production. As products are in short supply an inerease of 10 percent in price will tend to increase production and at the same time cauee the public to sub- stitute some other product which may have dropped to 90 percent. . Under the long-time operation of our fe economy; the tariff was a support price and also a ceiling, shutting of imports when our price level dropped and serving as a ceiling when our priees advanced enough to attract tmports. In our economy we have approximately 35 key commodities, such as grains, livestock, metals, petroleum, coal, fiber crops, etc., that end up in the production of about 00 per- cent of all goods at the retail market level. This ts the gear wheel of our annual in- come cycle. I have pointed out that each $1 of gross farm income generates $7 of national income. This is the result of labor efficiency. We have about one farmer pro- ducing the raw farm materials for himself and six others. As these materials go through our economic cycle the labor cost for transportation, processing, distribution, service, finance, and so forth, is added on, resulting in the multiple of seven times. The gross value of these farm products average about 14 percent of our national dncome. The important fact is that it is & practical constant in either peace or war. In like manner total wage payments aver- age about 61 percent of the national income @s an average constant. The many changes that have taken place in the last 20 years have not changed these ratios. The raw materials and the hourly wages are the prin- cipal factor in the price of goods and serv- ices. Price ceilings on goods cannot be effective without price ceilings on the basic raw materials and hourly wages, I have pointed out that the percentage of expenditures for meat are practically con- stant at an average of 5.7 percent of the consumable income. This is not an acci- dent, but the definite result of the laws of exchange which I have mentioned. A similar pattern exists in all phases of our economy. The items which have a constant demand because of the natural need for food and clothing bear a fixed ratio to the whole. This can be illustrated by a tabulation of ex- penditures for food, beverage, clothing, shoes, and tobacco, as compared to retail sales. Shoes, clothing, Retail Ratio of, Year beverage, | sales, all | column I food, and | gobds to ll tobacco Billions Billions 192. cnecnennee oe $47.0 i) In the same manner the real cost of food is about 23 percent of the national income as a separate item in the same 8 years set forth above. A change in the price level ohanges dollar expenditures but does not change the percentage of the national income spent for the necessities inclrded in the tab- ulation, The reason for this constant ratio is a natural demand by nature to sustain life in the human body. Thus we find that the natural laws of exchange and arithmetic will not permit a APPENDIX’ TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD change in the cost of Hving in our economy as a whole through a change in price levels, Also, that there is only one way to increase our standard of living and that is through an increase in per man production of goods and services. Money is just the measuring stick, When prices fall below the parity level, reducing the price of food, unemploy- ment follows. If those who remain employed were taxed to support the unemployed there would be no gain on an individual basis, Under our current philosophy of economics, when prices fall too low to create the in- come for full employment, they should be supported by governmental expenditures and charged to the national deficit. Very un- sound economics but politically popular in some quarters. This can be further illustrated by a tabu- lation of staple items with their cost in 1939 pnd 10949, Comparison of weekly wages with retail food prices Btaple food items Centa Loaf of white bread... 9 14.0 Round steak (pound) 86.0 85, 3 Chuck roast (pound) 23,4 65.5 Pork chops (pound)... 30.4 74.3 Bacon (pound)... 31.9 66. 5 Butter (pound)... 32.5 72.5 Bugar (pound). ..2.2.-..-neewees 5.4 9.5 Figes (dozen) .... 0. 2-ssn ee eeeeeee 32.1 6.6 Milk, quart, fresh, delivered...... 12,2 21 a (pound) pee cnn ween nweweerenee 11.0 19,2 Total cost. 7 487,5 ee 1 Retell prices, Bureau ef Census, U. 8. Department of Commerce, average price 51 leading cities. Nors.—President’s Economic Report to Congress Jan 1980; may @ per hour 1630 in manufacturing. ours worked.....-...--------- Woes por hour 1049 ja manufmeturin: Weckly wages in 1930 Weekly wages 1949 in average weekly wages 1030-40, |) | ar “ 125 Increase In total cost of food items, percent. 118 Buying power of weekly wages in 1949 as compared to 1939, percent......--. ----- N78 Buying power of hourly wageain 1040 as compared to 1920, percent........------- 101.4 Time required to earn food items in 1949, 3 hours minutes. Time required to earn food items in 1930, 3 hours 32 minutos, The tabulation illustrates the positive factor of these lawa of exchange and unless we recognize them, we will be groping in the dark. Labor clamors for higher wages, the farmer for higher prices, thus causing a spiral in our price level while the real cost of living remains the same. Temporarily some group has an advantage because of the submarginal factors I have mentioned or a shift in the price of some item of goods or a Wage increase in some industry. But over a period of years these adjustments have to be balanced by others throughout the economy as a whole, Once we realize that we cannot change the total cost of living by lower or hig .er prices, we will become more willing to act with a definite objective. A price range such as I have suggested could be operated through a voluntary pro- gram without the restrictive factors resulting from. a fixed price level. The over-all effect of a flexibie 90 to 110 percent price structure would be an average of approximately 100 for all goods. If wage levels were kept in balance with the price index and stabilized, the inflation- ary effect of higher material price and in turn higher wages would end. The next question is what should the price be? The hourly wage in all industries in 1042 was 90.853, In June 1950 it had risen to $1.¢54 or an increase of 70
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD percent. In 1942 the over-all price level ‘was 08.8 percent of 1926 as 100. On ber 5, the price level wes 167.8, an increase of 00.6 percent. This illustrates how the buying power for an hour of work is much the same today as in 1942, The current wage increase and higher prices for all raw materia’s will tend to force & price level or an over-all basis of 10 percent higher than now prevails. This in turn will generate 10 percent more income and it will require 10 percent more income to buy the same amount of goods. In addition it will re- duce the current buying power of dollar savings 10 percent, If the 35 leading raw materials were sta- bilized at an average of 170 percent of 1926 as 100 with a range of 90 to 110 percent and wages stabilized at current levels, we could expect a national income of €240,000,000,000 from current ion. By utilizing our efficiency and increased labor force we can expand present production 20 percent. This would increase our national income 20 per. cent of $240,000,000,000 without further in- creases in our price level and would not be inflationary. We can still further expand our produc- tion by increasing the hours of work per week. This will mean more output per man and give each man ea greater purchasing power for a day’s work. The economic prob- lem confronting the Nation in either peace or war is to maintain price stability and a balance between raw matertal prices, hourly earnings and the price of all commodities. WAR PERIODS The inflationary factors in war periods is the result of heavier production and con- sumption of durable goods which average about 10 percent of consumer expenditures in peacetime. In World War IT, we increased our durable goods production 280 percent from 1939 to the peak in 1948. In the same period, we increased our production of non- durable goods 61 percent. In addition we curtatied the sale of many items of durable goods, thus leaving the income from their production in the hands of the consumer. This factor will happen in all wars and leave the consumer with too much buying power for nondurable goods, most of which are the items of foods, clothing, beverage, tobacco, and shoes. In spite of this excess income in the hands of the consumer, the Government in World War II subsidized the consumer, thus adding to the inflationary effect. If these funds had been drained off through taxation and used to pay for the extra durable goods used for war purposes, ‘we could have eliminated the increase in our national debt and much of the inflationary increase in price levels. The following tabulation shows the na- tional income for the three war years 1943~- 45 and the excess of national income over domestic expenditures for goods and services. Balance sheet for 3 war years Under an economy as widespread as ottrs it ia tmpossible to stop inflation with price cellings Unless this excess income 1s used to balanoe the national budget. If this income had been drained off, then the balance in the hands of the consumer would have been his ration available for consumer goods in the domestic market, CURRENT MILITARY NEEDS Current military needs do not present the economic problem of an all-out effort similar to World War II. In the case of meats, an expansion of 1,000,000 in the Armed Forces will mean additional meat requirements of roughly 100 pounds per year per man for those in the military service. The meat per man for our Army ration exceeds our civilian consumption by that amount. These requirements are 20 minor when com- pared to total production that there is no reason for the fear of our present military needs creating a shortage of food. The shortage, if any, will be in the production of @urable goods. Even in the case of durable goods we can expand enough to take care of the needs without disrupting our normal civilian economy. On the other hand there !s no reason why wages and prices should be advanced above the present level. A proper realisation by industry that increased prices and wages will merely increase the number of dollara re- quired to buy the war materials and to ex- change goods in our domestic economy should make them wish to cooperate in a voluntary program of price ceilings that can be publicly announced. Labor should forego any further demand for increased wages and the Government should levy the needed taxes to balance the budget. CONCLUSION After checking through the record of pro- duction of livestock and other factors, I cannot find any need for rigid price ceilings or rationing on any food product. The de- mand for price ceilings are primarily the result of a confused and uninformed public. I have not tried to set forth a specific pro- gram but, in my opinion, it would be a comparatively simple matter to handle the production of meat products and their dis- tribution through a voluntary program which could be expected to stabilize prices and at the same time produce the needed meat supplies. If at any time you wish to have an outline of a definite program, I will be glad to prepare it for you. In making this report I have tried pri- marily to set out the positive forces that are not being recognised in the consideration of the problems which we face. Our problem during a war period is no greater than it is in peacetime. A drop in the price level in peacetime can leave just as much wreckage as the inflation caused by war. The dislocation is primarily monetary or a price factor. In a depression we lose none of our resources, our factories, our trans- portation, or efficiency. Stated in another way, it is tmpossible to go bankrupt from a purely economic standpoint. A depression can be prevented if prices are maintained at a level in balance with hourly wages and other cost factors, Inflation can be pre- vented by the same process. The record of our economy proves that we can produce the goods for either peace or war needs. In the ion of goods for either peace or war, the production of goode creates the income to buy the goods and pay for them. If the factors which I have called to your attention were generally known by the Amer- joan public we could, by voluntary means, prevent either the depression of or the inflations created by war. If our economy is operated on the basis of fact instead of theory we need hate no fear of socialism or communism. A proper price for raw materials, a relative wage payment to labor and a proper operat- ing margin for indus automatically pro- tects the freedom of all. We have the nat- ural resources and our system of free enter- + A427 prise can outproduce any other type of ecdn- omy providing we maintain a proper price structure to create the dollar income to dis- tribute and consume our production. Cant H. Wiixew, Eoonomio Anaiyst, SOURCE OF DATA USED IN THIS REPORT 1. President's Economic Report to Can- gress, Mid-Year, July 1060. 3, Statistical Abstract, United States De- partment of Commerce. 4. Survey of Current Business, National Income Supplement July 1047 and July 1960. 6. Agricultural Statistics, United States De- partment of Agriculture. 6, Bureau of Labor, Wholesale Commodity Index. 1, Livestock Market NeWs, Production and Marketing Administration, United States De- partment of Agriculture. 8. Wall Street Journal. 9. Chicago Drovers Journal Yearbook. How To Cook a Wild Duck EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, 1 ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp, a brief article frcm the Louisville Courier-Journal under th? heading “Ruby’s report,” and some com- ments thereon by me. There being no objection, the article and Mr. Capsnart’s comments were or- cared to be printed in the Rxoors as ‘ollows: Mr. Carpgnart. Mr. President, down tn Ken- tucky a new feud is brewing, the equivalent of Kentucky's bitterest and bloodiest feuds, which bids fair to attract national and inter- national attention. Since this new feud in Kentucky involvcs my running-and-losing cousin, I feel in- clined to have a part in it. Let me quote from “Ruby's report” in the Louisville Oourier-Journal of January 9, 1961: “Rusr's Rerosr “JIM STEWART CHALLENGES MAC LEAN AND RUBY TO WILD-DUCK COOKING CONTEST AND NAMES OWN JUDGES “James G. Stewart, who has run second so many times he should write it James GQ. Stewart IJ, has issued a challenge. And, with typical Stewart temerity, he names bis own judges. I quote: “‘T differ with both of you and Stuart Mac- Lean on the proper way to cook a wild duck. If you were in the restaurant business fea- turing wild duok, you'd go bankrupt, “Your 8-hour boiling method for duck could only produce something called duck soup. Stuart, being a gourmet of the Henry VUI vintage, could only call the product of his 17-minute cooking recipe bloody duck “Tt t6 @ well-known fact that neither of you has ever personally cooked a duok. Stuart quotes his authority, Lewls Kaye, a nationally known cook who has been ap- proved by Duncan Hines. You advacate the method of a woman who probably is using ber other's recipe, whose only cooking utensil was a pot, “After many years of personal experimen- tation I will tell you the best way to cook a wild duck:
“A428 “4, Carefully pick the duck so the ekin is unbroken. 2. Stuf with a quarter of an onion, ® quarter of an appie, and make a highly seasoned sage dressing. 3. Lay bacon strips over the breasts and put in roaster in a quarter of an inch of water. 4. Bit in front of oven with hunting com- panions for 1 hour and baste frequently (the duck that is). “TY challenge you and Stuart to a taste test at your convenience, the test to be judged by Fred Crawford, manager of the Pendennis Club, and Harold Harter of the Brown Hotel.’ “Stuart and I accept the challenge grate. fully, but there will be none of the citified kitchen help of the Pendennis or Brown, and not more than one of Jim's pals among the Judges. Stuart suggests that each of us name one judge and one cook. Jim probably will elect himself to both posts. I'll name my cook later, but will take a real outdoors- man, a hunter and fisherman, for my judge— Gov. Lawrence Wetherby. Stuart probably will want Kaye to do his cooking and also his Judging, but I think he and Governor Weth- erby will agree that the test should be made at some camp or lodge untainted by the fumes of the big city.” On the basis of that report, it 1s no won- der that Jim Stewart, my running-and- losing cousin, always loses when he runs. In the first place, how can anybody in Kentucky, or any place else south of Indiana, have good roast duck when it js not poasibie to get good ducks to begin with? The Midwest duck flyway is through In- diana, and we bag all the good ducks on their way south. Kentucky gets only those ‘We call seconds. To prove that my running-and-losing cousin does not properly represent the fam- ily in this duck-roasting feud, I should like to challenge my good friends and colleagues, the Senators from Kentucky [Mr. CrsaPMan and Mr. CixsentTs] to a duck-roasting and tasting contest to be held at the Pendennis Club in Louisville at any time—no holds barred, Yes, I shall even submit to throwing into the feud the esteemed Vice President, the Honorable ALsEn W. BARKLEY. My running-and-losing cousin, Mr. Stew- art, outlines his method of roasting a duck to the delight of the most talented and temperamental gourmet. First, he says, pick the duck clean without breaking the skin, In Indiana we shoot them clean. Then, he says, stuff it with onion and apple and sage dressing. The onion and apple, I take it, are to disguise the taste of a duck that was unwanted in Indiana, The same purpose, I presume, induces the use of bacon strips across the breast. When we roast a duck in Indiana, we roast a@ duck. Of course, I should be much happier if this feud were over fried chicken, Conditions in Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS OF UTAH IN THE SENATE Of THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. WATKINS, Myr, President, re- cently Mr. H. H. (Bill) Fisher, of Salt Lake City, a veteran of World War II, Gelivered a speech before the Salt Lake Rotary Club which I think is worthy of a Place in the CowaressronaL REcoRD, While I do not necessarily agree with all of Mr. Fisher's statements and conclu- aions, yet the speech is so filled with thought-provoking and challenging ideas that it is well worth reading. I ask unanimous consent that it be print- ed in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrc- orp, a8 follows: Gentlemen, I asked for the privilege of speaking to you today. I have wanted to say a few things to you ever since I got out of the Army. I spent 34% years in the Army, 60 I feel that I know something about the work- ings of a controlled economy, Of those years, nearly two were spent tn Europe, so I feel I know a little about the Europeans. And, for 4 months of that time, I was doing counter- intelligence work in Germany, and studying the people and operations of a police state. I was so impressed by the differences between Europe and America that I have wanted to talk to you about them ever since. You who have grown up in a free country can’t imagine other countries, or other people. Gentlemen, the other people of this world— ang this includes the so-called free people an@ free nations—are not like us. This is the only nation founded on the principle that the people are capable of self-govern- ment. We elect representatives. In other countries where elections are held, the people elect their masters. Here the individual is supreme, In all the other countries in the world, the government is supreme. In Eng- land and Canada, e. g., the people refer to themselves as subjects. Can you imagine an American cab driver or pipe fitter refer- ring to himself as a subject of anyone or anything? Now, this sounds like a small difference, but tt is not. It is the reason our country is the greatest Nation on which the sun has shone. The trouble is a lot of us have for- gotten, and a lot of us have never realized that it is this that has made us great, and 8 lot of us have been told for 18 years by a dilettante Groton and Harvard lawyer and an unsuccessful haberdasher that we were not capable of self-government, until we be- lieve it. Now, gentlemen, I have seen the slave peoples in action, and I believe in our princi- ple and our way. I believe in it all the way, and I believe that for us to fear a slave nation like Russia is absolute nonsense, I say flatly and unequivocally that the United States ts in no more danger of invasion by Russia—now, 6 years from now, or ever—than we are in danger of invasion by Argentina or by Mexico, and, if we are not in danger of in- vasion, the President's requests are nonsense. President Truman has said we must spend seventy-one billions for defense. He made better sense when he was corresponding with the rousic critic, The thousands of tanks and the three- to four-million man army which he asks for can never be, and will never be used for defense. They will be used just like they were in the last war—to reinstate or to continue in power one set of slave masters against another set of slave masters, to throw out a Kaiser Wilhelm so a Hitler can take over, Now, most of us give Up service to the American way, and we will deride the inef- fictencies of Government, we will cuss Gov- ernment red tape, stupidity, and bungling. We will point out the cisclosures in the Hoover report of criminal waste. We will swear about the Government's paying high prices for potatoes and eggs so that they can be buried in Kansas, and then the Govern- ment imports potatoes from Canada and eggs from China. We will rant about Government officiais who know nothing about their jobs and who got these jobs as political plums. We point to England as a horrible example of what big government will do. We recall that Aneurin Bevan said in 1945 that it would take an organizing genius to produce a shortage of fish and coal in England, since England was practically built on coal and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD surrounded by fish; and that England is now short of coal and fish, thanks to the organia- ing genius of big government. Now, gentlemen, think a minute—Ruesta is all government. Don't you suppose these things happen in Ruasia? I tell you they are one hundred times worse in Russia. We think our way is best, but we are afraid it’s not. We here are not alone, however, Promi- nent nonpolitical figures everywhere are in- dulging in the same two-way thinking. Paul Hoffman, former President of Stude- baker and now head of ERA, and Hansen Baldwin, the eminent military analyst of the New York Times, are two examples of people who are thinking and talking two ways at once. Hoffman says that the Russians have 15,000,000 people in slave camps and that the Kremlin can crack and fall anytime, but he is afraid of the Russians. Baldwin says that wars today are primarily clashes of nations in arms and he admits that we can out- produce all the rest of the world put to- gether, but he is afraid of the Russians. Now, just think this fact over. There are 150,000,000 people in our country and they do only 5 percent of the work. Machines do the other 95 percent. So here we have a Nation with a production of 3,000,000,000 workers scared panicky by Russia, a country that has 200,. 0,000 slaves. Remember, too, what Adam Smith said about slave labor, “Slave labor is the least productive and th most expensive of all labor, and must be, because if a man is going to starve whether he works or not, he does not work.” Or, as the present day economists sa,, there is absence of in- centive. Now, I am not guessing or theorizing or wishing. Hitler had a slave state, and let’s Jook at Hitler's record. In 1940 Germany terrified the civilized world by racing across France and completely subjugating her. What we forget is that the country that Germany subjugated was a nation, unlike ours, dominated by a minority. Government bureaucracy had taken its toll in France, and in no way was it a competitive free enter- prise country like the United States. Be- sides, from a supply line or logistics point of view, this was not such a tremendous accomplishment. The entire distance trav- eled across France by the German Army ‘was not much greater than from Salt Lake to Las Vegas, about 500 miles. Four years later when the German military production potential was still 100 percent, we invaded France, and we found that the great German military machine had 80 percent of its guns pulled by horses. We found that the rela- tively few German motor vehicles were not even remotely comparable to our jeep and big 6x6 truck. We found that they did have some excellent tanks, a few thousand buzz bombs and the famous burp gun, all good military weapons, but they did not have basic large-scale mass production, such as a free enterprise country has, and such as Mr. Baldwin says is essential in modern war, In fact, so limited was their production that, with all of Europe prostrate in 1940, and with all of Europe's production—French, Czech, Belgian, and Itallan—enslaved and at their disposal, they did not even make an attempt to croas the 20 miles of water that separated them from England (we have 6,000 miles of water between us and the Russians). The Germans did not have the production for the ship bottoms and landing craft that would have been necessary to make the crossing.+ They did not have the production for the jeeps, trucks, weapons carriers, wreckers, mo- bile shops, portable welding sets, telephone wire, shells, supplies, and food for a suc- ceasful invasion, if they could have reached the other shore. Later, in 1941, the Germans made their famous attack into Russia, an- other slave nation. They bogged down after about 1,200 miles because they couldn't maintain their supply lines, another term for production. One thousand and two hundred miles is about the distance from Seattte to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Los Angeles. Remember that in 1941 the Germans had been unhampered by preparing for war and war alone for & years, Now, compare this sad record with our own. in 1044 the United States, after two short years of preparation for war, was maintaining an army and a supply iine in the Pacific islands six to eight thousand miles away. We were maintaining another army in Europe at the end of a supply line 3,000 miles long. We hed armed and equipped a French Army. (I wish I had time to tell you about that French Army.) The British were using our long Tome, our trucks, and our planes. We had given the Russians one minor item of 60,000 glant 6x6 trucks, in addition to countiess other vehicles, armaments, and food. In my 300 days of artillery combat, we plastered the Germans with a ratio of 20 artillery shells for each one that we received. Now, boys and girls, that’s production, and tt ts only possible with a free people in 4 competitive enterprise system. In our gun battery position south of Cherbourg in ‘uly of 1044, we one day re- ceived artillery fre from the Germans. Al- together 21 66-millimeter shells landed in our gun area, practically tn my lap. Of these, only eight exploded and, of those eight, four more were low-order bursts. ¥xamination showed that those shells were made in the enslaved Czechoslovak war plants. Now, gentlemen, again think 4 minute—the Iimestone that went into that steel had to be quarried with German police- men supervising, the fron ore had to be mined by unwilling Czechs with German policemen watabing, it had to be transported on railroads with German policemen and spies watching to make sure tt got to the steel mill. In the steel mill there was more aupervision and spying necessary. The same was true of the fuses and of the shell casings and of the guns that fired the shells and, when they finally got the shells to the front, they only had 20-percent efficiency. Thet's how slave labor works and that’s how it’s working with the Russians, The more Russia takes over, the more she extends her- self, the more policemen she needa, and the more she weakens herself. I believe that any nation which attempte production by slave methods loses rather than gains production. Let me show you how a police state has to operate. For <4 months I was in charge of a small detachment in counterintelli- gence in Germany after the war. We made over 3,500 arrests of suspected Nazis and I interrogated many of the people arrested. One of these was the right-hand man of Sauckel. Sauckel was the Governor of berg longed to 30 Nazi Party said, “How did you ever get any work done?” “Tt was not easy” he sald, “but it was neces- to belong. In Germany, any good party member belongs to at least 12 party organi- He has to if he wants to hold any i government office buliding.” explained some of the infinite ramifications of the empire safety system. Hitler wanted to do away with the people's rights in courts, 50 he organized the Gestapo, a secret state police. The Gestapo could arrest anyone, anytime, for any reason, and hold them with- trial, and was responsible only to Goeb- and his boss, Hitler. Soon Hitler real- farce had as one of ita main duties watching and epying on the other two, This played Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering off against one another. It also produced the interest- ing economic result that Hitler had one policeman to do what he wanted, another Policeman to watch the first, and a third policeman i water ~ other two, while poor slave produce enough to feed the three tax-eaters and have a little left over for himself. It’s no wonder that & small farmer came to me in a@ village 1 day to ask if he could killa pig. I said, “Whose pig?” He said, “Mine.” I said, “Sure, go ahead end kill it, I don’t care.” And he said, “But where is the permission?” I said, “You don't need any permission. Just ahead and kill him if you want to.” The German walked off muttering something about it was a hell of a way to run a gov- ernment that wouldn't even tell you whether you should kill a pig or not. Now, gentie- men, if your government is set up so that one man can’t &ili one pig without permis- sion of a tax-eater, you are not going to get much preduction. The Russian set-up is ever. more unwieldly. Dan Connole telis about an engineer friend of his who was trying to assemble an Amer- ican-made automobile plant in Russia prior to the war. The plant ca:ne i.nocked down from the United States with every beam lettered and numbered and its own sack of rivets and bolts :ttached to it. One day during the erection one of those things heppened that happens dozens of times dally in every construction. A beam was set down 6 inches short of abutment with another beam. The engineer said to the crane man, “Move it over.” The crane man said, “You told me to set it down there. My orders are to do what you say, but any changes have to be authorized by the foreman.” The American got the Russian foreman and told him to tell the crane man to move it over. The foreman said, “Why wasn't it right tho firat time?” The American said, “We just missed a little. I he moves it over, every- thing will be okey.” The Russian said, “I looks like a trick to me and, even if it goes a’ right, if IT make an unauthorized change at your request, I can be reported for dis- obedience.” The tpshot of it was, gentle- men, that after much wrangling, the matter went clear to the Kremlin in Moscow and 8 weeks later an order came back that it was all right to go ahead and move the beam. River Rouge, Willow Run, and the Liberty ships weren't built that way. My one experience with the Ruesians came shortly after the war in August 1945, when I crossed the American-Rusasian border with some 1,200 Russian slave laborers who were not at all happy to be golng back to their original set of masters. In my innocence I looked forward to seeing the crack, well- disciplined troops of “he great Ru: -ian force which had repelled Bitler's splendid army. To my amamement, I saw what looked like a rabble fleeing a stricken city. A column of Russian troops coming down the svveet consisted of an officer in an American jeep, an American 6 by 6 truck, and then cart after cart pulled by horses or oxer. or pushed by hand. These carts were loaded with every describable kind of loot—mattresses, chairs, rugs, vases (no wash basins, however), and the military personnel was a helter-skelter melange of men and women, no two of whom were dressed alike, and no two of whom seemed to have the same type of small arms. A few miles farther on we care to a Russian airfield. The Russian pilote were stunting and showing off in one of the prettiest, trimmest ttle planes I had evr seen. I remarked to the Yank cub pilot who was with me that that was really beautiful airplane. The Yank pilot said, “Well, 1¢ should be, it’s the Bell Atr Cobra P-39 which ‘ve declared obsolete tn 1042 because it couldn't fight above 10,000 feet. We sent them al) to Russia.” (In the Korean fracas our ob- A429 servers also report seeing P-38.) ‘With these front-line troops that I saw that day, perhaps 60,000 in all, I never saw a Russian motor vehicle, armornd or otherwise; I never saw a Yak or Stormovik plane. Maybe the Russians had them by the thousands, as the papers told us they did, but they didn’t have them with their front-line troops. Astonished as I was at the appearance of the Russians, I wondered how could this horde poasibly have beaten the well-trained German Army, and then I remembered what a German tank captain, whom I had cap- tured in my CYC work, had told me: “You Americans had a secret weapon that you didn't even know about. That was the big truck where all the wheels go” and he moved his fingers in circles to show what he meant. “Our trucks only had two driving wheels and we didn't have very many of them, and in the rain and snow on mud roads we just stopped or went by horse. You gave the Russians a hundred thousand of those big trucks and the gasoline to run them, eo that they could go any place and we couldn't move to their point of attack. We knew where they were building up for an attack with your big trucks, and we couldn't get there to stop then.” Now, that’s the way I saw it, I think certainly that the Russians can produce a few excellent tanks. They've already shown us thet in Korea. Korea gives us so many confilcting reports that it’s almoat impos- sible to tell what's going on, but certainty we can tell that it is not a major war effort comparable to the last war. The Russians have also shown us some excellent jets, but, so far, 40 jets seems to be a large-scale air attack in Korea. At St. Lo in Franoe, I have seen 3,000 Yank planes fly over me in one attack (incidentally, if I were a profes- sional military analyst, I would predict that the Communist attack will bog down within the next 100 miles because of extended sup- ply lines—meaning no production). As I said, I believe that the Rusisans can pro- duce a few weapons, some of therm excellent; but I think their chances of producing enough ships, enough tanks, enough guns, enough shells, enough trucks, enough sup- plies, enough food for a successful invasion of the United States are absolutely nil. They are nil now and they will become minus nil. The only way a slave nation can go is down. I have deliberately left the question of the atomic bomb to the last, because I don't be- Hieve it deserves the attention it is getting. Mr. Truman and the Russians say that the Ruesians have the atomic bomb. Let us suppose for argument’s sake that they do have it, and suppose that they have a few planes that will fly tt to some of our major American cities. What are we going to do? We can’t put an antiaircraft gun in every house and buflding tn America. We can’t make every house and butlding an atomic- bomb shelter. We can't make our country an armed camp on an everlasting 24-hour alert. The one thing we can do, we have done. We can have our own planes and our own bombs which can retaliate 10 to 100 times. The atomic bomb today is in the same situation that poison gas was in World War Il. Germany did not use polson gas because we bad ao much gas ready to dump on Germany that the German people would have been up to their cabooses in Lewisite if the Germans had ever started, Stalin ts far too intelligent to use an atomic bomb against this country. Now, that’s the way it looks to me. Rus- ela can't hurt us, now or later. Now, I ask you, gentlemen, does it make sense to bleed ourselves white for military production that can only be used if we send it overseas? Does it make sense for us to give, at our expense, arms in order to maintain the present mas- ters of France against another set of rnasters, because every weapon ‘we send to France means that the present French Government will have more money to spend in protecting
A430 itself against the DeGauile and similar fac- tions who would like to take over the ruling of France? Does it make sense for us to fortify Franco as ruler of Spain on the out- side chance that Stalin will take over Spain and rule it even worse? Can we continue perpetual occupation? Military govern- ment is not American government and sol- diers do not teach the principle that the people are capable of self-government. Now, what do I think we should do? Ob- viously, the first and most important thing, as I have said, is for us to quit being afraid of the Russians. Next, I think we should pull every soldier that we have oversesa back to this country and get him into civilian clothes. It is my opinion that our military needs in this country are for a strong Air Force, but not a giant Air Force, a strong Navy, with emphasis on submarines, but not &@ giant Navy, and only enough ground forces for internal policing and officer training. T think we should make two internal reforms. I think we should get back on the gold stand- ard so that the Government cannot render valueless Our goods and services and prop- erty. I think we should adopt an amend- ment to the Constitution that would limit the Federal Government's power to tax, but these two items will have to wait until some other time when you will let me talk for: still another half hour, Now, gentlemen, in conclusion let me say this: We can never help ourselves or Europe or President Truman’s backward nations of the world by military power or military ex- penditures, We can only hurt ourselves, If we are to help the world, we can only do it by education, by teaching the other nations of the world that the people are capable of self-government and that when the people have self-government their standards of living rise and there is no need for wars of aggression. Perhaps we could do this if we adopted the plan that the YWCA is doing in such a small way. ‘You remember Mrs. Hurd of that organization told us that in occupied Germany, the YWOA is holding classes telling how the American way operates, telling about PTA's, League of Women Voters, Civic Betterment Leagues, chambers of commerce, telling how the elected officials are the servants and representatives of the people, rather than the masters. The Y¥ is sending German men and women over here to study our sys- tem at work and to go back and teach the principle that the people are capable of self- government. Maybe this is the way. May- be if it were done on a grand scale, it would bring what people want—peace to all. But certainly our present way will not bring peace, prosperity, or anything but hardship and bankruptcy. Gentlemen, get busy to- day, write our Congressmen and Senators, tell them that our foreign policy and our defense policy are nonsense. And, above all, gentlemen, quit being afraid of the Russians and fight to maintain our principle that the people are capable of self-government, 80 that this Nation, under God, shall not perish from the earth. Money Wasted on Food Program Lost for Defense Supplies EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. HESELTON OF MASSACHUSETTS ” IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, ac- cording to the figures released by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the loss on the disposition of only 14 food com- modities for the first 5 months of this fiscal year—through November 1950— amounted to $81,614,097.84. The Department of the Army advises me that as of December 1, a 57-millimeter recoilless rifle cost $1,093. It is nothing short of a national disgrace that when the American people must carry so great a burden to produce and pay for vital equipment for our national defense, the Department of Agriculture throws away the equivalent of 85,000 of these rifles, plus $3,809,087 that might be used for ammunition, on an operation of this sort, For the same 5 months, the Commodity Credit Corporation paid for the carrying charges on these same 14 items of food, $20,662,461.97. That would have paid for 1,000 radar sets at $16,415 and 800 %4-ton trucks, with a balance of over $300,000, according to the Department of the Army estimates. The total of the money lost in this period on disposition of these 14 com- modities and the carrying charges is $112,276,559.81. That isan average waste of the taxpayers’ money of $22,455,312 & month, or more than 100 light tanks, estimated to cost $200,341 each. The detailed analysis of the Com- modity Credit Corporation report fol- OWS: As of Nov. 30, 1960 Loas on (lis- Carrying Position charges 3 $20, 16, 887, 67 $1, 823, 674. 03 Cheese........ 7, 407, 151, 54 265, 25 Dried milk... 12, 062, 071. 26 2, 196, 267 37 Dried eggs. .... 15, 978, 710. 93 1, 247, 896, 92 Trish potatocs 18, 081, 657. 20 257, 612, 45 aising.... 8, 195. 49 6, 812, 34 Dried bean 8, 183, 998, 50 1, 960, 568. 13 ried peas 803, 01, BO 317,848 07 |. ee ene 3437, 454, 21 1M, 191, 99 Turkoys..... 34, 025, 84 27, 683, 71 Soybeans... 103, 876, 15 RS, 742, 80 Peanuts......-. 2, 055, 844. 04 138, 204. 32 Sweetpotatoes... 701 3 608 83 Grain sorghur.. 18, 570, 423.60 | 11, 131, 004. 76 Total.....-..-.-| 91, 614, 097. 84 20, 662, 461. 97 1 Ropresente gain. Surplus of Revenues in Canada EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA Il THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an article entitied “Ottawa Shows Heavy Surplus,” which was published in the Gazette, Montreal, Canada, of January 20, 1951. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recoro, as follows: Ortawa SHOWS HEAVY SURPLUS—REVENUES 419,800,000 Hromme Taw Ovriay my 9 MontTHs Ortawa, January 10.—-The treasury re- ported today an accumulatec. budgetary sur- plus of 6419,800,000 for the first 9 months of the current fiscal year, compared with §298,- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 900,000 in the same stage of the preceding ar, se said the Government's revenues in that period totaled $2,048,100,000 compared with $1,886,400,000, while expenditures totaled €1,628,200,000 against @1,587,600,000. For December alone, revenues were §261,- 100,000 against $199,600,000 in December 1949, Expenditures totaled $274,200,000, compared with $200,600,000. Notirg that expenditures were higher in the 9-month period, the treasury report said: “If the special nonrecurring charge of 662,- 800,000 in 18949, due to the assumption of a portion of: Newfoundland debt pursuant to the terms of union, is eliminated, the in- crease for 1950 over 1949 is @162,900,000,” HIGHER DEFENSE COSTS “This increase was almost wholly ac- counted for by an increase of 135,300,000 in National defense expenditures and an in- crease of $15,400,000 in special expenditure due largely to payments arising out of the Winnipeg flood disaster. “In addition, there was an uncontrollable increase of $9,200,000 in family allowances and one of $8,200,000 in old-age pensions.” The increase of $46,700,000 in December expenditures was more than accounted for by a Jump of $65,000,000 in defense expendi- tures. Of the expenditure of $99,400,000 for defense, $56,700,000 was used to pay for equipment sent to Canada's North Atlantic partners, The treasury said that of the 38 divisions of expenditure shown in its statement—ex- cluding national defense—27 showed reduced administrative and general expenditures in December. In addition to budgetary expenditures, there were nonbudgetary disbursements, totaling $500,000 in December and $68,800,- 000 in the first 9 months of the year. These outlays were for loans, advances and invest- ments and were smaller than last year. Internationalism in Action: 1940—50 EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN W. BRICKER OF OHIO IN THE SENAT. OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rscorp, an editorial entitled ‘‘Internationalism in Action: 1940-50,” published in the Columbus Evening Dispatch of Monday, January 8, 1951. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: INTERNATIONALISM IN Acriom: 1940-60 On May 10, 1940, 8 new era opened in the affairs of the United States and the life of the American people. It was on this fateful day that Hitler's armies surged into western Europe. And although it was not apparent at the time, hindsight now shows that it was on this date that control over the destiny of the United States definitely passed into the hands of the interventionist inter- nationalist group where jt has since re- mained continuously until the present. It is true that President Franklin D. Roose. velt had been trending in this direction tn his conduct of foreign policy for some time. As early as 1987 he had indicated, in his “Quarantine Speech” at Chicago that he was intrigued by the idea of using the weight of American influence and possibly American
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD military power against the Nasi and Fascist dictatorships. But after the successful invasion of the low countries, shortly followed by the fal) of France, events moved st an accelerated speed to entangle the United States irre- trievably in the newest troubles of Europe. A national emergency was declared. The first peace-time draft law in our country's history waa enacted. And, sometimes openly sometimes under cover, Mr. Roosevelt set in motion the many devious programs, com- mitmenta and provocative devices which were to culminate in the Pearl Harbor attack and the involuntary entry of the United States—a step he had long planned and hoped for—into the world conflict. Now that a round-figure decade of control of the American destiny by the internation- alists has ended and the Nation is heading into another 10-year span in which the out- look is even more uncertain and unpromis- ing than it was in 1940, the time seems ap- propriate to look at the record, calmly, ob- jectively, and without rancor; to sum up what the events of the 1940-50 period have meant to the American people and what their future looks like should they continue blindly to accept the leadership of the same group. Before doing s0, it may be instructive to analyse briefly the background of our 10 years under internationalist leadership; to point out how completely the thinkers of this persuasion have dominated American life and polloy and have ceaseleasly propa- gandised our people in favor of their point of view. Since June 1940, the internationalists have controlled the conventions of both major political parties. They nominated Roosevelt for his third term in 1940 and a fourth term in 1944, and Truman in 1948, They blitsed the Republican Party into ac- cepting Wendell Willkie, an ardent inter- ventionist, in 1940, They nominated Dewey, another internationalist convert, in 1944 and renominated him in 1948. Whichever way the election had gone in any of these years, the internationalists would bave had one of thelr own in the White House, so firm was their grip on the nominating machinery of both major parties. There have been aix Congresses elected during this period. In all of these the same internationalist influences have been able to check effectively any legialation of im- portance that could have greatly diminished America’s wholesale appropriations for global causes. The presence of a fervent internationalist in the White House brought about a bold and successful usurpation of congressional prerogatives. President Roosevelt in effect declared war on his own initiative long be- fore America’s formal entry. He followed this unprecedented step by handing Amer- ican public funds outright to foreign gov- ernments and commercial intereste, His actions went unrebuked by a Federal court system consisting overwhelmingly of judges $ppoin ted by the same internationalist Pres- dent. All three branches of the Government thus were continuously under internationalist control during the vital period here under consideration. Since 1940, the internationalists also have enjoyed virtually a free hand in some of the Nation’s mass media of information, culture, and entertainment and @ majority representation in others. Let‘s look at the examples: 1. In the Nation's press the internation- alist point of view has been supported by & majority of the important dailies, This in- cludes many newspapers which have opposed the New Deal-Fair Deal on domestio issues. The press of the eastern seaboard and the South have been almost solidly favorable to the most belligerent internationalism and all it connotes. Virtually afl the major cal- umnists, from the gosstp-mongers to the serious thinkers, have preached and still preech internationaliam. 2. The radio, by reason of the life or death control exercised over broadcasters by the FOC, has been nearly 100 percent interna- tionslist in its impact on the Listening ear. Stations and commentators (except for par- ticipants on forum type programs) who have had the courage to express an opposite view, even in nonwar years, have been very few in numbers, Some individuals actually have been forced off the air by official pressure for pointing out the possible consequences of over-extending our commitments. 3. The internationalist penetration of Hol- lywood and the motion-picture industry also has been close to the saturation point. If there has been a single outstanding movie made in the past 10 years alanted in the direction of preserving the integrity of Amer- jea or even mildly questioning the concept of Uncle Sam as guardian of the whole world’s affairs, its title does not come to mind, Even the newsreels have the authen- tic global tinge that has colored an entire decade's thinking. 4. The legitimate theater has been even more abject, if that is possible, in its sub- servience, first to the principle of interven- tion and then to a militant internationalism and remorselessly severe in its criticism of the opponents of global experimentation. 6. The magazines published during the 1940-50 period have been adherents or con- verts to the prevailing internationalist creed, with few conspicuous dissenters. Here again the infiltration of periodical offices and staffs has been skillful and complete. The maga- zine reader of the past decade has been repe- titiously bombarded with the idea that any- thing smacking of American self-interest is & sort of treason to future generations. 6, The success of the internationalist zealots has nowhere been more effective than in the book publishing field, The few books questioning the authenticity of America’s rendezvous with global destiny which have seen print have been products either of minor houses or noncommercial university animated by the commendable wish to air all aides of the question. The big, successful major book houses have either been too timorous or too hamstrung by tn- ternationalist believers in their own organ- izations to touch anything contrary to the global viewpoint. And when books taking issue with internationalism have, by some Miracle, appeared, they have been unmerci~ fully smeared by global-minded reviewers, and often played down by retall outlets which regard them as sinister and reactionary. 7, The eager praine of internationalism in the Nation’s public schools and universities is too well known to need comment. Buffice it to say that any youngster who finished his education in 1940-50 without becoming en- rolled among the world-minded brotherhood jg tough-minded and individualistic indeed. The impact of the war on those of this gen~ eration who served in the Armed Forces has, however, usually lessencd their faith in the internationalist preachments of their school days. 8. Finally, the internationalists have made some of their most important and sweeping conquests in church organizations, particu- larly the large national denominational movements. Internationalism has been so identified in this field with hostility to war and with social progress that for practical purposes the terma have become synony- mous, and the vast influence of these insti- tutions has heen diverted often and skillfully to opposite ends. The greatest success of ali scored by the internationalist movement has been the or- ganization of the United Nations under American guidance and financial support. A431 In basic theory, UN is an organization to which no thoughtful seeker after world peace and security can posathly object. Into its service many devoted individuals have poured endless time and wark, If UN could be made to operate as those who have sincerely tried to make it work hoped it could, it would be reco; today as the greatest cooperative undertaking tn human history. That it hasn’t worked out that way is a matter of sorrowful record, and not by any means entirely the fault of the American internationalists. U's failure to cope effectually with the hard realities of today's world situation is a bitter disappoint- ment and, perhaps, bitterest of all to those who pinned on it the highest hopes. So, we enter upon a freeh decade with the internationalists stil) in control; after 10 years (as we have seen) of either dominance or substantial control of almost every realm of activity in American Hfe touching on pub- lic or private initiative. Towering over all these factors, as we have noted, are the two most important of all: (1) Continuous contro! of the Federal Gov- ernment; (2) unlimited access to the Treasury, resources, and manpower of the United States. However, for the first time aince 1940, the sentiment throughout the country which its {oes loosely and unjustifiably call tsolation- ist-—sentiment which has either been shouted down, or smeared, or intimidated by what sometimes seemed universal scorn, again is making itself felt in calls for a reexamina- tion of our international commitments and a scrutiny of our capacity to meet them. The recent speeches of Joseph P, Kennedy and Herbert Hoover have evoked 8 growing chorus of approval throughout the country which now realizes the increasing disiliu- sionment of the hopes raised by the outcome of World War II. Men and women who have never sub- scribed to the implications of the interna- tionalist doctrines are making themselves heard. There are many indications that the forthright analyses and proposed programs set forth by these experienced thinkers have given even some of the adherents of the global gospel themselves reason to pause as they realize the grave possibilities they have forced on their countrymen as & result of their past acta and decisions. The followings on both sides of this new internationalist versus pro-American align- ment cut scroes party lines. Mr. Kennedy ts s Democrat, Mr. Hoover a Republican. The two most articulate exponents of the opposite side are State Secretary Dean Ache- son, a Democrat, and John Foster Dulles, a Republican. The question, as we launch into the 1951-60 period, which may very well be known to future historians as the decade of decision for America and the world, is: How do we proceed from here? Do we follow the same guides and the same advice implemented by the same policies, or do we make a@ radical change, recognizing the devastating condt- tions we face today as & result of following this leadership? Isn't it time that those who may have brought us to this impasse, in the sincere belief that they were serving their nation and mankind, should give those who foresaw the probable result and spoke out against it at least a reapectful hearing? Shai an America burdended with crushing debt, militarily in danger for the first time in her 174 yeara, and rapidly becoming physi- cally tsolated in a threatening world by the hard logic of day-by-day developments con- tinue on the same oourse, and still depend on the philosophy whose advocates appar- ently fail to recognime the point to which it has led us? Is the internationalist leadership, which has had « clear field and almost undisputed sway for 10 years, adequate to the severe
A432 challenge of our present plight? Shall we trust it to keep America safe and atrong and to carry us through our current triale? Can this leadership cope with a world situation in which stark, brutal force is now unleashed primarily againat this Nation? The American peaple must make this deci- sion. It is a decision that they must make at least by 1952—-if we sre spared an all-out war that long—or which events may compel them to make sooner, The decision must be considered, and it must be sound and right if the United States of America, as we have known it, is to survive. Our National Interest EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the por- tion of the annual report by Mr. L. M. Giannini, president of the Bank of Amer- ica, entitled “Our National Interest.” There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Recorn, as follows: Our Natronan Inrerssr As # nation, we enter the new year with the greatest need in all our history for inspired leadership, national teamwork, and exercise of profound wisdom. Reoent world events make it entirely clear that our efforts to live in peace will be suc- cessful only provided they have the backing of defensive strength so impressive, so mighty, that it discourages any acts of aggression, or even the inner ambition to march against free people. Second sight reveals it was a mistake for us to have decimated our military strength following the armistice. We should have maintained it in a state of preparedness so effective that it would never have to be used. In this world we can never go back to normal. We can only go forward to a new normal—in this case a new normal of defen- sive preparedness sufficient to win and hold our goal of peace. And so we are now embarked upon the task of retrieving our postwar mistuke of excessive demobilization, The cost will be high, but we are prepared to pay it. We will pay the price through our sons and daughters in uniform. We will pay the price in higher taxes, We will pay the price in temporary shortages and other incon- veniences, I am convinced, however, that once our national economy has become adjusted to the requirements of an effective prepared- ness atate, we can—if we possess the will—~ continue our way of life without sacrifice of any essential freedom. Once having estab- lished our national impregnability, we can maintain {t permanently in every essential aspect and at the same time produce the goods and provide the services with which our living standard ts fashtoned. It will bea case of adjustment to a new tempo in all things, which, after all, has always been the basic pattern of our economy to a greater or lesser degree. The dmmediate task will be easier, and our goal more quickly won, if labor and manage- ment work in harmony, if political expedi+ ency is retired to the side lines, and if the Federal Government sets the example for the people to follow in matters of economical operation and conservation of resources, in- cluding manpower resources. From now forward, business and industry must make its manpower more productive. It 1s to be hoped the Federal Government will do the same shouldering its added tasks without further unnecessary inroads into the labor force, by bringing hours and other working conditions of Government em- ployees into line with those which must pre- vail in factories and fields and stores and offices and homes. On behalf of our bank, I wish to confirm that which you already know. We shall con- tinue to promote thrift as a means of strengthening the fiber of our people and as a way of combating inflation. To add to the attractiveness of saving money, we have just increased our savings interest rate by one- third, from 1% percent to 2 percent. Our resources and our resourcefulness will be adapted to the new needs and made fully available to business, industry, and Govern- meni, to facilitate the change-over to our new standard of defensive strength. Respectfully submitted, L. M. GIANNINI, President. Economic Planning EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN C. STENNIS OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr, STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, a timely statement on economic planning by the Honorable James K. Vardaman, Jr., member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserv. System. This splen- did statement, which served as the basis for an article in the New York Times of January 21, clearly and forcibly points out the necessity for across-the-board controls and a program of adequate tax- ation. I strongly co..mend it to the fav- orable attention of the Congress and of the American people, and therefore ask that it be inserted in the Recorp., There being no objection, the state. ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT MADE In NEW YORK ON JANUARY 18, 1961, To Mr. JoHN G. Forrzst, Finan- CIAL Horror, NEw Yorx Trmgs, sy J, K. VARDAMAN, MEMBER, FxpDERAL RESERVE BOARD I have thought for many months that the most serious problem with which the United Btates Government ts confronted 1s the pres- ervation of a sound American dollar. We can even accept defeat in military engage- ments and still survive as a nation so long as our economy and our money are sound. But without a sound dollar with a strong purchasing value in domestic and world markets we cannot survive as a nation with our present form of government, even though we may win sll of our military en- gagements. For some months it has appeared to me that the Nation should have at the earliest possible moment a complete pattern of strict, direct controls embracing allocations of stra- tegic materials, rationing, price controls, and wage controls. These controls should be across the board, total in effect, and cover all APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD classes of our personal and corporate pop~ ulation. In addition to these direct controls there should, of course, be an adequate program of taxation, Including a general sales tax; and there should be other fiscal, monetary, and credit controls sufficiently powerful to siphon off the backlog of surplus money to be automatically created by the direct controls. It strikes me that we are simply deluding ourselves as public officials, and not being entirely fair with the American people, when we conyince ourselves and lead the people to believe that voluntary agreements, as de- sirable as they may be in peacetime, and selective credit controls, over-all credit con- trols, and the highest practical tax assess- ment, will be sufficient to restore and pre- serve the purchasing value of the dollar and thereby protect and perpetuate our present form of government. We must have organization and discipline in our civil population as well as the mill- tary, or else our whole structure is apt to collapse. The necessity for this discipline is emphasized by the probability of attack on the United States proper. In our present state of mind, panic would probably result from such an attack; whereas, if we begin immediately to accustom ourselves to dis- cipline in thought as well as in action we will be much more likely to survive. On the fundamental question of selective credit controls I feel now as I have always felt, that such controls are unwise. Actu- ally they have little or no material effect percentagewise on the total national credit structure; but they do have a disastrous effect on the social attitude of the people, primarily because they do not affect equally all income classes and corporate groups. Factional opposition to these controls, some sound and some selfish, handicaps the over- all monetary and credit control function of the Federal Reserve System, because when the Board acts in these limited areas the populace and the congressional opposition become vocal and strong enough to prevent the Board being granted necessary addi- tional selective and general control author- ity to meet its contemplated statutory re- sponsibility in the monetary and credit field. In other words, distrust and toss of confi- dence in the Board's objectivity brought about by these pin-point, annoying and in- effective selective controls potentially weaken the entire structure of Board authority. I have always thought that the Board’s contri- bution to our Nation would be much more constructive tf the Board were more ex~ clusively in the position of 8 high court and less in the position of a police Judge and policeman. Right or wrong, good or bad, the fact re- mains that regulations W, T, and X have not in the past, nor have they at present, stopped the inflationary trend and the flight from the dollar.. They may be very good regulations concomitant to fiscal, monetary, and direct controls, but by themselves they appear to me to do more harm than good, And I speak from more than 20 years’ suc- ceasful experience which I enjoyed as & law- yer, banker, and businessman before becom- ing a member of the Board. I believe that the people of this country have confidence in President Truman per- sonally and will wholeheartedly obey and support a program of over-all direct con- trols. Enforcement machinery can well fol- low the imposition of the controls, and their imposition should not be delayed the months required to set up such machinery. Of course there will always be an appreciable percentege of chiselers and cheaters, black marketeers and other scum; but a vast ma- jority of the American people are honest and law abiding and in this critical period when our very existence depends on our behavior
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I firmly believe that the population will largely police itself in these vital matters, Having served more than 5 years in com- bat service with the Army and amphibious Navy in our last two wars I am convinced that the Armed Forces also have falth in the Presidency and in the American people. If they didn't have they couldn't do a good job in the field, and nobody realizes that better than the mothers and fathers and Iriends of armed service personnel, and those people will obey and help police any pattern of controls that may be necessary. The Marines’ Esprit de Corps EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL H. DOUGLAS oF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “They’re Just Tougher,” by Mr. Jim G. Lucas appearing in the Wash- ington Daily News of Friday, January 26, 1951. This is an uncensored report and, in my opinion, bears out the need for the legislation introduced by myself and 42 other Senators to strengthen the Marine Corps. What we needed at the time of the Korean outbreak, and what we need now, is a strong, versatile and effective fighting force which will always be ready for immediate action. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tuev’rRE JUsT TOUGHER (By Jim G. Lucas) (NoTe.—Reporter Jim G. Lucas appraises the weaknesses of our fighting forces in Ko- rea in this uncensored article. Mr. Lucas has just returned to the United States after 5 months on the Korean battlefields. He has observed first-hand the lack of tough- ness, aggressiveness and morale which he reports, and has talked with men who felt cheated when they were ordered into the fighting from their relatively soft life as occupation troops. Other uncensored dis- patches by Mr. Lucas will follow.) The general pulled his box closer to the fire. “They're tougher than we are,” he said. Just that. They're tougher than we are. They can take more than we can. “Over there,” he continued, “they're walk- ing around tonight in straw sandals. We say it can't be done. But they’re doing tt. We're so bundled up we can't move. They're just tougher than we are.” A lot has been written about the training of American troops. The first men into Ko- rea came from Japan. They were ac- customed-——in varying degrees—to relatively soft living. There had been some field training, but no one contended it was enough. Many enlisted men never ex- pected to fight. They'd simply taken up the Army's offer of security and retirement, Many were marking time to finish their education, To be thrown into battle was the last thing they expected. Many felt deceived, cheated, abused. They made no secret of it. That doesn't mean all felt that way. There were good, hard, trained fighting men in our ranks. That they were able to XCVU—App.——-28 hold any kind of a line—with the odds con- fronting them—is tribute to them and men like the late Lt. Gen. Walton Walker. ARMY KNOWS IT The Army now recognizes that fact. It probably recognized it all along. But the burden of garrisoning occupied territories imposed a new and different responsibility on its peacetime shoulders, Now, it says it's going to tonghen up. Veterans of Korea will have much to say about how Gis are trained from now on. There's a growing suspicion in Korea that we are overmechanized. Maj. Gen. Robert McClure, formerly commander of the Sec- cond Division, said recently we have become so mobile we have lost our mobility. Every- thing we sent to Korea, he said, was de- signed for war in the Low Countries of Eu- rope. Maj. Gen. Frank Lowe, President Truman’s representative in Korea, put it a little differently one night. But he meant the same thing. “I am prepared to bet any man,” he sald caustically, “that there are more jeeps than fighting men in Korea.” No one took him up. “The average American soldier,” General McClure told a group of correspondents one night, “expects to ride to the battlefield, ride away, live—and if necessary—die on pneumatic tires.” BETTER TO WALK One afternoon in central Korea, just out~- side Wonju, a battalion executive officer told me he'd sent his jeeps to the rear. The ene- my, in considerable strength, was 600 yards ahead, He and his men knew there was a good chance they’d be overwhelmed. I asked if he didn't need motors for a geta- way. “That may be the trouble with our Army today,” he answered. “Too many wheels, I was a company commander in the last war and I had two jeeps. I never saw them; turned them over to my supply and mess sergeants. Today each company has four. That’s too many. It ties us down to what- ever roads we can find and you can’t find them here. Men fight better on foot. They have a better chance getting out if they walk.” Take any given area—particularly in the mountains of Korea—and you can spot the two or three avenues down which our troops can move. The enemy can spot them, too. But the enemy can fan out and move on us from any direction he chooses. The moun- tains are our roadblocks. They are his high- ways. “we are roadbound,” General McOlure said. “Bound to tortuous, twisting trails which are easily subject to ambush and demolition. We are fighting in compartmentalized ter- rain and we haven't enough room to move about. Not with the kind of equipment we've been given.” But overmechanization is only part of the story. There's also the matter of discipline and aggressiveness, And many better of- ficers and men quite frankly admit we could stand improvement. Such a statement, of course, runs serious risk of misinterpretation. It is not intended as a refiection on the courage of the great bulk of our men in Korea, One war cor- respondent wrote, after Seoul, that the rec- ord of our Army had been one of panic and cowardice. In 5 months in Korea, I found nothing to support that kind of generaliza- tion. But I am convinced that our Army at times lacked aggressiveness, After the Chi- nese came in, many men were interested only in getting out. That was true at the top as well as among enlisted men. Such things as “Pusan, Here We Come” appeared chalked on jeep sides during our retreat. One officer, at Hungnam, told me morale was never higher among his troops than after we began our evacuation. They thought they were leaving for good. No ohe ever talked of going north again. If it was said, usually fa a joke, it was greeted by shocked silence. Ancther officer, 8 Neutenant colonel and battalion commander, complained one night that he had many men who, over a period of weeks, hadn't finished firing their first cltp. “They'll go to the front if ordered,” he said. “They'll get shot at. But they won't shoot back. They’re not mad,” Again, it would be unfortunate to leave the impression this is true of all, or any major part, of our Army. Buta chain is as strong as its weakest link. And one man can cost hundreds of lives. Too often, the man in the ranks has little feeling of responsibility or teamwork. Fre- quently, he feels little responsibility even for his own survival, General McClure insisted that most frostbite and forzen feet cases were the victim's own fault. Men didn't change their socks, didn’t dry them when they took them off. They'd been told how, but it was too much trouble. And it was too much trouble for their officers to push them. They were conditioned to expect someone else to look after them, Many paid a tragic price. I spent Christmas night on a listening post 2 miles in front of our lines. We were in deadly peril, We could, at any moment, be surrounded and destroyed, One patrol 2 miles away did meet that fate. To my dismay, the two soldiers with me laid down their rifies as soon as we reached our outpost and went to sleep. Ispent most of the night trying to keep them awake. They not only slept, they snored. And the enemy was right in front of us. Our troops were 2 miles back. Finally, in desperation, I threatened to re- port them. I did just that when we re- turned, Their commanding officer was un- impressed. He'd sent a couple of goldbricks on that patrol, he said, as punishment. The idea of trusting my life to men with No more sense of responsibility frightened me as badly as contact with the enemy. Later, the commanding officer conceded it ‘was a deplorable situation. But he insisted it was not unusual. He pointed out that, technically, the men could have been shot on the spot and nothing could have been done about it. “But can you imagine what'd happen to me?” he asked. At the risk of special pleading (because I am a former marine), it is my observation as well as that of the majority of war corre- spondents that the marines offend less in this respect than the Army. The marines’ esprit de corps is traditional. The idea that the other fellow depends on you to deliver the goods—that you are part of a team—~is drilled into marines from the hour they enter boot camp. Among them, it is high treason to let the other guy down. American Fighting Resourcefulness: EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ZALES N. ECTON: OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr, ECTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Betting on Americans,” which appeared in the Bozeman (Mont.) Daily Chronicle of January 18. ‘ There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorn, as follows:
A434 Berrova ow Ancmntoares Bot so many weeks ago we heard « bigw! from Washington give a yee ressing account of a bri: he had at- Sended at the Pentagon a few days before. He said that one of the top offictals—he didn't say who--wound up on this cheerful "I would say that the odds that our onil- dren will not live under Russian slavery are no better than 50-50.” We've been thinking that over. And what ‘we think is that we would like to bet every hickel we could beg, borrow, or steal on the American people at odds like that in any kind of contest you want to name. Bince when did this country start fighting ahy of even-money gambles? When did we begin to doubt our ability to bold our own in any venture that offered us an even break. A friend of mine says he is alarmed by what he takes to be a wave of defeatiam that ja sweeping the country. We'd be alarmed by it, too, we really | elieved it went any than just flannel-mouth talk. ‘We get no goose pimples from the warn- ings of those who point out that bombs prob- ably will fall on the United States in any future world war, and those who wonder whether the American people have what it takes to stand up under the kind of pound- ing the British took in the last war. We are not dismayed by the thought that aim- ply because we have never lost a war, in the commonly accepted sense, it doesn’t follow that we will never lose one. The logic may be sound enough but the conclusion is pre- posterous. The Census Bureau could comb the country without turning up a single American who actuely believes the United States might have to knuckle under to any potential enemy now in sight. Even so, we do seem to scare pretty easily these days, Too many professional crepe- hangers ere figuring out how many divisions we could field in a pinch and assuming that the jib is up if somebody else could scrape ‘up a few more. What's become of the old Patrick Henry cockinesa and the apirit of ‘76? Those hard- bitten old-timers used to think that a good American could lick any 10 foreigners. They thought nothing of taking on crack enemy troops with squirrel rifles and pitchforks. Now we trembled at the thought of how many half-starved vagrants a potential enemy might be able to point in our direc- tion. We wonder how our boys, who started making model airplanes when they were 10 years old, will do against butter-fingered peasants who only recently got the hang of the can opener. It may be that our traditionally high opinion of American fighting resourcefulness leaned o trifle to the irrational side. But it has pulled the country out of many a tight hole. We needn’t go around butting our heads into brick walls to prove what stout fellows we are. Nor need we take foolhardy risks with American lives just to save the faces of bungling diplomats. But let’s not mislead stupid aggressors into imagining that any lve American is ever going to be a alave to any foreign dictator, That would be downright deoeltful, Gifts of Butter by the Federal Government Se eaaeamnamendl EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL OF MASSACHUSETTS [IN THE SENATS OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, J ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Since Korean War Began More Than 75,000,000 Pounds of Butter Given Away by United States,” written by John W. Ball, and published in the Washing- ton Post of Sunday, January 28, 1951. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered, Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would also call attention to the fact that on January 26 the Boston Globe published the price of butter in Boston, Mass., as being 75 cents a pound. Mr, CHAVEZ. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. If I have the power to yield to the Senator from New Mexico, I do so. Mr. CHAVEZ. I wish to say that I was informed by a man in the Depart- ment of Agriculture only last week that not only were as many million pounds of butter as the Senator from Massechu- setts spoke of given, away by the United States, but that during the past year many million dollars’ worth of cheese were given away by the United States. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I am glad to receive that information from the Senator from New Mexico, and thank him for giving it. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yleld to me? Mr. SALTONSTALL. If I have the power to do so, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. YOUNG. The Senator from Mas- sachusetts also undoubtedly knows that since the end of the last war the United States gave away $20,000,000,000 to Eu- rope for purposes perhaps less worthy than the one he has referred to? The article referred to is as follows: Sivce Korean War Broan, Mort THAN 75,000,000 Pounns or Burrmrr Given Awar BY UNITED STaTxs (By John W. Ball) Uncle Sam has given away more than 75,- 000,000 pounds of butter—balf of it over- seas—asince the Korean war started last June. Other millions were sold at one-fourth the Government's cost. The entire cost of the butter given away was about $45,000,000. While Agriculture Department's Commod- ity Credit Corporation was handing out these aupplies with a more than lavish hand, the Army Quartermaster was buying 20,000,000 pounds at full market price, ar about $12,- 000,000. The Army, also bought more than 7,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine, for the ‘use of all the armed services, It is now buy- ing about 4,000,000 pounde of butter and 1,000,000 pounds of oleo each month to feed the ever-increasing armed services. The Government's transactions in butter make one of the most fantastic stories in all the weird operations of the farm price support system. Bestdes giving away millions of pounds of butter while the Army was buying it in in- creasing amounts each month, OCC now proudly boasts that tt sold 127,000,000 pounds on the domestic market at 60 cents @ pound, plus handiing charges of not more than 8 cents and usually less. The last of these transactions took place justly recently, all of them in the last few months. Some of these supplies allegedly went into the speculative market. The but- tet OCC sold at 60 conte a pound to Amer- ican commercial dealers, was selling for 72 cents on the Chicago market a week ago and dg now bringing around 69 certs. The 60 cents that CCC got for ite supplies— virtually all bought this year—was the price APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that the Government paid for the butter ‘under the fixed, arbitrary terms twice laid down by Congress within the last 30 months in the Agricultural Acts of 1046 and 1949. About 2 to $ cents a pound was added for handling. (The Government's price support program has cost more than $100,000,000 already this year, according to President Truman's budget Tnessage. It probably will reach double that figure by the year's end June 30. It cost one and six-tenths billion in fiscal year 1940.) FIFTZEN-CENT PRICE TO ITALY Hore’s the butter story step by step: During 1949 and 190 CCC bought 242,- 000,000 pounda of butter to Keep consumer prices high and farmers happy. Of this amount it sold 127,000,000 pounds to commercial dealers, in recent months at 60 cents a pound. Another 5,500,000 pounds were sdld last September to the Government of Italy at 15 cents a pound. (In the same month the Army bought 8,180,737 pounds for $1,963,066, or @ ttle more than 61 cents a pound.) About 51,000,000 pounds more was given free of charge plus freight costs to the school lunch program and to private or State chari- thes. Estimates place the amount that went free of charge to domestic charities at about 40 million pounds. Another 87,500,000 pounds was donated free of charge for shipment to foreign coun- tries ag follows: Istael, 18,847,350 pounds; Yugoslavia, 11,000,000 pounds; Germany, 5,400,000 pounds; Italy, 1,352,900 pounds; Prance, 647,250 pounds; ‘Trieste, 278,000 pounds; Austria, 70,600 pounds, Tunisia, 56,- 000 pounds; India, 61,500 pounds; French Morocco, 44,000 pounds; Great Britain, 43,000 pounds; Greece, 31,525 pounds; and Norway, 22,600 pounds. These foreign shipments were given free, freight paid to shipboard. Distribution was made in the foreign countries by welfare agencies, such as CARE, Jewish welfare groups, the Friends, etc. All such agencies were first approved for the donations by the State Department. As of January 12, COCO had only 8,500,000 pounds of butter left. This, it reported, has been “committed,” mostly for the school lunch program. In the present fiscal year CCC hag loet $24,000,000 on butter, in addition to the Army purchases. The Government’s Part in the Nation’s World Responsibilities EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. STERLING COLE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, the New York State Agricultural Society, the oldest of {ts kind in the United States, held its one hundred and nineteenth an- nual meeting tn Chancellor’s Hall, State Education Building, at Albany, N. Y., on January 24. The central theme for dis- cussion at its conference was the Na- tion’s World Responsibilities, with par- ticular emphasis upon the citizen’s part, labor's part, industry, agriculture, and the Government. My part of the discus- sion related to the Government's part in world affairs which I include herewith: The bullding in which this meeting is held today and this auditorium awaken
APPENDIX TO THE. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD treasured memories for me. While a law student in this city I was employed as messenger, clerk, and reviewer of regents’ examinations here in the education depart- ment, and in this very chamber, Chancellor's Hall, some years ago I witnessed the inaugu- ration of the commissioner of education of this State, a man whom I regard as the noblest soul I have ever known. I am honored to be the son of that man, Bo it is a pleasure to me to be here among these many memories of yesterday, among old friends, and to be a participant in this gathering which is of real significance to our great State and to its men and women who, through their agricultural contributions, bring so much to the State and Nation and to the men and women of our Armed Forces, with whom I have long felt so closely allied as a result of my congressional identi- fication with the Armed Forces for the past 14 years, For any person to be asked to speak of the Government’s part in the Nation's world responsibilities today, in sucl troubled and epochal times, and by such an important a society as this, tn itself constitutes an honor and recognition. 1 must in candor confess that I have deliberately accepted the invitation to be here in that spirit. I have done so perhaps in some despera- tion. My choice seemed a little bleak. Either I could immodestly approach the problem as constituting recognition of an unusual sort, or I could submit to the over- whelming sense of inadequacy any reason- able person ought to feel in approaching a subject to this magnitude today. In measuring our future today, I think all of us must recognize that the role of our National Government, perhaps for years ahead, will encompass virtually all significant areas of our economy and wil’ penetrate deeply into all critical areas of this dis- tressed and frightened globe. It is, in fact, in keeping with many cur- rents of present-day thought to say that the citizens of our land are impatiently de- manding a greater role for our Government than—remarkably enough—Government it- self appears ready to assume. I think this yearning for governmental initiative and guidance in these times 1s not so extraordinary. There are unparalleled times The problems we face internationally are not new among mankind, for they are the age-old problems of survival, of violence and bloodshed, of misery and despair, of revolutionary movements among downtrod- den peoples, of despotism, of threats to all Christian values and concepts. These are not the problems that make our times unparalleled, Neither is the stern- ness of the test in today’s world accountable for public yearnings for greater Government energy and purposeful direction of national affairs. The mark of our times is the vast com- plexity of the issues with which we must work, and the awful consequences if we miscalculate our course, Our national power has become so vast that once set in motion, like the great flywheel (and, unfortunately, slow to start, like the flywheel), it is a serious task indeed to arrest its motion. So as citizens, lacking access to the factual data from which decisions of high public policy are derived, it is our right to demand wisdom, to demand initiative, to demand a great sense of responsibility, and to demand vision and statecraft on the part of our Government collectively, and on the part of our public leaders individually. Our people are making these demands upon our Gov- ernment today in steadily increasing volume. The reason is clear, That reason is the official title of these remarks—the people have become acutely aware of “the Govern- ment’s part in the Nation's world respon~- sibilities.” And our people are demanding that the Government fulfill that part. I think it is clear enough that the role of our Government 1s, in regard to international problems, to serve as the rudder on our ship of State. It is the instrumentality of the people of the United States through which they determine their direction tn world af- fairs, and through which they give evidence of their collective meaning to the nations of the world. It is trite, but largely true, to say that the Government is only as coura- geous, as inalstent, as idealistic, as fare sighted, and as wise as are the people them- selves, for the Government in our society must always closely mirror the citizens, for better or worse, or surely collapse or be frus.« trated in its ventures. But this fundamental tenet of our system does not absolve our Government leaders from their own responsibilities. They are not to be mere weathercocks responding helplessly to the public breeze. Not only do they have a responsibility for leadership in areas in which the people are not informed but our Government leaders also hold the awful responsibility for charting a course for the ship of state through uncharted and perilous waters, the citizens being in a posi- tion uncomfortably similar to that of the impressed seamen and having, oftentimes— some say especially so in odd-numbered years—just about as much to do with the direction of the vessel as does the impressed seaman, In these circumstances we can see clearly the role of the Government in today’s world. It is to lead our people, in areas where they are inadequately informed and where for reasons of national security they cannot be informed. It is to guide our Nation through the shadowy and threatening valleys which must be traversed if we are to reach the plains of an assured and lasting peace. It is to harness and concentrate our power, economic and military, to bring the great potentialities of our land to bear when and where needed for the task before us, It is to instill confidence and faith among other nations in the world in the ultimate conquest of tyranny by freemen, and to bring courage and determination to those to whom the cause seems so hopeless today, And in these awesome undertakings, the Government must ever remain the tovl of our free citizens, reflecting their collective will, for all that it does or attempts to do hinges upon how effectively this is done. Of these obligations upon our Government today, there can be no doubt amongst any of us who love freedom and revere the type of society which has made our country the phenomenon of the ages, that the greatest test of all is whether or not we can prevent the world from bursting into flames that would ravage victor and vanquished alike, The spectre of the blinding flash of the atom bomb, the shattering roar of mighty rockets fired from aircraft or distant platforms, the hidden menace of bacteriological warfare and chemical warfare, the nightmarish pros- pect of the new and untold terrors of the hydrogen bomb, the frenzy and terror and hideousness of modern war, all this lies pos- sibly, some say probably, before us, as our Government strives with all the means at its command to prevent the holocaust. Yes; here is the prime role of our Govern- ment in the Nation's world responsibilities. To achieve peace—peace with honor—lasting, durable peace to permit our people and all of mankind to work for their betterment, freed from the oppressive fear of war. How this can best be done is the central topic of our times, in and out of the Govern- ment. It is the focal point around which the Congress revolves in i) of its major delibera- tions. I have felt for quite some time that this challenging problem has been compounded A435 of far too much defeatism and bias to be soundly resoived. In the approach of many of us to this issue, I have sensed time and again that revulsion againet war by many of our peace-loving peoples has led them to an attempt to deny the military facts of life through a sort of psychological eacapiam which we see commonly among children who find facing up to hard farts to be too dis- tasteful. It is this sort of escapism that produces the inclination to consign Zurope to her own doom and to take the apparently easier road of giriing ourselves with moats of wind and water, leaving the world to simmer in its evil brew as if we were not also in the pot. And from our inherited biases against things and peoples foreign stem our tendency to dismiss contemptuously the halting steps of Europeans to strengthen their own de- fenses. We tend to o ‘erlook completely how different it must be to be so situated as to have to look down the muz#le of a Ruesian gun which may go off while you are rearm- ing than it is to counsel strong hearts and stout deflance from this citadel 3,000 miles away. In making that observation, I do not mean to pose as an apologist for the inadequacies of our European friends. Neither do I de- sire to imply in any way that our ~eople can be or shouid be content with anything but effort on their part comparable to that which our Nation is :»aking in the cause of freedom, However, it is one thing for the coach to stay on the sidelines, shouting to his battle- weary, bruised team, “They can’t hurt us.” It is far more meaningful if the coach makes the same comment, “They can’t hurt us,” when he too is tn the fight with his team. I feel, therefore, that we are a bit prone to deprecate the impact upon our Eyropean frienes of their proximity to the mighty and truculent Russian war machine. I some- times wonder how vigorous Mexico or Canada would be if England or France were exhorting them to arm against America, if our actions and attitudes were and had long been menacing toward those countries. My guess is that their rearmament effort would be halting and slow, or at least prudent, To return to our theme, What is the proper role of our Government in dealing with this problem? Our citizens of this great land must hope that our Government can weld thy European nations and other freedom-loving nations of the world into a working, virile, deter- mined and powerful team dedicated to the prevention of aggression in the world. That is the present obligation and effort. And I feel profoundly that all of us must pray that that effort is bles.ed with success. You will note that I have not stated an alternative. I have emphasized the impor- tance of creating a free world determination and concert of military effort. I have men- tioned no alternative because the prospect 4s too fearful to contemplate. Contrary to the views of some others, my conviction, based on harsh military facts, le that ulti- mate destruction awaits America if we seek to go it alone on this tormented planet, con- signing the vast resources and industrial capacities of the remainder of the world to the diabolical Reds. Appealing though this plague-on-the- rest-of-the-world concept is, as an escapist mechanism by which to construct a more pleasant dream world than the facts war- rant, {t smacks too much of an effort to destroy the Russian bear by gorging him to death. I find it difficult to believe that this Nation, or any nation, can vanquish communism by giving it indigestion. Neither can any of us look with anything lesa than dread upon the situation that would ensue if the Reds were permitted to place the resources and industrial complex of Western Europe into their own orbit to develop endlessly, remorselessly, day and
A436 night, year in end year out, until the vaunted Industrial supremacy of America became « nostalgic atroyed hers:if in the endless torment of an armaments race stupendotis beyond beltef. Nor is security to be found ‘in passive de~ fense, as the annals of warfare amply dem~ onstrate, and as ancient Home found to her sorrow, Moats of wind and water be- come highways—avenues of approach—to the nation with superior air or naval fleets, I shudder to contemplate the disasters to be heaped upon future American generations if this generation should yield to the Reds the shipyards of France, Belgium, Italy, and England, slong with their aircraft manufac- turing capabilities, all of this potentially mighty strength supplemental to the Rus- sian industrial system. Surely there could be no doubt that ultimately America would be crushed in the industrial effort this ter- rible competition would require; or, if our land gave up the race in order to preserve its economy, military conquest of our land could only be our ultimate reward. Does this mean, then, that the role of our Government is simply t> deny the industrial capacity of Western Europe to the Soviet Union? No, the responaibility is more se- rious than that. Our Government must, cer- tainly, deny to the Soviet Union the indus- trial capabilities of Europe even in the ter- rible eventuality of Russian selzure of these areas. But the leasons of the last war are clear in this respect. Air power has severe limitations, as we see daily in the press ac- counts of the warfare in Korea, Not only is air power unable, of itself, to stop the ad- vance of a powerful ground army, but it can- not scourge a nation to death by and of it- self. All of us remember the Nazi's guided missiles launching sites late in the last war when America and her allies had complete air superiority. Despite innumerable bamb- ing attacks, despite all that alr power could do, it was only when the ground troops over- ran these sites that all of them could be put Out of commission. It would be no different in a future war. Should the Soviet Union overrun Western Europe, we could never wholly eliminate the industrial strength this victory would add to the Red military machine. I am reminded of the fact that in spite of the tremendous and innumerable bombing attacks on Nazi Germany from 19423 until 1944, German war production climbed steadily until American armies were at the frontiers and our alr at- tacks were turned primarily to tactical pur- poses, Tbe harsh military fact, true heretofore in warfare, equally true today, is that a nation is defeated only when ita military force, ground, air, and naval, is destroyed or ren- dered impotent, This demands a mighty ground force quite as much as a mighty air force and mighty navy. Much eas we might wieh it, there is no other route. The only way I know to keep the military potential of Western Europe from being ex- ploited to our ultimate disaster by the Reds ja to keep them from overrunning it in the first instance. That is our problem. That is the awful Tesponsibility of our Government. It cannot be accomplished by purchasing . allies or by compelling the nations of Western. Europe, by cajolery or economic pressure, to create armed forces. A military organization cannot be an effective fighting machine un- less there is in existence a strong national determination and will to fight behind that organination. Neither can it be accomplished by America’s manhood and American mili- tary machines alone. Our manpower is too limited; our national economy cannot end- lessly withstand the strains such « policy would produce. Tt can be accomplished only tf the will of Woertern Europe to resist is sufficiently strong to instill In Kuropean fighting forces the memory, or until America de-' strength to stend up against the alfen forces to the east. That will to resist must come from within those netions themselves. It oamnot be obtained from America. Deter~ mination to retain national and personal freedom is not a marketable quantity; it comes from the national character and tradi- tions. But this doas not leave our Government impotent and consigned to a wringing of hands while awaiting, hopefully, a resurgence of & Huropean will to resist, There are posl- tive steps our Government can and must take, and bas taken. These steps include economic assistance within limits, nearly all of which, in my own view, has been given that should be. They include direct military assistance in the form of military equipment and advice where needed, this program still requiring considerable implementation in the fnture to be effective, snd also requiring @ much greater autonomy of military per- sonnel in Europe and less State Department control, The effort also requires continuing encouragement of the European countries to confederate, to remove artificial restrictions on trade and commerce and military effort in order that a healthy European economy and military capacity cin be built. But more than this is also involved. There 1g also inyolved the commitment of American military strength to Europe. The American fleet must have sufficient aircraft carrier strength to provide promptly alr su- pericrity where and when needed at vital areas in the Mediterranean, in and around the British Isles, and over the coastal areas of the European continent, The American Air Force must amass sufficient fighter strength in England, in Africa, and on the continent itself to withstand, in concert with our allies, the initial Soviet assault from the air should it be unleashed. Our Air Force must also maintain in instant readiness the bombing power required from British, Afri- can, and other bases to pulverize strategic Soviet installations in the event the neces- sity arises. And on the ground the Americans must have sufficient strength to protect themeelves adequately in the event of attack so that, if the need arizes, at least they will have rea- sonable opportunity, in combination with the American Air Force and Navy, to be with~ drawn before encirclement or total de- struction. These steps are sssential to effective Euro- pean reaistance—to the resurgence of the vigorous European effort required to save from conquest and to save America trom the bleak prospects which retirement to our own shores presents. Our ground rule in rendering this military aasistance to Europe must be to provide enough to make it evident to Rurope that America has both the intent and the ability to stand with the Europeans against the Soviet Union on the Contiment, and that the American ability is sufficiently evident and promising as no longer to make the cause appear hopeless, More of a contribution than this would be economic collapse. Less than this will surely leave Europe so supine and fearful of moving to her own defense that all our great investments in the recovery of this part of the world will have proved in vain. Acknowledgedly it ts a fine balance we seek-—-a dangerous, a fateful balance. Gen- eral Elgenhower at this moment is appraising ite possibilities, promises, and risks, and all the world looks with extreme interest and concern to hia report upon return from Europe. IT have the utmost confidence in his ability. I believe in his integrity and objec- tivity, and it is my observation that the ene tire Nation respects his fudgmant. His mes- sage to our troubled land will have a heavy APPENDIX TO THE. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD impact on public and congreasions! attitudes and activities for months thereafter. Tt is well for all of us to keep foremost our thinking in all of these efforts «broad these days that our motivation has been, i, and must in the future be the ‘ty of our own national security. It 1s setf-interest, not overweening concern over the future of others at this critical time, that underltes our national policies. Nations are never charitably motivated in their military efforts. We need have no cobwebs in our thinking in respect to our relations with our European friends during the critical months and years ahead. The cooperation we receive, if indeed We receive it, will not be the result of Euro- pean fondness for our peoples. It will be produced from a desire for their own na- tional survival. I digress to make this point only to remove the fusziness in the minds of those who advocate the defense of this or that area in the world for emotional reasons, or because of traditional factors unrelated to the problems of today. The tragedy of our times, as was 90 cogently an address at the University of Washington, js that tn the course of the last war, prima- rily as a result of our unfortunate and short- sighted addiction to the term “unconditional surrender,” insisted upon by the late Presi- dent Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference, we upset the balance of power in the worid. More than that, and more deadly, we actually created power vacuuma in Europe and in Asta into which armed strength surely would flow, whether it be our own, that of our friends, or the armed might of the Commu- nist millions. These power vacuums, espe- clally in areas as highly primed as that of Western Europe, inevitably draw the atten- tion and efforts of other nations, and we find ourselves faced by this uncomfortable fact in both Europe and Asia today. : Our Government now must fill these power vacuums. We must do it by strengthening our allies, by strengthening ourselves, and also—and I emphasize this point—by bring- ing Germany and Japan back into the family of nations as counterweilghts in the balance against Russian aion. Only if we follow this course of action, only if we follow it with the frmest determination and dedication, only if we pursue this objec- tive with a great sense of urgency, leaving behind business-as-usual concepts and, even foregoing the peacetime emphasis on orderly and efficient processes, can we hope to succeed. All of these functions constitute the pri- mary role of our Government in world affairs today. They are risky. They are fateful for mankind, I have not the slightest doubt that because of our faith in the Divinity, Who after all will dispose of these matters in His own way, regardless of our efforte—because of our devotion to freedom, because of our vast disproportion of military resources and industrial capabilities, and because the entire effort is 00 patently worth the cost, whatever i¢ may be, we shall succeed. Tom Sweeney Replies to Public Opinion Pell EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. H. CARL ANDERSEN OF MINWEBOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Speaker, recently the editor of the Wheeling News-Register and Intelli-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD gencer, Wheeling, W. Va., conducted a- pell of his readers listing 10 queries bearing on the world crisis, One of the most interesting responses received was submitted by Tom Sweeney, of Wheel- ing, who served as a navigator in the Naval Air Corps during World War I. Prior to his military service Commander Sweeney was a member of the West Vir- ginia Senate for several terms and was the sponsor of many constructive meas- ures, He is an executive in the T. B, Sweeney Agency of the Equitable Life Insurance Co. In view of his political and business background and his exten- sive service in both the European and Pacific theaters, the proposals he offered will be of interest to the House. His response to the poll reads as follows: Entror, tHe News-Recister, Wheeling, W. Va. Dear Sm: As a nation we cannot allow ourselves to be bled white in a series of land actions throughout the world. Or the other hand, can we afford to withdraw behind your Atlantic-Pacific-Hemispheric wall? We could have in 1940, Outside was a world divided, and we held the balance of power. In my campaign for the United States Senate in that year my foreign policy platform was the Herbert Hoover-Intelligencer-News-Reg- ister doctrine of today. It was sound, sen- sible, and rejected. But the world outside has changed. And how confused have been the politicians who brought us to our present dilemma, is pro- vided by the picture of our present leaders attempting to rearm, as allies, the very na- tions whom their predecessors called upon us to destroy. They have committed us so deeply that complete withdrawal would amount to fiat desertion of those whom we may someday need as much as they now need us, Yet, like it or not, isolation with- out friends, will soon be forced upon us— unless we are willing to change the rules of the game. And that is what I want now to propose we do, Why not a new Kind of Monroe Doc- trine—a new kind of war? Why would it not be meeting the dilemma with common sense, if our Nation declared to the world that— 1, We recognize that in the modern world fiftth-column forces are a military arm of an aggressor as surely as its uniformed armies, and that such Communist armies (Russia’s new kind of war) already exist within the borders of free nations all over the earth, 2. We stand ready to declare punitive war on such forces, or any forces of Communist a@ggression anywhere in the world, where representatives of a free people, wantonly attacked from within or without, ask for our protection. 8. Punitive war will be limited to: (a) Air, naval, or commando missions against the nerve centers and arteries of the aggressor without commitment of land forces to the invaston or defense of any soil beyond our boundaries; (b) enlightenment—not de- struction—of civilian populations, even though such be already indoctrinated as our foes. 4. We will consult with and seek joint ac- tion with the United Nations, taking drastic action only where delay might be fatal. 8. We will press such war a8 a permanent condition; cessation of aggression, not vic~- tory over an enemy, being its intent. Our immediate program, ahd my argue ments to support it, would be as follows under such a doctrine: 1. Declaration of punitive war on Ruasia's puppet satraps in China and Korea, 2. Gradual withdrawal of land forces from Koree with naval and air units only remain- ing on our island bases. 3. Intenee propaganda in China by radio and leaflets in language such as this: "If this were a bomb, you would not be alive. It could be a bomb, but it isn’t, because we are friends who regret the logs of every Ohi- nese life as we regret our own. Our only enemies are the leaders who have forced themselves upon you. They are not the heirs of your ancestors. They are just trai- torous puppeta of a foreign nation that wants to make your people bleed and die in battle while they alt back in hypocritical sanctity. You will be safe if you do not go near these foreign masters, But we must warn all that at any moment we may decide to annihilate 100,000 at a time. Do not die among those who serve them. They want only to make slaves of you. We want only to throw them out. Join the millions of your brothers who are helping us free China.” (1t is in this field that the Soviet world has won its greatest victories. Our propaganda has been mush. The ideals of democracy! To peasant millions such talk is incompre- hensible, as academic as a treatise on para- aise, As to that, how many Americans know what a democracy 1s? How many could ex- plain why we are not a democracy but in- stead a Republic?) 4, Collaboration with Chiang Kai-shek and all other friendly forces within Chine. They would be legion. That is communism's great weakness. It rules by force of ignorance and fear. The iron curtain is the clue to its point of greatest vulnerability. 5. Continuous precision bombing of troop centers, enemy ships, and other isolated mll- itary objectives. Such wars could be conducted on a dozen fronts from nearby bases for a fraction of what our Korean action has already cost in lives and materials, and without any risk of “losing face.” Our pilots, naval, and intelli- gence personnel only would have to risk their lives. But they do, anyway. This program would be based on a frank acknowledgment that we could not hope to conquer by invasion the land masses of Rus- sia and Asia any more than they could hope to do the same to us. Man to man on their soll they can swarm over us like locusts. But at a distance and with weapons the odds are al on our side. Why play their game when we can make them play our game? I pre- dict that the wer of the future will be devas- tation at long range, and to prepare for it does not mean to draft huge armies. It means, on the contrary, to cut the Army to ® reserve force, while building up our Air Force, our Navy, our science research, and the bastions of our Asiatic, Arctic, and Ate lantic frontiers to the shores of Asia on the weat and Europe on the east. Of what avail a local civilian-defense ore ganization? Of what avail a million men in uniform, or the world’s best air force? Or the most modern radar equipment on the Great Lakes or the Hudson—if just one enemy plane carrying one atom bomb reaches our borders? Radar would tel) you a plane is there, But it could not tell you whose plane. Unless detected on some far arctic shore, where any plane is a suspicious plane, it would be just any old airliner plodding its ‘way unnoticed toward any destination. Do ‘we have a radar screen extending from Alas- ka across northern Oanada to Nova Scotia? Have we secret agreements with our neigh- bors coordinating such detecting devices? Do they even have the means to install any ade- quate system of warning? I have long doubted it. A Senate come mittee recently returned from Alaska re- moved my doubts. I now know that our leadership, which seems never to see to the. heart of a problem, has failed even in our own Territory of Alaska to provide any ade- quate mechanism of detection. To my mind immediate action on this point is imperative above even our action in Korea. For it is over A487 the arctic that that little group, of planes would come that could lay waste some morn- ing in an instant to 10 of our greatest cities. . The objection ts raised that If we waged: tis kind of inceasant war against commun- ism on all fronts, tt wouldn't be long until Russia struck us such a blow. That would be our best break, but they won’t for many years to come, because they know that taday at long range we could give it back 10 for 1. The great weakness of a free people is that 1t cannot choose the time and place to fight. If we could strike with the cold cal- culation with which our enemies will strike us when they are ready, we would have put an end to the world’s troubles in 1945 while we had sole possession of the bomb, a million men in Europe, and the land of our sworn enemy, already in ruins at our feet. Next best is, by honorable behavior, to provoke them into striking us before they are ready. Such a program I think we could afford. It would give comfort to our allies (who know that we cannot support them forever) while forcing them into greater self-reliance; rain destruction on our enemies (where re- building would not be our reaponasihility) ; require no billions to put millions into uni- form (our Army would be ready long before any enemy could land in force on our shores); strengthen our production might; and pre- serve and defend in depth, the great arsenal upon which, in the last analysis, the whol free world depends. . Sincerely, Tom Swrrnry. Natural-Gas-Line Explosions EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN W. HESELTON OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, in connection with H. R. 88, which I filed on January 3, 1951, and which has been referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I requested the Federal Power Commission to furnish me with such details as it might have with reference to explosions on natural- gas pipelines. This information has now been sent to me with a letter from Chairman Mon C. Waligren, which is self-explanatory. I have written to the several compa- nies, with two objectives in mind: First, I believe it is important to have the ac- curacy of this data determined by the companies, since they obviously have full details in their files; second, I want to obtain any further information as to these explosions lated and as to any other explosions which may have oc- curred but as to which the Federal Power Commission has no information. On the basis of the information now available, one conclusion seems to be clear—that such accidents have in- creased in frequency during the last 8 years. The tabulation shows 8 such accidents in 1948, 12 in 1949, and 14 in 1950, and it should be noted that the last of the listed accidents covers 76 line
A438 breaks during the testing of section of pipe between Raritan and Rahway Rivers near Colonia, N. J. Pavwnat Powrs Coscaasron, Washington, January 25, 1951. Hon. Jone W. Heazrross, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dean Mu. Hxsevton: In response to your letter of Jamruary 6, 1951, requesting infore mation concerning explosions on natural-gas pipelines, there has been compiled the at+ tached tabulation containing a summary of all the information that has heen received by the Federal Power Commission regarding breaks and explosions on interstate pipe. Hines. This information has been gathered from various sources such as newspaper re- ports, letters, telegrams, conferences, and investigations. The Commission cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data nor can the Commission state that such data rep- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD resents all the line breaks and explosions that have cocurred in, Shin coupaiey. 4 Z & 2 damage to prope: if there is any other information you de- sire, please do not healtate ¢o call on us. Information recetved by Federal Power Commission concerning Une breaks on interstate pipelines as of Jan. 12, 1951 Feb. 21, 1947 Jan. 14, 1048 May ~, 1942 of strip-mine operation. Bane tative ongsed b caused oe dolactive pipe, Wash-out caused by floods. Der, 7, 1047 E jon in compressor station. De. aie Grplowion interruption of gas deliveries east of Centralia compressor station where explosion Vaited Gas Pipe Line Co..........- -| Dallas. Fort War te shot down temporary, Tennessee Gur Transmission Co. Fouity pi weld. ay D Rupture bend. Faulty pipeline weld. Pipe pe rapiair by bulldozer. % Eiplaaa at Mississippi River pipeline cross» % serene fires, some Zerple injured, caused ox; fottons during test , by Bi Be 80 | Explosion during line testing caused great property damage. Nortovn, Pa PH Union County, Ark....-..--..-.- 2 Nemfnal damages due to defective ripe Grant County, Ark 2» Whito County, Ark aes 20 be Pike County, Ind. Moar. 18, 1948 20 Pana to buildings settled for $18,000 due to Pulaski County, Ark.........-.-..] May 9 1048 » ial Guanes dus to defective pipe. Near Soymour, Ind Nov, 19, 1948 gpleio sens Fr compressor station 1 AM AZCS, Near Batesville, Ind.. «| Adams County, Pa. ........--.... D0 nnn enone nnee ene ence _ County, Ind DO... narecenen raighead Coun out le ther Couey, one Grant Oounty, Ark. West Chester, Pa. Johnson County, Ni... M Jan. 18, 1949 Feb. 9, 1949 Mar, 4,169 2, 1040 Mey 6, 1949 Ma 1940 May by 10490 Tune 26, 1949 July 15, 1040 Oct, 8, 1949 Thee, 14, 1049 : 2 nn ontgomery Coun Noble County, Oblo’. Jan, 20, 1080 Puleskj Connty, Ark. 5 No details available. 9 Compressor station. Dr. Gordon Seagrave TT EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. BRICKER oF O10 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. BRICKER. Mr. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recoap an editorial en- titled “Another Paradox,” dealing with the case of Dr. Gordon Seagrave, pub- lished in the Columbus Evening Dispatch of January 25, 1951, May 17, 1080 -| May 19, 1980 July 1, 1980 July 10, 1080 July 16, 1080 There being no objection, the editorial ‘was ordered to be printed in the Rcorp, as follows: Anotnra Parapox The Gordon Seagrave case provides one more instance of a strange paradox in Amar- fcan official policy, oriental prison for treason against a gov- ernment of which he is not a citisen. os family estimates he cannot survive a year of his 6-year sentence. This callous indifference to the fate of individual American nationals ls a product of the Roosevelt-Truman era. In recent years we have become so worked up over the hor- rible lot of Europe's digpiaced persons, who must be channeled to this country in whote- Power falture caused fire in compressor station with $200,000 damages. Nominal Sameges due to defective Detective pipe caused property Nominal damages due to defective pipe. Ce: § Explosion blow up cover plate where men were canned by defective pipe. &-incb ernck in weld. Defective pipe caused explosion with $12,000 River scodod can cui pipe te pall wprk, Nominal damages due to defective Explosion ripped up ia feot of pipe SS ESE SES RESBSS EB Explosion occ oocurred after thy drostatae testing, breaks ocourred di testing section of pipe between Raritan and and henwes Rivers, aale lots; so engrossed in the raising of funds for alien unfortunates in the mass; so pre- occupied with raising taxes to finance bundles for Britain, UNRRA, Marshall plans, and most recently, Yugoslav famine relief, that we haye no time or room for compas- sion over the fate of our own citizens who a? kicked around and mistreated by for- m governments, principally tart regimes of dubious legality. ue So Seagrave stays tn prison. Robert Vog- eler vanished into a Hungarian concentration camp—or worse. Angus Ward endured a year of imprisonment fu a filthy Chinese Com- munist jail, captive of the same people who a few weeks ago lived in luxury in New York's Pg nile while they commuted daily to Lake Success to defame and defy the sipneless United Nations which, these days, makes American foreign policy.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Other American Presidents have met the problem of how to handle gangsters who seized American nationals. But Theodore Roosevelt's ultimatum, to the Moroccan bandits, “Perdicaris alive or Ratsull dead” now is only a forgotten line in the history textbooks. Or maybe it isn’t—a lot of things have disappeared from American textbooks in recent years at the behest of people who can't see the American woods for the tower- ing trees of the one-world doctrine. Maybe it isn’t possible to do anything about Dr. Seagrave. But it would look a ittle more decent and honorable and self- respecting if our global-minded State De- partment could focus its attention for a moment on an individual American citizen in distress and at least look into the case. So far as we know, this isn’t being done and there fs no intention to do so. It's Happeaing on Your Own Front Lawn EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to describe combat conditions as I experienced them as an infantry battalion commander during World War II, but I always immediately realize how inadequate words are to tell the story fully. A patient at Walter Reed Hospi- tal here in Washington, D. C., has writ- ten about his experiences in Korea, and to me he has clearly related how the man in the foxhole feels. Whatever I might say now would only detract from the story this infantry platoon leader has to say to every Amer- ican. His letter first appeared in the Richmond (Va.) News-Leader and was reprinted in the Washington Star on January 24, 1951. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include this letter which was written ry Lt. Robert T, Fallon: It’s HAPPENING ON YOuR Own Front Lawn (By Robert T. Fallon) I want to tell you something about a war, I want you to imagine for a moment that it is @ very cold, wet, wintry evening at about 10 o'clock. You have been sitting very com- fortably by your fireside reading the evening paper. It’s been a pleasant day, dismal out- side, but warm and restful by the fire. You decide to step out on the porch for a breath of air before turning in. I'm sure you've done it often. But on this particular eve- ning, a atrange sight greets you, There's a great hole right in the middle of your front lawn, and the dirt has been thrown up all around it, outlined sharply against the white, even snow. Squatting in the hole is a hunched figure. Let me tell you something about him, He's been in this area now for about 8 weeks, ving in a dozen holes just like this one on your front lawn. The moat apparent thing about him is that he is cold, and that’s because out on your lawn it’s about 20 degrees colder than where you're standing. Every now and then he'll grab his shovel and dig a little deeper in the hole just to keep warm. That's the only way he has, be- cause he'll be seen if he builds a fire, and he may bring mortar fire into your living room. He’s been cold for a long time—and wet. He can’t feel his feet, and he's getting wor- ried because he’s afraid they might be frost- bitten. It’s going to be a long night, and it's Boing to get colder. He's very dirty. The grease from a hun« dred “C” rations is frozen to his parka and Bloves, coating the 2 weeks’ beard which covers his face. Soot from the amall fires he dares to make during the day 1s all over his pants and boots. But he's dirty all the way through. He hasn't changed his underclothes in over a month and he doesn't intend to for some time to come. It's too cold to go down that far. You can smell him, and it’s bad, He’s pretty hungry, too. They didn't get his rationa up to him until after dark and he couldn't build a fire to thaw them out. He'll have to walt until morning. A cup of hot coffee would sure taste good. He looks old with that beard and sort of hunched-over posture. But he’s only about 19, though not like any 19-year-old you've ever seen. You may wonder what he’s thinking about as he sits there during those long solitary hours, Well, it’s not much. Just how cold it is and again how nice that coffee would be. Maybe every now and then he thinks of home, but that’s a long ways off and the cold, his feet, and his hunger are much more immediate. You'd be surprised how those three things can fill your mind. You notice that he’s cut a hole through your hedge and his rifle is sitting on the pile of dirt pointing in readiness through the opening. That's another thing he’s think- ing: When are they coming again? He gets & ttle scared out there all alone. He'd like to go over and talk to this buddy in a similar hole about two houses up, but it’s not a good idea to go crawling around at night. He wishes they weren't 20 far apart but it seems they always have a big sector to cover with never enough men to cover it. It doesn’t help being so far apart. What would you like to do with this man? Ask him in to your fireside, get him a cup of coffee? Would you like to loan him your ragor and let him take a hot shower? Give him a bed to sleep in instead of the dirt and cold of his fox hole? Sure you would, You wouldn't think twice about it. But I'm afraid youcan't. There’s some one on that hill over there who wants to get into your front door, and the man was told by his platoon leader that he’s supposed to take care of your house and the one next door. So he can’t come in and you find that you can't reach him. He's very far away. But you come out in the morning and he’s stil! there, huddled over his little fire, thawing out his hands and his rations, trying to get the feeling back into his feet, By this time the hole is pretty deep from all the digging and he’s cut down a little more of your hedge. He’s there again when you come home from work. While you are greeted by a comfortable fire in a living room, the soldier ids getting ready for another cold night. I have told you about this soldier, and placed him on your front lawn, because I want you to realize that every desolate hill that soldier defends in that far-off land is in reality your front door. There are people who want to get in to do you harm, and it's his job to keep them away. He's to do his job and he’s not going to ask you to do it for him, If he has to sit on your front Jawn in the cold, that's just the way things go. He’s not going to begrudge you the com- forts of your fireside or your dinner table, but he'll be mighty bitter if he finds out that you're not doing your part of the job. What is “your job?” Well, it's not really important what I happen to think “your job" may.be.. Bui I think it is.important.thas you find out scon what it is and stert it, for whatever it 1s, it’s a vital part of @ country’s struggle for existence. Perhaps it would be more clear to you what your job is if you returned home tonight to find that hunched, shivering figure sitting in a hole on your lawn. The Burma Surgeon: Will He Again - Return? EXTENSION OF REMARKS __ HON, CHARLES 8, DEANE - OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. DEANE. Mr. Sptaker, the strik- ing news account appearing in the cur- rent issue of ‘Time concerning the trial and conviction. of Dr. Gordon S. Sea- graves in Rangoon, Burma, and the strong editorials that are currently ap- pearing in the leading newspapers of the country confirms my feelings as ex- pressed before this House on January 19, 1951, and in the words of one of the editorials appearing below, “Offhand it seems a very shabby reward to Dr. Sea- grave for a lifetime of loving labor in the service of the Burmese people,” It is not my desire as I pointed out on the floor of this House on January 19 to create any misunderstanding or misap- prehension, and for that reason I am glad to note that within the past 10 days many outstanding newspapers throughout the country have come to the support of this famous medical mis- Sionary, who has given so much to the Burmese people. With the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to extend my remarks and include first, a brief, yet clear-cut factual news item from Time covering the trial of the Burma surgeon: [From Time Magazine] Burma, Sea or Trovsrrs Three months ago famed Medical Mis- slonary Dr. Gordon 8. (Burma Surgeon) Sea- grave entered Rangoon’s red-and-cream brick high court to stand trial for treason, Last week a crowd gathered to hear the verdict. Dr. Seagrave was brought into court from a comfortable United States Embassy bunga- low, where he was allowed to stay after he became tl] In Rangoon’s crowded, noisy jail, The three judges filed in, took their places on the bench. Seagrave remained standing, One of the judges began reading the tri- bunal’s verdict: Charge No. 1, that Seagrave bad given aid and comfort to the State's enemies by having tea with a Kachin rebel Jeader, allowing the rebels to play football on hospital grounde—not guilty; charge No. 2, that he had written a letter to facill- tate the rebels’ arrest of a Government com- missioner—gullty; charge No. 3, that he had given mefiical help to rebele—guilty. Said the judge: “We must take a serious view of the gravity of the offense. * * * While the country was in a sea of troubles, the accused * * * acted in a manner preju- dicial to the state and his act was like that of one—graphically described in the old Bur- mese eaying—who pressed down with a pole
The sentence: Six years’ bard labor... to Beagrave did not finch, but suddenly he older than his 58 years. For almost life Surgeon Seagrave had been giv- medical sid to Burmese peasants, and then a crazy-quilt civil war, spreading around his hill-country hospital, had tangled him in bitter national rivalries. A Burmese re- porter asked him for his reaction to the verdict, He replied: “Whatever some few do to me, Z. want you to know I still love the people of Burma.” He added: “I sincerely hope the American people will not judge the people of Burma by the actions of a few." Two Burmese nurses who bad testified for Seagrave wept quietly. Gesgrave patted their shoulders. His able Burmese attorney, U Kyaw Myint, who has served without fee, said: “I would like to appen! the conse im- mediately. Will you sign the authority for me to do 20?" Said Seagrave: “But I hate like sin to keep imposing on you.” With a smile, U Kyaw Myint said softly: “As a Burman, I think I owe it to you.” Seagrave signed the paper. Told that he could not feturn to the bungalow, but would have to go to jail, Seagrave muttered: “O Lord, I simply cannot sleep there.” Up to this time Seagrave had flatly refused to consider deportation; now he was heard to say: “I think I would almost rather take exile from Burma.” All of the Baptist mis- sionaries tn Burma were in Rangoon for a meeting, but only one of them waa in the courtroom to hear sentence passed on their former colleague, who has operated inde- pendently of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society since 1942. As he left the courtroom, Seagrave turned to his loyal friend, Rev, Walter D. Sutton, and asked for his prayers. Said Seagrave: “God bless you. Don't forget to remember me upwards.” Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, the great host of friends of this courageous surgeon in the United States, and especially Mrs. Seagrave, who now resides in the Baltimore area, working as a receptionist to support their two sons, gratefully acknowledge the free legal counsel being extended Dr. Sea- grave by U. Kyaw Myint, an able Bur- mese attorney. Mr. Speaker, representative editorials that I have noted within recent days ap- pear below. I ask that they be included as a part of my remarks, and feel that I express the feeling of the membership of this House, that Dr. Seagraves should he released because of the flimsy charges Jodged against him: {From the Charlotte (N, CO.) Observer] A Brocuine Veapicr The surprising report that Dr. Gordon Sea- grave, the famous Burma surgeon, had been found guilty of high treason and sentenced to serve 6 years in prison at hard labor must have shocked hoste of admirers in this coun- try and throughout the civilized world. Here was a medical mizsionary, educated at Johns Hopkins, who had given more than 25 years of his life to serving the Burmese ‘people as physician, surgeon, and operator of a hospital. Doubtless great numbers of those people are alive today only because of the skill and the services of this American doc- tor who long ago devoted his life to the cause of Christianity and the relief of suffering humanity in a backward land He had been decorated by the United States Government and VI for his hero- fem during Gen, Joseph Stilwell’s Jungle re- treat from Burma in 1843. But in 1949 Burme was in the throes of civil war; conditions were chaotic and con- Tusing. Rebel Kachin tribesmen captured Namkham, site of Dr, Seagrave's hospital and center of his work. That was in 1049. It was on August 20 last year that he was arrested at his hospital on charges of aiding the rebel tribesmen in their struggle against the Goy- ernment. The trial consumed 3 months and the ver~ dict came as a complete surprise according to the Associated Press correspondent in Rangoon. As punishment for high treason, 6 years in prison at hard Ixbor seems light, but it would be terrible punishment for the kindly gentle Burma surgeon who evi- dently was never intentionally or consciously gullty of treason or any other crime. As he is now 58 years of age, 6 years of confinement at hard labor would mean that his years of noble service to suffering people would have ended, His attorney, a Burmese former judge, has given notice of appeal, and the final outcome will be watched with keen interest in this and other countries, But tt is doubtful. That such a good and noble man as Dr. Seagrave should have been prosecuted and declared guilty of high treason against a country Whose people he served so long, so unselfishly, and so effectively seems ironical indeed. The spirit of the man was indicated by the statement he made to reporters immediately after he had been sentenced: “I sincerely hope the American peopie will not judge the people of Burma by the actions of a few. I bear the Burmese people no malice for this.” (Prom the Washington (D. C.) Post] Borma Suncton It ta very difficult for Americans to under- stand the trial and conviction of Dr. Gor- don Seagrave, the famous Burma sur- geon, who became one of the legendary figures of the Pacific war. He has now been sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment on two counts of an indictment charging him with encouraging treason against the Burmese Government. His only hope now Nes in an appeal to the high court at Rangoon. To complicate matters further, Dr. Seagrave, although a native of Burma, is an American by parentage and nationality, and a medi- cal missionary of the Baptist Church. When he end his hospital staff joined the late General Stilwell in the memorable retreat through the Burmese jungles and over the mountains into India, Dr. Seagrave was commissioned a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Medical Corps. After the reconquest of Burma he returned to his hospital at Namkham near tne Chinese border, The details of his trial have been rather scantily reported by the American newspa- . The rebels whom he is accused of aid- g ate the Kachins of the Chinese border istrict and the Karens of the hill country. These peoples differ from the Burmans by both culture and religion. They are in @ much more primitive stage of development, but Christianity has made more rapid prog- ress among the animistic Karens than among the Buddhistio Burmese, A preat part of Dr. Seagrave’s medical work has been among such tribes, Two years ago when Burma became an independent member of the British Com~- monwealth the Kachins and Karens rose in revolt against the new Burmese Govern- ment. There is no indication that these revolts were fomented or dominated by Communists, though both Stalinist and ite Governments were busily stirring ‘Troteky! up other revolts. The Karens, the most nu- merous ant successful of these insurreo- tionary movements, sometimes made come mon cause with the Communists, sometimes fought against them. In 1949 a combined force of Karena and Kachines made an incursion into central Bur- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by the re Dr, Seagrave was ac- cused of giving medical supplies to the rebels, of ha taken tea with the Kachin Burmese forces, but Dr. Seagrave was alo accused af having aided Naw Seng to escape across the Chinese border. Naw Seng is now said to have thrown in his lot with the Chinese Commu- Most of theee charges will strike Americans as rather frivolous; and, indeed, the Burmese court dismissed them all save the charge of aiding the rebels by giving them medical supplies. Since the rebels were armed and in possession, it is dificult to see how Dr. Seagrave could have refused them, even if he were not bound hy the Hippocratic oath to help them. Another charge of which he was found guilty was that of having written a letter to a nuree. This letter is supposed to have somehow enabled the rebels to cap- ture one Sao Hom Pha. a special commis- sioner to the Shan states. We think it would be well if the Depart- ment of S’ate which, througr its Embassy at Rangoon, has been keeping in close touch with the Seagrave case would tesue a clari- fying statement concerning it Offhand it seems a very reward to Dr. Seagrave for a lifetime of loving labor in the service of the Burmese people Meanwhile, it would be well to remember that Dr. Seagrave was convicted not under British but under Bur- mese law. In some quarters contrasts are already being drawn between the Burmese and American concepts of what kind of con- duct constitutes treason, and much is also being made of the fact that Dr. Seagrave re- peatediy asked for release under bail and was repeatedly refused. g & g E Colonel! Lindsay Says EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. LEONARD ALLEN OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. ALLEN of Louisiana. Mr. Speak- er, I recently placed in the Recorzn some guest editorials by Col. C. H. Lindsay, an outstanding leader in the business world in our section. It is refreshing to see men of the caliber of Colonel Lindsay thinking and acting along the lnes por- trayed in his editorials. These editorials reveal Colonel Lindsay as a man of deep human understanding, agreat love of country and humanity. In this connection, I request that the following editorial be printed with my remarks: Democaatic Baotumexoop Is a Gnzat Wraron AcaInst CoMMUNISM (By C. H, Lindsay) Ever since the writing of the Holy Bible came the teachings of Brotherhood between men. Our present form of de: was the outcome of these teachings. We were all taught to “love thy neighbor and do unto others as you would heve them do unto you.” Many citimens aay they are Americans— they believe in the Declaration of Independ- ence and the Bill of Rights, but de they fel- low these ? Money, power or appearance does hot make you a good citizen. Only when you feel, act and are guided from your heart to help, aid,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ite agaist your fellow man in the tasks of e. Where is brotherhood when management and labor daily fight between one another; where {s the teaching of “live and let live?” For in true democracy, labor and capital and management are essential to one another; without one the other suffers and progress for all is sadly neglected. Brotherhood is the only weapon against the present evil of communism, We cannot have brotherhood when labor is fighting labor, management against labor, manage- ment against management and religious peo- ple against each other—all hindering de- mocracy and furthering communistic doc- trines. Especially today, the Communist seek foot. ho'sis in shipping, transportation, public utilities, newspapers, radio, labor and polit- ical offices; and thus, at the vital moment cripple our country's production, demand and supply, lowering our present living standards which ts just what the Commu- nists want so they can let us down to their standard and take over; then what kind of a life we would live, We must deal tairly with all topics, giving mankinc an equal chance of making a de- cent and honest living, regardless of other teachings which we have had, and will have, as time moves on. Brotherhood can only be obtained when we help and live peace- fully with one another. As a guide to man- kind, we must follow the teachings of our forefathers, who established our present free, American way of life. Remember, democratic brotherhood must be daily practiced; personal gains against our fellow man laid aside. With the love of freedom, liberty, and justice in mind and with faith, hope, and fairness as our guide, we will be closer to the means of eliminating the satan of our present time—communism, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, in yester- day’s edition of the Washington Post there appeared an article written by Mr. Edward T. Folliard to mark an occasion of great historical significance which the Members will observe with great interest on tomorrow. I refer to the fact that on tomorrow the Speaker of the House will have occupied his position of high office longer than any precediny Speaker. In this connection I wish to extend the felicitations and best wishes to our great Speaker, Hon. Sam Raysurn, and to say that his continued useful service for many years to come is the wish and hope of all of us. I ask unanimous consent that this article be included with my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp. The article is as follows: Sam Rarsuan’s Torrtna Ciar's ReEcorp (By Edward T. Folliard) Sam Rarsurn, of Texas, who is able to say that he’s “one man in public life who's satis. fied,” makes history this week. When he raps his gavel for order on Tues- day, Raveurn will have been Speaker of the House of Representatives longer than any man in the annals of the Republic. His serv- ice in that exalted office, which ranks third in the official hierarchy, will total 3,057 days, It was Henry Clay who established the record that is about to be broken. The great Kentuckian served as Speaker over a period of 14 years (1811~25), with two interrupe tions. His total number of days in the chair, the Library of Congress has figured out, was 8,05614. Physically, there would be little resom- blance between the lanky, long-haired Clay and the stocky, bald Raysurn. In reading about the one and thinking about the other, however, you come to realize that Speaker Clay had at least two attributes which also are to be found in Speaker Rarnurn. They were great personal charm and persuasive eloquence The greatest dissimilarity would seem to be in the matter of ambition. Clay, as Speaker, had his eyes on the White House, and in 1824 began a long but vain effort to win the Presidency How Raysurn feels about his place as No, 3 man, he described with much feeling at a recent gathering of Democrats at the Shore- am. “Iam one man in public life,” he said, “who. satisfied, who has achieved every ambition of his youth. And so I am glad.” The story often has been told of how Sam, as a small boy, rode horseback for 12 miles to listen to Joseph Weldon Bailey, a mighty Toxas orator. It was not long after this that he mapped out the stages of his career—to go to college, to the Texas Legislature, and then to Congress to start his climb to the Speakership. Sam’s rise to high place, although marked by the partisan battling that is expected in a democracy, has been serene compared to the feud-ridden career of Henry Clay. President Truman alluded to this at the afore-mentioned gethering of Democrats at the Shoreham. He had been talking about the cordial relationship between himself and Vice President BarKLey and Speuker Ray- BURN And this took him back to an earlier time when Andrew Jackson was President. Calhoun was Vice President and Clay (hav- ing left the House) was a Senator. “When Jackson was on his deathbed,” Mr. Truman recalled, “someone asked him about the things he had left undone that he wished he had done while he was President. And he sald one was that he should have hanged John C. Calhoun and shot Henry Clay. Well, now, there is no such parallel.” 8am RaysuRN came up from Bonham, Tex.,, to be a Member of the House in 1913. He was elected Speaker September 16, 1040, after the death of William B. Bankhead. There- after, as before, he demonstrated the truth of what had been said about him by his old friend and mentor, John Nance Garner. “SaM stays hitched,” Garner said, which was another way of saying that he lived up to his word. RayBURN was as completely devoted to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in the White House during the earlier part of his service as Speaker, as he is today to President Truman, On April 12, 1945, Mr. Truman (then Vice President) was in Speaker Raysuan’s office when he was called to the White House to be told that Mr. Roosevelt was dead. Thereafter some others gathered with Raysvuen, in- cluding William 8. White, of the New York Times, a fellow Texan. White, writing about, it later, noted that Rarzurn “wept silently.” “His heavy and very nearly immobile face was still in the shadows,” the Times man wrote, “and the only movements upon it were small and barely visible traces of the tears. He sy. *pt them away roughly, * * *¢ “There, before friends, in words that are yet under the seal of that room, Mr. Rarsuan Addl took an oath for the future. Ite substance was that Sam Rarsvan—southern Democrat and all—had followed Franklin Roosevelt in life, and that Sam RarsvrN would follow Franklin Roosevelt in death.” ‘ Sam is a patient man, but he gets annoyed at the moaners and the groaners who say that the liberties of the American people are being destroyed. He says that has been the ory ever since Jefferson's time. “Our liberties have been destroyed?” he asks. “In this land * * * everybody can say what they want to say, write what they want to write, spesk what they want to speak, as Jong as in the doing of that they do not take away from the other fellow the same rights, the same prerogatives, and the same privileges to exercise the aame rights * * ©. That’s how our democracy has been destroyed.” The Texan was a big help to President Truman in the 1048 election, and was cred- ited with doing much in cooling down pas- sions in the South. Standing alongside Mr. Truman one night in San Antonio, he told a crowd that the Missourian bad “shoulders broad enough, heart big enough, and a mind keen enough to do a good job for this sick and war-weary world.” More recently he asked for support of Mr. Truman, and said that if this was forthcom- ing, Americans could look forward “to the sunshine of a better day, of peace in the world that every good man and every good woman * * * is praying for tonight.” Speaker Raysurn lives quietly when he is away from the Capitol, and is rarely to be seen in Washington’s social whirl, When he does go out, however, he is likely to cap~ tivate those who hear him. A month or so ago he attended a banquet of the Touchdown Club. Sam was accorded a tremendous ovation, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, using foot- ball jargon, gave this estimate of him: “Sam Raysurn ts one of the great all-time All-Americans. When his party is in power he is a strong offensive player. When his party is in the minority there is no better defensive player. Sam Raysurn has never had to call time out or have a substitute— he’s & 60-minute player every day.” The most meaningful tribute that has come to RaysurnN—and one that ought to be heeded by Moscow~-was delivered in the House on January 3 by a Republican, Repre- sentative Joz Martin, of Massachusetts, Martin, who became Speaker when the Democrats lost the Congress in 1946 and who probably would take over the gavel again if the Republicans were successful in 1952, Called attention to the distinction that lay ahead for Raysurn on January 30. He said that no man could be elected time after time, as the Texan had, unless he was a man of fine character, of extraordinary ability, great fairness, and a parliamentarian par excel« lence, “Those are virtues which we have in our Speaker,” Maatin said. “In this hour of confusion * * * of uncertainty * * *¢ we have @ man who has the courage; we have a man who has the firmness to do that which is right, to the end that our country may emerge a better country. “We are sometimes misunderstood by our friends in other countries. We fight, we de- bate, we vote, and then we settle the question. “They cannot understand that these are the practical principles that make for a democracy, @ republic. They cannot see either that when our fight is over, that when we reach a decision, we are all united, we are all American but with one thought: To make America a better land for all our people.”
A442 Real Brotherhood EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. S. J. CARNAHAN oF Miss0URI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include herewith an editorial from the Farmington Press, Farmington, Mo., entitled “Real Brotherhood”: RxaL BROTHERROOD We don't see why it should be necessary to set aside a week as National Brotherhood Week, but anyway it has been done, And we are in full accord with the spirit of the oo- casion. The world is sadly in need of brotherhood ag anyone can see who reads the daily papera and Hstens to the radio. Lack of the broth- erly spirit bas plunged the world into war after war, We can feel proud that the United Statea has done perhaps more than any other na- tion to spread the spirit of brotherhood and good will throughout the world. We have defended helpless nations with our blcod and have helped, through our generosity, to feed and clothe millions in other lands. Often our motives have been misinterpreted, but in the main the peoples of the world look to the United States as their defender and help tn time of trouble. And we have been sufficiently blessed in a material way so that we have been able to do these things. But the enemies of our way of life take a special joy in pointing out the inequities that exist within our own borders. Their propaganda is full of the stories of lynchings in the deep South, racial discrimination tn many of our States, our slums and our eco- nomic injustices. While we all know these charges are greatly magnified, we do know also that there is much work to do right here in the United States. Every citizen should feel it his duty to do his small part in making democracy a living, breathing thing instead of just an abstract word. We can do it in many ways. For in- stance, we can do it by making sure that every child of every race and creed has the opportunity to make a good citizen of him- self. We can help eradicate deep-seated racial and religious prejudices by refraining from teaching our children that they are better than children of other races or creeds. We can help by expelling such words as “nigger,” “kike,” "“dago,” and “hunky” from our vocabularies, . Instead of referring to our fellow citizens by these unflattering names, we think some- thing more inspiring could be done. In Italy, for example, old world courtesy has evolved what we believe is an admirable form of address. When an Italien addressees a stranger, he often calls him “Paesan,” which means literally, “countryman.” We believe it would be a fine thing tf all Americans of all races and creeds could call each other “oountryman.” Considerable progress toward equality has been made in the United States and it is truly heartening. There are still some Ameri- cans of comico book mentality who hold strong racial views, but their number is fast dwindling. In the main, the big conflict is with ourselves in the attempt to eradicate from ourselves erroneous ideas which have been imbedded in us tn early years—ideas which are purely emotional atid have no sct- entific or mora) foundation. It ts hard, for instance, for a Southerner, steeped in the contrasts of the plantation house and the Negro shanty, to realize that Negroes have yearnings also to be ble and to have nice things. Yet many Southerners are wine this conflict with themselves. And we congratulate them, It isn’t easy to change years of attitudes but the right kind of people are trying and trying hard. In the end, they will be successful and democracy will be the richer. We believe that the United States is slowly mellowing and will eventually achieve the heterogeneity found in older nations. When that day comes we shall he even stronger and more valuable to the world. Louisiana Tidelands Ruling Confiscation, Kemp Asserts EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January €, 1951 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp, I wish to submit an article from the New Orleans Times- Picayune, of January 27, 1951, by Mr. Paul Wooten, Times-Picayune staff cor- respondent, quoting statement of Hon, Boliver E. Kemp, attorney general of the State of Louisiana, in regard to the tide- lands decision of the United States Su- preme Court, as follows: Louisiana TipeLaNns Ruiing CoNFriscaTioNn, Kemp AsseaTs—-Renearine SouGHT IN Prti- TION Barore Surazwx Covrr (By Paul Wooton) WasHINGTon, January 26.—In its decree in the Louisiana tidelands case the Supreme Court of the United States has acted illegally and unoonstitutionally in confiscating lands belonging to the State. This accusation was hurled at the high Court by Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Louisiana attorney general, who aleo says the Department of Justice “dragged the sovereign State of Louisiana before the bar of this Court, seeking to deprive Loul- siana of the lands under navigable waters within Louisiana's boundaries to which Louisiana has had undisputed title, posses- sion, and phystcal control since 1812.” These statements are contained in a peti- tion for a rehearing filed with the Supreme Court at 4 p.m. Friday. “What is the basie for the decree?” At- torney General Kemp asked, He replied to his own question: “There is no basis what- soever. It is sheer confiscation.” Unless fee simple title and property tn- tetests are to be transferred arbitrarily with- out a trial, or “subtly and by indirection,” some clarification is necessary. It seems to Mr. Kemp that as the matter stands no one has a fee aimple title or property righte to the marginal sea bed. He points out that the “honorable Court says Louisiana has no such rights, but it does not say that the United States has them.” If property rights can be transferred as some mysterious incident of paramount right, dominion, and power, “then,” satd Mr. Kemp, “‘the day of private righta, indeed ot free enterprise, is gone,” Continuing, he “The deoree of December 11, 1980, 1s utterly without precedent in the traditton of Angio- Saxon jurisprudence. It completely denies that trial or fair hearing which is the prime requielte of procedural due process. Indeed, if such a decision arbitrarily transferring APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD had been made by an administra- tive agency or lower court, we have no doubt that this honorable court would reverse it in a twinkling. Unless different considera- tions are to prevail here, the decree should be vacated and the cause restored to the docket for reargument.” The Supreme Court was further denounced in this language: “Without a trial and by the arbitrary ap- plication of unconstitutional power ideology, the property of the State of Loutsiana, and in fact, of every other State in the Union, will be confiscated and natéonalized by said decree. Further, the Court said by ite very statement that the paramount power and dominion of the United States transcended those of & mere owner, moet cor- tainly foreshadowed the doom of private property ownership in these United States, any time those in power in the Federal Gov- ernment choose to extend nationalisation and socialization through unlawful decrees which cannot be resisted ordinarily, but which should be corrected by the Court, tt- self, while there is yet time to do 60.” The Court was accused of seeking to nal- lity the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and of initiating the theory of confiscation and nationalization which ig- nores property rights. In the opinion of Loutsiana's attorney general and his counsel, the decree of the Supreme Court fs uncon- stitutional, null, and vold. The Solicitor General has made no enswer to most of Loutsiana’s contentions, Counsel for Louisiana think this is because he has no answer. However, the Solicitor General still has 10 days in which to make reply. There is interest In the legal profession here in seeing If one will be forthooming. We Can’t Save Asia by War Alone ——e EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS B. HELLER Or NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 24, 1951 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following ar- ticle by Justice William O. Dougles in Look magazine of January 16, 1951: Wer Can’r Save ASIA BY War ALONE-—OvR Mirrany Leapers Can’r Fre Asza’s Grrev- ances: Poverty AND OPPRES6ION-—ASIATICS Wourn Turw tro Us © Wer Svuprorrro RerorMs (To combat communism in the Middle and Par Bast, says a distinguished Jurist fresh from a personal inspection trip, we need more than military action, We need, he says, @ political program.) (By Justice William O. Douglas) Military power alone will never stop the Communist advance in Asia. Strong armed forces are obviously neces- sary at this critical juncture. But we have trusted too much of our thinking to the military. We must win people as well ss battles if we ate to stop communism. The generala who plan our strategy are not equipped to deal with the forces that are stirring Asia today. For those forces Sre not the kind that oan be stopped by main strength. Wheat 1s happening in Asie is a seriea of revolutions against o and poverty. The Communists whip them and accelerate them. But their origin is not Communist and they cannot be killed off.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD They call for a political approach to the problem more than a -nilitary plan of ac» tion. They demand a great American pro- gram to support the aspirations of the Asi- atic peoples, to help chem achieve those aspirations as we achieved ours in 1776, Nothing short of that can save Asia from communism in the long run. This became evident during recent jour- neys I made from the Middle East to South- east Asia. Since my ret-irn, however, I have talked with an increasing number of peo- ple with ideas differing sharply from those I gathered on my trip. The matter is vital to our Nation. That is ‘hy, as a private citizen, I have decided to write this article. I did not find on my jaurneys, of course, that military strength was not needed. If the United Nations had not intervened in Korea, it is my view that aggression would have been attempted immediately at many points along the southern border of Ruasia. From sources deemed reliable, I satisfied myself that July 15 to August 15 was a cru- cial period in the Soviet timetable. I learned on my journeys that, had the Soviet Korean project been unopposed, a series of like aggressive moves would have been made along the whole of the arc from the Medi- terranean to the Pacific. For example, I reached the Soviet border in northwest Iran on August 18. Prior to August 15, there had been a great massing of so-called renegade Iranian and Kurdish troops in Russia along the Iranian frontier. They were well armed and led by a Kurd by the name of Barazani, an outlaw from Iraq. Soviet satellites, indeed, were poised for action all along the southern borders of Rus- sia. No Soviet troops would have been used. The uprisings or invasions, like that in Korea, would have been under so-called Na- tionalist auspices, leaving the forces of Rus- sia herself ready for other ventures. Events in Korea changed the Soviet plans. Invasion forces were withdrawn. The effects of our defense of Korea, how- ever, were only temporary. As we have seen, Communiet forces along the southern rim of Russia have since grown stronger. For, apart from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, of India, the Communists remain the only ones in Asia who actively support the re- forms the people seek. The people of Asia have been seeking re- forms for many years Wendell Willkie saw revolutions on the make and heard their rumblings when he toured the world in 1942, Now in full swing, those revolutions are part of long historic processes. Sun Yat-sen gave expression to them a generation ago. Mohandas Gandhi—who, though dead, is still the greatest power in Asia—espoused them. Every peasant who raised a hoe against a Maharajah and every tenant who defied the money lender and his extortionate interest rates was expressing the rebellion that has long been smoldering throughout Asia. France went through a similar process in the French Revolution. We in America added to th» turmoil of the age. We re- volted. We threw off the colonialism that had been imposed on us. We threw it off by force of arms; and George Washington and all of our other forefathers who led the struggle were undoubtedly subversive tnflu- ences by the British standards of that day. WHY PEOPLE REVOLT Our grievances were specific. They are all catalogued in the Declaration of Independ- ence—taxation without our consent, quarter~ ing of soldiers among us, carrying people to far away England to be tried for pretended crimes committed here, and #0 on. The peoples of the Middle East and South- east Asia are today in the midst of revolu- tions founded on complaints as specific as ours were then and, to them, as important. me complaints are, in part, the follow- 1. Ownersotp of land by a few. This re- gion has a system of tenancy whereby the landowner leaves the tenant barely enough to live. That is partly a result of the share- cropping system which is used; it is partly due to a money-lending system whereby the landlord charges up to 40 percent interest on loans to the tenant. The tenant is bound perpetually by debt just as a serf was bound in feudal France or England, 2. Absence of schools for children. 8. A great lack of doctors, first-aid clinics, and hospitals. 4. A system of taxation under which mil- lionaires pay little or no taxes. 5. Governments that are corrupt and elec- tions that are rigged. These are the great, burning issues in the villages from the Mediterranean to the Pa- eific. It is on these issues that the revolu- tions are based. These revolutions are in many instances directed by Communists. But there is not an ounce of communism dn the issues themselves. There are indeed very few Communists in this region. Com- munism has very little appeal even to the hungry peasant. He wants to own his land— to be able to walk around it, fence it, and say, “This is mine.” He is not interested in having the state become even a bigger and more powerful landlord than the landlord he already has. He wants his children to be educated. When his wife gets a pain in her stomach and suffers the torture of the doomed, he can’t stand by and watch her die. Yet there are no doctors or medicines in vast reaches of this territory. The peoples in these areas like the Rus- sian people but they fear Soviet politics. They do not want to be swallowed by Russia, They are intensely national, These are not theories of mine. I have talked with hundreds of villagers across this wide belt of land that lies against the under- belly of Ruasia. The Soviets, keenly alive to this condi- tion, do not preach Marxism or endeavor to sell communism as a philosophy. In these areas the Communists preach straight re- form. They invelgh against the injustices of land tenure, high prices, corruption in government, unemployment, and the like. They promise reforms; and the reforms they sponsor are cast in democratic terms: every peasant to become a landowner—public works to provide employment—minimum wages and maximum hours of work—price control—rationing of food—and the like, This isan old technique. The Communists used it when they campaigned for votes in central Europe. When they gained political control, they changed their tactics. Then terror and force were used in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and the rest of those countries to impose a Marxist regime on them, irrespec- tive of the will of the people. REDS WIN BY DEFAULT But these are matters not appreciated by illiterate peasants who are looking for escape from their plight. They are drawn to the leadership that offers reform. And the tragic fact is that in most of the countries in this area, the governments in power are either corrupt or conservative or colonial or all three. And the only party that offers reform 1s the Communist Party. That gives the Communists a tremendous advantage. They operate in a vacuum. They gain adherents merely by default. Peasants looking for a way out have no other place to go. And 80 the Red tide swells and swells and appears to be ready to overrun the earth. Tactically, that offers tremendous advan- tages to Russia, She gains politically because of the growing power of the parties which she sponsors in these various nations, She also gains from a military point of view. Add3: Every nation tn whieh Russia gains a po« litical victory produces an army to Aght her battles. The Red Army is never committed, The only army involved is the national army of the new Commuist nation. Yet when the United Nations moves, it muat act on an in- creasingly wider perimeter, exhausting men and resources in a mounting effort to put down aggression. By these tactics, Russia gains in strength while the democratic world becomes steadily weaker, That is why the problem of reversing the trend {s primarily a political as well as a military problem. It means taking over the direction of the revolutions of the world. America has spe- cial capacities for it. We ourselves are the product of revolution. By our act of revolt- ing against colonialism and oppression, we set an example which to this day inspires the underprivileged of the world. In their eyes we would play the natural role if we helped them attain the same degree of independence that we enjoy. Their won- derment is that we, who profess such high ideals, do not actively help them to find the fr-edom which we say we want all people to have. They are puzzled and bewlldered when, instead, we throw our weight and in- fluence and give our money and support ($2,000,000,000 of it) to corrupt and reace tionary groups such as Chiang Kat-shek's, FIRST NEED: IDEAS, 1;0T MONEY The direction of these revolutions is not a& simple task, but it is easier than it ap- pears. It means, of course, much more than the withdrawal of economic, military, and moral support from existing corrupt and re- actionary governments, If we stopped at that, we would leave the field largely to the Communists, for we would weaken the only core of resistance to thoir activities which presently exists. Direction of these revolutions calls for positive, affirmative measures. There is in each of these countries a strong, liberal democratic group. They are the ones that need the backing of our diplomatic power. Money is not so much noeded as ideas. The need for money will come only after the political revolutions have heen effected and the new democratic regimes have been sta- bilized. Money spent before reforms have been launched will be largely wasted. With- out thos? reforms, the money will go largely to enrich the classes at the top, hastening the day the Communists take over. It 1s unrealistic and evasive of the issue to say that America does not interfere with the internal policies and affairs of other na- tions. American influence makes and breaks governments. We interfere when we prop up @ government with loans or with a mili- tary mission or with economic aid. We have been interfering for years and we must con- tinue to do so if the tide of communism is to be turned. The question is the nature of our inter- ference. If we interfere by trying to keep in power corrupt and reactionary govern~ ments, two results will follow: (1) We will exhaust ou. financlal resources, bleed our- selves white, and reduce irrevocably the standard of living of our people; (2) we will give the Communists continued opportunt- ties to grow politically strong among the peasants on whose backs the American-sup- ported governments ride. There are two important prerequisites if we are to manage this venture successfully and direct the revolutions of the world into democratic channels. First: Direction of these revolutions means complete divorcement from the Communist influence and an operation through demo- cratic forces alone. Once we tried to get the Communists of China and the Nationalists of China united in a government. That was sheer folly. The Communist technique is to destroy from
within. A coalition government that in- tatittre. Second. If we are to give direction to and control the revolutions, we must make up our minds on the definite and specific issues that plague the peoples of this area. Platitudes about democracy and freedom are not enough. In those poverty-ridden areas, phrases like that sound empty and fall fint. They are meaningless utterances on wave lengths already crowded with meaty subje sts. WE MUST BE CLEAR Ovr program must be as definite and specific as it is on our domestic front. Our position must be clear on land reform, un- employment insurance, price control, taxa- tion, food rationing, and all the other issues that are critical in the area. We must be clear on these issues in order to decide what leadershtp we will sponsor, what measures we will finance, what gov- ernments we will support. And we must be honestly democratic in practical application of these reform measures. We must, for example, stand for a land-distribution pro- gram based not on confisca’‘on (a Commu- nist creed) but on just compensation to the landlords. There are also democratic stand- ards to be applied in industrial and trriga- tion projects. One example will illustrate what I mean, A TVA 18 NEEDED There is a great need for a TVA on the Tigris and Euphrates. I have traveled those river basins and seen with my own eyes the service that flood contro! and frrigation could perform. Such projects, under proper management, could increase the produc- tivity of the area, bring great prosperity to the masses, and produce a land that could support additional miliions of people. But unless tt 1s done under a program of reform—including distribution of land to the peasante—{t will work only to increase the hold that a few hundred men already have on these middie eastern countries. The re- sult would be to accelerate the tide of com- munism. If we openly undertake to manage these revolutions and direct them, we will at once enlist the support and enthusiasms of the peoples of thie area. We wil! for the first time be identified with them and their struggles for liberty, not in words, but tn action That would be a welcome relief. Por in spite of Soviet propaganda, people in those areas do not believe that America has im- perisistic designs on them. American mts- sionaries and American educators have shown the selfiessness of which America is Capable. Unlike Russia, America has had no past record of gobbling up small nations or carving territory out of her neighbor's domatn. if theee projects succeeded—and there is no reason why they should fall—we would have made tremendous gains, We would have deprived Russia of the greet political leverage ahe now has over the area. We, rather than the Soviets, would be the sponsors of reforms, the champions of the people. There would be no longer & political vacuum in which the Commu- nists would operate. The people of the area ‘would have a choice other than communism. Lend reform alone would establish a strong barrter to Soviet political activity. Land re- form would not only deprive the Soviets of their most powerful propaganda; it would { peasant a capitaliat No greater political barrier to communism could be Gesigned. Purthermore, we would have deprived Rus- sia of the opportunity of organizing the people along ber southern border for aggres- sion. This would be of inestimable aid to our military. It would reduee the potential areas of conflict and reduce the strength of the enemy. If we succeeded tn all this, we would not, of course, be assured of peace with Rusaia, But we would have taken steps to contain her. She would no new satellites to fight her battles. The Red army might still sweep to the Mediterranean and the Pacific. But if it did, Russia would be fighting alone, not with native armies of border states professing liberation from American tmpertalism. It is clear then, that what we must do is direct, not destroy, the revolutions that stir the Middle East and southeast Asia. And it will take an imaginative, creative under- taking—not a military one—to do it. St. Lawrence Seaway a Costly Hoax: Forget it EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. IVOR D. FENTON OF PENNSYLVANIA IN TRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FENTON. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I include in the- Recorp an editorial from the Philadel- phia Inquirer of January 27, under the caption “St. Lawrence s2away a costly hoax: Forget it.” My constituents and I are in accord with the views expressed in this editorial: President Truman’s renewed pleas for con- struction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project, this time on the basis of defense necessity, should be shelved quickly and decisively by Congress. Even to debate this extravagant, impractical, repeatedly dis- credited venture would be sheer waste. In bis 871,600,000,000 budget message the President again trotted out this mouldy old joker—it's been hanging around since 1895— along with a lot of other costly noneasen- tials. A few days later, in a letter to the chairman of the St. Lawrence Deep Sea Waterway Labor Conference in Detroit, Mr. Truman said that in the present emergency the project has become urgent. Furthermore, he added that, because our steel industry must be built up, the sea- ‘way was needed to bring in fron ore, not only from Labrador but from Venesuela, by @ route well protected from enemy sub- marines, Just how Venezuelan ore would be protected on the long ocean haul to the mouth of the St. Lawrence wasn't made clear, But what, precisely, is the seaway’s ur- gency from a defense viewpoint? This high- priced waterway, connecting Great Lakes ports with the Atlantic Ocean, is ice-bound about 6 months of the year, rendering it useleas for long periods. To transport ocean tonnage to iake ports would require the butiding of some 50 dams. One enemy bomb that shattered a single lock could tie up the whole system. A few years ago the expense of this wast spending project was figured at $6¢2,000,000, of which Canada would pay €204,000,000. In 1948, when the seaway was debated tn Con- gress without action, the cost was estimated variously at $750,000,000 to $1,800,000,000, Today's cost would be vastly greater. slong the Delaware will require a great deal APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of that Venesuelan ore the President talked about. Revival of the St. Lawrence hoax now, when this Nation is faced with Gefenes necessities imvolving multibillion outiays, is thoroughly inexcusable. Congress should pay no attention to the seaway bills already introduced, and get on with real security needs, Our Political Paralysis EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED Or NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr, REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I am inserting an article by Henry Hazlitt which appeared in the magazine Freeman, December 26, 1950: Ovr PouiticaL ParaLrers (By Henry Hazlitt) If the military disaster in Korea had over- taken any nation with a responsible pariia- mentary government, there is not the siight- est doubt what the result would have been. The chief executive and every member of his cabinet would have been forced to resign. The next step would have been to set up & government that had the confidence of the parliament and of the people. But the indis- pensabie first step would have been the res- ignation of the existing government. It would have had to go because its incompe- tence and unfitness had been demonstrated. It would have had to go if for no other reason than that it had acquired a vested interest in defending, covering up, prolonging, and compounding the very blunders that had brought about the crisis. It would bave had to go because it had lost the confidence of the country, And this would have been true even if its responsibility for the orisis had been less di- . rect than is President Truman's responsi- bility for the crisis that confronts this coun- try today. That responsibility is as clear and Girect as it could possibly be. Fo~ it was on the night of June 26 that President Truman made the personal decision to throw Ameri- can troops into Korea. In doing this he went against the long-considered judgment of nearly every military authority: that Korea was strategically untenable by our jand forces ig the hordes of Red China or Red Russia choae to dispute it. In acting that night on the impulse of the moment, Mr. Truman disregarded this military judgment, but the American Oonstitution. The Constitution confers the power to declare war on Congress—and on no one elae. Mr. Truman bypassed Congress with the fiction that the United Nations was inoreasingly transparent. The police action has turned out to be a major war, with more mean in fact that 90 percent of the combat forces in Korea on our side, apart from the South Koreans themselves, were Americans. or can't do with a victory if we ever win it and what we can or can’t do ‘ battlefield fteelf. All this is the fruit of the theory, ‘ae- ° aiduously preached in the last 20 years, that
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD we should have one-man government in the conduct of foreign affairs. Previous frults were Yalta and Potsdam, where Presidents made foreign agreements not only without the advice and consent of the Senate but without even revealing to their own people what the full agreements were. President Truman's responsibility is of course shared by Secretaries Acheson and Marshall. It is General Marshall who was chiefly instrumental in trying to force Chiang Kai-shek to take the Communists into his government—an act which would have broughtsthe triumph of communism in China far sooner than it actually came. The quality of Secretary Acheson's statesmanship was reviewed at length in the previous issue of the Freeman. I will repeat here only one item from that record. On March 20, 1947, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Acheson said there was no danger of a Communist defeat of Chiang Kai-shek. In a letter to the Prestdent of July 30, 1949, he said that ‘“‘no amount of ald could have saved Chiang.” But merely forcing an unfit executive to get rid of unfit advisers, though it may be better than nothing, is not a step of first importance. The quality of a statesman is revealed in nothing more clearly than in his choice of advisers. He is not good or bad because his advisers are good or bad; his own wisdom or folly determines the advisers he chooses and the advice he follows. In this country, whenever a crisis or a calamity occurs, we concentrate our attack on the advisers, rather than on the top Executive, chiefly because the advisers are the only ones we are constitutionally able to remove. Thus there are broadly two factions in the United States at this moment: Those demanding the dismissal of General Mac- Arthur and those demanding the dismissal of Secretary Acheson. That General Mac- Arthur 1s a military genius is beyond doubt: He proved it by his Pacific campaign in the last war and by the Inchon landing in the Korean War. That he has made serious mis- takes in the present campaign is probable: He has made over-optimistic statements; and his forces were caught off balance when the Chinese attack came. But hig defeat has been due primarily to the fact that President Truman assigned him an impossible task. The responsibility comes directly back to the President. Yet Mr. Truman can ignore, if he chooses, even the demand for the removal of Secretary Acheson as long as he is him- self irremovable. Nor can we take much hope in the process of impeachment. Since the effort to im- peach President Johnson on purely political grounds, tremendous psychological and po- litical resistance has been built up against the repetition of such an effort. Woodrow Wilson, in his Congressional Government (1885) explained what was wrong about our constitutional provisions in this regard: “Nothing short of a well-nigh impossible impeachment can unmake a President, ex- cept four successions of the seasons, * * * A Prime Minister must keep himself in favor with the majority, a President need only keep alive. * * * “Great crimes such as might speed even impeachment are not ordinary thinps in the loosest public service. * * * That which usually and every day clogs and hampers good government is folly or incapacity on the part of the ministers of state. Even more necessary, therefore, than a power clothed with authority to accuse, try, and punish for public crimes is some ultimate authority, whose privilege it shall be to dismiss for in- efficiency. Impeachment is aimed altogether above the head of business management. A merchant wou not think it fair, even if it were lawfu, to shoot a clerk who could not learn the business. Dismiseal js quite as effective for his pur , and more merciful to the clerk, The crying inconvenience of our system is, therefore, that. the constitu- tional authority whose prerogative it is to direct policy atid oversee administration has fewer facilities for getting its work well done than has the humblest citizen for obtaining satisfactory aid in his own undertak- ings. * * * “It is impossible to deny that this division of authority—between Congress and the President—and concealment of responsibility are calculated to subject the Government to @ very distressing paralysis in moments of emergency. * * * In times of sudden exigency this—-division of authority—might prove fatal—fatal either in breaking down the system or in failing to meet the emer- gency.” This paralysis of action has brought about in our political life a paralysis of thought. I hope I may be forgiven if I quote from a book of my own, A New Constitution Now, published in 1942: “The constitutional restrictions on what the American people are able to do, affect what it is prudent for them to say, and this in turn unconsciously affects even what they dare to think. If the President turns out not to be the man best fitted to lead the country in a successful prosecution of war, if he bungles critical decisions badly and to the national cost, men fear to say so plainly. There is no immediate constitutional method of changing the executive, as there is in England. Therefore patriotic men fear that criticiam which brings responsibility home too closely to the President can only divide the country without affecting the change necessary, But this fear, only partly cone scious, has a further effect: It leads men to wishful thinking; 1t leads them to tell them- selves that the situation can not be as bad as all that, and that the necessary changes can be effected by moderate arguments which do not urge a change in government but merely in the policies adopted by the existing gov= ernment. Such a belief will continue to be held even though experience shows that the existing government will not modify its major policies, and may not even, however willing, know how to adopt and carry out the proper policies. The limitations tmposed by a rigid constitution, in short, may pervert a nation’s very thinking, leading it to a sort of national neurosis in which it refuses to face the truth about the situation that con- fronts it.” That we are close to such a neurosis now is indicated in the timidity not merely of Democratic but of Republican leadership in what everyone concedes to be one of the most serious crises in our history. Not only are the “responsible” Republican leaders not asking that Mr. Truman resign; they became afraid even to ask that Mr. Acheson resign. The climax of this timidity was reached by Governor Dewey, the so-called titular leader of the Republican Party, when he declared on December 8: “This moment is not the time for further criticlam.” Not the time to criti- cize the policies that have brought us to the brink of disaster. When is the time? After the disaster has become irreparable? The only answer to these questions !s that this is, above all, the time to demand the removal or resignation of the men, and the instant and complete change of the policies, that have led us into this disaster. We have not, in fact, too much time left. It is later than Mr. Dewey dares to think, Yet there have been many other expres- sions of this same psychosis. There was the strange article by Cabell Phillips, leading off the New York Times magazine of Decem- ber 10. This article called upon all Ameri- cans to close ranks in a spirit of unity— behind precisely the leaders and selected means that have been discredited, The argument ran: “Our common faith must, of necessity, be placed in our chosen leaders-—the President and his chief civilian and military subordinates, In other words, A445. our faith must be placed precisely in the group whose policies have siready led ws to the very brink of disaster, “As individuals,” the article conceded, “we may neither respect nor fully trust either those leaders or their policies.” In other words, we must callectively have implicit faith in leaders and policies whom individ- ually we neither respect nor trust. Admitting that its self-contradictory are gument might cause some perplexity, the article nonetheless continued: “But the—~ Truman—administration was put in power by the mandate of a democratic majority. That mandate placed in their hands the conduct of our military and foreign affairs,” What is wrong with this argument is: (1) It neglects to mention that this mandate was given more than 2 years ago, when the Amertcan people could not foresee the dis- aster to which it was going to lead; (2) thet last November 7, though they still had only a faint and uncertain intimation of the dis- aster that was coming, the American people ‘considerably modified this mandate; (3) that there never was a mandate to Mr. Truman to usurp the power of Congress ta put us into war; and (4) the argument misses the entire point that the American people, now that the disaster is upon them, are not being given the opportunity to renew or reverse that mandate. The article went on: “We must accept the premise that our leaders are acting to the best of their abilities and to no other pur- pose than to protect our national tnt fad It is hard to believe that this argument was seriously intended. It is merely another version of the old Wild West saloon sign: “Please don't shoot the pianist. He's doing his best.” The whole question is whether our present leaders have the necessary abili- ties, whether they know how to protect our national interest. We have seen the disas~ ter to which their lack of ability and their good intentions have already led us. How much more disaster do we need? I quote one final argument from the Phil- lips article about these leaders: “We may rightfully question their wisdom and try to influence thelr decisions, But once those decisions are made we are all, under the rules we live by, equally obligated by them.” In other words, even if their decisions threaten to lead us to disaster, we must all go along with them and carry them out. It is better, apparently, to go down to defeat quietly un- der the old rules than to presume to change the rules. America, apparently, exists for the old rules, not the rules for America. The New York Times magagine article, like Mr. Dewey’s no-time-for-criticism state- ment, are examples of an intellectual paraly- sis brought about by the inflexibility of our present constitutional machinery, All such arguments reveal a lack of understanding of the very basis of two-party government, The shutting off of criticism is the device of a one-party system and of totalitarian- jam. Is the opposition going to sit quiet, continuing to mumble incoherently about “bipartisanship” while acquiescing tn every blunder, in order to tell us in 1952 (if we survive till then) that they could have saved us from these blunders if they had dared to speak out? Are those who recognize the administration's errors to be silent precisely at the moment when their constructive sug- gestions of what to do—which cannot be separated from their suggestions of what to stop doing—are most needed? We are already beginning to see the logical fruits of the doctrine that we must trust the very people who led us into this crisis to lead ‘us out of it. One is a demand that a “na- tional emergency" be declared chiefly so that still more powers can be asstmed by the leaders who have already demonstrated that they do not know how to tise the lige powers already granted to them. Another is @ de- mand for “total mobilization.” ‘This phrase