A542 we did not want to take hecause we knew that she and the several colorfully but sim- pty dressed children needed them. Upon my return to the Embasay I told about our embarrassment at accepting this lady's hos- pitality when we couki not return her kind- ness. I waa quite surprised to learn that the 25-cent pencil which I gave her was worth several dollars because pencils sre practically unobtainable in Yugoslavia. These two examples will give you an indi- cation of the great poverty of the people of Yugoslavia. Of course, the average person doea not have the money to buy such lux- uries as soap and pencils, so it is necessary to resort to barter for these things if they can get them at all. I understand that economic conditions of other nations in that fart of the world are not too different. We also visited one of the collectivist farms and stopped to talk to men, women, and children working in the flelds as we rode through the countryside. I was amazed to find so much good will heing exoressed to- ward America because I had expected an outright hostile attitude. I learned that many of the people have relatives in the United States and that a lot of them hope to be able to come to this promised land or make it possible for their children to come to America. Except for the Communist leaders sent out to run the collectivist farms, I do not believe the average person knows anything about Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, or any other kind of political philosophy. They impressed me as being just simple, poor, hard-working people who have never had much of a chance in life. The high point of our visit to Yugoslavia was an hour-and-a-half interview with Mar- shal Tito. Representatives Fismer, of Texas, Cuatuam, of North Carolina, and I made up the congressional group. We were accom- panied by George Allen, our Ambassador; Colone] Wilson, of the United States Air Force; and Allen Moreland, of the United States State Department. Leaving the Amer- ican Embassy, where members of our sub- committee were staying, we went a short distance down the street to Tito’s home, if it can be calied that. Sentries bristled from every vantage point. Several seta of well- ermed guards ushered us into Tito’s room, which was very spacious and handsomely decorated. The marshal sat behind a long desk at the far end of the room. A huge mural depicting a sixteenth century peas- rot uprising covered the entire wall behind him. On Tito’s left was a bust of a very familiar Communist leader which interested me a great deal. Through the interpreter, I asked the Marshall about it, and he made it very clear that it was a bust of Lenin and not of Stalin. Tito is a mild-mannered man with a com- manding personality. He is about 6 feet 11 inches in height, and rather heavy set. His build, square jaw, steal-blue eyes, and gray- ing, wavy hair all give him a trim appear~ ance. The marshal’s manner is very direct and he exhibited a good sense of humor to us. In evaluating him as # person, how- ever, we remembered that Tito was Stalin's No. 1 pup!) for many years and ia now the dictator of a Communist country. In fair- ness to a man who has been very ruthless at times, tt must be recognized that since his break with Stelin he has helped to stop the Red-inspired Greek war, his representative in the United Nations has departed consider- ably from the Soviet Party lines, and he has expressed s desire to settle such interna- tional problema as returning Greek chile dren to their homes and reestablishing the railroad system from Salonika, Greece, to Belgrade, Yugoslavia. This is important to remember along with things that are not so complimentary to him. Tito always talked through an interpreter, Yet every time the interpreter made a mis- take the marshal would catch him up in- stantly. I believe he understands English much better than he might have us think, and certainly he understands English better than we do Serbian. Our group questioned Tito sharply about whether or not the United States could place confidence in his break with Stalin. We asked him point blank if the break was permanent and if he would go back into the Soviet fold. Although I have certain reserva~- tions concerning Tito’s answers, nevertheless he assured us that his break with Stalin is real enough and that the only relationship Yugoslavia wants with Russia is the rela- tionship between two friendly countries which would necessitate Stalin giving up his aggregsion. One of my reservations ia the natural distrust of a Communist dictator, and another is the fact that Yugosiavia may be forced back into Stalin’s camp for eco- nomic eurvival. We asked Tito why Russia had not taken Yugoslavia over militarily. He said there were several reasons. In all of his answers he seemed very self-assured and forthright. The first reason he gave is that the Soviete miscalculated as they always do in thinking that Yugoslavia would crack up economically. Tito said they were not going to crack up and surplus food from America would be a big help in avoiding thts catastrophe. second, Tito said he has thirty divisions which are well trained for fighting in the mountainous terrain of Yugoslevia. Hitler found this combination quite an obstacle in his drive to conquer the Communists. He said Stalin knows that these diviatons could tie up at least 30 Russian divisions and hold them off long enough to start world war HI. The marshal had no doubt that the Allied Na- tions would join in the fight against Russia if Yugoslavia was attacked. Despite the fact that practically every young man I saw in Yugoslavia had on a military uniform, Tito insisted that he does not have too great a percentage of his boys in the armed forces. One of the most significant statements that Tito made waa relative to Yugoslavia’s obligations in the United Nations. In re- sponse to a question which I asked him, he said that in the future Yugoslavia was going to uphold her responsibilities in the UN whether or not she was attacked first. Previ- ously he had said only that Yugoslavian would fight anybody that attacked his country. But there, for the first time, he made the statement that Yugoslavia would fight under the auspices of the UN regardless of which nation was attacked first. We thought per- haps we misunderstood, or were having in- terpretation difficulties so we questioned him further in this matter. There was no mis- understanding, He stuck to his original statement. His reasoning went like this: There will be no such thing in the future as a bilateral war. In the world of today, if two great nations get into a war, it will soon spread into a global conflict. Despite his strong desire to remain neutral and avoid entangling alllances with foreign countries, Tito said he realizes that no nation would be able to stay out of such a conflict. There is no doubt about the dire effects of the drought and the need for food tn Yugoslavia this winter. I asked Tito tf he had plans for the distribution of food tn case the United States granted this request. He said yes, that he already had a system where- by he takes surplus food from the bread- basket of Yugoslavia and distributes it through his agents over the entire country. Of course, the army and party members get priority in this distribution, which strength- ens their hands. Tito said he would expand this system if this request was granted and that his people would know where it came from and would be appreciative. In fairness to him, I understand that information about previous assistance from the United States ‘was disseminated widely by press and radio throughout the country. The 838,000,000 worth of surplus food which has just been granted by Congress to com- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD munistic Yugoslavia in her hour of need is a long chance. A chance that Yugoslavia will appreciate our Christian, charitable act and not fight us; a chance that this sassist- ance will help to keep Tito from being forced back into Stalin’s camp, or from being over- thrown by Stalin’s henchmen because of economic chaos; a chance that Yugoslavis’s 80 divisions can remain Independent from Soviet domination; a chance that Yugoslavia will help to stop those who would conquer the world. This humanitarian act and calculated mill- tary risk might save thousands of American lives. The cost is nothing by comparison with the bloodshed, misery, and money that would be neceasary to stop Russia in an all- out war, even without these additional 30 divistons. Yugoslavia’s forces are larger than any in Europe, and they are dwarfed by Russia's army. Yes, Yugoslavia has a communistic gov- ernment, but Russia has the aggressive com- munistic government that is determined to enslave the world. Not that Tito has or ever wil give up communism, or that we would dictate Yugoslavia'’s form of government, tut here we have the only country that has been able to defy the Soviets, emerge from behind the iron curtain, and drop aggression. A helping hand in this instance would encour- age other satellite countries to do the same. The forces of good must be receptive to those who will break with the Kremlin, and try to convert them to become active mem- bers in the family of nations for the cause of ce, The phenomenon of an independent Yugo- slavia deep in the Russian orbit is particu- larly important to us today because the world situation ts so grave. We are facing a long drawn out struggle for our freedom If not for our very existence. The voluntary or forced withdrawal of our troops from Europe and the Far East would mean Russian dom- ination of about nine-tenths of the world’s populetion. The additional industrial power gained by the Soviets would be disastrous for most of the free nations of the world, and. would certainly bring a horrible war to our own shores. I mention this because some Americans advocate voluntary with- drawal and because such a course is well withia the realm of necessity based on pres- ent comparative strength, if Russia goes all out in the next few months. In such a situ- ation our task would be multiplied a hun- dredfold. In conclusion, our Nation cannot survivé if each of us goes his own selfish way like the average Frenchman who refuses to par- ticipate in hts Government or strengthen tt, thereby making a mockery out of democracy. There is nobody to accept the responsibility of world leadership except the United States unless we meekly turn the gavel over to Soviet Russia to bring about a living hell on earth. Of course we are not going to do that. We must develop stronger leadership backed by an active, well informed public in order to weather this storm. It is neces- sary to see that our friendly allies strengthen themselves and to bolster the faltering wherever possible. We should encourage and cooperate with the individuals, groups, and nations that are trying to throw off the treacherous yoke of Soviet domination. Above all, we must make ourselves stronger physically, mentally, and spiritually. Stalin faces great difficulties, too. He cannot take an aroused United States from within or from without but his capacity to cause destruction and suffering in the world is even greater than Hitler's. Even the Red Bear will have acute pains of indigestion tn trying to assimilate people and nations that hate her, Aggressive, atheistic communism will not win out. It cannot dominate the minds of men very long because such unfortunate people will eventually realize that they have been decelyed by false promises. It cannot
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD dominate the souls of men long because man inevitably seeks a higher being. It cannot use the bodies of men long because its course fs the path of self destruction. Athelstic communism will not dominate the souls, minds, or bodies of men in the long run because the religious forces of the world are lining up against it. But the number of us, both as individuals and as nations, that will be living to enjoy freedom again is in direct proportion to how quickly and with how much intelligent vigor we tackle this task together. “The ox is in the ditch” and we must all pull together to get on higher, safer ground, Where the Soldiers Are Coming From EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly all Members of Congress are receiving letters protesting conscription of our manpower for a war abroad. Typical of one class of those letters is the following: St Jossrx, Micw., January 18, 1951. DEAsR Mk, HOFFMAN; I have never written to you before, but I Just have to express my feelings now. How, can they put a young married man, who just got married to escape the draft and whose wife is able to go to work in class 3 and a young man who is the only child of a widow in class I-A? My hus- band died when my son was 3! years old. And during the depression days we had to drop his insurance, and when he died I had to pay a large doctor bill, funeral expenses, and besides lose our little farm. No Gov- ernment agency stepped in then to ask how I would be able to raise him, because I had a house in town on which we were hardly collecting enough rent to pay the taxes. I was lucky to get my job back which I had before I was married. I didn’t make much, but enough to raise my son. When he was 12 years old he got a paper route and has been helping me ever since. But I kept on working and now when I can hardly work any more—I am nearly 52 years old, they want to take him in the draft. It seems to me that draft Jaw should apply the same to only sons of widowed mothers as it does to young married men. The shop that I worked in closed down last year but I was lucky for one of my age to get another job, and only becauee I had a sister-in-law working in this shop and she put in a good word for me. I have had a nervous stomach for years and most days I just have to force myself to go to work and if they take my son from me I just won't be able to go to work, My nephew is in Korea in a fox hole and thinking of him makes me nearly crazy. If this war would be on our shores we would all be doing our utmost, but why our boys should always be sent to other countries to fight I just can't take. But I still say a boy who is the only child of a widowed mother should have the same consideration as these 19- and 20-year-olds who only got married to be deferred. Hoping I will get your opinion on this problem, I remain. P, 8—My son is working in a newspaper shop and never made enough until this last summer after he went away to a linotype school. He only made 75 cents an hour be- fore; now he makes 61:15 an hour. That's why I hnd to keep on working. The Proposed Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD H. JENISON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. JENISON. Mr. Speaker, thinking Americans everywhere have become alarmed, and I think properly so, over certain aspects of the tremendous Fed- eral budget sought in the EHighty-second Congress by the administration. This alarm has not been eased in any degree by the Presidential tax message pre- sented today. Concern of the people does not revolve primarily about the vast sums required for essential defense ef- forts, but rather from the apparent un- willingness of the administration to re- duce substantially the spending for ac- tivities of the Government in no way connected with our defense responsi- bilities, Like most of my colleagues, I have re- ceived many thoughtful letters on this subject from informed residents of the district I have the honor to represent. Under permission granted by the House, I am including for publication in the ConcRESSIONAL Recorp one of these. It comes from an informed citizen, Mr. Frank R, Mills, publisher of the Hoopes- ton (Ill.) Daily Chronicle-Herald. What he has to say could be read with profit by every person serving in government, whether in the legislative branch or in the executive. His letter follows: Tre CHRONICLE-HERALD, Hoopeston, Ill., January 26, 1951. Representative Enwaro H, JENISON, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear En: The proposed budget has just crossed my desk, and although I do not claim to understand all its features, I am no end alarmed and perturbed with the increase for civilian purposes. No doubt you have studied it closely and can explain what people in Washington are thinking about. It's all I can do to abstain from protanity, and if I had the Truman gift for vulgar expression, could tell you in a@ more colorful way how I regard this pro- posal for increasing wasteful spending. However, I know you to be an intelligent individual, and will understand what I mean, when I say I do not like it. It’s all wrong, it stinks to high heaven. This is no time for a politically expedient plan to build votes, Last week, I sent my boy to the armed services. He's only 19 and so I want him to have the advantage of the best training he can get, the best equipment possible so he can fight a good fight. I most certainly do not want his efforts hamstrung by high expenditures for farm subsidies, when every morsel of food can be sold at astronomical prices, or for fair employment boondoggling when every man who will work has a job, or for so-called socialized medicine while our doctors are going to war, or any of these other swindles now being perpetrated on we yokels out here in the sticks, It is high time we get back to basic prin- ciples. Why subsidize until prices climb out of sight, and then put on cetlings? The sec- ond might be unnecessary without the first. I am willing to believe you have made a personal sacrifice in going to Washington to serve our country. Why not make this sac- rifice pay off in benefit to the folks you rep- A543 resent? Let's cut out this back scratching and vote trading. Stand on the principles of your own belief and those of the people back home desperately looking to you for wise leadership. This is an opportunity for you to go on a record against, or for, this vicious spending. The people at home you represent will be very definitely interested in how you vote. Best regards, FRANK R. MILs, President, Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Mills has to say clearly represents the thinking of great numbers of our people in the pres~ ent tragic hour. Congress must accept the responsibility so far evaded by the administration. Nondefense spending must be pared to the bone. There must be no “government as usual” until we have won our battles against our enemies on the military front, and on the eco- nomic front, A New Declaration of Independence EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. THOMAS A. JENKINS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, the American Coalition has for years been one of the best champions of patriotism and liberty in the whole United States. Organized and supported for years by Capt. John B. Trevor, of New York, this organization cemented together many of the leading patriotic organizations into a great movement wl.ose influence has been felt all over the country. Recently this great organization adopted a set of resolutions under the caption of “A new declaration of inde- pendence.” Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include these resolutions in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN COALI< TION aT Irs ANNUAL CONVENTION IN WASH- INcTON, D. C., JaANvaRY 25, 1061 A NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (Submitted by John W. Finger, president, American Coalition of Patriotic, Civic, and Fraternal Societies) Whereas on July 4, 1776, the United Btates of America became a free and independent nation by proclamation of their legal repre- sentatives assembled in Philadelphia; and Whereas this independence was established in international law by the valor of Ameri- can soldiers under the inspired leadership of George Washington and for nearly two centuries has been maintained by the blood of American citizens shed upon many bat- tleflelds and the guardianship of American statesmen who thought patriotically of America first; and Whereas under the benign influence of independence these United States have not only developed a “more perfect union” ace cording to the ideals of the founding fathers but have offered to other peoples the pre- cepts and the example of representative con- stitutional government “with Mberty and justice for all"; and Whereas Almighty God in His great mu- nificence has permitted this Republic to prosper in the enjoyment of the fruits of
A544 agriculture, the applications of science and invention and the arts of industry, and to become the friend and benefactor of afflicted mankind everywhere; and Whereas because of alien-minded theories, base betraynls, false colnsels, mendacious propaganda, unintelligent executive leader- ship, and subservient legislators the Nation has been misled into international complica- tions and warlike situations which endanger its very existence at a time when pagan foroes are attempting the extinction of free- dom, religion, and civilization throughout the world; and ‘Whereas it is obvious that the compelling duty of Americans to God, to humanity, and especially to our own citizenship je to re- establish our independence and to conserve our resources of materials, of manpower, and of moral law in order that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”: Now, therefore, we as citizens of this Re- public do hereby declare, and call upon the Congress of the United States and the legis- latures of the several States to declare: 1. That the United States must again be- come a free and independent Nation 3. That it shall be the policy of these United States to avoid entangling alliances which diminish or imperil our sovereignty and independence, and to remain forever free of any involvement in any form of fore eign regional or world government, 3. That armed services shall be fully main- tained, to guard our independence and terri- tory from invasion or aggression. 4. That, except in case of attack requiring immediate offense, no part of the armed services shall be engaged in any hostilities save only by authorization of Congress, as the Constitution requires. In pursuance whereof, we as citizens fur- ther declare: 1, That the Congress of the United States, in commemoration of the Declaration of In- dependence and fulfillment of the oath of its Members to support and defend the Constitution, should immediately renounce this country’s mistaken adherence to, and any participation in, the United Nations and should withdraw all financial support of that organization. 2. That our Armed Forces which have been sent to war on the continent of Asia without a constitutional declaration of war should be immediately recalled from that action. 3. That a jolnt committee of Congress should be selected by vote of the Members of both Houses to conduct a complete and public investigation of all aspects of our international relations and affaira since 1040, and to propose necessary or advisable pro- tective and remedial measures. Finally we call upon the legislatures of the several States to support these declaratory recommendations by making suitable ad- dresses to Congress. ome A Report TO THE AMERICAN COALITION ON OUR Present SrrvatTion (By John B. Trevor, president emeritus) There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which gives any justi- fication for the belief that the founders of our Republic ever conceived of the posat- bility that the Government which they estab- Ushed would drain the resources of the United States of its manpower, its money, ar material to reconstitute and rehabilitate foreign nations and, above all, surrender ita independence to a foreign agency. Never- theless, that is exactly what our Govern- ment haa done, is doing, and proposes to go on doing to an even greater extent than it the Past. As 6 Nation we have, Hke foolish children, Violated every admonition handed down to us by the Father of our Country in respect to dealings with foreign nations and in- volvement in the eternal quarrels of Europe. We intervened in Europe in 1917 to make the world safe for democracy. One of the fruits of our follies on that occasion was to leave Russia in the birth pangs of a political system which has been at war with civilized soctety aver since their early constitutions boldly advertised that fact, and the policy of the infamous regime wl.ich so came to life has never belied this profession of faith. Another fruit of our naive conception of foreign relations was sponsorship of the League of Nations. The League did not fail, as alleged, because the Unite States did not adhere to the covenant, but rather be- cause England was determined to destroy the preeminence of France as a military power and re-create Germany as a counter weight in the councils of Europe. The Eng- lieh politictans did destroy France and did wane Germany to fight the Second World ar. We intervened arain in Europe because no one in Washington had the vision to prevent a crisis arising at a time when the oppor- tunity to avert a new war Was presented, According to the United States Statistical Abstract of 1935, the accumulated money costs of our first intervention was 841,000,- 000,000. Then, for reasons not disclosed, the Government ceased to publish the ever rising totais of the cost of this war. The money costs of our second intervene tion was over $330,000,000,000, On both oc- casions our intervention saves France and England from defeat, but the cost to us in money Las not stopped. From July 1, 1945, to June 30, 1960, we have pald out in grants, aids, or loans to foreign nations $81,400,- 000,090, Everyone recognises that our military vic- tory was overwhelming, and yet through childish folly, ignorance, and possibly even treason, we are in the midst of a hideous and unnecessary war, with the possibility that we may end on the verge of a world cataclysm. Under these circumstances, it is vital that the people of the United States assert their sovereignty through their Senators and Rep- resentatives in Congress. In the determination of the policy which we should pursue there are certain indis- putable facts which must be borne in mind. Prior to World War I in 1914, the French budget for her military and naval establish- ments totaled $343,000,000, and provided for the maintenance of a peace-time army of 846,000 men or 56 divisions. Between April 8, 1948, and June 380, 1949, the United States—excluding all other grants of aid or loans—subsidived France throuvh ECA in the amount of 61,313,000,000, or almost four times the amount provided by the French Government for national defense before the outbreak of the First World War. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, France received through ECA more than double the cost of her military and naval budget in 1934. Let us now examine what France has done for herself in the way of European defense during that period: On December 17, 1950, the New York Times published a map of Europe on which ts print- ed the distribution of Western European troops as compared to Russia’s, and in the text of the explanatory article underneath this map, it states that France maintains in Germany “three under-strength French divi- sions” and goes on to say, “Beyond this, in the first line of defense, are two French diyi- sions in France.” The facts in regard to Britain are very sim- Nar to those which have been related in re- gard to France. From April 3, 1948, to June 30, 1049, the United States supported the British Government in the amount of $1,- 619,000,000, or approximately four times the sum budgeted by the British Government for national defanse just before the outbreak of the Firat World War. In the following year, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD through ECA the United States gave tha British Government twice the amount of her national defense budget tn 1914. It is now pertinent to consider what Great Britain hes done fer herself in the way of European defense: The article to which reference has been made, published in the New York Times of December 17, states that the British have contributed two first-class divisions to the defense forces of Western Germany, and the map accompanying the articie indicates that the United Kingdom has retained two divi- sions in garrison for home defense. There are good grounds for the belief that the tactories of both France and England are in better shape now than ever before to provide war matériel for the rearmament of the forces of their respective Governments, but these factories have not been so em- ployed, but rather in the production of war matériel which hos been shipped to the ac- tive and potential enemies of the United States. A review of the past histories of both Fng- land and France suggests that they, with their increased population over what it was in the prewar period, are well able to butld up for themselves substantial forces to op- pose an assault by Ruesia, if they so desire. The difficulty which confronts us in the United States is that England now has a form of government which is based upon an ideology similar in many respects to Russia; and the willingness of the British to commit themselves to a united defense action against Russian aggression is by no means definitely established. Likewise, the French, who put up & mag- nificent defense against the Germans In 1914, collapsed in a disastrous fashion when as- raulted the second time, upon the outbreak of the Second World War. There is evidence to show that the professional] army of France in this war lived up to the highest traditions of its history, but the reserves were so in- filtrated with Communist officers and Com- munist soldiers in the line, that the defeat of France followed in short order upon the opening of the attack. We must consider this fact and, while it is impossible to state exactly to what extent France is permeated with Communists now, there is ground for the belief that possibly two-thirds of the reserve officers are of doubt- ful quality, and perhaps one-third of the line troops may be directly or indirectly in- fluenced by the Communist leaders. If the résumé of Western European troops, compared with Russia’s, as set forth in the map accompanying the article in the New York Times on Sunday, December 17, ts ac- curate, the anti-Communist forces tn Europe, excluding the United States, that ts to say, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Yugo- alavia, together with Belgtum and Holtand represent an aggregate of only 52 divisions against a total force of 285 divisions under the control of the Soviet high command, that ts, including contributions from the Eastern European satellite states. That is the picture of the situation we face. And under the circumstances, it is suggested that the American céulition adopt the following resolutions: “Be it therefore - “Resolved, That, in the absence of any evidence that France and England have any force in being at the present sime adequate for the defense of Western Europe, the Amer~ ifan Coalition in annuel convention assem- bled, urge upon the members of all associ- ated societies and other patriotic citizens that they impress upon their Senators and Representatives in Congress to hold the Mili- tary Establishment in Western Germany to @ mere token force, and at the same time provide for planes, pilots, and ground crews, together with naval equipment in sufficient force to assure our superiority in the air and on the séa, together with such land forces tn
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD American possessions as shall be necessary to meet any situation which may arise; and be it further “Resolved, That the American Coalition in annual convention assembled, hold that, un- less the signatory to the United Na- tions arter discontinue supplying our enemies with war matériel, and immediately contribute reinforcements to the armies en- gaged in the Korean War equal in proportion to their population to those contributed by the United States, steps be initiated by our Government to withdraw the United States from membership in the United Nations; and be it further “Resolved, That the American Coalition in annual convention assembled, urge the mem- bers of aasociated societies and all patriotic citizens to impress upon their Senators and Representatives in Congress the necessity of an immediate reappraisal of the whole eco- nomic situation here and abroad, with the understanding that the economic resources of the United States are not inexhaustible, and that unless all proposed expenditures, not absolutely essential for the maintenance of Government and the building up of an adequate military machine, be stricken from the budget proposed by the President, there is a strong possibility that the Communists will destroy us without having to fire a shot. “COMMUNIST CHINA “Resolved, That the American Coalition in annual convention assembled, approved Sen- ate Resolutions 35 and 86 introduced by Senator Jonnw L. MCCLELLAN, of Arkansas, and action of a similar character: “1, That the United States ‘should imme- diately declare Communist China an aggres- sor in Korea,’ and “9, That the Communist government should not be seated to represent China in the United Nations, and in addition, the im- position of such economic sanctions as may be necessary. “TREATIZS ‘Whereas under recent court decisions a treaty and even a diplomatic note not ap- proved by the Senate may nullify and render inoperative those guarantees of states rights and individual lberty which are embodied in the Constitution of the United States, and especially in those amendments which are known as the Bili of Rights: Therefore be it “Resolved, That the American Coalition in annual convention assembled, calls upon the members of its associated societies to urge the President of the United States not to negotiate and the Senate not to consent to any treaty or other international agree- ment which may in any way infringe upon or affect the domestic laws and institutions of the United States or the rights of the sev- eral states or of individual citizens, and calls upon both the President and Senate to re-examine all international agreements heretofore entered into, and to take steps to abrogate all such treaties or agreements which can in any way affect the rights of liberties of the States or their citizens. “GENociIDs “Whereas the Senate of the United States hes peen asked to approve the convention against genocide which has been devised in the United Nations; and “Whereas this convention is a piece of pro- posed international legislation which is in- tended to supersede our domestic law; and “Whereas genocide, or the destruction of races or groups of people, is defined in the convention as the destruction or persecution of national, religious, and ethnical groups; and “Whereas the convention originally con- tains the words “political groups,” but these words were deleted on the motion of Soviet Russia, eo that the persecution of a political group could not be penalized as genocide; and XOVII—App.-——35 “Whereas the convention was also amend- ed on the motion of Soviet Russia to make genocide the persecution of national, ethni- cal, and religious groups as such, consequent- ly it would be possibie for any nation, brought up on charges of genocide following group massacres or group persecutions, to plead that the persecuted groups were not perse- cuted as such, but as individuals, guilty of poiltical crimes, and under the convention political persecution would not be genocide; consequently, the convention is so devised that 1t will not prevent and will not punish the crime of genocide in those nations where genocide is now practiced; and “Whereas under our Constitution the con- vention against genocide will become the supreme law of the land if approved by the Senate; and may subject American citizens to prosecution tn alten courts, and outside the laws of the United States, even for offenses which are crimes under our domestic law and are properly prosecuted in our own courts; and “Whereas the Convention Against Geno- cide would amount to an abrogation of the Constitution of the United States: Therefore be it hereby “Resolved by the American Coalition in annual convention assembled, That it is op- posed to the approval of a treaty accepting the convention against genocide as now sub- mitted for approval by the United States Senate. “COMMUNISM “Whereas communism is inimical to the best interests of the United States: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That the American Coalition in annual convention assembled this 25th day of January 1951 do hereby approve and en-~ dorse provisions of Senate Resolution No. 7, or a similar measure, authorizing the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to make a com- plete and continuing study and investigation of the administration, operation, and the cause for the difference of interpretation of the Internal Security Act of 1950 by the De- partments of State and Justice and other laws relating to espionage, sabotage, and the protection of the internal security of the United States. “INTERNAL SECURITY ACT “Be it resolved, That the American Coall- tion in annual convention assembled this 25th day of January 1951 do hereby whole- heartedly and most enthusiastically support the Internal Security Act of 1960.” What Has Happened to Our United States Savings Bonds? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD H. JENISON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. JENISON. Mr. Speaker, the American people are beset by many prob- lems in these trying days of peril. One of the most serious of these is the dwin- dling value of United States savings bonds purchased in response to the pleading of the Federal Government dur- ing World War II. Under permission granted to me by the House, I am including for publication in the ConaressionaL Recorp a letter I received only today from a resident of our congressional district who asks the pointed question ag to who or what A545 agency of Government can or will do something to support the buying power of United States Government bonds. The author of the letter, Mr. W. O. Peirce, 843 Hast Penn Street, Hoopeston, Ill,, has this to say: Hoopmaron, Inz., January 31, 1952. Hon. Epwarp H. Jeniwon, Congresaman, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Drag Mr. Jenison: I understand that our Government has departments representing agriculture, labor, etc, which departments support wages and living costs. Piease let me know the name of the Department of Government to which I can appeal for some support to the buying power of United States Government bonds, Since I have been retired I do not have wages, and do not tave a farm, Unfortu- nately my principal saving is in Government bonds and I must depend very much on these and on a retirement pension for a living. This pension is small. I bought these bonds during the past 10 years, including all of the E bonds I could afford in addition to regular purchase of payroll savings bonds during the World War II. I still have most all of these bonds, which I now regret. On September 18, 1941, the Secretary of the United States Treasury at Washington wrote me a letter urging me to start buying United States bonds pertodically for a sound investment. His letter was addressed to me end included the following: “I should like to urge you to start buying United States bonds periodically, * * * “This is an opportunity to serve your coun- try while making a sound investment for yourself.” Signed H, Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury. He also mailed to me at that time a pam- phiet, O-200699, which I hold, urging me to “Buy a Share in America” and stated that— “Investment in Government bonds {s one of the best known ways of bullding future security for yourself and dependents.” Now that these bonds are soon to start maturing !t is a very great disappointment to me to find that the investment was only 60 percent soi nd, and that the security waa only 60 percent a8 secure as was promised me by the United State Government. The administration, which, I regret to say, is the Government, has manipulated things so that these bonds will buy only one-half as much as they should, therefore, they are worth only one-half as much as they should be. This appears to be a gross misrepresenta- tion on the part of the Government and 1s the next thing to, {f not actually, the crime of obtatning moncy under false pretense. The fact that {t has been a common practice does not make it lawful, The laborer and farmer are not being de- ceived by being supported in receiving lots of dollars while the Government permits its dal- lars and United States bonds to sink toward the worthless point, which is being done every day by permitting prices, wages and living costs to go higher and higher. This is exactly what is desired by Moscow and all Reds and Pinks, and is being done by our present administration. If the Reds have something so good why don’t Washington let us Know what it ts so that we can all be for them. I trust that you will advise me what steps can be and will be taken for justice in this matter. If not, I propose to investigate thoroughly in an effort to recover some of the lost “secu- rity” and “sound” investment which was urged upon me by our United States Govern- ment. This injustice to thoce who were persuaded to “invest” their previous 10J-cent dollars
A546 for United States bonds, pensions, and life insurance can be made right with these dupes by bringing down prices and wagea, both of which go together. This would re- duce all costs and expenses fn every line and would assist the Government in financing its present war program and all of its other ex- penses under this new enormous budget. This program would also reduce your salary— and the President’s, which might be a good thing. i thould greatly appreciate hearing from you soon, if anything, and what can be done in our behalf, or if it will be necessary for us to organize and start something ourselves. Yours very truly, W, O. PEIRCE, Mr. Speaker, the author of this letter speaks in the language of the great body of American citizenship, and I find my- self in agreement with his contention that we must act with courage not only to defend our interests as we are doing from a military standpoint, but we must act with equal courage to fight the com- mon enemy—inflation. We must tighten our belts or the noose of inflation will tighten around the neck. The Marble Plaques Adorning the Walls of the Chamber EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ OF NEW MEXICO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the second and subsequent short sketches being published by the Washington Post with respect to the men honored by the plaques which adorn the walls of the Chamber: Mosrs: THe Great JEWISH LAWGIVER, PROPHET, AND MEDIATOR (CiRCA, 1671-1451 B.C.) Moses is the great Jewish lawgiver, prophet, mediator, and leader of the Israelites from Egypt to the eastern borders of the Promised Land. Moses stands out as one of the great- est figures in history. One congressional historian wrote: “Among all lawgivers, founders of states and teachers of mankind, none has excelled Moses, who transformed a horde of slaves and wanderers into a nation, disciplined a race, and breathed into it its character.” Not only the Ten Commandments, but the whole Mosaic law are attributed to Moses. Some critics hold that his authorship of the Mosaic law is highly questionable. The Moses plaque was done by Jean deMarco, of New York City. ee Lycurcus: FouNDER of THE SPARTAN CoNSTI- TUTION Lycurgus is the reputed founder of the Spartan Constitution, He flourished, ac- cording to tradition, in the seventh century B.C. He may be a mythical character. Lycurgus is said to have found Sparta the prey of disunion, weakness, and lawlessness, and left her united, and subject to the most atable government the Greek world had ever geen. The law giver is credited with uniting the several component parts of the state, the rigid military organigation and training which made the Spartan youth the best soldier in Greece. He also ts the reputed father of the elaborate and strict system of education in the Spartan world. Lycurgus’ subordination of the individual to the all-powerful state is without parallel in history. This plaque was sculptured by ©, Paul Jennewein of New York City. Tre ATHENIAN LAwoIver (639-659 B,C) Solon, who lived from 639 to 559 B. C., was the first Greek clearly known to history. He was an accomplished poet, but is known especialiy for his economic and constitu- tional reforms. The law giver, with almost unlimited dic~- tatorial powors, curtailed feudal rule by an- nulling mortgages, putting Mmits on the amount of land an individual could hold and outlawed contracts in which a person’s lib- erty was pledged. Other state controls, instigated by Solon, included those over exports, education, use of wells, bee farming, and cutting down olive trees. Solon then reformed the Athenian Consti- tution, thus laying the foundation for the Athenian democracy. The Solon plaque was done by Brenda Putman of New York City. Garus: THE CEeLEsRATED RoMAN JuRISsT Gaius was a celebrated Roman jurist of the second century A. D. History books are skimpy on his personal history. The jurist is remembered for his “Insti- tutes,” which contributed matertally to our knowledge of early Roman law. Gaius was one of five jurists whose opinions were fol- lowed by judges on deciding cases. Galus was a conservative in his thinking, advocating strict adherence to ancient law and resistance to innovation. His interest in the antiquities of Roman law makes his work important to students of early institutions. His plaque was done by Joseph Kiselewsk1 of New York City. SoLoNn: Justice Alfred Budge, “Grand Old Man” oi the Idaho Supreme Court EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN T. WOOD OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. WOOD of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, Idaho has just lost one of her great lead- ers, Justice Alfred Budge, who adorned the Supreme Court of Idaho for 34 years with courage, integrity, and honor, but in passing he has left Idaho a rich heri- tage in an equally distinguished family consisting of his widow Ella Hoge Budge, who was selected as Idaho’s Mother of the Year in 1950, and eight children, one of whom is my colleague from the Second District of Idaho, the Hon. Hamer H. Bupor. The following article from the Coeur d'Alene Press, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, of January 25, 1951, describes briefly the distinguished career of Judge Alfred Budge: Former Cuzer Justice Bupok Is Stricken Borszr, Ipano0.—Former Justice Alfred Budge, “the grand old man” of Idaho's Su- preme Court, died today. He would have been 83 in February. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Budge served @ record-breaking 84 years on the supreme court bench before rettring December 30, 1948. He was the first jurist to retire under the 1047 Judge's retirement act. He was the father of Representative Hamer Bunpaz, Idaho Representative from the Second Congressional District. Justice Budge entered a Boise hospital last Saturday. His son, Hamer, is expected to arrive in Boise today from Washington. ‘WROTE NEARLY 1,800 OPINIONS Justice Budge, who wrote nearly 1,800 opinions during his 84 years on the supreme court, served in public life for 54 years. He served 12 years as a district court Judge be- fore being appointed to the supreme court November 28, 1914, by Gov. John Haynes. He was reelected continuously until his re- tirement. During his 46 years on the bench, he missed only one term of court. A back in- jury prevented his attending the final su- preme court term in 1948. Many of the famous decisions in Idaho legal history were handed down by Justice Budge and many a University of Idaho luw student has come away from one of Justice Budge’s many lectures there with a clearer understanding of ethics of law and appellate procedures. His father, who lived to be 96, was one of the University of Idaho's first regents. Justice Budge was & close personal friend and business partner of former Gov, Frank Steuenberg and was with Steuenberg at Richman, Utah, on the night before an assessin's bomb killed him December 30, 1905. Mrs. Ella Hoge Budge, whom he married in 1892 at Paris, Idaho, was selected as Idaho's mother of the year in 1950. She sur- vives along with eight children: Dr. Alfred Budge, Jr., Boise; Dr. Bruce Budge, Boise; Representative Hamer Budge (Republican, of Idaho), Boise; Drew W. Budge now liv- ing in Mexico; Walter L. Budge, Salt Lake City; Mrs. Wayne C. (Ins) Courson, Ontario, Oreg.; Mrs. William F. (Ora) Cleary, San Francisco; and Mrs, John R, (Belva) Baker, Walnut Creek, Calif. ON MISSION ABROAD Justice Budge was born in Providence, Utah, February 24, 1868, but the family moved to Paris, Idaho, when ho was very young. When he was 18, the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) Church called him into missionary service. He went to Geneva, Switzerland, where he learned to speak Ger- man fluently. After learning the language he walked across Switzerland, preaching as he went, and continued walking into Ger- many. He spent $ years in Germany before being arrested in Nuremberg on a charge of preaching a faith hostile to the government. He appealed his case to the supreme court at Munich. Hearing that the conviction would be upheld he quietly left the coun- try and reentered Switzerland. It was this experience which turned him toward law practice. He was graduated from the University of Michigan law school and ‘was admitted to the Idaho bar in 1892. Two years later he was elected district attorney for the fifth judicial district in 1804. He hae elected Bear Lake County attorney in 8, In 1902 he became district Judge at Poca- tello and served continuously until his ap- pointment to the supreme court in 1914, SETS SERVICE RECORD Three years ago Justice Budge, in an in- terview, said he didn't know of a@ jurist in the country who had served as long as he did. He served six terms as Idaho supreme court justice, an honor which ts rotated yearly among the justices. Justice Budge was a member of Oriental Lodge No. 60, A. F. & A. M.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD More Evidence That Chinese Communists Are Antireligious C emaaneanenead EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES J. KERSTEN OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if there is any lingering doubt in anyone’s mind of the intentions of the Chinese Communists to destroy all ex- pressions of Christianity, the recent re- port of Father George M. Carroll, Mary- Knoll missioner and chaplain with the South Korean Army, showed that not a single one of the priests who were labor- ing in Korea and were captured by North Korean and Chinese Communist forces, has been heard from. Some of the priests have been hanged and two native sisters have been beaten to death. I wish that everyone here in the House will take note of the comment of Father Carroll as to the nature of these Com- munists. Said Father Carroll “these Communists are not men, but devils”. I include herewith an article which ap- peared in the January 28, 1951 issue of Our Sunday Visitor: A Letrer From Korta—Reps WANT To STAMP Ovr ALL RELIGION PYONGYANG, Konra.—‘Korea has lost be-~- tween 60 and 68 priests in this war, includ- ing missioners,” reports Father George M. Carroll, Maryknoll missioner serving as chap- Jain with the South Korean Army. Father Carroll was stationed here before World War II halted Maryknoll work in North Korea. When he returned recently, after an absence of nearly 10 years, he could find no trace of the native Korean priests who had replaced the American missioners in 1941. “Bishop Francis Hong and every single one of his priests have been taken, and no word has been heard of them,” said Father Carroll. “It is greatly to be feared that they are all dead, although no bodies have been found. Since thetr hair was cut and they had on or- dinary Korean clothes, it would be dificult to identify them.” Tne bodies of a French priest, Father Joseph Cadars, and an Irish Columbian mis- sioner, Father Anthony Collier, have been found and identified, Father Carroll said, In the Huanghaido area a Korean priest, Pather Andrew Chun, had been hanged, and two native sisters had been beaten to death, A third sister who was beaten ts not expected to live. Father Carroll learned definitely that Bishop Patrick J. Byrne, M. M., apostolic delegate to Korea, had reached Pyongyang in a weakened condition, but then was moved to an unknown destination by his Commu- nist captors. With him were his secretary, Father William R. Booth, Maryknoll mis- sioner from Rockville Centre, N. ¥., and & French missioner. Also missing are 17 American, Irish, Australian, and French mis- sioners; 9 French, Belgian, and Korean sis- ters; Bishop Hong and his 15 Korean priests, plus an indefinite number of priests from the Huanghaido area. “These Communists ere not men, but devils,” commented Father Carroll. “They have done things that are fiendish. At Andong, in North Kyungsang Province, they took the door off the tabernacle, painted a bull’s-eye on the back wall, and used it as @ shooting range. They took all the vest- ments, holy pictures, sacred vessels, cruci- fixes, and burnt them. At Taejon, where 60 many were murdered in the prison, and at the Pranciscan Monastery, many victims had their hands tied with strips of cloth from the vestments stolen from churches. “In Kangkei they took the blessed sacra- ment out of the tabernacle and held it up, mocking it. They told the people to look and see—there was no man there, that it was only the priest deceiving them. They took the host and stamped on it and desecrated it. These Communists were definitely haters of the church and churchmen. The Protes- tants suffered just as much, if not more, than we Catholics did. All religions were equaliy hateful to them.” ——— Credit, Production, and Distribution EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRED L. CRAWFORD OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, the mass-production line, so familiar to our people in industry and those in agricul- ture who use the products which flow from that line, is the wonder of the world, insofar as supplying the material needs of mankind is concerned: Even General Eisenhower has recognized this fact. This mass production and distribution is possible only because we have a market here in the United States. This market in turn is possible only because we have a system of economics and private enter- prise which recognizes the fact that the man and woman who produces, is en- titled to share in that production, and thus a distribution of the dollar value of goods to the payrollees who are employed by those who first lived simply, exercised thrift, accumulated savings, and then in- vested those savings in the buildings, ma- chinery, and machine tools and in the form of productive capital, thus making it possible to employ the people who con- stitute the payrollees. Some contend that there are those in high Government circles who seek to ob- tain absolute control of the installment credit which makes it possible for indi- viduals to obtain the use of these goods prior to the accumulation of the neces- sary savings to pay for the goods. Should the control of such credit be ob- tained and then sufficiently withheld from the consumers, both the produc- tion and distribution of consumers’ du- rable and nondurable goods would dras- tically decline and we might face a ter- rific economic recession or depression. In this connection, when I addressed the House, January 25, 1051, I pointed out that— In 1989 all consumer credit totaled 67,- 000,000,000 as compared to $20,000,000,000 in December 1950. This is an increase of 185 percent. Credit extension in 1030 when com- to total retail sales of €42,000,000,000 in 1939 was $1 of credit for 66 of sales. In 1948 total retail sales were $123,800,000,000 with a credit extension of $14,300,000,000 or €@1 of credit extension for each $8.40 of re- tall sales. In fourth quarter of 1950 total retail sales were running at a level of $136,- 000,000,000 and consumer credit extension averaged #19,600,000,000 or $1 of credit for each $7 of sales, A547 I will concede there have been abuses of installment credit, but to say that it is a major cause of inflation is nonsense and a smoke screen behind the real at- tempts to do away with It. A group of responsible retallers years ago recognized some of the abuses in the installment-credit field and banded to- gether and formed the Retail Credit In- stitute of America. This is a group of public-spirited retailers who have spent their own money and time in educating the public and weeding out the abuses in retailings' own back yard. The insti- tute has earned the respect of the coun- try and deserves the recognition and pro- tection of the Congress. Again referring to my remarks on January 25, 1951 where I dealt with the question of increased payrollees, in- creased productive hours, increased pro- duction and increased national doliar income, I pointed out that, let us say in 1952 we could attain an annual national dollar income of about $360,000,000,000 at the present price level. Executive director of the Retail Credit Institute of America is William J. Chey- ney, a former professor of economics. Mr. Cheyney made an address before the National Appliance and Radio Dealers Association in Chicago on January 15. Mr. Cheyney pointed out that a few administration spokesmen have brought on the inflation which we now face hy scarce statements of shortages of certain goods, This could be offset by statements pre- dicting an abundance of materials for civilian use and by following this up with all-out civilian production, just as we are doing with items needed for war. Mr. Cheyney feels that there is no conflict between a simultaneous maximum pro- duction both for war and civilian use. He also feels that the American’s extra cash, if any, would go into war bonds if the Government made this proposition sufficiently attractive. I am including the following partial text of Mr. Chey- ney's speech in the belief that the thou- sands of molders of public opinion who read the CONGRESSIONAL REcorRp will want to study his remarks: I am led to believe by scrappy data that among the many lines of consumers’ dura- bles, those which you handle are enjoying about the best continuing consumer demand. This is understandable. The administration at Washington day by day is practically tell- ing the American people to buy electrical appliances, radio, and TV now or never. The President personally notified each housewife the other day that there will be 50,000 atr- planes and 88,000 tanks built each year from now on, requiring the ingredients now put into your product lines, and indicated that soon the result would be drastic shortages in the stores. I can imagine no more powerful sales talk than this for stampeding markets could be devised by the most lurid advertising genius in America. I must admit, too, that I think the result is both disastrous and pitiful— tragically so and unnecessarily so. Are the American people such unthinking mobs that they cannot be called upon to co- operate? Is it necessary to treat them with the peychology which says, “It is our inten- tion to cut off your sources of supply. Run, therefore, to the nearest store and buy every- thing you can lay your hands on which con- tains steel, aluminum, and copper, because within a few weeks we shal) eliminate the supply, issue ration cards, apply stringent
‘A548 controls, because we know you haven't the brains to be treated any other way.” It ‘Seems to me the President could have told us something like this: ‘We are going to need in our mutual self-defense 50,000 airplanes and $8,000 tanks a year. This will take millions of tons of steel, hundreds of thousands tons of aluminum, copper, etc. As your elected representatives, we the Gov- ernment, ask: Are you willing to contribute, each one, as many pounds of these metals as you can to the common pool in our com- mon cefense? Will you look over your me- chanical equipment in your homes, make sure it is in good order? Will you refrain from buying any household mechanical equipment containing these certain ingredi- ents just as long as you possibly can—as long as your present equipment will serve you well—to give us the tanks and planes we need?” I believe the American people would coop- erate if they were asked to contribute their share in this way, Never have we been asked to help except in vague, politically tinged terms. Always we are told we are to be regulated. Why in the world the President of the United States should ask every buyer to rush to the markets and clean out the retafl and wholesale stocks of electrical ap- pliances, radio and televisions, despite the fact that millions of the buyers already have usable equipment, is more than I can see. This faulty approach is the result of mediocrity in the advice the President re- ceives, from people who do not understand markets and marketing, and even less un- derstand the fecling and potential coopera- tion that lies in the average American family. On the subject of prices, it {s obvious that the present prcpaganda program of the ad- ministration is doing more to pressure prices upward, by stampeding customers into the markets, than any other single price pressure factor. Prices are nothing more than the interplay between the supplies we have and public demand for them. On one side of the picture today the ad- ministration has made a sound move. It has set up an organization under the lead- ership of Charles E. Wilson, until recently president of the General Electric Co., to bring efficiency and speed into the procure- ment of defense matériel by the Armed Forces. No one better than Mr. Wilson can ascertain the sources of all necessary ingredi- ents for these defense products and every businessman and citizen stands ready to help him and his associates, The fact remains, however, that this coun- try is not at war and that in the hit-and- miss type of international relations that have developed, we are face to face with a situa- tion which cannot in any likelihood be al- tered for 10 more long years. Even if we have a war with Russia, it will be a 10-year war, and not a war of quick invasion. Whichever side is the victor, such a war would bleed both sides white for many, many years to come. Every economist, including those in the administration, admits that when one con- siders 10-year periods, the only fundamental answer to a question of inflation, price, and supply lies in a tremendous output increase. Price controls as we have known from the past do not strike at the source of inflation and the price problem—merely dam up a flood which sooner or later must break through. The only long-term answer ta in- creased production, particularly in the areas where because of mobilization needs, short- ages of material, manpower, and produc- tion may occur. This is a problem lying in part directly at our doorstep. It cannot be solved by price control, rationing, wage control, taxation, or savings programs. It is my judgment that the President should quickly appoint a commission con- sisting of a number of the Netion’s most brilliant industrialists and marketing ex- perts, with the sole responsibility to find ways and means of increasing our supplies of these most necessary and potentially scarce ingredients, I have on my desk pamphlets issued by investment analysts pointing out that the stocks of certain industrial concerns are “good buys” at the moment, because these plants have found the way to double or triple their present production. This means they have found sources of materials and new manufacturing efficiencies to offset man- power loss problems, and expect to be able to give to this country tremendously in- creased output. To the extent that this sort of thing could spread to hundreds of plants, we see a direct cure to both the price and the scarcity dangers we face. A commission of properly chosen men, respected by all Americans in and out of busi- ness and industry, could multiply by hun- dreds, perhaps by thousands, the number of such concerns, some of them small, some larger, which could increase their own, and in the aggregate, the Nation’s industrial and extractive output. This 1s a big nation with terrific raw-material potentials. In it are men and firms whose output has not been taxed as yet. In it are raw materials which have not been mined or extracted to anything like their fullest potentials. Furthermore, the world too is large and there are sources of raw material in nations not likely to be at war, materials which could be available if we set about scientifically and systematically to find them, eliminate the bottlenecks which restrain their production, and export to the United States. Most of us in and out of Government have a sleepy idea that, left to its own devices, each industrial enterprise will search the world and country over individually, and thus obtain every last ounce of iron, aluminum, copper, and all the other ingredients it needs 80 badly. It is my opinion, however, that in a time of stress like this, this voluntary search can- not possibly be more than 50 or 60 percent effective. Even during the last war at the height of the conflict there were untold re- sources avallable, but there was never the properly constituted, highly respected au- thority specifically commissioned to do the one specific job of finding these missing in- gredients. To set up powerful agencies for military procurement is an obvious need. It has been gone. I hope and believe it has been done well. But for the good of our entire economy, Jet us call upon our Government to do what it has never done successfully before, i. e., the job of assisting industry—not through bureaucratic, low-level controle—but by the means I have sketched broadly above, carried out to the full extent of the hundreds of ramifications an exploration of the idea makes obvious. We have used neither efficiency nor fore- sight as to the Government's responaibility to help tndustry increase its production, Thus far we have played with special tax exemptions, and capital Joans, but the prob- Jem remains: “How shall we find new sources of missing ingredients, raw materials, ma- chinery, and manpower, in a gigantic way?” The three major antidotes for inflation are: Increased production, savings programs, and taxation. I have discussed the first. Our administration needs no help when tt comes to imagination about taxing, so I shall skip this one. In inducing the American people to save by buying E-bonds in 1980-51, we are falling utterly and miserably. We have a wonderful product to sell, but it looks to the American people like a Cadillac car without its chrome, its bumpers, headlights, and windshield. It lacks the vital clinching appeal. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The way E-bonds are offered to the public smacks, too, of misrepresentation, The pub- lic is catching on. Since it is tremendously important that we drain off purchasing power, not just that of the people who buy on credit—but of all of us—and since the B-bonds obviously are the meang to do it, I suggest we untangle our bungled packaging and selling of this product. Here is the problem: 1. If kept for 10 years the bonds pay 2.9 percent. The income from them is taxed. So far for the average workingman the 2.9 percent 1s only 2 percent. He can do better in a building and loan association. 2. The Government has calculated all along that it never actually will pay this 2.9 per- cent in the aggregate. And at the begin- ning the little people bit. They didn't real- ize that the softly spoken 10 short years are in reality a lifetime when lived out. Now these people have learned that they will have to redeem their bonds after the second, third, or sixth year for family emer- gencies, hospital bills, to buy homes, and for many other reasons, They know now that Uncle Sam without saying so has inten- tionally prepared to pay them not the prom- ised 2.9 percent, but closer to 2 percent, or 2.4 percent—even this taxable All this could be changed. The bonds could be made popular again. The buying power of the working people could be drained off in savings made to look, and be, real and worth while, and at little cost to the Goy- ernment. I urge that an H-bond saving plan be of- fered to the little people of the country. 1. On which the Interest rate is constant through the years, that the Government be intellectually honest—not rely on the fine print to prove legal honesty. A man’s dollar is just as vital to the Gov- ernment in 1951 as it is in 1958. For every American who must in emergency redeem his bonds, there will be another to pick them up-—~if the rate is sound and unvyarying. There should be no penalty for lending hard- earned money to the Nation. A 6-month holding period might be reasonable, but with interest. 2. The little people must be made to see that they are offered a good bargain—that it 18 worth while to forego present purchases and to save. I suggest a 4-percent interest rat~, and to prevent those with larger funds from dipping into the Treasury for this bargain package, I suggest that the maximum purchasable quantity of these little bonds be Hmited to #500 per month. A $5,000 Hmitation per month on these securitics is ridiculous. Con- fined to 8500 per month and kept nonnego- tlable as now, the net new cost of the 4- percent rate to the United States would be negligible. I do not suggest that this income be made tax exempt. Therefore, close to one- fourth would come back to the Treasury. We may have forgotten that the pressure of the cash buyer is more volatile and more inflationary than that of the credit buyer today. A soundly conceived savings bond program will take the pressure off all types of consumer demand, not just off the credit market, as is thg purpose of the ill-conceived credit control method of today. All credit controls can do is to channel demand from one area into another. They cannot elimi- nate it, The effect is about zero upon the major inflationary picture. A soundly con- ceived, well-sold E-bond program is an en- tirely different matter. We can expect Americans to Nve under strict regimentation for Just so long. If our present situation is to last 10 long years, I am quite certain the pure and simple control approach, that was only partially effective in its last experiment will only succeed if ac- complished by outright dictatorship; and the Joss of all we have any reason to Aght for.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Fear of Deportation Drives Aliens Toward Communism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THADDEUS M. MACHROWICZ OY MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I am insertin: the follow- ing newspaper article by Ted Mrozowski, of the Citizen, of Hamtramck and North Detroit, Mich., entitled “Fear of De- portation Drives Aliens Toward Com- munism,” which appeared on January 25, 1951: Fear oy DEPORTATION Daitves ALIENS TOWARD ComMMUNISON—150 GIVEN PAMPHLETS AT MexTova (By Ted Mrozowak!) Fear of deportation is making many aliens and naturalized citizens easy prey for pro- Communist influences. This is the conclusion I reached after attending a meeting arranged to protest the detention by the United States Department of Justice of John Zydok, 54-year-old waiter, who is listed as financial secretary of the Russian section of the Communist Party here. He was arrested last October under provisions of the Internal Security Act. Held Friday at Yemana Hall, 3014 Yemans, the meeting was sponsored by the Polish- American Defense Committee, John Zydok Defense Committee, the Michigan Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born, and the Civil Righte Congress. I entered the unheated and dreary hall after buying a copy of the Dally Worker, being sold in the lobby by an elderly and heavily-mustached codger. Even before I was seated, a handful of literature was given me by a person who later was introduced to the audience as one who is facing de- portation. The iterature—expensively printed book- lete—dealt primarily with harangues on the injustice of the trial of the 12 Communist leaders in New York. At no time during the meeting, which lasted nearly 3 hours, did the audience ex- ceed 160 persons. Most of those present ap- peared to be foreign-born, although there were several Negroes in the audience, It should be said that not once was there any verbal expreasion of pro-communism during the meeting, but the same cannot be said of the issued literature. One of the pamphlets, issued by the National Non- Partisan Committee To Defend the Rights of the 12 Communist Leaders, lists as its officers Paul Robeson, Howard Fast, and Har- old Christoffel. I should say that most of the audience seemed to be interested in only one thing: The answer to all this talk they have been hearing about the deportation of aliens. They are apprehensive and fearful of what is in store for them. They are looking for comfort and consolation. They want to know the answers. Did they get them? De- cide for yourself from what transpired. On the stage behind the speaker’s stand was a huge sign with the large printed let- ters: Free John Zydok. Around the sides of the room were posters, some of which read: 50 Detroiters Face Deportation Proceedings— Fight Deportation Hysteria—MoGrath, Jail Lynchers—Protect Use of Btool Pigeors—- Reporting Is a Police State Procedure. The entire program was in the English lan- guuge and I got the impression that much of what was being said was beyond the com- prehension of most of the audience. The chairman introduced several speakers, but the main personality was Abner Green, ex- ecutive secretary for the American Commit- tee for Protection of Foreign Born. He painted a bleak picture of what the foreign born can expect if the Justice Depart- ment is not stopped (as he put it) “in ite drive on noncitizens.” He labeled the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as the “enemy of the people,” and advised the audience not to answer its questions if called downtown. “If they ask you for the time of day, don’t tell them. Don't even tell them if the sun is shining ff they ask,” he said. T felt that this was all wrong. This would only instill fear and distrust of the authort- ties and was a deliberate summons to defy a legal agency. Green engendered additional fear when he said that 3,400 more aliens face deportation. Sneeringly, Green told how Federal Judge Thomas Thornton ordered Zydok kept in that dirty, filthy Wayne County fail. Judge Thornton, when ordering Zydok held, said, “Zydok’s evasiveness convinces me that he 18 willfully participating in the Communist movement " The half-understanding audience was told that they might be roused in the early hours of the morning and taken into custody for interrogation; they were told that they would have to prove their innocence rather than the accuser proving them guilty; they would be held without bail, and denied the right to ask for an attorney, What did this meeting accomplish besides painting a dreadful picture for the audience? The chairman read a resolution which he offered to the audience for action. It was adopted without a dissenting voice. The res- olution called for the immediate cessation of all deportation proceedings; repeal of the McCarran Act; and a protest against the jailing of Zydok. The chairman called for the formation of a delegation to go personally to the Federal building and urge the dropping of the case against Zydok. He also asked all who could to harass the Immigration Service with tele- phone calls to secure better jail accommoda- tions for Zydok. Something then happened which I hardly expected. The audience was asked to help pay for the cost of aid to Zydok and others. The chairman asked for voluntary contri- butions of 620, $10, $5, and 61 bills. He got some of each. In the end, a basket for small change was circulated around the room. I passed it up. I'm sure that if I were a nonecitizen, I would walk away from the meeting with the thought that America is no longer free and that the only thing for me to do is to resist its leaders. It is here that the real task lies. There are thousands of good, loyal, conscientious noncitizens who are being given a distorted version of America. They can eastiy become innocent victims of subversive groups, if not immediately reassured by their Government that they have nothing to fear. Public Favors Thorough Rechecking of All Classes of Draft Selectees EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD H. BAKER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I include in the Ap- A549 pendix of the Recory the following ecii- torial which appeared in the Knoxville Journal of January 28, 1951: Puatic Favors THOROUGH RECHECKING OF ALL CiassEs or Drart Sstecrees Congress is on @ spot on this question of lowering the draft to include 16-year-olds that its Members won't succeed in getting off of unscathed politically, no matter how they vote. There ie a natural reluctance on every- body’s part to bring young men of 18 into the service except in the face of real neces- sity. Yet the alternative held out by the manpower experts upon whose facta Congress has to rely is not acceptable either. That alternative is to call back into service sub- stantial numbers of the 2,630,000 men now exempt from the draft as veterans. Among veterans of all wars there is a feeling, for which there is some justification, that, except in a national emergency, no citinen should be forced to participate in more than one war until all those who have become eligible since his war was concluded have taken their turn. But while Congress and the country is coming to a majority conclusion on the 16- year-old issue, there is one thing that most citizens, and especially veterans, are agreed ‘upon. Chairman CarL Vinson, of the House Armed Services Committee, last week de- nounced what he called the horrible prac- tice of the Defunse Department, through selective service, of too readily deferring men for failure to pass too rigid intelligence tests. Congress also directed the Defense Depart- ment to crack down on selecteos classified as IV-F's. The conviction is widespread that the military authorities, through selective serv-~ ice, have been altogether too choosy about their material in the past year. The heavy porcentage of those rejected, on intelligence tests and those for physical fitness, support this view. Whatever Congress may decide about the 18-year-old issue, there is defi- nite sentiment in favor of abandoning the theory that only the most intelligent and only the perfect phyeical specimens shall be included in the draft. Unless the armed services have changed in a revolutionary manner since most of us were in them, there ts still productive work for the uneducated, the stupid, and even those who are only fair physical specimens. Available Manpower and the Draft EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM M. COLMER OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 21951 Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith a resolution adopted by the Misssisippi Department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars a few days ago at Jack- son, Miss. The resolution speaks for itself, but it is inserted herewith in the Recorn for the information and guidance of the members of the Armed Services Com- mittees of the House and Senate, as well as for the Members generally. In the present controversy as to where the needed men should come from, it is well that those charged with this im- portant duty should give consideration and study to the resolution.
A550 The resolution follows: ‘Whereas the President of the United States has declared a state of emergency, prices and wages have been frozen, and young men are being drafted for defense of our way of life; and Whereas there is much controversy as to who shall or shall not be drafted, adding to the confusion which existe in the minds of our people: Therefore be it Resolved by the council of administration, Department of Mississippt, Veterans of For- eign Wars, meeting tn regular session at Jackson, Miss., January 28, 1951, That our Jeaders should be reminded of the vast pools of manpower now untouched, as follows: 1. Those who were exempted from mili- tary service during World War II as being essential to industry, and who are still in an age bracket which would not preclude their being used for combat duty, and whose places in civilian life could be taken by qualified combat veterans of World War II who have been trained since the termina- tion of that conflict; 2, Those who hurried to marry after the passage of the Selective Service Act of 1948 (even though they have become fathers since that time). These men have ag much to fight for as any group in the United States. 8. Those who were rejected for minor de- fects as late as a year and a half ago, and who have not been screened again to deter- mine thetr fitness fo: service; 4. Those who were trained during World War II in the V-12 and ASTP programs without prior combat service, and who have not repaid the Nation for their education by active service; and 5. Those who had short periods of service in the United States as members of the armed services Just prior to the conclusion of World War II: Be it further Resolved, That we doubt whether it would be beneficial to the interests of our Nation to exempt so-called superior students in col- leges. Under the training programs for World War II veterans, many men have ac- quired college educations and from what we learn in the press, these men have made the best marks in college work, when taken as a group. Therefore it seems that the country has acquired a reservoir of brains, and further exemptions of students might injure morale; be it further Resolved, That our Congressmen and Sen- ators and all persons in responsible posi- tions be urged to study the posatbilities of the above-named groups as sources of mili- tary manpower, so that the principle of equality of sacrifice shall prevail; be it fur- er Resolved, That copies of this resolution be handed the press and the radio. Do We Have Adequate Domestic Security? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Rrcorp a broadcast of Sunday, Janu- ary 28, on the American Forum of the Air. Senator Munnr and I participated in this broadcast which reviewed the question, ‘Do we have adequate domestic aecurity?” This {s a question which merits the study of every loyal citizen of the United States, and I believe the American Forum of the Air, under the leadership of Theo- dore Granik, has rendered a significant service to the country in developing this question and seeking an impartial answer Theodore Granik, I may add, has fo- cused public attention on the many vexa- tious problems of our time and through his broadcasts has helped in their clari- fication and in many cases in their ulti- mate solution. The broadcast on Sunday takes me back 22 years when I partic- ipated in the first broadcast of the Amer- ican Forum of the Air. Since that time I have followed with much interest the growing scope of the program and the public enthusiasm it has aroused. It is an exhibition of the American and demo- cratic way of life. The broadcast follows: The National Broadcasting Oo. presents the American Forum of the Air, founded 22 years ago by Theodore Granik and dedi- cated to the full and public discussion of all sides of all issues, coming to you from the continental room of the Wardman Park Hotel, in Washington, D. C. Each week at this time the American Forum of the Air presents special guest speakers, so that you in your home may enjoy authoritative discussions of the pro- vocative and vital topics of our time. Now to bring you this week's program, here is your moderator, Theodore Granik. Moderator GRANIK. President Truman has just appointed Admiral Nimitz to report on how best to protect the Nation’s internal security without imperiling our individual freedoms. His announcement has focused attention on a dramatic article entitled “The FRI Wants You,” appearing in the February issue of Reader's Digest, America's leading magazine, which tells its millions of readers how they can cooperate in the tremendous job being done by the ever-watchful FBI. But with American mobilization proceed- ing at top speed there js increasing need for us to be alert against the increasing danger of sabotage, and the question arises ever more imminently: “Do we have adequate do- mestic security?” We pose this question to two congres- sional authorities on the subject, Senator Kart E. Munot, Republican of South Da- kota, coauthor of the Mundt-Ferguson bill, which is part of the internal-security bill passed by the Congress, and Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, Democrat of New York, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Now, Senator Munpt, do we have adequate domestic security? Senator Munot. Well, Mr. Granik, I don’t believe we have to worry much about the answer to that question, It seems to me it 1s Just as obvious as the red ink in & prover- bial New Deal budget. The answer is: “Em- phatically no.” We do not have adequate security in this country now. I think we need go back only as far as the news of the last 2 weeks to demonstrate the veracity of that point. Within the past 2 weeks, for example, the Senate Judiciary Committee has constructed a subcommittee, to be called the Senate Committee on Un- American Activities, so that the Senate for the first time will have a committee to be @ companion to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which has such 4& distinguished record over in the other body, The other development in the last 2 weeks ig even more recent, when President Tru- man appointed the so-called Nimitz Come mission, also to check up on the security sit- uation in this country. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It seems obvious, therefore, that either we have to have new and more legislation on security, or we have to have better ana more vigorous enforcement of the legisla~ tion we now have—~or we must have both— in order to get adequate security, domestic security, in America. And certainly with a war raging in Korea we are not justified tn spending billions of dollars to fight communism abroad until we take every conceeivable measure to protect our domestic security at home. Moderator Granrk. Congressman CELLER? Representative Cater. Of course we must adequately protect our domestic security. Whether we have or whether we have not adequate domestic security is difficult to say. One might ask, “How high is up?” One might ask, “How much armament should we have for externa) defense?" Those ques- tions are difficult to answer. We cannot adequately tell until some emergency arises. This ls certain: We have 54,000 dues-pay~ ing Communists in our midst, and proba- bly an equal number of crypto-Communists, and many more Communist sympathizers. There is evident danger from those sources. We must prepare and arm our hearts, minds, and muscle against the danger. But we must learn to face that danger without hysteria. We must not develop herd excitement. We must be careful in our tracking down Trojan horses and fifth-col- umnists that we do not lose our birthright of freedom. The President very wisely stated, “We must guard our freedom well, guard it from armed assault, guard it from subversive infiltration, guard it from internal suppression of rights, guard it from the deadly imposition of conformity.” I don’t agree with my distinguished col- league, the Senator from South Dakota, that it ig well to leave investigations as to whether we have adequate or inadequate security to a congressional committee. If I may just cite the reasons: We have had investigations, and they are not without political import. The political import is of such a nature that it does more harm than good. And therefore I applaud to a great degree the appointment of the Nimitz Com- mission by our President. I believe it is an act of statesmanship, and I am sure that Admiral Nimitz and his committee will view this whole subject objectively and without any political bias. Moderator Granitx. Senator MuNDT? Senator Munnt. I see no conflict between us on that score. I am in favor of bringing into focus all of the legitimate methods that we can to eliminate the dangers to our domestic security. First, I would say that the FBI should head the list. Then we have the Central Intelligence Agency. We have the House Committee on Un-American Activities. We now have the new Senate Committee on Un-~ American Activities, We have the Presi- dent’s Commission, and it is comprised of some very fine Americans. It seems to me, incidentally, that the test about the Presi- dent’s Commission is a simple one. It should be clear that it is a good Commission and is established for legitimate reasons; provided, the President makes available to the Senate and the House Committees on Un-American Activities the same facts, the same files, the same evidence, and the same records, that he proposes to make available to his own Commission, Moderator Granix, Congressman CELLER? Representative Cenuer. I don’t think there should be that duplication. I am of the opinion that politically biased senatorial and House of Representatives committees have abused their privileges when they have re- ceived confidential files from Government sources, And I would not want those priv- ileged files made available and public. It would be highly dangerous. There are many
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Government employees in this room who, if you would allow those files to be made pub- Ho—files containing written notes of rumors, unfounded observations, and if you would publicize them—would be gravely and un- fairly injured, just like the harm that was done to Mrs. Pearl Buck, who was refused the right to speak before a high school in this very city because the Superintendent of Schools satd he had to clear her name with the Un-American Activities Committee files. Ana the files of that committee of the House were looked at for information about her. There were many unfounded and ridiculous charges against Mrs, Pear) Buck in those files. She wasn't called to refute them, to appear before the committee, and she was deprived of the privilege of answer. This woman—ae Pulitger prize winner, a Nobel prize winner, & woman of great renown, of great talente— was not privileged to speak before an audi- ence in this city. Senator Munpt. I wonder if we can get the train back on the track for a moment, I never said at any time, Mr. Cetizr, that we should have these files made public. I said that if this Presidential Commission was established in good faith, then the same identical facts, files, and records should be made avatlable to the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities and the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities as are mide available to the President’s hand- picked Commission. I deny emphatically that the President's Board is going to be any more patriotic or any more trustworthy than the Members of the House and the Senate. I quite agree that some records should not be made public, but they should be made equally available to the legislative body as well as to a body established by the Executive for the alleged purpose of checking up on the execu- tive branch of Government, Representative CeLLuR. From my experi- ence of 28 years in the House, I will say to my distinguished colleague that there is nothing secret—and the gentleman was a distinguished Member with me—there is nothing secret in Washington. It is like the story of the old lady who said, “I can keep a secret, but the people I tell it to can’t.” There is where the difficulty stems from. There is nothing secret in the House Office Butlding and the Senate Office Building, or in the Senate or the House itself. The min- ute anything is developed there it is made public, because there are many ways in which reporters can get the information. They get @ piece here and a piece there, and then you have it blared out in the newspapers, and then you have accusations by headlines, which is a very dangerous thing. Senator Munpr. My experience {n Con- gress goes back only 12 years, not 28 years. Tt don’t know what happened in the preceding 16 years when we had Republican adminis- trations, but in the 12 years that I have been down here under a Democratic President, the Executive has continuously withheld infor- mation from the Congress. So certainly there have been no such leaks from Congress in the last 12 years. Representative Center, The fault, of course, Mes on both sides of the aisle. Moderator GRANIK. Let me ask this ques- tion of Senator Munpr: We all have confi- dence in the FBI. Wouldn't it be better to place our emphasis on aiding that well- established organization with new person- nel, and so forth? Senator Munnr. It is not a question in my mind of “either” and “or.” Certainly we should strengthen the FBI. We should give it every last man it needs and every last dollar it can wisely use. But there are cer- tain things that the FBI cannot do. It can- not, for example, conduct congressional heare ings. It cannot, for example, call people in and bring folks in the administration in, if necessary, to find evidence and make it pub- Uc. The FBI is denied, by the very way in which it ts constructed, the making of any facts which ft discovers public. Bo if you are going to discover a man like Alger Hiss or W. K. Remington, who ts now being tried, you are going to have to have in addition to the FBI some other commission, some other body—and I think it is wise to have both a Presidential commission and 4 congressional commission—provided the President isn’t going to say, “I will give my commission all the facts and keep these con- gressional committees operating in the dark.” Obviously that would be # fraud and a de- ception. Representative Cetier. I yield to no man in my admiration for J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, and I belleve we must strengthen the arm of the FBI to track down the Com- munists and those assoctated with the Com- munists in the interests of our internal security. And to that end, only recently I cffered 2 bill, as chairman of the House Ju- diciary Committze, giving the officials of the FBI, with the sanction of the Attorney Gen- era), the right to tap wires. I will b2 se- verely criticized for that, Sinator, us you know; but I believe, in the cases of espionage and eabotage and subversive activities and matters involying our internal security, the FBI has heretofore been greatly hampered by its inability to use the evidence it has obtained by the tapping of wircs. I hope that that will be over, and that the FBI will be able to better track down these malefac- tors with that right. Furthermore, in the last Congress I of- fered and successfully had passed a bill which would avoid a repotition of the mis- take made in the Coplon case, where there could not have been made an arrest without & warrant. In cases of that sort, my bill— which is now a statute—provides that the FBI shall make arrests without warrant. We have always piven that right to United States marshals. Why not the FBI? Moderator Cranim. Senator? Senator Munnvr. I concur completely in both of those bills and congratulate Mr. CELLER on his good work in that connec. tion. It surely is a tragedy to have a ait- uation such as the Coplon case, when there is no question about her guilt, and she 1s still running around loose, still able to en- gage in Communist conspiracy, because of some legal technicality that has crept into the statutes. I congratulate my former col- league on his good work in that connection. Moderator Grantx. Congressman CrELLER? Representative Certer. I want to say also that no one has made the Nation more alert to the danger of communism than my friend here this afternoon, Senator Munpr. Moderator Granix. Congressman, let me ask this: Do you favor the repeal of the In- ternal Security Act? Representative Criuter. I do not favor the repeal of all the provisions of the Internal Security Act. There are some provisions in my mind which in my view, as a lawyer of many years standing, I will say are uncon- stitutional, For example, if the 11 Com- munists are declared, by affrmance of the Supreme Court, to be guilty of a violation of the so-Called Smith Act, which act makes it a orilme to teach—without overt acts ex- cept teaching—the overthrow of the Gov- ernment by violence, which the Communists undoubtedly do teach, then, if, under the McCarran Act, Communists must register as Communists, you will force them to incrimi- nate themselves, which is in violation of the Constitution. Moderator Granm, Will the Senstor an- swer that paint? Senator Mounpt. I want to point out that I agree with one point that Mr. Oxuuer is approaching, and that is that in connection with the present Internal Security Act there are some changes that need to be made. In my opinion they are not changes that need to be made legislatively. They are changes A551 that need to be made by the Attorney Gen- eral’s Office, so that he will administer the act properly. And I would like to suggest that he administer that act in conformity with the very good advice given him by my colleague, Mr. CeLuer, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in his address in New York just last month, when he pointed out that the present difficulties tn the Internal Security Act with regard to bringing people to this country on visas grows out of a distorted, perverted, and strained interpretation made by the Attor- ney General. In that speech my colleague said that the Congress wanted to close our doors to those who are Nazis or Fascists or Communists actively, knowingly, and willfully helping in the penetration of the most appalling crimes ever recorded in human history. In my opinion, and I repeat it once more, the Congress certainly wanted the adminis- trators of the law to look at the record of the individual himself, and not to clacsify him automatically as a component part of any objectionable group. I think it utterly idiotic, under the Attorney General's rec- ommendation, the keeping out of a 3-month old baby from Spain because, the Attorney General says, Congress intended to keep out those kinds of peopie. Obviously that is an effort, a deliberate effort in my opinion, to discredit a good piece of legislation with the American public. I congratulate you, Congressman CErLusr, on your splendid advice to the Attorney Gen- eral in that speech, which I have studied very carefully. Representative Center. I will say that in the New York Times this morning Attorney General McGrath dented there was any such attempt to keep a 3-month-old baby, born in Spain, out of this country. Senator Munpr. The baby was Kept out, maybe by intent or maybe by acctdent, but it was kept out because of an erroneous in- terpretation of the act. Moderator Gran. Time for questions from our audience, gentlemen. Now for our first question. Young lady, you have the first question from the audience? Mrs. SHERWOOD. My name is Claire Sher- wood. I am a housewife, and my question is directed to Congressman Certze. Is any effort being made to combine with Canada on & cooperative system of antisubversive control in view of eaay border crossing? Representative CaLLsr. I understand there ig Maison between the Department of State and appropriate officials of Canada in that direction. I cannot give you the detalls at this juncture. Moderator Grant. Do you want to com- ment on that at all, Senator Munor? Senator Munort. No; because that involves matters of military security which are best not discussed in public. But I can say that there are some offorts being made in that direction. Moderator GRranix, We will take another question. Go ahead, air. Mr. Bart. My name is Ray Bart. I am a writer. My question ts to Senator Munor. How do you propose to counteract the tend- ency of human nature to be fascinated and attracted by anything that ts forbidden? Senator Mounor. I think the best way to counteract that, Mr. Bart, is to make the gen- eral public understand the dangers involved in eating that kind of forbidden fruit. I live out in the great State of South Dakota. Out there we have a pest known as the rattle- anake; and it is forbidden by human nature to play with the rattlesnake because you get hurt if you do. I think if we can make people understand that playing with com- munism is even more dangerous than play- ing with a rattlesnake, that particular pro- clivity of human nature will not worry us any more.
A552 Moderator Granix, Have you gentlemen thought out a program for internal security? Or do you want to comment on the last Question? Representative Omuner, I will answer your question. Yes; I have thought out a pro gram for internal security; and I agree with the Senator that we must make the people of the Nation conscious of the danger, and we must build up barriers from within by education and by example, I understand, for example, that the Mu- nitions Board—and I note in the audience the distinguished Vice Chairman, Mr. William VanAtten, of that Board—has been entrust- ed with the program of spreading the gospel of caution against negligence and prohibi- tion against loose talk throughout the Na- tion. And they are, by educational proc- essex, infusing the Nation with the idea of being careful and of reporting any suspi- cious circumstances to the FBI. They are urging slogans like those successfully used during the last war, like, “Button up your Up, the enemy ig listening.” They, in addition, are watching the focal pointe of production, the power plants, and the arsenals and the warehouses and the bottlenecks of strategic production, the air~- plane plants and the atomic energy plants, to see to it that there will be no infiltration of subversives or fifth columnists or spies and the like. Every mill, mine, and factory is a potential Communist fortress. The Communists want to know al] about those mills and the fac- tories, and every workman on the work bench must be alerted to the peril. If they are properly warned and educated, that will build up to a great and measurable degree of internal security. Moderator GRanix. Senator Munpr? Senator Munor. I think those are all good suggestions. I think it would also be very helpful if in every high school in America, a course could be taught in capsule form— short and to the polnt—on what is right with America so that young Americans grow- ing up could come to understand that there are some things in this country we have got to protect and defend if we are going to stay free. I would also like to see such great organi- “gations as the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Legion, the Daugh- ters of the American Revolution, and many other fine patriotic service organizations con- duct simultaneously throughout America a Know Your America Week, in which you have all kinds of displays and programs and edi- torlala and motion-picture shows and pag- eants pointing out those things about America which are strong and fine and funda- mental and good, because I think that if the average American comes to appreciate those things sufficiently it will help make him alert against communism and less inclined to go for the forbidden fruit that my friend suggested In his question. Moderator GRANIK. May we have another question? Dr. GigLioTt1. My question is for Congress- man Ozizer. I am Dr. Gigliott!, the national chaplain of the Veterans’ Association, and I am from Mesa, Calif. The question is: If the recent results we have had abroad with our intelligence is a sample of what we have at home, how do we know that a fifth column isn’t operating ih our midst to destroy us? Representative Cetiur. There is no doubt, in my humble opinion, that a Afth column its operating. I mentioned before—and the Benator will vouchsafe what I said—that there are many Communists, crypto-Com- munists, néo-Communists, Communist sympathizers, and Communist-front organi- gations, all bent in the direction of having a huge fifth column to weaken our industrial might, weaken our military, and thus give ald and comfort to the Kremlin, As to the military intelligence abroad, I don't care to give any opinion now. At some subsequent time, I might. Moderator Granta. Senator Munpr? Senator Munpr. The doctor from Califor- nia is a great friend of mine, and I would like to assure him that certainly there is a very formidable fifth column operating in our midst now. As &@ matter of fact, this article in Readers Digest which gave the genesis to this program today points out that the FBI considers there are 600,000 dangerously disloyal people in America now, every one of whom 18 @ potential and many of whom are actual spies, Moderator Grannx. Another question. Go pshead, Congressman Cerumr, Representative CrLler. I might say that in all of this we must be careful that there are no character assassinations, that there are no purges, so-called, that we don’t dis- courage scientists because of vexatious and most annoying inquisitions trom doing a good job for the country. We don’t want any witch hunts. We don't want any be- emirching of character. We don’t want to have too much conformity because that is dangerous to the Nation. We don't want men and women labeled Communists be- cause they don't conform. We don't want them labeled Communists because they are unorthodox in their political views or be- cause they refuse to abide by the political atatus quo. That is the danger that we must also be conscious of. We must have a wise balance between security, on the one hand, and freedom, on the other. Then we will kave a perfect condition. Moderator Granix, Senator MunpT? Senator Munpr. I would like to aay, of course, that I concur in all of those pious objectives, But the real danger today is not that we are going to have a witch hunt, not that we are going to have hysteria— the big danger is that we are going to lean so far over backwarde that we are not going to be able to stand up and fitht. Representative CeLler. I think it is dan- gerous too. For example, to give one {llus- tration of what foolish fears can lead us to say and do—in the House of Representatives only recently one of our Members rose to state that he was troubled by the fact that on the walls of the House appeared plaques commemorating the great law givers of all ages ke Galus, Justinian, Moses, and Ram- murabi, and Solon. He added that he didn’t want any of these “foreigners” here. “Why couldn't we have Americans?” I do not give the exact language. I do give the import. He indicated that he had a fear, that he didn't like these foreigners—these old for- elgners who were law givers—and he wanted to have the walls stripped of them, That is the attitude that I am fearful of, that kind of distrustful provinclalism which will give us a herd and animal instinct which, when we cannot get rid of, we want wise counsel to prevail, Moderator Grantx, Senator Munpt? Senator Munopt. I still think the great danger in this country comes from the fact that we have some 600,000 disloyal people in this country, most of whom have not yet registered, or come out in the open so we don’t know who they are. We must control and curb this communistic conspiracy at home. Now, we have to do this thing wisely and we have to do it without hysterta, but the main thing is that we have got to do it, and we haven't been able to do it up to now. Moderator Granik, One last question. Mr. Raprogp. My name ts Alton H. Radford, and I work for the Government. My ques- tion is directed to Senator Munn, Is it a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD safe policy to divulge our domestic security measures to the general public and thus risk giving this information to our enemies? Senator MuNpr. It depends on kind, of course. If we are dealing with some kind of espionage case in a munitions plant, if it is like the earlier question involving our neighborly relations and cooperation with Canada, I would say no. If it is the matter of focusing public opinion upon the dangers of communism and how it operates so that the average American can detect what is happening in his own organization and his own neighborhood, I would say emphatically, yes, we should do that. The danger then 1s that we fail to give sufficient publicity to the threat of communism at home. Representative Ce.iex. In that connection there is a provision in the McCarran Act which provides that the Secretary of De- fense must publicize a list of the names of all defense plants or plants having subcon- tracts for defense work so that Communists will not be employed in those plants. But that is an ald to Stalin. I think that is one of the provistons we must rip out of the McCarran Act. Moderator Granix. Time for our summa- ries. Senator Munor, please, Senator Munot. Just a statement about what is and what is not tn the so-called Mc- Carran Act, which I think ts not foolproof, that it ig not a compulsory mandate for the Secretary of Defense; and the best test of that is that he is not using it now. It gives him the authority to use it if he wants to. I don't believe my colleague is holding that the Secretary of Defense ts in defiance of the law. > I think the most important thing we have brought out this afternoon, in summary may I say because a great many people are lis- tening in on this program, is that I think it is important our people watch the papers mighty carefully during the next few weeks to see whether or not the President's com- mission to check on subversive activities in the executive department is going to be given the opportunity to function in a fash- fon which is going to get results. It is com- prised of some mighty fine Americans. If the President gives the Senate and the House committees the same facts as he gives them, we shall certainly have a fine arrange- ment. But every American should be skep- tical of an arrangement which would permit the President's Commission to be privileged to have access to the facts, files, and records and denies the same evidence to the Senate and the House. That would be a very bad miscarriage of justice. Representative CrLiter. The Communist Party covertly and overtly would use all means to overthrow our Government. Not only its members, but its sympathizers, who are its dupes, would unwittingly do the same. They constitute a Trojan horse of disloyalty. The American people must beware their mealy mouthed sweet words of peace, democ- racy, brotherhood. The knife they would plunge into our backs is coiled in their slo- gans, But our response to the danger must be without hysteria, without excitement that leads to scapegoatism, witch hunts and vigi- lantism, We cannot allow individual rights to be swept away. They are as sacred as inter- nal security. There is no internal security if our constitutional rights are destroyed. We must strike a balance between security and individual rights. Moderator Grant, Thank you, gentlemen. You have been listening to a discussion on “Do We Have Adequate Domestic Security?” Our speakers have been Senator Kar. &. Munot, Republican of South Dakota, and Congressman EMANUEL OmLLES, Democrat of of New York.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Quit Blaffing, California EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD A. PATTEN OF ARIZONA . IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. PATTEN. Mr, Speaker, the fol- lowing editorial appeared in the Arizona Daily Star on Thursday, January 25, The editorial deals with facts and is con~ cise and to the point concerning Cali- fornia’s tactics in regard to the Central Arizona project bill, which has again been introduced in both the Senate and the House in the Eighty-second Con- gress. Qurr BLUFFING, CALIFORNIA As the Highty-second Congress begins work, Arizona has again introduced her cen~ tral Arizona project bill, and California has again started her tactics of delay, confusion, ‘and pure bluff. The program to bring 1,200,000 acre-feet of main stream Colorado River water an- nually to the farm lands in central Arizona which needs it so badly has been defeated in past Congresses by these tactics. Unless Arizona is able to expose California's bluff Gefeat may again greet the bill. The bluff goes something Iike this: Call- fornia has in the past made loud and aelf- righteous demands that the Supreme Court decide the tasue of how much water belongs to which State. Behind these demands was the old plan of delaying the issue. First, California had no justifiable issue. Since the bill had not passed, no threat had been made on the Colorado water which she considered her own, and there was nothing for the Supreme Court to decide, California had no grievance to take before the Court. Second, her plea for a Supreme Court de- cision was so handled that the matter would have had to walt 2 years before the Supreme Court would even take a look at it to decide if {t could make a judgment. Arizona, anxious to have the matter set- tled, wrote into the present bill an amend- ment which provides for Supreme Court set- tlement of the issue, answering California demands. The amendment provides that, after pas- sage of the bill, the irrigation portion of the project would be held up for 6 months, giv- ing California that time to file suit before the Supreme Court and have the issue de- cided. Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of California, the power program of the project, which California wants, would be completed and the Arizona plea for water would be rejected. But California was bluffing about wanting Supreme Court action on the issue, and she is still bluffing. The following is an excerpt from an edi- torial appearing in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday: “The logical way to look at the matter, tt now seems, is to press for a Supreme Court settlement of the basic water dispute he- tween California and Arizona. * * * California has contended with indisputable common sense that the matter of who owns the water should be determined before any further projects are authorised.” The catch ooocurs in the last six words, “‘he- fore any further projects are authorised.” Unless the central Arizona project bill passes, authorizing this project, there will be nothing for the Supreme Court to decide. California will have no threat of loss to take to the Court. If California truly wanted the Supreme Court to decide, she would help Arizona pass this bill, the amendment in which gives her 6 months to sue before that court. The Times, in its editorial, makes no men- tion of the fact that this amendment fs part of the bill. Instead it states: “Admittedly the Supreme Court of the United States is the only agency that can settle the controversy. Arizona has at- tempted to side-step this fact by ‘bulling through’ the measure with sheer political pressure.” Obviously California, while pleading for Supreme Court action in the matter, fs de- termined to prevent the issue from reaching the Supreme Court. Why? Because the legal history of the Colorado River controversy gives Arizona unquestionable right to the water she seeks for the central valley, Callfornia knows that, and knows that once the Supreme Court hears the case the matter will he settled once and for all in the favor of Ari- gona. Price and Wage Controls EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES P, RICHARDS OF BOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Speaker, price and wage controls are an ever-growing problem among the people of the United States, Skyrocketing prices are about to destroy the purchasing power of the dollar, destroy the effectiveness of our defense program, and are increasing the confusion and destroying the faith of our people in the Government. The Economic Stabilization Agency has no mean job. It is a stupendous task that Agency has undertaken, but at least the Agency can be frank with our people. If a definite date for price and wage setting or roll-back had been set months ago, with the admonition that the producer, middleman, and con- sumer must beware and act at his own risk, we would not be facing the situation we face today. In this connection, I include the following sensible letter on the subject from an outstanding young attorney from my South Carolina district: , Hon. J. P. RicHarpe, Member of Congress, Congressional Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CongngssMan RicHargds: This letter to you was prompted by the wage and price controls just announced yesterday by the Eoonomic Stabilization Agency. I have just returned from a trip to a local supermarket here in Lancaster. The result, this letter. I have been buying the groceries for our hame for a long time and am fairly familiar with the price of food as far as the consumer is concerned. Since I have been buying the groceries, we have been getting the same foods week after week and, I might add, try- ing to live on a very close budget. Prices have been increasing steadily since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. The payoff came today when there was an in- JANUARY 27, 1951. Ab53 crease of approximately 10 percent over the prices of last week. They were marking up the prices of certain articles while I was in the atore today. It is an outrage. And the worst part about it is the fact that when price controls were announced from Washington, the prices adopted as the miax~- imum amounts were those in existence on certain articles on January 25, 1981, which prices are at the highest level in the entire history of these United States. I've heard the old story that to roll beck the prices would disrupt the entire economy of the country. If something 4s not done to roll back prices, the economy of the country will be disrupted because of the fact that there is less money in the hands of the Wwage-earner than at any time in recent years and the buying power of the almighty dollar ig only one-fourth that of pre-World War It. There are 150,000,000 consumers in this country that are being affected by the high coat of living. There would be at greatest 1,000,000 meat packers, producers, canners, and the like, who would be affected by a price roll-back; and the only ones who would suf~ fer would be those who have been speculating on the price of commodities due to the war effort. Something can and must be done about it. T have stated my views and the views of other consumers with whom I have talked concern« ing the utterly stupid move on the part of the afore-mentioned agency in setting the date which it did as the date to set up price- control standards. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Detroit Urging the Immediate Construction of the St. Lawrence Sea- way EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS C. RABAUT OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include a copy of the resolution approved unani- mously by the Common Council of the City of Detroit at its formal session of January 23, 1951. This resolution urges the Congress of the United States to give its immediate approval to the agreement between this country and Canada calling for the con- struction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The present period of international crisis and tension is the background against which there appears, with in- creasing clarity, the vital importance of this long-considered project to the main- tence of our national security in the troubled days which He ahead. It fs es- sential that we preserve intact the pro- ductive industrial pattern of this area of the great Midwest, and in the opin- jon of most of the experts who have set down their views on the subject, the St. Lawrence seaway is the only prac- ticable way to accomplish this highly desirable end. The unanimously voiced opinion of the common council of the great city
A554 of Detroit expresses the urgency of be- ginning this construction immediately, and I respectfully offer it here for the consideration of every Member of this The resolution is as follows: Whereas Detroit's great mass-production machinery supplied a major portion of the implements of war during the last world conflict to force the principle of democracy into submission and the city earned the title of “The Arsenal of Democracy’, and Whereas for the third time within a gen- eration, Detroit factories are being called upon to convert her factories into producing arms in a preparedness program to preserve the liberties and security of freethinking people; and Whereas the entire Nation and all freedom- loving peoples of the world having a common interest in stopping an aggressor nation that is presently challenging the security of the world, has a stake in Detroit's ability to produce the necessary goods; and Whereas Detroit, the largest steel-con- suming area in the country, is gravely con- cerned about there being an adequate source of iron ore available to produce the neces- sary steel at a reasonable cost; and Whereas a sizeable portion of the steel in- dustry that must find a new source of ore in the near future is developing flelds in Labra- dor and Quebec and the Department of De- fense has stated the St. Lawrence seaway and power project is now essential to our na- tional defense because it would provide greater access to additional sources of high- grade iron ore in Labrador and Quebec; and Whereas there are grave doubts whether the required Labrador and Quebec ore can be secured by existing transportation facili- ties in view of the perennial freight-car shortage every fall that disrupt: the free dow of goods; and Whereas the Department of Defense has also stated the seaway would be of distinct advantage in the event of a national emer- Bency because it would make available addi- tonal shipbullding and repairing facilities; an Whereas the Department of Defense claims the inland route from Laborador, free from enemy submarines, would require less pro- tective measures than open-sea routes, be- cause of the high defense priority already accorded the area; and Whereas the National Security Resources Board points out even greater amounts of foreign ores must be imported if the demands for steel are to be met and that only as a last resort would any attempt be made to bring this ore in over the open-sea routes and concludes that the power and navigation produced by the project is extremely impor- tant to the national security; and Whereas the President of the United States has decreed the St. Lawrence seaway project to be vital to the defense needs of this coun- try and other democracies of the world: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That in the interest of the do- Yense of this Nation and in the interest of the security of free people here and in other countries, that the Common Council of the City of Detroit wholeheartedly support the St. Lawrence seaway project and urges the Congress of the United States to give imme- diate approval of the agreement with Canada calling for the construction of the project; and be it further Resolved, That this Common Council urge the Michigan State Legislature to pass a concurrent resolution urging the Congress of the United States to give immediate ap- proval to this important defense project and to call upon other State legislaures to take similar positive action; and further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Governor of the State of Michi- gan and to the Michigan Senators and Repre. sentatives in the Congress. Someday You May Be President EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LINDLEY BECKWORTH OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following state- ment by Mr. H. L. Hunt, a well known and yery successful businessman of Texas and the Southwest: Somepay You May Be PrRESIvENT ( By H. L. Hunt) Do you remember when you heard this as a child? How many mothers in all walks of life have said it to their sons, How many teachers in public schools have encouraged thelr students with this challenging and really startling statement. Though said millions of times, it was always new, It was an intriguing thought. Inspired by it, young men of high ability in the past have given up chances to bulld a fortune for themselves for a life of public service. However distant, indefinite and slim their chance to be Pres- ident, it was for them always a goal within the range of possibility. It was a possible reward for high integrity, honest ability and recognized usefulness, and they were willing to give their best. The belief that every boy has a chance to be President has always been a part of na- tional thinking during the 170 years of our history. Limiting the tenure of the Pres- ident to 8 years is not only in keeping with our national tradition, it is of the essence of American democracy. Nearly 4 years ago both the Senate and the House adopted & constitutional amendment to effect this. A two-thirds majority vote was required. Since the adoption of this amendment by Congress, 24 States have ratified the amend- ment. Ratification by 12 more State legis- latures is required. There has never been a constitutional amendment ratified unless it was ratified within 4 years from the time of its adoption by Congress. The third-term precedent which, by usage and custom, had served the purpose of limit- ing the President’s term in office was one of the great casualties of World War Ul. In those tense and uncertain days the Amer- ican public chose to continue its war leader- ship. From this time on every President, rogard- less of party, will be persuaded by the hangers-on which they accumulate to con- tinue to serve their country, to force their renomination and attempt to force their re- election as long as they may live. A salutary situation would promptly result from the limitation of the President’s term. Many prominent statesmen and up-and-coming lesser figures in public life would be seriously considered as presidential and vice presi«- dential timber, their qualifications and avail- ability studied, and perhaps their names appear in public opinion polls. For example, Texas would be bragging on and boosting its Sam Raysurn, Governor Shivers, Senators JoHNBSON and ConNALLY, ex-Governors Moody, Allred, Stevenson, Hobby, Congressmen Gos~ BEIT, Faanx WILSON, and other outstanding Members of its delegation in Congress, the Partisans for each saying that they would make great Presidents, which most of them would. Oklahoma's Senators Kerr and Monzonrr and its other favorite sons would come in for greater recognition and fuller influence. Enthusiastic appraisal would be made of leaders throughout all of the States. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The South, which has not had one of its residents elected to the Presidency for 108 years, would have a vastly better chance to be so honored. A President, upon being renominated, per- sonally selects his Vice Presidential running mate. This custom further closes the door to the Presidency for men of outstanding ability. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Geor- gia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyo- ming have not ratified. The legislatures of 22 of these States are now in session. The limitation of 4 years tenure in the governor's office is a part of the Constitu- tion of many of the States which have failed to ratify the constitutional amendment. This limitation of the governor's tenure has served them well, and there is not a single State in the Union which has it whose people would consider for a moment giving it up Let us look at the score. The Democratic incumbent Truman is exempt and unaffected. The amendment is truly nonpartisan, nearly noncontroversial, and much to be desired. The legislatures are in session, and one Might think ratifications will surely be voted. But find out, by talking to your friends, either in or out of public life, how much they know about it, what they think about it, and what they are doing about it. You will likely be appalled at the stupendous in- difference which you encounter and realize that this wonderful constitutional amend- ment may die through inattention and inertia. The Ground Hog and the Emergency EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL B. DAGUE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. DAGUE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am moved to again remind my colleagues and the country that we are celebrating ground- hog day, and out of consideration of the presence in my congresstona) district of the slumbering ground hog of Quarry- ville I can do no less than once more emphasize the prognocticating powers of this great marmot. In extolling the virtues of this noble animal I cannot help but give way to righteous indignation at the base canard which has been leveled at this profound prophet of portentuous events by the National Geographic Society. Happily this slur on our peerless predictor has been ably answered in a news item which appeared in the Coatesville (Pa.) Record, which I am privileged to include in this statement, as follows: Can't Siur Grounpnoc’s Forecasting Say QUARRYVILLE LODGE OFFICIALS The entire membership of the Slumbering Groundhog Lodge of Quarryville let go yes terday with a bitter blast at the National Geographic Society, Washington, D. C., which recently attempted to discredit the ground- hog’s position ag a weather prophet. Charles F. Hess, chairman of the board of hibernating governors, declared for the entire lodge, “The scurrilous attack on the wisdom, integrity, and inclinations of the groundhog recently issued by the National
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Geographic Sooctety is deeply deplored by the Slumbering Lodge of Quarryville. Geo- graphic Society members may know geog- raphy but they just do not understand groundhogs.” Among the charges leveled by the soaiety was a statement that the groundhog “re. fuses to work on the one day It is expected of him.” “Never in the 42 years of official ground- hog-watching has our patron saint failed to make his appearance,” snorted Hess, Groundhog day, 1951, will be the forty- third observance by the Quarryville Lodge. “Of course, we will see the groundhog,” de- clared Hess. The Geographic Society also deplored the tact that a calendar day is named especially for him, Hess, expressing amazement that the Geo- graphic Society should be so small, de- clared, “Why shouldn't there be a special day named for the groundhog, when he has been a respected member of society for many thousands of years?” Dr. Rhys Carpenter, a lodge member and Professor of Archeology at Bryn Mawr Col- lege, issued thie statement: “I have succeeded in tracing the time- honored practices of the groundhog through the past 8,000 years of European cultural history, and Y am in possession of evidence suggesting his possible primal rise on the paleolithic horizon, roughly 50,000 years ago." “With such a background of antiquity to his credit,” declared Hess, ‘the ground- hog would be attacked only by such inter- ests as would destroy the cherished legend of Santa Claus.” Hess noted trimphantly that three of the honored members of the Quartyville lodge are shaping the destiny of the United States in this crucial time. He spoke of the significant contributions being made by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Charles E. Wilson, defense mobilization chief. Heading the country is President Harry Truman, another honorary member of the lodge. Mr. Speaker, in view of the friendly rivalry which has always existed between the respective hibernating prognostica- tors of Quarryville and Punxsutawney I am pleased to report that my esteemed colleague from the Nineteenth Pennsyl- vania District [Mr. Gavin] has agreed to an armistice for the duration of this present emergency. While each of us will continue to insist on the superiority of his local prognosticator we recognize that it is essential that we unite for a common effort in this crucial period. Henceforth we shall issue joint reports and predictions which will be based on the omens observed by our subterranean seer and, in addition, have determined that all material thus assembled shall be made available to all agencies of Gov- ernment, particularly the State Depart- ment which, while its collective head has for so Jong been buried in the sand, has never had the sense to look into the earthy cloister of the humble woodchuck in order to determine when it is advisable to come in out of the rain. We are moved also to point out that as the designer and builder of the orig- inal air-raid shelter our Government could do worse than call in this accom- plished artisan to direct our defense against atomic warfare. Certainly call- ing upon his sage advice could not help but bring to the councils of state a re- freshing departure from the vacillation, uncertainty, evasion, and befuddlement which for, lo, these 20 years has marked a Government of the people but which has all too often apparently been against them. That “Wall of Separation” and the Public School EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS C. RABAUT OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an article which appeared in the Janu- ary 1951 issue of the Catholic World. This magazine is published by the Paul- ist Fathers in New York, The article, entitled “That ‘Wall of Separation’ and the Public School,” was written by Rev. J. E. Coogan, S. J. Father Coogan for the past 14 years has been director of the department of sociology of the University of Detroit and, since 1947, chairman of the Mayor’s Interracial Committee, a part of the De- troit City administration, Father Coo- gan writes for many magazines. The article follows: Tat “Wat or SEPARATION” AND THE PUBLIC ScHoon (By J. BE. Coogan, 8. J.) The Catholic hierarchy of America in its November 1948 annual meeting startled many critics by its forthright condemnation of Mr. Juatice Black's version of the Su- preme Court decision in the Everson and the McCollum cases. As rematked in America (April 24, 1948, p. 50) the Justice had written into our Federal constitutional law the revo- lutionary principle that the first amendment prohibited both the Federal and State Gov- ernments from passing laws in behalf of re- ligion, even though without sectarian dis- crimination. The American system required & wall of separation between church and etate. These decisions, the hierachy de- clared, paid scant attention to * * * history. In view of the obvious truth of the bish- ops’ charge, it is dificult to explain the sur- prise their words provoked. There is no need to go cutaide the field of tax-supported public school education to find countless examples of Government cooperation with religion throughout the history of these United States. Everyone is aware that colonial American tax-supported education was religious in content and control. The adoption of the first amendment by no means emptied pub- lic education of its religious content. As Conrad Moehlman, professor of the history of Christianity, Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, says in School and Church: “Well into the nineteenth century the churches were directing the progress of education, and local ministers concerned themselves about proper teachers, teaching, and morals, expecting financial support from the Gov- ernment.” 80 beyond dispute is the religious char- acter of public education well into the nine- teenth century that Horace Mann is con- monly though mistakenly said to have begun the work of secularization when made the secretary of the board of education in Maasa- chusetts as late as 1837. The fact is that as Mann indignantly protested, he was the A555 foe, not of religion, but of sectarianism tn public education. One such dental Mann wrote in his reply to a szecularizing charge made by a Boston minister (Raymond B. Culver, Horace Mann and Religion): “You accuse me before the world of being opposed to religion in our schools. I regard hostility to religion in our schdols as the greatest crime which I could commit against man or against God.” Dr. Culver’s own studied conclusion re- garding Mann’s attitude toward religion in public-school education is emphatic: “Horace Mann was opposed to sectarian doctrinal instruction in the schools, but he repeatedly urged the teaching of the ele- ments of religion common to all of the Chris- tion sects. He took a firm stand against the idea of a purely secular education. * * © Far from taking religion out of the schools, Mr. Mann sought in positive fashion to * * © devise a constructive, nonsectarian program of moral and religious education which would be in aecordanoe with the terms of the law. It was largely due to his ad- vocacy that the Bible was almost universally used in the schools before he resigned the secretaryship. He abhorred the idea of a purely secular curriculum.” For many years after the Revolution the most religiously significant text—perhaps after the Bible itself—tn New England tax- supported schools wag the New England Primer. First published between 1687 and 1690, its circulation was enormous, Arthur Jackson Hall, in his Religious Education in the Public Schools of the State and City of New York, shows that the Primer was still much used after more than 150 years, by which time 8,000,000 copies had been sold. But for the public schools of the country as a whole, outside of the Northeastern States, and beginning over a hundred years ago, the instrument of overwhelming importance for religious indoctrination in the public schools was the well-known series of seven books (the first a primer) called the McGuffey Readers. During the period 1836 to 1920 an estimated 124,000,000 copies were sold, the high point of their use being about 1880. Be- cause of the altogether special place these Readers had in American public-school edu- cation a discussion of their religious content seems worth while, In his historical series, Our Times, Mark Sullivan says, “At all times and in every re- spect, the McGuffey Readers had a strong flavor of religion.” Richard D. Mosier tn his Making the American Mind, says as the re- sult of his own study of the Readers: "As the research proceeded, it soon became ap- parent that the McGuffey Readers were con- sistently stressing a few basic ideas, play- ing upon 4 few major themes, * * * The continuity of the basic pattern of ideas is * * * quite the remarkable phenomenon of the whole series.” Quite the most characteristic portion of this basic pattern is religion. This element is found early in the primer itself and grows in variety and force through the succeeding six Readers. As an evidence of this develop- ment we have but to turn to the last of the Readers; we use here the edition of 1857, re- printed by Henry Ford in appreciative mem- ory of his own McGuffey school days, Re- gious references occur throughout, bor~ rowed widely from English literature. Some single citations extend through several pages. To give a few typical excerpts covering the chief points of the scheme of salvation: We have (from Everett) God's existence shown in the sunrise: “T am filled with amazement, when I am told, that, in this enlightened age and in the heart of the Christian world, there are per- sons who can witness this daily manifesta- tion of the power and wisdom of the Crea- tor, and yet say in their heart, there is no God.”
A556 But the God of the sunrise is shown in the Reader to be everywhere: “Bee where the mountains rise; Where thundering torrents foam; Where, veiled in towering skies, The eagle makes his home: Where savagegnature dwells, My God is present too: Through all her wildest dells His footsteps I pursue.” Service of this God alone is shown to make life worth while; to cite a few of the many lines given of Heber's Life, a Mighty River: “Bhall we not think ourselves henceforth as wayfaring persons only, who have no abid- ing inheritance but in the hope of a better world, and to whom even that world would be worse than hopeless, if it were not for our Lord Jesus Christ, and the interest we have obtained in His mercies?” In a manner to send shudders through the Freudian frame, self-conquest over animal nature is promised the victor’s crown: “He hath wrestled with Self, and with pas- sion striven; And to him hath the Sword of the Spirit been given— Oh! crown him! for his foes—his sins—are slain.” The Hebrew Psalmist too is called to tes- tify to God’s goodness to such as fear Him: “Fret not thyself because of evildoers, Neither be thou envious against the worke ers of iniquity; For they shall be cut down like the grass, And wither as the green herb. Trust in the Lord and do good; So shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself, also, in the Lord, And re shall give thee the desires of thy eart.” That after death comes the judgment is solemnly affirmed: “Before that assembly, every man's good deeds will be declared; and his most secret sins disclosed. As no elevation of rank will then give a title to respect, no obscurity of condition shall exclude the just from public honor, or screen the guilty from public shame.” To life's faithful ptigrim comes the promise of heaven for sorrow bravely borne: “There ts bliss, there 1s bliss, in the regions above, They have opened the gates of the sky; A apirit has soared to those mansions of love, And seeks for admittance on high: And friends long divided are hasting to greet, In a land where no sorrow may come, And the seraphe are eager a sister to meet, And to welcome the child to its home.” As the prospect for the impenitent, Mc- Guffey holds out Milton's Satan, Sin and Death. The McGuffey readers easily make mention of Christ and salvation through Him. A tell- ing apologetic for Christianity is cited in this sixth reader as from John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States. The Acts of the Aposties are used to tell the story of Bt. Paul before King Agrippa, where the king confesses, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian; and Paul answers: “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” Although the McGuffey readers were com- piled for tax-supported schools largely Protestant, the readera were remarkable for the absence of things offensive to Catholics. At times they went out of thelr way to discredit bigotry, The following tribute from Irving to Columbus, plainly labeled Cath- olic, is illustrative: “His piety was genuine and fervent. Re- ligion mingled with the whole course of his thoughts and actions, and shone forth in his most private and unstudied writings. Whenever he made any great discovery, he devoutly returned thanks to God. * * * All his great enterprises were undertaken in the name of the Holy Trinity, and he partook of the holy sacrament previous to embarka- tion.” Not content to sing the pralses of religion, the Reader deplores the consequences of its absence. The disastrous outcome of secular. ism is prophetically foretold in Observation of the Sabbath: “No man can preserve his own morals, no parent can preserve the morals of his chil- dren, without the impressions of religious obligation. If you can induce a community to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures; to question the reality and obligation of religion; to hesitate, undecid- ing, whether there is any such thing as virtue or vice; whether there be an eternal state of retribution beyond the grave; or whether there exists any such being as God; you have broken down the barriers of moral virtue, and hoisted the flood gates of im- morality and crime.” Champions of the secular school as alone American evidently should be told that they are scarcely of yesterday. The public schools of our founding fathers and nation build- ers alike were inspired with the story of God and His relations with men; of God in na- ture, of God in revelation old and new; of Christ and Salvation through Him. Why, then, should the secularizers be provoked by the Catholic hierarchy’s condemnation of Mr, Justice Black’s version of the Supreme Court decisions in the Everson and McCollum cases? Those decisions, indeed, paid “scant attention to * * * history.” What, No Red Herring? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 31, 1951 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, I wish to in- clude an editorial that appeared in the Burlington Free Press which is quite to the point. It does seem that there is at least a mora] obligation on the part of the Presi- dent to once and forever disavow the red-herring charges that he has leveled against all efforts to eliminate Commu- nists and fellow travelers who are or were employed in the Federal Government. The editorial follows; A PRESIDENT SPEAKS After considerable criticism of the man in the White House, we would be shirking the interests of fair play if we did not remark on his apparent change of heart shown in a speech lest week in which he said there was no difference between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolino. Now, that took a long time to sink in. A lot of simple, little people have known that for years, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Even though presa services, including the friendly greatest daily in Wisconsin, report that the President added the name Stalin last, and we quote “almost as an after- thought,” the ring of truth has at last been heard in the words of the Nation's leader. Now, if he will just explain what a red herring is in his vocabulary, and admit that Acheson, Lattimore, Service, and that motley crew of Red-loving foreign-affairs experts might have been just a teeny, lit- tle bit wrong about simple agrarian reform- ers and the oriental problem, there may be hopes for the man yet. The Sixty-ninth Birthday Anniversary of President Roosevelt, January 30, 1951 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, it was my gcod fortune to know our beloved late President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, having been introduced to him in 1915 by the then Secretary of the Navy, Hon. Josephus Daniels, with whomI had worked in the William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign in 1896. I was tremendously impressed with his tactful and diplomatic manner in discussing a Chicago matter I had presented to him that had been submitted to me by the Honorable Carter H. Harrison, II, mayor of Chicago. Mr. Harrison now 90 years of age, called on me the other day in Chicago und, recalling that meeting of 35 years ago, commented on the states- manship and personality of the then young Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is unnecessary for me to again restate the splendid services performed and ability displayed by Mr. Roosevelt in many important conferences and trips he made during World War I. Following the war, I was further impressed with his personality and charming ways during the course of the Democratic National Convention in 1920 and with the great speech that he delivered in nominating the Honorable Alfred Smith, of New York, for the Pres- idency. Notwithstanding his eloquence and strong appeal the nomination fell to our former colleague, Gov, James M. Cox, of Ohio. At that convention, as chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of Cook County and as a member of the plat- form and resolutions committee of the convention, I had the privilege of con- sulting with the leaders of the Demo- cratic Party in selecting candidates for the Vice Presidency. The committee came to the conclusion that Franklin D. Roosevelt, of New York, would be the strongest candidate for that honor. I recall that it was suggested that I visit the New York delegation, which I did, I did not find the members of the delega- tion in good humor, due to Mr. Smith’s failure to obtain the presidential nomi-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD nation, My instructions were to see them and to ascertain whether, in view of conditions, they would be satisfied with the nomination of Mr, Roosevelt for the Vice Presidency, Unfortunately, the leaders of the New York delegation were not friendly to the suggestion and I reported back to the leaders that were awaiting my return to the speaker’s plat- form for the result of my mission. After my report was made, they insisted that I return for a further conference. Since I was well acquainted with a majority of the New York delegates, I was urged to prevail upon them to agree. After some argumentation they finally concurred that it would be agreeable if the con- vention would nominate Mr. Roosevelt as running mate to Governor Cox. Un- fortunately for the country, Cox and Roosevelt failed to win the election. A few years later, however, the great State of New York elected Mr. Roosevelt as Governor and in 1930 he was reelected. On the evening of his reelection, being unsuccessful in reaching him on the telephone, I sent him a telegram assur- ing him that by reason of the tremendous majority be attained in his great victory he would become the next President of the United States. I have been told by many persons who were present that the telegram was read and received with a great deal of enthusiasm. During 1931 the Republican news- papers, as was their wont, began to pub- lish many articles derogating Mr. Roose- velt’s health. Later in the year I had the opportunity to see him in Albany. When I entered his office, he struck his desk with his fist and asked: “A. J., how do I look?” I frankly stated: “You look wonderful.” I then asked him: “How do you feel?” He replied: “I feel better than I look.” He then began talking about the coming Democratic conven- tion and from that day on, until he was nominated, I had many conferences with him, Colonel Howe, and his campaign manager, Mr, James A. Farley. Unfortunately, I failed to prevail upon the Illinois leaders, Mr. Anton J, Cermak, Mr. Edward J. Kelly, and Mr. Patrick Nash to cast the State’s vote for him on the second ballot. However, I obtained their promise to do so on the third ballot. Before Illinois was reached on the roll call of States on the third ballot, Mr. Ravyeurn, our present Speaker, represent- ing Mr. John N, Garner, of Texas, whose name was also before the convention as a@ candidate, in conjunction with Mr. MacAdoo, of California, cast their re- spective States’ votes for Mr. Roosevelt, before the Illinois and Indiana delega- tions had an opportunity to do so. Late in the afternoon on the day that he was nominated, Mr. Roosevelt requested me to conduct the campaign among the naturalized foreign born and those of foreign descent, as I had done in previous national campaigns. I ac- tively carried on this campaign to the day before the election. Due to the failure of the Hoover ad- ministration, the country suffered its worst financial panic and business de- pression in the history of our Nation. It fell to Mr. Roosevelt immediately after his election to devise legislation and other means that would provide for re- construction and to facilitate the re- covery of business from the catastrophic conditions that confronted the country. Time will not permit me to again de- scribe in detail President Roosevelt's continuous activity and effort to find ways and means to rebuild our com- merce, to bring about the reemployment, of the 16,000,000 workers who were un- employed, to save our commercial busi- nesses and banks, nearly all of whom were insolvent or on the brink of bank- ruptcy, and to save hundreds of thou- sands of our citizens from losing their homes and farms. The country thank. fully and even prayerfully appreciated his great services and accomplishments to restore the entire Nation to normal conditions. President Roosevelt in his second term as in his first term advocated and rec- ommended the enactment of many pro- gressive and helpful laws. Unfortu- nately, in 1940, when the world was thrown into turmoil, he was obliged to devote his ability and statesmanship to the approaching dangers that threat- ened to engulf the entire world. In 1938, President Roosevelt made a speech in Chicago in which he called at- tention to the dangers facing our coun- try. He was assailed by many people, but he firmly persisted, from time to time, in acquainting the country with the seriousness of changing world condi- tions, and was thus subjected to further attacks. He keenly felt these unfair criticisms. No President before him and, I hope, no President in the future will ever be subjected to the trials and tribulations that confronted him during those trying days. While no President up to that time had served more than two terms, many people who had the interest of the coun- try at heart felt that no one was better qualified, informed, and with a wider knowledge of world conditions than President Roosevelt, I am pleased to say that I was one of the very first who urged him, notwithstanding the prece- dent of no President serving more than two terms, to continue to serve the Na- tion for a third term. In fact, I stated that he owed it to the country, and to himself, to do so. Unfortunately, differences arose he- tween the President and Mr. Farley, who felt it unwise for the President to accede to the demands of a large majority of our citizens to continue for a third term. The fears of My. Farley were not well founded because the President was re- elected to a third term, again with a tremendous majority. In 1944 the United States was in the throes of war, and I again urged him and insisted that he continue in the Presidency for another 4 years, not only in the interest of our own country but that of the world. Had I known then of the condition of his health, I never would have urged him to be a candidate for reelection, but he was brave and courageous, and against the advice of uot is being AS57 some of his friends, made the campaign in the most inclement weather, which, no doubt, affected his health. He was again reelected in 1944, but the great strain of his effort to bring peace to the troublesome world and to eliminate fu- ture wars told on his strength, and his condition did not improve. He con- tinued with all his resourcefulness and the strength he possessed in the tasks that faced him until, upon the insistent demand of his family and physicians, he sought rest at Warm Springs, Ga., in the hope of recouping his health and Strength. But even there he never ceased in his effort to strive to bring about peace and improved conditions in our country to his dying day. Mr. Speaker, I recall that on the day of his death one of his secretaries, the son of my old friend, Josephus Daniels, Mr. Jonathan Daniels, who had arrived that morning from Warm Springs, came to my office with a request from Presi- dent Roosevelt that I should endeavor to obtain the reporting of a rule by the Committee on Rules for the considera- tion of the then pending fair-employ- ment-practices bill. I have reason to believe that it was the President’s last request. During our conversation that day Mr. Daniels assured me that the President was improving and hoped shortly to return to Washington to re- sume his work. Unfortunately, while I tried to comply with his request, I was unable to do so. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that anyone in the history of our Nation or of any other nation was more sincere or devoted to improving the wel- fare of the common people than was President Roosevelt. I further believe that no man was more beloved and re- spected than he, and when the report of his passing was reported throughout the world, the whole universe mourned his passing. Mr. Speaker, I feel that as long as our Republic endures the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the sacrifices he made for the welfare of our country will be remembered and will remain ever fresh in the minds of our people. Escape Under Trade Agreements CS sitammeaamanead EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY OF WYST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Speaker, the so- called escape clause of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade pro- vides that— Tf as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this agree- ment, including tariff concessions, any prod~ imported into the territory of that contracting party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as
A558 to cause or threaten serious injury to do- mestic producers in that territory of like or directly competitive products, the con- tracting party shall be free, in respect of such product, and to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury, to suspend the ob- ligation in whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concession. This is the escape clause that has een publicized by the Department of State as the guaranty that American producers have a remedy against mis- takes made in reducing the tariff. An analysis of the clause will soon reveal how loosely and defectively it is drawn and why, in good sense, it is deceptive to describe it as a remedy. In the first place, the actual or threat- ened injury must have resulted from developments that were unforeseen and must be attributable to a trade agree- ment or similar obligation, The first half of this criterion, namely, that the developments that caused the injury were unforseen, creates some doubts of interpretation as well as of intent. Assuming, for example, that foreseen rather than unforeseen developments should lead to injury, would relief be de- nied? The language of the clause so in- dicates, for it would appear that if the injury was foreseen and was not guarded against or avoided by refusal to make a concession, such as a duty reduction, the injury must have been intended; and if it was intended, no remedy would be available; for the remedy extends, by the language of the clause, only to those instances where the adverse develop- ments were not foreseen. The question naturally arises whether the injury would be any less damaging to the producers concerned if it had been foreseen by someone in the administra- tive agency that made the agreement. If foreseen injuries are to be without remedy, the further question arises whether trade agreements may lend themselves to punitive measures aimed at particular industries. Whether in- tended or not, under this clause an ad- ministrative agency could deliberately destroy an industry and at the same time strip the complainant of a remedy pre- cisely because the damage was foreseen. But this is not all. Should the injured party then seek a remedy under section 336 of the tariff, which provides for a cost-of-production study and offers a method of increasing the rate by 50 per- cent, he would find this avenue closed. The provisions of section 336 are not available with respect to any item that has been made the subject of a conces- sion in a trade agreement. The Tariff Commission has taken note of the extremely awkward wording of the escape clause in the matter of “un- foreseen developments.” In the Pro- cedure and Criteria With Respect to the Administration of the “Escape Clause” in Trade Agreements—revision of Feb- Tuary 1950—the Commission states that— The construction which the Commission Places upon the words “unforeseen develop- ments” is that when imports of any com- modity enter in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic produc- ers, this situation must, in the light of the objective of the trade agreement program and of the escape clause itself, be regarded as the result of unforeseen developments. In other words, the Commission, con- fronted by the plain wording of the es- cape clause, simply side-stepped the lan- guage and elected to read common sense into it. The second half of the first criterion, which requires that the injury com- plained of must be attributable to a trade agreement as a condition of escape, is also restrictive. The attribution of economic effects to particular causes, such as a trade agreement, is, to say the least, an uncertain but heavy burden to place upon a complainant, and leaves him on an unstable footing since his alle- gations can be denied by attributing the alleged effects to other causes. The complainant has then no answer because his allegations, by their nature, are not subject to proof. This leaves him com- pletely in the hands of the agency hear- ing his complaint. Under these condi- tions the scope of the agency's discre- tion is very wide indeed. Once more, the Tariff Commission found it necessary to relax the restrictive effect of the clause. In the “Procedure and Criteria’ cited above, they say: If the increase (in imports) was, even in part, the result of the concession, that is sufficient, since the language of the escape clauze clearly does not require that the con- cession be the sole, or even the chief cause. Thus in two instances the Commis- sion has found it necessary to substitute its own interpretation for that of Execu- tiye Order 9382 which contains the offil- cial wording of the escape clause. There has been ample opportunity to revise the clause since its first inclusion in a trade agreement in 1943 and even since its appearance in the executive order dated February 25, 1947, but this has not been done in any remedial sense. While the interpretations of the Tariff Commission just cited, have materially improved the administrability of the clause, the fact remains that no delega- tion of power should be so loosely and poorly drawn that an administrative agency, in order to avoid a wholly ab- surd requirement, must deliberately read something into the order that it does not say, or brush aside something that the order clearly states. Another requirement for escape laid down in the clause is the condition that the quantity of imports must have in- creased and that such increased imports are entering under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury. This, again, is a compound condition: Imports must have increased and must be entering under certain conditions, Once more the Tariff Commission found it necessary to make its own in- terpretation, Of the increase in im- ports it says in the Procedure and Cri- teria, cited above, that— This means that imports under the trade agreements must supply a larger ahare of domestic consumption than they did during @ previous period. Of course, that is not what the escape Clause says, but only in that light does it meet the dictates of common sense. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD This latter the Commission no doubt felt impelled to supply. The framers of the clause had apparently overlooked the condition where domestic consumption declines while imports remain as. high as before or decline less than domestic consumption. This oversight was re- paired by the Tariff Commission's inter~- pretation, by which the word “relative” was inserted to modify the word “in- crease,” so that actually imports need not increase in order to afford a basis for escape. They might even decline, so long as they declined less than domestic consumption. However, despite the improvements of the clause by administrative interpreta- tion, very serious defects remain in it. These appear to be quite beyond the reach of interpretations even as liberal as the Tariff Commission has been will- ing to supply. It has been noted, for example, that the increased imports must also enter under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious damage. The only con- clusion to be drawn from the linking of increased imports to the condition of their importation is that it was done to foreclose the possibility of an escape if there has been no increase—or relative increase under the Commission’s inter- pretation—no matter how much injury might be inflicted otherwise; that is, in the absence of an increase. There was little that could be done about this through the medium of interpretation, Yet it is easily conceivable that severe damage may be caused by imports even though they have not increased, either absolutely or relatively, This would not only be possible but highly probable in a buyer’s market. It is not necessary that imports take a higher percentage of the market than during a previous period in order to in- flict damage on domestic producers. The determining factors are the domestic economic situation and the prices at which imports are offered in competi- tion with our producers. Injury is not merely the result of an upward trend of imports. Changing domestic economic trends have as much bearing on the ef- fect of imports, if not more, than the trend of imports themselves. A given volume of imports may work great havoc in a buyer’s market while the same volume would produce little or no competitive pressure in a seller’s market, where, of course, demand is strong in relation to supply. Imports that have fallen to a small percentage of Comestic consumption, even as low as 2 or 3 percent, may cause much more dam- age than imports that formerly equaled 10 or 20 percent, if competitive condi- tions in the domestic market have in the meantime changed to a buyer's from & seller's market. The escape clause takes no account of such a distinction between domestic mar- ket conditions. It simply assumes that imports cannot produce injury unless they take a larger share of the market than during some earlier period. Ac- tually there is no necessary relationship between present injury from imports and the volume of imports 5 or 10 or any other number of years ago.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Many of the present trade agreements were made while a seller’s market pre- vailed in this country. This was a time when consumer demand was stronger than supply. Under these circumstances, dating of the trend of tmports from the time of the trade agreement—as a means of determining whether imports have in- creased under its terms—is irrelevant to the question of injury. If a trade agree- ment was signed at a time when a seller's market prevailed, neither the volume of imports nor the tariff rate remaining on an article after a concession has been made, had any competitive meaning. Domestic producers could not satisfy the entire demand even at the high level of prices. Competitively it was a matter of indifference whether imports supplied 1 percent or 25 percent of consumption. It was equally immaterial whether the rate of duty was 1 percent or 25 percent, When thereafter—as happened in a large number of cases—the seller’s mar- ket reaches its end and is succeeded by a buyer's market, the volume of imports that the market absorbed successfully during the period of shortage offers no clue to the volume that can be absorbed under the new condition without injury; nor does the tariff rate that was in effect during the period of the seller’s market indicate the level that may be appro- priate in a buyer’s market. Therefore, to insist that applicants for escape from injury show an increase in imports since a particular trade agree- ment was entered into, is to impose an unjustifiable and meaningless condition upon those who allege injury. Imports may not have increased and yet serious injury may threaten or actually be in course. The increased imports that must have occurred, in order to justify an escape, must, as already stated, also enter under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury. This means that it is not enough to prove an increase in imports alone. It must be shown that the im- ports are entering under such conditions as to inflict damage or threaten it. The escape clause throws no light upon the kind of conditions that would be taken into consideration. However, market conditions, such as a buyer’s market, might be regarded as suitable for consideration; as might also the relative price levels at which the imported prod- ucts were being offered, This requirement—of proof that im- ports are entering under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury— is sound in itself and would be acceptable but for its Unkage with the preceding condition which requires that imports must have increased. If this conjunc- tion were dissolved and the conditions of importation made an independent con- sideration, the difficulties and deficien- cies of the increased-imports require- ment would be overcome. This effect could be produced by changing the “and” to “or” in the clause that pro- vides “and under such conditions” so that it would read “or under such con- ditions.” An escape could then be justified by showing that imports are entering under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury, whether or not they had increased. In other words, it would be possible te deal with the only part of the problem that has any meaning. Since the conditions ere not defined in the clause, it is, however, not clear how much weight is to be given to the volume of import trade as such, in rela- tion to domestic consumption. There is a strong tendency to dismiss imports lightly as a source of injury if they are small in relation to domestic consump- on, That such dismissal may not be justi- fled becomes clear when consideration is given to the possibility that the im- ports may compete with a particular variety of items in a broader classifica- tion, or in 4 particular market area, and may therefore offer heavy compe- tition in the narrower field. Thus, im- ports of textiles may be small In relation to the domestic consumption of all tex- tiles but may be much higher in relation to a particular kind of textile product or in a particular market. Acute injury may thus be suffered by the producers of the particular item or by those lo- cated in a particular area while other segments of the textile industry, or those in other locations, may experience little or no foreign competition. Perhaps more important, however, than this consideration is the possi- bility of injury out of all proportion to the relative volume of imports. This may occur, as already indicated, when the domestic market is on the surplus rather than the shortage side, and par- ticularly at the end of a seller's market, when prices are high while demand be- gins to falter. If imports are offered at prices below the domestic levels under such circum- stances, no large volume of such im- ports is necessary to produce widespread and serious injury. Domestic producers will seek to reduce thelr high-priced in- ventory as rapidly as possible in the hope of averting a heavy inventory loss through falling prices precipitated or accelerated by low-priced imports, In- ventory is most readily reduced by pro- ducing less, that is, by allowing sales to move stock from the warehouses while replenishing at a greatly reduced rate, Reduced production, of course, calls for a curtailment of employment, either by lay-offs or reduction of the workweek, or both. The damage may be all the greater if domestic producers do not know how large a supply is available abroad for shipment to this country at low prices, or if they know that a large supply is available. If the imports flow in, as feared, and find a ready market domestic prices will fall and profits will be reduced. The pressure on employment and wages will mount steadily and the lay-offs may be- come permanent. It will be difficult to plan future production, and, as long as the threat remains, there will be no plant expansion and a minimum outlay for new machinery and equipment. This is not the road to an expanding economy, If the threat or fear of increasing low- priced imports does not materialize, damage will nevertheless result because A559 of the uncertainty about the potential. What domestic producers reasonably an- ticipate or fear, rather than the fact, which will only subsequently reveal !t- self, will determine the extent of the injury. Clearly, the possibility of escape should not be limited to any preconceived level of imports in relation to domestic pro- duction or consumption. Imports amounting to 5 percent or less of do- mestic consumption may produce more injury than a volume that takes 20 per- cent or more of the market. Thus it is neither the fact of increase in tmports nor the share of the market captured by imports, alone, that deter- mines the likelihood or degree of injury sustained. Equally or more important are the domestic market conditions, rel- ative price levels of imports and domestic products, extent of the available foreign supply and possession or lack of accurate information by domestic producers with respect to the foreign supply and its trend. The foregoing analysis has demon- strated quite amply the serious need of a revision of the escape clause. An exam- ination of the administrative provisions of the clause will show that they are equally in need of change. The Tariff Commission is the agency vested by Executive Order 9382 with the authority and responsibility of admin- istering the escape clause. While the Commission is the appropriate agency for carrying out this function, the grant of power and discretion is entirely too broad. It is left to the judgment of the Commission, for example, to determine whether an investigation should be made to determine the merits of an applica- tion for relief. The Commission, under this grant of power, has dismissed most applications brought before it, without a single word of explanation. Even when the Commission makes an investigation, it need make no explana- tion of its denial of a remedy. Again it is under no obligation or mandate to make public its findings or expose its reasoning. The grant of authority to the Commis- sion is obviously designed to confer arbi- trary and irresponsible power upon this agency, wholly out of keeping with good principles of government. The need for @ revision is clear. re Penalizing Patriotism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALVIN F. WEICHEL OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Speaker, for those who are willing to serve in the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense is cer- tainly discouraging the hundreds of thousands who have enlisted in the Re- serves, Up in my district, oné Myron J. Smith enlisted in the active Naval Re- serve on October 26, 1945, was honorably
A560 discharged therefrom on August 1, 1946, then enlisted again for four additional years and in July 1950 again enlisted in the Naval Reserve for four additional years, After all of these enlistments in the Naval Reserve and his desire to serve in the Navy during war or emergency, the selective service inducted him into the Army on October 30,1950, He was sworn into the Army and is now stationed at Fort Knox, Ky., in spite of all his objec- tions with selective service of his being enlisted in the Naval Reserve from Octo- ber 26, 1945. Further on January 17, 1951, he re- ceived orders from the Navy to report at Great Lakes Training Center on May 9, 1951, the service in which he has been continuously in since October 26, 1945, but he is now in the Army at Fort Knox, Ky. Ihave taken this up with the Armed Forces here in Washington, and it seems that this is an erroneous induction by selective service. Yet, he is in the Army and the Army has no inclination to dis- charge this man who has been in the Naval Reserve for nearly 6 years pre- vious to this erroneous induction. Mr, Speaker, what did it mean when the Congress passed the Unification Act? The Army, the Navy, and Air Corps are supposed to be under the Secretary of Defense, yet the Army takes and keeps a man who wants to serve in the Navy and who has continually been in the Naval Reserve since October 1945. Mr. Speaker, what kind of respect and allegiance can the parents of young men of this country have for the military when the Secretary of Defense permits the same old brass to violate its agree- ment with citizens after asking them to go into the Reserve forces of the United States. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why this young man who wants to serve in the Navy and enlisted in the Reserves at the request of the Navy, should not be immediately discharged from the Army or transferred to the Navy by the Secre- tary of Defense. Such confusion and violation of promises to citizens by the various branches of the Armed Forces should be made good. The Secretary of Defense should protect those who have long before their time enlisted in the Reserves. Mr. Speaker, the services should not be permitted to violate the rights of a citi- zen who has enlisted in the Reserves and the Selective Service should be ordered not to forcibly induct those who have enlisted in the Reserves, Federal Aid Means Loss of Freedoms EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH HARVEY OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 2, 1951 Mr, HARVEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following editorial from the Shelbyville (Ind.) News of January 30, 1951: Fepsra, Am Means Loss or Freepoms A State legislative proposal which would open welfare records to inspection by those other than members of county welfare boards, has once again directed attention to the fact that to receive Federal aid also means to receive Federal dictation and con+ sequent loss of freedoms. The Federal Security Administration has given a strong hint that 620,000,000 of sub- sidy to Indiana's welfare program might be cut off if the names of persons petting State aid are made public. In other words, if the State of Indiana does not do exactly as the Federal Government dictates in the conduct of the Hoosier welfare program, In- diana may lose the millions of dollars now donated federally to the program. A law which would open public-welfare records to inspection would undoubtedly re- sult in a reduction in the number of per- sons now receiving such ald. For one thing, such a law would help to uncover those cases in which both individuals and entire families have been discovered, through spe- cial investigation, to have been receiving public funds, while at the same time receiv- ing money from regular jobs in amounts suf- ficient for support. Hoosier Day Columnist Frank White re- cently declared that “This threat (the one made by the Federal Security Administra- tion) pointa up graphically some facts about our drift to a welfare state. * * “ When a State accepts Federal money, there goes hand in hand with such subsitiies controls and telling us how to run affairs. Further~ more, you can't collect taxes, send the money to Washington, and get back as much ag you send.” Columnist White adds that, “There is too much governmental red tape and expense involved. Welfare costs are rocketing even in our boom wartime employment. Hun- dreds of names of those getting State wel- fere aid would be taken from the welfare rolls were the secrecy renoved. We are en- titled to know where public tax money goes, since we pay the tax bill.” Federal officials tend to push aside any accusations that the Nation is solidly on the trend toward an all-out welfare state. But the facts prove that these officials are only talking fast to evade being pinned down by a fact. The people of the United States are arming themselves to beat back the forces in the world which would rob them of their freedoms, and yet there ts too much to show that there are those who, through govern- ment policy at home, would rob the people of those same freedoms. Federal aid means loss of freedoms, A Boondoggler Objects EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. DANIEL A. REED Or NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, once a boondoggler always a boondoggler seems to be a firm and fixed habit with a spendthrift New Dealer, Representa- tive Crom Kaine, of California, seems to resent any criticism of President Tru- man for his unsound policies which have brought the Nation to the brink of finan- cial disaster. I will say this, however, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that Representative Kina has been con- sistent in his ardent support of the New Deal spending, wasteful program, Now that the unsound fiscal policies of the Truman administration and its inordi- nate waste has placed a crushing tax burden upon the people and has by its every move brought the evil of a ruinous inflation upon the people, Representa- tive Kinc, of California rebels against any criticism of the disastrous course he and his President have followed. I gave out an interview after the de- livery of the President’s tax message. My colleague, Representative Kina, re- minds me of the big 16-year-old boy who was weeping and howling impre- cations. When asked what was trou- bling him, he sobbed, “Ma is weaning me.” It may be tough for my friend to be weaned from his wild and reck- less spending of the taxpayers’ money, but if he fails to join in a program of economy, his constituents will wean him from public office. I am inserting under leave to extend heretofore granted, the statement of my views and references to President Tru- man's tax message, of which Repre- sentative Kine objects. STATEMENT oF Danra, A. REED, oy New York I am opposed to the President's recom- mendation for a two-package tax program. Everyone agrees that we are close to the bot- tom of the tax barrel and therefore any new taxes can be levied only after careful con- sideration of the administration's entire tax program. Either the administration has no such over-all program to raise the 616,000,000,000 or the President's tax message is so political- ly clever as to amount to down-right dis- honesty. The administration should im- mediately disclose its complete program to the American people or confess that it is impossible to raise 8$16,000,000,000 without disastrous consequences. In my opinion this tremendous tax in- crease is unnecessary because President Truman could save approximately $6,500,- 000,000 if he had an honest desire to reduce nonmilitary expenditures to a minimum. I am unalterably opposed to presently raising $10,000,000,000 on the assumption that we will raise a subsequent @6,000,000,000 unless it becomes clearly imperative that we raise $16,000,000,000. I think that the most important single task is to prune out unnecessary spending. The American people are tired of shelling out their hard-earned dollars to support scatter-brain socialistic schemes of the Fair Deal administration. They are also tired of supporting thousands of Fair Deal bureau- crats on the public payroll. I strongly oppose consideration by the Congress of additional taxes for this admin- istration to squander until the congressional appropriation committees have cut the fat out of the President's budget. I do not want them to deprive the military of necessary funds. But I do expect them to eliminate Mr. Truman's pet soctalistic program, I do expect them to reduce the Federal payroll; I do expect them to put a crimp tn our world- wide WPA. In short I expect them to cut nonessential expenditures by %6,500,000,000 or 87,000,000,000. After these reductions are made, we will then be in a position to deal with taxes on the basis of the information we will have on hand. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the New York Times in an editorial under date of February 2, 1951, which shows how futile it is to stop inflation when President
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Truman by his many and inept moves encourages inflation. Under leave to extend heretofore granted, I insert the editorial as a part of my remarks: A Victory For INFLATION On Wednesday the members of the Fed- eral Reserve Board were summoned to the White House for a conference with President Truman. Yesterday the White House press secretary announced that the Reserve Board had “pledged tts support to President Truman to maintain the stabilization of Government securities as long as the emergency lasts.” What does this mean? Apparently the administration would like to have the coun- try believe that the White House has merely stepped in to arbitrate a minor difference be- tween the views of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve over the proper pattern of interest rates for Treasury financing during the defense program. Mr. Snyder, if one may judge from an interview he gave out on Wednesday, would have the public believe that this is a defeat for “the bankers,” and a victory for the taxpayers, who, he says, will profit by lower interest charges on the Gov- arnment debt. . But if this is a victory for the public, then we can only say that the public is likely to find it one of the most dearly bought vic- tories in its experience. Let no one delude himself with the belief that it is the bankers who are going to bear the cost, It will be the American people as a whole wh» will foot this bill—-the little people, who will see the yield on their savings further diminished; the Government, the biggest buyer of goods and services in the country, through in- creased cost of the rearmament program, and the taxpayer who provides the money for the Government. To state the matter in the simplest terms, what has happened in this case is that the President has called in the men who are charged with the responsibility for seeing that the country’s monetary policies are con- ducted with the best interests of the Nation as a whole tn view, and has ordered them to take their orders in the future from the Secretary of the Treasury. We can recall offhand no instance where the independent central banking system in a democracy has been subjected to similar public degradation. And we can recall no instance, under any form of government, in which the central bank, once made a captive of the exchequer, has functioned otherwise than as an engine of inflation. General Eisenhower’s Report EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JCE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 5, 1951 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, rarely has a Nation awaited with more hope and more confidence the answer to questions of national importance than did our country wait upon General Eisenhower and the answers which he brought to an anxious Nation from his tour of Eu- ropean capitals. General Eisenhower did not fail in his mission—he did not fail to fulfill with integrity, intelligence, and understanding the national mission upon which he embarked. He brought home the information which we as a Nation sorely needed—in so doing he has XCVII—App.——86 perhaps rendered as valuable a service to peace as any one man in recent years. General Eisenhower's report is both encouraging and realistic. He has stressed the need for effective coopera- tion among democratic allies. In this connection, the Christian Science Moni- tor in an editorial entitled “Eisenhower's Answers,” from the issue of February 2, last, has concisely and clearly sum- marized these answers and I ask that a copy of this editorial be included with my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrec- ORD. The editorial is as follows: EISENHOWER’S ANSWERS Genera] Eisenhower in his report to Con- gress has answered the chief questions the American people have had about the defense of Europe. His answers carry all the weight of a first- hand investigation by a man who through his professional services and personal qualt- ties has won the confidence of the American people in superlative degree. He has ap- proached the questions frankly from the standpoint of the good of the United States, Isolationists will not find it easy to attack his answers as those of a do-gooder or just another Europe-iover. Let’s take his testi- mony: As to the importance of Western Europe to America: “The Western European complex is so im- portant to our future * * * that we cannot afford to do less than our best to make sure it does not go down the drain.” As to whether the United States’ allies will defend themselves: “There is a spirit to resist. There is a determination to do their part—to take the risk.” As to timing: “There is not & moment to waste.” As to the purpose of rearming Europe: “We are going to build for ourselves a secure wall of peace. * * * What we are trying to do cannot honestly be considered by any ration ag a threat to its existence.” As to a sound attitude toward the Euro- peans: “Have patience with our allies. * * © Some of their problems are very great.” As to the effect of abandoning Europe: “If we were left standing alone, isoluted in a world of communism, our system would wither away.” The Eisenhower report will leave little ground for die-hard opposition to early and ample aid in the defense of Europe. One of the things we like most about General “Ike's” statement is his reminder that military power is more than 6 matter of men or weapons, or even of productive capacity. It depends also on courage, on purpose, on faith, and on willingness to work together. The core of the problem of Europe's de- fense js right in these moral and spiritual ingredients. With them the physical power can be mustered. Those who take a nega- tive line and say, “We won't supply another man or dollar until you prove you can defend yourselves,” miss the point. The Eisenhower approach is positive: ‘Here's what we will contribute to the common effort. Now, what can you do?” Can anyone doubt that this confident, cooperative attitude will evoke a better response? General Eisenhower is insistent that Eu- rope must help itself; indeed, that it must do the larger part of the job. But he per- celves that to spur that effort Europe needs hope, the assurance that it will not be de- serted by America. We trust that his mag- nificent presentation of the case will per- suade Congress and the public to give that assurance—unmistakably and promptly. A561 The Strike of Switchmen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLYDE R. HOEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 5 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix to the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp a very splendid editorial en- titled “Strong Words Are Not Enough,” published in the Washington Sunday Star of February 4, 1951. This has ref- erence to the railroad strike, and is di- rected to the President, My own thought is that Congress should take authoritative action to pre- vent strikes of this character which threaten the security of the Nation and are in violation and defiance of solemn contracts entered into by the union, and in utter disregard of the public interest. Several measures could be adopted. One would be to deny further bargaining rights to any union for its membership where it authorizes or tolerates a strike in violation of its contract. If the union cannot control its members, then it should not be given power and responel- bility to represent them. The present “sickness” strike is nothing more than a dodge or subterfuge, as has been demon- strated previously. The situation de- mands vigorous action. This editorial also suggests another possible remedy. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Srrona Worps Are Nor ENovaH The President, who said not long ago that he believed in calling aggression by its right name, now has done some plain talking about the railroad strike. But in this matter strong words are not enough. This strike is steeped in dishonesty, and is doing a great deal of damage, both materially and morally, to the country. The switchmen who have walked off their jobs are not sick, and every one knows it, This is simply a transparently dishonest de- vice to escape the consequences which might befall them if they went out openly on strike. This is a serious matter in itself. For if men will not doal honestly in such matters, how is it possible to enter into any agreement with them that merits confidence? Of greater moment, however, is the damage to the country that this strike is doing. Mr. Truman says that it is “directly injuring our national security.” Men engaged in defense work are being laid off as a result of the strike and defense plants are being shut down. Food and clothing destined for our combat forces in Korea are tied up in shut- down yards. In a few more days, the results will be calamitous. There are those who make excuses for the strikers. It is said they have not had a wage increase since 1948, and that is true. But it is their own fault. Last June, after exten- sive heartngs, a presidential fact-finding board recommended an increase of 18 cents an hour, The railroads accepted, the work- ers refused. Later, the railroads, trying to avert a strike, raised the ante to 23 cents an hour. The union still refused. Then came the White House intervention. This resulted in an apparent agreement on 25 cents an hour, plus cost-of-living protection, plus