AAAG dertves ita seductive powers mainly from a misivading analogy, expecially when it ts in- terpreted to mean over-all allocations and rationing, price controls, and Wage controls. These controls do not in fact help to “mobi- Hine” the economy; they do not promote fiexi- bility and efficiency and a quick transforma- tion to a balanced production of war goods, They merely serve to tie the economy up in bureaucratic red tape. Well, then, I may be asked, what can the opposition do? What can Congress do? Sup- pose tt does pass a resolution of lack of con- fidence in Mr. Truman? Suppose Congress does point cut to Mr. Truman that, though tt does not have the power to remove him, that he does resign. That, under our pres- ent system, means Arsxyw W. Basaxey is Pres- ident. Or even if Mr. Baamrxy also restgns, it means, under the existing Presidential - Succession Act, Speaker Gam Rarsvan. Is there any good reason for thinking that either of them would be nxuch better than Mr. Tru- man, that either of them would be remotely up to the tremendous world responsibilities that the task would impose upon him? Most of us would feel forced to answer “No.” Netther of these men is anything much better than an average political hack. Certainly neither could be regarded as a leader capable of inspiring the unity, confi- dence, and trust, not to speak of the hope and faith, that the country 90 desperately needs today. But this is merely another illustration of the pass to which our existing constitutional machinery—plus our 11l-conaidered Presiden- tial Succession Act, and our irresponsible way of choosing leaders in Congress—mainly on the soggy principle of seniority—has brought us. There are, it ts true, concelvable ways out, without even amending our Constitution. Even under our existing (1947) Presidential Succession Act, it might be possible to per- suade both Mr. Truman and Mr. Barxizr to resign and to have the House choose tem- porarily in piace of Mr. Rarsvan a Speaker more eminently qualified to act as Presi- dent, But this man would have to come from the Houwse’e own Members, and the plan in any case would depend upon three great voluntary self-denying acts on the pert of three different individuals. It would probably be much better for Con- gress to cubmit immediately an amendment to the Constitution. Though this ts usually regarded as a hopelessly time-consuming process, there is no good reason why Con- gress could not eliminate the losa of time hitherto regarded as inevitable. Congress has the explicite constitutional right to pro- vide that an amendment be ratified or re- jected by “conventions” of the several States. As part of Congress’ specified right to select the “mode of ratification,” it surely has the implied power (though it has never seen fit to exercise it), to provide that these conventions be elected and meet simultane- oualy at an early date set by Congress itself, Nor would the substance of the amend-~ ment iteelf be difficult tooutline. The Federal Government must be responsible and ac- countable at all times to the people. This means that the people must have potential contro! of their government at all times, and not simply at rigid election dates 2 or 4 years apart. The people must have the Power, in short, to change their leaders at any tlme—above all in times of crisis when our very national survival may be at stake, The way to make this practically possible has already been shown by generations of tested experience tn, for example, Great Brit- ain, Australia, and Canada. Congress should have power at any time to vote a lack of confidence in the Rascutive, who wouk! then Gipsoived Congress, he would force every Member to go to the country for reelection, . but he would himself have to stand for such reelection. Hf the Executive won the coun- try's verdict, he would get a Congress pledged to support him; if he loat it, the new Con- gress could iteelf choose a new leader. Only in this way cah we assure continuous national unity, national confidence, national faith in our leadership, Only in this way can we make our leaders truly responsible and select the leadership capable of rising to a crisia. It 4s so that the great countries of Europe have been able to act in a crisis. It was in the very midst of war, in 1917, when French morale was bad at the front and even worse in 1916, when the British people had ceased the last war that Winston C. Chamberlain and rallied the nation to vic- tory. Does anyone seriously believe today that England should have tried to keep the faltering Chamberlain regime in power in that crisis? we prefer to tie our own hands? Do we prefer the preservatian of an outworn politi- eal machinery to survival? And are we sure that the effort to preserve this rigid, outworn machinery won't, as Woodrow Wilson pre- dicted, prove “fateal—fatal either in breaking down the system or in falling to meet the emergency’'? Benefits for Veterans of Kerea EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS B. HELLER or Nxw YroRx IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | Wednesday, January 24, 1951 Mr. HELLER. Myr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill to grant certain bene- fits provided for veterans of World War II to persons on active service with the Armed Forces during the military, naval, and air operations against the forces of North Korea. To achieve this purpose it proposes to amend pertinent provi- sions of the National Service Life Insur- ance Act of 1940, as amended, the Serv~ icemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, and the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, so as to insure that veterans of the Armed Forces in the Korean War shall be entitled to the benefits accorded World War II veterans under those statutes. I believe a measure of this sort is self- explanatory and needs no extended justification on my part. Surely, those men who have undergone the months of rigorous action, the privations, and heavy casualties of the war in Korea, are entitled to every legitimate benefit a grateful nation can extend. The bene- fits here dealt with are those already ac- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD corded veterans of World War II. Th members of the Armed Forces in Korea, one of the costliest campaigns in our history, are veterans in every sense of the word, and surely entitled to treat- ment equalling that granted soldiers and sailors of previous wars. I trust the committee and the Con- gress will give this measure their fayor- able consideration. Factual Repert Pierces Confused and Emotional Fog on Foreign Affairs aeons, EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. HOWARD H. BUFFETT OY NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. BUFFETT. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks, I am includ- ing an article, entitled “Statement on our Poreign Situation,” by Ernest T. Weir, chairman, National Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa.: Statement on Ovg Foreten Brrvation (By Ernest T. Weir, chairman, National Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa., January 5, 1951) ‘Whether we shall have peace or world war has now become an immediate problem. It is the moat important question confronting the United States and the balance of the world and will directly control all other in- ternal and external problems of every nation. I decided to see how my European. friends were thinking relative to this grave crisis and, consequently, have just spent several weeks in Parts and London consulting with men of affairs in whose experienced Judgment I have great confidence. Collectively, these men represent extensive and diverse economic activity. Individually, they occupy positions in which it is essential for them to have intimate knowledge of public trends of thought in the other coun- tries of Europe, as well as thelr own. On previous occasions, I have found them to be highly accurate in their appraisals of Euro- pean viewpoints and estimates of world situa- tions. Following Is a summation of their optnions which, I believe, represent prevall- ing thought in England and France and fairly refiect the attitude of Europe as a whole. The paramount problem now, of course, is the aituation in which we are involved with China. In the United States, China is being asnounced as an aggressor and as @ tool of Ruasian imperialism. Our friends abroad do not agree that this is the case. They believe that the present Chinese Government, which fe avowedly communistic, truly reflects the present thinking of the Chinese people. But they do not belleve that the Chinase Govern- ment ie under Russian control. They have no doubt that Russia bas influence with China, because countries that ahare the be- lef in communism naturally have close con- tact but point out that the history of China has been that of an tndependent people who have never submitted to control by any other nation. There is no natural bond between the Russians and the Chinese. Prom the Chinese standpoint, Russia is an occidental foreign power the same as the United Staves and other western nations, and even now, ob- aervers pgelenon Sonu ariarne tient omar hir-oh & growing resentment among the Chinese over the presence of Russians in China, i would be @ groas error 1f the United States, through avoidable action, ahould proyide the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The feeling is that the day-by-day attacks. unifying bond that is new lacking between Russia and China by making our country thelr common enemy. CHIANG KAT-SHEK 18 WINISHED The present Chinese Government is the result of the revolutionary fight which has been waged in China for many years and | from which the Communist faction has emerged with total victory. As a result, they believe that Chiang Kai-shek is completely finished 4s a leader—that he has no influ- ence in the affairs of China now and will not have in the future. In the opinion of our friends abroad, who know much more about China than we do, the overlord system which aed” Kal-shek represented is completely ended. Prom the factual standpoint, therefore, the present government of China represents the more than 400,000,000 Chinese—at least 20 percent of the world’s population—and there ts no apparent good reason why the United States should not have recognized this government as the representative of the Chinese people. If this had been done, it is felt, the t disastrous situation in Korea would not have developed. Our European friends believe that continued recognition of Chiang Kai-shek is unjustified by the facts of the situation and that persistence in this position simply stirs up additional resent- ment against the United States. England, of course, very promptly recognized the new government, feeling that this was the only course that would make it possible to deal with China in the future, and I am sure that this action by England has the endorsement of all the European countries. SHOULD RECOGNISE NEW GOVERNMENT The feeling is that we also should recog- nize the new Chinese government and that such action will make possibie negotiation of peace terms with China which otherwise may be impossible, Prevention of war in the East is a consideration of much greater weight than the maintenance of a position in Korea’ and Formosa which, in comparison with the major problems of the world at large, are certainly not of sufficient import- ance to justify war. I find that this is the universal position abroad. Now as to Russia, the thinking is as fol- lows: Like everyone else, our European friends are puzzled regarding Russia's real objec- tives. However, I did not find single per- son who believed that Russia would precipi- tate a war now or for some years to come— if ever. Naturally, in the absence of sure knowledge of Russia's intentions, they do not trust her and for that reason feel that definite and regular military preparations should be made both in Europe and the United States. They believe that this in it- self would serve as an effective deterrent if Rusala actually has aggressive intentions, be- cause it would make clear the opposition Russia would have to meet in event of war. But I found nobody who believed that Russia now was at all prepared for war. IRON CURTAIN HIDES WEAKNESS They think that Russia maintains the fron curtain to hide weakness rather than strength, and this position is based on care. ful analysis of Russia's war-making poten- tial as measured by its production of steel, ofl, and other military essentials. In com- parison with the production of similar mate- rials by the United States and its allies, they can see no justification for the bellef that Ruasia could carry on a war to ultimate suc- cess. For the prevention of war and, con- sequently, for the safety of the world, 1t is their position, therefore, that we should con- tinue efforts to deal with Russia. By main- taining contact with Russia, we will have tho opportunity to prevent the development of situations that might result in a war that is not desired by either Russia or the west- ern nations, on Russia in our propaganda over the past several years have not been productive of good; that it certainly gives the Russian people the idea that we have no genuine desire for friendly relations but intend even- tually to make war. Our European friends are convinced that this interpretation of our attitude has caused resentment toward us on the part of the Russian people, as dis~ tinguished from the Russian Government. There is no question that we made grave errors in dealing with Russia during and after the war, and moat serious among them was the division of Germany which turned Eastern Germany over tu Russia, If this and other similar blunders had not been made, we probably would not have to be thinking - now of the danger of war. But we cannot remake the past. We -nust conduct ourselves according to the situation as it is at present. - And the wisest course, in European opinion, is to keep the door open to Russie and thus, while there is still time, do our part to pre- vent conditions of irrevocable hostility from . becoming established, MEET DIRECTLY WITH russtIA Furthermore, there is the feeling in Europe that the United States should be willing to meet directly with Russia instead. of in- sisting on contacts through the agency of the UN. This is due to practical recognition of the fact that the world’s major problem is the issue between Russia and the United States. Certainly none of the other nations would resent this direct dealing, because they believe it holds the key to avoidance of war, and none of them wants war. ‘Getting back to the situation in the East as it is viewed in Europe, it is very evident that the Chinese do not understand us or our intentions and, consequently, are skeptical of our statements. To begin with, we defi- nitely refused to recognize their government, making clear that we dislike it because it is communistic, and we indicate that this is to be our permanent policy. Then we went into Korea and, after driving the North Koreans back over th? thivty-eighth parallel, kept on moving in increased strength with the announced intention of gaining control over the entire country. Of course, we stated our reasons for doing this, but our reasons mean nothing to the Chine.e. As they see t, we are an avowed enemy of their government and are carrying on a mammoth drive to the Manchurilaa line. We say it is not our intention to cross the line, but they do not believe us, having no confidence in the statement of what they consider an avowed enemy. Consequently, it is entirely possible that they have determined—on their own and not because of Russian control— to drive us from Korea for what they re- gard sincerely as protection of their coun- try’s future position. If we do get down to negotiation with the Chinese, it is very likely that they will insist on our withdrawal from Korea and will also insist that the Forma question be settled to their satis- faction. Against the background of the world problem as a whole, as was pointed out above, Korea and Formosa are not con- sidered of sufficient importance to justify a continuing and growing war in the East. PREVENT WORLD WAR IIT Our friends in Europe fee) definitely that we should make every effort to better under- stand the Chinese, to deal with them, and to prevent an open, declared war with China, because they have no doubt at all that such @ war inevitably would develop into world war ITI. A war with China would offset to a major degree the military weakness of Russia mentioned above, and even though she did not promptly enter the war on the side of China—which she probably would not do-—~ it would create the opportunity for Russia to stir up trouble in various parte of the world. There is a great deal of propaganda to the effect that the United States would puffer. lees of prestige if & pdace were worked : out with China on the above conditions, but this should be ignored, because now the ali- important, basic necessity la no war in the East, In connection with this eastern situation, I give quotations, taken from English pub- lications, which illustrate the frame of mind of China's present leadership: On September 80, Chou En-Lai, premier and foreign minis- ter of China, in a statement the substance of which was conveyed to the Indian Ambassa- dor in Peking, said: “The Chinese people absolutely refuse to tolerate foreign sggres- - sion, nor will they stand idly by seeing their neighbors being savagely invaded by im- perialists. Whoever attempts to exclude. neariy 500,000,000 Ohtnese peaple from the United Nations,” ‘he added, “whoever sets at: naught and violates the interests of this one-~ fourth of mankind in the world end fancies . vainly that any eastern -probierns: directly concerned with China can be. solved arbi- trarily, will certainly break ‘his neck,'’ Also, “American imperialists aimed at ane . nexing Korea, whence they could invade Manchuria * * * and finally the whole of Asia. History had proved that a conquest of Korea meant a threat to China's national - defense.” Consequently, “The only means af bringing {mperialism to its senses was a resort to force, and the Chinese people must be prepared to deliver blows to the imperialists, taking the risk of extending the war.” As a further example of China's thinke ing, the present Chinese Government claims to be the “first independent Government of . China insofar as it has abrogated the last remains of privileges enjoyed by the Western Powers. * * * Its desire to have a seat on the United Nations is fortified by the belief that it is indeed the inheritor of the special status whereby China is one—-and the only Asian one—of the Security Coun- cll’s veto-holding big five.” Also important is the following statement taken from the London Times: “It is deplorably tragic for American statesmen to be so one-eyed as to imagine that everything in China nowadays is due to Moscow communism * * ®* and that America lost China through not giving enough aid to Chiang Kai-shek, Nothing could be further from the truth * ¢* * the more military material the U. 5. A. sent to China, the more military equipment did the People's Liberation Army receive as it came to them directly or indirectly from the Kuomintang armies, * * * The Peo- ple’s Government came into power largely due to the collapse of the KMT * * * the Chinese people showed increasing hatred and hostility toward this regime. * * * No sensible observer can see any alternative to the present Government either now or in the next few years * * * the People’s Government is bringing better living con~ ditions to very many people. There has now been much improvement in business, and many factories and shops are working that were not doihg so 9 months ago. The present government is controliing inflation which the previous one did not. The KMT imported rice from abroad for China; the present Government has managed to get enough in from other parts of Ohina, In contrast to the corruption under the KMT, government officials today lve simply, on low swlaries, work hard and serve the people. There has been a very marked improvement in the operation of railways. * * * With- out a shadow of doubt, the new Govern- ment has won the allegiance of students all over the country, and this is a point of great importance in Chine.” MUST CONSIDER EUROPEAN ATTITUDE In the above I have endeavored to give @ olear picture of the opinions of men of wide knowledge and influence in Britain and France. Whether one agrees with these
AMS opinions or mot, it is impossible to ignore them because it is unthinkable that we should become involved in a war with Russia . without having the principal nations of Western Surope as our allies. We cannot make the decision of war or peace alone and without consulting them. Hence we must know thetr attitude toward the great cen- tral problem which is at the heart of the crisis. We need not agree with all of the opinions of these observers. But in the main they must be considered in forming our own policy. Having obtained this brief view of the attitude of friendly minds in the nations which must be our allies, we may attempt a summary of what our own attitude ought to be. It ts certainly apparent that the great Gecision we must make now is the one re- garding China. There ts no doubt we made & serious mistake in jumping into Korea without giving due consideration to the long-range effect, and I would think that possibly the major part of this blunder was in going beyond the thirty-eighth parallel, where we could have stopped consistently. In our decision and its effect on the world’s situation, we cannot assume that we know the opinion of 400,000,000 Chinese people. We must think seriously es to what this opinion actually is, and then we certainly must be influenced by it once we have some real iden as to their beliefs. We say they are Communists, We, of course, do not like communism, but we cannot eliminate com- nrunism in the world by war. Certainly, we cannot ignore the fact that there are many people in the world today who believe, so far as we know, that communism is of value to them. If we refuse to recognise and deal with the present Chinese Government because it is communietic, we assume the dangerous position af trying to tell the people of other important nations what kind of government they must have. As a matter of fact, we have done this very thing in the case of Spain through our refusel until very recently to have dealings with a Spanish Government that has been in existence for 13 years, solely on the ground that it is a Pasoist govern- ment and, therefore, not to our iiking. Such positions make us intruders in the internal affairs of other nations. WAR TO ERADICATE COMMUNISM No matter what claims may be made that our attitude toward China is the result of Chinese aggression in Korea, I think the fact is very evident that if the present situa- tion results in extension of the war, it will be due to our refusal to recognize the Ohi- nese Government because 1t is communistic, In other wards, the war would be caused by our intention to eradicate communism. We certainly must realise that we cannot elimi- nate communism by war. On the contrary, T am sure that a third world war would in- crease communism, because the war would be so long drawn out and so disastrous that there would be a greater degree of diasatia~ faction among the peoples of all nations than exists today. Therefore, the vital questions ere: “Should there be a war?” and tf the answer is affirmative, “What, precisely, would the war be for?” EMOTIONAL APPROACH BARS CLEAR THOUGHT Statements are coming out of Washington to the effect that we cannot stand for ap- peasernent. This is an emotional approach that at other times has prevented clear thinking and practical decistons. Also, when some of our statesmen, in delibera- tion on these important world matters, take ® position contrary to that held by the administration, attacks are made on them, such as the reopmt one by Senator Lucas, of Tinois, whigh: made while Republicans Were in caucts to consider the Acheson mat~ ter. Senator Lucas told the Senate that the action of the House Members was “an invita- tion to Stalin to strike anywhere” and shouted that on the basis of the Republican : action, Stalin is likely to conclude that this country ts so divided that he can start new aggressions. The Diinols Senator's posttion, of course, was based entirely on theory, not on facts. We have made vital mistakes in our decisions on world affairs, and they have brought us to the verge of a new world war. mis~ - takes were not made because of any divi- sion—teal or fancied. They were made through lack of the very deliberation, debate, and exposure of the facts to the public that the Senator calis division. Certainiy it is far better—in fact, it is vitalty important— that we have broad and thorough discussion on policy, even though this will produce disagreement, because it is the only way in which we can come to and safe poli- cles and decisions supported by public under- standing. It ts perfectly ridiculous to say that because a lot of people in this country, who happen to include leading Republicans, lack confidence in Acheson and de- mand that he be replaced, that Stalin or anybody else in the world will be encouraged to attack the United Btates. TELL THE PEOPLE FRANKLY Tf an attack occura, it will be for some much more substantial reason, yet this is the kind of propaganda that has been issued continucusly and has been so confusing to the American people. I am convinced that one of the greatest mistakes has been the failure to tell the people of this country frankly what the actual conditions are. We should have more debates on these matters. We should cut out the secret diplomacy, which in the long run promotes war. After all, it tg the people of the country who pay the bill with income, property, and lives. They should have more to do with the final decisions. It is obvious that to meet this crisis suc- cessfully there must be unity among the Araerican people. But unity is not the blind following of whatever the President may de- cide to do from day to day. We have had too much of that in the past and it has peen a large factor in bringing us to our present predicament. Disagreement is not disunity. Disagreement, expressed in full and orderly debate, is the process by which al aides of a problem and all possible solu- tions are revealed to a free people. It is only tarough this process that the people of the United States can arrive at the general agree- ment on objectives and methods that will make real unity possibie. The present 1s claarly a period of disagreement and debate. Further comments on communism: There is no sympathy in Europe for a war which would have the objective of driving communism out of the world or any section of it. On the other hand, there is the belief that we should be well prepared against mill- tary aggression on the part of Russia, the only nation from which they think there is any possibility of aggression. I am quite canvinced that we will have little, if any, support from European coun- tries if a war should result with China as @ result of our unwillingness to recognise the Chinese Government. In view of its position of great responsibility in the world, it ja very apparent that the time has come for the Untted States to stop making offhand, spur-of-the-moment decisions and to quit trying to control people through propaganda gra’ country and the world entirely on their own. There has been no apparent desire for and certainly no effort to obtain the opinions of other gtoups. The so-called by-partisan movement has always been a farce, because the Republican Party and even nonadminis- tration Democrats have been ignored, I be- action we most fear, and even in the even APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Iveve that Republicans and nonedminis- tration Democrats have a great obligation to take a strong posttion, to demand facta, and to refuse to support the administration on any proposal unless they are convinced that the facts clearly merit such support. The result of auch a position will be a better perspective on the problems and a more thorough understanding of the necessities of the present situation. If this is dong, it will give greater hope and encouragement to our European friends who certainly are not very happy today about the quality of our leadership. To me, it is a favorable sign that more critéctem of the adminiatration and its de- cisions is developing over the country, in the press and otherwise. I have before me an article taken from one of the newspapers that is based on an interview with an un- named United States Senator. The entire article is attached to this statement, but I would like to call attention to the following definite assertion: “We should understand, better late than never, that the cheers which greeted Mr. Truman's bold act of last June drowned out solemn military warnings. The Senator of this interview attended secret military hear- ings where the Joint Chiefs of Staff piainiy stated that Korea was useless to occupy and impossible to defend. These opinions were overruled by the President. It is as simple as that. He reversed both his Secretary of State and his military advisers * ° ° all of whom might properly have resigned in or- der to alert the country.” If this is true, it ts a sad commentary on our Government. This statement should be investigated and the facts determined. If the President ignored the warnings of mili- tary advisers and on his own initiative and authority plunged this country into war, steps should be taken immediately to see that neither he nor any other man shall have such power in the future, T am convinced that if the situation in the east 1s settled amicably and war is thus pre- vented, the world is ready to move forward into a period of great development, both economic and social, out of which will come improved standards of living for the peoples of many nations. In view of this great pos- sibility, a war now would be particularly dis- astrous. This momentous decision—involv- ing great gain or terrible loss for the world— is largely in the hands of the United States. EXAMINE ALL THE FACTS The with whom I talked are naturally influenced by persons] and na- tional interest, but to a much greater ex- tent than most Americans, they are accus- tomed to thinking in world terms and on a long-range basis. Their opinions as to the proper course for the United States and the Western World in general differ markedly from the position taken so far by our leader- ship. What they advocate with regard to recognition of China and dealings with both China and Russia may be unpalatable to many, but we should think of two things in connection with this, In the first piace, logic may be on their side, and we should examine all of the facts with utmost care to see if thts is the case before we take ac- tion of any kind. Second, we need as many allies as we can secure, and we particularly need allies In Europe. We can hardly ex~ pect the support of Europeans if we act at variance with their wishes and without due vinced that in their main thesis they are entirely right. Extension of the war in the east would be a tragic blunder, We are woe- fully unprepared; we would surrender to Russia the initiative to take the kind of et tries of Europe need is time, and in deci+ sions on subordinate matters, we must not
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD let emotional appeals such as prestige and no appeasement stand in the way. Obviously, the United States should take ‘every n step to build its military atrength to the level that will guarantee the necurity of our country. It should never have been allowed to fall below that level and in view of the very large military ex- penditures in year since the end of the last war, it is difficult for the lay citizen to understand how we declined to a position of such incredible weakness. BUILD STRENGTH TO PREVENT WAR But our policy in building military str should -be not to prepare for war but prevent war. This also should be our policy tn extending aid to the friendly nations of Europe. We should reinforce this policy of preventing war by our attitude to- ward the Communist countries. We should make it known to the world that so far as we are concerned the door is always open to the ‘ul settlement of differences through negotiation. This policy should be applied now in the case of China on the question of recognition and the problems of Korea and Pormoaa. If our efforts to establish 2 basis of world peace in this manner should be repudiated by the Communist countries, we will have lost little, because the plain fact is that we are now unprepared to do anything about the situation in a military way. On the other hand, we will gain much, because it will demonstrate to the world that the United States does not desire war and is not conducting iteelf in a manner that will make war inevitable. It ts a widely held opinion in Europe that the present conduct of the United States will result in war, which helps to explain why we receive only half- hearted support from nations which are our natural allies. A clear demonstration now that peace is our sincere objective will be the best possible way to inaure the full-scale, unreserved participation of Europe should the pessimistic fear of inevitable war be confirmed. It is important that we arrive quickly at sound and practical decisions on United States’ policy. We have lost ground with our natural allies. I regret to have to say that confidence in our leadership in world affairs has definitely declined, and this tn itself will increase the confusion in thinking that already exista. It is a matter for our most serious consideration, because in this deci- aion of world importance we cannot go it alone but must have the support of the European countries and as much of the world as is possible, Eenxst T. Wem. P. 8.—People in Europe are definitely op- posed to use of the atomic bomb. In fact, I was quite surprised at the unanimity of this opinion. They believe that if the atomic bomb should be used there would never again be any feeling of security left in the world. The Preaident’s statement a short while ago that the United States was con- aidering the use of the atomic bomb was in itself a bombshell in Europe and really frightening in ite effect. Presidential Power: The Issue Analyzed Ce maimnameenend EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include an article written by Mr. XCVII-~-App.——29 Henry Steele Commager, professor of history at Columbia University, who is the author of America in Perspective and other books: PexsmentiaL Powsr: Taz Issux ANALYZ"D— Executive Decisions To Commir Troors Ovrsipg THe Nation Have MANY HisToRicaL PRECEDENTS (By Henry Steele Commager) The Republican high command has now launched ‘its formal attack upon the Presi- dential conduct of foreign relations. This attack began with the demand for the ouster of Secretary Acheson—a demand which looks to the substitution of a ‘parliamentary sys- tem of government for our Presidential sys- tem. It has now shifted to the Korean War and the fulfillment of our obligations under the Atlantic Pact. By sending American soldiers to Korea without congressional au- thorization, says Senator Tart, the President has usurped power and violated the laws and the Constitution of the United States. Zealous that such usurpations and viola- tions shall not continue, Representative Counsrr haa introduced a formal resolution requiring congressional authorization before any American soldiers be sent out of the country in the future. Whatever may be said of the expediency of the Taft-Coudert program, this at least can be said of the principles involved—that they have no support tn law or tn history. Let us look first to the constitutional is- sue, for this has been urged, solemnly and insistently by both Tarr and Coupgar. It is, fortunately for us, not a new issue. It was discussed by the founding fathers. It arose, and was settled, in one administration after another—the Washington, the John Adams, the Jefferson, the Jackson, the Tyler, the Polk, the Lincoln, the Grant, the McKinley, the Taft, the Wilson, and the Franklin Roosevelt administrations. Time and again it has come before the courts, and time and again the courts have returned clear an- swers to the questions involved. It has been the subject of frequent congressional de- bate and of much learned commentary. It is so hackneyed a theme that even politi- cians might reasonably be expected to be familiar with it. It must be admitted at once that the con- stitutional document itself says very little about this matter of the conduct of foreign relations and the exercise of war powers, and what it does say is couched in general terms. The Executive power is vested in the Presi- Gent, and he is required to take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- tion. He js Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy. With the advice and consent of the Senate he may make treaties and appoint ambassadors, and he has the power to receive ambassadors and other public min- jsters. Finally, he is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the term “laws” as we know, embraces not only stat- utes but treaties. To the Congress is as- signed, explicitly, power to declare war. What do all these words mean? Is the term “Executive power” a grant of power, or merely a description of an office? What are the obligations of the oath of office, and how far may the President go in fulfilling those obligations? As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces may he act independently of the Congress, or may he act independently if Congress ts not tn session? Do the laws that he ts to execute embrace not only stat- utes and treaties but international law gen- erally? And to what degree ts his execution of these laws dependent upon congressional support and approval? And what is war? These questions are not in fact as baffling as they seem. Our Constitution is not only the original document; it te also a century and « half of interpretation, a century and 8 half of tradition, practice, and custom. Questions similar to those which confront us A449 today have come up again and again‘in the past, and the answers which history has given provide us not merely with precedents but with guidance. Of all those who have directed American foreign policy none was abler or more learned than John Quincy Adams, and none gave more thought to the principles which should control the conduct of foreign relations. In his eulogy on Madison, Adams said: : “However startled we may be at the ide t+ the Executive Ohief Magistrate has the power of involving the Nation in war, even without consulting Congress, an experience of 60 years has proved that in numberless cases he has and must have exercised the power.” This observation was both good history and good prophecy. On his own initiative Washington had proclaimed neutrality—a proclamation which might well have in- volved us in war with France. On his own initiative John Adams overrode his Cabinet and his party and sent commissioners to France to end the quasi war with that coun- try. On his own initiative Jefferson, in theory 8 strict constructionist, inaugurated the war with the Barbary pirates. John Quincy Adams’ successors, too, vindicated his judg- ment. When Prance failed to provide money due the United States under the treaty of 1831 Jackson ordered the Navy to prepare for ac- tive service. Tyler, eager to consummate his Texas policy, disposed the land and naval forces so as to threaten Mexico. His suc- cessor, Polk, ordered General Taylor across the Nueces and thus precipitated the Mexi- can War—presenting it to Congress as a fait accompli. Here was war by Presidential act. Polk's successors did not go quite that far, but that was not, perhaps, their fault. Thus in 1854, President Pierce ordered an American squadron to bombard Greytown, in Nicara- gua, and the order was duly executed. Eventually the legality of the attack was brought before the Supreme Court, and Jus- tice Nelson sustained it in words that are relevant today: “Now as respects the interposition of the Executive abroad for the protection of the lives or property of the citizen, the duty must, of necessity, rest in the discretion of the President. * * °* The protection, to be effectual * * * may require the most prompt and decided action, * * * The great object and duty of government is the protection of the lives, liberty, and prop- erty of the people compoaing it ° * * and any government falling in the accom- plishment of the object, or the performance of the duty, is not worth preserving.” At the same time Presidential policy threatened involvement in another quarter of the globe. In 1858 Commodore Perry sailed his squadron into Yedo Bay, overawed the Bhogunate, and persuaded the Japanese to open their country to the Western World. Even more illuminating was the conduct of Lincoln, the first President of that party which now seeke to constrict the Executive powers. Congress was not in session when Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter, and Lin- coin did not think it necessary to call it into session for almost 3 months. Meantime he went ahead on his own. He called out the militia, organised an Army, and ordered an advance into Virginia, proclaimed a biock- ade, apent money as yet unappropriated—in short, he conducted war. Theoretically, to be eure, {t was not war; it was an insurrec- tion. But whatever interpretation might be Placed upon such acts as raising an Army and invading Virginia, the blockede was an act of war in international elehtineas was recognise’ as such. ntempor con. fessed many constitutional es about Lincoln's actions, but there are few now who insist that he should have awaited oongres- sional authorization for what he had to do.
A450 In the post-Civil War years the examples of the exercise of Presidential powers that brought the Nation to the verge of war are so numerous as to be tedious. The most in- teresting come in the administrations of two distinguished Republicans, McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. When the Boxer Rebel- lion broke out, the western powers deter- mined to send expeditionary forces to reacue their nationals. Without consulting Con- giess, McKinley sent an American force of some 5,000 soldiers into the heart of China, This, he argued, involved no war against the Chinsse nation and therefore required no congressional authorization. The ebullient T. R. was even less troubled about congressional support for what he felt he had ta do. Among other things, he “took” the Panama Canal, and his comment on that Executive act is illuminating: “I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate, and while the debate goes on the Canal does also.” Nor was this the only exercise of war powers by Theodore Roosevelt. Like his predecessors and his successors, he inter- vened tn the Caribbean to restore order and secure American interests—in Santo Domin- go, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Honduras, It was the Republican Party which had traditionally favored a strong Executive, but in this principle of constitutional devel- opment Woodrow Wilson outbid his op- ponents. Woodrow Wilson was not unfa- raillar with the Constitution. He had written learned monographs on it, and he had made the congressional and Presidential powers his particular object of study. Dedicated as he was to a policy of peace with Mexico, he did not hesitate to order the bombardment of Veracruz and the occupation of that city; 2 years later he sent General Pershing on an expedition into Mexico. Both of these were acts of war had Mexico chosen to regard them as such. It is relevant t. note, too, that when in 1917 he asked for congressional au- thority to arm American merchantmen he was cireful to add that he had the power to do this “even without special warrant of law, by the plain implications of my con- atitutional duties and powers.” Franklin Roosevelt's conduct of foreign affairs is fresh in our minds; it is doubtless ® lively recollection of that conduct which inspires some of our present-day isolationists in their campaign for limitations on tle Executive power, We need not rehearse here the details of the destroyer-bases deal or the shoot-on-sight order, or agitate anew the question of delegation of power in the lend- lease bill. It is sufficient to say that, not- withstanding the protests which greeted these and other acts “short of war,” none of them was successfully challenged at the courts or in the larger political arena, nor has any of them been successfully chal- Jenged, as yet, at the bar of history. All of these Presidential acts involved the Ganger of war. Many of them involved the use of American soldiers, sallors, or marines outside the territorial limits of the United States. Were they conatitutional? Obvi- ously the Presidents themselves thought so, and we cannot ignore the weight of that testimony. Congressmen protested, from time to time, but on no occasion did Con- gress repudiate Presidential power, or even refuse to sustain it by such appropriations as were required. What of the attitude of the courts, the final arbiters c’ questions of constitutionality? Here, again, the record {s impressive. To be aure, it ts difficult to challenge an exer- cise of Presidential power directly; the courts will not entertain questions of a political nature. But one of the blessings of our constitutional system is that great issues of public policy are brought before the courts through private litigation, and we have therefore frequent judicial pro- nouncements on the nature of the Execu- tive power. Perhaps the first of these was a the notable case of Martin versus Mott, where the magisterial Justice Storey held that 1¢ was for the President to decide when ciroumstances justified him in oalling forth the militia of the States, and how he was to use that militia, The opinion {s relevant to our problem today, for it illuminated the whole question of Presidential discretion in implementing the general terms of the Con- atitution. Again in the hotly contested prize cases, involving the legality of Lincoln's blockade— and by implication of his powers to make ‘war—the court held that it was for the Pres- ident to determine when war comes, and that he is “not only authorized but bound to resist force by force.” In the case of Neagle, in 1890, Justice Miller held that the phrase “to take care that the laws be faithfully exe- cuted” was not Mmited to the enforcement of acts of Congress alone but included “rights, duties and obligations growing out of the Constitution, our international rela- tions, and all the protection implied by the nature of the Government under the Con- stitution.” Even more illuminating is the opinion of the court in the recent Ourtiss- Wright case. In the arena of foreign affairs, said the court: “With its important, compli- cated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or Msten as a representative of the Nation. * © © It is quite apparent th.t if, in the maintenance of our International relations, embarrassment—perhaps even serious em- barrassment—is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, congressional legisla- tion must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from state utory restriction which would not be ad- missible were domestic affairs alone involved, Moreover, he, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war.” Most of these precedents, from Washing- ton to Franklin Roosevelt, have involved the exercise of Presidential discretion under the general and ambiguous phrases of the Consti. tution, For the exercise of Presidential dis- cretion under laws, the case is even stronger. Here the President is confronted not only by his obligation to preserve, protect and de- fend the Constitution but by his further ob- ligation to take care that the lawa be faith- fully executed. Both of these obligations are involved in our action in Korea and in the commitment to the defense of Western Europe. For it is an elementary fact that must never be lost sight of that treaties are laws and carry with them the same obligation as laws. When the Congress passed the United Na- tions Participation Act it made the obli- gations of the Charter of the United Na- tions law binding on the President. When the Senate ratified the North Atlantic Treaty it made the obligations of that treaty law binding on the President. Both of these famous documents require action by the United States which must, in the nature of the case, be left to a large ex~ tent to the discretion of the Executive. Thus article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty, binds all signatories “to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack,” and article 6 provides that each signatory “will assist the party or parties * * * attacked by taking forth- with, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necea- sary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” If the Congress can deny the Executive the right to use troops or arms abroad, these phrases lose meaning. It will not, of course, be denied that Con- gress may do just thie—not by resolution, or even by law, but by control over appropria- tions. Congress has never yet failed to carry out a treaty obligation by denying money, but in theory it can do so. What we have here, then, is not so much a real danger as APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a theoretical one. Thus, in our constitu- tional system the three departments are equal and independent, but Congress could, by refusing to vote appropriations, put a complete stop to the entire machinery of the executive and the judiciary departments, It is not to be imagined that the Congress would ever so abuse its power, nor is it to be imagined that the Congress would be #0 lost to honor ag to repudiate the solemn obliga- tions of treaties. Government Insurance Isn’t Cheap EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the RecorD, I include the fol- lowing article from the magazine Tax Outlook, which was sent to me by one of the officials of the Disabled American Veterans: GoveRNMENT INSURANCE ISN’T CHEAP—REPORT Snows Ir Cost Taxpayer $5,600,000,000 in 10 Years (With the prospect of an enlarged military program engendered by the international sit- uation at consequently greater but necessary cost to the taxpayers, the need to eliminate needless Government spending becomes greater than ever. In this connection {t is of interest to note that one proposal that may be debated at this session of Congress is a revision of the national service life insurance program, which, according to a report of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- ecutive Departments, cost approximately $5,600,000,000 over a 10-year period. The committee in making its report public last year recommended Congress consider estab- lishing a gratuitous life indemnity for all men serving in the Armed Forces “in Iteu of, and not superimposed upon” the present program. It recommended, among other things, that if this was not done, the exiating program be given a complete legislative ap- praisal. Because changes in the national service life insurance program, including gra- tuitous policies, were discussed in the last session of Congress, and may be debated in the new one, Tax Outlook herewith presents a major part of the committee's lengthy find- ings in the public interest.—The Eorror.) The national service life insurance pro- gram has not met the objectives of Govern- ment life insurance. It has failed to provide ‘uniform protection in the form of income for the dependents of persons dying while serv- ing in the Armed Forces, and it has failed to lessen demands for pensions. Federal contributions for administrative expenses and benefit payments have cost the Federal Government from appropriated funds (through moneys largely raised by taxation), more than 85,500,000,000 in the last 10-year period, [The survey carried through fiscal 1949. Since that date it is estimated costs may have risen to $6,000,000,000.] There is no evidence that Congress has ever been fully or adequately apprised of the total cost. The NSLI Act of 1940 was proposed and passed primarily to protect the equity value of the Government life insurance policy- holders in the (World War I) United States Government Life Insurance Fund. In the event of a future national emergency, a fourth Government insurance program may be proposed, There is serious doubt that
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD manpower to administer national servioe life insurance, or any other Government insur- ance plan, would be available in the event of a future national emergency, The administrative and clerical duties per- formed by the various personnel of the Armed Forces relative to the maintenance of in-service national service life insurance poll- cies has had and continues to have the effect of dissipating military appropriations and manpower, In addition to the filacal cost factor, during the war years, hundreds of officers and thou- sands of enlisted personnel devoted full time to in-service administrative duties. Cost to the armed services of edministering in-serv- ice national services life insurance policies from October 8, 1640 through March “1, 1950, ig conservatively estimated at $96,400,212. A MISNOMER Sinoe October 8, 1940, more than 22,500,000 NSLI insurance policies have been issued. Three out of every four of all former NSLI policyholders have permitted thelr policies to lapse. Of the veterans of World War II, only one of six are covered by NSLI. About 25.9 percent of NSLI policies currently in force are held by in-service personnel. Only % percent of thoee currently serving in the Armed Forces have taken out this insurance, One out of every nine combat casualties of World War It had no national service life insurance whatsoever. The use of the word “insurance” in char- acterising NSLI operations 1s a misnomer. The paradox of NSLI is made clear when it is realized that the Federal Government under- writes the extra hazards of military or naval service only to the extent to which an in- dividual was tnsured for normal civilian risk under the NSLI program. The insured having in force NSLI on a personal paying basis, generally speaking, is a condition precedent before the United States Govern- ment becomes Hable for any death-benefit payments. This condition presents an inequity and results in discrimination among beneficteries. [In the event death was determined by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to be a “result of disease or injury traceable to the extre hazard of the military or naval service”, the liability for payment of such claims was borne not by the NSLI fund, but by the Fed- eral Government. During the war 88 per- cent of all deaths in the armed forces were determined to be “extra hazard.” The Gov- ernment paid not only the face value of the policies held by these individuals, but ap- proximately 19 percent more than the face value or annuities (as a result of the polf- cies)—plus 3 percent on the undistributed principal. [Therefore the NSLI fund suffered no lia- bility if the death was determined to be extra hazard. The Government assumed the cost of extra hazard only if the deceased had taken out NSLI and then only in the amount of the NSLI policy. Thus, attainment of the objectives of the act was dependent upon the economic predilections and sense of re- sponsibility of the individual sailor, airman, soldier or marine.} OLD TABLE USE COSTLY The use of the American Experience Table of Mortality for calculating annuities was outmoded by 1940, and its use has had the effect of grantiag annuity payments con- siderably in excess of what more modern actuarial calculations would justify. Teati- mony revealed that the use of the table was deliberately adopted in order that annuity payments to beneficiaries of World War II would be no lesser amount than similar pay- mente being made to beneficiaries of World War X castulties. The continued use of this table for caloulating annutties can only be interpreted as a subsidy to the NSLI fund. Through October i, 1948, the use of thts table has required the Government to appro- priate to the NSLI fund in excess of 8502,. 000,000 in annuity differential paymenta, There waa and is no justification under ac- cepted insurance practices to use this table for NSLI annutty calculations. The use of any annuity table without regard to the dif- Terence in life expectancy of male and female lives is contrary to modern insurance prac- tice. Under the NSLI Act as presently writ- ten and administered, the total cost to the Government of a $10,000 face value policy May be in excess of $12,000. Through the conclusion of the fiscal year 1949 (ending June 80, 1949), the total Fed- eral contribution to the NSLI fund was great- er than the amount collected from the tn- sured in premium payments. On an over- all average, an amount exceeding 75 percent of the total premiums paid on NSLI was re- turned to the insured in the form of divi- dends during the first 6 months of 1950. (Currently, plans are being made for dis- tribution of about 61,000,000,000 in a second “dividend” this year.) TRUE COST NOT SHOWN The present rate of interest (3 percent) paid on invested NSLI funds is considerably in excess of the interest rate being paid by the United States Treasury in securing ade- quate sums required to fund and refund the debt obligation and current expenses of the Federal Government. Continuation of payment (of interest at 3 Percent) is of questionable justification. The insuring of aviation cadets under present applicable statutes—Government paying the premiums—is excessively costly. It would be tens of millions of dollars less costly to assure exch aviation cadet in train- ing that his dependents (in event of his death during training) would receive a gra- tuitous life indemnity from the Government of $10,000. From 1941, a conservative estimate is that ths premium costs to the United States have been in excess of $31,000,000. The Govern- ment by guaranteeing a gratuitous life in- demnity of $10,000 to all aviation cadets would have saved well over $20,000,000. The requested national service Mfe in- surance appropriations for administrative expenses cover only a portion of the total administrative cost of national service life insurance operations, The costs are at least twice the amount refiected for such costs in the annual budget request. The present budget procedures do not adequately inform the Congress or the taxpayers as to the true administrative costs of national service life insurance, all such costs being borne by the Federal Government. The direct cost of the VA offices of insurance for 1950 was esti- mated at @44,900,000, but figures submitted to the committee indicated that other fac- tora involved raised the total administrative cost to more than $80,000,000. Adoption of & gratuitous system in 1940, it is calculated, would have saved about 6213,000,000 in in- terest from the Treasury, $210,000,000 in in- terest for delay in settlement of claims, $30,- 800,000 in air cadet premiums, $59,000,000 in premium waivers, and a substantial part of the 9$360,000,000 spent for national service life insurance administration. Controls Can Be Democratic EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESASE IN THE HOUBE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1961 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, over the week end just ~aseed the Nation re- A451 entered a state of economic controls made necessary by the impact of mobili- gation and defense preparations. This was, indeed, a most serious devel- opment——but a development which we as @ Nation have discovered was necessary and essential. Now, as we undergo for the second time in a decade the appli- cation of Government controls, we may trust that the mistakes of the past be studied by our stabilisation officials in order that they may be avoided, and that only fairness and equity to all people will In the spirit of hopefulness that the application of controls may deal fairly with all, I ask that there be included with my remarks in the of the Recorp, an article entitled “Controls Can Be Democratic,” by Mr. David Lawrence, which appeared in the February 2, 1951, issue of United States News and World Report. The article is as follows: Comwrrozs Can Br Democratic (By David Lawrence) America is entering a usw ere of controls that may last as long as international tension requires a large military establishment— maybe for generations to come. This means a substantial change in the economic Ife of the people of the United Btates, But it need not bring an ebandonment of the basic principles of free competition which have built up the greatest production machine the world has ever known. There wil be a temptation on the part of those theorists who have long desired state socialism in some form to urge that the emergency proves the need for a system of permanent controls over wages and prices, allocation of materials, and control of all credit, Yor many years now the main battle be- tween the radical liberals and the conserva- tives has turned on the extent to which government should intervene in the eco- nomic life of the country. The true liberal— Republican and Democrat—has, on the other hand, accepted the principle that, while some intervention 1s essential in emergencies, such as in time of great depression or great in- flation, the real issue is not the extent of such intervention bu‘ the extent of its in- fluence on the normal life of the Nation when the relatively brief emergency has passed. Such a transition, however, js no longer the only problem because we are headed for an era which will not pass in 2 or 3 years, Normalcy may not be witnessed for decades to come. We are confronted, therefore, with the need for making economic policy that can carry us through a leng period of time dur- ing which we may totter constantly on the verge of war and yet not have large military operations or big-scale war. To the Communist—and be is basically a champion of state socialism the capitalistic countries are doomed to failure because they scorn planned economy. A few years ago there was a controversy in Bussian periodicals over a book written by a Soviet economist who rather admired the way the United States controlled its capitalism during World War II and who ventured the belief thst planned economy could be introduced successfully by capital- ist countries. He was compelled under duress to take back much of what he wrote on the pretext that our war program was without merit anyway. But it is significant to recall that the Communists repeatedly use the phrase “planned economy” as & synonym for state soctalism.
A452 America is challenged now to show the world that, applying the fundamental prin- ciple of volition as opposed to coercion, demo- cratic procedure as opposed to dictatorial decree, we can develop 4 coordinated opera- tion in our economy and keep it free from the deteriorating effects of monopolies and cartels and the special privileges which a political government is tempted to set up under the guiae of a war emergency. Government, to be effective, must, be honest and impartial, especially if it wishes to en- courage equal sacrifice. Where there ts a choice between a policy that can preserve free competition and one that stifles it, the method of competition should be strengthened and not weakened. Let America demonstrate that democracy can organize and operate through the volun- tarism of its economic elements and that— without losing its freedoms—it can still out- produce the world, “Captain Courageous” EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS C. RABAUT OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks I include the following article which I prepared after hearing the sorrowing announce- ment of the death of Capt. Don Gentile, @ World War II ace of the American Air Force: A blackened hole in the Maryland countryside where there lies embedded the twisted, flame-scarred wreckage of an Air Force T-33 jet training plane taday marks the last landing place of one of America’s most famous military heroes. To the ranks of the brave fight- ing men whose names are a glorious chapter in the history of our country there was yesterday added another marcher—Capt. Don Gentile, who plunged to his death while on a routine training flight which this ace pilot had scheduled to maintain his proficiency. I had the good fortune to know Cap- tain Gentile personally, and knowing this gentlemanly, reserved, and modest man made it hard to believe that his Air Force comrades could have nick- named him the “Messerschmitt Killer.’’ It is still hard for me to believe that this top European theater ace of World War II who was the scourge of Hermann Goering's Luftwaffe, could become, after donning cjvilian clothes, the family man and college student, typical of the many thousands of veterans who are beginning to make their mark in America today. Captain Gentile had flown 350 com- bat hours on 182 sorties. He held some of the Nation’s highest decorations—the Distinguished Service Cross with oak leaf cluster, the Silver Star, the Distinguished Fiying Cross with seven clusters, the Air Medal with three clusters, and a Presi- dential unit citation,. He shot 19 enemy Planes out of the skys over Europe, and destroyed 6 more on the ground. He was originally rejected by our own Air Force because he lacked certain edu- tational requirements, He later trans- ferred to the American Air Force after compiling an excellent combat record in the Royal Canadian Air Force, which he had joined out of his driving urge to get into the fight. The American people are not ungrate- ful, and long after the details of his sky-borne exploits have been lost to memory, the name of Don Gentile will live on in the hearts of millions of Amer- icans. Daring, brave, resourceful, he was everything American attributes to her fighting forces. As we offer our condolences to his bereaved family, his wife, and his three sons, Don, Jr., Joseph, and Pat, we recall to mind the words of President Roosevelt who once called this handsome Italian-American boy “Captain Courageous,” and we pray that we may all partake of the heritage he leaves behind, a heritage of steadfast courage and devotion to country, Victory for De Gasperi EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article that appeared in the New York Times on January 15, 1951: Victory ror De GAsPERI The Western cause was championed with impressive success in the Roman Senate on Saturday by Alcide de Gasperi, that remark- able statesman who more than ever has been giving proof that he deserves to rank among the greatest of the premiers that Italy has produced since 1870. It was a for- midable display of leadership, but it would be wrong to think that the Italian response to North Atlantic defense was simply emo- tional and rhetorical, Italy has her dis- senters, doubters, and obstructionists, her full share of neutralists and defeatists, of Communists and neo-Fascists. One cannot doubt, however, that the prevailing opinion among those who concern themselves with national policies is in favor of the Western democracies and of playing an active role in the defense of the West. Italy, after all, is the cradle of Western civilization; it is inconceivable that she should choose to throw open her gates to another barbarian invaston from the East, The solid Senate vote of 161 to 92 for the Government's policy is only the latest indl- cation of support for the democracies, On January 5 the Italian Cabinet announced that Italy would place three divisions at the disposal of General Eisenhower for the North Atlantic forces. More is undoubtedly coming. Last week, when the United States turned over three destroyer escorts to the Italian Navy, Ambassador Tarchiani pledged Italy's full cooperation for the common de- Tense of the Atlantic community. “Our strength is now insufficient for the task, as is the case for all the rest of western Europe,” he said, “but we are putting into it our firm will and our beat resources so that we may raise ourselves and efficiently contribute to a European-American force such as will be apie assure peace by discouraging any as- sault.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Moreover, Premier de Gasperl was emphat- ic in rejecting the thesis that Italy can act as a bridge between Russia and the west. That is a dream nourished at various times in Britain, France and Germany since the war, and now we even have Marshal Tito dreaming up a Socialist third force. The tate of bridges is to be blown up when there are wars, and anyway Italy, as Signor de Gasperi said, does not stand halfway between east and west; she js on our side. Cadet Corps of the Merchant Marine EXTENSION OF REMARKS ir HON. JOHN J. ALLEN, JR. OF CALIFORNIA IN .HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. ALLEN of California. Mr. Speak- er, during the early part of our partici- pation in World War II it was necessary to expand the merchant marine tre- mendousiy in order to provide the ships which carried men and materials for our overseas operations, Many young men performed patriotic services in training and at sea in order that these ships might be manned. When the fighting stopped and their services were no longer needed they were released and the service of the merchant marine has been since commended on many occasions. Many of those who served, however, hold the feeling that they are being singled out for further service in a manner which unjustly dis- parages the service already rendered. The viewpoint is rather well expressed in a letter from one of them, which I quote: If in 1942 you attained the age of 18 and you found your country in a desperate situa- tion and engaged in a world-wide war, you probably would be glad to help in any way you could. If in your investigation as to how best to render service, you were told by your Government that it had become neces- sary to form a separate branch of the armed services to not only press the then present conflict but to establish a maritime reserve which would put the country in a strong position for any future emergency, you would be interested. With posters, literature and great en- thusiasm you were asked to enlist in the new branoh of the service known as the cadet corps of the merchant marine, thus dis- tinguishing it from the former civillan mer- chant marine organizations. Accepting all the representatives in good faith you en-« listed in the Naval Reserve, subject to call. Within 60 days you were requested to travel to a city quite some distance away at your own expense in order to complete your en- Ustment and take your physical examination. You returned to school and in another 30 days you were ordered into service. You proceeded to your destination, which was a military establishment under complete mill- tary authority and operated along the lines of Annapolis as closely as that institution could be approximately. You were advised that you would have 8 months training at this institution and then have 6 months combat service at sea. At the conclusion of the com-~ bat service you were to return to a designated institution to finish your work and receive a reserve commission jn the Navy. In the meantime, you received the rank of cadet officer of the merchant marine, a member
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the Naval Reserve, which rank was above & warrant officer and just below that of en- sign, Until you received a commission you were paid 065 per month and found; no Dontises as has been wrongly stated. After 21 months of service, with the war drawing to a close, you were told that the corps was overstaffed and that there was ittte Hkelfhood of your being able to se- cure employment in the civilian merchant marine and unless you insisted on finishing the course, the Government would be gtad to give you an honorable discharge, advising Selective Service headquartera that in the opinion of the Government you had rendered sufficient service to your country to be in- eligible for further service. Again accepting the representations in good faith, you received an honorable dis- charge and returned to your tnterrupted educational career, only to find upon the enactment of a new Selective Service Act in June 1948, that Congress in its infinite wis- dom and not being able to distinguish be- tween # duly constituted cadet corps and civitan merchant seamen, had decided that you had not done a thing in the service of the country and as consequence would be at the top of the list at the pleasure of General Hershey untess, of course, you chore to reenlist or marry. If we are going to have a 3,000,000-man Army we are going to have to have a mer- chant marine. These boys, I Know, will be glad to serve but they are entitled to vet- erans’ status and they are entitled to follow up that branch of the service for which they are trained. There are some four or five thousand of these boys, which is a negligible number so far as man-power needs are concerned, but each and every one of them ts certainly en- titled to stmple justice and a recognition long overdue. I believe it to be the duty of Congress to rectify gross errors wherever and whenever possible and now is the time to do this job. Eliminate the Causes of Inflation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Racorp, I include the following letter from A. K. Gardner, chairman of the food and agriculture committee of the New England Council: Tux New Enctann Counc, Boston, January 25, 1951. Hon, Joszru W. Mant, dr., House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. . Dean CoNGREssMAN Martin; At a recent meeting of the food and agriculture com- mittee of the New England Council, it was unanimously voted that— “Inftation must be attacked by eliminating its causes, which are fundamentally too few goods for the money avatiable to buy them. “Abundant production {s essential, but price controls discourage such production and rationing does nothing to increase the supply of goods, The oversupply of money in rélation to the supply of goods should be adjusted as far as possible by placing our Government on a pay-as-you-go basle, by controlling credit and by other Federal mone- tary and fiscal controls aimed to elimmate the infiationary forces of our money supply. “Unessential governmental expenditures must be eliminated and with « shortage of manpower for easential production, manpow- er must not be used for unnecessary or unde- sirable controls.” Because of the seriousness of the situation, it was voted send the above statement to ell members of the New England congres- stonal delegation. Very truly yours, A. EK. Garpyer, Chatrman, Food and Agriculture Committee. Atomic Energy Is Not Enough ey EXTENSION OF REMARES or HON. WALTER K. GRANGER OF UTAH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am in- serting in the Recorp an article by Mr. Lowell Mellett appearing in the Wash- ington Star on January 20. Mr. Mellett points out very graphically the necessity of the Federal Government’s financial participation in furthering the health and education of the Nation’s children. The article follows: Atomic Enercy Is Not EnovuaH—NArTIoNaL Derznse Atso CaLus ror Human Enrercy, Wuicw MEANS HEALTH AND EpucaTION (By Lowell Meliett) People sre funny. That includes the American people. If the President says that we need to spend $1,200,000,000 next year in the development of atomic energy we sey it must be so; we can’t afford to let anybody get ahead of us in atomic energy. But if the President says we need to spend a few hundred million in the development of hu- man energy, we say that is nonessential and socialistic besides; nothing to think about in terrible times like these. Yet the day is not in sight, regardiesa of the atom bomb or even of the projected heli bomb, when human energy will cease to be the real basis of national defense. Men still have to do most of the fighting, and that will be true for a long time to come. The biggest problem of our National Defense Bs- tablishment right now is where to find the needed number of competent young men to do the fighting. That's what the argument over the 18-year-olds is al) about, as well as the argument over the deferment of fathers and other breadwinners who fought in the last war, Human energy, applicable to national de- must be rejected. That can only be done by improving the Nation's health and pro- viding more education. Of course, if the war is going to come next week and is going to end very quickly, noth- A453 and boys were qualified for armed service. They were in good health, They were phya- leally strong. But they fell short in school- ing. They were either illiterate or had at- tained less than fifth-grade status. Counting 15,000 men to a division, that means we rejected the equivalent of 40 com- bat divisions or twice the number of divisions we used in the South Pacific theater of war, the area from Honolulu to Australia to Tokyo and the islands between. Now !t is suggested that we may have been too exacting in our educational requirements and that we can meet our present needa in part by lowering the Army's standards. To meet an immediate emergency that might be a half-satisfactory answer. But not for the Jong pull. If our enemies are to be Russia and China, we cannot match them in num- bers even if the Army accepts absolute il- literates. We can only offset our numerical inferiority through better equipment, better training and better leadership. That calls for education, It calls for education at the elementary and secondary level, which can only be provided in many States through Federal ald. Last year the Senate passed a bill, Senator Tarr one of its authors, to grant 300,000,000 an- nually in aid. It was killed by a House com- mittee. This week the House, without a dis- senting vote, authorized $235,000,000 for a single warship, a supercarrier, The experts say, and they should know, that the vessel will be worth the money. But what do the experts say concerning the hundreds of thou- sands of boys who are not being educated sufficiently to become soldiers? Christopher Columbus Memorial Arbor EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 23, 1951 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill in the House calling for the establishment of a Christopher Co- lumbus Memorial Arbor in the District of Columbia to honor the memory of the discoverer of America, who made his eventful trip across the Atlantic Ocean 458 years ago. In addition to honoring the memory of Columbus, the grove of trees which will make up this arbor will also serve as a perpetual tribute to the many thou- sands of American boys of Italian de- scent who gave their Hves during World War I for the preservation of American freedom and for the Hberation of Italy from the Nazi and Fascist yoke. The contribution of Italy and the Ital- jan people to western culture anc civili- zation is truly immeasurable throughout the history of mankind, beginning with ancient Rome and up to our own day. America is indebted not only to the intrepid navigator who in 1492 discovered this vast continent where our great Nation has been established and where it flourishes, but America is also indebted to her many citizens of Italian descent for their great contributions to our democratic way of life which they helped to build and develop in conjunction with all other Americans. I trust that this memorial will soon be created to serve as a living symbol of
A454 the friendship between freedom-loving people everywhere, and that it will strengthen the historic relationship be- yreen our own country and democratic ly. United Nations a Trouble-Making, Futile Organization EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARE: E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, United Nations from its in- ception has been a Delilah, and Sam- son’s fate, if we continue to go along, will be ours. The following editorial from the Washington Times-Herald of this morning contains that suggestion: We can’t get very workec up over what is happening in the UN over Red China’s mili- tary intervention in Korea. Anybody who doesn't consciously delude himself knows that the UN is a fake. Its only accomplish- ments to date are to serve as a sounding board for Red propaganda and to get Tru- man's chump admi.tstration into a war. On this matter you can take your choice as to who pushed whom. Truman made a sucker play. He thought he was getting into a scrap with a neighbor- hood rowdy, but insteat found himself up against a gang. He has been looking ap- pealingly toward UN ever since to bail him out, That he is gullible enough to expect any assistance from that quarter is simply the measure of his stupidity, The proceedings at Lake Success, though irrelevant and unreal, are enlightening, it not surprising. The rest of the nations which cheered us on into the Korean im- broglio and then left us to hold the bag have been continuing the double cross in the dip- lomatic arena, YOOTY-FOOTY IN THE UN Because of cold feet, and for other rea- sons, they don’t want to get tough with the Chinese Communists. Mr. Austin, for the Truman administration, wants to call the Communists aggressors. Calling them any- thing you like isn't going to alter the mess in Korea, but the other countries can think of all kinds of reasons why a tag of moral leprosy should not be affixed. Mr. Austin thought he just about had the crowd worked up to go along with him when the Indian delegate, Sir Benegal Rau, pulled a dispatch out of his pocket which, he contended, showed that Red China, after turning the UN down three times hand run. ning, was willing to talk matters over. Upon examination, it was found that the Red terms were the same as ugual. If Com- munist China got everything she wanted, she would talk. She wanted to load the jury with her pals—Russia, Britain, and India among them—so there’d be no slip-up. Mr, Austin wasn't buying any of this. Nehru, the boss of Indis, got very impatient with him and the United States, Olem Att- lee told the British Parliament he might agree to calling the Chinese Reds aggressors, but he wouldn't go alang on economic sanc- tiona against them. That would be dam- aging to the empire trade, you understand, and, besides, Britain wants to hang onto Hong Kong. ‘Of course, while this tedious routine grinds along, Americans continue to get killed in Korea. General Romulo, of the Philippines, was the only speaker with sufficient candor to say that UN is utterly lost when it sac- rficeg truth and principle to convenience and fear. That is all very true, but when did UN ever demonstrate any attachment to truth and principie? A more pertinent comment on the whole business is that of Senator OWLAND, Who inquired: What if the United States should take 244 months to recognize a Communist aggression in Europe? That is the only comeback afforded this country by the nations which are running out on it in UN. The Korean War is not a total loss if it has opened American eyes to the untrustworthiness of America's al- leged allies. If they can’t recognize aggres~ sion, neither can we. Instead of 24% months, we ought to take about two and one-half centuries to discover the next aggression anywhere—unless it is directed against the United States. We Are Called Upon To Make a Decision EXTENSION OF PEMARKS HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial written by Mr. Andrew E. Funk, Jr., editor of the White Haven Record, White Haven, Pa.: Wer ARE CALLED UPON To Make A DECISION For the past 2 weeks the people of our Nation have been engaged in a great debate, possibly the greatest debate we have ever entered upon, concerning what shall be this country’s future policy in the face of a grow- ing state of world unrest brought on by the surging tide of communism. Within the last fortnight, a veritable broad- aide of personal opinions regarding our pres- ent position in Korea and possible plans for our future action in th face of the Com- munist threat, has been fired at the American people without discretion. Unfortunately, most of these well-alred and highly publicized opinions have unwittingly given birth to a gnawing fear and uncertainty in the minds and hearts of a usually resolute people. Nor could the result have been any~ thing else when these opinions were given expression by such men as Senator Ropear Tarr and former President Herbert Hoover— men whose opinions otherwise have com- manded the respect of the American public. We do not profess to be an authority on American foreign policy, but we do feel deeply about this all-important issue and we are dismayed and disappointed to behold doubt, fear, and indecision take such roots in the Nation which we fought to defend against a similar though less menacing aggressor so short a time ago. We would like to answer the Senator and the former president in the fine and oratori- cal phrases and with the grand and impres- sive words which they employ so expertly. But, we cannot. We must answer in the common language, but we will speak with the heart of a soldier. To you, Senator Tarr, who have so inno- cently asked where President Truman derived authority to send American troops to Korea, we would answer you by asking where the authority was found that permitted General Washington to send troops on an invasion of Canada in 1775; that permitted President APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Jeffergzon.to send ships to Tripoli to subdue the Barbary pirates in 1805; that permitted President McKinley to send troops and ships to oust the Spanish from Cuba and the Philippines in 1898; that permitted President Taft (do you remember him, Senator?) to send the Marines to Nicaragua to restore order there in 1912, No, Senator, your question is at best little better than a poor attempt to cloak your own befuddled state of mind. We certainly do not blame you for being disturbed on this grave issue, but we do resent and abhor your poor sense of duty in giving voice to that doubt at a time when the American public 1s looking to you and your fellow statesmen, not for doubt, but for assurance; not for questions, but for answers. To you, Mr. Hoover, who have so loudly and candidly displayed your personal fear and lack of understanding of the matters involved in this great issue, we would like to say that the lessons of the past 40 years have apparently failed to impress upon you not only the hopelessness but also the ridic- ulousness of attempting to seal ourselves off in a tight little ball apart from the rest of the world. You yourself have conceded that “any attempt to make war on the Com- munist mass by land invasion is sheer folly.” By your statement you have admitted that we cannot match the manpower of the Com- munists, who at this moment have nearly half the people of the world under their control. We also expect, Mr. Hoover, that you must realize that we have but one real advantage over the Communists and that is our capacity to produce the materials and weapons of war. Yet, knowing this, you propose that we abandon the industrial nations of Europe to the Red flood and thereby surrender to the Communists the one distinct advantage we have over them. With Western Europe as our ally, we can outproduce Russia and her Communist stepchildren by four to one, but if we lose the industrial power of Western Europe to the Reds we will barely be able to match Communist production, Yes, Mr. Hoover, your speech proved quite a straw for the weak and fainthearted citi- zens of our country. But most especially did it please the Communists. As you prob- ably know, the Russian newspapers liked it 80 well that they reprinted the entire speech. And well they might, for, if we pursued the course of action you advocate, the Commu- nists would in all probability be in control of all of Europe in a short time. And where would that leave us, Mr. Hoover? We would be alone in our tight little ball, separated from the rest of the world, out- numbered in terms of manpower by more than 8 to 1, cut off from our many dis- tant sources of supply without which our great industrial machine would be sadly crippled. This is where the period of watch- ful waiting you propose would eventually lead us with our country waiting almost without hope for the inevitable end. We appreciate, perhaps better than you, Mr. Hoover, that the loss of American lives on foreign soil brings bitter anguish, but, as one who has fought and lived through such for- eign battles, we cannot help but say with other soldiers: “better there than here.” You toured Europe after World War II, Mr. Hoover. Did you 80 loosely note or easily forget what you saw? Would you care to see such scenes of destruction and desolation here in America? Would you care to bring war so near your home and loved ones? No, Mr. Hoover, we cannot “give up” and abandon the freedom-loving people of the world to drowning in the Communist flood. We do not say that it is necessary to stay in Korea regardless of cost, but we do say that we should leave only when we are forced to leave and when we have made It absolute- ly clear to the whole world that we are being driven out, that we are not quitting,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We must prove to the world, even as our Nation's founders did, that there are some things far more worth fighting for than mere life or property, that the principles and ideals upon which our Nation was built are mnore than idle phrases; that they are liv- ing, vital concepts without which Hfe could be but existence alone; that we believe, even as Patrick Henry, in “liberty or death.” Don't lose heart, America, Faith and courage are easy virtues when our schemes fare well, but they are genuine only when we can fly them in the face of adversity. Is temporary loss 60 great a blow to these quali- ties that we are willing to desert the very ideals and principles which gave us birth? Our cause is right and just. Surely it ts worth fighting for under less than favorable oonditions, for, if it ts not, then it is not worth fighting for at all. Better to suffer the tortures of Hell for a just and noble cause than wallow in Para- Qise for & lesser one. Stand up, America. You are called. The Marble Plaques Adorning the Walls of the Chamber EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ OF NEW MEKICO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, by .unanimous consent, the House granted permission to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and to include therewith the first of a series of short sketches on each of the eminent law- givers whose part in the evolution of law is commemorated by the marble plaques adorning the walls of this Chamber. The House probably for the first time in history met for the transaction of busi- ness on January 1, 1951—New Year’s Day, and it met for the first time in the new renovated and redecorated Cham- ber—renovated probably for the first time since it was built. There was some speculation as to the marble plaques which were viewed by the House for the first time, and a few days later a distin- guished Member of the House arose in his seat and said: In looking around the walls of this House, or, I should say at the ceiling, a stranger might think we were meeting in the Pyramids of Beypt, from the appearance of these anti- quated figures. ° * * It is my intention to introduce a resolu- tion to remove those ghastly placards, * ¢ © and put the figures of great Ameri- cans in their place~-those great patriots who helped to establish and build this Re- public. * ° © Remember this is the House of Representa- tives of the United States of America, and not a sanctuary of antiquity or the tomb of King Tu I am sure the distinguished Member spoke in jest, for this great country, whatever its faults, is by no means pro- vinelal. These figures commemorate not the history of our country only, but the history of the world's civilization during the last 4,000 years, from the beginning of recorded history. It would be well to place in the Concressiomat Recorp these brief sketches of the men represented by these marble plaques which are being published serially by the Washington Post, and with the permission of the House Ishalldoso, The first sketch is as OMOWS: Hamocuranl: Eantixst Lawaiver anp Kine or BasrLlonia Hammurabi (pronounced ham-oo-ra-be) ‘was & great king of Babylonia. He reigned supreme for 48 years, from 2067 to 2026 B. C. He ts a natural choice in any series on the world's eminent lawgivers. The law code bearing his name is recog- nised in legal history as probably the earliest, and perhaps most primitive, surviving. His code, promulgated for use throughout the Babylon empire, was strangely confiict- . According to historians, it was par- ticularly strong tn its prohibitions on de- frauding the poor and helpless, But this es- sentially humanitarian legal dogma, also care ried the savage feature of retributive punish- ment. It advocated literal adherence to “an eye for an eye” treatment for wrongdoers. The Hammurabi portrait was done by one of Washington’s own sculptors, Thomas Hud- son Jones, of 3612 O Street NW. Jones did the sesquicentennial medallion. International Whirligig EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following article taken from the McClure Newspaper Syndicate of New York and written by John Fisher: Russia Stxes Up Drive To Force Po.rs To Love Sovrer Masters, But Pargiorram AND Prive Nourish Deep Harrzep or Muscovires (By John Fisher) Ag the German international crisis thick- ens, Stalin is discovering that Poland has not yet been hewed into a submissive satellite, dependable in the event of war in Northern Europe, Hence @ new program of organized high pressure has been inaugurated “to deepen,” according to Adam Rapaecki of the Polish Politburo, “the feeling of love and esteem for the Soviet Union.” Previous synthetic solidarity geatures falied to erase bitter memories of Russian tr to General Bor-Komorowski's World War ID home army, the massacres of Polish officerg in the Katyn Poreet and more recent out- rages. Poles—as they must—sullenly bow to police clubs and machine guns, but in their hearts they are still anti-Rusalan, The latest instrument to influence Polish public opinion has been the Second World Peace Congress, transferred to Warsaw from England after London refused to allow the phony congress to meet there. The ousted delegates poured into Warsaw and shouted themselves hoarse denounoing “Anglo-Saxon warmongers” and accusing America of “flooding Korea with the blood of children and performing all sorta of fascist bestialities,”” DEMONSTRATIONS FULLY ORGANTEED These maticious pro-Soviet faiminations were the most recent of several pep talks, Propaganda bosses in October ordered dem- A465 onstrations everywhere to celebrate the thirty-third anniversary of the Russian Bol- sheviet revolution. In September a National Peace Congress was held. About 25,000 local Kick-off meet- ings preceded the climatic assembly in Warsaw. The stellar role at this hate fest went to Lt. Col. Yu Kan Buk, a North Korean officer, who regaled an audience of 100,000 with fresh lies about American aggression in the Orient. In addition to these three major peace hippodromes, the month of November was reserved for local efforta to cement Polish- Boviet friendship. Such superdoses of prolonged, high- pitched ballyhoo are deemed necessary by commissar pschologista because the Pollah people, next-door nelghbors to vulnerable Russia, show scant signs of adoration of their masters and display many indications that in case of war and the opportunity came they would give Russia the swerve. Again and again at various mass meetings Red tub-thumpers urged thelr Usteners to be on guard against a rising tide of “sub- versive activities"—open admission that Poles are not turning into Communists de- spite propaganda, bribes, and Red terror. MORE LIQUIDATION THREATENED Nevertheless the Betrut government, obedient to Moscow, uses every possible means to force its recalcitrant subjects to conform to the soviet pattern. A recent Warsaw broadcast set as a goal of the new 6-year plan the “elimination of the capitalist element 1n our economy through curbing, expulsion, and Nquidation.” Communists are absorbing the entire edu- cational system so that hereafter youthful minds will be completely molded by the Reds. A commisaion of Russian and Polish Commu- nist educators have injected the party line into all school textbooks, except histories, This latter subject also 1s belng doctored. But the visiting savants had some difficulties in pers their Polish comrades to dis- tort in Russia’s favor the record of Polish victories over the Bolshevist armies in the local war of 1920. College professors are held strictly account- able to political mentors on faculties, Most older students are not Communists. But party membership is on the up in lower classes, as high schools now are dominated by the ZMP, the Polish Communist youth organization. A high-schodf student no longer can gain admission to a university unless s by his local ZMP. Oollege members of this order receive all the scholarships, free meals, inexpensive lodgings, and other advantages, and they run nearly all student activities, Including state-financed vacation trips, FMM CONTROL OF FORCES Equally powerful pressure is exerted to make Communist sealots of soldiers. Since ijron-fisted Soviet Marshal Rokossoveky as~- sumed supreme command, the organization of the Polish Army has been patterned on the Soviet Army system. The two top generals of the ground and alr forces ale Soviet citizens. In fact, the entire officer class is saturated with Russians. Promis- ing young Polish officers are sent to military schools in the Soviet Union. The equipment of the army was poor when Rokosso' took over. He introduced a few Russian jet fighter planes and some modern artillery which is displayed for propa ganda purposes. most units are below eombee 3 strength and are armed with Polish, Russian, and German wartime left-over ‘weapons. Rearmament, was not the most pressing problem. Rokossoveky found the army #0 dndifferent to communism snd so cola toward Russia that his chief efforts have been directed to indoctrination, Leétures on
A456 Marxist ideology consume more time than even drill. Communist youth cells are being organized in every unit. The soldier's oath now reads: “I swear to stand steadfastly guarding peace side by side with the Soviet army.” TRADITION OF PATRIOTISM But even this concentrated indoctrination has not solidifed the bonds with Russia. The Polish military arm has a long tradition of patriatism and pride. Most younger offic- ers and their men resent taking orders from arrogant Soviet majors and colonels. When United Nations forces in Korea com- menced to demonstrate their hitting power, Polish soldiers in barracks sang old, tabooed Polish army songs filed with anti-Russian sentiment, A rumor that Polish units would be sent to bolster the North Koreans sparked a surge of desertions. In July 200 Polish naval Officers were arrested on suspicion of dis- loyalty to Russia. Moscow is so doubtful of the Polish Army that the Kremlin has re- cently heavily increased Soviet garrisons in Lower Silesia and Pomerania. Polish antagonism for Russia should not be construed to mean an early peoples’ re- volt or a military mutiny. But so long as Poland has the power and the will to drag her heels, Stalin cannot count on reliable mili- tary support for his martial adventures, Total Mobilization of Personnel, Partial Mobilization of Matériel EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to find that the Federal Goy- ernment is taking all steps necessary to recruit a full military force, and neg- lecting to keep pace in equipping those called to service with the materials of war. We find that Connecticut, the arsenal of America, js facing an indus- trial lag in a turnover from commercial to defense production. Cutbacks in the civilian use of copper and other mate- rials in short supply make necessary the reduction of labor use on nondefense items. Yet the skilled labor in our Con- necticut industries, and the Yankee “know-now” is not being utilized for the common defense. Defense contracts have not been awarded in sufficient num- ber to take up the slack. It would seem most necessary to take two steps to correct this situation. First, amendment of the copper order-——-M~12— to provide for the continued civilian use of this metal through June 30 instead of the date now set at April 30; allowing completion of items started on April 1 instead of March 1; second, greater de- fense contract authorization to Connect- teut plants to enable a more rapid turn- over from civilian production, Included with my remarks are a copy of the letter I sent to Defense Mobiliza- tion Director Charles E. Wilson on Jan- uary 22; clippings from the Waterbury, Conn., American of January 22; and a letter received from the Thomaston Brass Workers’ Union, Local 620. The above-mentioned follows: JANUARY 22, 1951. Hon. Cuarres E. Wi.s0nN, Director, Office of Defense Mobdilization, Washington, D. C. Dean Mr. Wrson: In this period of national emergency the first thought of each citizen should be for the best interests of what will best serve the needs of the Nation. With this paramount in my mind I am call- ing a grave situation to your attention, affecting as it does the well-belng of our citizens and the state of defenses of our country. In the realization that the task confront- ing you is one of tremendous responsibility, I would be loath to add to the burdens of your office were it not for the serious con- sequences which might result from inaction. The industries of this Nation, and I refer specifically to those in the Naugatuck Valley area of Connecticut, and their employees wish to participate fully in the mobilization of the industrial might needed for our preservation. Paradoxically, the brass industries of the Naugatuck Valley find, in this perlod of gen- erally full labor utilization, that Governinent restrictions and procrastination are leading to a period of less than full employment. To illustrate, I quote from the Waterbury Labor Market Letter of December 1950: “Al- though brass registered a slight rise (in employment), the outlook in this industry continued to be obscured by Government re- strictions on copper supplies and uses * * * Although most industries reported added overtime which resulted in higher earnings, the brass industry continued to be hampered by shortages of raw material and shortened the workweek from 43.6 hours in September to 41,7 hours in December.” The Waterbury American of January 17, reported the follow- ing relating to anticipated increase in the public welfare load: “Mrs. Ruth A, Jones, welfare superintendent, warned the welfare board at its meeting yesterday that the case- Joad may increase because of lay-offs in industry due to shortage of materials.” A compilation of opinion of many manufac- turers in this area provokes the following statement: “The problem that most con- cerns the manufacturers consulted is that of the retention intact of sufficient working forces during the transition period, Your district, the Fifth Connecticut Congressional District, has perhaps the highest concentra- tion of copper and copper-hase alloy mills and fabricating plants in this country. “These industries are a vital link in the chain of war production of thousands of items. Under the end use Amendment Order M-12 (Copper) civilian production of some 800 items must cease April 1. Since com- paratively few defense orders have been placed to date in this area, volume lay-offs will be inevitable. “The distress which will be caused by this transition unemployment is but one factor. Equally important is that many of those laid off will find employment in other areas and will not return to their old employment when they will be needed for work on Gov- ernment contracts except on compulsion. The problem is intensified by two facts. First, Connecticut 1s a small State. As a consequence, labor is mobile. Second, the very presence of the United Aircraft in East Hartford and the proximate plant of the company at Southington, will cause brass industry skills to go there for employment. United Aircraft 1s now engaged in a vast recruiting program which will, it has been announced, result in a working force of some 338,000 persons. “We now understand that the military units of the country are drafting their re- quirements of copper and copper bearing alloys and will have this program ready for submission to the NPA at a comparatively APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD early date. At that time it can be determined somewhat more definitely just hov much of the procuction of the brass mills and, in turn, how much copper will be req’ red for defense purposes. It is presumed at that time that the time table will be established which will permit the copper section of the NPA to formulate its plans, and also the brags industry can work up its operating schedules. “Until this has been done it would seem that the best way to help the brass indus- try would be to postpone the effective date of the orders which are now in effect. As the orders now stand, the brass indu-try 1g re- quired to ship not more than 85 percent of its average monthly shipments based on the first 6 months of 1950 for so-called com- mercial use. We believe the figure for March igs now set at 80 percent. No percentages have been set for the second quarter of 1961. Presumably these figures will be an- nounced as soon as the military require- ments are made known. In the meantime, the conservation order becomes effective on receipt of material by customers on March 1. “It 4s now expecter that the effectiveness of the conservation order will be quite dras- tic on the brass mills and unless an increased volume of orders for Government require- ments is received, lay-offs are bound to occur.” To sum up, two conditions are evident; a sufficient number of defense contracts has not been awarded to this vital industrial area to compensate for the curtailed produc- tion of civilian goods and, the present plan to stop delivery on raw material (copper) for somé 300 items not in process of manu- facture by March 1 nor completed by April 30 will, if not amended, severely re:trict em- ployment in the brass industry. I recommend, therefore, that considerable impetus be directed to the award of defense contracts to this area of highly-skilled labor without delay, and that an amendatory pro- vision be made in the Copper Conservation Order (M-12) providing for dates of April 1 and June 80 instead of the present cut-off dates of March 1 and April 30. Most sincerely yours, JaMers T. PaTTrrson, Member of Congress. [From the Waterbury (Conn.) American of January 22, 1951] MANUFACTURERS ASK DELAY ON COPPER ORDER Waterbury area manufacturers are seeking an extension of the April 1 effective date of the Government’s amended copper order which ts scheduled to halt production of around 300 items of civilian goods. Builders’ and plumbers’ hardware and cos- metic containers are among the products due to be halted. If the retrenchment program goes through with the present lack of de- fense orders, a serious employment disloca- tion is foreseen by manufacturers and labor leaders, Charles L. Eyanson, president of the Naugatuck Valley Industrial Council, said today appeals in behalf of several valley concerns have been made asking Wash- ington authorities to review this threat to the brass industry, Scovill Manufacturing Co., Risdon Manu- facturing Co., and Plume & Atwood Manu- facturing Co. are but three of the firms that would be hit by the order which has already imposed restrictions on their operations, Scovill’s Waterville division 1s one of the Nation's largest manufacturers of plumbers’ supplies. P. & W. and Risdon are extensively engaged in the making of cosmetics wares. Bo is the Eyelet Spectalty Co. These and other concerns are now func- tioning under the basic M-12 order which mits use of copper for civilian goods to 85 percent of the amounts consumed tn the first 6 months of 1950,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Amendments to the order propose the dis- ‘continuance of a substantial line of products beginning April 1. Copper for remaining uses also is to be restricted to 80 petoent. Mr. Eyanson said manufacturers are plainly alarmed over the outlook. Since the Government proceeded with its cutback plans on civilian items the place- ment of defense orders has been discourag- ingly alow. Those received up to now will in no way occupy the services of employees working on civilian production due to be suspended, he said, Last week the CIO United Auto Workers offered its services to management in efforts to persuade Federal defense authorities to gear the defense needs to an orderly con- version of industry in order to avoid short time and lay-offs for industrial workers, [From the Waterbury (Conn.) American of January 22,1951} ° Squuezr Play Hirs Srarz Inpusrry, Cram (By Joe Alex Morris, Jr.) Hartrorp, January 22.—Connecticut's manufacturers admitted today they are worried. They say they’re caught in a Government- directed squeeze play, which leaves them without enough defense contracts to main- tain full employment. The squeeze is the gradually-tightening orders covering civilian use of raw materials. Many accuse the Government of acting too hastily in applying controls. They say the Government itself doesn’t know where it’s going next in industrial planning. Without knowledge of an over-all plan for the econ- omy, the individual manufacturer can’t make his own plans. Unless Washington acts soon, technological unemployment will hit Connecticut, Some prefer to call it bureaucratic unemployment. In some cases, particularly the brass and cop- per industry, this may happen in a few Manufacturers say the crux of the situa~- tion is Washington's inability to decide on the speed and degree at which mohilization should proceed. Some comments: The Connecticut Manufacturers Asaocia- tion: “The average State manufacturer is getting scared. He's losing his sources of materials, and is anxious to get into defense work.” The machine tool industry: “Washington doesn't know what to do * * * we'll need help from the Government soon * * * technological unemployment is going to come faster than before.” ORDERS BEING CANCELED The brass and copper industry: "Cancella- tions of orders are pouringin. * * * The union is as worried as we are. * * * We can't get enough orders to use up the reduced amount of material we're allowed.” A amall arms ammunition manufacturer: “We need defense orders fast or employment will have to be cut.” Naturally, there are two opinions on how the mobilization plan will work out, but Labor Commissioner John J. Egan sounds almost like a voice in the wilderness in the present aituation. Egan is optimistic. He thinks the con- version will happen soon, with Government contracts pouring in by March 1. There will be a minimum of technological unemploy- ment, he believes, That a serious mobiligation haa not oc- curted yet is illustrated by Government statistica. Only $61,000,000 in unclassified Government contracts was let to Connecti- cut plants during the final 6 months of 1950, By comparison, a full 2 billion in war con- tracts into the State during 18 months of 1941-42. There are 600 State in- dustries which did defense work in the last war, many with dificult conversion jobs fac- ing them. BQUERZE PLAY A State manufacturers associations official calls the situation a “national production authority squeeze play.” The association is doing what it can to cut the change-over unemployment, Its current advice is this: Some vital industries, the aircraft indus- try, for instance—are getting big contracts. The best thing a small manufacturer can do is advise these big companies that they are available for subcontracting. Once Govern- ment contracts make it worth while, the as- sociation plans to put out a weekly bulletin keeping its members up-to-date on work or help-wanted situations. A vague sort of pattern is emerging out of the chaos of the present industrial situation. Big and small manufacturers are cutting down their variety of produce, and are stick- ing to the most essential of their products. Where at all possible, they're substituting non-critical materials in their wares, Only one industry in the State apparently knows where it is going. The aircraft in- dustry, principally the three divisions of United Aircraft Corp., is expanding. United plans to add 7,000 workers by July 1. The corporation has licensed two automotive manufacturers to produce its engines, and fond soon open a big training school in Hart- ‘ord, A spokesman called it a selective mobiliza- tion of the alrcraft industry. President H. M. Horner has said the industry is being project- ed into the pattern of all-out production. By midyear, United's ‘employment will be about half the wartime peak of 74,000. The company is short of engineers and electronics specialists, and is advertising throughout New England for them. Before all-out production can be instituted, the machine-tool and die industry needs at least one, perhaps 2 years to retool the Nation's plants. This isn’t being done now. Connecticut's tool industry is now only 20 percent on Government defense orders, one industry officlals says. It hes a heavy backlog of civilian work to do, but NPA re- strictions are going to cut heavily into this, The industry is getting special treatment from the Government, however. Orders must be relayed to Washington for screening be~- fore they are filled. This permits the Gov- ernment to keep close tab on the industry, and officials expect some reallocation of ore ders in the future, BRASS PLANTS HARD HIT The brass and copper industry is without doubt the hardest hit so far. An NPA order forbids the use of many items made of brass and copper after April 1. The order is af- fecting manufacturers now. One producer reported order cancellations are pouring in. So far, he said, the plant—one of the larg- est in the State—has kept full employment by “juggling.” If the situation doesn’t change within a few weeks, short-time will be instituted. The manufacturer said this way he hopes to keep his labor force intact tor the expected heavy defense orders. With the unions as worried as the manu- facturers, this spokesman called for a 1- month lifting of the ban, and institution of a sliding scale for conversion to. 9 produc- tion, similar to that of the past war. The industry 1s authorised to use 85 percent of ite base monthly supply of copper in Feb- ruary, but can’t get orders for even this much, Defense orders so far are only about 18-20 percent of the industry’s capacity. The arms industry, which can be con- verted in as Uttle as 3 months to war production, “can't out why” it’s not getting Government contracts, one manu- facturer of small arms ammunition reported. Although the Government has reopened at least one huge arsenal and expanded others, A457 this manufacturer has received only ‘as few, amall contracts,” Plenty of civilian orders are obtainable for ammunition, but “critical " of copper and brass make it impossible to fill them all. This one plant, which employed 18,000 during the war, just recently rein- stituted a 5-dey week for its 2,600 employes. Before that, they were on 4-day shifts, POSSIBLE LABOR SHORTAGES The future dovsn't look as bleak as the present and near-future to industrialists. Everyone expecta the mobilization program to start eventually, When that happens, the shortage won't be one of materials, but of labor. The State labor Cepartment is working on long-range plans to put another 100,000 persons into industry, on top of the record 800,000 now working in the State. t Commissioner Egan doesn't think the manpower needs will be so critical in so short a time during the forthcaming mobili- gation, but says housewives and others will have to give up thelr normal routines for a longer time—possibly 7 to 10 years. The labor di ent has made @ sur- vey of the State’s employable 29,000 persons who are now jobless, and also of part-time workers. This time, the department hopes to keep the labor force more stable, and if possible, restrict one worker to one job. Housewives and other persons not usually employed outside their homes will be urged to replace workers in nonessential industries. In turn, the labor department will try to get regular workers into defense production lines. This is all long-range planning and specu- lation. Right now, producers sre worried that the Government isn't going to permit them to produce—either for defense or the civilian economy. —— TxomastTon Brass WorxkrErs’ UNION, Locat 620, Thomaston, Conn. Hon, Jamzs T. PATTERson, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Ma. Patrxerson: The jobs of about 50 employees of the Plume & Atwood Manu- facturing Co. plant in Thomaston, Conn., practically all of whom are members of this union, are seriously jeopardized by amend- ment 1 to NPA Order M-12, part 29, Copper and Copper-base Alloys’ Subpart B—Use of Copper and Copper Base Alloys. This order, which forbids the use of copper in the production of pen caps, pencil parts, Upstick containers and lipstick working parts, will cause the immediate unemploy- ment of our members engaged in this type of production. You have already received . communica- t'on from the Plume & Atwood Manufactur- ing Co. concerning this orde1, which goes into effect partly on March 1 and fully on April 30. On bdeha:f of the employees involved, this organization wishes to add its objections to the order and request your asaistanoce in obteining its revocation on the following g*gunds; First. The severe and unnecessary hard- ships which it will cause those who are forced out of employment, with no prospect of other jobs within the foreseeable future. Second. The impossibility of finding ade- quate and salable substitutes in the manu- facture of the products mentioned, Third. The inflationary effect on our en- tire economy which will inevitably result from the banning of copper and brass in the production, nat only of the items made by our plant, but hundreds of others also affected by the order. These include some of the most common bousehold articles, the shortage of which will cause further price
A458 increases, the growth of black markets, and hardships to the consuming public as well as the producing public. For these reason, all of them basic to the welfare of the general community, we urge you to do everything in your power to bring about the revocation of this amendment, Very truly yours, Crtanies Dipssvry, President, Thomaston Brass Workers’ Union, Local 620, IUMMSW. Sales Tax Proposals EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL OF NEW YoRKE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Speaker, in line with the speech I made on the House floor today, I include the following editorial from the Bingham- ton Press: Sates Tax PROPOSALS Federal sales taxes are under consideration as a tax component in meeting the Presi- dent's demand for $16,500,000,000 in new taxes. President Truman is quoted as saying he opposes such taxes at present. But this is only pretense, He knows that Congress will not increase personal] income and corporation taxes enough to provide $16,500,000,000. When this happens he will “reluctantly” ap- prove a Federal sales tax. Opposition to sales taxes always has been great, because they are regressive. They fall hardest on those least able to pay. Greatest of national emergencies alone justifies such taxation. Such a tax may be levied either at the manufacturer's or the consumer's level. If it 18 levied at the manufacturer's level, it 1s pyramided through the price of goods. The wholesaler, let us say, may take &@ 10-percent profit on basis of cost, as also may the retailer. The consumer in the price he pays gets nicked for more than the Gov- ernment gets in taxes. A sales tax collected at consumers’ or re- tail level 1s difficult to administer, because of the thousands of establishments whose col- lection of the tax must be policed. Federal excise taxes as they exist today, covering some 20 classes of goods, are in ef- fect sales taxes. They are taxed on the basis of the final manufacturers’ price. The New Deal and Fair Deal actually have sneaked in a sales tax while bellowing to the hills against sales taxes. Such hyprocrisy appeared in 1948 when Democrats were hollering that if the Re- publicans gained control they would enact a seles tax. Candidate for Vice President, Al- ben Barkley, challenged Governor Dewey to tell whether the GOP had plans for “the levy of a general sales tax by the Federal Government in addition to those now levied by the States.” Most present proposals for a retail sales tax put the levy at 6 percent, which it is estimated would bring in revenue of around $5,000,000,000 a year. Presumably, though not assured, food would be exempt. One proposal is that each individual would be exempt from these taxes up to purchases of $250 a year. To provide for such exemption coupons would be tesued. It would mean that buyers would have to go about carry- ing not just ration stamps but also tax atamps, Such a prospect would loom because rationing, as in World War IJ, is an inevitable accompaniment of price control. The Washington Post EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SAMUEL W. YORTY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. YORTY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday General of the Army George C, Marshall delivered an address at a ceremony dedi- cating the new Washington Post Bulld- ing. Those of us in public life have an excellent opportunity to view the whole American press in operation and to study its impact upon every phase of American life. We have reason to be very proud of the American press and I am sure we will all want to join with General Mar- shall in congratulating the great Wash- ington Post on its past achievements and in wishing it continued success. I am therefore including his remarks as a part of our Recorp: Text oy ADDRESS BY GENERAL MARSHALL We are here to mark a milestone in the life of a public institution and to confirm our faith in the conception of a free press to which this newspaper is dedicated. It ig appropriate that the ceremony should take place in front of the presses that turn out the daily editions. The publication of & great newspaper like the organization of a military force includes an echelon of services in depth. The uninitiated see only the finished product, the newspaper itself, in the Army the man in uniform. But those who work on the team appreciate the printers, the layout men, the advertising men—th2 crafts- men of many sorts as well as the more obvi- ous workers who take part in the enterprize, the editors and the reporfers. Those like me who understand military organization appreciate the deep echelons extending from the front lines back to the support and reserve, back to the drawing boards and the production lines in factories, all the way back to the American taxpayer and his intimate family circle. The art and science of logistics of backing up front lines with services and supplies may lack the glamour of duty at the front but they are equally honorable and indispensable. The military services often take for granted the vital contributions of their rear echelons, and apparently become concerned about them only when it looks as though there might be a fatlure in productton. I think, therefore, it is a fine thing that the Wash- ington Post has chosen to honor its logistics forces by holding this ceremony right here among the presses. Those who work in these surroundings symbolize the strength and the spirit of American labor. You are engaged in the production of one of the most delicate ine struments in America’s arsenal for freedom, an independent newspaper. I don't have to tell you here that a free press is one of the fundamentals of our democracy and none insisted upon it more firmly or more wisely than did the founders of our Government. There 1s an oft-quoted statement accredited to Thomas Jefferson, which is worth noting today. ‘Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or news- papers without a government,” he said, “I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Now that may be something of an overstatement but it does illustrate the _ point. There its another statement of Jefferson's, however, that I prefer to quote as more ap- plicable to our pregent times. In a let- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ter in 1799 he said, “* * * citizens * © © have a right to full information inacaseof * *° * great concernment to them. It is their sweat which is to earn all the expenses of the war, and their blood which is to flow in expiation of the causes of it.” No better reason could be set forth for the right of citizens to know about a war situa- tion in which their sons are involved and I think both the presa and the Armed Forces are keeping our citizens well informed dur- ing this period of great peril. Out tn Korea more than 250 correspond~ ents are covering the operations and in- cidentally giving not only the American peo- ple but the entire world an intimate pic- ture of the events taking place there. The courage, the suffering, and the spirit of our GI’s, both in combat and behind the fight- ing lines, are made matters of public knowl- edge. At great costs to the press and at grave risks to themselves, the correspond- ents and photographers move freely in and out of the fighting lines to get their stories, They share the privations of the men in the field, expose themselves to similar dangers, and casualties among the corps have been very heavy. Already 8 American correspondents have been killed, 19 wounded, 2 captured by the enemy, and 2 missiag in action. Four correspondents, representing the British and French press, have made the great sacri- fice, and four have been wounded. This ceremony offers me an opportunity to ex- press deep appreciation of the devoted serv- ices of the corps of correspondents in Korea. Relations between military censors and battle correspondents usually and quite naturally become strained. Differences are bound to arise. Both are interested in the freedom of the press, but each approaches the facts that make up the story with a different point of view. The reporter is con- cerned with information that will interest the American people who, in the final analy- sis, must work, fight, and pay for the cam- paign. The censor fears that some of this information may interest the enemy even more. The censor would err on the side of security; the correspondent, on the side of disclosure. It will always be hard to reconcile these opposite points of view. There was a time when military men had Nttle patience with the correspondent’s point of view. To Lord Wellington, for instance, correspondents were anathema. During the Peninsula campaign he complained bitterly about newspapers and the detailed informa- tion they published about his order of battle and the morale of his troops. Sherman vigorously denounced correspondents on more than one occasion. He was rather famous for his attitude in this regard. Today there is no such hostility on the part of the military toward newspapers and correspondents. All the way from the lines tn Korea to the Pentagon the press is briefed dally by officers and furnished background informa- tion to help the reporters write with a full appreciation of the facts and factors con- cerned in the campaign. There are and there always will be points of friction, but I sincerely feel that the traditional gap between the censor and the correspondent has greatly narrowed, Censors and reporters are becoming more appreciative of each other’s point of view and their joint respon- sibility. The result is more accurate and more interesting reporting for the benefit of all of us, Reporting of news connected with activ- ities in the Pentagon has been, I think, on the whole, fair and objective. The recent wide and accurate coverage of the manpower legislation which we have just given to the Congress has brought the issue squarely before the American people. The case for inducting the 18- to 19-year-old group has
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD been well reported and fairly. And Qf fairness, I shall always remember red Tespect and great satlafaction the extraordi- mary care that the newspapers gave to the reporting of the inquiry into the fitness of Anna Rosenberg to serve as Assistant Secre- tary of Defense, terprise. I close with a quotation from the late Joseph Pulitzer, who said in 1904; “Our Republic and its press will rise or fall to- gether.” This dedication is good proof that our Republic and our press stand together and will rige to further heights of good govern- ment in the interesta of the people, ESA for Democrats Only een EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. L, MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include an item from the Washington Daily News of Saturday, January 27. Mr. Speaker, if the news item is cor- rect, politics has reached a new low in the United States. John H. Hoover, who resigned a few days ago, was the enforce- ment officer for ESA. He resigned in protest because of Democratic political favoritism in handing out jobs in the Price-control organization. It would seem that price control, with political flavoring, will be on every table in the United States, While it is true the two top men, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Johnston, are supposed to be Republicans, they are the lukewarm “T agree with your New Deal philosophy” type. Apparently, everyone above the $4,000 bracket must carry a New Deal label. The article follows: In vax Orrina (A weekly size-up by members of the Wash- ington staff of the Scripps-Howard news- papers) ESA YOR DEMOCRATS ONLY Economic Stabilization Agency (ESA) is being bdullt into Nation-wide Democratic machine. Democratic National Committee is in charge; is passing on candidates for every job paying $4,000 and up. Committee asks Democratic vernors, Senators, State chairmen, natio! commit- teemen, for names, sends them on to Price Administrator Michael V. DiSalle. Party loyalty Js a test. No Dtxtecrats ac- cepted and no one who d President Truman’s renomination or otherwise offend- ed top Democrats. Backing from potent figures is required. Some appointees ve price-control experience; most have not, Lists submitted by Republican offictals aren't considered, It‘s a contrast to procedure in OPA 10 years ago. Politicians weren't consulted, party labels weren't checked. One result: Constant attacks on OPA from Capitol Hin, constant threate to withhold appropriations. & few Democrats in Congress worry about staffing BSA with party men from top to bottom because it pins responsibility for suc- cess or failure of new price-control agency @irectly on party. They're afraid it may be unpopular by next election. Same men re- fuse to sponsor candidates for district office, for same reason. But they're the exception. Pay of new officials isn't fixed. They'll get 950 a day until Congress acts. Here's sample of how the ptcking's done. Regtonal administrator for Rocky Moun~- tain States will be George Rock, president of Truman-Barkley olub in 1948. Before Alan Valentine was fired, a five-man panel he had named picked another man. New outfit’s a haven for lame ducks. Al- ready slated for Jobs: Vernon Dwyer, Indiana Btate director, defeated Democratic candi- date for Congress; Doc QO. A. Noland, con- sultant to DiSalle, and father of a defeated Indiana Congressman; Herbert Meighan, de- feated for re-election as mayor of Gadsden, Ala.; James G. Lyons, New York regional office, defeated for re-election to State legis- lature; Michael Howlett, Jr., Iinois tempo- rary consultant, defeated for State treasurer. Washington's full of party officials elbow- ing each other in rush to pie counter. Statement by the Committee on the Present Danger EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA™IVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. TOLLEFPSON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rscorp, I include here- with a statement by the Committee on the Present Danger. This committee is composed of outstanding citizens whose views merit the consideration of Members of Congress. The statement follows: A STATEMENT BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE PRESENT DANGER WASHINGTON, D. C., January 7, 1951. Today General Eisenhower is scheduled to arrive in Europe to endeavor to create, and then to command, the free world's forces there. As he begina this supremely important task, our people here are asking themselves how best to defend the United States, how to prevent a major war if possible, how to win it if 1¢ comes. On these problems the Committee on the Present Danger ventures, completely with- out partisanship, to present its deeply held conviction: As he undertakes his new mis- sion to Burope, General Eisenhower must be given full support by the American people. ‘We must do this by creating balanced armed forces of great strength, and by giving the people af Europe a sense of our unity with em. Certain facts are beyond dispute: A menacing despotic power, bent on con- quering the world, has twice in recent months in Korea resorted to aggressive war. But those attacks do not prove that Russia— which clearly directed both—will launch a major war. Much less do they prove that Ruasia fs ready to start such a war at this time. Europe is the next great prize Russia seoks. If falls, the Ruhr with its coal and steal, Atlantic ports with their ship- yerds, the whole industdal complex with 200,000,000 people possessing great scientific A459 and technical skills, will be absorbed tnto the Communist empire against us, The fall of continental Europe would re- move any assurance that Britain would again be an unsinkable aireraft carrier and ad- vance base. It may well mean the loss of the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Africa. In sich case, Russia would have the ol she so much needs, and the world's richest source of uranlum—which lies in the Belgian Congo—would go to Russia to make atom bombs for use against us. We learned belatedty in the First World War, and in the second, that suc- cessful defense of the United States must be made in Europe. So tn entering into the North Atlantic Pact, we sought to prevent a third world war by serving notice that an assault on Europe means war with the United States. And we fortified this position by keeping our troops in Germany and Austria, as well as by the Berlin airlift. Fortunately our best course to prevent war now is the same as that required to win it if 1t comes—to make aggreesion unprofit- able by restoring the power of the democra- cies. How the United States should do its part in this is in large part a military prob- lem requiring the highest professional knowledge and experience. In this question our responsible military leaders are of one mind, Only a few days ago, General Eisenhower expressed his faith that Americans can ac- complish anything if they have unity behind their purpose. And he said that the defense of Europe can be made successfully “if there is unity among Americans and if their allies understand this.” The depth of his convic- tion that the defense of the United States must, if possible, be made in Europe is proved by his sacrifice in undertaking his new task. Many Americans are troubled by the thought that we will send large addittonal forces to Europe before we can be certain that other free countries will make the full effort necessary for success in the joint plan. But the practical question before us does not involve this risk. Today we do not have anything more than token forces which we are in a position to send to Europe. Before any army of sub- stantial alse can be trained for such a@ pur- pose, General Eisenhower will have had an opportunity to determine that those people of Europe who love freedom as we do have the will and the stamina to make @ real de- fense possible. ; Even those who would now have us suspend all military and economic aid to Europe have not proposed that we withdraw our troops from Germany, Austria, and Trieste. They do not recommend that we fail to live up to our obligations under the Atlantic Pact. They know that to take those steps would be to give up at once most of that for which we have made enormous sacrifices almost every day since the dark summer of 1940. So the real questions presently before us are whether this country should not pre- pare forces to be ready for use in Rurope on General Eisenhower's recommendation, and whether we should give e convincing re~ affirmation to the people o< Europe of our unity with them and of our leadership in setting up an effective defense. If we are to do #0, end this committee believes we must, our course ie clear: First, to bulld up with the utmost possible speed balanced armed forces of great strength; sccond, to make it clear that we are prepared, when these are ready, to dispatch adequate farces to Burope at such time as General Bisen- ower may decide thut a proper effort will be made by Europe in ‘ts own defense and that the total forces—theirs and ours—can be effective, Today one queation stands clear before tho American people: Shall we help create the
A460 oonditions necessary for the success of Gen- eral Eisenhower's great mission? It is the firm conviction of this citizens’ committee that in its own self-interest this Nation can and must do this now, Committee cn the Present Danger: Julius Ochs Adler, Raymond B. Allen, Frank Altschu! William Dougias Arant, James Phinney Baxter ITI, Laird Bell, Lewis H, Brown, Harry A. Bullis, Vannevar Bush, Will L. Clayton, James B. Conant, Robert Cutler, R. Ammi Cutter, Harold W. Dodds, Charles Dollard, William J. Donovan, Truman B. Gibson, Jr., Meta Glass, Edward 8, Greenbaum, Monte M. Lemann, William L. Marbury, William C. Menninger, Frederick A. Middlebush, John Lord O’Brian, Robert P, Patter- aon, Howard C. Petersen, Stanley Resor, Theodore W. Schultz, Robert E. Sherwood, Robert G. Sproul, Robert L. Stearns, Tracy 8. Voorhees, Henry M. Wriston. Farm Labor Shortage EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS E. MARTIN or iowa IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. MARTIN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, recently I received a very informative letter from an outstanding farmer of my congressional district regarding the number of displaced persons who have abandoned farm work after having been admitted to this country for placement on our farms. My constitutent, Mr, Howard ‘W. Greiner, of Wellman, Iowa, states so effectively the situation that confronts him and his neighbors that I am including his entire letter of January 10 in my remarks so that all Members of Congress may have the op- portunity to read the situation as he has reported it to me. The letter follows: WELLMAN, Iowa, January 10, 1950. Representative THomas E. MarTINn, Washington, D. C. Deak Mr. Martin: It ts becoming more apparent every day that we farmers in Iowa and other States are facing a menacing sit- uation, our labor shortage. I am probably classified as an over-family- sized farm operator. I manage 570 acres here in Washington County, southwest of Weill- man. Last year I sent to town over 224,000 pounds of pork, or approximately 1,600 head of hogs, all farrowed and raised on the farm. I feed 100 head of cattle and have other en- terprises such as eggs, etc. The plans this year are for more, as our President re« quested. But the labor situation has me worried, Iam sure you can see that I cannot operate like this without help. I now have two Polish DP families, having had one for nearly 2 years, and one for 14 months, but actually live in daily fear that they will pick up and leave us for city jobs. These DP's are all dollar shopping. Of the 10 DP’s set- tied in this community, only 2 remain. The rest have gone to cities for factory jobs. Don't you agree that there should be some provision to keep these people on farms as laborers? They feel no obligation to us “for now we are in Amerion we do what ‘/e want,” as one told me. Don't they owe America something? I have bullt for one family a new four-room house any American would be happy to own, pay them both $140 per month plus houses, meat, milk, eggs, electricity, etc., but they say that is nothing. I am a veteran of World War II, @ pilot officer, and was a German prisoner of war, but that is beside the point. My point is this: Iam in the Reserves and may be called to active duty. I have a father incapable of manual labor, who could run this farm on @ limited scale if I had to go, provided we could keep our help. But what could we do without it? Washington calls for increased production, but how can we at this rate? After seeing Europe in the last war I agreed that the DP bill was all right, feeling that there are a lot of good people. But now I feel that these DP's are all] money hungry, wanting to give America nothing and take everything. Can't you get these people back to the farms? They declared they were farmers in order to get here, as one said, “we no farmer, we no come.” After dealing with them for 2 years I am afraid Uncle Sam made a big mistake. Some day the soup lines will be miles long in the cities and these DP’s will be in front. Here is a potential labor force for farmers, but there will have to be some immediate freezing done somewhere along the line, or we will all want for pork chops and ham. Can't we get a law to bring these folks back to the farms, and the farmers who sponsored them, who are being left holding the bag? Hoping to hear from you, I am, Sincerely yours, Howarp W. Greiner. Excerpts From Remarks by National Com- mander Erle Cocke, Jr., of the American Legion, Before Meeting of National Ex- ecutive Committee of Jewish War Vet- erans, Statler Hotel, Washington, D. C., Sunday, January 7 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES C. DAVIS OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on January 7, the national executive committee of the Jewish War Veterans held a meeting in the Statler Hotel in Washington, Commander Erle Cocke, Jr., of the American Legion, made a visit to the group. He made a brief address, and in appropriate and well-chosen language dealt with some of the current problems of our people and our Government. The substance of Commander Cocke’s address follows: There is no place in a fight for survival for fighting among ourselves. There ts no moral or patriotic ground for any American to seek political or personal profit out of the present emergency. I believe that most Americans—including a great majority on Capitol Hill and in the administration—rec- ognize these facts and are living by them, What we must do is use all of our personal and organizational influence to reduce the number of exceptions. I say it is high time that sniping at mili- tary leaders by uninformed and inexpe- rienced sources should be halted. No one is infallible; everyone mak2s mistakes, gener- als and admirals no less than Cabinet mem- bera and Senators. But the fact ts that APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD some of the very people who now serve to discredit our military leadership and dis- courage public confidence in it, were them- selves responsible in less critical days for discounting the warnings provided by that leadership. The one value which all of us share and revere alike—the country which provides our liberty and way of life—~is in desperate danger. We must put away the differences that divide us and rally around that uniting cause. Personal bias and pet hates are ex- pendable; the lives and freedoms of Ameri- cans are not. People are not born biased. Prejudice is not inherited. To the extent that we in our time can expose and overcome these destruc- tive habits, the next generation will be spared the temptation to adopt them. Service in the armed forces is a great equalizer and a great teacher, Those of us who have served know what it means to live and work with the other fellow—all kinds of other fellowe—and to find out that people are basically alike under God. I can’t recall a single instance of a man’s religion or family tree being held against hina in the combat zone, America has been described as the melting pot of the world's people. We will do well, particularly in these tense days, to realize that the melting process is not yet com- pleted—and that each of us can perform an important patriotic service in that regard. One of the good byproducts of manpower mobilization, in my opinion, will be the op- portunity afforded young Americans to better understand by association and mutual de- pendence the problems and background and thinking of their fellow countrymen. The Genocide Convention EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article which ap- peared in the New York Times of January 15, 1951: Tux GENocIDE CONVENTION In the global attempt to wipe out race murder the United States has placed itself unnecessarily cn the side lines. The geno- cide convention of the United Nations formally became part of international law last week, 00 days after its ratification by 20 members, more than 2 years after its unani- mous adoption by the 1948 Paris Assembly of the UN. Yet the American Senate is still unresolved about the pros and cons of the lasue. The United States has come close to lining up formally with those nations convinced that history has gone far enough without making it an international crime for either a nation or an individual to attempt the ex- termination of national, racial, religious, or ethnic groups. Last year ratification was urged by a subgroup of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Similar sentiment was expressed by a cross section of the popula- tion, led by President Truman. Yet the Zighty-first Congress, arguing over reserva- tions, went into limbo without final action, When adopted by the UN the genocide con- vention was heralded as a vivid manifestation of man’s hopes, That such a pact was neces- sary has been demonstrated with tragic repe- tition throughout histo. y, from the days the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Romens tossed Christian martyrs to the Hons to ® more contemporary period, the days of Lidice and the Nagi murder camps. Now the United States 1s working round- the-clock to rally the west to preserve tts freedom. Toward this end the new Senate can make a4 substantial contribution; it can ratify the genocide convention. The Late Julius H. Amberg EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GERALD R. FORD, JR. OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of his home community, Grend Rapids, the State of Michigan, and the United States have suffered the loss of an out- standing American in the passing of Julius H. Amberg. The tributes paid this truly great and fine person by our Pres- ident, General Marshall, and others are examples of the esteem in which he was eld, President Truman knew Julius Amberg during World War It when he as a Sena- tor from Missouri headed the Truman investigating committee and Mr. Amberg represented the Department of the Army before the committee as Special Assist- ant to the Secretary of War. The Pres- ident’s thoughtful message to Mrs. Am- berg is as follows: I have heard with a sense of deep personal regret of the passing of your devoted hus- band who will be long remembered az a faith- ful and efficient public servant. My heart- felt sympathy is yours. Gen. George C. Marshall, presently Secretary of Defense, likewise paid high tribute to this great citizen. The gen- eral’s respect for and appreciation of Julius Amberg is best shown by the won- derful message to Mrs. Amberg which reads as follows: The death of Jultus H. Amberg leaves me with a sense of personal logs. As Special Assistant to the Secretary of War from 1041 to 1945, Mr. Amberg not only Ughtened the burdens of the late Secretary Stimson but he made some of my tasks much General Marshall had underlined the word “much” in the text as it was for- wardéd to Grand Rapids. In representing the War Department be- fore congressional groups concerned with the wer program, he brought a personal in- tegrity and a professional excellence that were of immeasurable value. A Navy veteran and s publtc-spirited citi- ven, Mr. Amberg typified the American whose passing is a severe loss to the country, A résumé of his very successful legal and civic career should be included in my remarks. Mr. Amberg was special assistant from 1941 to 19465 to Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, who was a class~ mate at Harvard law school, They were editors of the Harvard Law Review. During the First World War, Mr. Amberg served for a time as assistant to Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who was then an adviser to the Secretary of ar. He began his career at Chicago in 1910 as an attorney for the Federal Trade Commission and opened a practice here in 1915. He was chairman of the Kent County Relief Commission from 193° to 1936. Before that, he had headed the Committee of One Hundred, which sur- veyed relief problems and recommended changes in handling of the city’s relief agencies. Recently Mr. Amberg was chairman of a technical advisory committee of the Council of Social Agencies which brought about the Hamilton Hospital survey for Grand Rapids. He was pres- ident of the Michigan State Bar Asso- ciation in 1939-40. Several years ago Mr. Amberg, as & leading citizen in his home town, un- selfishly led a successful recall move- ment for the recall of the incumbent in the office of mayor. This civic effort made willingly but at great personal sacrifice, undoubtedly contributed to his passing at a relatively early age. Mr, Amberg has been eulogized by the newspaper. in his home community. The Grand Rapids Press comments are as follows: In the death of Julius Houseman Amberg Grand Rapids has lost one of tts most dis- tinguished and most effective citizens. Na- tionally he was known for the important services he rendered his country through~- out World War II as special assistant to Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson in the years 1941 to 1945. His city and Btate knew him as a brilliant attorney with a long rec- ord of legal accomplishments to his credit, Grand Rapids aleo knew him as a man de- voted to the public welfare and the cause of good government. He was the best kind of citizen, who not only ‘.as ideas as to how public affairs should be handled but gets out to fight for them. He never sought pub- lic office, but thme and again his commu- nity came to bim for leadership in helping solve its problems. At the depth of the great depression of the 1080's it called on him to head a committee of 100 to survey the city’s desperate relief problems of that period and to outline a decent, workable relief program. Seventeen years later it again was to ap- peal to him to lead a civic campaign, this one for decent city Lovernment. The effec- tiveness of Citizens’ Action from the time he accepted the assignments as its president up to the present moment has been due in no small measure to the time and effort he expended on its behalf. Scores of persons will remember him as chairman of the Kent County Relief Com- mission from 1938 to 1936. To his office came a steady file of unfortunate persons in need of material assistance or advice. He had time for all of them. Hundreds had cause to be grateful for his attention, Mr. Amberg’s intense interest in the other person’s welfare did not begin or end with hig service on the relief commission. He was identified with the Community Chest for 80 years, including 5 years’ service as ite president. He served as chairman of a spe- oial council of social agencies committee which cleared the way for the Hamilton Hos- pital and health survey. . He was trustee of Butterworth Hospital for 268 years and a trustee of the Grand Rapids Foundation. These were some of the pervives he per- formed for the public. No man gave more unselfishly of himself or of his time and knowledge. It wae Grand Rapids’ good for- A461 tune to have him as a lifelong resident. And because he lived and worked here so long and ao effectively, his loss will be keenly felt. The Grand Rapids Herald editorial likewise paid high tribute to this out- standing citizen and 1s as follows: Grand Rapids and the Nation lost an outstanding citizen when death came Tues- day night for Julius Houseman Amberg. His untimely passing leaves a void not only in the legal profession, where he was & brilliant figure, but in the civic enterprises that gained by his guidance and dynamic leadership. As Special Assistant to the Secretary of War in World War II he played a large role in marshaling the forces of victory, and the Presidential Medal for Merit was the Nation’s token of appreciation. It was in his own city, however, that he was most honored, not alone for his intellect and his achievements but for his character. Liberal, progressive, deeply concerned for his fellow men, he stood for principles above prejudice or partisanship. Throughout his profeassiona) career here, Mr. Amberg, member of an old Grand Rapids family knowa for good works, devoted much of his time to social and welfare projects. Among these were his chairmanship of the committee of 100 which surveyed relief problems and his service as chairman of the county relief commission in the depression Gays of the 1930's, the presidency of the com- munity chest which honored him as citizen of the year in 1938, and his leadership of the Council of Social Agencies and United Hos- pital Survey Committee whose findings re- sulted in a hospital building program and other improvements now going on, Although never seeking public office for himself, he was at times a leader in poli- tics when his conscience dictated political action. His death at the age of 60 cut short a life of great usefulness. He leaves the imprint of his sterling character and accomplish- ments on the hearta and minds of his fellow ¢ ns. It was my great privilege to be asso- elated with Julius Amberg in the practice of the law. His achievements and his ability in his profession are well known, but those who worked with him as an associate perhaps understood and appre- ciated his great talents, his profound knowledge, and his superior integrity better than the public generally. The legal profession has lost one of its finest. On behalf of the citizens of Grand Rapids and the multitude of Julius Am- berg’s friends throughout the Nation I consider it an honor to make permanent his records as an example for all future generations. He and all for which he stands has been and will continue to be an everlasting inspiration. The Subcommittee on Study of Monepely Power—aA Progress Report EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EMANUEL CELLER OFr NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REDRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address
A462 delivered by me before the New York State Bar Association, January 24, 1951: It was only a year ago that it was my pleasure to address you gentlemen and to set forth the purposes and objectives of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, The program of the subcommittee was at that time in its diapered infancy, still groping, still unweaned, still unsteady, and unsure. We have come a long way since then, not only toward understanding the issues and problems which are wrapped up in that all-embracing term “monopoly pow- er,” but also in discovering concrete remedies to fulfill the often thwarted purposes of the framers of the Sherman Act. While the subcommittee has undertaken important economic studies to which it has devoted painstaking effort, I would like, first, to dwell upon its legislative activities. For this is a legislative subcommittee directed by the Congress to report “such recommenda- tions for legislation or otherwise as the committee deems desirable.”’ It has been the main objective of the subcommittee to obey this mandate. At the risk of being repetitious, I would like to discuss briefly what many people con- sider to be the most important piece of antitrust legislation in more than a quarter of a century, I refer to the Celler Anti- merger Act,? which, after an abortive legis- lative history some two decades in duration, finally emerged from the Eighty-first Con- gress during the death throes of its last session and was signed by the President less than a month ago, The muse of history possesses all the whim and caprice of woman. By what strange oversight the zealous and learned men who authored that ambitious statute, the Clayton Act, neglected to provide for all probable and possible contingencies when they came to its seventh section, I do not know. Nor can I find prescription for the myopic lenses through which peered those aging justices of the Supreme Court who could read in the clear language of the act words which pro- hibited one corporation from acquiring the stock of another competitor, but, insofar as the acquisition of assets was concerned, could discover no abiding intent or philosophy in an economic statute some twenty-six sec- tions in length, incorporating by reference three other laws of historioal importance, and running by its very terms, the lengthy gamut of the national economy, from bank- ing to railroads, Why, too, Congress, for over 20 years allowed to go unheeded the persis- tent plaints of the Federal Trade Commis- sion, the voices of two Presidents of the United States, and the repeated recommen- dations and reports of its own committees, Tam at a loss.to explain. I fervently hope that this legislation, which bears my name, has not come too late. The growth of concentration of eco- nomic power in this country, despite the leg- isiative barricades of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and other antitrust measures, has been steady and unremitting. A report submitted to me by the Secretary of Com- merce in December of 1949, indicated that in 46 major industries studied, four companies had already garnered more than 75 percent of the output. In 104 additional industries, four companies accounted for between 50 and 75 percent of total output.’ As of 1946, one tenth of one percent of the total number of American corporations owned 49 percent of the assets of all American corporations, 4H, Res, 187, 8lst Cong., Ist sess. (1049). 2Public Law No. 809, Slet Cong., 2d sess. (1950). * Report, December 1, 1949, Department of Commetce, printed in hearings, Subcommit- tee on Study and Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., lst sess., serial 14, pt. 2-B, p. 1438. while 2 percent of the number owned 78 per- cent of the total asseta.‘ From one important standpoint, however, this measure has become statute at an ap- propriate time. Once more embarked upon & program of industrial mobilization, perhaps this time the nation will be able to prevent the concomitant growth of economic ‘con- centration which has in the past been a con- stant and faithful handmaiden of American military endeavor. Between 1940 and 1947, for example, some 2,500 formerly independent manufacturing and mining companies ceased existence as a consequence of merger or acquisition. Over %0 percent of the total number of firms merged or acquired during this perlod were absorbed by the large corporations which had assets of $5,000,000 or more.’ A repetition of this phenomenon might well see the battle won but the victory lost. The Celler anti- merger law has been a legislative attempt to overrule these economic precedents of history and to assure the preservation of a competi- tive economy. Its success has been entrusted to able hands. Let me proceed now to some further legis- lative recommendations of the 8Subcommit- tee on Study of Monopoly Power. The more candid of the representatives of industry ap- pearing before the subcommittee were quick to admit that the present criminal penalties for violations of the Sherman Act were com- pletely ineffectual and inadequate.’ No better description of the futility of the present penalty of a maximum of 65,000 for each count in a criminal indictment under the Sherman Act has appeared than the statement of former Judge Simon Rifkind, a distinguished jurist, who will appear before one of the current sessions of this associa- tion. Sald the judge, in imposing sentence upon six defendants in the case of United States v. National Lead Co., on March 1, 1949: “I cannot even go through the formula of looking the defendant in the eye and saying, ‘Is there anything you wish to say before I pronounce sentence?’ But I must confess that these amounts being substantially the maximum allowed by the statute, there is very little I can do or very little reflection that I can give this matter except perhaps to make the inevitable comment that a viola- tion of the antitrust laws which persisted from some time in the early twenties to the 1940’s, with respect to which the criminal ability is discharged by the payment of 85,000 a count, hardly seems to me to be the nature of penalty which is likely to dis- courage violations of the antitrust laws as far as the criminal laws are concerned but that is a problem for the Congress.” * The subcommittee, quick to recognize this debility in existing law, reported favorably to the full Committee on the Judiciary a bill which increased the criminal penalties of the Sherman Act from a maximum of $5,000 to a maximum of $50,000. This meas- ure was reported to the House” where it was passed under suspension of the rules on June 6, 1960. Despite the universally rec- ognized need for this provision of law, H. R. 7827 met its death in the upper Chamber. “8, Rept. No. 1776, 81st Cong., 2d sess, (1950), p. 8. °H. Rept. No. 1191, 8lst Cong., Ist sess. (1949), p. 2. *Hearings, Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., ist sess., serial 14, pt. 1, p. 216, 1 See, e. g., hearing, Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 8lst Cong., lst seas., se- rial 14, pt, 2-A, pp. 568, 676; id., 81st Cong., 2d sess., pt. 4~A, p. 605. "Cited in H. Rept. No. 1906, Sist Cong. 2d sess. (1950), pp. 2-8. °H. R. 7827, Bist Cong., 2d sess. (1980). 3H. Rept. No. 1906, lst Cong., 2d sess. (1950). APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A similar fate befell H. R. 87638, another bill recommended by the subcommittee which was approved by the Committee on the Judiciary " and which passed the House under suspension of the rulea on July 17 of last year. This bill was not highly contro- versial and was introduced in order to pro- vide for that highly clamored for clarifica- tion and uniformity in certain areas of the antitrust framework, The first major aim of this bill was to amend section 4 of the Clayton Act so that the Government of the United States could sue in its proprietary capacity to recover actual damages suffered by it through viola- tions of the antitrust laws. This section was an attempt to negate the holding of Supreme Court in the case of United States v, Cooper Corp.," that the United States was not a “person” within the meaning of that term ‘as used in section 4 of the Clayton Act. Another section of the bill established a uniform statute of limitations 6 years in length and applicable to both private and United States damage suits resulting from violations of the antitrust laws. Not only did it appear anomalous to the subcommit- tee that a right of action bestowed by Fed- eral statute should be governed, as it is to- day, by the limitation statutes of the vari- ous States, but there seemed to be a seri- ous defect in a law whereby substantial rights were left to the hazard of statutes of repose ranging from 1 to 20 years in dura- tion. The final provision of H. R. 8763 tolled the statute of limitations in favor of the private suitor during the period in which the Goy- ernment was instituting its proprietary claim as authorized by the first section of this measure discussed above. One of the most interesting, as well as significant, aspects of the subcommittee’s activities during its growth and development into one of the important facts in the world of antitrust was its economic investigations, first of steel * and then of newsprint.* The subcommittee was fortunate to have had, during this time, the services of Edward H. Levi, now dean of the University of Chicago Law School, as counsel. I seriously believe that his conduct of the two economic studies which I have mentioned constitutes a sub- stantial contribution tc modern economic and legal thought. Permit me to go into the facts uncovered by these two investigations in some detail, because I fear that the results of these in- quiries have frequently been not understood, or, if you will, misunderstood, by many ob- servers, When the report of the subcom- mittee on its steel investigation was finally released, for example,” it was reported in the press that the subcommittee, hopelessly con- fused by the issues presented during its lengthy investigation, had emitted an amor- phous report which was the aftermath of in- digestion from too much tron and steel. While this report had no legislative recom- mendations or conclusions and parentheti- cally it is neither the intent nor the province of the subcommittee to legislate with regard to each studied industry, I do not see how anyone who merely perused the aggregated facts contained within the pages of this re- port could have failed to be impressed by the results of the subcommittee’s investigution. 2 See H. Rept. No. 2467, 81st Cong., 24 sess. (1950). 4312 U. 8, 600 (1941). 1 Hearings, Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., 2d sess., serial 14, pts. 4-A and 4-B. Hearings, Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., 2d segs., serial 14, pts. 6-A and 6-B. 6 The Iron and Steel Industry, report of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 8let Cong., 2d seas., December 19, 1950.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The report pictures in minute detatl the vast empire of the United States Steel Corp., extending from the bowels of the Mesabi to the peak of the Cerro Bolivar in Venezuela, This empire is served by more than 16 carrier railroads, over 1,500 miles of railroad track- age, 26 or more oceangoing steamships, and numerous barges and tugs, It has satellites engaged in the manufacture and production of supplies for drilling oil and gas wells, steel drums and barrels, structural steel products, fenoes, prefabricated houses, cement, wire products, and innumerable other products. For half a century United States Steel has dominated the iron and steel industry of the United States. In every facet of this com- plicated industry, one finds the presence of this corporation—ubiquitous, omnipotent. The bible of the steel industry reads: “In the beginning there was ore.” Look at the fron-ore supply of the Nation and you will find the United States Steel Corp. in pos- session of 61 percent of the ore reserves of the rich Lake Superior region from which emanates 60 percent of the country’s tron- ore supply.* In 1946 it was estimated that the corporation accounted for 47 percent of domestic tron-ore production.’7 Some 12 or 14 steel companies resort to the ore~mining subsidiary of their competitor, United States Steel Corp., for tron-ore supplies. The economic effect of this picture in the ore segment of the tron and steel industry was best summarized by the distinguished Secretary of Interior, Oscar Chapman, who eaid: “7 do not think it would make any differ- ence whether you bad 5 companies in the steel business or 500 companies in the steel business, if 1 or 2 companies controlled the source of raw material. The monopolistic features would be there in the controlling point, and it only would make a siight dif- ference of distribution, and that is about all 38 Turning to transportation, a factor in the fron and steel industry which affects the accessibility of raw materials, the location of plants, the prices of ore and of finished steel, we again find the United States Steel Corp. & dominant element. As Representative BLaTNIK, the Congressman from the Mesabi district, described this area of the steel cor- poration's power to the subcommittee: “The key to the steel corporation’s mo- nopoly control is found in its ownership and operation of the only railroad which is avatl- able to haul Mesabi and Vermilion iron ore from the minés to the ore docks on Lake Superior, where the ore is relayed by ore boats to the steel mills of Gary, Cleveland, and Pittaburgh. This railroac ts the ‘cap- tive’ Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Rall- road.” + By owning the bottleneck of transporta- tion facilities which serves the Mesabi Range, not only is the steel corporation’s economic power over competitors enhanced, but it is in the fortuitous position of being totally unconcerned over what rates are established for the transportation of fron ore, because no matter how high the tariff, tt is always paying tteeif. In the production of steel ingots, which is the next stage in the evolution of iron into steel and steel products, we again find the industry under the hegemony of the *The Iron and Steel Industry, report of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., 2d sess., December 19, 1950, p. 22. n Thid. Hearings, Subcommittee on Btudy of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., 2d sess., serial 14, pt. 4-A, p. 76. "Hearings, Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., 2d sess,, serial 14, pt. 4-A, p. 899. United States Steel Corp. About a third of the Nation’s capacity and production of steel ingots comes from the furnaces of the many plants of the corporation. Today, its ingot capacity is over twice that of its near- est competitor, Bethlehem, almost four times as large as Republic, and only slightly less than its four nearest competitors, Beth- lehem, Republic, Jones and Laughlin, and National, combined.” The corporation has also led the way in expanding into semifinished and finished products. It now has 42 percent of the total United States market in structural shapes, 49 percent of steel arils, 40 percent of wire rods, 41 percent of blanks and pierced billets for seamless tubes, and 60 to 70 percent of cotton ties. It is the leading producer in the industry of ingots, blooms, tin and terne plate, hot-rolled strip, strip for cold reduced black and tin plate, butt-welded pip2, gal- vanized pipe, seamless pipe and tube wire products including nails and staples, and wheels and axles." In many baste steel products, the corpora- tion's participation in the market has been on the increase during the past decade. I mention only wire rods, tin plate, and cold- rolled sheets as examples. A factor of more significance, however, has been the great in- crease in the amount of hot-rolled sheets, the principal steel product consumed by fabricators, which has gone to the fabricat- ing plants of the corporation rather than to independent producers. The percentage of hot-rolled sheets supplied to the corpora- tion's subsidiaries almost doubled between 1940 and 1947, increasing from 6.7 percent of total output in 1940 to 10.5 percent by 1947.3 A partial Mst of finished steel products manufactured by the corporation includes wire clotheslines, door springs, garden tools, electrical wires, cement kilns, coal chem- tcals, barrel hoops, steel drums, nails, spikes, staples, and tacks. The total number of products made by the steel corporation 1s so great that Mr. Fairless, president of the cor- poration, preferred to “leave it at thou- sands.”™ Nor has the United States Steel Corp. been content to rule tranquilly over the entire stee] industry. It has embarked upon invasions into such various alien fields as international steamship lines, cement, sulfate of ammonia, zinc mining, production of natural gas, and prefabricated houses. I have attempted to portray here in rather broad strokes what is contained in much greater and more thorough detail the sub- committee’s report on the tron and steel In- dustry. But I think the consequences should now be stated in more explicit terms, The real issue raised by these facta re- garding the position of the United States Steel Corp. in the industry is not whether United States Steel is intentionally violating the antitrust lew. While its past record indicates that it has participated in i- legal schemes to fix prices, international cartels, and similar offenses, it has been no better or no worse in this regard than many of the large and important companies of the Nation. The essential question ts one of monopoly power. With the above facts laid clearly before the Nation by the hearings and report of the subcommittee, the United Statea Steel Corp. may no longer hide its Ught under a barrel, steel or otherwise. The corporation is a sys- tem of power, s large and spawning organi- gation, a bureaucracy in the best sense of the * The Iron and Steel Industry, report of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, Bist Cong., 2d sess., December 10, 1960, p. 50, 2% Id., p. 57, *Thid bad Hearings, Bubcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 61st Cong., 2d sess., serial 14 Part 4-A, p. 583. A463 word. Whether its power is characterized as “monopoly” or not ts purely a matter of semantics. Whatever its name, it exista, in esse, to be seen and felt throughout the ham- Jets far and near of the country. Has this agglomeration of power been for the best interest of economy as a whole? Certain evidence introduced during the steel investigation of the subcommittee suggests an answer. A study of the entire organiza- tion of the United States Steel Corp. under the aegis of the firm of well-known consult- ing engineers, Ford, Bacon, & Davis, in which the management of the United States Stee! Corp. intimately participated, reached a number of significant conclusions. These findings, as summed up by Dr. George Stock- ing in testifying before the subcommittee, in- dicate that the United States Steel Corp. “was slow in introducing the continuous rolling mill; slow in getting into production of cold-rolled steel products; slow in recog- niging the potentials of the wire business; slow to adopt the heat-treating process for the production of sheets; slow in getting into stainless steel products; slow in producing cold-rolled sheets; slow in tin-plate develop- ments; slow in utilizing waste gases; slow in utilizing low-cost water transportation be- cause of its consideration for the railroads; in short, slow to grasp the remarkable buci- ness opportunities that a dynamic America offered it. The corporation was apparently a follower, not a leader, in industrial efMf- ciency." * Whenever I attempt to express my analysis of the important factors in the steel indus- try, it is continually suggested that I am attacking the industry or its leaders. I wish to state explicitly that I am not criticizing the United States Steel Corp., nor am I in the least way reflecting upon Benjamin Fair- less, ite outstanding president. I have met Mr, Fairless and have found him a sincere, an honest, and an able man. The United States Steel Corp. has always been a patrict’c company which has made significant contri- butions to this country in time of war and peace. But Iam pointing out a system of business organization in this Nation which possesses ® great deal of economic power in many of the important crevices of the economy, With great sincerity, I am questioning whether this untold amount of power should rest in the hand of a small coterie of men, no matter how able. And I am suggesting, finally, that the centralization of private economic power, like the centralization of political power, results in inefficiency, red tape, bureaucracy, and waste. I wish I were able to dwell upon the results of the subcommittee’s newsprint inquiry as thoroughly as I have gone into its investiga- tion of steel. In sharp contrast to stcel, newsprint portrays a different aystem of eco- nomic organization of industry ratsing many important problems from the standpoint of monopoly power and the antitrust laws. But time will not permit this and I must refer you to the hearings and the subcommittee's soon forthcoming report. While I am mindful of certain inhibitions precluding me from making full recommen- dations as a result of the newsprint inquiry prior to a fall report by the subcommittee itself, XY feel the conclusion ts inescapabie that the newsprint industry is one of the strongest and most powerful aggregation of monopoly partners extant. This aggregation has absolute power to control prices, for example, to raise them or to keep them down. It has the power to prevent new establishments as competi- tors. There is an utter lack of social respon- sibility, lack of national or international % Hearings, Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power, 81st Cong., 2d sess., serial 14, pt, 4-A, p. 967.
A464 responsibility on the part of the industry’s leaders who ‘thumb their noses at public opinion on both sides of the border. Bince over 80 percent of the newsprint consumed in the United States comes from Canada, and since there is presently no al- ternative major source of supply, the Cana- dians have the power of life and death over American dailies and weeklies. Their power is 80 great that they have prevailed upon the rovincial Legislature of Ontario to pass a Bin making it unlawful for any person to remove its records to a point without the borders of that province. In this way they have forestalled complete inquiry into their affairs by the executive and legislative branches of this country. Records of com- panies doing business in the United States have been spirited across the border and rendered impervious to our subpena powers. The practices I have mentioned strongly point to the need of appropriate legislation which possibly might require as a condition precedent for doing business in the United States that any foreign corporation agree to open ita records for inspection by a duly constituted judicial or legislative body in this country. In these monopoly practices, the American newsprint companies are not without fault, They are coconspirators with the Canadian companies. I have accordingly asked the Attorney General to renew the antitrust proceedings which were begun by a grand- jury investigation only a few years ago, This investigation was interrupted through protestation by the Canadians to the State Department. My investigation into this in- dustry, however, has received the approval of the Department. I would like, however, to conclude by dis- cussing the functions of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power in a mobiliza- tion economy. There is generally a tendency during an emergency program to forget about the consequences of monopoly power and to toss in the antitrust sponge with accentu- ated vigor. This attitude should be de- plored because the preservation of the over- all principles of the antitrust laws are in no way inconsistent with the objectives of an industrial mobilization program. I am sure that it was in the belief that the Prest- dent issued his directive of September 29, 1960, calling upon the defense agencies in charge of mobilization to eliminate, insofar as possible, “any factors which may tend to suppress competition unduly, create or strengthen monopolies, injure small busi- ness, or otherwise promote undue concen- tration of economic power.” * I believe that this subcommittee can serve @ useful purpose in the emergency period, Monopoly power must not be allowed to im- pede the defense effort. It muat not be per- mitted to stifie independent enterprise which is eager to contribute to all-out production. It must not be allowed to mulct taxpayers through monopoly profits which add to the cost of a mobilization economy. It must not be allowed to utilize Government controls as a sanction for perpetuating old discrim- inatory practices, It must not be allowed to thrive and grow under Government auspices when there are others who can perform nec- essary functions with equal facility. The economic areas I have just delineated ®@re certainly within the province of this subcommittee during the existing emergency. I also believe that the long-range objectives of the subcommittee—of discovering the Catises of and remedies for monopoly power— should not be lost sight of. We fight to pre- serve a way of life, With the battle over and the blood lost, fate would be more than fronic If she then decreed that the American way of life should go by default, “Hearings, Subcommittee on Stady of Monopoly Power, dist Cong., 2d sess., serial 14, pt. 6-A and pt. 6-B. Hungers, Wars, and Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 23, 1951 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the fol- lowing address given by Philip W. Pills- bury, of Minneapolis, president of Pills- bury Mills, Inc., at Kansas City Chem- ber of {Commerce luncheon on January 10, 1951: Hunorrs, WARS, AND Pxace Kansas City and its neighboring town of Atchison are my second homes. As most of you know, 25 years ago I spent 2 years living in your neighborhood. Twelve years ago I spent another half year living at the Muehle- bach. Even since I was a kid of seven I have been whipping a fly rod, catching fish in the rivers of this big area, Iam just as muth at home on the banks of the Mississippi where our flour mills use its power at Minneapolis, as well as at our feed mills at Clinton, Iowa, In the upper waters of the Ohio, our paper mills at Wellaburg are dependent on this same area, as are our flour mills and office here on the big “Mo.” You and I have a common bond together in that we live, eat, and help develop the great food basket of the world, but food is not our only bond. We are United States citizens, and our country not only needs leadership, but help right now. While our Representatives in Congress de- bate the imperative issues of foreign policy today—with all the world listening, and de- pendent on their decisions—it is our right and duty and our obligation ag citizens to think about these same issues and reach our own conclusions, Here in Kansas City we are about as far away from Korea and the Kremlin and Europe as we can get—but not to escape, for we are intimately affected by our military operaiions, our national and foreign policies, Distance is like the old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be, It’s only one hop, doesn’t even take a skip and a jump with to- day’s seven league boots, tu reach from the Kremlin to the grass roots. We are not here to escape. There is no escape from our re- sponsibility as citizens. Besides, escape has never been our way as a Nation—equality is our way, equality of opportunity. Man's struggle toward equality of oppor- tunity has been intertwined for 6,000 years with his struggle for bread. Man's hunger has caused wars. Man has fought other wars to still other hungers than that for bread. Mankind hungers for peace, My business is the food business. I'd like to be asking each of you: "What do you think we can do to make food a tool for peace?” After all, the whole world knows that Kansas Oity is the point of focus of the fertile Wheat Belt of the United States, our heartland and the breadbasket of the orld. Food, agriculture, built Kansas ity. It’s the center of the wheat, hog, sheep, and cattle country, of an agricultural productivity unequaled anywhere in the world. But it took people with courage, vision, hungers, and ideas to turn this prairie sod into a breadbasket. In the middie of this plenty, in Kansas Clty, we are sitting in comfort almost on the same thirty-eighth parallel that Time maga- zine’s man of the year, the American fight- ing man. is crouched on half a world away, defending an American outpost and defend- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ing the American idea. A short century ago his grandfather was extending the Ameri- can idea, making it come alive, as a fron- tiersman, as a pioneer, opening the corntry west of us, opening the great Wheat Belt that runs up and down the one hundredth meridian north far into Canada and south deep into. Texas; that 200-mile-wide swath of prairie ready, fertile, and waiting to pro- duce billions of bushels of wheat for man. And what is to the west of that American fighting man on the thirty-etghth parallel in Korea? Ancient lands with fertile solls, much like the prairies west across the Mississippi were 100 years ago, but shut off behind an fron curtain, teeming with sturving millions who yearn for our plenty and our freedom, as man always has. Why this perilous, tragic difference? What can we do about 1t? Three hungers make the world go ‘round, These three hungers are the dynamics of the peoples of the whole world, East and West alike—hunger for food, hurger for freedom, and hunger for power. Man has an instinctive hunger for free- dom. But this instinct for independence stops short of license and demands equal- ity of opportunity not only for self but also for the greatest possible self-realization for all persons, This concept of freedom—our common but ‘unique concept of freedom—produces an in. Anite diversity of thought among us but restrains no socially worth-while force. It 1s this concept of freedom and its unmatched release of human energy, not our raw ma- terials, that is the secret of our productivity. Our freedom is the freedom of ingenuity, freedom to invent and to choose. The genius of our freedom is characterized by a little story about what happened not 80 many years ago in a small town in the northern end of the wheat belt. Some fath- ers got their heads together to find a way to Keep their young sons busy and out of the pool hall, got the boys to put on a minstrel show—and they made some money. Then the problem was, what to do with the money. It was about the time boys everywhere were all excited about wireless, so they put the money into some “ham” wireless equipment. There weren't many boys in this small town—but look what happened to two of them: One is Dr, E. O. Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron. The other is Dr. Merle Tuve, inventor of the V. T. (proximity) fuze. Just a few small-town men, a ministrel show, a few boys—plus a vision of freedom beyond self for the self-realization of others. Here’s another angle. Great Britain ts to be praised for pulling out of India. You and I say India is free, but—England failed to leave an educational system in India suffi- cient to teach the people the value of freedom. A bare month ago when we had a hundred American women and girls baking together at the Waldorf-Astoria to help us find the best recipes tn the country, his Highness, the Duke, and the Duchess of Windsor paid these hundred women a visit. I was highly interested to see the Duke stop and talk with one of his former sub- jects, a Hindu girl, She is Mrs. Rukmini Krishnasqamy, wife of a Hindu student at the University of Ohio, and herself a doctor of philosophy in education. Her forehead bears the mark of her heritage—high posl- tion in her homeland, India, where electric rangea are barely known, Charming, bril- liant, modest, and humble, she told us that their great national leader, Prime Minister Nehru, has asked her to return to India to establish high schools for all India’s young people to educate them to the concept of freedom, to teach them how to achieve freedom. Hunger for food is an age-old twin hunger to man's hunger for freedom. Man has