1554 morning until approximately 8 o’clock at night. I now yield to the senior Senator from California. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I am thoroughly conscious of the heavy re- sponsibilities and the many difficulties confronting our beloved majority leader. I dislike, by any suggestion or argument of mine, to add to them, but the Senator appreciates, of course, that to us in the West, what is involved in the pending bill is vital. Mr. LUCAS. Precisely so. Mr. DOWNEY. I seree with the Sen- ator from Illinois that perhaps a large majority of Senators have already made up their minds. One of the things that concern me is that some Senators have expressed their opposition to the bill and hope it will not be voted upon until they have an opportunity to be present. So the situation becomes very disturbing. Most of the time yesterday was occupied by the Senator from Arizona I[Mr. McFarvanD] and other speakers. I think the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MaLone] also spoke. We have occupied only an hour ar. 1 three-quarters today. Despite that fact, we shall end our main presen- tation today. There are five or six very technical and difficult amendments which have been presented by the com- mittee which are of a highly vital na- ture, and I hope we shall be successful in changing or reshaping some of them. The Senator from Utah [Mr. Watkins] is vitally interested in one of the amend- ments, as is the Senator from Colorado. After the committee amendments are disposed of—and I do not see how it can be done tomorrow—there are seven or eight other amendments, all of which in- volve hundreds of millions of dollars and important rights. I must admit, as a poor Democrat carrying a very heavy responsibility —— Mr. LUCAS. What does the Senator mean by a “poor Democrat’? Mr. DOWNEY. Literally and abso- lutely. I am an ardent Democrat, but, nevertheless, I remain a rather humble and unfortunate Democrat, carrying a very heavy burden. I must admit that it would be a most unhappy position for me personally in my own State, and it would be just as unhappy a position for my Republican colleague, if this meas- ure should come up for a vote when a large number of Senators are absent. Mr. LUCAS. I appreciate the situa- tion, and I shall yield the floor and let the California Senators complete their statements and perhaps accomplish something before all the Senators on the other side of the aisle move to the hin- terlands. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the senior Senator from California. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I un- derstood that the distinguished junior Senator from New York wished to take the floor at this time. AMERICAN POLICY TOWARD CHINA Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, in all the years since Secretary of State John Hay first established and defined Ameri- can policy toward China, that policy has never bcen under such intense public CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE scrutiny and the subject of so much public concern as during the last 6 months. That scrutiny and concern are due to the fact that the vast bulk of the Chinese people have come under the con- trol of a Communist regime, a regime which is admittedly in the closest liaison with, if not under the full and tyrannical control of, Soviet Russia and its masters, the Politburo. On January 5, 1950, President Tru- man, and on the same day Secretary of State Dean Acheson, redefined American policy toward China, with specific regard to the island of Formosa. This was by no means the first definition of Ameri- can policy toward China in recent years. In December 1945 President Truman de- fined American policy toward China in the light of the struggles that were al- ready raging between the Communists and the Nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek. At that time the United States expressed itself as committed first of all to the territorial integrity of China. Nor was that a new policy. That was the same policy which Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson proclaimed in 1932. It was exactly the same policy the United States has maintained toward China during all the years since the First World War. In January 1915, when Japan made its infamous 21 demands on China, the United States Government expressed its shock and opposition to any such claims which, in effect, would have com- pletely violated the territorial integrity of China. Thus the declaration made by Secre- tary of State Acheson on January 12 this year represents no revolutionary policy. The United States promised in the Cairo Declaration of 1943 that Formosa would be reunited with China as it had been during all the centuries before 1894, Formosa was turned over to the Chinese Government in furtherance of that promise, which was no more or less than carrying out the policy we had supported for half a century. When Secretary of State John Hay made his declaration on the territorial integrity of China in 1899, and when Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson made his declaration on the territorial integrity of China in 1932, we did not attach to those declarations a proviso that this integrity was to be pro- tected only if the Chinese Government conformed to our ideas of what a Chi- nese Government ought to be, or if it satisfied or pleased us. Now we are faced with a situation in which almost the whole of the mainland of China is under Communist control, as I have said, and Formosa is practically the only part of China which remains under the control of the Nationalist regime. My fervent wish and hope would naturally be that the Chinese peo- ple and all China would be freed from the control of any totalitarian form of government, and certainly from that of Moscow-dominated tyranny. We must encourage and give support to those ele- ments of the Chinese people who, I have no doubt, are striving toward this end. I think that would include the vast ma- jority of the Chinese people. But we do not move in that direction by seeking by our own might and power to maintain one particular regime fn Formosa in FEBRUARY 7 order that our own rights may be pro- tected, or by standing on a legalistic point and insisting that Formosa is still part of Japan, and hence subject to our occupation. I felt so strongly about this matter that some weeks ago, when this subject was being debated in the press and on the floor of the Senate, I addressed a letter on the subject to Secretary of State Acheson. A few days ago I re- ceived a reply to that letter. Excerpts of my letter and the reply were printed in the press. I ask unanimous consent to print at this point the full text of the letter from the distinguished Secretary of State, and my letter to him. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: JANUARY 14, 1950. Hon. Dean ACHESON, The Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. SECRETARY: As you would know, I have been following the develop- ments in China and in our policy toward Ching with deep concern. I have studied the recent statement by President Truman and your own two statements within recent days. These are historic statements. I am confident that you are on sound ground. During my short time in the United States Senate, I have received an enormous amount of mail on the subject of China. The Ameri- can public seems more aware of China and of the Pacific generally than at any time in recent years. There is, of course, good reason for this. But the purpose of this letter 1s not to state the obvious or to make compli< mentary remarks. My purpose is to express my own great concern over the implications of the recent developments, especially the implications of recent statements and charges made in the press and even in the Congress, You have wisely decided, I think, to main- tain on a high moral plane, the policies of the United States in the Far East, and thus, in a much broader sense than the critics of our policies will see, protect the real in- terests of the United States. I think that in this, the policies decided upon will have the firm support of the overwhelming mae jority of the American people. The American people are idealists at the same time that they are practical and hard-headed. It is that combination which has given us world leader- ship. No cynical people would have come into a position of world leadership. No cyn- ical people could long retain that leadership. It was not a cynical people who supported UNRRA. It is not a cynoial people who are supporting the European-recovery program, Yet there are cynical ones among us who would exchange long-term advantage for short-term profit. These are the people who would have us occupy Formosa, or send the Navy to protect it, or establish a condomin- jon over it. Who has asked us to do this? By what right would we do this? Did we fight the recent war against Japan only to claim, as some would have us claim now, that because our forces occupy Japan, we have the right to occupy Formosa, too? And if For- mosa, why not Hainan, and then Shanghal, and Canton and Amoy, and then all of China? Where shall we stop? The first principle of the American people in foreign policy today is to search for peace, justice, and the well-being of all peoples. It is not to maintain a particular battle line somewhere along the Asia coast or to resist by force those ideologies which are not re- concilable with ours. We dislike sovietism, whether in Russia or in China, because it is aggressive and uncompromising, because it
1950 disturbs world peace and because it would undermine and destroy our form of govern- ment if it could. But what some partisans advocate today is that we should imitate rovietism and adopt its practices in order to halt Its spread. Those who would fight the devil with fire are themselves consumed in the end. We must not invite war in order to avoid it. We must not practice evil in order to halt it. There is a slower and harder but surer way The Chinese people know of our record of enlichtened fairness and friendship. They have not forgotten UNRRA, nor the thousands of missionaries who through the dccades did for the Chinese people what UNRRA did, on a mags scale, in more recent ycars. Whatever the hymn of hate being chanted jn the Communist press in China, the Chinese people are wise in the ways of a wisdom much older than ours, and certainly much older than that nurtured in the Kremlin. I do not know what can be done of a posi- tive nature in the present situation. It deeply troubles me that no positive course suggests iteelf. But I do know that clinging to the dead hand of a regime which has com- pletely lost the confidence of the Chinese people and in defense of which that people raises not a finger, could be a fatal error. I assume that we must seek the closest pos- sible contact with the Chinese people, and show them that our desire is, as it ever was, the advancement of their welfare and their interest, and the extension to them of an opportunity to gain not only freedom but a chance to hve in peace and enjoy a decent livelihood. I assume, Mr Secretary, that all this ts under study, and that some way will be tound to steer hevween the obvious dangers of the present situation. But the course will not be clearer for the clamor of those who would serve selfish political ends by irresponsible denunciations and attacks The President and you deserve the gratitude of the country for your recent display of courage and forth- rightness. I trust that you will persevere until a constructive policy can be evolved. I have written at this great length because I feel deeply about this matter and am troubled about the future as well as about the recent past. I would like to help in whatever way I can Yours very sincerely, HERBERT H. LEHMAN. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 2, 1950. My Drar SENATOR LEHMAN: I have reud your letter ot January 14 with deep interest and am gratified to learn that we view the problems of Asia, and of China in particular, in very much the same light. If, as you be- lieve und I believe, our present approach to those problems will have the firm support of the American people, then we are indeed on solid ground. Certainly one of our principal sources of strength in the world today is the faith which we ourselves and free people everywhere have in our integrity of purpose. The heartening support which we receive in the interna- tional community is freely given because foreign peoples have this faith in us and know whence any threat to their independ- ence arises. This position of moral leader- ship places upon us a heavy responsibility. We must not destroy the faith which others have in us. And we shall surely destroy it if we permit possible momentary advantage to obscure the great moral principles to which we are dedicated. This is particularly true with respect to Asia, for the peoples of Asia, having recently emerged from a colonialism which ts passing, stand now at the crossroads. Consciously and unconsciously, they are appraising two antithetical ways of life. In the long run, whether these peoples move in the direction CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the free peoples of the west or whether they move in the directlon of Soviet commu- nism will be determined by this appraisal. It is for us during this period to extend with tact and understanding a helping hand where we can and a guiding hand where this will not be resented and, above all, to see that the peoples of Asia have a true picture of us and a true picture of Soviet commu- nism and a clear understanding of what each stands for. In a sense, we sare thus on trial before the peoples of Asia. In this connec- tion we must have ever in mind that a hasty or ill-considered action on our part may do jirreparable harm. In the same connection, the public expression of views such as your own can do much good. I fully understand your uneasiness that no positive course for us to follow within China suggests itself. You have gone on to sug- gest, however, what, I think, is a positive course and, in the long run, a most impor- tant one—we should seek to maintain the friendliest relations with the peoples of Asia, and we should show the Chinese people that our desire is, as it ever was, the advancement of their welfare and interest Beyond this, we should lose no opportunity to insure their being fully aware of the threat to their na- tional independence and territorial integiity which arises from Soviet communism. I earnestly hope that your other duties will not interfere with your continuing in- terest in the Far East and our relations with that important part of the world, and that I may continue to have the benefit of your comments and suggestions. Sincerely yours, DEAN ACHESON, Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I should also like to have printed in the Recorp a recent editorial from the New York Post on the same subject. It is the interesting conclusion of this edi- torial, printed on January 17 of this year, that Stalin and the Russian Commu- nists would have no greater satisfaction than to see the United States try to carry out the policy which some few of our people would have us carry out, namely, to seize or occupy Formosa or otherwise interfere in the Formosa situation. The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is there obicction? There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: THE BATITLE FOR ASIA If all his opponents were conservative Re- publicans, Josef Stalin would be sitting on top of the world. Under the guidance of Herbert Hoover, Senator KNOWLAND, Republican, of Califor- nia, and other “Formosa Firsters,”” we would now be absorbed in a frenzied, futile island adventure. We would be feuding with India’s Nehru and Indonesia’s Soekarno because they do not sing the glories of free enter- prise to their hungry followers. We would be totally missing the point of Asia's rest- Jessness and thereby making that huge sec- tor of the world sate for Stalin's battalions; nothing could more quickly consolidate the Soviet international machine—and discour- age Titoist heresies—than for us to act like Marxist caricatures of ‘bloated, warmonger- ing imperialists." Instead, we have defied the form charts prepared by the Moscow bookies. Secretary Acheson has refused to be stampeded into Operation Formosa; while shutting down our Peiping consulate (an inevitable protest against the Chinese sel- zures), he has tenaciously retained what the Alsops yesterday called freedom of maneuver in the Chinese crisis. Obviously we are playing for time—and Titoism, 1555 There is no certainty of a Titoist break in Stalin's Asiatic fortress; but neither is it inconceivable. The biggest Far Eastern story, almost buried beneath inspired war crfes from MacArthur headquarters, many be the rift between the Jepanese Communist Party and the Cominform (a development which has visibly unnerved the cable editors of the Dally Worker). The Cominform has opened fire on Sanzo Nosaka, key Japancse Communist leader, who also happens to be a long-time friend and associate of China’s Mao. Thus far the other Japanese Com- munist leaders have declined to excommu- nicate Nosahka, an act of insubordination worthy of Tito himself. This curious epi- sode coincides with reports that Mao’s future relations with Moscow are still ambiguous despite the fanfare surrounding his Moscow journey. We do not regard Titoism as the hope of the world, but we see infinitely greater hope for the world if Stalin's global army is split into independent nationalist blocs. In this transition era freemen have one clear, affirmative course of action which may si- multaneously intensify the struggle within the Cominform. We must dramatize our concern for the welfare of Asia’s long-op- pressed, impoverished millions. We must provide tangible aid for the prodemocratic native governments of India and Indonesia— funds, surplus food, and technical assistance, We must make point four a real-lite pro- gram comparable to the ERP effort which has stemmed the Communist advance in Europe. Such steps, boldly undertaken and proudly proclaimed, offer a far more effec- tive counterattack against Stalin’s legions than the hollow, strident belligerence of the know-nothing contingent on Capitol Hill. Secretary Acheson plainly recognizes both the streneth and weukness of the Soviet thrust. He understands-—-as most of his critics do not and as Chiang never did—the fateful link between bread and freedom He knows that Asia’s multitudes are marching Icft and will not pause to 1ead leafiets writ- ten by the National Assoclation of Manu- facturers. He knows we are doomed jn any conflict with Stalin tf we try to reconstruct Asia's wretched past. He is aware that the disintegration of the Kremliu’s monolithic international column can only be hastened by men responsible to the universal drive for security as well as liberty These are the things the Enow-nothings have never learned, that is why Stalin un- doubtedly wishes that Senator KNowLanp and his on-to-Formosa commandos were run- ning American foreign policy. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I do not wish to take more time of the Senate in discussing this matter, but I do believe it is one which we cannot ccase to study, just as the entire situation in China continucs to be a matter of unending concern to the United States. The objective of our policy must be a prosperous China, under a government representing the Chinese people, work- ing with us and with the other peoples of the Far East for a just and peaceful world, but devoted primarily, as our own Government is, to the interests of the Chinese people. We must not require that the Government of China be devoted primarily to the policies of the United States, except insofar as those policies carry a promise for the well-being of the people of China. But to keep the confidence of the Chi- nese people, and to look forward to the day when we will be able to work in con- cert with them, and with their Govern- ment, we must not begin by supporting the claims of Japan to Formosa, or by
1556 asserting our own rights, under whatever guise, to Formosa. It is not easy to chart in all details a correct and satisfactory policy toward China. But it certainly is easy to see what we must not do. I am glad that Secretary Acheson has avoided the dan- gerous pitfalls of expediency. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will my colleague yield to permit me to make a brief statement on the subject dis- cussed by the Senator from New York? Mr. DOWNEY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I wish to take just a few minutes to reply to the able Sen- ator from New York, who has put into the Rrcorp his communications with the Secretary of State. I think it is impor- tant that the record be very clear in regard to the Formosa situation. So far as I know, there has not been @ responsible American commander in the Far East, or anyone on the floor of the Senate, who has advocated that the §sland be seized and held by the United States, and certainly the Senator from California, who has taken considerable interest in this matter of Formosa, has not advocated that course. To the con- trary, when I returned from the Far East, and on the 5th of January opened the debate on the floor of the Senate dealing with our far eastern policy, with particular reference to China, I think I made it abundantly clear that our com- petent observers in that area of the world did not feel that it wa; either necessary or desirable for the United States to seize the island, or to have either naval or air bases on the island of Formosa. But there was a very strong feeling among those who had some responsi- bility in that part of the world that while we did not need Formosa ourselves, it was detrimental to the ultimate se- curity of this country and the peace of the world for Formosa to fall into un- friendly hands, because the American defensive position in the far Pacific ex- tends from the Japanese Islands where at the present time, we have occupation responsibilities, through the island of Okinawa, upon which we have air bases, down through the Philippines. For For- mosa to be in unfriendly hands would drive a wedge in that defensive position, and would outflank us both to the north and to the south. It was on that basis that the Senator from California made his remarks when he returned. The fact of the matter is that on the 23d day of December last year there was issued by the American Department of State a document which was sent to our representatives abroad, which stated, in effect, that Formosa had no strategic value. I was very much interested in that statement, and it was so contrary to the information I hed theretofore had that I addressed a letter to the Secretary of State. I might say that I was less able to get a prompt reply from the Secretary than was the able Senator from New York, and to this day I have not gotten the text of the document which was sent out. But one of the very able American press associations, which, fortunately, due to the alertness of the press, many times not only does the country but also the Congress a service, learned for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE first time of this document. This press association—in the particular case it was the United Press--brok: a story from Japan which gave in substance the text of the State Department document. Mr. President, that was made public on the 23d of December. It is interest- ing for both the Senate and the country to note that the document which was put out on the 23d of December saying that the island of Formosa had no strategic value, was issued 6 days before the Na- tional Security Council was scheduled to meet to determine that very issue. Pre- sumably the State Department had prejudged the case. I also made an inquiry of the State De- partment as to who had issued the in- structions, what group had assembled and discussed the situation that would warrant them to say that the island of Formosa had no Strategic value. I was informed first by telephone and later by a letter from the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, that he took sole responsibility for what went on in the State Depart- ment, and therefore that he did not feel it was advisable to inform the Senator from California or the Senate of the United States who constituted the group who said the island of Formosa had no strategic value. I think it is also important for the Senate to know, however—and I today charge—that that committee, whatever its name, in the Department of State of the United States, which issued a docu- ment saying that the island of Formosa had No strategic value, had no competent advice whatsoever from the American supreme commander in the Far East, from CINCPAC, commander in chief of the naval forces in the Pacific, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or from any mem- ber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indi- cating that the island of Formosa had no strategic value. To the contrary, I say on my responsi- bility as a Senator of the United States that all the advice they had received up to that time clearly indicated that the island of Formosa did have strategic value. The only question was: Did it have strategic value sufficient to warrant the spreading of American equipment or forces more thin than they were already spread? I say that is a great difference from the flat-footed statement that the island of Formosa had no strategic value. I think it is important that the coun- try and the Senate of the United States know who in the State Department com- piled this document. From whom did they receive military advice that the island had no strategic value? I will say to the able Senator from New York—and I am glad the Senator raised the issue in this body today—that I think the Senate of the United States has a responsibility in foreign policy. I do not believe we can discharge our obli- gation in foreign policy by continuing to permit ourselves to be spoon-fed only such information as the Department of State wishes to give us. Mr. President, I repeat it is important that the Senate of the United States know who compiled that document. For a period of time the Government of the United States, through the State FEBRUARY 7 Department, was urging the National Government of China to take Commu- nists into a coalition with them. Coali- tion with communism has never worked. It did not work in Poland; it did not work in Czechoslovakia, it did not work in Bulgaria or in Rumania, or in any other country where it has been tried. It will not work in Korea, and it would not have worked in China. The Republic of China refused to take Communists into a coalition. When it refused to do so, this Government, through the State Department, endeav- ored to bring pressure upon the Republic of China. We placed an embargo upon them for a period of 10 months. We did that at precisely the same time the Soviet army of occupation in Manchuria was turning over to the Communist forces in China arms and ammunition estimated to be sufficient to equip a million men for 10 years. This was being done precisely at the time we were imposing a boycott and an embargo upon the forces of the Republic of China, and the civil war in that country changed very drastically from that period on. Not only did that happen, Mr. Prest- dent, but at a time when the National Government of China was fighting with its back to the wall, we issued the so- called famous, or infamous, American white paper. I have been told, not only by those in the Government of China, but by soldiers in the ranks, by officers, by those who were critical of the Gov-~ ernment of China, by people on the Island of Taiwan—Formosa—who desire a degree of autonomy greater than they now have, that there was nothing which was more detrimental to the morale of the people of China than was the Amer« ican white paper. Now, how did it happen that the Rus- sians were in Manchuria where they could turn over vast quantities of Japa- nese arms to the Communist forces in China? ‘They were there by virtue of the Yalta agreement, which we agreed to, without the knowledge or consent of the Republic of China. We did not do the Republic of China the courtesy of even informing it that we were selling it down - the river. We did it without the knowl- edge of the Republic of China. We did it without its consent. It was done with- out the knowledge or consent of the American people or of the American Con- - gress. So the Russian army of occupa- tion was in Manchuria largely as an out growth of the Yalta agreement, and i!t was there by reason of their having been given some of the railroad rights in Man~- churia, and the port of Dairen. It put them in a position to aid the Communist forces in that country. ; It so happens that sitting at Yalta as one of the chief advisers to the American delegation was Mr. Alger Hiss, who has just recently been convicted of perjury in connection with the charge of turning over secret documents to espionagdé agents of the Soviet Union. , We have had people who were cone nected with this Government, who served in China, who constantly urged, in the messages that they sent back to this Government, that Communists be taken into a coalition,
1950 I think it becomes a very important point, and onc in connection with which the Senate of the United States is en- titled to ask the question and is entitled to have an honest and frank answer: “Who issued the State Department docu- ment that said the island of Formosa has no strategic value?” I say to the Senator from New York— and I speak as one Senator of the United States who feels that he also has some responsibilities in the matter of foreign policy, and as one who serves on the Committee on Appropriations—that I am becoming sick and tired of the execu- tive branch of the Government lowering an iron curtain between the executive branch and its functions and the Con- gress of the United States, and depriving us of information to which we are en- titled, upon which to make our judg- ments. So far asI am concerned, I think it is time the Congress of the United States should exercise the powers it has in the control of the purse strings, to see to it that we obtain the information to which we are entitled, and if the execu- tive branch wants to get tough and say, “You are not going to get it,” the Con- gress of the United States can be just as tough and say, “All richt, until we do get it, you are going to have a consider- able amount of trouble in operating on your present scale.” I think the time has come when the Congress of the United States must as- sume its responsibilities under the Con- stitution, and must determine that we are no longer going to abdicate the re- sponsibilities which are ours under the Constitution. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I must say that I am amazed to hear the dis- tinguished Senator from California deny that in any public discussion or on the floor of the Senate there was any sug- gestion made by any responsible official or personage that we send a fleet to Formosa or occupy Formosa. I think that if the distinguished Senator from California will take the trouble to study the ConcressIonaL Recorp of the pro- ceedings in this House he will find that his statement 1s not entirely accurate. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from California? Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. Mr. KNOWLAND. I will say to the Senator from New York, I am thoroughly familiar with the fact that there were people who urged that the United States fleet in the Far East be increased, and that if necessary the fleet be used not to permit the island of Formosa to fall into unfriendly hands. In my judgment that is an entirely different situation from the occupation of the island of Formosa by American troops or having American bases, either naval or air, on the island of Formosa. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, if my recollection is correct—and I believe it is—a very distinguished American sug- gested and recommended that the Amer- ican Government send a fleet to Formosa. I refer to the only living ex-President of the United States, and very distinguished American, Herbert Hoover. I believe CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Senator will find that statement was carried in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly. Mr. KNOWLAND. Iam familiar with the letter which Mr. Hoover wrote. Asa matter of fact, Mr. Hoover wrote the let- ter to me. The letter was released by me with the consent and approvul of Mr. Hoover. If the Senator from New York will read the letter, I think he will agree with me that Mr. Hoover was making it perfectly clear that in his judgment it wouli not be in the best interests of the people of China or of the peace of the world or of the security of this country to have Formosa fall into unfriendly hands. Only as a last resort, in the event the people of Formosa could not defend themselves, does he indicate, in my judgment, that America should say, “We will not tolerate the invasion of the island of Formosa by unfriendly forces.” I believe he had some very valid reasons for saying that. I do not happen to agree with the theory that Formosa can still be considered a part of Japan. I happen to more nearly agree with the Senator from New York, that as a result of past history and as a result of the Cairo Conference, we have a moral, if not a legal, commitment that Formosa is an integral part of China. I certainly believe it is. I believe it is an entirely different situation. On the island of Formosa there 1s a legal government, which was our wartime ally, which is now recognized by us, which maintains an ambassador in this country, which is a permanent member of the United Na- tions, which occupies a seat as a perma- nent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. That government is asking us for additional aid to prevent the country from being taken behind the iron curtain, in the same way as the legal Government of Greece asked us for aid. That certainly was a civil-war situ- ation. In the same way, the Government of Korea asked us for aid. That cer- tainly was a threatened civil-war situ- ation. We have both the legal and the moral right and obligation to give assist- ance to the legal Government of China in order to permit her to defend the island of Formosa. I have been on the island of Formosa, and I have seen some of the able leader- ship of the Government, including Gen- eral Sun Li-jen, who is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute, and Gov- ernor K. C. Wu, who is a graduate of Princeton University. They are capable leaders. They are men who have the western point of view, men who know something of free institutions, men who dcfinitely do not want their country taken behind the iron curtain. When these people ask for our help, I think we have the same right to give it to them as we had to give aid to the Government of Greece and to the Government of Korea, or as we have given it under the North Atlantic compact to the western European countries, which are also try- ing to preserve their freedom. I do not know how the Senator from New York feels, but to me communism is just as detrimental to human liberty in Asia as it is in Europe. Communism is 1557 just as ruthless. It is just as destruc- tive of human liberty in China or Korea as it is in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, or Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czecho- slovakia, Bulgaria, or in any other country. I believe it is not necessary to point out again that the great democratic leader in Bulgaria, Petkov, was hanged; that Masaryk, who commanded our re- spect and the respect of the people of the world, either was killed or committed suicide when he found that a coalition with communism could not be made to work. As one prominent Chinese said to me when I was in China just a little less than 2 months ago, “Senator, you cannot have a coalition with a tiger unless you are inside the tiger. It is impossible to have a coalition with com- munism unless you are prepared to be absorbed by communism.” I believe the time has come when we must make it perfectly clear whether we are really interested in maintaining a free world of freemen or whether we are drawing a color line in maintaining a free world of freemen. Are we any less concerned about the hundreds of millions of people in China being brought behind the iron curtain than we are about the people of Europe being brought behind the iron curtain? I think not. I happen to represent a Pacific coast State, which saw this country become involved directly in World War II in the Pacific. It was done through a relatively small country, Japan, with a population of some 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 people. I happen to have seen at Pearl Harbor, when I was there just a few months ago, what its left of the battleship Arizona. In her hull there are still the bodies of 900 American sailors which have never been taken out. I cite that fact to show that a rela- tively small nation of 80,000,000 people drove us out of the Philippines, drove us out of Wake, drove us out of Guam, drove the British out of Hong Kong and out of Singapore, drove the French out of their area, and drove the Dutch out of most of their area. They attacked the Chinese, who were then a much stronger nation than they are today, and drove them back into the inland part of China. That was done by a nation of some 80,000,000 people. Today there have al- ready been taken behind the iron cur- tain some 450,000,000 people on the con- tinent of Asia, in China alone. I regret to say to the Senator from New York that according to present indications, it is not unlikely that within a year from the time that he and I are standing on the floor of the Senate, 125,000,000 more people in southern Asia will be taken be- hind the iron curtain. That is a greater aggregation of power than Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini had at the height of their power, I do not believe that we can be unconcerned with what has taken place in the Far East. I think we have had a bankrupt policy in China. I think we have had a bankrupt policy in the Far East. I think that today there is not a competent American diplomat in that part of the world who can tell us what our far eastern policy is,
1558 The Secretary of State in his speech before the National Press Club drew a line of his own volition which left Korea on the other side of the line. It elimi- nated Formosa, which is a strategic island in the defense of the far Pacific. Certainly he does not indicate what our policy is today in Indochina, Burma, Siam, India, or Pakistan. If the Senator from New York is well advised—and per- haps he has more information than has the Senator from California—I hope he will tell us what our policy is in the Far East. Ido not know what it is. I doubt if there are very many persons in the country who can tell us what the policy of this Government is in the Far East. What would we do if Korea were attacked tomorrow by the Communist force in North Korea? What would we do if the Chinese Communist forces were to cross the border into Burma, Indochina, or Siam? I believe it is high time that we begin to understand some of the practical ap- plications of this situation. We have drawn a line in Europe. We have stood up to communism in connection with the Berlin airlift. Communism has re- treated. Wherever free elections have been held, communism has shown a loss. In the Far East, have we stood up to communism? We have not. We have cringed before communism. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California said he did not know where I stood on communism, Let me inform him. I have fought communism for more than 15 years. My public papers as Gov- ernor of the State of New York for a period of 10 years will plainly show my position. But I have done something more than fight communism. I have also fought fascism and nazism which in my opinion have been and may again be a very grave threat to the peace and security of this country and of the world. I remind the distinguished Sen- ator from California that the threat which came to his State in 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Cali- fornia was threatcned, was not a threat of communism, but a threat and an at- tack launched by the forces of fascism. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. No; I should like to complete my statement, as did the Sen- ator from California. So I have fought and I shall continue to fight communism witi all my strength, and I shall also fight and continue to fight nazism and fascism, which in my opinion are by no means dead, even now. Previously I referred to President Hoover in order to refresh the Senator's mind and to correct the statement he made earlier in the discussion that no responsible person or public official had suggested or advocated the sending of a@ fleet to Formosa or the ocupation of Formosa. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me say that if he will refer to the Recorp, I think he will see that the statement of the Senator related to the occupation of Formosa. Mr. LEHMAN. On this floor two statements or suggestions were made CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE with regard to the occupation of For- mosa. I am under the impression that in a statement or a speech or a letter the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH], who I regret is not now present on the floor of the Senate, made that statement and suggestion. I believe that statement was inserted into the ReEcorp by my good friend, the able and brilliant Senator from New Jersey (Mr. SmitH] on January 9. I value the senior Senator from New Jerscy as a good and true friend, one in whose friendship I delight; but I cannot fail to derive from the statement he made and from similar statements he has made in the Senate the distinct im- pression that he favors the occupation of Formosa by the United States Gov- ernment in whatever form that occu- pation was to be carried out. But let me tell the distinguished Sen- ator from California that I am very glad that a minute ago he said he endorses the conclusion contained in my state- ment, namely, that under no circum- stances should we ever consider that Formosa is a part of Japan, and that it is only if we do consider that Formosa js part of Japan that we would have any legalistic right or technical right to in- tervene in that situation. Let me tell my distinguished colleague from California one other thing before I close: He has talked about our strat- egy being based on a line which includes the island of Formosa, which may or may not have strategic value; I have no knowledge on that subject. I recall that in the case of Korca, which the Senator mentioned as one of the danger spots, only a little while ago, through a tragic alliance of members of his party and members of my party, I am sorry to say, in the House of Representatives, the aid which we wanted to give to Korea, upon recommendation of the administration, was defeated. Furthermore, Mr. Presi- dent, when the Senator from California asks, “‘Why do we not give help to the Nationalist Government of China?” and when he tries to make it appear that we turned our backs on that Government a long time ago and have given it no help, I wish to point out that over a period of years we provided that Government with more than $3,500,000,000 in appropria- tions or grants of various kinds. I believe that what will tell the story of our fight against communism—and I know it is a fight; I have no delusions whatsoever about that—is not an imagi- nary line or a strategic line alone, impor- tant as that might be. Of course, we have seen the fallacy of depending on a Maginot line or a Siegfried line or the line which we had set up in the Pacific before 1941. However, our best hope for combating communism is to gain and to hold the confidence and respect of all the peace-loving and freedom-loving people of the world. Our strength will lie very largely in making them believe and know that when we talk about de- mocracy, we mean democracy; that when we talk about human rights and the dig- nity of the individual, whether in China or in the United States, we mean just that, and we are willing to make sacri- fices for just that. FEBRUARY 7 TI say to my esteemed colleague from California that the fight is not going to be won on any imaginary line alone. It is going to be won when all these people, in China and elsewhere, believe in us sufficiently—believe in our good faith, in our love of freedom and democracy—to follow us, both in the countries which, thank God, still remain free, and, fn in- creasing numbers, in the countries which Me behind the iron curtain. I believe with all my heart, based upon some knowledge, that today, because of the example of the United States for right thinking, for humaneness, for love of freedom, our country has far more friends than is generally believed. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I simply wish to say to the able Senator from New York that I know of his inter- est in American institutions and his feel- ing against communism and fascism, and T have no less feeling against both types of isms. I happen to have served in the Army of this country for 3 years dur- ing the last war, and I also know of the able service the Senator from New York performed both as Governor of New York and later as head of UNRRA. I wish to say to the able Senator that since coming to the Senate in 1945—I was appointed on VJ-day to take the place of my late distinguished predeces- sor, Scnator Hiram Johnson—to the best of my ability I have supported the for- eign policy of this country because I felt that in Europe it made sense. Not only did I support the United Nations and the UNRRA appropriations at that time, but I have also supported the Marshall p'an because I recognize the fact that com- munism thrives on economic and politi- cal chaos, and that if there were an eco- nomic collapse in Europe the only bene- ficiary would be international commu- nism. I supported the North Atlantic Pact without reservation, because I recognize the fact that an attack upon free institu- tions anywhere in the world must be of concern to law-abiding nations every- where in the world. I supported the arms-implementation legislation to implement that pact, be- cause I believe we cannot continually re- treat in the face of communism and still hope to hold any part of the world free. I do not favor appeasement of com- munism. I think that when Mr. Cham- berlain returned from the Munich Con- ference, perhaps he honestly felt, when he waved over his head a slip of paper bearing the signature of Adolf Hitler and the signature of Benito Mussolini, that he was buying peace in our time; but now we know that he was doing no such thing. I think that appeasement then or appeasement now is but sur- render on the installment plan. So I have supported our policy in Europe be- cause I think it makes sense to the American Congress and to the American people. But I say with the utmost re- spect that while we have closed the door to communism in Europe, the American Government at the same time has left the door to communism wide open in Asia. We have not only left the door wide open, but, by the policies we have followed, we have accelcrated the spread of communism in Asia, until today it
1950 threatens the peace of the world and the ‘security of this country. I say most re- Spectfully to the Senator from New York it simply does not make sense to me, and I do not believe it makes sense to a good many other American people. The Senator mentioned some imagi- nary line. I do not think it is an imagi- nary line. I think there is a very definite threat to this continent and to the peace of the world, if communism leaves the Continent of Asia and moves into the Pacific islands, whether it be a move of 100 miles to Formosa, or of a few hun- dred miles to the Philippines, or ulti- mately, on to the islands of Japan. I do not think communism moving on to any of those islands will be beneficial to us. To the contrary, I think it will be most detrimental to the peace of the world and to the security of this coun- try. So I believe that the American people are entitled to know soon just what our policy in the Far East is. We have a great responsibility in Ko- rea. As the able Senator from New York knows, we joined in agreeing to the division of Korea at the thirty-eighth parallel, which permitted the Russian occupation forces to occupy north of the thirty-eighth parallel, and ours, to oc- cupy south of the thirty-eighth parallel. After that was done, we agreed that both our troops and the Russian troops would move out. We agreed to and partici- pated in the United Nations decision to permit the people of Korea to hold a free election to set up a form of govern- ment. The Communist groups who had been left in North Korea would not permit the United Nations even to go into their area, much less to supervise the election. Since about two-thirds of the people live in South Korea, 1t was finally decided by the United Nations Commission that they would go ahead and hold the elec- tion there. I have talked with several of the newspaper men who were there at the time, and with American repre- sentatives. They say it was a free elec- tion, it was an honest election. The people of Korea, south of the 38 parallel, selected a non-Communist government. Yet, constantly since the time that gov- ernment was established, they have been threatened by the Communist forces from the north. I went up to the 38 parallel when I was there. I was told by the Koreans and by our own advisers that the North Koreans have made 350 incursions of greater or less extent across the border of South Korea, which the Korean Republic has had to force back, and which it has successfully forced back. But how hasit done it? Because we aiso sent them a mission, and we sent them certain equipment. We helped them train their men. They have some very fine soldiers, and I am personally convinced that if it is only an invasion from the indigenous forces of North Korea, the Republic of Korea will be able to withstand that type of invasion. But I say to the Senator from New York, the $64 question is, after the Chinese Communist forces have hquidated the opposition, if they can, in the remainder of China, and have moved some of their forces and some of their equipment back, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE can the Republic of Korea withstand that type of reenforced North Korean Communist army? I think it is highly dubious that they can. We have some responsibility. Weper- mitted the division of the country. We have sent them a mission. Are we to abandon them, if their liberty is threat- ened in South Korea? I think they are entitled to know the answer to that aguestion. I think the American people are entitled to know the answer to it. Are we concerned with the freedom of the people of South Korea? Ihave been there. I know there is a fine group of people there who want to have a free life, who know enough about what has taken place behind the iron curtain to want no part of it. Are we any less con- cerned with human freedom in the Re- public of Korea than we are in human freedom in Austria, Greece, Turkey, or any other country on the face of the globe? Many of our people think the island of Formosa is merely a little dot in the ocean, As a matter of fact, on Formosa today there are more people than there are in Greece, where we have sent a mis- sion and much equipment. There are approximately as many people on the island of Formosa as there are on the continent of Australia. It is not an in- considerable number. Moreover, most of the Chinese who are there are definitely determined to maintain their way of life against communism. I am convinced that with a little help, not by troops, not by a navy from the Uniied States, but with certain types of arms and ammuni- tion which they need, they will be able to defend their own human freedom. But I do not believe they should be thrown to the wolves of communism; nor do I be- lieve that the people of South Korea should be thrown to the wolves of com- munism. I join with the Senator from New York in regretting the action taken by the other body in not passing the Korean aid bill. I supported the Korean aid bill on the floor of the Scnate. I intend to sup- port it again when it comes before this body. I have talked to as many Members of the House of Representatives as I have been able to contact, pointing out the im- portance of Korea. But I want to say to the Senator from New York I think it is somewhat understandable, because when a large group of people lose confidence in the recommendations of the Department of State of the United States, as they did in 1ts handling of the Chinese situation, I think it is entirely understandable that they should also lose confidence in its recommendations affecting Korea. It so happens that the Senator and I believe that the recommendations with regard to Korea were correct, and I hope that in the very near future the House will rec- tify what I beheve was a mistake. Mr. DOWNEY and Mr. HENDRICK- SON rose. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wat- x1ns in the chair). The Senator from California, Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? 1559 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California yield to the Sen- ator from New Jersey? Mr, DOWNEY. For what purpose? Mr. RENDRICKSON, So I may cor- rect the statement of the junior Senator from New York with respect to the senior Senator from New Jersey. Mr. DOWNEY. I shall certainly yield. Mr. HENDRICKSON. A moment ago, as I understood the distinguished junior Scnator from New York, he said the senior Senator from New Jersey, in the debates on Formosa, stated that he rec- ommended the occupation of Formosa. To correct any wrongful impression which may have grown out of the re- marks of the senior Senator from New Jersey on this subject, I should like to read from volume 96, page 800, of the CONGRESSIONAL Record for Tuesday, January 24, 1950, the statement made by the senior Senator from New Jersey on this important subject. I read: Mr. SmitH of New Jersey. Mr. President, in Formosa the United States has a priceless opportunity to take peaceful action in sup- port of democracy and economic reform, and against the further encroachment of com- munism in the Pacific I believe that we can find a way of making our ideal effective in the Formosa situation without involving our- selves in a vast and unpredictable military commitment. As I have said repeatedly, I see no need to send a singlo American sol- dier to Formosa I still hold to my belief set forth in my report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on December 1, that one of the crucial errors of recent American policy in China has been the conclusion that the only alternative to further military aid was complete abandonment or at leust tem- porary inaction The future of Formosa is an unwritten page of history. There is today a possibility that an independent republic can eventually be established there There is today a strong possibility for s peuceful development on that island which will implement the ideals which America holds in common with the vast majority of far eastern peonies—national independence, economic development, and perconal freedom It is up to the United States to face the ruthless ideological power of communism by exerting itself in this grea, everywhere in the world, in support of the precious human values, which we Americans believe in. The senior Senator from New Jerscy then inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL REC- ord a lengthy lettcr addressed to Mr. Arthur Krock, under date of January 18, in which he explained in great detail his well-known position on the Formosa is- sue. If the junior Senator from New York had read that letter carefully, he would have known that the senior Sen- ator from New Jersey made no statement about a military occupation of Formosa. Mr. CAPEHART and Mr. LEHMAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mr. Downey] has the floor. Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator from California has gone out, temporarily, but he understood the Senator from Indiana desired to speak. Mr. CAPEHART. I shall be very hap- py to yield to the junior Senator from New York for a statement. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the junior Senator from New
1560 Jersey whether the statement of the senior Senator from New Jersey, which he has just quoted, was in reply to an in- quiry or a statement from either the Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] or the Senator from Iiinois [Mr. Lucas]. Mr. HENDRICKSON. That state- ment rep1csented a summation of all the views of the senior Senator from New Jersey on the subject of Formosa in re- spect to any possible occupation thereof. Mr. LEHMAN. My recollection of the use of the word “occupy” was that it was made in an earher statement. I may be mistaken. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I recall that in the earher debates there was some con- fusion of mind, and as I remember, that confusion was purposely developed by Senators participating on the other side of the question from that of the senior Senator from New Jersey. I should like to have it understood on the floor today that I am not expressing any of my own views with respect to the Formosa issue, but I felt it my duty as the junior Sen- ator from New Jersey to see that the senior Ser.ator from New Jersey was not misquoted. Mr. LEHMAN. May I ask the junior Senator from New Jersey whether the senior Senator from New Jersey ever de- nied using the word “occupy” in connec= tion with Formosa in some statement, letter, or article which predated the statement which the Senator has just read? I may be wrong. I do not believe I am, but I can assure the Senator from New Jersey that if I am wrong, I shall see that a correction is made. But my very definite recollection is that the Sen- ator from New Jersey [Mr. SmitH] did not deny having used the word “occupy.” Mr. HENDRICKSON. Whether the senior Senator from New Jersey used the word “occupy” is not of great importance, because in his statement he clarifies, am- plifies, and sums up his entire position on the subject of the occupation of Formosa. THE ISSUE OF SOCIALISM Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I wish to talk on the subject of socialism. I think most of the newspapers through- out America have today set forth in their headlines the fact that the Repub- lican Party has declared that one of the chief issues in the coming elections is liberty versus socialism, I concur in that, and I congratulate the Republican Party for bringing before the American people what I believe to be a burning issue in America today. Every night, Mr. President, when we go to bed, we are one day nearer to state socialism in the United States. Let us not say it cannot happen here, because it can happen. In my opinion, it is happening each and every day. There are many persons who say that such a thing as the Alger Hiss incident could not happen. Others have said that the latest spy incident, that of Dr. Fuchs, could not have happened in America, I hold in my hand, Mr. President, an editorial dated January 27, 1950, printed in the ADA World, which is the offi- cial publication of Americans for Demo- cratic Action. Before I read that edi- torial I want to give to the Senate the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE names of some of the officers of that organization. The chairman of the organization is our colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Hum- PHREY]), The chairman of the executive com- mittee of the ADA is Mr. Joseph L, Rauh, Jr. Vice chairmen: George Edwards; Emil Rieve; Hugo Ernst; Chester Bowles, Gov- ernor of Connecticut and formerly a Government official; William H. Hastie; Franklin D Roosevelt, Jr., and Murray D. Lincoln. Treasurer: Leo A. Lerner. Secretary: David Ginsburg. National director: Charles M. LaFol- lette. National executive secretary: James Loeb, Jr. Mr. President, I should like to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp a history of the PCA, the ADA, and Henry Wallace. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, I should prefer that if the history of the organ- ization of which I happen to be the na- tional chairman {is to be offered for the ReEcorp, the Members on the floor be given the benefit of its wisdom and un- derstanding through oral presentation, because the national chairman of Amer- icans for Democratic Action, being pres- ent on the floor, might want to make a comment as we proceed, and I should prefer to make it at the moment rather than to wait until it is in printed words. Mr. CAPEHART. Do TI correctly un- derstand that the Senator objects? Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Minnesota reserves the right to object and asks the Senator from Indiana if he would prefer to read the history, so that I may be given the benefit of the new information as to the history of Americans for Democratic Action and Mr. Wallace. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I shall possibly read it later. I shall not take the time now, because it has all been previously published in newspapers and in the hearings of committees of the Congress of the United States. I might well take the time to read it, but it seems to me that we might save time if the Senator will permit me to place it in the RecorD. I assure the able Senator from Minnesota that there is not anything in the statement other than what has been previously printed. But I shal] not ask permission at this time to have it printed in the REcorp, Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, Watkins in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Indiana yield to the Senator from California? Mr. CAPEHART. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from In- diana if it is not a rather unusual proce- dure, in view of the common Senatorial courtesy and comity which exist in this body, that when a request is made to have a document printed as a part of the remarks of a Senator, objection is FEBRUARY 7 made? In the 6 years during which I have served in the Senate I have never known an objection to be raised hereto- fore. It establishes a new precedent in this body, and one which I certainly hope the able Senator from Minnesota will reconsider. The Senator from Indiana has made a request such as is commonly made in the Senate. If we are to estab- lish the precedent that everything that goes into the Recorp must be read, I think it would bring about an unusual situation. Mr. CAPEHART. I assure the Sena- tor from Minnesota that there is not anything in it that he should be ashamed of, and there is not anything in it that has not previously been printed. But at the moment I shall not read it into the Rrcorp. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CAPEHART, I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. HUMPHREY. The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota was not objecting to the document being placed in the Rec- orp, but was requesting the Senator to read it. If he does not desire to read it, I have no objection to its being placed in the Recorp. The Senator has re- ferred to an organization of which I am an officer, of which the distinguished Senator from Illinois is a member, of which the distinguished junior Senator from New York is a member, of which the senior Senator from Pennsylvania is a member, and of which the senior Sen- ator from Connecticut is a member. I thought it would be well to have it read, but, since the Senator has no desire to read it, I have no objection to its being placed in the Recorp. Mr. CAPEHART. Perhaps I shall read it later. If I change my mind I shall ask later that it be placed in the REcorp, Mr. President, I did not know that the able junior Senator from New York and the able senior Senator from Pennsyl- vania were members of the ADA, I do not have a list of the membership. I do know, however, that the official organ of ADA, under date of January 27, 1950, ran this editorial on the British elections, which I wish to read: THE BRITISH XLECTION Without minimizing the importance of the British elections to Britain herself, we think the results will have more impact on Europe and the rest of the world than they will at home. A Conservative victory certainly would mean that British trade-unions would have less confidence in thelr government. This would tend to increase strikes and social tension, But because of the great weight of British tradition, the British Tories are prob. ably the most responsible conservatives in the world, and they admit that they would Tescind few of the social gai .s of the last 6 years. But a Labor defeat would have a demorale izing effect on the essential elements of the third force— Ido not know what is meant by “third force’— or the democratic Left on the European cone tinent. Ido not know what is meant by “demo- cratic Left.” Of course, I know what we
1950 mean in the United States when we talk about the “left.” These forces, the strongest of which are the democratic soctalists— I shall repeat that— These forces, the strongest of which are the democratic socialists, look to their Brit- ish counterparts for moral and material sus- tenance. A Conservative victory in Britain would give an enormous boost to the Con- tinent’s conservatives, most of whom lack the feeling of responsibility that characterizes all British parties. A Conservative victory furthermore probably would mean eventual incorporation of Franco Spain into all the political, economic, and military arrange- ments of western Europe. I gather from that, Mr. President, that they are against anyone giving any aid to Franco or to Spain. Bear in mind, that this is the ADA talking; and that the able junior Senator from Minnesota, is its chairman, I be- lieve, and other able Senators who sit on the floor of the United States Senate, a governor of one of the States of the United States, Mr. Bowles, and a Member of the House of Representatives are members. I read further: Despite his great political talents, Mr. Churchill was never chosen to lead his coun- try prior to the last war, and this was due mainly to his intransigent imperialism, no- tably in regard to India With southeastern Asin becoming increasingly important in world politics Churchill's reputation has per- haps become less savory to the democrats of that great aren As for the United Stutes, a Churchill vic- tory would strengthen the American tsola- tionists. “As for the United States, a Churchill victory would strengthen the American isolationists.”. I ao not know whether I am an isolationist or not, but I know one thing, that I am for America, and that I am for the American system of government. And I make no apologies for that. I read further: The most passionate hope of our most stub- born reactionaries is for a smashing Con- servative victory, with all its implications tor our own election this year and in 1952. Let us read that again: The most passionate hope of our most stubborn reactionaries is for a smashing Con- servative victory, with all its implications for our own elections this year and in 1952. A tragic aspect of postwar development 1s the polarization of forces between the ex- treme right and left. Any development that encourages this polarization, with a conse- quent weakening of the vital center or the democratic left, is a set-back for democracy Just as President Truman’s victory in 1948 was a smashing blow to the European Com- munists, 50 wculd be a British Labor victory in 1950. Mr. President, let us take a look at the Socialist Government in England. Let us take a look at the Labor Party in Eng- land. In England the Socialists go un- der the name of the Labor Party. It is not necessary to call a party a “Socialist Party” in order that it be a Socialist Party. In Germany it is called the Na- tional Socialist Party. I think the short name was the Nazi Party. Mussolini had a Socialist Party, and the short name for it was the Fascists, I believe. In Rus- sia it is called communism; nevertheless, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE it is socialism, It is possible to have socialism under any name. It is not necessary to call Soc.alists by a socialistic name. Mr. President, I hold in my hand an article written by Fulton Oursler, author of The Greatest Story Ever Told, in the February issue of Look magazine. Let us take a look at the Government in England, the Labor-Socialist Govern- ment, which the ADA wants to win in England. We have already established some of the membership of ADA _ Let us take a look at the record. What is it the ADA is supporting in England? What is it the ADA is so anxious to have win 1n England? What makes that or- ganization feel that the world will come to an end if the Labor-Socialists do not win in England? The headline of the article is, ‘ ‘So- ciahze everything’—That’s the plan of British Labor Party.” Where dces socialism stop? “It doesn't,” says Prime Minister Attlee, whose book, The Labor Party in Perspective --and ‘I[welve Years Later, outlines the Labor Party's plan to abolish capitalism . Mr. President, we find in America an organization made up of United Statcs Senators, a Member of the House of Rep- resentatives, Governors of States, and of I do not know how many other people in the United States, called the ADA. I shall not question their sincerity, but I certainly question their judgment. In their official organ, their official news- paper, they are advocatine the election of a socialistic government in England. Birds of a feather flock together. Does their advocacy of the election of a so- clalistic government in England mean that they also are advocating or would advocate a socialistic government in the United States? If it is good for Eng- land, why is it not good for the United States? Now let me read possibly all, or at least a portion, of this article: Unless there is an upset in the elections this year, Great Britain is going to abolish capitalism within its borders. There will be no more individual business, no private en- terprise. Instead, there will be « collectivist state. All other impressions to the contrary, total socialism has been the intention of the Labor government from the beginning These facts I learned one forenoon not long ago, as I sat in the historic cabinet room of No 10 Downing Street and talked with Clement R Attlee, the Prime Minister. “Many American taxpayers,” I began, “are worried They approved our previous loans or gifts to your country.” This is Mr. Oursler talking to Mr. Attlee. Now you are asking for more and we are all anxious to know how much further the nationalizing of private industries is to go. Mr. Attlee, when dves socialism stop in England? That is the question Mr. Oursler asked the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Attlee. What was Mr. Attlee’s answer? His answer was: “It doesn’t,” replied Mr. Attlee “It goes right on. Nothing can stand between a nation and its goal.” Those are the words of the Prime Munister of England. That is the policy 1561 which some United States Senators and Representatives and some governors of States of the United States evidently want to maintain in England. I continue to read: I ventured the belief that the great ma- jority of Americans still did not understand or believe an all-out socialist government was being planned Im fact, one cabinet minister had assured American businessmen in my hearing that they had nothing to fear; there were to be no radical changes, except in a few key industries. Mr. Oursler made that statement to Myr. Attlee. Mr Attlee shook his head. “J don't know what others may have told you,” he said, “but no one has any cause to misunderstand. Twelve years ago, long he- fore our party came to power, I gave a spe- cific warning. You had only to read my book.” I think Hitler, too, once wrote a book; did he not? He told us what was going to happen throughout the world. Now Mr. Attlee tells us that he wrote a book in 1937, and that all we have to do is to read his book. He says he told us in his book that when the Labor Party took over control of England, they were going to nationalize and socialize England. Yet, there are United States Senators, there are United States Representatives, there are governors of States, and there are those who call themselves liberals in the United States, who ere supporting that sort of a party in England. Again, I say, I do not question their sincerity, but I certainly question their judgment. I continue to read: The Prime Minister was speaking of a book called “The Labour Party in Perspective,” originally published in 1937. Last year It was republished in England with this addition to its title, “And Twelve Years Later” Had I studied that’book, Mr. Attlee declared, I would have known the answers to most of the questions that troubled me. Now that I have read the book— This is Mr. Oursler speaking— Now that I have read the book, I can testify that he was right. Mr. Attlee wrote a book in 1937, in which he said that, “When the Labour Party gets control of England we are going to socialize all of England. There is no backing up,” he said; “no halfway measure.” Yet in the United States there are responsible men and women who support the socialization of England. Is it any wonder that we who love the Amer- ican system, is it any wonder that we who know what made us the greatest Na- tion in the world, our form of govern- ment, are worried? When we look around and see those who are support- ing socialism in England is it any wonder that the Republican Party yesterday de- clared that the big issue in the comirg election is the socializat:on of our ccun- try? . I continue to read from Mr Oursler’s article: Take the first query I put to Mr Attlee. Why was England socializing more and more private business while prosperity withercd in the land and the country squirmed in a serics of crises? Anticipating that question, 12 years before, Mr. Attlee had boldly asserted that the Labour Government, on coming
1562 into power, would have for its fervent ob- jective * * * “the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth * * *. The plain fact is that a Socialist party cannot hope to make a success of administering the cap- italist system because it does not belteve in it. * ® * Socialists believe in a classless society and the plan which they put forward will envisage a steady progress toward greater equalization of wealth * * *, Hence- forth,” Mr. Attlee added, “the issue that con- fronts the electorate of this country will be socialism versus capitalism.” That is Mr. Attlee, head of the Labor- Socialistic Government of England, speaking. I shall read the last sentence again: “Henceforth,” Mr. Attlee added, “the issue that confronts the electorate of this country will be socialism versus capitalism.” Yet, Mr. President, there are United States Senators, there are United States Representatives, there are governors of States, there are men and women in high public office in the United States, who are supporting that sort of a party, that sort of a regime in England. I read a mo- ment ago the editorial in their official magazine in which they so state. I continue to read: Does Mr. Attlee believe that a labor party must be a@ socialist party? Yes, beyond any question. A trade-union, as he sees it, has two purposes: “It is, in the first place, an organization of the wage-earners working within the framework of capitalist society in order to defend its members from injustice and to gain for them advantages. On the other hand, it is also in opposition to the existing system of society which it seeks to alter.” I continue to read from Mr, Oursler’s article: Did the British people, when they voted the Labor Party into power, realize that its Socialist program would be started, regard- less of recovery of trade and commerce, and all other problems? What has been done is exactly what Mr. Attlee promised in his book; it was a socialistic blueprint, in which he proposed what he called a short program of changes to be made. The principal points were the following: BANK OF ENGLAND NATIONALIZED 1. Nationalization of the Bank of England, control of the credit policy of joint-stock banks and total control of the direction of long-term Investment. Mr. Attlee gave these measures first place in his book. At once, after the elections of 1945, the Bank of Eng- land was nationalized and the Government took monopolistic control over the major ma- chinery of finance. We certainly can see some resemblance between what is happening in our own country and what has happened in Eng- land. I continue to read: How could inexperienced British officials hope to run this enormous banking business successfully? Well, Mr. Attlee promised, they would seek sound counsel, of course, but actually the government doesn’t care if its affairs are run at a loss. As Mr. Attlee put it, “It might fix its prices at such a level as to show no profit at all, or even a loss, which might be made up from some other source. It would not affect the main issue, which is whether or not the public is pro- vided with the services it requires.” We can quite understand that, can we not, when we note that in the United States we have a Government which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE maintains that it is a virtue to run a deficit. I continue to read from Mr. Oursler’s article: 2. Power for the compulsory purchase of Jand for social purposes. This now is also the law. The government can take “what- ever land it requires for whatever purpose.” The words are Mr. Attlee’s. This land can be seized without recourse to the courts; an owner has no rights in his land any longer. Eventually, this law will apply to the whole soil of England, Scotland, and Wales; no individual will be allowed to own a spadeful. Mr. President, does anyone here want to deny that that is the aim of the So- cialists of England when at the moment they have practically all the laws they need in order to reach it? They prom- ise that if they are reelected they will reach it. Yet that is the party which able United States Senators and able United States Representatives and gov- ernors and men and women in high pub- lic office in this Jand are supporting, and say should be reelected. It makes one wonder. EVERYTHING OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY 8. The nationalization of coal, gas, and electricity industries. These proposals also have been put through. Coal, gas, and elec- tricity came quickly into government hands; steel is next on the list. Afterward will come the Sun and Prudential companies, the insurance giants of Great Britain; then cement and other trades. When the Sun and Prudential are seized, it will mean much more than just insurance being taken over; enormous funds for policyholders are in- vested in private businees and industry. Because of those investments, the govern- ment will acquire a voice in a thousand and one private firms. Eventually, Mr. Att- lee says, “All the major industries will be owned and controlled by the community.” That is Mr. Attlee speaking. He is the head of the Labor Government in Eng- land, the Socialist Government of Eng- land. Possibly there is one thing we can admire about the people of that country. They are honest enough to call it a so- cialistic government. They admit it is socialism. Too many people in the United States are advocating the same policies, but they are not honest enough to say that those policies are socialistic and that the end result in this Nation will be socialism, So let us give them credit at least for being honest. 4. The nationalization of transport, in- cluding railroad, road, canal, and air, This has been done—including even the taking over of Thomas Cook & Sons, travel agents. At times, the effect of the social gospel on Cook’s employees is quite startling, as when one American recently tried to arrange for a private car to meet him at a Dutch airport. “What's the matter?” asked a clerk. “Aren’t your fellow passengers good enough for you to ride with on a bus? We're all as good as anybody else, you know.” And he refused to arrange for the service. 65. A far-ranging program of agricul- tural development. In this farm planning, the new government has also tried to follow the blueprint, Blueprint meaning that it was written in Mr. Attlee’s book in 1937. It was promised that a program of expan- sion would increase domestic production by $400,000,000. Today, the meat ration is shorter than ever before. The British food problems are more acute than at any time FEBRUARY 7% since the war, the farmers are disappointed, and an ordinary cigar retails at €5.50—for one cigar. Yet all is exactly as Mr. Attlee warned; the Government subsidizes, buys, fixes prices, makes allotments, and has every- body spending hours waiting in line. With the new agricultural program in effect, Eng- land is hungrier than ever. They have less food in England today than they have ever had. Socialism has never worked, and it will never work, All it does is to divide up poverty. It does not enrich anyone. In England under socialism they have less to eat and less of everything else. Yet there are those in high positions in the United States who say that the Socialist Party in England should be reelected. Let us go on: Many other Socialist schemes were fore~ cast in Mr. Attlee’s book. The author pledged amelioration of all social ills. From this promise emerged the welfare state’s now notorious free health program. He alsq promised adequate housing, a promise not yet redeemed. It has been found easy to nationalize dwellings already in existence; but another matter to build new ones. That brings me to this point. So- cialists sit around waiting until someone else is successful or someone else builds @ successful society or a successful na-~ tion. We have built our Nation by the private-enterprise system, by the savings and the work and ingenuity of the Amer- ican people; just as the people in Eng- land have built their nation. Then the Socialists step in and say, “No gooders.” They say, “We must divide this up. We can do it better. Let us step in and run it.” It has never worked, Mr. President, and it never will work. Yet, Senators, Representatives, governors, and other men in high public office in this Nation are advocating the reelection of a social. istic government in England. The irony of it is that we in Congress have been taking from the taxpayers of America money made through private industry and turning it over to the Socialists in England, who are socializing the entire nation. Thank God, I never voted to do that. I sometimes wonder if we have forgotten how to think. I continue to read: He also promised a shorter working weck, without reduction in pay. This promise, I have it on the highest authority, is soon to be repudiated. Of course they will repudiate all their promises. A little later we shall talk about what has been given to the labor- ing men since the power-greedy fellows have obtained control. “Any short program,” declared Mr. Attlee, “to be acceptable to Soctalists, must contain measures which will take the country a long way on the road to the desired goal * * @ those which are really vital for the transfor- mation of society. * * * Next, there must be a development of the control of the community over trade and industry which runs counter to the will of individualism. Yet, they are going to regiment them. They are going to give them a number. They do not want any individualism. They want everything run by the State. They want to give everybody a number, so that the people will do exactly what they tell them to do.
1950 They will get away with it. At least they will not starve, so long as the tax- payers in the United States support them. They will not starve so long as they can live off what was built up in England before they took over. They will gradually, day by day, have less to eat, less prosperity. We know that is going to happen. Socialism has never worked. Yet men in high positions in the United States are advocating the reelection of the Socialists to the Gov- ernment of England. Does not this intention mean the end of individual liberty? Mr. Attlee disagrees: “The aim of British socialism is to give greater freedom to the individual. * * © “The Uberty which, it is feared, socialism will “estrict is the liberty of the few * * * It is true that in the Socialist state people will be deprived of the right of living in idleness at the expense of the community.” But will not the increasing authority of socialism also mark the end of liberty of worship, since Marx called religion “the opiate of the people"? During our interview, Mr. Attlee wes most emphatic about this question “You may quote me as saying that religious liberty will be wholly secure under our system, which has little to do with Marxism and sprang instead from religious origins,” And in his book he had written: “England in the nineteenth century was a nation of Bible readers To put the Bible into the hands of an Englishman is to do a very dangerous thing This is Mr. Attlee speaking; this was written 1n his book, and 1s quoted in the article from which I now rcad: The Bible is full of revolutionary teaching and it is not surprising that in a country where thought is free, many men and women have drawn from it the support which they needed for their instinctive revolt against the inhuman conditions which capitalism brings * “ * There are probably more texts from the Bible enunciated from Socialists’ platforms than from those of all other parties * * * Many clergy and lay- men found that the capitalistic system was incompatible with Christianity. 1t is pus- sible in Britain for a person to declare himself a Communist.” Mr. President, that part of the article quotes from Mr. Attlce’s book. I read further: LABOR GOVERNMENT OFFERS PANACEA But how 1s it possible for a truly religious man to follow communism, which teaches and practices the destruction of religion? That is one of the questions for which I could not find any answer in the book. But it is plain that many well-intentioned Eng- lishmen expect the Labor Government 10 cure all social ills; just as equally well-in- tentioned Americans worked for prohibition on its promise to produce sobriety. Again, how can ieligious Socialists recon- eile the brotherhood of man under the fath- erhood of God with the increasing nurture of class hatred, the exaltation of envy as a chief virtue, and the constant waging, in strikes and out, of class warfare? There 1s a sharp echo of triumph in the Govern- ment’s latest promise that, if reelected in 1950, it will give every citizen a free travel vacation, with a stay in some stately castle from which the owners have had to flee, im- poverished by the new regime. There it is, Mr. President, promises, promises, promises! Yet there are those in high public office in the United States who are supporting it. I read the edi- torial to the Senate a moment ago. In CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE their official magazine they say some- thing terrible will happen to the world if the Labor Party tn England who have already socialized that nation are not reelected. I read further: Throughout our interview, Mr. Attlee ex- pressed himself on a level of valiant idealism. He declared his willingness to abide by the will of the people as expressed in democratic elections. But how long will his views be supported by his associates or his successors? WILL OF THE PEOPLE IGNORED At the time I raised this question, a shock- ing thing had just happened in London. There had been an election of the County Council, and many Laborites had been de- feated. Where, the day before, the Laborites had a powerful majority, there was now a tie of 64 to 64. The deadlock made it nec- essary for the old majority, as its final act, to elect an extra member to break the tie. In plain defiance of the voters, the expiring Socialist majority chose a Socialist who had just been rejected at the polls. In this case, the will of the people, expressed in a dem- ocratic election, had been set aside. Mr. Attlee is rumored to have wept when he heard this But to me his book’s most fear- some fallacy is his confidence that all Social- ists will play the game according to rules he helieves in. Mr. Attlee secs Socialism as an irresitible world-wide force Let me read that again, Mr. President. I wish all 96 Senators were on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I shall read that part of the article again: Mr Attlee sees Socialism as an irresistible world-wide foree’ “The Libor Party may be considered as part of a great international movement and as a British political party * * * A true Soctalist cannot allow his sympathies to be bounded by anything so narrow #8 2 nation, for nailonalism is only egotism writ large" There it is, Mr. President. In the United States, who are the counterparts of the Socialists in Eng- land? I know the counterparts are not the Republican Party and not the old Democratic Party. The counterparts are the left-wingers, the pressure groups, the Communists, the Socialists, and all other groups in the United States that are bound together by what I have just read, namcly, the desire to socialize the world, We have been trying to stop communism; we have been fighting communism. I have been fighting it for years. Yet the same thing is happening to us, Mr. Presi- dent: While we are fighting communism, the Socialists are creeping in the back door, just as when we were spending billions upon billions of dollars to stop the Communists from going into Europe, they went in the other direction and took over practically all of Asia and China. Mr. President, I say to you that is what is happening in the United States today and throughout the world: They are working under the cover of a dif- ferent name; they call themselves any- thing but Socialists or they go under the name of the Labor Party, as is the case in England. Perhaps I should read again that state- ment by Mr. Attlee, as printed in the ar- ticle: A true Socialist cannot allow his sympa- thies to be bounded by anything so narrow as a nation, for nationalism is only egotism writ large. 1563 Think of that, Mr. President; Just think of it. Mr, President, there is no question in my mind that the Labor Socialists of England would like to socialize America. There can be no question about that. The statement I have just read from the article is proof of it, I think. Mr. President, why do we have in this Nation big men and little men, men in high positions in this land, who support, by editorials, the reelection of a Socialist government in England, knowing that that government and that party intend to socialize all of England, and knowing that the head of that party, Mr. Attlee, in 1937 wrote a book in which he blue- printed the whole thing—just as Hitler wrote a book. Are not we ever to learn anything from history? Are we Amer- icans going to continue to fall for every foolish scheme that is developed throughout the world? Our record m international affairs, so far as I person- ally am concerned, over the past 30 years, has been a complete blank, for I know of no scheme we have gone into that has accomplished the purpose for which it was intended. Mr. President, I shall read further from the article: Workers taught to hate owners. Mr. President, that has been done in England, and it has been done in the United States also. That has been done for many, Many years, the same pattern and the same scheme have been followed. If one reads what has happened in Eng- land during the past 30 years, he will find exactly the same pattern us that which has been developed in the United States. All he has to do .s to study the history and the movements on the part of our own Government and the movements of those in this Nation who would ruin our Government. The pattern is exactly the same. Some years ago theie were in England the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. All the dis- contents and malcontents, the left- wingers, the Fabians, and the Sociahsis went into the Liberal Party, step by step, step by step. Mr. Attlee made the blue- print in 1937 when he wrote his book. Step by step, all the left-wing organiza- tions and parties of discontent went into the Liberal Party, until they took it over completely. They then elected what they called the Labor Government, which in reality was a socialistic government. The same thing is happening in the United States. All such groups in the United States have bound themselves tozcther, and they are, day by day, tak- ing over the Democratic Party. Thank God, there have never been any of them in the Republican Party. The executive director of the ADA, Mr. La Follette, is a former Republican Representative in Congress from Indiana. He got out of the Republican Party. The editorial indicates the ADA are now advocating the reelection of the Socialist Party in England. The headline of the article I will resume reading is, ‘‘Workers taught to hate owners.” The article continues: There were other questions I wanted to ask. How, for example, could cooperation in
1564 industry now be restored? For years, loath- ing for the owners was preached to British laborers. Now the workers are themselves the owners, and their dire need—and Eng- land’s—is for increased production. In the past, the workers were schooled by their leaders to slow down. How can disciplined sloth now be changed to industriousness? It is a question which Mr. Oursler asked Mr. Attlee. Ah, it is the same pat- tern—Workers taught to hate owners, to slow-down strikes. The same pattern has been adopted in the United States. Yet we find United States Senators, Representatives in Congress, a governor, and other men in high public office, now saying the socialistic government in Eng- land should be reelected. What does it mean, Mr. President? I again ask, are we never to learn that the greatest asset we have is our form of government? The article continues: How can you get a man to work hard, any- way, when he feels secure in a welfare state where the government is bound to keep him fed, sheltered, and clothed? For these ques- tions, Mr. Attlee had no answer, neither privately nor in his book. But he agrees that answers must be found. LET’S CALL A HALT Finally, I began to ask some questions of myself. Since England is now in a most serious financial crisis, isn’t {!t time for American taxpayers to get good and worried? They have had to pay the bills of the socialistic program, which is to go right on to the complete annihilation of the private business tradition in which America believes. Why should not the lenders or, rather, the givers of billions of dollars—you and I—call a halt unless and until the borrower agrees to postpone utopia until he can pay for it himself? And before we, the capitalistic financiers of their program, ourselves go broke? Here is a big headline in the Financial Post, Toronto, Canada: “Britain to ask United States new dollar loan?” and yet the head of the British Socialist Gov- ernment says, “Socialize everything.” This article is headed, ‘Socialize every- thing.” Under the caption is the following: That is the plan of the British Labor Party. Where does socialism stop? “It does not,” says Prime Minister Attlee, whose book, The Labor Party in Perspective—and 12 Years Later, outlines the Labor Party's plan to abolish capitalism. That is good, is it not? The American taxpayers’ money is given to a govern- ment, and to its head, Mr. Attlee, who got the idea he is now developing, not yester- day, not 2 weeks ago, but who wrote in 1937 that they were planning to abolish capitalism. Yet we take the American taxpayers’ money and give to that kind of man, with that kind of philosophy, and to that kind of government. He has already told us that he is going to abolish capitalism in England and that everything in England is going to be socialized. He also told us: The Labor Party may be considered as a part of a great international movement and as @ British political party. * * ° Atrue Socialist cannot allow his sympathies to be bounded by anything so narrow as a nation, for nationalism is only egotism writ large. There it is. And yet United States Senators, Representatives in Congress, governors, and other people in high pub- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE lic office in this land not only vote to give American dollars to that kind of @ government, but desire to further what I have just been describing, for in their official publication they urge the reelec- tion of the Socialist government of England. Mr, President, I know that other Sen- ators, possibly, are going to speak on this subject. I know there are those who will rise to say, “You have got to take care of the people.” They will rise to talk about poor housing in the United States. They will talk about the ill-fed and the ill-clad. They will paint pic- tures of slums in America. They will go back to 1931 and 1932, when prices in the United States were low and when there was a depression. I know all that. I know they will use all such things as an argument for the socalistic state, and I know they will point the finger and say—if they do not say it out loud, they will be thinking it, or saying it under their breath—'The able Senator from Indiana is merely a reactionary, a con- servative, a man who does not have the interests of anyone at heart.” I know the story. I have listened to it for five long years. I know it forward and I know it backward; and I say to you, Mr. Presi- dent, that there is under way an inter- national conspiracy to socialize America. Socialism is the first step toward commu- nism. The only difference between the two is that under socialism an effort is made for a period of time to maintain a semblance of liberty for the people and, for a time, to maintain free elections; whereas, under communism, there is a dictator, and the dictator runs the na- tion. Undéer socialism, however, as time goes on, economic conditions of the na- tion become so bad that they are forced to do—what? They are forced to put into effect regimentation; they are forced to name a dictator. That is always the net result It always has been. What do such nations give their peo- ple? They give them a redistribution of poverty. They do not give them a higher standard of living; they give them pover- ty, as is being done in England today. There is no question that the Govern- ment of England would have fallen long ago if it had not been supported by American taxpayers’ dollars earned un- der the great American system of gov- ernment, the private-industry type of government, the capitalistic type of gov- ernment which they wish now to destroy. Mr. President, it does not make sense. I hope I am mistaken. I hope that the editorial which I read to the Senate this afternoon does not mean what I think it means, I pray that it does not mean what I think it means. I hope that Sen- ators who are members of the organiza- tion to which I have referred will stand on the floor of the Senate, or go on the radio, or will write and say, “The Senator from Indiana was wrong. The editorial which he read did not mean what he thought it meant.” In the name of our country and for the good of our country, Z hope that is true, but I cannot help but come to the conclusion, after reading the editorial, that it does mean what it says. There are many parties in the United States, splinter parties and groups, FEBRUARY 7 There is the ADA about which I have been speaking. There is the CIO Polit- ical Action Committee. There is the A. F. of L. Political Action Committee. There is the New Deal Party, the Fair Deal Party, and the American Labor Party. There are in the United States more splinter parties with funny names than we need. They are all bound together for the same cause, the same purpose. They scratch each other’s back in the United States and they scratch the back of every other similar organization in every other nation of the world. They are for the Socialists in England. They are against Franco. ° If I had time I think I would read a brief editorial which was published in the same magazine from which I read the other editorial. It is against Mr. Franco, against Spain. The preamble to the or- ganization’s constitution is, in effect: “We are against sin. We love everybody. We are for increasing the standard of living of the peoples throughout the world, regardless of who they are.” Yet, in the ADA magazine they say: “We want no part of Spain. We want no part of Franco.” They are for everyone, cer- tainly. They are for everyone who agrees with their philosophy, which is what? Their philosophy is, I presume—I do not know; all I know is what I read in the editorial—to support the Socialists of England. Mr. President, I again say that there is very little difference between socialism and communism. Hitler called his party the National Socialist Party. I think the Communist Party in Russia is called a Socialist Party. I forget the official name of the party in Italy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the REcorp as a part of my remarks an editorial appear- ing in the February issue of America, entitled “Mr. Acheson on Spain.” The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hory in the chair). Is there objection? There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: MR. ACHESON ON SPAIN One of the elementary facte of life which a Secretary of State must learn is to come in out of the rain. From his January 19 letter to Senator Tom CoNNALLy, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it looks as if Secretary of State Dean Acheson had finally learned that our policy toward Spain was giving him a good dousing. Resorting to the wisdom of the common man, Mr. Acheson is ready to get out from under. The Secretary began by expaining that it was traditional American policy to recognize foreign governments despite our disapproval of the ideology they represent and of the domestic policies they pureue. The criterion we have generally applied, he now admits, is whether recognition serves the interests of the United States. Presumably, we may add, these interests are legitimate, and in many respects identical with the interests of all nations in establishing world prosperity and peace. In the case of Spain, Mr. Acheson confesses that the 1946 resolution of the UN General Assembly to withdraw chiefs of diplomatio missions from Madrid has failed. The policy has strengthened rather than weakened Gen- eral Franco. The American Government, ac- cording to Mr. Acheson's revised judgment, is now prepared to vote in favor of a UN
1950 resolution ‘which will leave members free to send an ambassador or minister to Spain if they choose.” This reversal of our policy, he adds, 1s a mere recognition of the facts in the case, and is not to be mistaken for ap- proval of the Spanish regime. This decision of the Secretary of State to run for cover has not been taken all of a sudden. In fact, the history of his mental operations in regard to Spain during the past 8 months makes a rather intriguing story. If we look back to last May, when the United Nations Assembly was considering a resolution to do what our Secretary of State now says we would favor doing, where did he stand? On May 11 he explained why wa would abstain from voting on the resolution to lift the embargo on full diplomatic rep- resentation in Madrid. His first reason was that Spain failed to provide civil protec- tions and failed to uphold freedom of asso- ciation and of religion (America, May 28, 1949, p. 279, “Spain at Lake Success”). His second reason, which had more weight, was that our western European allies refused to enter into “an intimate working partner- ship’ with Spain as presently governed. This statement was supposed to answer the contention of Senators GURNEY, CONNALLY, VANDENBERG, and Tarr that our Spanish policy, in view of the cold war and of our traditional practice (actually followed in our relations with Communist countries), sim- ply did not make sense. The United Na- tions, by a rather close vote, stuck to its 1946 resolution. Then the clouds burst on Mr. Acheson. As the Chinese Communists swept on to- ward complete control of China, the prob- lem of recognizing another ruthless totalitar- ian regime became extremely vexing. In ad- dressing the Pan-American Society of the United States on September 19, Mr. Acheson took occasion to explain that our practice in recognizing foreign governments should not always be based on our approval of them. America, having taken note of this glance toward a place of shelter (October 1, 1949, p 683), later observed that Mr. Acheson might be preparing the way toward even- tual recognition of Communist China (Oc- tober 8, 1949, p 1). Moreover as the split between Tito and Stalin widened the Sec- retary was hard pressed to justify making a loan to Dictator Tito after his May 11 state- ment (America, September 24, 1949, p. 653). The symbolism of our policy of recogni- tion, which the Secretary of State last May took very seriously, has now lost its glow. Recognition no longer connotes approval of a foreign government, but merely that it belongs to the family of nations and is pre- pared to carry out its international obliga~ tions Spain meets these qualifications. If all this is intended as a prelude to our eventual recognition of Communist China, however, we hardly need remind Mr. Ache- son that Peiping does not meet them. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp as a part of my remarks an editorial appearing in the ADA World, the official publication of Americans for Democratic Action, dated January 27, 1950, and entitled “About Franco.” There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rec- orD, as follows: ABOUT FRANCO At this point in the world-wide struggle of democracy against totalitarianism, friendly American gestures toward General Franco could conceivably undo much of what has becn accomplished. As James Loeb potnts out, Fascist Spain is a “symbol and a touch- stone” to millions. Anybody who wants & thorough comprehension of the factors in- volved in United States aid to Spain should xXCVI——99 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE read ADA's new pamphlet, What Does Stalin Want Us To Do About Franco? Compiled from authoritative sources and endorsed by several respected journalists, this document should help prepare us to act wisely when the bedrock question of economic aid to Franco comes up, as it surely will. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record as a part of my remarks a document entitled “The PCA, the ADA, and Henry Wallace.” It is a documented history—I believe it to be true—showing the historical background of the National Citizens Political Action Committee and the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions, which has been called the Progressive Citizens of America, and now the ADA. I might say that the ADA, if I correctly understand the situation—and if I am wrong I hope some Senator will correct me—was the outgrowth of the NCPAC and the ICCASP, liberal groups. Many members withdrew from those organiza- tions because they thought they were too communistic. I congratulate them for getting out. There being no objection, the docu- ment was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorD, as follows: THE PCA, THe ADA, AND HENRY WALLACE PCA IS “FRESH TITLE FOR TWO STALE ONES” In a 2-day convention at the Hotel Com- modore in New York City on December 28- 29, 1946, 300 delegates from 21 States voted to merge 10 liberal organizations—principally the National Citizens Political Action Com- mittee and the Independent Citizens Com- mittee of the Arts, Sciences, and Profes- sions—into a new group entitled the Progressive Citizens of America. Harold Ickes, himself fresh from an inside track as recent executive chairman of the ICCASP—from which he resigned on Novem- ber 11, 1946, tor reasons variously reported as disaffection over his sulary and/or commu- nism in ICCASP—observed acidly in his syn- dicated column of January 8, 1947, that “there was little new about this organiza- tion—the newly formed PCA—except the substitution of a fresh title for two stale ones.” “Moreover,” he added, “no liberal move- ment can prosper that, from its very start, will be called upon to defend against the charge of communistic taint. The corner- stone of the organization should have been @ stern injunction that no Communist or sympathizer with communism would be ad- mitted to membership.” ? At the organizing convention, Dr. Frank Kingdon and Sculptor Jo Davidson, former chairmen, respectively, of the NCPAC and the ICCASP, were chosen as cochairmen of the new PCA. Henry Wallace was the mentor and prin- cipal speaker at the convention, where he placed primary emphasis on the role of ltb- erals in the national scene, and secondary emphasis on Russian-American relations. William R. Conklin of the New York Times reported on the convention that: “The applause was unenthusiastic when Mr. Wallace told the gathering that ‘we should have no allegiance outside this coun- try of any sort,’ but it swelled into respect- able volume when he added: ‘except to one world, peaceful and prosperous.’ ”? WALLACE NOT A MEMBER OR OFFICER OF PCA At the same time that Henry Wallace (along with Senator Craupe Pepper, of Florida) is the darling of the PCA, he made 1PhiladelJphia Record, January 3, 1947. ®The New York Times, December 30, 1946. 1565 it clear from the beginning in an editorial printed in the January 27, 1947, issue of his New Republic that he is “not a member or an Officer of the PCA."* Apparently he still is not, for on October 29, 1947, the office of the New Republic (of which Wallace ts editor) told a New York newspaper that Wallace is not cochairman, and to their knowledge, is not even a member of the PCA‘ BOTH NCPAC AND ICCASP COMMUNIST FRONTS Both of the principal foster-parents of the new PCA (“by ICCASP out of NCPAC”’— as the San Francisco Chronicle described the new group’) had already earned a repu- tation for Communist sympathies even be- fore their merger into PCA. On June 11, 1946, Representative Grorcs Donpvexo, Republican of Michigan, arose on the floor of the House, ‘‘to expose what I believe to be a Communist fraud which is being perpetrated upon the people of the city of Washington through the guise of a so-called School of Political Action Tech- niques to be conducted by the National Cit- izens Political Action Committee. * * * The faculty of this school is largely composed of individuals who have rendered yeoman serv- ice to the Communist Party and its front or- ganizations. * * * Thisproject * * * is actually an attempt to establish in the city of Washington a branch of the chain of Com- munist schools to be found throughout the country.’'§ Donpvero continued for 30 minutes to ex- pose the Communist-front connections, sym- pathies, and affiliations of more than 30 of the sponsors and faculty members of this PCA (School of Public Action Technique) .* Even more extensive evidence ts available of the active Communist sympathies and ties of the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. On March 6, 1946, Representative JoHN RANKIN, Democrat, of Mississipp!, a member of the House Un-American Activities Com- mittee, inserted in the CoNGRESSIONAL REC- orp extensive evidence of the unquestion- able tie-in between ICCASP and the Com- munist-fronters. Before listing the numer- ous Communist-front connections of indi- vidual leaders and officers in the ICCASP, RANKIN sald: “The Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions is one of the rankest Communist-front organizations in the whole country. “According to Samuel Sillen of the Com- munist Daily Worker, the official Commu- nist organ in the United States, this organ- ization changed its name in December 1944 from the Independent Voters Committee to the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. Investiga- tion reveals that this organization today in- cludes many sincere liberals who have been misled into joining it * * ¢ “However the core of this organization ts composed of a group of admitted Commu- nists and a long list of fellow travelers who have given their support to Commun!st- front organizations dedicated to one or more of the following purposes: “First. Defense of the Communist Party and its members, “Second. Support of Communist publica- tions. “Third. Support of the Soviet Union and its foreign policy. *See New York Herald Tribune, January 24, 1947, or New Republic, January 27, 1947, . 33. P ‘New York Sun, October 29, 1947. ‘February 1, 1947. * CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorD, vol 92, pt. 5, p. 6699. TIbid., pp 6699-6702.
1566 “Fourth. Support of special campaigns un- der Communist initiative. e * . ° e “Documentary evidence to prove the Com- munist affilation of ‘he organizations which TI name is available * * s e ry “On August 10, 11, and 12 of 1945, the Now York State convention of the Communist Political Asscciation * held secret sessions at Manhattan * * *%. “During this convention June Hoffman, of the cultural section of the Communist Party, addressed the members, saying: “~we built the independent citizens’ com- mittee of the arts, sciences, and professions. It is a great political weapon’. * RIVAL GROUP OF NON-COMMUNIST LIBERALS FORM ADA Probably the most conclusive evidence of the Communlst tinge within the PCA is the fact that a rival set of liberals felt it im- perative within a week's time of the forma- tion of the PCA, to form a separate organi- zation as a non-Communist haven for the more respectable American Mberals who could find no stomach for the Red-tainted PCA. Led by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chester Bowles, Elmer Davis, Wilson Wyatt, David Dubinsky, Russell Davenport, Mark Ethridge, Bishop Oxnam and a number of other prom- inent “liberals” 1” who resented the Commu- nist taking over their movement, an organl- vational meeting was called during the first week in January 1947 by the Union for Demo- cratic Action, resulting in the formation of the new Americans for Democratic Action ™ Wilson Wyatt and Leon Henderson were named cochairmen ” This group publicly announced that it re- jected “any association with Communists or sympathizers with communism” as well as “any association with Faciste or their sym- pathibers"” 2 Later, on March 29, 1947, a constitution barring Communists from mem- bership was adopted unanimously by dele- gates to a conference in Washington which permanently organized Americans for Dem- ocratic Action ROOSEVELT FAMILY IN BOTH CAMPS Among the families split up by this cleav- age in the left-wing ranks, incidentally, is the Roosevelt family. Mrs. Eleanor Roose- velt, Franklin D, Roosevelt, Jr., and Mr. and Mrs John Boettiger are active supporters of the ADA; while Elliott Roosevelt and his wife, Faye Emerson Roosevelt, are active sponsors of the PCA. (Faye Emerson Roose- volt was one of the “Pinks in minks’’ who performed as a speaker at a PCA Women's Division fashion show in New York where a Scripps-Howard writer observed sardon- ically that “mink is the latest come-on used by the women to recruit for left-wing poll- tics’) As for James Roosevelt, the other “)iberal” in the family, he is understood to have ended what Ickes described as his “well-paid” allegiance to ICCASP (he was national director of political organization *Now renamed the Communist Party, U. S. A. Cited, of course, in the Attorney General’s list of subversive organizations re- leased to the press on December 4, 1947 (Washington Post, December 5, 1947) » CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, vol, 92, pt. 9, pp. A1150-1151. ‘¢ Jay Hayden, Detroit News, December 31, 1946 47 Washington Post, January 5, 1947. 322 Associated Piess,Washington Star, Jan- uary 6, 1847. 4) Washington Post, March 30, 1947. "Christian Science Monitor, January 15, 1947, 4 Lyle C Wilson, United Press, Washington Daily News, April 1, 1047. “ Proedetick Woltman, Washington Dally News, July 7, 1947. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE for the committee 7) when he was elected Democrat Party chairman in California "', and to be siding now with his mother and brother Franklin in ADA.® WILL ROGERS, JR., SAYS PCA IS COMMUNIST FRONT On January 81, 1947, at Los Angeles, Calif., Will Rogers, Jr., former Representative who lost out in his effort to become Democratic United States Senator from California, an- nounced that he had declined to become a sponsor for the Progressive Citizens of Amer- ica, because it was what he termed nothing but “a reshuffling of the same old Com- munist line-following organizations.” Speaking of the ICCASP and the NCPAC which merged into the PCA, Rogers suid in his newspaper, the Beverly Hills Citizen: “Both of these organizations contained Communists. I will join no liberal group unless it contains an anti-Communist plank in its platform. “American Communists have no place in the liberal movement. They work for Rus- sin’s foreign policy. Until the PCA cleans them out, true American lberals should have no part of it.” ™ LECN HENDERSON SCORES PCA AS REND HAVEN On April 20, 1947, Leon Henderson, co- chairman of the ADA, told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times that— “The ADA has safeguards to keep Commu- nists from its ranks and mechanisms to delouse them tf they get in. In this connec- tion, we are not to be confused with the Progressive Citizens of America, which defl- nitely does accept Communist members and does work with them.” ” ROSCOE DRUMMOND SEES REDS IN PCA One of the most impartial and highly re- spected of Washington observers is Roscoe Drummond, chief of the Washington Bureau of the Christian Science Monitor. In his column, State of the Nation, which he de- voted to the PCA on January 21, 1947, Drum- mond observed: “The most fundamental and explicit dif- ference between the Progressive Citizens of America and the Americans for Democratic Action is that the latter totally rejects any association with Communists, with commu- nism, with party-line followers, or with totalitarians from either the left or the right. “The Wallace-led Progressive Citizens of America hedges on this question, but those who know the facts are aware that it is used by American Communists to achieve Communist ends. The two organizations which melded into the PCA—namely, the National Citizens Political Action Committee and the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions-—were visibly used by Communists at every Oppor- tunity they could get, and they got numerous opportunities; and the new facade has not changed the fact. The PCA docs not bar Communists; it prides itself on the absence of what it calls ‘traditional “left-right” quib- bling,’ which is another way of saying ‘Com- munists are welcome.’ ” 7! COCHAIRMAN DAVIDSON ADMITS COMMUNIST MEMBERSHIPS When the PCA was first set up, a number of reporters queried its leadership about the Communist question. On January 31, 1947, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a “Four Roses-and-soda press conference” held by Jo Davidson in a down- town hotel there. One of the newsmen com- mented to Mr. Davidson that, “looKing over Lyle C. Wilson, United Press, Washington Daily News, April 1, 1947. 47Baltimore Sun, March 11, 1946. **Frank Van Der Linder, Charlotte Ob- server, April 24, 1947. 2 Associated Press, San Francisco Chron- icle, February 1, 1947. *# Los Angeles Times, April 20, 1947. ee tistian Science Monitor, January 21, 1947, FEBRUARY 7 the names of members and officers it seems a number of them have been attacked as Communists. Would Mr. Davidson say this group has any Communist leaning?” “We don’t screen our membership,’ sald one of the feminine backers tartly. ‘That's the easiest thing in the world to do and the hardest to avoid.’ “Well, wasn’t it true that Davidson's ICCASP had been a target on some Holly- wood red-baiting recently? “Mr. Davidson couldn’t recall mosphere grew a little charged ” # But a few days later, Mr. Davidson opened up considerably more to a Los Angeles press audience called to meet him in a downtown hotel there. Quoting Mr. Davidson, accord- ing to a reporter for the Los Angeles Times: “We must do something about it all,’ he says, rather too mildly, as he pushes his spectacles back grandfatherwise on his head. ‘As for those Communist charges, I suppose every organization has some Communists in it and we are no exception. But our bylaws say we are for democratic reform under the Constitution.’ ” * SAMF, OLD CROWD OF REDS IN PCA While the list of known Communists ana Communist sympathizers who are PCA mem- bers and tune callers is obviously too exten- sive to be here incorporated, it is sufficient to note that the No. 1 Communist in Holly- wood as exposed by the recent Congressional hearings—John Howard Lawson—1s an active PCA’er in Beverly Hills. Upton Close de- scribed a meeting there last September 1947 which was little more than a small edition of a Communist Party rally under the sponsor- ship of the PCA—the same old crowd of Reds were there, he said, while “the same old cliches were repeated in the same old stereotyped routines.” * Robert Kenny, who was defense counsel for the 10 Communists cited for contempt of Congress in November 1947 5 after Kenny had advised them to re- fuse to answer “Yes” or “No” as to whether or not they were Communists,““ was elected cochairman of the Progressive Citizens of America on June 28, 1947, to succeed Jo Davidson, who resigned due to business abroad.”? KENNY SEES WALLACE AS ARTICULATE CONSERVATIVE Mr. Kenny has a curious line. He is cur- rently Henry Wallace’s campaign director. In o Washington interview on November 1, 1947, Kenny blandly told a news writer: “Wallace is not a red or pink, but an ar- ticulate conservative” and represents ‘“‘Ameri- ca’s best chance to succeed as a land of peace and security.’ 8 TO PCA'ERS, COMMUNIST INFILTRATION IS NOT THE ISSUE Typical of the PCA attitude of confusing the issue is a statement made by Ben Mar- golis, an attorney, who traveled to Phila- delphia on November 1, 1947, with the Holly- wood pinks to address a specially called PCA rally at Independence Hall for their benefit (although the rally was soon broken up by a mob of angry veterans and other Ameri- cans). Quoting a Philadelphia Inquirer re- port of the incident: “Margglis, who said he had been named spokesman for the group (of Hollywood screen writers and directors summoned be- fore the House un-American hearings), was 22 Stanton Delaplane, San Francisco Chron- icle, February 1, 1947. Los Angeles Times, February 4, 1947. “New York Journal American, September 26, 1947. -* Washington Post, November 25, 1947. 2 Richard L. Strout, Christain Science Monitor, October 28, 1947. 27 Chicago Tribune, June 30, 1947. 23 Gustaf A. Nordin, North American News- paper Alliance, Providence Journal, Novem- ber 2, 1947. The at-
1950 asked whether its membership included Com- munists, as charged at the recent hearings. ““This is not the issue,’ he repiled. ‘The issue 1s our national fight to maintain free- dom of speech and of the press. We do not wish to becloud the issue with mat- ters of politics or of consctence.’" 2 PCA PROGRAM FOLLOWS PARTY LINE If sympathy with communism is not the issue, then it is dificult to describe the pro- gram of the Progressive Citizer , of America, which contains the following points: 1. One of its first lines was to demand abo- lition of the House Un-American Activities Committee and its probings 2. On March 29, 1947, it sent an open letter to President Truman urging immediate revo- cation of the Executive order for review of the loyalty of Federal employees. “Not since the infamous sedition laws of 1798 has such a blow been struck at the individual liberties of every American,” the PCA maintained in its letter.” 3. On March 381, 1947, the PCA at a Madi- son Square Garden rally bitterly attacked the Trumar doctrine of all-out aid to the anti-Soviet Greek and Turkish Governments, thus lining themselves up squarely in oppo- sition to the ADA's foreign policy stand ® 4. On June 29, 1947, at a meeting in Chi- cago, Ill., the PCA directors endorsed a pro- gram of complete reversal of the Truman for- eign doctrine, and in the domestic ficld ad- vocated public ownership of coal mines, ratl- roads, and electric power # 5 On October 4, 1947, the national board of directors of the PCA, meeting in Philadel- phia, called for public ownership of the steel industry It also condemned the current investigation of the cooperative movement by Representative Walter Ploeser, Republi- can, of Missouri, as a “shameful effort to pin a ‘Made in Moscow’ label on a deeply-rooted American institution,” and renewed its call for public ownership of coal mines, railroads, and electric power. Its 9-point emergency infiation program called for the following action: (1) Immediate special session of Congress. (2) Restoration of price-control machin- ery, following OPA model, and adequate en- forcement funds (3) Price roll-back of cost-of-living items to the maximum feasible percentage. (4) Extension of Federal rent control jaw to February 28, 1949, with action on Taft- Ellender-Wagner housing bill. (5) Rationing of scarce necessities. (6) Subsidies to prevent marginal produc- ers, especially among farmers and small- business men, from bearing too great a cost burden. (7) Reimposition of the excess-profits tax. (8) Extension of regulations goveining consumer credit and installment buying be- yond November 1, 1947. (9) Legislation regulating and controlling transactinns on commodity exchanges to pro- hibit speculation in basic necessities 4 6. On October 5, 1947, the national board of directors urged formation of a world con- struction fund by the United Nations with no political strings attnched, as a substitute for tle Marshall plan, which they said, “bears within it the same dangers as does the Tru- man doctrine.” Their statement attacked the Marshall plan to rebulld the industrial Ruhr as the inevitable oonsequence of our cold war and contain-Russia approach to foreign policy. This idea is taken over in its entirety from Herbert Hoover as he out- lined it in his report to President Truman last year, the statement added.* » Philadelphia Inquirer, November 2, 1047. % New York Times, March 80, 1947. "New York Post, April 1, 1947. ™ New York Times, June 30, 1947. "Nev York Times, October 5, 1947. ™ Baltimore Sun, October 6, 1847. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 7. On October 26, 1947, abolition of the House Un-American Activities Committee, revocation of President Truman‘s loyalty or- der, and repeal of the Taft-Hartley Labor Management Relations Act were demanded in 3 of the 39 resolutions passed at the clas- ing seasion of the PCA conference in New York. The conference on cultural free- dom and civil liberties had been opened the day before with indignant outcries against incipient fascism as represented particularly by the current hearings in Washington against un-American activities.” PCA PICKS WALLACE AS THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE IN 1948 Gn December 15, 1947, the executive com- miticc of the Progressive Citizens of America, moecting in New York City, agreed to back Heniy Wallace on a third-party ticket for the 1948 elections. This action is scheduled to be ratified by the board of directors ot PCA at o Chicago meeting on January 16 and by the national convention of the PCA Janu- ary 17 and 18 Warren Moscow of the New York Times reported: “After that a call is expected to be issued by the PCA for o national nominating con- vention of a Progressive Party, if that is the mame finally selected While Mr. Wallace can still decline to make the race, and has several months to announce his decision, the fact thet he just finished touring upstate New York under PCA auspices links his atti- tude closely to the action announced yester- day”"™ In announcing the decision to back Wal- lace, the PCA isued the following statement: “The executive committce of PCA has voted overwhelmingly late Monday night to urge Henry A Wallace to run as an inde- pendent candidate for the Presidency of the Duited States “The committee announced that its action grew out of the conviction of PCA State chapters who had expressed their support for this position and had urged the nattonal organization to action. “Finding himself in disagreement, PCA cochairman, Dr. “rank Kingdon, who cast the sole dissenting vote, resigned from the organization. His resignation was accepted with regret.” 2? PCA STARTS MACHINERY TO BACK WALLACE ON THIRD-PARTY TICKET Meeting in Chicago on January 17 and 18, 1948, the national convention of the PCA approved the mechanics for afillation or merger with Henry Wallace’s third-party movement, but stopped short of fixing the date and place of an official organization mecting. The year-old PCA, which described itself as a fighting people's political ma- chine,™ said it would serve as the core of Wallace’s unnamed third party and help plan for a national convention in the spring. It is possible that the next conference tenta- tively scheduled for April 12 may develop into an actual nominating convention which would present Mr. Wallace as a full-ficdged candidate with organized party backing; however, details were not arrived at in final form” A 2-day session of Btate PCA di- rectors followed the regular convention for the purpose of discussing strategy In getting Mr. Wallace on the ballot throughout the Nation.” * New York Sun, October 27, 1047. "New York Herald Tribune, October 26, 1947. 87 The New York Times, December LT, 1947. % United Press, Washington Post, January 18, 1948. 3 Dewey Fleming, Baltimore Sun, January 19, 1948. “Clayton Knowles, the New York Times, January 19, 1948. 1567 COMMUNIST JOHN HOWARD LAWSON LEADS ENDORSEMENT The resolution endorsing Wallace was read to the convention by John Howard Lawson ,™ Communist card holder and alleged leader of ali Communist activities in the Hollywood area (recently indicted for contempt of Con- gress for refusal to answer, on the advice of Attorney Robert Kenny, the question of a congressional investigating committee as to whether or not he is a Communist). Law- son, currently free on bond while he awalts trial on the contempt charge, is chairman of the PCA’s political committee. The resolu- tion endorsing Wallace was accepted by the convention unanimously. WALLACE PLATFORM ADOPTED BY PCA The January 17-18 convention, besides re- elocting Robert Kenny national chairman of PCA and electing a slate of 200 other offi- cials,*’ also adopted an extensive program which promises to become the basic platform of the new third party once it is organized. This program set forth in detail the views expounded by Henry Wallace in his address to the convention on January 17 As enu- merated by Gould Lincoln of the Washington Star, it called for the following: “1 The junking of the Marshall European recovery program and the substitution of an aid program to be handled through the United States, with special stress given to aiding those nations which suffered most from the Axis attack in the recent war This means aid to Sovict Russia. “2 The immediate withdrawal of military personnel and military aid from Greece and Turkey. “3. The withdrawal of all support of the Chiang Kni-shek government in China “All three of these proposals are in the in- terests of Soviet Russia The PCA prefers to say they are in the interest of peace be- tween the United States and Ruesia. “4. The support of the partition of Pales- tine—through the United Nations—into Jewish and Arab estates. “5. The Nfting of embargo against ship- ment of arms to the Jews in Palestine —until the United Nations acts to bring about the peaceful participation of Palestine. “6 Halting the manufacture of atomic bombs and scrapping existing stock piles of atomic bombs. ‘We support international control of atomic energy,’ the report said. “7. The reduction of American military expenditures to ap absolute minimum con- sistent with a peace policy and no universal military training. “8. Public ownership of the steel industry, the coal mines, the public utilities, and the railroads. “To dcal with the inflation program: “9 An immediate price freeze and roll- back of prices, and rationing of foods “10. Relmposition of the excess-profits tax, “11. An increase of the minimum wage to @1an hour. President Truman has proposed 75 cents and the existing law is 49 cents. “12. A cost-of-living wage increase for all Government workers. “13. Increasing subsistence payment for student veterans to 8100 8 month and #125 for married veterans. “14. Supporting wage increases for Amer- ican workers in coming negotiations “15. Repealing the Taft-Hartley labor law and the portal-to-portal law “16. Exempting from income taxes of families and individuals whose income now falls below ‘the minimum standard budget.’ This is $3,152 a year for a famlly of four. “17. Elimination of many excise taxes and the increase of corporate-income taxes, with “United Press, Washington Post, January 18, 1948 “ Gould Lincoln, Washington Star, January 19, 1948.
1568 exemptions at lower levels, to encourage new investment. “The program includes many other pro- posals. Three are directed particularly to the interests of Negroes and call for the en- actment of antilynching, anti-poll-tax and FEPC laws. There also are proposals to bar all segregation because of race or color. “The people of the District of Columbia are not overlooked. The program proposes: ‘Establish universal suffrage for the residents of the District and outlaw all discriminatory practices in the Nation's Capital.’ “Many proposals are made to ald the farm- ers and farm workers, and for an enlarged social-welfare program. “This the PCA calls a program for peace, security, and freedom “Under the leadership of the Truman government,’ the program sald, ‘both parties (Republican and Democratic), united in their bipartisan policies, have embarked upon a campaign to destroy all of our hard- won liberties. They have shackled labor, set aside the Bill of Rights, and embarked upon a foreign policy which, if unchecked, can lead only to war and unthinkable destruc- tion.’” WALLACE CONVINCED HIS THIRD PARTY “NOT A TEMPORARY PHENOMENA” In his opening statement to the PCA con- vention in Chicago on January 17, Candidate Henry Wallace sald: “One thing I have become increasingly convinced about is that this is not a tem- porary phenomena; nor will it blow over as a@ third party did in 1912 or 1934. “But rather I’m convinced it will be greater than in 1854 (when the Republican Party was organized), although this movement was later betrayed. “More than this, I believe it will be some- thing like 1790, when Thomas Jefferson led the way.” MORE PRESS-CONFERENCE REMARKS ON COMMUNISM Scripps-Howard Staff Writer Charles T. Lucey provided a neat description of the con- vention’s flavor in the following words: “CuHicaco, January 19—Henry Wallace's ‘Gideon army’ folded its tents today after 4 days of fervid evangelism, and many ob- servers agreed on these chief points in rela- tion to the third-party movement: “Although the Wallace-for-President un- dertaking has many objectives favored by nearly everyone else, the real amalgam bind- ing it together 1s dissatisfaction with United States policy toward Russia. “Although the movement includes sincere progressives, plus a fringe of panacea-dis- coverers, cuuse-pleaders, starry-eyed dilet- tuntes, and writers of bad poetry, the pro- Russian apologists seem likely to run the show. “Although Mr. Wallace and company will try to draw the mantle of Franklin Roose- velt about them, they have ripped off only a@ small piece of it. Mr. Wallace was almost alone among the prominent old New Dealers who showcd up here, “Aside from playing the Russia-can-do-no- wrong line, the leftists will resort to all kinds of appeals on domestic issues, some dema- gogic, to entice other liberal groups into their pink parlor. “All these points were developed in speeches, resolutions, or press-conference re- plies during the meeting of the Progressive Citizens of America just ending. Some were underscored emphatically yesterday at a press conference of PCA leaders. Numerous an- swers to questions coincided interestingly with the Communist Party line. “Among those interviewed were Dr. How- ard Shapley, Harvard Observatory director; Lillian Hellman, playwright; Edith Atwater, actress; Paul Robeson, Negro singer; Howard Koch, Hollywood scenarist who worked on Mission to Moscow and who was one of those CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cited by the House Un-American Activities Committee; and Dr. F. D. Matthiessen, Har- vard literature professor, “The whole press conference, to the an- noyance of Miss Hellman and representatives of the leftist press, swung quickly to the subject of Russia. Mr. Robeson contended the United States was bent on imperlalism, that there was lack of political freedom in this country, that he received better treat- ment as a Negro in Russia than he did here in Chicago, that the chief blame for prepara- tion for war rested on this country. “Someone asked if Mr. Robeson thought he could get political freedom in Russia and whether there could be a third-party movement there. Articulate on other points, Mr. Robeson faltered on this and Miss Hell- man jumped in. Why was everyone talking about Russia, she wondered. She was con- cerned with the United States Government. “Dr. Shapley said the third-party move- ment stood for many things besides a dif- ferent foreign-policy attitude. He listed ed- ucation first. “But nobody ever got around to answer- ing the question whether anything lke the present oppositionu-party movement could happen in Russia “Mr. Robeson went further than the others in explaining where he stood politically. ‘At certain times where 1 think fascism should be destroyed I will accept the opposite dicta- torship if necessary,’ he said. “Then came the blunt question: ‘Are any of you members of the Communist Party?’ “Mr Robeson replied first: ‘It's none of your business.’ “Dr. Shapley amended that answer to in- clude the adjective ‘damned’. “At only one point was there criticism of Russia—when Dr. Shapley referred to ‘Russia's stupidity’ in failure to cooperate in programs for educational and cultural exchanges “Mr Robeson pegged Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Statf to President Truman, as a principal architect of present foreign policies with which he disagrees strongly. In recent weeks Admiral Leahy has been a target of Communist propaganda out of Moscow. “The third-party intellectuals opposed universal military training because it condl- tions people for war, they said, and is op- posed to United States traditions. Asked whether such military training in Russia was @ conditioner for war, Dr. Shapley said any military program did that. “Mr. Robeson stressed a belicf that the Uniied States had been throwing its weight around in Panama and that Negroes there had been ill-treated.” * Also present at the press conference, ac- cording to Gould Lincoln's account, were Dr. Frank Oppenheimer, atomic scientist, and writer Louls Adamic, among others. As Lin- coln reported the interview with the group of 10 representatives of the Association of Arts, Sciences, and Professions: “To a long list of questions, they replied that the present course of the American Gov- ernment was leading to war. None of them would admit that Soviet Russia, by its actions, was moving also toward war. They condemned the proposal to have universal military training in the United States, but made no effort to condemn Soviet Russia for already having installed such a system. “An inquiring reporter asked Paul Robe- son if he or any other members of the ASP at the interview was a Communist. “It’s none of your business,’ Mr. Robeson replied. “Dr. Shapley amended this. He said: ‘It’s none of your damn business.’ “However, Mr. Robeson ae moment later said: “Charles T. Lucey, January 19, 1948. Washington News, FEBRUARY 7 “T am a violent anti-Fascist. I would accept the other and opposite dictatorship if necessary to get rid of Fascist government.’ “and Dr. Shapley more mildly character- ized himself as a ‘fellow traveler’ in many respects. “Dr. Oppenheimer said that ‘Wallace has had the courage to speak out about those things which were leading this country to war.’ Mr. Koch declared: ‘I would rather lose with Wallace than win with any other.’” Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, in closing, I reiterate that our form of gov- ernment is the greatest asset we have. It is what has made us the greatest Na- tion in the world, as I believe it to be. I love our form of government. Many Pper- sons have their own opinions as to what made this Nation great. Some say it has been due to our location, far away from the prejudices of Europe. Others say that it has been due to our natural resources. Other nations have had nat- ural resources equal to our own. Still others say it is because we are Americans, meaning that we are a nationality, and are a little more intelligent and a little more wise than are the peoples of other nations. Mr. President, that is not the reason. It is our form of government. The only difference between two Ameri- cans is the length of time their ancestors have lived in this country. There is no such thing as an American. The United States is made up of every nationality in the world. What has made America great has been her form of government, under which we have enjoyed the private- enterprise system, the form of govern- ment which has permitted the most hum- ble citizen of the land to become success- ful: the form of government which has permitted literally millions of poor im- migrants, arriving on our shores with nothing except themselves and possibly a suit of clothes, to become great Ameri- cans, to become prosperous, and to enjoy the blessings of freedom. Yet there are those in this country today who would change our form of government. There are those who are supporting govern- ments of foreign countries which are di- rectly opposed to our kind and type of government. Mr. President, I do not know how any- one can advocate the reelection of a gov- ernment which has not only promised, but has carried by a vote of two-thirds, the process of national socialization, which has also promised that if reelected it will finish the job, and whose leader makes the statement that there is no end to socialism, that it goes on and on and on. One of the interesting statements in the editorial which I read, written by the ADA, was that the Conservatives, if they win in England, promise not to undo that which has been done. That is the sad part, Mr. President. Of course, they cannot do much about it. How is it-pos- sible to unscramble a scrambled egg? When the government takes over all the mines, all the railroads, all the insurance companies, all the means of transporta- tion of the nation, how is it possible to unscramble them? ‘To whom could they be returned, or sold? That illustrates why it is so dangerous to enter into these socialistic schemes. It is because, once taken, it is not pos-
1950 sible to retrace the steps which have brought misfortune. A government never backs up. It cannot back up. Of course, the Conservatives in England will have to do the best they can, but they cannot unscramble the mess. That is why I ask, in the name of the good Lord, that we be careful in this Nation and not embark upon socialistic schemes. Let us not socialize one industry in America, because if we do we will be unable to un- scramble it. There will be no one to whom to sell it. The Government will have to continue to own it. Mr. President, I do not desire to criti- cize those who believe in that kind of a government, I do not want to criticize those who sponsor the editorial I have read. I feel sorry for them. I do not question their sincerity, but I certainly question their judgment, as I have said. I wish there were something I could say or do, I wish there was something you could do or say, Mr. President, or that others could say or do, which would stop what I consider to be the false thinking of literally tens of thousands of people in the United States, and so in- fluence the dozens and dozens of pres- sure organizations which exist in the United States, as to cause them to ap- preciate the American system of govern- ment, and to appreciate that if we lose that system of government, if we lose the private-enterprise system in this Nation, we will have lost everything. Mr. President, we have always said that we were not a part of the prejudices of Europe. We have always prided our- selves on our form of government, the freedom, and the liberty, and all the other blessings we have in this land. I shall not take the time to describe them, because all Senators know them as well as Ido. But as a result of the policies followed during the past 25 years, we are no longer a free America, we are no longer the great Nation our forefathers thought we were going to be, but we are now a part and parcel of all the age-old prejudices of Europe. Every little thing that happens in any one of the small countries, or great countries, of Europe affects us. We are tied in with it. We are a part of the European and Asiatic economy and society, with all their prob- lems, confusions, and troubles. There are those in this Nation who would change our form of government. I read a speech not long ago made by the president of one of our universities. The title of the speech was, “Is democ- racy on trial?’’ When I got into the speech I discovered that what he was talking about was, Is the American form of government on trial? When I think of a trial, I think of someone who has violated the law, or committed a sin of some sort, and I ask, “What sin has the American form of government com- mitted?” ‘Today the private-enterprise system of America is supporting practi- cally all the other nations. It is sup- porting socialistic England, whose leader says they are opposed to capitalism, and would put a complete stop to it. What are we thinking about? When are the leaders of America, the Gover- nors, the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, yes, the Pres- ident of the United States and the Vice CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE President of the United States, the lead- ers of this great Nation, going on the radio, when are they going to stand on the floor of the United States Senate, when are they going forth and make speeches, praising the great American system of government, instead of doing what they have been doing for years and years, finding fault with it, saying that everything is wrong and nothing is good. What we need is a champion of the American system of government to teach the American people, men, women, and children. Instead of that we have just the opposite. As I said a moment ago, in the situa- tion we face in America today all these left-wing, discontent organizations are in the Democratic Party, stealing it day by day, taking it over. The day will come, just as it did in England, when there will be no Democratic Party here, just as there is now no Libera] Party there. We will wake up with a socialistic party in America. Gentlemen may smile about that, they may laugh about it, they may say, “It can’t happen here,” but I assert that if the present trend is not stopped, it will happen here, because stranger things have happened in America during my lifetime. There are today those in the adminis- tration who still do not think Alger Hiss is guilty. I suppose there will be some, some of these days, saying that the German, Dr. Fuchs, who has just been caught in England, is not guilty. Mr. President, I cannot say too often that the greatest asset we have is our form of government. I make no apolo- gies for undertaking always to protect it. I make no apologies for being op- posed to socialism or communism. I shall fight for our form of government with all the strength at my command, because I know in my own heart and soul that if we lose our American system of government—and we will lose it if we do not put a stop to the international conspiracy that is under way to com- munize and socialize the world—we shal] lose our greatest asset. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I would be somewhat remiss in my duties as the national chairman of the Ameri- cans for Democratic Action, as a Senator from Minnesota, and a member of this body if I did not reply, to the best of my ability, to the comments made by the Senator from Indiana. First of all, I express my gratitude and appreciation to the Senator from In- diana for the extremely clarifying state- ment which he has given as to the policy, the purposes, and the objectives of the Republican Party. The statement on the part of the Senator from Indiana sheds a great deal of light and clarifica- tion upon the gobbledygook which we found in the pronouncement released as of 5 p. m. eastern standard time of Feb- ruary 6, 1950, entitled “A Statement of Principles and Objectives Adopted by the Republican Members of the House of Representatives, the Republican Mem- bers of the Senate, and as Concurred in by the Members of the Republican National Committee.” I feel that the country owes the Sena- tor from Indiana a real expression of 1569 thanks, and as one of his colleagues I want to be the first to express it, because I was somewhat dubious as to just what this document meant. Now I have at least some sort of an idea what it drives at, and it will be helpful in the days to come properly to evaluate the programs which may come from the Republican National Committee and its long repudi- ated leadership. I should like now to make a few com- ments in reference to the organization which yearly seems to be given the nobie privilege of being brought to the atten- tion of the United States Senate. I re- fer, of course, to none other than Ameri- cans for Democratic Action. I recall that it was about a year wgo that the ADA, as it is commonly called, was the subject of some debate, colloquy, and conversation on the floor of the Sen- ate. Again we have been privileged, just at the time we are about to hold our national convention, to have our fine or- ganization brought to the attention of this most wonderful forum of public opinion, this great parliamentary body. Again I wish to express my thanks. It is seldom that an organization is given so much attention and, may I say, such an analysis. I will not say “careful analysis.” I will not say an analysis that is based upon fact, but rather such a fictitious and superficial analysis as has been made this afternoon. In order to make the story of Ameri- cans for Democratic Action complete, I am happy to aid in informing the Senate with the facts as to its membership, its purposes, its officers, its objectives, and its statement of political philosophy. First of all, Mr. President, I am sure that every American would like to know that this organization is exactly what its title says it is—Americans for Demo- cratic Action—Americans in the best sense of the term. Not Americans who, somehow or other, think they have a monopoly upon wisdom and virtue’ not Americans who set up their self-ap- pointed standards of righteousness, but the kind of Americans exemplificd by a Samuel Adams, or a Thomas Paine, or a James Madison, or a Thomas Jefferson, or an Andrew Jackson—men who were willing to argue the issues of the day and were willing to have truth established on the basis of its own merits. We are Americans for democratic ac- tion in the sense that we believe ir the free processes of democracy, the proc- esses of argumentation, experiment, and debate; of action in the sense that we do not believe that the good of society, and the protection of our freedom and our liberty can be maintained merely by meditation, but that there is also re- quired the reality of political action, and of political participation. Therefore, one who wishes to be a member of this organ- ization signs a membership card upon which is printed the following statement: Americans for Democratic Action is an organization of progressives, dedicated to the achievement of freedom and economic security for all people everywhere, through education and political action. We believe that rising living standards and lasting peace can be attained by demo- cratic planning, enlargement of fundamen- tal liberties, and international cooperation, We believe that all forms of totalitarianism,
1570 including communism, are incompatible with these objectives. In our crusade for an expanding democracy and against fascism and reaction, we welcome as members of ADA only those whose devotion to the prin- ciples of political freedom 1s unqualified. I emphasize the full character of the Janguage on the application card for membership in this organization. ADA is proud of its reputation as a non-Com- munist, liberal, political force in Ameri- can politics. Permit me to make one or two com- ments in reference to the officers of Americans for Democratic Action. Needless to say, it would not be appro- priate for me to speak of its national chairman. I need only say that the na- tional chairman has been spoken of in glowing terms by such great oracles of prejudice as Westbrook Pegler, George Sokolsky, and Fulton Lewis, Jr. No greater tribute could come to a living American than the carping criticism and rasping irrationalities of some of the pundits of political fiction. I have had that privilege. I think that is sufficient to establish my reputation amongst de- cent, God-loving, self-respecting, free- dom-loving Americans, and they are the ones who are important. The sccond among the officers of Amer- icans for Democratic Action, 18 a young Washington lawyer, Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. It is appropriate to say that he is a very fine attorney with a record of ex- cellent service with the Government. His loyalty is beyond question and is a matter of Government record. One of the other members of this or- ganization is the distinguished Governor of the State of Connecticut, the Hon. Chester Bowles. Chester Bowles is a businessman as able as the businessmen who have the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, a man who has met with great success, whose loyalty is beyond question. His patriotism has never been challenged. His intellectual integrity has been proved. I am sure that his record in the future will be as illustrious as in the past, and even more So. The next gentleman who is an officer of Americans for Democratic Action. is a young man, former president of the City Council of the City of Detroit, Mich. His name is George C. Edwards. Mr. Edwards has served with honor and dis- tinction in city government. He is a noted attorney. He has served in the American Municipal Association in very key and important positions. The next gentleman I shall refer to is Mr. Hugo Ernst, international president of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers, AFL, Mr. Ernst has been a respected labor leader for years, a man of deep religious conviction, a man of democratic heritage and democratic conviction. The next gentleman, who is an officer of Americans for Democratic Action, is a distinguished judge of the courts of the United States. I speak of William H. Hastie, former Governor of the Virgin Islands, now a Federal judge, serving the cause of justice for our people and dis- pensing the justice of our courts. The next gentleman, who is a vice chairman of our organization, is Murray D. Lincoln, of Ohio, one of the great CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE agricultural leaders of the United States. He heads one of the largest insurance companies in the Midwest. He is a re- spected leader in the cooperative move- ment, national president of the Coopera- tive League of the United States, and respected by the farm groups of the Nation. The next member is Mr. Emil D. Rieve. Mr. Rieve is the president of the Textile Workers Union, CIO. Mr. Rieve’s repu- tation, character, and loyalty have never been questioned. I understand that Mr. Rieve is considered to be one of the most able and dynamic anti-Communist lead- ers in the world. He is performing a great service to his country in cleaning from the ranks of labor what Communist infiltration there has been. Men like Emil Rieve, men of the char- acter of David Dubinsky, Walter Reuther, and Phil Murray have done more to get rid of communism than all Senators across the aisle put together. These men have been doing the work in the vineyards of democracy. While we have talked about communism as an issue, they have done something to rid it from our midst. The next gentleman is the vice chair- man of Americans for Democratic Action. He is a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, FRaNKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, JR. I shall not continue the parade of the many fine statements and sentiments about Mr. RooSEVELT, except that he has proved himself to be a very capable young man in politics, and is proving himself a good and efficient Iegislator. He surely has proved that he knows how to win an election. His loyalty has never been questioned. I am sure that the Senator from Indiana | Mr. CapeHarT! would not say that FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT, JR., is a Socialist. As a matter of fact, he be- lieves in the free-enterprise system and is acting to protect it. The next gentleman who is referred to as treasurer is Mr. Leo A. Lerner, of the State of Illinois. I am sure that the ma- jority leader (Mr. Lucas] and the distin- guished junior Senator from ITlinois {Mr. Douctas} can say much more about Mr. Lerner than I can. I know he is a man who is respected in his own State and city, a man of good, clean character, and one who is known as a very civic- minded citizen. David Ginsburg is the secretary of ADA. He is none other than the ad- ministrative assistant of my friend and colleague who sits at my right, the Sen- ator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELyY]. Mr. Ginsburg served his Government and his country with honor. Now he is serv- ing a great Senator. Mr. James Loeb, another officer of the ADA, has served for years in the labor movement. Then, Mr. Charles LaFol- lette, former distinguished Congressman from Indiana, who served his State as a Republican, is national director. Re- cently he has served with General Clay in American military government in Germany. One of the great English poets, Pope, said, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” We have an exemplification of that in our time. For example, it is said that the ADA is an offshoot of the Na- FEBRUARY 7 tional Citizens Political Action Commit- tee. This is not only false but the state- ment reveals a startling lack of infor- mation on the part of the Senator from Indiana. One who presumes to be an authority on communism and socialism surely should know something about the political movements in his own country. To assume that the ADA is an off- shoot of the NCPAC is to live in the kind of dream world where reality is non- existent and truth is meaningless. I should like to commend to my colleagues a little honest history. It seems to me that when one speaks on political sub- jects of such importance, when a man’s character is brought under observation and when the character of an organiza- tion is brought into question, or at least under scrutiny, it would be well to know the background. The background is simply this: The NCPAC is the organization which was recently headed by the present chairman of the National Progressive Party, Mr. Elmer Benson, of the State of Minne- sota, the head of the Wallace group. Yet, the Senator from Indiana said that the ADA, which has been the inveterate enemy of the Progressive Parity, which had the courage to stand up and fight communism and Communist-front or- ganizations, even before the Democratic Party and long before the Republican Party, is an offshoot of NCPAC. I do not recall that the Republican Party leadership actually fought against these commie-front groups. I recall that the Republicans just talked against Roosevelt and Truman. I recall that the Republican leaders were quite pleased to see the Progressive Party and the Dixiecrats threaten the strength of liberal government. The statement that the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts and Sci- ences, which was another organization in the preliminary stages of the Progres- sive Party, was the background of ADA, is almost incredible. It is as incredible as the statement that capitalism and communism are one and the same thing. That surely is not the truth. It is as in- credible as the statement which some have made that socialism and commu- nism are one and the same thing. I should like to remind my colleagues that this is a time when there should be a clear understanding of the political dynamics which are at work in this world. This is a time when Senators and Members of the House of Repre- sentatives should speak clearly and weigh their words. This is a time when we ought not to be talking about social- ism and communism unless we know what we are talking about. To some extent we are listened to by the world, if not by our own constituents. Some of the peoples of the world would like to know just what we mean, and if we know what we are talking about. I won- der what the governments of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland would think if they were to read the speech which has just becn delivered by one of the distinguished Members of this body, in which he said, “The democratic left? I do not know what it is.” That is the same as saying to the people of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland that we
1950 do not know what their government rep- resents. The people of Norway, Den- mark, and Sweden know what the demo- cratic left is. They talk about the dem- ocratic left. They identify their govern- ment as the democratic left. Is it not interesting that every time anyone wants to castigate the Democra- tic Party he refers to the Socialists? No one was scarcely interested in socialism before it was used as a club to beat the Democratic Party. We had Socialists in the world for many years. Today the American Socialist Party could hold a caucus in a telephone booth. But, all at once socialism becomes a great issue. Why? In order to get at Harry Truman His opponents have not been able to find anything else with which to attack him. His record, his program, his personal character, and leadership are admired and supported by the people. In des- peration, the Republican leadership cries “socialism,” and points to the Fair Deal and the President. Such tactics are not only ineffective and moth-eaten, they demonstrate the political bankruptcy of the President’s opposition. Yes, the pur- pose of all this socialism bogeyman {1s to attack the Democratic Party—a party that has done more to save, protect, and extend freedom of enterprise and oppor- tunity, than any political party in the history of the Nation. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoty in the chair). Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Illi- nois? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Does not the Senator agree with me that it is rather strange that the question of socialism arises overnight among our good Republican friends? It seems to me that it is al- most grasping at the last straw. They have tried the issue of regimentation, the issue of dictatorship, the issue of communism, and the issue of the welfare state. In New York only a few months ago they tried the issuc of statism. Now they have finally found a slogan—‘Lib- erty or Socialism.” That is the weakest reed I have seen in a long time. That slogan is used by distinguished men who are presumed to be leaders of the great Republican Party. As the Senator says, socialism has been around for a long time. It has been ad- vocated by a few, headed by a very dis- tinguished gentleman, Mr. Norman Thomas. Now the Republicans have just discovered that the great issue in this country is liberty or socialism. I should like to know just what liberties are be- ing taken away from the American peo- ple under the present Democratic admin- istration. The truth of the matter is that the people of America have more liberties today under a Democratic ad- ministration than they have had at any time in history of the political parties of the country. Under a Democratic ad- ministration the people have more hap- piness, more enjoyment, more of the good things of life, more money in the bank, and more of everything else than they have ever had under any previous ad- ministration. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the dis- tinguished majority leader. He has em- phasized exactly the point with which I opened the discussion. The recent in- terest in the term “socialism” has become a convenient political weapon. I might say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if they had half as many programs or half as many votes as they have slogans, we could never beat them. They have a different slogan every month. As a matter of fact, they have so many slogans that we cannot keep up with the one we are supposed to be talk- ing about next week. It might be well for them to remember that persistency sometimes wins, that perseverance, rather than mere expediency and dex- terity, has its merits. But let me refer again to the “demo- cratic left.” It is very interesting to hear statements of this kind come from Senators on the other side of the aisle Apparently some are unaware that we have had two World Wars; some seem to be unaware of what is taking place in Europe or in Asia or elsewhere in the world. It is also very interesting that every time they talk about labor gov- ernments, they talk about Britain. Mr. President, let me here say a few words about Britain. Of course, many Americans do not like Britain. That is the special privilege of cvery Irishman, and also the privilege of every American. It is part of our American tradition It is a great American pastime to de- nounce Britain. First it was Tory Brit- ain, now it is Labor Britain. But, Mr. President, I wonder why the Midwest Republicans do not talk about the labor government of Norway. I will tell you why, Mr. President: it 1s be- cause if they did, the American voters of Norwegian descent would leave them so fast that they would not know what had happened to them. Why do not the Republicans who criticize labor govern- ments talk about socialism in Norway or in Sweden or in Denmark or in Fin- land. These countries have undertaken great programs of nationalization—as much or more than has been done in Britain. But politicians do not dare criticize those four great little democracies, be- cause it has been found that the labor parties in those countries have gained the respect and confidence of their people, and developed some of the finest living conditions in the world. These nations have some of the finest people that God ever put on the face of the earth. If a labor government saps the moral strength of the people, if a labor govern- ment and a little touch of what are called government control, government regula- tion, and government ownership ruin the character of the people of a coun- try, then I ask my Republican colleagues whether they are willing to say that the Norwegians are without morals and char- acter, and the Swedes are without morals and character, and the Finns are with- out morals and charactel, and the Danes are without morals and character. Are the Republicans willing to say that? Of course, they are not willing to say it. Yet in those countries there are health programs that go far beyond anything 1571 we have ever dreamed of. They have nationalized housing and nationalized railroads and nationalized public utill- ties. These countries have cleaned out their slums and have had social pro- grams which go far beyond anything we have ever known. They represent the “democratic left” of Europe—they repre- sent the finest of European culture and character. But do the Republicans say that the Socialist programs in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have ruined the people of those countries? No; they do not. First, the Republican propagan- dists Know that it would not be true, and secondly, there are too many good Ameri- can voters of Norwegian or Danish or Swedish or F'‘nnish descent in Indiana and in other States of the Union. Mr. President, I am amazed to hear the question asked on the floor of the Senate, ‘“‘What do they mean by ‘vital center’?” By “they,” the Sonator frem Indiana refers to ADA. Of course, Mr. President, they—ADA—mean the forces of the freedom-loving peoples of Europe who are neither Communists nor Fascists. Mr. President, the forces known as the vital centers are fighting for the liberties of the people of the world. Yet on the floor of the Senate, where we are supposed to be making ap- propriations for freedom and where we are hoping to make other peoples under- stand that we Americans are fighting for freedom and liberty for all the world, we hear responsible Senators ask, “What is ‘the vital center’? What is ‘the demo- cratic left’?” Mr. President, if we do not know, we had better find out quickly, because the Congress is appropriating a great deal of money for them. It is the vital center of Europe, the democratic left of Europe that stands united with us in the Mar- shall plan, the North Atlantic Pact, and the United Nations. It is the strength of the political forces of the vital center that holds back the tyranny of communism and fascism. The vital center, the democratic left is our ally—our friend. These liberal political forces dared to defy Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. They live and die for freedom Yet, a distinguished Senator says, ““What is the democratic left?” Mr. President, again, in regard to the freedom-loving people of Belgium, of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, let me say that unless those freedom-loving people can hold their governments together in what is com- monly known as the democratic left, what is commonly known in Europe as the vital center, unless they can hold together in that way, Europe wil} be lost and freedom will fall to communism and fascism. After all, Mr. President, when &@ man is dead, he is dead; when he is in a concentration camp, he is in a con~ centration camp. It makes no difference whether he was put there by storm troopers or by the GPU. Yet on the floor of the Senate some Senators say they have not heard of the democratic left or of the vital center. Mr. President, it is about time they heard of them. It is about time they found out that in Europe the people in the labor movement, the
1572 people in the cooperative movement, and some of those who have been what are called the peasants and small shop- keepers, are the ones who are fighting the battle for freedom and liberty. They are our allies. One of the things that has been wrong with our foreign policy, which the oppo- sition has not yet gotten around to talk- ing about, but which would be sensible if they did, is that certain persons in our Government, particularly some in the State Department, have known in other countries only the so-called best people, the people in the top hats and the nice suits, when they should have known the people in the mines and the people work- ing on the railroads and the people in the shops and the farmers. Similarly, that has been our problem in the Asiatic area. Our representatives have failed often to know the needs of the people; they have known only the needs of some of those who have been the so-called leaders, the self-appointed leaders of their people. Mr. President, Jet me say a little more about the fear of socialism. I should like to have my Republican friends go to the Congressional Library and check up on one of their great Republican leaders who was indeed a great, Republican leader, but who was so great that he had to leave his party. As a matter of fact, there have been two great Republican leaders—one of them Abraham Lincoln, the other Theodore Roosevelt—and both of them had to leave the Republican Party Theodore Roosevelt said at one time, in a speech which he delivered in the campaign of 1912: If socialism ever comes to America, the Republican Party will bring it. I do not wish to argue about the words of Theodore Roosevelt. He was a great American, far greater than the junior Senator from Minnesota ever hopes to be TIaccept his statement that— If socialism ever comes to America, the Republican Party will bring it Let us keep 1n mind that the only time the free institutions of this country have ever been threatened was when there were men in political power in our coun- try who were unaware of human needs I remind this honorable body that the only time the currency system of the United States and the only time its credit system were threatened was when the captains of finance were 1n control— the two great Secretaries of the Treas- ury, Andrew Mellon and Ogden L Mulls. They knew all about money—they knew that primarily the people should not have any of it The only time this coun- try has ever been in great financial dis- tress, the only time the entire financial structure of our country was threatened, was under Republican leadership. That is a matter of record. If I need to document that statement, I will buttress it a little more. The greatest scandals in the history of this country have come under the leadership of the Republican Party ‘The Harding administration tops them all, and run- ning a close second is the Grant ad- muiistration. That is a matter of his- tory. It might be worth while for some CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of us to look into history a little more than we have been doing. So, Mr. President, as I was saying, the Republicans have been talking about socialism, and have been saying that socialism is coming in America. They came as close to bringing it as it is pos- sible without success. What were the conditions which brought farm mort- gage moratoriums? What were the conditions which closed the banks? What were the conditions which brought about the break in the stock market? Who was 1n control then? Were the So- cialists then in control in the Umited States? Was socialism running the ticker tape? Was the ADA—the Amer- icans for Democratic Action—creeping around, running the country? Who was running the country then? The great master minds of privilege were running the country then, Mr. President. It re- quired the New Deal Democratic Party to rescue the people from ruin. When it comes to the matter of a program, the Republican Party 1s much like the old Bourbon kings. They never seem to forget anything and they never seem to learn anything. Mr. President, I have befrre me some very wonderful material on the Republi- can Party's platform, I think I had better talk about it for a few minutes. I have never seen so many people talk so long and produce so litile as the statement which is to be found on this paper the new program of the Republi- can Party. The elephant went up to the moun- tain and gave birth to a mouse. This is the Republican National Party's Strom- bol. What do we find when we look at it? We find that they are against every- thing that is Democrat or Fair Deal They are, of course, against price and wage control, rationing, socialized medi- cine, regional authorities, and the Bran- nen plan. This program they say is “dictated by a small but powerful group of persons who believe 1n socialism ” I merely want to say to the distin- guished Members who prepared this pa- per, that before they call someone a So- cialist, they had better be able to back it up. JI am proud of my religion, proud of my politics, proud of my family, and proud of my name, and before anyone starts to malign any of them, I want him to be able to document his statements. Since “socialism” and “communism” are used as synonymous terms by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it may be well to remind them that if someone calls a man a Commu- nist, he must be able to prove it. But let us continue with the statement. They say, “We are against all these things.” Then we come to another paragraph. Is not this a honey? ‘This is what gets the people. This is what the people will like, because they will know how to vote, when they read it. The statement continues: We hold that the Government can use its just powers to foster national health, pro- mote real security for the aged, develop sound agricultural and labor-management policies, and advance civil rights. These ideas are in keeping with the earliest and finest Republican traditions and can he FEBRUARY 7 achieved without establishing socialism or discipline or dependence. In every other paragraph they get that in—the socialism angle. Then, again: The Democrats have also professed these ideals, but the stalk truth 1s that after 18 years of Democratic control and endless talk, they have reduced this whole field to coniu- sion and futility In reference to the last three words, “confusion and futility,” that field has been preempied by the leadership of the Republican Party. We do not want to have a jurisdictional dispuce about it. We give to the opposition “confusion and futility’ They have that It 1s part and parcel of the Republican dogma Now, let us go on to another. What is meant by “to foster national health’? Of course, I imagine they are for the Rec Cross, too, and I may say we join with them in that great bipartisan move. Promote real security for the aged What is meant by that? What kind of double talk is it? How, I ask, do the Republicans wish to “foster national health’—how, to ‘promote real security tor the aged”—what does the Republican leadership mean by “real security’—how much pension and for whom?—whicre are the answers? Then what is meant by saying to “De- velop sound agricultural and labor-man- agement policies.” Of course, people may have a suspicion of what 1s meant by that statement, be- cause, if my memory serves me correctly, when the Republican Party was in power—lIct us go back to 1920—since 1920, they have had a chance to do something for the farmers on several occasions. They had a chance to pass the old McNary-Haugen bill. Twice a Republican President vetoed it Yes; that was great help for the American farmers, and I know American farmers are going to be delighted to see that the Republican Party still believes in “a sound oericultural policy in keeping with the earlhest and finest Republican tra- ditions.” The “earliest and finest Re- publican traditions,” insofar as the agri- cultural policy is concerned, are these: Large surpluses, large mortgages, and plenty of foreclosures That was the policy. Those are “the earlest and finest Republican traditions’ when it comes to a farm policy. The record of the Republican Party insofar as the farmer is concerned is zero. Put now let us go on a Httle further. What happened in the Hightieth Con- gress? We had the Hope-~Aiken bill It was short on “hope” and long on “achin’.”. The Hope-Aiken Act gave support prices of from 60 to 90 percent. Yes; the farmer was to ect 60 percent of a fair price—he was, in the Republican tradition, at least worth 60 percent con- sideration. This was the program that the farmers repudiated in 1948. The farmers remember the Republican agri- cultural policy in the earliest and finest Republican traditions. Yes; in 1846 the Republican Party got its chance to de- velop a great agricultural program. It had complete control of the Congress. It is reported, and I think authentically,
1950 that the Republican farm program was written in the little room, P-26, just around the corner, late in the night on the last day of the session. The Repub- lican agricultural policy of the Eightieth Congress was developed in 18 to 20 hours in the dying moments of the session. It was very kind of the Republican Party to offer that much service to the farmers. Yes; the farmers were so appreciative that they responded in the typical, good American way in November 1948. So I am pleased to note that the Re- publican Party is going to carry out a farm program in keeping with the ear- liest and finest Republican traditions. At least we know what that means. It means bankruptcy, insolvency, low prices. That is the record, right down the line. Now, let us proceed a little further. They are going to carry cut a fine labor program, in keeping with the earliest and finest Republican traditions. I do not think we need tu talk much about that. I think the labor movement of America knows what those traditions are, and I should gather they are going to act ac- cordingly. So let us talk about the economy. We have here some nice comments on the economy. Here is what the Republican Party says it is going to do about the economy: Therefore we urge an end of deficit spend- ing and a return o a balanced budget. How? My ‘T-year-old son can say that. I want to know how. And I want to know, with respect to the next line: That Federal spending be materially re- duced. How? Where? When? Very well. “Materially reduced” means a balanced budget, if we are to consider the first line, and I gather we are supposed to read these lines one after another. I want to ask how and where? Where is it they are going to reduce $5,000,000,000 from the budget? Will it be a reduction in foreign aid? Will it be taken from the domestic pro- grams? ‘Where is the opposition going to reduce $5,000,000,000 from the budget? A little later on in the program, page 7, with reference to the old people, they of- fer them greater pensions by means of— The extension of the coverage of the Fed- eral old-age and survivors insurance pro- gram, reduction of eligibility requirements, and increase of benefits to a more generous level. That is the biggest amount of double- talk that ever was put out in an eight- page epistle. On page No. 4, the Republican Party proposed to “balance the budget” and “materially reduce expenditures.” On page 7 they increase pensions. On page 4 they take care of the folks who have been writing the economy letters. This is the creed. This is the ritual of the Republican Party. We assuredly do not want to crowd in on it. Every lodge should have its own ritual. I am for it. Every one of them can have its own secrets. But now we come to something else, and what do the Republicans say? They say we have got to recognize the inequities and injustices of the present CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE program of social security. We must have the extension of the coverage of the Federal old-age and survivors insur- ance program, reduction of eligibility requirements—that means, to reduce the age a little so that more people can come under the program—and increase the benefits to a8 more generous level. Then, my colleagues, all this is to be done with due regard to the tax burden on those who labor. That represents a lot of crocodile tears about those who labor. I submit it is impossible to increase pen- sions and have this great reduction in expenditures. Proceeding a little further, the Re- publican Party asks for a thorough- going study of a program of more nearly universal coverage. Universal cover- age? There has been tcstimony before the Senate Finance Committee that uni- versal coverage will cost an additional $5,000,000,000, and some estimate as much as $14,000,000,000. But why worry about a little thing like that? That is on page 7, and previously, on page 4, they were balancing the budget. Then we come down to Federal! aid. They are not going to do away with Fed- eral aid. No; “the need is clearly dem- onstrated.” It is interesting to note that on the floor of the Senate the Federal aid programs which are going to increase the budget are the very Federal aid programs which have been sponsored by some of the distinguished members of the oppo- sition party. Federal aid to education in the amount of $300,000,000 has the authorship of none other than the dis- tinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart). Federal aid to health for school children, another item to increase the budget, has the authorship of some of the distinguished members of the Re- publican Party. Mr. President, in the case of almost every bill of this character one of the key leaders of the Republican Party will be found backing it. Of course, they have got leaders for all things. They have a certain group that is for economy on Monday. They have another group that votes for grants-in- aid on Tuesday; another one that is for labor on Wednesday; another one that thinks the labor law ought to be made stronger on Thursday. That is not a policy; {t is confusion confounded and political expediency unsurpassed. But now let me come down to the pro- nouncement on civil rights. This is the statement of all things toallmen. These knights in shining armor are crying their eyes out over the injustices and inequities inflicted upon the American people. Look at the statement on civil rights in this great pronouncement, this modern epistle of hope and pity. This is a new manifesto of freedom. They give to the subject of civil rights three and three- quarter lines. It would make a mag- nificent recitation for children’s day. It is an excellent little statement for some nice little third-, fourth-, or fifth- grade play. It does not say what the Republican Party said in 1940. Here is the party which is going ahead by walk- ing backwards. It does not say what it said in 1944 and 1948. Oh, no. It says what the junior Senator from Ohio said not long ago, that possibly the Republi- 1573 can Party and the Dixiecrats ought to make it legal. The right of equal opportunity to work, to vote, to advance in life, and to be protected under the law should never be limited to any individual because of race, religion, color, or country of origin. Therefore we shall con- tinue to sponsor legislation to protect the rights of minorities. What did the Republicans say in 1948? They spoke out quite clearly. They did not indulge in such nebulous taik. By the way, Mr. President, this is the language which was rejected by the Dem- ocratic Party. This is practically what the Democratic Party platform con- tained in 1940. In fact, the Democratic Platform of 1944 was even more specific than this. Now we come to 1948, This Republi- can statement is what we turned down in the Democratic convention. The drafting committee would not accept this language. Our Dixiecrat friends would have accepted it. They said, “O. K., give us this, and we stay put.” But we did not give it to them. We did not com- promise. What did the Republican Party plat- form say in 1948? It said: Lynching or any other form of mob vio- lence anywhere is a disgrace to any civilized state, and we favor the prompt enactmens of legislation to end this infamy. Mr. President, no one can doubt what that language says. That is the plat- form to which the party is committed in the Congress. They went on to say in their platform! One of the basic principles of this Re- public {s the equality of all individuals in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This principle is enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and em- bodied in the Constitution of the United States; it was vindicated on the field of battle and became the cornerstone of this Republic. This right of equal opportunity to work and to advance in life should never be limited in any individual becnuse of race, religton, color, or country of origin. We favor the enactment and just enforcement of such Federal legislation as may be neces- sary to maintain this right at all times in every part of this Republic. I leave it to all sincere and honorable persons if the Republican Party's latest statement is not a retreat from the pledges of 1948. I have never seen any statement which so plainly means, “We have given up and do not mean what we said in 1948.” I want to know from the Republican Party which platform they stand for, the one of 1948, or this “box- lunch special,” particularly on the issue of civil rights. We have heard a great deal about what the Democrats have not done with regard to civil rights. Our southern friends never kidded anyone. They have stated from the very beginning where they stood. I disagree with them and they disagree with me, as an individual, but our southern friends have made their position amply clear. They have not used “weasel words.” The Dixie- crats walked out of the party convention on an issue which they thought was of great importance. They were not hypo- critical in their position.
1574 I want to know where the great stand- ard of truth in the Republican pro- nouncement lies. Are the Republicans for FEPC, as they stated in their 1948 Platform? Are they for the elimination of the poll tax? We cannot tell from this refined language which says all things to all people. I thought I might say a word or two about this platform. It reminds me of what was said about a man who was always able to discover yesterday today, but was never quite able to understand what was going on today and had no idea about tomorrow. There is one thing we can say about the statement of objectives and prin- ciples of the Republican Party as cut- lined in this program. They are now about up to 1934—not quite, but just about ready to recognize that Roosevelt was President. Other than that, the mysteries of mathematical budgetary mechanisms have been revealed. They advise balancing the budget by material- ly reducing expenditures, without ever telling where they can be reduced, and at the same time demand more Federal aid for States, more armed services ap- propriations to protect our national se- curity, more money to the nations of Europe, more social security; in fact, universal coverage It is just wonderful. It is amazing what some political imag- inations can do. The Democratic Party is not trying to say that we do not have a deficit. We are not trying to say to the people of the world that we can fight a war—and that is what we are doing now—and have nor- mal peacetime fiscal policies. I heard a Republican say sometime ago, “We are either at war or we are at peace.’’ The answer should be quite obvious, when we know that the world is on fire, and when we know what is going on in the world. But perhaps some of us do not Know what is going on, but all of us should know by this time that there is a cold war going on, and whether the war is cold or hot, it costs money That means we cannot have a normal fiscal policy. Some of the persons who have been talking about extravagant budgets are the first to want to send our Navy some place. We cannot keep the “Mighty Mo.” stuck in the mud without its costing money. If we are going to send the Navy cruising around Formosa, it will cost more money. Whether the Navy should be sent there is another subject. We cannot have our Navy cruising the Pacific unless we appropriate more money. So let us make up our minds. If we want a balanced budget, where do we want to balance it? What specific programs shall we vote down? We can- not go around the country saying we are for housing if we are going to vote to reduce appropriations for that purpose. We cannot be in the show and out of the show; we have got to make up our minds. We are either in the church or out of it; we are either in the act or we are out of it. We cannot simply place our names on the program and never turn up for the performance. Mr. President, the hour is late, but I feel that further comments should be made about Americans for Democratic Action. Furst of all, this organization 1s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE interested in other elections in the world. It is interested in how they come out in Norway, in Finland, in Italy, in France, and in Britain. The ADA does believe it is important for the Labor government of Great Britain to win the election. I am not apologizing for the Labor government. I am not a Socialist and I never want to be one. I believe strongly in real private enterprise—free enterprise, not monop- oly enterprise. I am also proud of the fact that I come from a State where we do not have all the public ownership the people in Nebraska have. We have free enterprise, lots of it We are a good, substantial, free-enterprising people Let us go on to sec what is the rcla- tionship of all this to what goes on in Socialist Britain. The fact is the people of Britain are going to decide the kind of government they want, and they are go- ing to decide it in a free election, and de- cide it in a free election after a labor government has been in power. Free elections are not possible in a Communist state, and to intimate that socialism and communism are identical is political ignorance Communism 1s the denial of liberty, communism is the police state, communism is brutality, communism is outright materialism, communism is the denial of God and hu- man liberty To say that the Christian Socialists, or the Catholic Socialists, deny God and human liberty is infamy bordering on the obscene. What the Socialists of Europe want to do 1s their business, so long as they are guarding the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some people in the United States Government talk of property and life as if they were one. Some talk of special] privilege and lib- erty as if they were one. The real, fun- damental, basic ideological problem of the Republican leadership is the fact that they cannot differentiate between liberty and license, between liberty and exploitation. I repeat, there are no freer people in this world, in terms of their own souls, their own minds, thelr own economy, their own government, than the people of Sweden, the people of Norway, the people of Denmark, the Scandinavian people; people who have cherished their liberty, and have fought and died for it; people who are our allies. Mr. President, I wish to inform my col- leagues as to some of those who have been identified with some of the most recent activities of this organization, of which I am proud to be a member, and of which I am the chairman. Let me read the names of the Members of the Senate who belong to the organization. There is Senator Brien McManon, of Connecticut, who just a short time ago made one of the grandest speeches ever delivered on the floor of the Senate, a masterful, statesmanlike presentation. He is one who can see beyond tomorrow, one who has conviction of philosophy. There is Senator Myers, the distin- guished whip, who is a member of the Americans for Democratic Action. Senator FraNK GRAHAM is a member of the ADA. There is Senator LEHmaN, of New York, FEBRUARY 7 There are Senator Murray, Senator NEELY, and Senator Dovctas, of Illinois, all members of the ADA. On the House side there are: McKINe non, of California; Ho.iFieLp, of Cali- fornia; Croox, of Indiana; Yares, of Illl- nois; Sasatu, of Illinois; Gens McCar- THY, of Minnesota; RicHarp Bouurne, of Missouri; CHARLES HOWELL, of New Jersey; Jacos Javits, of New York; Ep- Ward BREEN, of Ohio; THomas Burkg, of Ohio; Davenport, of Pennsylvania; Henry JACKSON, of Washington; Hucu MITCHELL, of Washington; ANDREW BIE-= MILLER, Of Wisconsin; FRANKLIN ROOSE- VELT, Of New YorK; WILLIAM GRANAHAN, of Pennsylvania Those are the Members of the Con- fress who are in the Amcricans for Dem- ocratic Action. I wanted my colleagues to know who the Members of this body were who were in the ADA These men are fully cognizant of the purposes, the programs, and the platform of the ADA. They are not only cognizant of, they are proud to be affiliated with the organiza= tion. Recently the ADA sponsored Roose- velt Day dinners in the month of Janu- ary all over this Nation, some 27 of them. The cochairmen were Gov. Chester Bowles, Senator Herbert Lehman, and the great playwright and author, Robert Sherwood. The vice chairmen were: Francis Bid- die, Helen Gahagan Douglas, Frank P. Graham, William Green, William Hastie, Leon Henderson, Hubert H. Humphrey, Murray D. Lincoln, Howard Lindsey, Henry Morgenthau, Jr, Philip Murray, Judge Samuel Rosenman, former Sena- tor Robert Wagner. The labor committee consisted of Cochairmen David Dubinsky, of the In- ternational Ladies’ Garment Workers; Hugo Ernst; A. J. Hayes, president of the Machinists’ Union; W. P. Kennedy, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen; Walter P. Reuther; Emil Rieve. Mr. President, I shall name some of the Roosevelt Day speakers who spoke under the auspices of the Americans for Democratic Action. Does the Senator from Indiana think that these people are all dedicated to the program of social- ism? Nothing more absurd could be uttered These are the speakers: Columbus: Secretary Tobin; William Hannah, former Assistant Secretary of Labor; Gov. Chester Bowles, Victor Reuther vice Walter Reuther. Pittsburgh: Judge Samuel Weiss. Chattanooga: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Baltimore: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., Francis Biddle. Cleveland: Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, Dr. Henry Busch. Philadelphia: Joseph S. Clark, Jr., city comptroller; James BE. Finnegan, Demo- cratic chairman; Richardson Dilworth, Enquirer-Bulletin; James L. McDevitt, AFL, State. Washington: Senator Herbert Leh- man, Reinhold Neibuhr, Dr. A. Powell Davies. Chicago: Secretary Oscar Chapman, Benjamin Cohen, Adlai Stevenson. Boston: Archibald McLeish; Elmer Davis; Victor Reuther vice Walter