APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Today, it appeara clearly that Great Britain refuses to commit herself thoroughly in the constitution of a new Europe. Of course, {t would be unfair to condemn the British attitude without trying to under- stand {it and it would be unwise to discard thew reasons, without studying them care- y- First of all, it is clear that the English do not want in any way, to run the risk of changing their relations with the Common- wealth, by engaging themselves too closely with the European countries. One can, one must understand it. But what the British seem to ignore is that, on that point, even the warmest supporters of an United Europe, agree with them. Nobody in Europe, nobody wise, in any case, would dream of confront- ing Great Britain with a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth, first of all because we know very well that, confronted with such a choice, Great Britain would choose the Commonwealth and that she would be right in doing so; but also because in Europe, we want to keep or create with th Commonwealth, the closest possible ties, and that in that respect British intervention is indispensable. The British do not want either to create, by integrating into Europe, what is some- times called a third force, the objectives of which would be to maintain a kind of neu- trality between the United States and the U. 8. 8. R. On this point, too, the English are entirely right. According to me, an organized Europe would inevitably become a force and even a force with which one would have to count, but, !n my mind, there is not the shadow of a doubt this force must choose its side, and that side can only be that of democracy and of the free countrios, Finally, more particularly, members of the British Labor Party are afraid that a united Europe would endanger their reforms, both economic and social. As a matter of fact, tiey refuse to take the chance of any sacri- fice—the sacrifice about which I have already spoken. I think, in that respect, that their policy is w little short-sighted. Nevertheless, this refusal of the British to commit themselves has confronted, in their turn, the continental Europeans with @ difficul. choice. Must they try, forestalling Great Britain, to make a united Europe without her, or must they, on the contrary, feeling Great Biitain’s presence to be indispensable, walk side by side with her, give up doing things r.pidly and be satisfied with slow—very slow—progress? On this point in Europe, and particularly in Strasburg, the controversy remains acute, and I admit that I am, myself, hesitant. On the one hand, I would like to create Europe and to create her quickly. On the other hand, I am fully aware that the Europe about whom we are speaking today is already & terribly mutilated Europe. Because of the Russians, the whole Eastern Europe and a gteat part of Central Europe are outside our influence. To deprive ourselves now of British experience is, of course, to make a caricature of our dream of a united Europe, All these explanations, very incomplete, though already very long, aim at showing you the complexity of the European problem. What reasons, besides faith, do we have that we will succeed? First of ali, the attitude of the French Government. The year 1950 has shown that for the French Government the adhesion to the idea of a European solution was no longer @ theoretical adhesion to some principles, but the elaboration of practical propositions, At the beginning of the year Mr. Robert Schumann, French Minister of Foreign Af- fairs, proposed to create in Europe one single market for steel and coal. Politically, he whe seeking = lasting solution to the old Franco-German rivalry and, economically, the success of his plan would constitute the first effective etep in the way of European integration. A few months later the French Government proposed the creation of a Huropean army. I know that thia idea was not received very well in the United States; that it was con- sidered as a dilatory maneuver aiming at putting off the rearming of Germany. But for us, who have known three Franco-Ger- man wars in less than a century, the idea of seeing the tools, which permitted these conflicts, destroyed once and for all, is a great idea and you will certainly understand it. The prospect of seeing the forces of Europe assemble in a single army to fight against Qn eventual aggression from the U. 8. 8. R. is without a doubt a prospect that to us seems like salvation. But it is not only the position taken by the French Government which makes me be- eve that the idea of a new Europe is def- initely on the march, it is also the work of the Assembly in Strasburg and it is above all the evolution of the mentality of the masses in Europe. In Strasburg, in spite of all the difficulties, things are beyinning to take shape. The Assembly has already become a Euros pean rostrum unique of its kind, It is there, and there only, that the dif- ferent European viewpoints can be con- fronted publicly and contradictorily. I do not exaggerate in saying that without the Assembly of Strasburg, there would have been neither the Schumann plan nor the proposal fur a European army. It is at the Assembly of Strasburg that the atmosphere making such tentatives possible was created, But there is more. Efforts directed at giv- ing a more realistic and a more effective au- thority to the Council of Europe are begin- ning to succeed. A way has now been found and I trust that in the course of this year, the statute will be modified in a manner enabling the Council of Europe to solve ef- ficacitously a certain number of problems. But what is more important fs that public opinion, in all classes, is beginning to stem. Last year, in Philadelphia, I had to confess honestly that the movement for a united Europe was, 80 far, the movement of the elite. Today, I have the right to say that it 1s bee ginning to be a movement of the masses. Why this change in the course of 1 year? Of course because of the effects of propa- ganda, but no propaganda in the world would have succeeded if events had not forced Europeans to awaken. In less than 6 months, the Korean war and the question of the rearming of Ger- many have shown the Europeans that in questions vitally important to them, ques- tions from which depended their very exist- ence, they had but little say. This conviction has been the reason for Europeans to awaken and will be, in the months to come, the basis of a more au- dacious will, which will permit, I am con- vinced, important progress in the cause of European unity. It seems to me impoasible to end this ex- planation without saying something about the rearmament of Europe. It is not at all my intention to take part in the great debate that you are holding and upon which all depends. But a clear understanding of the facts in Europe and of the European reactions can only aid the American people and their lead« ers to resolve the formidable problem which has been put before them. And it is that which gives me, I believe, the right to speak frankly. In truth, a formidable problem. Because on the answer to the question raised in this debate hangs the fate of the United States, and that 1s much, but at the same time, on the anewer to this question hangs also the fate of » the choice between peace and war, and the destiny of our common civilization, A939 Let me gay at first, and 2 repeat it to you and underline it with force, that in Europes, all the responsible leaders are perfectly con- scious of the absolute obligation in which they find themselves, each in his own coun-« try, to do their part in the construction of the European defense. No one thinks that he can leave to others, least of all to the United States, the re- sponsibility of defending Europe. This is the principle that the immense majority of Eu- ropeans accept: the greatest burden in the defense of Europe must fall to Europe. American aid constitutes only on addition, but an addition of inestimable value be- cause it transforms a defense which would be insufficient into a defense that will be vic- torious. Let me say to you next that it is totally unjust and totally wrong to say that until now Europe had done nothing to solve the problem of rearmament. As I have tried to explain to you, our prin- cipal activity during the last 2 years has been to reconstruct our land. It is for our reconstruction that you placed at our dis- position the Marshall funds. It was for our reconstruction that we used them. Now, in the past few months, we have faced a new problem, a problem altogether different, that of our rearmament. We began to tackle this problem with the Brussels Treaty, signed 1 year before the Atlantic Pact by Great Britain, France, Hol- land, Belgium, and Luxemburg. In the framework of this treaty, our mili- tary chiefs went to work. They asked the different governments to build by the end of 1952 an army which would comprise at least 40 divisions. All of the governments accepted this plan and all began their work. In France, the draft was extended from 12 to 24 months. The budget for defense, which in 1950 was 420,000,000,000 French francs, is, in 1951, 724,000,000,000, an increase of 70 percent. France will put 10 divisions on the ground in 1951 and then more in 1962. In Great Britain, the period of general service has been extended from 18 to 24 months. Great Britain has promised 10 reg- ular divisions and 12 territorial national guard divisions by 1952. Defense expendi- tures are now 383 percent of Britain’s total budget. In Belgium, the government proposes to extend the draft from 12 to 24 months. Ex- penses for rearmament will be, in 1951, 2,400, 000,000 Belgian francs, or 10 times that of 1949. And Belgium will place five divisions in the field in 1962, In Europe, we can pro« vide most of the men for our defense, and we will. We can produce, also, certain arms; but it is absolutely clear that these divisions, which are indispensable to us, can only be equipped for modern war with the help of weapons from the United States. For this help, we hope, All of this was decided and under way before General Eisenhower was designated to command the European forces. The nomination of General Eisenhower is the best news received in Europe for many long months. It has been taken as a defle nite manifestation of American solidarity; as proof that the people of the United States attach to the defense of Europe the greatest importance, In my opinion, General Eisenhower will succeed in his mission. His authority in) Europe is great. He inspires respect and confidence, He will succeed, but on one condition: it is that the political probleme posed by the defense of Europe and the American-Kuropean alliance sre promptly, and olearly resolved, It is absolutely nec! essary that.on two sides of the Atlantic, we decide to look upon the problems of our de-, fense as one problem, as a single problem;’ no longer the defense of Franoe, or Belgium, or England, or the United States, but the
A940 common defense of all the democratic and free nations. What is the great fear of Europe? That America might refuse to declare war if Europe is attacked by the Russians? No, The great fear is that the United States will decide that to defend Europe on the ground is impos- aible; that the United States will accept the idea that Europe must inevitably fall to the Russian conquerors in the first phase of war and eventually be delivered by the victorious Americans after 2 years, 3 years, 10 years of occupation. But I ask you, “What would be left of Europe after years of Soviet occupation?” What we hope tn Europe is that the United States will reject this fatalistic conception and that, from the very beginning of 4& war, they will be with us with all their strengths and with the precise objective of preventing the conquest of Europe, I have been asked several times about the fighting spirit of Europe. My answer is clear. For a people or an army to be possessed of & true fighting spirit it is absolutely necessary to give them the conviction that they have @ chance—a serious chance—of victory. ‘Those who believe in inevitable defeat do not ‘win battles. There is for Europe only one hypothesis on which the chance of victory is great: It is that aid from America ts given from the very beginning and completely; that the United States will engage itself without limit. I understand very well that you are con- fronted with a very serious problem. Believe me, the question is not of deciding whether you will or will not send to Europe one divi- sion for each 10 European divisions. That is not in my mind the right approach to the difficulty. The question you must decide clearly and courageously is whether the de- fense of the United States begins in Europe, whether ‘‘Yes" or “No.” If you answer “No,” tn my opinion you are wrong, but then be logical and don’t send any troops to Europe, because I do not see the advantage of sending a few American soldiers to participate in the fall of Europe by being beaten along with the Europeans in battle against Russia. But if you say “Yes,” and there are a hun- dred good reasons for you to say “Yes,” then let your military leaders speak. Let them say what is required for the common defense of the United States and Europe. Since they are also the military chiefs of Europe, they will at the same time be able to insure that Europe makes the effort necessary for your effort to be worth while. The hour of courageous decision is upon us. I am sometimes concerned when I see in Europe and also in the United States cer- tain men who reason as if all were easy for the Ruasians; as if they had not themselves Great difficulties to overcome; as if they held all the trumps in their hands. ‘ What a fatal mistake. I am convinced that they already have and will have in the case of war more problems to resolve than we. Their internal situation, the atomic bomb, the possible revolt of their satellites, the length of their communication lines, their insufficient reserves of strategic mate- rials are only examples of their troubles. We have also our trumps and, up to now, when we have played well, we have won. In Greece, in Iran, in Berlin, and, on balance, in Korea also. Let ts be courageous and confident and above all, let us defend the just cause—peace, collective security, and the freedom of the people, the principles of democracy—and we will win again. Is 1t not now the time—now or never-—to repeat the immortal sentence that you have Placed in stone an one of the most beautiful ef your monuments: . “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let ua to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.” Chemical Warfare EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, modern wars more and more are changing into chemical-warfare wars. Since we must win whatever wars we enter, I am pleased that this is true, since these United States are not back- ward in the basic sciences utilized in chemical warfare. In this connection I should like to have printed in the Ap- pendix of the Record an article entitled “Chemical Men Hit United States Delay on Expansion,” published February 19, 1951, in the Journal of Commerce. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: CHEMICAL Men Hit Unrrep StTaTes DeLay on Expansion—Watit, Sre Pouicy on QUICK AMORTIZATION BLAMED AS PLAN Lacs (By B. J. Slotky) WaSuINGTON, February 18.—The Govern- ment’s cautious wait and see policy in grant- ing certificates of necessity for quick amorti- gation to some growth industries was blamed today by segments of the chemical industry for bogging down essential defense expan-~ sion. At the same time, a number of industry officials here said the delay in granting cer- tificates to some stepchild industries may mean policy makers are trying to decide how far they should go with a program of butid- ing Government-owned plants, like those of World War II. BIG BACKLOG OF BIDS One National Production Authority chem- ical expert admitted last week there is a considerable backlog of applications for certificates still to be acted upon, al- though a number have already been cleared. However, pending policy agreement, no tn- formation has been released by the Defense Production Administration on these applica- tions. Top Mobilizer Charles E. Wilson ts known to be drafting a bill to get authority and funds to start a Federal defense bullding pro- gram. However, such a program, when it emerges, is expected to be far less extensive than tn World War IT and will probably stress expansion that industry is hesitant to under- take. The problem of certification delay ia said here to be particularly hard on growth in- dustries such as chemicals and noninte- grated steel. In responding to earlier Gove ernment demands for all-out expansion, some spokesmen say these industries are us- ing up their cash and credit and exhausting working capital to build new facilities, FEAR INTERPRETATIONS They say that uniess prompt amortization 4s available some companies cannot replenish empty tills and obtain the working capital they need to operate plants already under construction. Another bottleneck, they fear, is Govern- ment amortizing agency interpretation of the amortization provisions in the 1950 Reve- nue Act. These agencies maintain that leas than full 20 percent a year amortization must be granted if a facility will be eco- nomically useful at the end of an arbitrary 6-year emergency period. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD DPA is now the Government’s top amortiz- ing authority. The Revenue Act authorizes the administration to permit corporations to write off needed new facilities for tax pur- poses in 6 years rather than 26, as formerly. BAY “GLAMOR” GETS NOD Buch a determination, spokesmen feel, means in practical terms that “glamorous” products like aluminum, steel, and benzene get the right-of-way while other basic prod- ucts are subjected to lengthy scrutiny be- fore being approved for expansion. During the last war amortization was granted on a 100-percent basis when ex- pansion was needed for defense, until near the end of the war when the percentage was dropped to 85 percent because of the tapering demand for war materials. At that time tf only one-half of the plant was needed for defense, only one-half was amortized. The present amortization procedures stipulate up to 100-percent amortization for emergency facilities but the Government now subjects applications to scrutiny on whether they have postwar usefulness. If 80, the amortization percentage is lowered in order to prevent industry from getting some- thing for nothing. Mobilizer Wilson has taken the position that no percentage granted should exceed 80 percent. JOHNSON MOVE In an effort to eliminate restrictive inter- pretations of the Revenue Act, Senator Ep- win C. JonNson (Democrat, Colorado), late last year offered an amendment to the ex- cess profits tax bill which would deprive the administration of power it has exercised to grant less than 100-percent amortization. JOHNSON explained his amendment would make it possible to grant certificates for facil- ities that were to be used partly but simul- taneously for defense and nondefense pur- poses. NSRB and later DPA have apparently based their interpretation of the act on the phrasing which authorizes a rapid write-off for only such portion of the cost as the certifying authority says is attributable to defense purposes. The amendment, which finds high favor with the chemical industry, was dropped in conference with the understanding it would be brought up in connection with the next revenue bill. However, enactment of a reve- nue measure does not now appear immediate- ly forthcoming. Chemical spokesmen point out although Secretary of Interior Oscar L. Chapman has said 300 certificates of necessity totaling $2,- 000,000,000 have been authorized by the Gov- ernment, none of these, so far as they know, has been granted to the chemical industry. Does GOP Foreign Policy Rest Some- where Between Diverse Views of Taft and Dewey? EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS OF UTAH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. WATKINS, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the CongREssIONAL REC- orD an editorial entitled “Does GOP For- eign Policy Rest Somewhere Between Di- ‘verse Views of Tart, Dewey?”, which ap- peared in the February 14 issue of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Salt Leake Tritune, of Salt Leake City, Utah. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed im the Recons, as follows: Does GOP Foarien Potacr Reer Somewrere Brrweren Drvease Views or Tarr, Dewey? The wide divergence of Republican views on American foreign poticy was dramatized by the Lincoln Day addresses of Senator Tart, currently the most likely 1952 presi- dential candidate, and Governor Dewey, twice the GOP nominee and titular head of the party. Speaking in Salt Lake City, “Mr. Repub- ican” Tart reiterated his belief that we must limit our military commitments, eape- cially with regard to Europe’s defense. Mr. Dewey, speaking in New York, called for a world-wide Monroe Doctzine, with all-out war the penalty if Russia steps over the global 2. Mr. Tart goes a little beyond the Herbert Hoover proposal of “air power and the navy is the alternative to sending American land divisions to Europe,” but he inafsts that the United States limit the scope of its European defense project and that Congress have the say-so on the number of troops to be sent abroad. Mr. Dewey has gone beyond anything yet advocated by any administrative spokesman tm calling for a registration of every Amer- ican above 17, an Army of 100 divisions and & greatly enlarged Army, Navy, and Alr Force. He rejects “any idea that America can live alone” and says “the only way to stop” Soviet aggression is “to draw the line.” Myr. Tarr would limit our land army con- tribution to Europe to five or six divisions, which would mean about « militom men in the country’s entire land Army. “The Army's plan provides 27 divistons, Surely we can- not send 15 of them to Europe, considering our requirements in the Par East, fn Amer- ica itself, in Alaska, backing up the sea and aiy comtrol throughout the world.” The Ohio Senator warned that the current administration program, if carried through the years, would result im surrendering our liberties, making this country a “garrison state.” That danger is very real, but can we really do a great deal about tt? After sit, the Kremlin {s stil! calling the tune. We are resolved against a preventive war. Can we wait for an attack before going on a war footing? If the Republican leadership hopes to sup- plant the administration foreign policy there will have to be considerable compromising between the vartous schools of thought within the party. In the Teft-Hoover camp are Utah’s Senator Warxins, Nebraska's Ben- ator Waesay (though mmcit more tsolation~ ist), Senators Brewermn, Cate, CaPmaar, Jenwer, Kem, MaLoun, and others. Senators Dirksen and KNOWLAND are thumping 50 hard for aid to Chiang Kai-shek that they give the impression they would risk # fufl- scale war with the Communists in the Far East. Mr. Bawozs would be tough to the point of breaking at once all diplomatic ties with Russia and her satellites. In the internationalist achool, with Dewey the most ardent spokesman, now are Sena- tors Lover, SaLTONSTALL, Ives, Tosry, ATKEN, Morse, and Vanprnserc. Unfortunately, the latter is still too {ff to take an active part. So far as Europe is concerned, this group ts not far from the administration in foreign policy views. Mr. Tart is strongest on domestic problems and he effectively tied the international pro- gram with the home front economic situa- tion in his adress Mondey night. He te rectly coneerned sbout the load limit United States Wilk beer over a period of time and Javoss limitations to penditures to avoid disastrous infiation. ie ee doubts that taxes can teke more than $0 percent of the national income without damaging the economy. “I believe about $65,006,000,000 a year on our present national Income, or perhaps 875,- 000,000,000 with an increased income, i about the limit we can stand. As I see ft, the administration program will cost at least €65,000,000,000 a year for the Armed Forces and $30,000,000,000 for other purposes. The program, I feel, must be reduced and can be reduced without endangering the safety of this country.” Mr. Tarr made 8 fine impression during his 2 days in Utah. He commands great respect. His tremendous energy, hts sincerity, his en- eyclopedic mind and unique courage tm- pressed those who met and heard him speak. Aas someone has aptly said, he speaks simply and candidly; he does not wrap himself in the American fiag. Perhaps with a little more wrestling with his conactence, and the hard realities of the world situntion, Mr. Tarr will emerge truly as Mr. Republican in foreign affairs—which te is not now—as well as domestic affairs. Propesed Amendments to Selective Service Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LYNDON B. JOHNSON OF TEXAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the ConcressionaL Recorp, severa) editorials regarding the proposed amendments to the Selective Service Aet. These inelude editorials from the Louisville Courier-Journal, the Boston Herald, the Grand Rapids Press, the Syracuse Herald-Journal, the Rochester Times-Union, and the New York Times. There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the Rrec- orp, as follows: {From the Louisville Oourler-Journal of January 13, 1951] Wuy SHovu.tp THey Srart Daarrine 18-Yrar- Oxpa? A sort of plural ogre steps into the lives of most young men when they are drafted for military service. The ogre’s name ts “They,” “Tey” draft the youth. “They” ship him of tocamp. “They” give him a uniform that feels uncomfortable after civilian clothes. Indeed, the young victim may convince bim- self “They” have been planning all this for his especial torment for a long, long ime. Fortunately, the youth grows out of us hos- titty to “They” and he becomes a soldier. Some mothers dow't, and become the moms. in the end, of cou.se “They” are the Con- greas of the United States. And Congress is not drafting boys for the fun of ft. Con- gress is responsive not only to the moms but to the demands of economy, and it is not going to legislate a slice out of young men’s lives unless it nrust. Right now it must. And the people who are advising Congress— Seczetary of Defense George Marshall and his assistant, Mrs. Anna Rosenberg—are pro- posing | wiee course. There ten't any easy ome. What they want Congress to do ts to make every 18-year-old boy subject to 77 months of wotlitary tratming and service, and to put him trrto a Reserve militery organisation for 8 to 6 years afterward. These are the reasons: Prom now on, perbeps, the United States will have to keep 6 mich stronger military yrusele than ft has ever had before except in the midst of major war. But Marshell doestr’t want to build a tremendous peacetime army to fret its time away in training eamps. “Mow ahout the Reserves?” we can hear the draftees asking “Why did they stay in if 2% wesn’t for a time like this? And how about the veterans of the last war, don't they already heve the training and experience?” Yes, they dict stay in for such a time as this, and many of them already have been recalled to active duty. They not only have training end experience (though some of tt may have worn rather rough at the elbows), they also have more years than they did efore. Besides, most o. them have formed places in the productive capacity of this country. And production is as much a part of armament and defense as an army is. The Defense Department—"“They,” if you Hke~—doesn"t want to tear up industrial pro- duction while % builds an army. That would be ike setting wp an enemy to defeat our own effort. The Regular Army, however, ts big enough to do a great fob of training. It and the Reserve and National Guard units now on duty can serve as a sort of faculty (the Army Calls it a cadre) to organize and train the young Army. President Truman ts talking of 3,462,000 men in the Armed Forces by the end of June. Tiiat is little more than « fourth of the Armed Forces at World War I peak. After the first 2 years there will be a yearly turn-over ae 20-year-olds return to civilian life. Yet in event of war the Na- tion will have om tap an Army of respectable proportions, vigorous youth, and better training and skills than {tt has been able to muster in the past. “They” are not trying to persecute mom's boy. “They” are doing the best they know how to protect his country, his very world. [From the Boston Herald of January 12, 1951} Tum 18-Yran-Otss : It could not have been a pleasant duty for Secretary of Defense Marshall to ask Con- gress thts week for a call-up of 18-year-olds, No form of compulsory military service is pleasant and we have rarely before demanded the services of such young citizens except in time of actual war. But we sre now in a state of emergency vergimg upon war. And for the particular set of circumetances which we face the Sec- ratary seems to have produced as peiniess a sotution as we can hope to get. The Secretery’s progranr is essentially the game as the one advocated by President Conant of Harvard. Under it universal mill- service for 18- and 19-year-olde would , at first supplement and later replace the present selective service. The immediate aim is to belp raise the quick strength we need to meet our enemies tn Korea and Bu- yope. The long term fs to provide a mecha- rriam for matntaiming reserve strength with- out the cost and waste of a huge standing army. In the long period of semimobilfzation which lies shead the great problem for Amer- fea will be to set wp a balance of economic and human strength which will not collapse of ite own weight before it has to be used. We have great manpower reserves. It is eati- mated that the potential United States labor force will number more than 76,000,008 by 1958 and we can spare the 3,500,000 the Preal- dent seeka for the Armed Foroes—perhaps even a little more—without slowing our economy. But we cannot match Russia’s manpower in arms without weakening our- selves fatally in other Mnes,
A942 The universal military service program would call upon everybody as he came of age to perform military duty, but the maximum period of compulsory service (except in ac- tual war) would be 27 months. Thus the effect would be merely to postpone the entry of most young men into productive clvillan pursuits, including higher education, and it would eventvally release many, if not all of the older age groups, now subject to draft, from the obligation of military service. Such an arrangement, if it can be made to work, would certainly put a minimum pres- sure on the civilian economy, And, if it is assumed that some kind of compulsory serv- ioe is inevitable, the 18- and 19-year call-up ts probably the easiest on servicemen, in that it catches them for the most part before they are committed either to college or to a profession. The chief objectors are apt to be the col- leges and universities, which are already being depopulated under selective service pressure. But generous exceptions are pro- vided in the new proposal to care for their need, During the transition period some 75,000 exemptions would be granted to stu- dents to “keep educational pipelines from drying up,” and ROTC and other military education projects would be expandéd to utilise higher educational facilities. Secretary Marshall's program is not ideal, but we do not live in a world whose problems always permit of ideal solution. Congress should approve universal military service promptly unless a demonstrably more prac- tical program is offered during the current hearings, {From the Grand Rupids (Mich.) Press of January 11, 1951] Drarr 18-Yr£aR-OLps Secretary of Defense George O. Marshall's combination universal military service and training program makes sense for these times. What Marshall is proposing is a program that would be flexible enough to meet the Nation’s needs in times of crisis while shor- ing up the nationa) defense in less critical periods. To accomplish this twin purpose, Marshall would draft all 18-year-olds for 27 months’ service. If world tension eased, the program would be altered to provide for up to 6 months of training and reserve service. What should appeal to the public in this is the fact that the Nation would be assured of a reservoir of trained men at a minimum cost. It would cost less than trying to main- tain a huge Regular Army for an indefinite period, and it would cost the individual the minimum in time away from school or other preparations for the future. Moreover, by taking the 18-year-olds, the country would be guaranteed a trained force for many years to come. _ The hesitation which Congress has shown in drafting 18-year-olds can’t be defended on anything but sentimental grounds. Mili-+ tery leaders have testified that men in this age group make excellent soldiers—better ones than do men around the 80-mark. Moreover, the younger men have fewer re- sponsibilities and have not yet become essen- tial cogs in the Nation’s industrial machine. They can be spared far more readily than can the older men. Yet much of the talk in Congress about meeting the Armed Forces’ manpower needs has been along the line that the draft age limit should be ratsed, Marehall’s plan is much sounder from every angle and ought to be adopted ahead of any program to draft older men. {Prom the Syracuse Herald-Journal of Janu- ary 12, 1951) OALLING Upon Youts Bacretary of Defense Marshall's plan for compulsory universal military service and training of 27 months for all men on reach- ing the age of 18 is a far-reaching measure. In the weeks to come it will be carefully studied and debated, not only in Congress but throughout America—that .America which it is designed to protect and whose millions of young men will be affected. Secretary Marshall stated clearly the ob- fective. It is to solve the problem of pro- viding adequate, trained military manpower with the least possible impairment of the Nation’s productive processes over a long period of years. Even after enactment the plan will be subject to change as experience suggests improvements, To the formulation of this plan the Sec- retary and Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, Assistant Secretary of Defense in charge of manpower and personnel problems, have devoted much thought. Solving the problem calls for such a detailed knowledge of conditions that the average person will feel unqualified to pass a@ final judgment on it. It will profoundly affect not only the young men concerned but our colleges also. General Marshall speaks by the book when he pays tribute to the fighting ability of young men because of their energy and re- silience. These qualities were amply proved in the recent war. If actual combat should be deferred a few years, 4 reservoir of trained youth would be still available while if older men were taken their usefulness would rapidly decline. {From the Rochester (N. Y.) Times-Union of January 13, 1951] Yours Knows THE Score “We should get ‘em young and get ’em ready.” “If there isn’t going to be a war it will be because our strengthened forces are too much for Russia.” “If it’s for the common defense I think it's good.” “If we have to have a war I'd rather be trained and ready.” “I think the 18-year-olds should be drafted.” There you are, folks. These are quotes from 17- and 18-year-olds in Rochester high schools who were questioned about universal service beginning at 18. These young men evidently understand the score better than many adults. Every young generation is said to be irresponsible, but two have proved to the contrary when the chips were down and here comes a third one, How many generations does it take to con- vince the skeptical? {From the New York Times of January 19, 1951] For UMST In the letter sent to Congress by Secretary of Defense Marshall, in support of the new measure which would provide for a system of universal military service and training, there occurs this passage: “What we need, and what this bill would provide, is the assurance that we would he able to build up our combat force with all possible speed * * * that we would be able to maintain whatever strength might be needed for as long as might be necessary to insure world peace * * * [and that] we could achieve these ends with the min« imum cost in men and money, and with the least necessary dislocation of industry, agri- culture, education, and family life.” The new bill for UMST conforms faith- fully to these sound principles. Let us con- sider, briefly, what it would and would not do: ‘ It would not saddle the country with the gigantic cost of maintaining a standing army large enough to meet emergency needs; jt would provide instead an adequate body of trained reserves—trained, and kept in training. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It would not make the safety of the United States the special business of a fractional part of its young able-bodied population; this responsibility would be universal, auto- matic, democratic. It would not disrupt the normal proce~ dures of each young man's life more than ig necessary to achieve this purpose; the age 18 is deliberately chosen as coming between the period of high school and college education. It would not drain the colleges themselves of the young scientific brains whose special- ized training is also a necessary factor in the Nation’s safety; provision is made for a temporary suspension of active military service, with this end in view, though the obligation for a later, post-graduate period of service would properly remain. It would not set up a riches-and-poverty system of security, under which the armed services were overwhelmed with personnel one year and starved the next; instead, the supply of needed men would be constant, steady and predictable. It would not fasten upon the country an inflexible, hard-and-fast system of national defense, impervious to changes elsewhere in the world; instead, if the present emergency should abate, the President would have power to reduce or eliminate the service re- quirement for all inductees and all services. These are some among other strong ad- vantages of the new bill. They are strong reasons for hoping that action on it by Con- gress will be prompt and favorable. South Dakota Melody EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANCIS CASE OFr SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. CASE. Mr. President, currently there is considerable interest in State songs. Locally, a contest is being con- ducted to bring out a song for the Dis- trict of Columbia. It is not easy for a poem of a few stan- zas to convey the beauty, strength, and varied interests of any of our great States, A very fine picture of South Da- kota is given in Marie Christopherson’s South Dakota Melody, which, by the permission of the author and the Senate, I place in the REcorp. There being no objection, the poem was ordered to be printed in the Rec- ORD, as follows: Sours Dakora MeLopy (By Marie Christopherson ) From the fertile green Sioux valley To the hills that kiss the blue, There's & land of rugged beauty Flaming sunsets and spacious view, Where the golden pheasant crows at dawn And cattle graze the plain, Where the wind sings a refrain To the fields of waving grain, And the people smile at you, Like 8 mammoth organ rumbling Is the music of the pines, And the mountain streams keep tumbling Into clear ringing bell-like chimes, There ta music tn the starlit night Pilled with love and mystery, And there's music in the day As we swing along our way, South Dakota melody.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD And music from above— 4s the honking wikd geese fly Hom. Rebert A. Taft, of Obie, Analyzes Our Responsibility and Competence EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS OF UTAH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legtsiative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr, WATKINS. Mr, President, I ask unanimous coment to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp en editorial entitled “Senator Tarr Analyzes Our Responsibility and Competence,” pub- lished in the Deseret News, of Salt Lake City, Utah, of February 14. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rzcoap, 28 foNows: Senator Tart ANaLyzes Our R&sPONSIRILITY AND COMPETENCE Senator Rosmat A. Tart, of Obio, one of the strong men of nis political party and prea ently Mr, Republican in the United States Senate, spoke in Galt Lake City at the Lincoln Day dinner on Monday evening. The audi- ence that filled the banquet room at the Newhouse Hote) represented only a fraction af his bearers, since bis talk was broadcast over ESL. Senator Tarr’s long expesience in the Sen- ate qualifies him, to look witb # critical and discriminating eye on problems of national import seem pretty remote or complex to the ordinary citizen. But he hroughs, in his address, some of these prob- lems very mear to the heart of the average men, and reduced many of their complexities to two simple categories: First, What should we do? And second, What can we do? Under the fret heading, he indicated the fundamental constitutional questions in which we sre involved, 5 & ce of the elouds of war that sre about our heads, He dealt with principles, not with per- sonelitie:. Without questioning the right of the President as Commander in Chief to jasue any order fér emergency mil?tary ection, anywhere, when the lives or property of American citizens ate critically endangered, be boldly challenged the right of any Presi~ Gent to make commitments otherwise which would embroll this Nation In s war without sole right to declare wer. constitutional fact which Mr, Tarr etressed— the reason for bis reiterated insistence that we should operate, in both domestic and for- eign relations, strictly within our constitu- tional framework; the elaboration of his fear of and fiscal . We have, ghd 40 we cannot, on a basis of simple: arith- metic, hope to compete in raw manpower with Asta’s teeming milifons, who outnumber us nearly 2 to 1. We do have some 75 pereent of the world’s skilled manufacturing . and 80 can beat any nation or alt other nations tn the output of nonggricultural materials nec- esuary, for ether war or peace. AS a consequence, our part tn preserving the peace of the world, Mr. Tarr pointed out, cannot be primerity that of furnishing sol- diers, partictilarty to garrison Europe. He did not urge that we furnish no troaps at all for the Atlantic Pact defense army which General Etsenhower has been named to reerutt and command. Rather, he urged—in effect—that our con. tribution to those forces be no more then the cadre mecessary to stiffen—and to mekea effective the Elsenhower-type staff methods and operntional training—an army the great bulk of which the European nations should ide. Specifically he estimated that such an American contribution of grotnd troops should not go beyond 10 percent of the total Atlantic Pact European garrison force, as opposed to the plus 85 percent of American contingent in the Army now fighting under Gencral MacArthur’s UN banner tn Korea, Thus he did not go quite ag fer on the grcund-troops-for-Burope issue as Herbert Hoover urges; but he did stand stanchiy at Mr. Hoover's side on the point of building up our Air Force and Bary to the point where ‘we can safely put the brakes on some of the increased-ground-forces proposals that we are hearing these days. Then he talked about money—taxation Iimita, fiscal policy, and the like; and he talked very soundly indeed. His major points are recited in our news cohumns. The rest of the address wes—as was to be expected and could be only proper at a Lincoln Day dinner held by and for Repub- itean Party stalwarte—frankly and earnestly palitical. . If Mr. Tarr ts not an active and overt can- @idate for the presidency today his acmirers hope that he 4s, or hope soon to make him so. He did not disappoint them. Altogether he fulfilled his engagement with a first-rate job of work. Rain Making: Twentieth Century Legal Phenomenon EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLINTON P. ANDERSON OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legtstative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr, ANDERSON. My. President, the subject of rain making involves a great many new legal questions, not the least of which is the question of how much responaibility rainmakers have for floods and for unusual disturbances of the The Harvard Law Schoo! Record in two instaliments carrted an article by, . Ralph E, Corey entitled "Rain Making: , ‘Twentieth Century Legal Phenomenon.”... by It hes occurred to me that the article : catt’ and others who recently have”. aaray of physical F jemen, only 6 percent of the world’s population,’ become interested in rain making, I am . eather {s controlled by same res Seheol i De available to businesmren, farmers, A943 to reprint it in full Comommsesonas, of printing this article will be $206. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rxcaan, as follows: [Prom the Harvard Law School Record of February M, 1051} Rare Maxrnc, Twaentrera Cenrore Orvis, Incmoatr, HEADACHE For LeetsiaTons, Jv- grsts, Corer Says ArTen NaTioran Svugver Some wag has declared in not-too-original paraphrase: “Weather ts just Ike women— we can't live with her, and we can’t live with- out her.” Since the dawn of history, man hes been obliged to live with weather—and accept it, because he could not control it. But like the element of fire a few thousand years before, control it he did in 1946, As a re- suit of an outdoor dry-ice experiment by Vincent J. Schaefer, a General Electzic Co. chemist, an 8-tnch snowfa)! fell in upper New York and Vermont, although the local ‘weather buresu had forecast fair and warmer weather. ¥t is a yare treat, Indeed, to be present st the birth of s new science. But the process of artifictal rain making and weather con- trol is more than just another scientific ex- perience. It is a legal phenomenon af the twentteth century. Bince that anowy December afternoon in New Engtand, the science of weather con- trol has made comsiderabie advances. But on the heels of these advances important jegal problems have arisen which still re~ main unsolved and unadjudicated by the Jaw courts of this country. WHAT Ig RAIN MAKING? Before exploring the Jegal issues raised by the birth of this new phenomenon, a brief explanation of the artificial rain-making process seems in order. Rainfall is mechani- cally produce@ by a human operator who passes dry ice (or allver iodide) particles through a supercooled cloud (moisture cloud containing droplets in a liquid water state). A high instability in temperature, afr pres- gure, and humidity factors occurs just prior to precipitation. The sudden introduction of dry-fce particles creates nuclei of ice particles. A chafn reaction and contractfon is set up within the cloud body, and rain fais. Man-induced rain may be aceom- pitehed in several ways. Airplanes may fy) above the cloud and “seed” dry-tce y articles and directly Into the cloud. Rockets. generators can shoot up atlver- @ry-ice perticles into the: y estimating wind velocities and direction of air currents, a situs of pro- posed rainfall can be calculated and fore- east, ference with weather. Weather control may be employed negatively, as well. Hain clouds can be made to drop their ram burden pre- HESPONSTBLE CONTROL NEEDED These public henefits may reault only if agency. The possibility of grave damage to; private and public interests from trrespanai-' ble attempts to control weather 1s great. The haphazerd unscientific efforts of amateur,
A944 rain makers may actually be upsetting the balance, of nature. It is alleged that private experimenters tend to atrew every rain cloud which hoves into sight with dry ice. These Slowds may float hundreds of miles away from the gemisrid zones which need rain. They may dump their motsture in places like the Red River Valley, N. Dak., which last spring had an incredible 5,000 percent of normal] rainfall. It has also been noted that widespread modification of the weather pat- tern over much of the United States may have resulted from a systematic silver jodide seeding operation conducted during 1950 in New Mexico, Possible applications and bene- fits of artificial weather control should not be permitted to overshadow the ultimate objective:” To render calculable the effects of any hypothetical human intervention, and to introduce responsible control, as distin- guished from haphazard interference. NO ADJUDICATED CASES With the exception of one recent New York case, Slutsky v. City of New York (18 Law Week 2528 (May 11, 1950)), weather control or artificial rain-making problems have not yet been adjudicated by the American courts, In an attempt to discover possible adjudica- tion in this new fleld, the author sent a ques- tionnaire to the attorneys general of the 48 States. The questionnaire asked: (a) Do you know of any rain-making or weather-control litigation in your State? (b) Have any weather-control bills been Introduced into your State legislature, or into Congress by your Representatives or Senators? (c) What is your opinion as to possible grounds for legal Mability arising out of damage result- ing from artificial rain making and weather control? Over 40 replies were received. The majority replied in the negative to the ques- tions asked, and none admitted to any knowl- edge of State litigation or legislation in this field. Most officials queried declined to offer opinions on the subject of possible legal ability. Among those who offered helpful com- ment was Mr. Harold R. Fatger, attorney gen- eral of the State of Kansas: “About 1900 this Btate was beset with professional rain makers who had enormous machinery with a fun- nel extending into the sky. “The people of Kansas generally rely upon prayer as to such matters, but there ts little evidence that they have ever been heard, and if such a method was either successful or unsuccessful nobody knew where and how they could litigate any damage resulting from the success or failure.” SEVERAL QUESTIONS Several questions develop out of an ate tempt to relate artificial rain making and weather control to legal liability. Some ap- parent issues are: (a) Is there an ownership in clouds? (b) What is the ability at com- mon law, if any, for injuries caused by ar- tificial rain making? (c) If human con- trol is to he exercised over weather, who should exercise it—private persons, the State, or the Nation? (d) If weather is con- trolled by the Federal Government, what legislation and factors of liability should be created? WHO OWNS THE CLOUDS? Until recently, no one has ever asserted @ property right in clouds. The common law has long recognized certain so-called natural rights, or essential natural advan- tages which are inherent in land and air space. Pure air, the right of support, bene- fite from flowing water, freedom from nul- sance, and pollution have long been con-~ sidered natural rights. They represent es- sential portions of the value of the land in its natural condition. Without them, there would be little security in the enjoyment of land by its owner. An Albany Law Review writer suggests ap~ plying the well-known water-rights doc- es in an endeavor to determine possible property rights tn clouds. Eli Goldston, in- quiring into the legal aspects of artificial rain making for the first time in the Har~ vard Law School Record in early 1948, sug~ gested that the legal concept of natural wa~ tercourse should be extended to cover the entire precipitation-evaporation cycle. He noted that in recent years courts have in- creasingly applied surface-water rules to percolating water problems. Goldston fur~ ther suggested that the best of present wa- tercourse law be used, rather than treat celestial water as some mineral ferae na- turae, However, established water-rights doc« trines appear to be of doubtful applicabil- ity to the fleld of weather control. These doctrines apply to earth-bound waters, and their judicial interpretations vary consid- erably throughout the United States. Moisture-bearing clouds are transitory and free moving. They form and disintegrate. at pleasure in the course of their travels. They are not earth-bound like lakes and streams, and follow no predetermined, defined course, or existence. Several theories exist in the common law on which a court might base Habllity for alleged damages to property caused by arti- fictal rain making and weather control, Three such theories are trespass, negligence, and nuisance. TRESPASS The authorities seem to be in general agreement that intended trespass to prop- erty is made actionable by existing tort law. Prosser on Torts notes that “trespass may consist of any entry of a person or thing upon land in the possession of the plaintiff, or in remaining upon it, or allowing a thing to remain upon it, where there is a duty of removal.” The Restatement of Torts finds Mablility for trespass only in the case of intentional intrusion, negligence, or some extra-hazardous activity, Liability is im- posed for ground damage, regardless of neg- ligence or intent. A recent opinion of the attorney general of Minnesota holds that when drift from aerial spraying 1s carried over into neighboring flelds, a trespass to real estate is committed. The decision effec- tively allows recovery of nominal damages by all owners of possessory interests whose land or effectively tenable airspace has been trespassed. NEGLIGENCE The Restatement of Torts also impresses a strict tort Mability for negligence in con- ducting an activity without due notice or warning, tf an unreasonable risk and harm is created to persons and property on the ground. Persons damaged may recover for all harms caused by the actor's negligence, One case closely related to the fleld of arti- ficial precipitation dealt with steam coming from a vent in defendant’s building. The steam condensed in a cold wind, and fell, forming a coat of ice on the pavement ad- joining defendant's property. Defendant had notice that this was happening. Held, Defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall on the ice, and defendant was held Mable for his negligence. Diehl y. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co, (159 Pa. Sup. Ct. 518, 49 A. 24 190 (1946)). In a similar instance, defendant was held Hable for his negligence in allowing steam to escape across a public highway, obscuring plaintiff's vision and causing him to collide with another car. In other cases, lability was established in aerial crop dusting, and several States have passed legislation controlling crop-dusting activities. The common law remedy for nuisance ts & temporary or permanent injunction order- ing tts immediate abatement, on penalty of contempt of court. Statutory liability for nuisance in the field of aviation has been inserted in the Civil Air Regulations. The regulations provide for the seizure of air- craft, recovery of a civil penalty, and the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD suspension or revocation of the pilot’s cere tificate for violating the provision which states that “no person piloting an aircraft shall permit anything to be dropped from an aircraft in flight which might create any hazard to persons or property.” PROXIMATE CAUSE One of the most difficult questions with which a court will have to deal in determin- ing weather control liability on a strict tort basis will be the pricking question of prox!- mate cause. Proof of what happened dur- ing a rain-making experiment requires a laborious, if not impossible, reconstruction of scientific events in an air column whose volume may range up to thousands of cubic miles. The air column may be inclined at various degrees from the earth’s surface. It may be moving 20 miles an hour, or with the fearsome velocity of a hurricane. Tremen- dous distances are involved at which such natural effects take place. It is unlikely that a plaintiff who alleges harm from an isolated rain-making experiment will be able to prove factually to the satisfaction of a court or Jury that the precise experiment itself proximately caused the rain which, in turn, caused his damage. Moreover, techni- cal meteorological equipment and specially trained weather personnel are required to record and evaluate the causal effects of the rain-making experiment upon a rain cloud. Such facilities would usually not be availa- ble to either of the parties in litigation, nor to the court, As scientific knowledge and control in the weather field increases, proof of causa- tion should become easier. However, the dificult burden of proof now placed upon the plaintiff to establish proximate cause may keep most aggrieved parties out of court, or will tend to promote pretrial settlements. Whether or not a strict tort Mability de- velops out of the application of these tort doctrines would seem in part to depend upon the relative responsibility of the person or agency conducting the weather control ex- periment, and upon the relative importance of the purpose for which the experiment is conducted, The restatement of torts states that where the Government activity is reasonable, despite imminent risks, the rule of ultra-hazardous activity should not ap- ply. The restatement also observes that the utility and social value of the activity will dispel most of the charges of public nuisance, RAIN MAKER'S DEFENSE A rain maker might assert that he is privi- leged to make rain—that liability should not follow normal rainfall injury or incidental inconvenience (damnum absque injuria). He might also maintain that he is privileged on the grounds of public necessity or emer- gency. He might argue that an absolute privilege should exist to artifically create rain in the public interest, in evemt of emergency, In Slutsky v. City of New York, the only re- ported antificial rain-making case in this country, Mr, Justice Pecora of the New York Supreme Court reaffirmed the ancient privi- lege of public necessity, and refused to grant an injunction against the city of New York to restrain ita recent emergency rain-making efforts. Justice Pecora said: “The court must balance the conflicting in- terests between @ remote possibility of in- convenience to plaintiffs’ resort and its guests with the problem of maintaining and supplying the inhabitants of the city of New York and surrounding areas, with & population. of about 10,000,000 inhabitants, with an adequate supply of pure and whole- some water. The relief which plaintiffs ask is opposed to the general welfare and the public good; and the dangers which plaintiffs apprehend are purely speculative. This court Will not protect a possible private injury at the expense of a positive public advantage.”
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD {From the Harvard Law School Record of February 21, 1951] Rain Makino Catts FoR UNirep Srates Con- Trot Is CorEy’s CONCLUSION IN FINAL ARTICLE One of many issues which a court might be calied upon to settle in an artificial rain- making case is: What is the lability for in- tentionally or negligently diverting rain away from another's land, or for causing rain to fall upon another’s land, without his con- sent? In most agricultural regions of this country, the presence or absence of rain can spel prosperity or disaster. Ratn may not always be considered a benefit. Once the court has solved this initial {ssue, a further question might arise: Does one have a legal right to normal rainfall, free from human intervention or control? This is a most difficult issue to solve, since pri- vate property rights in clouds have not yet been established. Furthermore, how is a court to determine whether or not a cloud would normally have dropped its rain, had not human control intervened? If the second major question should be answered in the affirmative, still other issues might arise to test the judicial temper: Should defendant be lable irrespective of fault, or only if he was negligent? Should he be liable only for the results he intended, or for those which were unintended as well? Another factor is also important,,. If rain makers and weather-control experts are stopped from carrying on their experimenta- tions by restraint: Junctions and teats of absolute tort Mab! progress im'this im- portant field is likey to stop. Whether this will be salutary or, not will depend the inherent value of weather contrdl to the national community. There seems to be lit tle doubt that experimentation should con- tinue in this field. But some responsible, over-all control may be necessary. ADJUDICATION OR LEGISLATION? In September 1950 the office of the At- torney General of the State of California submitted to the State water resources board a progress report dealing with the legal responsibilities and liabilities involved in artificial rain making. The report also dealt with the power of the State to regulate and control such activities. In the opinion of the writers of this report, there seemed to be Nttle difficulty in sustaining the broad power of the State to regulate artificial rain making, both for the purpose of preventing damage to property, and to conserve the water resources of the State. This opinion was based upon the reasonable exercise by the State of its police power in the genera) fields of public health, safety, and morals, and the preservation and promotion of the fieid of weather control. If adjudication of weather-control issues is left to State and local courts, the answers promise to be slow in coming. Almost 5 years have passed since Schaefer's snow- making experiment took place. Yet only a single artificial rain-making case has been brought before a court for adjudication. Goldston observes that when lawmaking runs ahead of scientific development, as it did in the subterranean water cases, much harm may result from the application of unsound rules. He reasserts that the genius of the common law lies in its case-by-case development. Whether the science of weather contro! can afford to wait for delib- erate case-by-case adjudication is the ques- tion. If weather control problems are left to the courts for solution, it is also doubtful that a uniform, Nation-wide solution will result. Divergent statutes and judicial in- terpretations, which can seriously inhibit progress in this field, may result within dif- ferent jurisdictions. It appears, then, that a possible answer les in the realm of Federal legislation and XCVI—App.———60 adjudication. Legislation by the Federal Government would tend to foreclose possible controversies between the States regarding interstate Jiability for rain-making and weather-control damage. Federal legisla- tion would bring into play the vast resources and spectalized civil-service manpower of the Federal Government. Undoubtedly such legislation would also establish uni- form licensing requirements and regulations defining and limiting ability for rain-mak- ing damage. Federal courts would exercise jurisdiction over litigation arising out of violations of the Federal weather-control statutes. WEATHER CONTROL ACT OF 1951 An example of such suggested legislation is the Federal Weather Control Act of 1951 (8. 4236) subinitted to the United States Senate on December 8, 1950, and sponsored by Senator Cuinron P. AnpERsON, of New Mexico. This proposed legislation generally follows the outline of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. It effectively places weather modification and contro) activities exclusively under the con- trol of the Federal Government. Senator ANDERSON observes that, from a scientific standpoint, it is just as important to deal with weather modification and contro] at an early stage in its development as it was necessary to deal with atomic energy in 1946. In his mind, the issue ig relatively clear: It 4s a question of intelligent Federal regula- tion now, or continued, haphazard private interference with weather, with no central authority to channel the course of its de- velopment in the national interest. ‘The bill provides for four major programs: (1) A program of assisting and fostering pri- vate research and development; (2) a pro- gram of federally conducted research and development; (8) a program for Government control of experiments and operations; and (4) a program of administration. These four programs will be supervised and administered by the Weather Control Commission, assisted by a general advisory committee, Military Liaison Committee, and an Interdepart- mental Advisory Board. The Commission 1s directed to exercise its powers in such a man- ner as to insure the continued conduct of research and development activities in the field of weather modification and control by private and public institutions or persons. It may also conduct its own research and experimentation. ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY The act also provides for Government as- sumption of the ability of its contractors growing out of the performance of their weather-control contracts, The factors of Hability are stated in section 10 of the act, which, among other things, provides that— With the approval of the Commission, any contract with a Government agency relating to weather modification or control may pro- vide that the Government will assume and will become solely responsible for either or both of the following, to the extent that they arise out of the performance of said con- tract, are not compensated by insurance or otherwise, and do not result from a willful violation on the part of the contractor of any regulation or order established by the Com- mission pursuant to section 8 (a) (2): 1. All lability on account of claims by third persons, including employees of the contractor, for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property, whether due to the negligence of the contractor or other- wise; but any contract so providing shall also contain appropriate provisions for no- tice to the Government of any claims made against the contractor, with respect to any alleged Mability for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property; and 3. Loss of or damage to property of the contractor arising as @ result of a risk de- fined in the contract as unusual. A945 ray The act further provides that— No cause of action with respect to any such claims may be maintained against the contractor, but such third person's sole cause of action and only remedy shall be by suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation with respect to such claims. Another provision specifies that the United States may avail itself of any and all gen- eral or special defenses which might be pleaded by the contractor, were he to be a defendant in the eult. There seems to be lacking in the act the designation of a liability factor which would aid adjudication in this hypothetical case, Suppose that Bingling, a circus owner, eched- ules a 8-day show stand in Ames City, lo-« cated deep in the heart of the upper Rio Grande Valley, an irrigated, agricultural re- gion of great economic value to the Nation, Government rain makers seed clouds in the region. A heavy, 3-day downpour results, and farmers in the Ames City area rejoice. However, Bingling angrily folds his tents after 8 days of “no show,” steals away and sues the United States in the Court of Claims for damage to his economic interest. What ja the lability, and what are the factors of ability? What appears to be lacking tn the bill is the presence of a factor of Nability which is based upon an express authority to balance relative economic and social interests which might be damaged or benefited by Govern~ ment weather-control activities. In the hypothetical case just stated, the Ttarmers’ collective need of rain would seem to over- balance the private right of the circus owner to three rainless performances. With an express statutory authority to balance the interests, the Court of Claims would be aided in deciding the case above cited. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE Congress should be able to find constitu- tional authority to support its legislation in this field. The authority granted to Congress by the Federal Constitution to legislate in matters involving interstate commerce fur- nishes the basic authority. Clouds are value able and usable properties which move freely tu inverstate and international com- merce. Weather control substantially affects the commerce between the several States. Current Federal reguiation in analogous fields may be cited in the cas~s of migratory birds, radio waves, Federal regulation of air- ways and navigable waterways. If irrigation, water-power, flood-control, and navigation projects are considered to be objects worthy of Federal subsidization, it seems evident that weather control, with its foreseeable saving of haman lives and property, should aleo be supported by public funds and efforts. It hay previously been pointed out that the Federal Government is logically more able than private individ~ uals or local governments to bear the huge burden of scient’e research, personne) ex- pense, or extensive damage c’alms. When the period of strict Federal reguia- tion has run ite course, and when a conclu- sive control of weather has been achieved, it might than be feasible to amend or curtail the Federal statute in such a way as to grant State governments concurrent y-Wers over supervision, regutation, and licensing of weather-control activities. Federal funds could still be made available to the several Btates for experimentation and regulation, either on a pro rata or tota) basis. Rain making, the legal phenomenon of the twentieth century, is rapidly losing its phe- momenal characteristics. If such legislation as the propose. Weather Control Act of 1961 ‘becomes law, most of the legal problems dis- cussed will no longer exist. The ultimate extent to which weather control may be utilized in the public interest 16 still specu~ lative.
A946 “Shooting for the Moon” EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF FEPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. SHAPER. Mr. Speaker, one bit of strategy habitually practiced by the administration is that of “shooting for the moon” in its requests and recom- mendations to the Congress, This procedure makes it possible for the administration to settle for less than originally asked for, while actually gain- ing more than either the merits of the case or the public interest warrant. Thus, an illusion is created that Con- gress has won a victory or that the ad- ministration has graciously made a con- cession, whereas, so far as the net re- sults are concerned, neither has actually occurred, and the public is still the loser. Fathers sometimes encounter this same type of maneuver with- small, and not so small, children. The youngster—who has heard about inflation, too—asks for a dollar. The father settles for half a dollar, whereas, in reality, the youngster actually needed a quarter. An indulgent father may tolerate the practice with the full realization of what is going on, and even be amused by it. There is no excuse, however, for a sim- ‘lar laxity on the part of the Congress when what is involved is billions of dol- Jars of tax moneys and, in many in- stances, the Ives and careers of the Nation’s youth. In its current dealings with the Fighty-second Congress, the adminis- tration is indulging, more than ever, in this practice of “shooting for the moon.” For example, consider the $71,500,000,- 000 budget proposed for 1951-52, and its accompanying tax-increase proposal of $16,500,000,000, Incidentally, the true 1951-52 budget is actually $98,500,000,- 000 instead of $71,500,000,000, since the higher figure is the recommended new obligational euthority for 1961-52, Please bear in mind that this budget and appalling tax-boost proposal were submitted by the President despite his earlier statement, in his state of the Union message, that the Government “must practice rigid economy in tts non- defense activities,” and that “many of the things we would normally do must be curtailed or postponed.” This high- sounding profession is, of course, com- pletely belied by the President's inclusion in the budget of his entire Fair Deal socialistic program, most of which has already been rejected by the American people, This is ‘shooting for the moon” with @ vengeance, and the President's dare to the Congress to cut the budget fur- ther gets the stage for a phony congres- sional victory unless the Congress is alert to the maneuver. Note this point: The largest estimate of a possible budget cut thus far reported—that mentioned by Senator Harry F. Byap, of Virginia— is only $8,000,000,000, and even with this cut the proposed $71,500,000,000 budget would still total $63,500,000,000, com-~- pared with a $47,200,000,000 estimated budget for 1950-61 and $40,100,000,000 actually authorized for . Thus, the trap is adroitly set whereby even @ victory for the Congress in the form of a budget cut would still be a defeat for the taxpayer. The one ray of hope in the picture is the mounting evidence that even old-line Democrats are fed up with these tactics. It is not alone in matter of finance that the administration uses “shooting for the moon” tactics. The same procedure is involved in the effort of the Defense Department to tie in universal military training with the present emergency draft program. One of my Republican colleagues on the Armed Services Committee aptly de- scribed the proposal as a shotgun marriage. For that matter, the currently pro- posed compromise arrangement for drafting boys at 18%, with the dubious proviso that they may not be used in combat until they are 19—when every- one knows there will not be any careful sorting of trainees in case of urgent need—suggests that the administration was again “shooting for the moon” in its original 18-year-old proposal, And there are good reasons for be- Meving that the administration was planning a “shoot for the moon” ma- neuver on the matter of troops to Europe until aroused public sentiment and congressional pressure, sparked by former President Hoover and Senator Tart, forced Secretary Marshall to come up with the “only four divisions now” announcement. And, of course, they can try “shooting for the moon” later, so far as the troops- to-Europe proposition is concerned. Conservation of Pheasants and Other Game in South Dakota EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FRANCIS CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNTYED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp an article from the weekly newspaper, the Reporter and Farmer, of Webster, S. Dak., pertaining to the work done by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperating with various groups to provide cover for phersants. It is significant that the practices dis- cussed in the article will also provide cover for other game and will result in a complete conservation program for farmers who follow other suggestions of the conservation group. In view of the appropriations whieh Congress makes under the Pittman-Robertson Act and other acts, I believe this article ia worthy of placing in the Concressiosal. Recomp. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There betng no objectton, the article was ordered to be printed tn the Recon, as follows: ‘Woopy Pranrinas Poantse Wrorrra Haarmat yor CHInsse PrrasaNnTs (By Louis M. Moos} The decrease in the pheasant popuistion in sections af South Dakota has created & growing interest in the estabiiahment of food and cover as @ wildlife-managemont practice. Pheasants require several differ- ent kinds of cover, namely, nesting cover, loafing cover, roosting cover, cecape cover and cover that provides protection from wind and blowing snow during the winter. All are essential, but the most pressing need at present ts winter cover to protect the birds from cold and plowing snow. of the measures inctuded in a com- plete conservation plan for a farm are bene- fictal to pheasants and other wildlife. Among these are the establishment of woody plant- ings, strip cropping, grass buflers, grass waterways, seeding permanent hay, con- servation management of range and pas- tures. Correctly destgned windbreaks and other woody plantings are of the greatest vaiue for winter cover. That is, providing con- sideration is given to the protection required by pheasants in the selection of the tree and sbrub species, thei: arrangement and the location in the planting in order to make it of greatest value to wildlife. Such a planting must be wide enough to prevent its being completely filled with snow. It must have shrub rows to prevent the winds from sweeping through the plantings; tt must imclude some shrubs that provide food for pheasanta; and it must be located near enough to the principal food supplies. A minimum width of 300 feet ia recom- mended when a tree planting is designed for wildlife use. In addition to the rows of trees, such a planting should have at least one row, preferably two rows, of shrube on the windward side, and a row of conifers and 8 row of shrubs on the leeward side. This will give the birds ion from the cold winds as wel) as snow from being blown entirely through the planting. A snow wil improve the planting for wildlife. It ie provided by planting two rows of shrubs at lerst 30 feet, but pref- erably somewhat farther, to the windward side of the main planting. Snow will ac- cumulate in the area between the shrubs and the matin plenting, instead of in the trees themselves. The snow tray is a good place to plant grass for hay and seed pro- duction, since it receives additional motsture from the snow when it melts, The snow tray will also provide = good nesting area tor pheasants and other game birds. Of the shrubs, Russian Olive is most im- portant for mg winter food. It pro- duces much fruit, which staye on the trees all winter and fs availiable to the birds even when snow in the planting ls deep. Choke- cherry, sandcherry, wild plum, and honey- sackie provide summer food for pheasants and many other kinds of birds. Woody plantings must be located near avaitable food or they will not be used by pheasants. Cover areas without available food within a quarter of a mfle are seldom, if ever, used by pheasants. Such plantings provide loafing and roost- ing cover, as well as protection from winds and snow. When the snow gets deep in such @ planting, the pheasanta will often roost In the trees. And tLey like to loaf in the pro- tection of woody cover before going to feed im the morning, during the middle of the day, and before going to roost at night. All types of cover help in protecting Pheasants from thelr enemies, hut a good
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD clump of woody plants is the best escape The South Dakota Game and Fish De- partment has initiated a cover-development program in cooperation with local soil-con- servation districts. Most of the plantings are being established tn those areas most criti- cally in need of winter cover. The soiJ-con- servation service helps to locate and plan the cover plantings when aiding farmers in developing complete soil- and water-con- servation plans for their farms. These plant- ings are mostly windbreaks that also provide livestock protection, help to control erosion and slow down evaporaiion. Roosting cover can be provided by leaving stands of grasses and other vegetation around potholes, odd areas, fence rows, and adjacent to woody plantings. Vegetation not over 40 inches in height provides the best roosting cover. The elimination of fall burning and pro- tection of areas around marshes and pot. holes from grazing greatly increases avail- able roosting cover. Any necessary burning should be left until spring, so that winter protection will be provided. Fence rows, roadsides, pothole vegetation, and snrall uncultivated or ungrazed areas provide the chief nesting cover for pheasants in intensively cultivated areas. Protection of these areas is necessary during the nesting season if the pheasant hatch is to be suc- cessful. Studies by the South Dakota Game and Fish Department in Brown County showed that all nests in alfalfa fields were Gestroyed and 32 percent of the hens on the nests were killed during mowing opera- tions. In these areas it is doubly important that desirable cover be supplied around the alfalfa fields so that the birds will be at- tracted to the better nesting places instead of the alfelfa. A cover-development program should be Gesigned to disperse the birds, keep them tn better condition, and bring more of them through to the spring breeding season. The practices which increase cover for pheasants will also improve conditions for other types of wildlife. Washington's Birthday Speech by Hon. William Langer, of North Dakota EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. LANGH“R. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent tc have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a speech which I delivered yesterday in New York City to the Nonpartisan League of New York, in commemoration of the birthday of George Washington. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: My fellow Americans, the Nonpartisan League represents the rank and Mle of the American people. It represents those inde- pendents who do not blindly follow the lead« ership of either the Democratic or the Re- ‘publican Parties; it represents those who be- leve that the President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people themselves. At the present time, as you Know, the peo- ple do not select the President. A group of politicians meet and nominate a man on the Republican ticket and 2 weeks later or 60 another group of politicians meet and select another man on the Democratic ticket, Then these politicians of both faiths get to- gether and say, “Well, we don’t care which of the two the people select. He is our man anyhow.” For illustration, in 1940, from an interna. tional standpoint there was no difference be- tween the foreign policy advocated by Presi- dent Roosevelt, nominated on the Demo- cratic ticket, and Wendell Willkie, nominated on the Republican ticket. About that time Senator Burton K. Wheeler spoke at Los Angeles, Calif., and 180,000 people turned out to hear him. He was speaking on a platform of keeping America out of World War IT, and yet the people of this country were unable to vote for a candidate embodying the ideas of Mr. Wheeler and those who agreed with him because there were only two names on the ballot of the two major parties. You will be glad to know that the consti- tutional amendment I introduced last year, which is similar to one that the late Senator George Norris advocated while he was chair~ man of the Judiciary Committee, received 32 votes—exactly one-third of the Senate. In addition to that, Senator Long, of Louisiana, was paired for it, This was by far the most votes the resolution has ever received. But until we do have it, and the States ratify the constitutional amendment, it will be impossible for the people to select their own President. In my opinion, this tg one reason why over 45,000,000 people did not go and vote in the last election; they simply weren't interested because there wasn’t enough difference between the Democratic and the Republican Parties on foreign policy. We have a great Constitution, Some time ago the Daughters of the American Revolu- tion got out a manual for citizenship for new citizens, and they listed benefits and pre- rogatives that the Constitution gives to the average citizen of this country, and they said: “WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS TO YOU “It establishes for you a stable and respon- sible Government. “It makes you a citizen of the United States if native-born. “It gives you citizenship, if foreign-born, on complying with Mberal naturalization laws. “Tt allows you 4 voice in the Government through the officials whom you help to elect, “It guarantees you life, Mberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “It defends your rights even against the Government itself. “It makes you equal with all men before the law. ‘Tt confirms your religious freedom and liberty of conscience. “Tt accords you free lawful speech. “It guarantees you together with all peo- ple the right of peaceable assembly. “It permits you to petition the Govern- ment to right your wrongs. “It guards your property rights. “It prohibits the Government from taking your property without due process of law. “It lets you hold any office in the gift of the Nation for which you are qualified. “Tt enables you to become a citizen of any State. “It prevents you from being held to an- swer to a complaint unieas you have been lawfully accused, “Tt insures your right of trial by jury of your fellow men. “It grants you the right of habeas corpus, that is, the right to know why you are held @ prisoner, “Ié assures you a& speedy trial. A947 | “It permits your having counsel for de- fense. “Tt prevents your being tried again if once acquitted. “It permits you to have a trial in the State and district in which you may be charged with an offense against the laws. “It lends you the power of government to compel witnesses to appear in your behalf, “Tt relieves you from compulsion to testify against yourself. “It forbids excessive ball. “It forbids excessive fines or cruel punishe ment. “It protects you from slavery in any form, “It keeps any State from depriving you of your constitutional rights. “It sanctions your bearing arms for the protection of your life and home. “It secures your home from search except by lawful warrant. “It guarantees you that the legal obliga- tion of contracts shall not be impatred. “It permits you to participate In amend- ment of the Constitution from time to time.” My friends, the Nonpartisan League advoe cates the strictest adherence to the Consti- tution but agrees with Abraham Lincoln that a peaceful resulution which changes the Constitution is desirable if it effects and brings into execution what the people at large really want. The Nonpartisan League has never elected a United States Senator from Lynn J. Frazier and E. F. Ladd down to the present time who has not advocated keep- ing out of war and I know that this large group here today is united solidly behind the principles espoused by the Nonpartisan League of Nurth Dakota 37 years ago. It is a great organization, this National Nonpartisan League of ours, and when we have a na- tional convention, I know that you men and ‘women will be in there battling for America, The Tax Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS OF UTAH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr, WATKINS. Mr. President, Mrs. Grace C. Solomon, of Salt Lake City, has written a very interesting and pungent verse on one phase of the tax situation. It was written specifically for the States’ Council of the National Associa~ tion of Real Estate Boards, and was read at their convention here in Washington. I ask unanimous consent to have it in- serted in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the poem was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: It’s tHe Limit There’s a speed limit on the highway Time limit on a note Credit limit on a bank And passenger limit on a boat. There’s voltage Hmit on powerlines All kinds of mits in our lives There's an age limit in the Army Even a limit on how many wives. But there are limits worse than that Each month, each day, each minute It's the tax on real estate we own And on that, the aky’a the limit. —By Grace C. Solomon.
AS4S The Obstractionists Are at It Again EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUGH B. MITCHELL OF WaSHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 195! Mr. MYTCHELL. Mr. Speaker, re- printing of a Wenatchee (Wash.) Daily World editorial entitled “The Obstruc- tionists Are at It Again” seems called for by the indecimon of the Securities and Exchange Comnrission as to its juris- diction in the case of the sale of a public utility to public organizations in the State of Washington. The Federal law seems very clear on the point. The Holding Company Act of 1935 in section 2 (c) states that “no pro- vision in this title shall apply to, or be deemed to include a State, or any polit- ical subdivision of a State.” This Federal legislation became law 5 years after the State of Washington made it possible for local political sub- divisions known as public utility districts to operate electric utilities. Such public utility districts are now seeking to purchase the Washington Water Power Co. Assumption of juris- diction by the SEC would delay con- summation of the sale. The editorial of the conservative Wenatchee newspaper, which I ask to be printed it. the Recorp, is very definite as to the cost of delay. THE Osstructioniers Agx a? It AGAIN (By Wilfred R. Woods) The same groups who fought Grand Coutlee Dam, fought Chief Joseph Dam, and have fought the development of our water re- sources are at it again. What ts it this time? A lawsuit has been filed here to stup the acquisition of Washington Water Power Co. properties by the Chelan County Public Utility District. The asttuation is this: The owner of the Washington Water Power Co. is anxious to sell out. This is the American Power & Light Mo., an eastern holding company which con- trols the Washington Water Power stock, The people, through the public utility dis- trict law passed in 1935, want to buy. Then who is behing this move to stymie the whole deal? Could it be that the management of the Washington Water Power Co. itself is behind t ‘Who else could it be, when the law firm pressing the case are Metzger, Blair, Gardner & Boldt, of Tacoma, who specialize in rep- resenting power companies. Just read the record of what these attor- neys have done. They have sought for years to block the people's efforts to get benefits from hydro resources. The public utility districts had a chance to acquire and expand Rock Island Dam for the good of the region. These attorneys opposed the purchase—the famous Skagit County Public Utility District case—where- by Rock Island Dam could have Deen com- Pleted years ago. ‘They were the ones who brought suit in Thurston County to block the purchase of the Puget Sound Power & Light Co, That case ia now pending in the Supreme Court. And now this firm comes up with the same kind of a suit on the Washington Water Power Co. This situation is wniqne. The owner of the Washington Water Power Oo., the Amer- fean Power & Light Co,, wants to sell. The people want to buy. Now a few high-salaried mansgers, legal firms, and other ste trying to thwart the stockholders and the people. We protest. This must not be. Onur re- gion has too much at stake in the orderly development of our water power to let this happen. The Washington Water Power Oo.’s propa- ganda activities have been exposed in an independent engineering report filed with the Public Service Commission in Olympia. Anyone can read for himself the report, made by the Stone & Webster Service Corp., which shows how money has been squandered. This Washington Water Power Co. ts ask- ing for a rate increase now of $1,000,000 a year, asking for more money to spend on propagande. The compeny tells of its efficient manage- ment and that its private ownership should be continued. But private ownership in this case Means monopoly—guaranteed profits and no competition. What businessman could not operate this way—squandering present earnings, without any competition, and asking more money? Anyone could run 4 power company, or any- thing else, !% he had a deal like the Wash- ington Water Power Co. This is not free enterprise and this is not private enterprise. It is not enterprize, pertod. The record of the Chelan County Public Utility District is in sharp contrast to these Washington Water Co.'s activities. In less then 2 years the public utility district has improved {ts system, raised wages, and put aside a reserve. Ite books show en increase m equity of nearty $500,000 and without an increase in rates. This suit foliows @ familiar technique. It ts typical of Washington Water Power in- trigue, the kind used for years to block Jim O'Sullivan and others who were working for Grand Coulee Dam. The plaintiffs in the suit are being used to stop the people of the State of Wash- ington from delivering power at the cheap- est possible rates, from enabling the farmer, the businessman, and the manufacturer to expand real free enterprise. These plaintiffs are being used by power- company attorneys to sue the power com- peny so that the management can biock both the public and the stockholders. Remember, there are some high-salaried jobs at stake in continued operation of the Washington Water Power Co.—20,000, $30,- 000, and $40,000 a year. Big fees and ex- ponsee-—several hundred thousand dollars a year, were also reported by the Stone and Webster exposure of Washington Water Power Co. mismanagement, Undoubtedly it's a new high in power lobby double-cross of stockholders and power users. Now for a word about the principle under which a power company operates. A private utility company ts not in the category of a private business. A utility is & privately owned monopoly; it is not a business. The word “enterprise” does not apply where there is monopoly—na mo- nopoty, which operates under lHcense and which is guaranteed a profilt, In this category ts the power company, which goes under the guise of it busi- ness. And now it asks a rate increase to make the power user help continue the prop~ aganda work. Because of this propaganda, many people tn our own region do not un- Geratand the tesue. The very license under which the private power company operates assures it a mo- nopoly. The Washington Water Power Co. pays & lot of employees—presidents and executives APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and lawyers and propaganda outfits, It pays them high fees to run a business which has no competition and te guaranteed a fixed income on its investment. These fellows are paid many times what they are worth, parad- tng sround as free enterprise. They get free rights to operate on the streets, on the highways, and everywhere they want to run es. It's time we awakened to the tnsidfousness of this monopoly with 4 guaranteed income which is spending large sums of the peopie’s own money to keep the public hoodwinked. When a private monopoty gets to a point where it abuses its priviteges, it's time for the people to take over. We think the distribution of low-cost Grand Coulee power snould be owned by the people, just the aame as the streets and bridges and irrigation canals. It was a terrific battle for muntctpalities to get their own domestic water system; the owners pulled all kinds of tricks, But surely none of them was ever such 4 farce as this, where the employees spend the owners’ money—asquander it—and then ask more money to fight both the owner and the people. And don't forget Kinsey Robinson and his people fought our power developments, in- cluding Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams. Our dams and power-transmission systems would never have been built if they had won. And now they are trying to pre- vent us from improving what we have. This firm of attornéys—Metzzer, Blair, Gardner & Boldt—highly paid power attor- neya, ‘has been hired in a suit which would hinder the peaple from benefiting from the dams and other resources which the people have bufit with thelr own money. Now the Washington Water Power Co. asks @ rate increase to pay the propaganda bills, and even while doing so is guaranteed against competition and against loss of revenue. We protest. This is not right, Government Spending EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. THRUSTON B. MORTON OF KENTUCKY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I insert a letter from Mr. R. 8. Logan, president of the Logan Co., of Louisville, Ky. The figures contained in his communication should make us all stop and think. The letter follows: Oo., Inc, Locan Louisville, Ky., February 14, 1951, Actual expenditures for the fiscal years ended June 80, 1940, and June 30, 1950: Department of Com- MOPCC._ 2-2. e eae wee $75, 116, 538 382 Department of Interior... Z1, 338 aa rn biter Departmont of Labor... 18, 876, 257, 063, 907 it jnenennt 9 200, 254, 403 | 9, 033, 400, 025 biggest business on earth have fallen down on their job? Sincerely,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The North Dakota Winter Show ee nee EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THF UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. LANGER. Mr,°President, I ask unaaimous consent t? have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, an article entitled “The Governor Was Right,” published in the February 17 issue of the Dakota Farmer. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe GOVERNOR Was RIGHT North Dakota’s Wittiam Lancer, in all his experiences as businessman and statesman, has probably never made a more accurate analysis and prediction than when he offi- cially opened the first North Dakota Winter Show in Valley City in 1938. Some people may remember Governor LANGER saying: “The show is something which belongs not only to Valley City and Barnes County but to North Dakota as a whole, and people throughout the State will become increas- ingly proud of this event.” Administrators of the show, exhibitors, and visitors set out that very first year to make Governor LANaER’s prediction come true. People who visited the North Dakota Winter Show one or more times during the past 14 years have spread the word that here is an event which, for worthwhile con- tributions to agriculture, measures up to any in the United States. The winter show has featured all the time-proven ways in which an agricultural exposition can be of value to farmers and livestock men, and has also been responsible for the introduction and wide acceptance of a few new promotion methods. One of the most valuable features of any such event is the visiting, and exchanging of information, Talk of new varieties of small grain, types of pastures, and feeding rations for livestock helps to scatter valuable farm- ing hints. In 1938, for example, one of the outstanding wheat exhibitors passed along the information that he liked Reward be- cause it had done better than other varieties in dry years, but cautioned his friends not to sow Reward on poor land. A well-known swine exhibitor gave out the information that he had good results with barley as a spring pasture for his hogs. Another swine grower explained that he liked a mixture of oats, barley, and rape for pasture hecause the rape made good pasture after the hogs had the oats and barley pretty well cleaned up. <A booth sponsored by the agronomy de- partment at North Dakota State College ex- hibited 13 kinds of wheat, and farmers could see for themselves the comparative rust dam- age suffered by the different wheats, Farm- ers learned that Thatcher, Ceres, Reward, and Hope were the best yielding wheats at that time. The Valley City show has always been a good place to catch up on the latest farming developments. Mechines still had competition from horses on North Dakota farms in 1938, and the exhibitor and breeder of a prize Per- cheron stallion was confident of the future. He predicted that there would always be a demand for good horses, and he looked for 1938 to be a good year for horse production in North Dakota. Sale spectators at the first show saw the top Hereford bull go for 6175, and thought the sale a success when 28 bulla averaged $121. Senator Gerald P. Nye, speak- ing on the farmer an? war, stunned hundreds of listeners with the assertion: “If we were to engage in another war to make the world safe for democracy, after the war was over there wouldn’t be anything left that would resem- ble a democracy, not even in our own land.” The 1938 exposition got the winter show off to a flying start, and in erest and partici- pation has picked up every year sit.ce. Many people and attractions have contributed to the growth, but it is doubtful if any single part of the show has had such tremendous success as the futurity. Organized by A. J. Dexter, agricultural development agent of the Northern Pacific Railway, the futurity was a novel eftor’ at promoting livestock improve- ment when it was preserted for the first time in 1942 The practicability of Mr. Dexter’s rules regarding entry in the first futurity was openly queet‘oned by breeders. According to the rules, breeders had to pay a $10 entry fee on each calf on or bhefore September 1, 1941, and the show calves had to be identified before January 1, 1942. Each bre der was limited to eight calves, and the event was strictly show, not a sale. Only 33 breeders thought enough of the futurity idea to enter 40 calves that first year. Today, all doubts about the value of the futurity as a means of promoting livestock improvement are gone. Spectator interest in the futurity is higher than in any other type of livestock exhibit at the winter show. Breeders have accepted the iden because the event places emphasis on young purebred stock—future breeding stock. A first prize in the futurit is a real tribute to the exhibitor’s ability to select young breeding stock, because show calves must be picked out months be- fore shuw time One of the most important accomplishments of the futurity is the en- couragement it has given small breeders and beginners in the purebred business. Strict enforcement of the rule: enables owners of smell herds tv step right into the show ring with breeders of long-standing reputations, and not be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. The familiar sight ut many live- stock shows where a few large breeders take all the space, is eliminated in this event. Ample proof of the effectiveness of the fu- turity in increasing interest in purebred cat- tle is furnished by this year’s entry list of 105 breeders. JUNIOR FUTURITY By 1947, the futurity had gained such wide approval that it was decided to organize a junior futurity. The purnose of the junior futurliy is to start young farm people toward the establishment of new purebred herds. Approximately 84 4~H and FFA mom- bers secured heifer calves for the 1947 Junior futurity. In order to be eligible, the young- sters had to have the heifers in their posses- sion before November 15 of the preceding year, and all care and feeding was supposed to be done by the exhibitors. Organizers of the junior futurity recognized the fact that very few 4-H or FFA members would be able to obtain high quality stock of the type desired, so a system was worked out whereby established breeders could help out. These breeders were called cooperating breeders, and they have consistently fur- nished young beginners with top quality heifers at prices below the open selling price. Most cooperating breeders work out easy-pay and incentive arrangements with their young customers. To illustrate, a breeder may let a 4-H member have a calf for half down at the time of purchase and the balance due at the time of the show. Other breeders agree to reduce the price if the calf places well up in its class. Young breeders have been further en- couraged in establishing purebred herds by a provision which enables the best calves in each junior class to show in similar classes in the senior futurity without payment of A949 entry fees. It gives beginners a feeling of real accomplishment to compete with breed- ers whom they have regarded with utmost respect for years. Every junior entrant in the 1949 show was thrilled and tnepired when Marlene Henke, Oliver County, topped 102 adult breeders and won the highest pos- sible honor in the futurity—grand cham-~ pion heifer over all breeds. Marlene's spec- tacular victory undoubtedly has inspired many prospective young breeders to devote more careful attention to the selection, feed- ing, and fitting of livestock. In 1950, 101 4-H and FFA members entered purebred Hereford, Angus, or Shorthorn heifers. About half of these entrants purchased their calves from cooperating breeders. Al Dexter has performed a great service as menager of the futuri’y, but his long record of continuous service to the winter show was interrupted recently when the Fed- eral Government called him for an important overseas job. Mr. Dexter has taken a year's leave of absence from the Northern Pacific Railway to become food and agricultural officer in Ireland for the Economic Conpera- tion Administration. The job of futurity manager for this year's show has been taken over by M. H. McDonald, North Dakota Agri- cultural College livestock extension agent. Mr. McDonald has made many valuable con- tributions to North Dakota's livestock in- dustry, and it is certain that ths futurity will be a success under his management. LIVESTOCK SALES Livestock sales have always been a top at- traction at the winter show, and the in- creased interest in the sales has coincided with the general development of the show. From the modest beginning in 1938 (8176 top), the show expanded, and by 1940 it was a 2-day event. A total of 105 head of live- stock brought $9,700 that year, and the sale was topped by a Hereford bull at $245. Fig- ures from the 1947 sale illustrate the in- creasing interest in the event, and speak for the quality of livestock offered. The top Heretord bull brought $2,000, and the aver- age for Hereford bulls was $528.10. Average sale price for Shorthorn heifers was $372.14, and Angus heifers brought an average of 8407.70. Hereford heifers brought an aver- age of $496.20, and the top Duroc gilt sold for an even $500. The North Dakota wiuter show program has been revised from year to year, always with the idea of promoting and improving the State’s basic industry. Visitors to the 1951 show will see features that bave proven their worth in past years, plus a few addi- tions and improvements. People who have been disappointed in pact years because there were no seats for them at the livestock sales and futurity shows will be glad to know that seating capacity at the arena has been doubled. Extensive commercial exhibits will inform visitors of the latest developments in machinery and appliances. A complete home-economics program has been arranged, and matinee and evening programs featuring professional entertainers have been sched- uled for Tuesday through Friday. HIGH LIGHTS OF 1951 SHOW Here are a few high lights of this year’s show, which will begin Monday, March 5, and run through Saturday, March 10: Monday: A livestock judging contest for 4-H and FFA members, in which about 500 youth are expected to compete. Tuesday: Junior futurity and crops judg- ing for 4-H and FFA members, and the an- nual swine and sheep show. Wednesday: Senior futurity show, and North Dakota futurity banquet in the eve- ning. Thursday: Crops day. Shorthorn sales. Friday: Sheep and Angus sales, Saturday: Hereford sale, Also, swine and
A950 The Marble Plaques Adorning the Walls of the Chamber EXTENSION OF REMARES or HON. ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ OF NEW MEXICO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks, I in- clude the twentieth through the twenty- third and last of a series of short sketches published by the Washington Post with respect to the men honored by the plaques which adorn the walls of the Chamber: BLacKsToNne: CELEBRATED ENGLISH JURIST (4 D. 1723-80) Blackstone (1728-80) achieved lasting fame with his Commentaries on the Laws of England. The work has been regarded a8 the most thorough treatment of the whole of English law ever produced by one man. It has been used as the standard textbook in English law for generations. In the United States, the Commentaries was, for many years, almost the only source of knowledge of English law. Blackstone inaugurated teaching of Eng- lish law at the British universities, which previously had confined themselves to Ro- man law. His plaque was sculptured by Thomas Hudson Jones of this city. — GEORGE MASON: DRAFTED THE VIRGINIA DECLA- RATION OF RicHtTs (1725-92 A. D.) George Mason (1725-92), called the “Pen of the Revolution in Virginia,” and whose homestead, Gunston Hall, is a public show place 25 miles south of Washington, exer- cised great influence in local and Virginia politics, As member of the Virginia convention, he drafted the Virginia Constitution and its famous declaration of rights which be- came the cornerstone of our Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution, At Philadelphia Mason objected to pore tions of the Constitution which gave broad, indefinite powers to Congress and its failure to include a bill of rights. He refused to sign the Constitution, and with Patrick Henry, led the fight in Virginia against ita ratification. Failing this, he suggested amendments, substance of which later was embodied in the first 10 amendments—the Bill of Righte— to the American Constitution. Mason believed that local governments should be kept strong and central govern- ment weak, His plaque was done by Gaetano Cecere, of Fredericksburg, Va. Navorzew (1768-1821 A, D.) Napoleon I (1769-1821), the spectacular military genius, also left a tremendous mark upon the geography, administration, and jurisprudence of France during his reign as Emperor, He centralized the administration, estab- ished the Bank of France, inaugurated nancial reforms, made peace with the church, and instituted legal reforme to pave the way for the Cade Napoleon, That was the first code of French civil law. The code, fusing the Germanic and Roman civil law, bas been in force since it was pro- mulgated, The Spanish code and those of several South American states, Louisiana, and Que- bec were largely based on Napoleon's work, His plaque was done by C, Paul Jennewein, of New York City. THOMAS Jerrenson (A. D. 1748-1826) Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) gained his greatest fame as the author of the Declara- tion of Independence. Years later, as third President of the United States, it was one of the achievements of his administration to increase the Nation's territory by more than 800,000 square miles through the Louisiana Purchase. Among the greatest of his other achieve- ments was his authorship of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty and the effect- ing of various reforms in the laws of his na« tive State. He was also the father of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, which in substance held that the Constitution established a compact of States and the ®ederal Govern- ment had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it by the Constitu- tion. Jefferson, who made many contributions to American thinking, was also the founder of the University of Virginia, founder of the first professorship of law—at William and Mary—in the United States, and author of @ Manual of Parliamentary Practice still used in both Houses of Congress. Before serving as President, he was at vari- ous times a member of the Virginia Legisla- ture and the Continental Congresses, Gov- ernor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secre- tary of State, and Vice President, The Jefferson plaque was done by C. Paul Jennewein, of New York City. Marquis Childs’ Experience EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include herewith an editorial which ap- peared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of February 17, 1951: Marquis Cups’ Exprrrence After having been barred as a speaker at the Miner Teachers’ College, Washington, D. C., because his name listed in the un- evaluated files of the House Un-American Activities Committee, Columnist Marquis Childs has been cleared. He and two other speakers who found themselves in the same dificulty have received renewed invitations from the school. It was all but inevitable that Mr. Childs, a former Washington correspondent of the Post-Dispatch, should have emerged from this experience with flying colors. He is widely and well known, so the implied re- flection on his character was quickly publi- cized and evoked the sharpest of protests, We cannot help wondering, however, if a less advantageously placed citizen would have fared as well. Certainly, more than a few people, especially governmental em- ployees, are reluctant these days to avail themselves fully of the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. Discretion, they gre compelled to remind themselves, is the better part of valor. When free citizens thus feel that they had better not avail APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD themselves of their freedom, there is some- thing unhealthy in the state. We sincerely hope that Mr. Childs’ ex- perience will bear the good fruit of helping make Washington’s atmosphere as sane as 1t ought to be for all law-abiding Americans, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty Census Shows Home Owners Exceed Renters First Time in United States History -— EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, the 1950 Census of Housing Report has proven again that the average American cherishes independence and the privi- lege of private ownership, and prefers to buy and own his home rather than rental of private-housing facilities or Government-owned ‘projects. The ‘t¥end toward home ownership has swung upward in the United States, and avéerding to thé ¢ensus report, in 1950 for the first time since such infor- mation was first collected by the census in 1890, home owners have exceeded renters. Today in the United States there are a total of 23,383,000 home owners out of 45,875,000 dwelling units. Fifty-one percent of all the dwelling units in our Nation are now owner occupied, and the percentage of home owners has in- creased since the 1940 census by 54 per- cent. This should serve notice on the world that free enterprise and »rivate owner- ship will not be relinquished by the American people in favor of any form of socialism or collectivism. Commu- nism will never find fertile ground in this Nation as long as the majority of our people enjoy the privileges of private ownership of home and property. Communism and socialism destroy initiative and reduce the individual to a state of serfdom subject to the will of an all powerful state. Reports from coun- tries which have adopted socialism in- variably show that production in social- ized industry falls far below the pro- duction standard set under private ownership. Even such reports as have come from Soviet Russia indicate that the maximum production of which the individual worker should be capable is not achieved. But in the United States under our free enterprise system we have outpro- duced the world. During World War IL with the least restrictions imposed on manpower of any allied nation, we out- produced them all. The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty. It has system, Its future will be secure so long as the rights of private ownership and free en-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD terprise are safeguarded from any s0- cialistic planners in government. To safeguard these rights is the job of Congress, and one that requires con- stant vigilance on the jart of every Member in the interest of our national security. Missouri Pacific Railroad Sets Good Ex- ample for Others To Follow in Radio Use To Promote Rail Safety EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, as one who has been deeply interested in the pro- motion of greater safety on American railroads through the use of radio and other electronic devices, I rise in the House this afternoon to congratulate the Missouri Pacific Railroad for the leader- ship it has taken in the development and use of radio on both passenger and freight trains over its vast system. The Missouri Pacific is setting a good example that all other American rail- roads should follow and I am certain that in time they will. But in the busi- ness of protecting the lives of passengers and workers every day 1s important. I believe all railroads should be putting in a major effort in this field now. It is unfortunate that every railroad is not as far advanced in the use of radio as the Missouri Pacific. Because, tra- ditionally, there are laggards in every field I have proposed in legislation I have offered in this Congress that the Interstate Commerce Commission be given a strong hand in promoting rail safety through the development and use of radio on our rail systems. It is pleas- ing to see a great railroad like the Missouri Pacific proceed on its own initiative. Let me enumerate to the Members of the House the progress the Missouri Pacific has made in the use of radio for passenger trains: Radio will be installed in the cab of every Diesel-powered train—passenger and freight—on the Missouri! Pacific system, The engine crews Of Diesel trains will be able to keep in direct communication with one an- other. In freight train service the cabooses will be similarly equipped 80 two-way com- munication can be carried on between the engine crew and the conductor. All Diesel locomotives delivered in the future will be radio equipped. Migssourt Pacific will aave more train radio than any other railroad in the world when the installations are completed this summer, Here are the bigh lights: Migsourt Pacific now has in operation radio equipped: 61 Diesel freight locomotives, 80 cabooses. By summer, Missourt! Pacific lines will have 812 Diesel locomotives radio equipped—41 passenger locomotives, 271 freight locomo- tives, 290 cabooses. More than 76 percent of all Missouri Pacific's pasaenger-train mileage, more than 80 percent of al] main iine passenger train Mileage will be radio equipped. Three thousand two hundted and forty- three miles—one-third of Missour! Pacific's total—will be entirely Dieselized and entirely radio equipped—passenger trains, through and local freight trains, most of the balance will be partially Dieselized and radio equipped. In addition to the foregoing, Missourl Pacific’s initial train-radio experiment with 15 steam locomotives and 15 cabooses in southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana continues in operation. Re In the Nation—The President’s Mood in These Times EXTENSION OF REMARKS RON. EUGENE J. KEOGH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- oR), I include the following three articles by the distinguished newspaperman, Ar- thur Krock, which appeared in the New York Times of February 20, 22, and 23, in which Mr. Krock in his inimitable and excellent style paints a word picture that is typically interesting and constructive. Interest in these articles was expressed to me by the distinguished County Clerk of Kings County, the Honorable Francis J. Sinnott, and upon his suggestion I have requested and obtained permission to insert them in the Recorp so that they might be read by all before whom they come: {From the New York Times of February 20, 1951] In tHE NATION—-THE PrxsIpENT’s Moop IN Tuese Timzs: I (By Arthur Krock) WASHINGTON, February 19.—In a world of trouble, uncertainty, and open peril, with the responsibility for resolving these conditions resting more heavily on the President than on any other Chief of State, Mr. Truman’s visitors find him still free of any tendency toward defeatism and intensely concerned with a wide range of interests—historic, pres. ent, and future. Persons who called on the President recently in his Mbrary said today that they were astonished at this diversity of subjects and the amount of study Mr. Truman obviously had given to them all. For many reasons this should go on the public record. The President, when these visitors ap- peared, had just finished reading for the third time Stalin’s answers to the questions of Pravda and was forming an analysis of their meaning and motive independent of the appraisal of his expert advisers. He would read them again—maybe several times more—to make sure his analysis was sound. But Mr. Truman turned from that labor to a delighted inspection of a new edition of one of his favorite biographers, Plutarch, and was checking his memory of a famous passage in the life of Cicero about honest government. The type font attracted him by its beauty; and because of the esthetic fact that, except for not making an “s” look like an “f,” the publisher had reproduced the format of Mr. Truman's old set of Plu- tarch, This led the President to show ad- A951 miringly his special copy of the Koran, a aiplomatie gift, and to comment that it is harder to read than the Bible. Before these visitors departed, as they re- called today, in the hour they spent in the library it developed that the President has also been réading with great pleasure Her- bert Hoover's serial autoblography in Col- lier’s and Bernard De Voto'’s blockbuster against the American Medical Association in the January issue of Harper's magazine. Nor had he missed—also in Collier'’s—Jonathan Daniels’ explanation of Why Mr. Truman Writes Those Letters (a personal tnterpreta~ tion, his visitors felt sure he greatly en- joyed). But it was not long before the President was talking to the visitors of what he called his one great goal—enduring world peace— and, with what is represented to this corre- spondent as amazing versatility, was dis- cussing his now familiar humanitarian plans which he said must accompany the armed defense program of the West if world peace, when attained, is to be stable. It should be noted that at the time the news was casting these heavy shadows: Labor had withdrawn from an economic front of the defense mobilization program in the United States and created a crisis for which the solution was far from clear. Inflation had become a mounting fact in the United States. Soviet war tensions were increasing on the borders of Yugoslavia. In nearly all respects the world and the Nation were flaming with perilous controversy, In the United States certain impulsive words and acts of the President had created among many the uneasy feeling that he was emo- tionally upset in a time when this might well become a national danger. For these reasons the following descrip- tion is significant of a conversation that also dealt with eminent issues: “The President turned to that big globe of his and put the point of a paper knife on the map of the Middle East. There, said the President, is one square mile which con- tains more ofl than there {s in the whole State of Texas. There is one of the places where the full exercise of point 4, within the screen of adequate defense from aggression, oan make one of its greatest contributions to the attainment of world peace. Nearby are peoples who need the fruits of modern industrial and agricultural development which the United States can produce for them, “The President said that before point 4 became an administration measure he sent experts on agriculture and water power to this area. And there is a tableland in Ethi- opia of 60,000 square miles (he pointett to it with the paper knife) where the greatest cattle industry in the world could be eatab- ished. He spoke with accurate detail of waterfalls far exceeding Niagara in height and potential power development, saying that to materialize all this was far better and simpier than to shoot away the products of mankind.” A peaceful world so organized, said the President to these visitors, could support twice its present population, with good standards of living, and of the two great powers, the United States, not Soviet Russia, was in a position to organize it. The cost, he said, would be small, the spiritual, moral, and financial returns immense, and the cap- ital for the purpose, which could be pro- tected, is in this country. The financing of American railroad building was done largely by the city (financial district) of London when the bulk of caiptal was there. And the only reason these sound forelyn investments were liquidated was because of the need of gold at home to fight a war. As the President revolved the globe to In- donesia (good “natural mechanics” there)
A952 and South America to continue his presenta~ tion, the visitors said, his examples multi- plied; his mind seemed capable of remark- able concentration on any subject he se- lected, and he looked like a man of 50.” [From the New York Times of Fé®ruary 22, . 1951] In tHE NaTIon—Tue Preswent’s Moop In Turax Truss: I (By Arthur Krock) Wasmincron, February 21.—The atmos- phere of partisan, intia-partisan, and world conflict which surrounds the President in this period of history, and which lately he has made more sulfurous by certain words and actions, vanishes in his private presence. This is the testimony of persons who have talked with him at length recently on all Kinds of subjects and discovered a calm man, as convinced of the correctness of his policies as he ts aware of the criticisms and the arguments in their support. In these off-guard conversations the President, according to an account given to this correspondent, provides no basis for fears which have been expreased that he is rattled, or otherwise emotionally upset, or uninformed on the vast problems confront- ing him. His own account, of course, and in his own words, can be the only accurato summary of the turn of his mind. The following are merely the impressions he recently has left with the persons referred to: FOREIGN AFFAIRS In the Secretury of State, Dean G. Acheson, the President chose as his deputy in this fleld a man whom be regards as the best trained for this purpose. That the Secre- tary’s political and congressional following may be small in the personal sense Mr. Tru- man regards as far less important than his equipment, and as a transient factor and one which hus most of ite source in petty politics, Even if Mr. Acheson desired to be replaced, the field of competent replacement is very limited, though the President agrees that it contains two or three citizens whose names came into the conversations. But he remains enthusiastic about Mr. Acheson's services. And he js firm in the belief that the foreign policy of his administration has been sound, wisely flexed tor the impact of unforeseen events and world changes, and is moving steadily toward the attainment of durable world peace. Mr. Truman regards himself as the best- informed President in history, though he ruefully concedes that the confinement of office obliges him to 226 many things through the eyes of others. He would like to observe Western Europe, for instance, at first-hand, since he must make the momentous decisions with respect to it. But he has confidence in the competence of his sources to identify facts and appraise them, and among these are the Central Intelligenco Agency, the Fed- eral departments and our diplomats abroad. The President believes he has a good record of appointments to the Foreign Servico and has given unusual recognition to career men, But he has an idea how to improve thelr equipment. This is to require chiefs of mis- sions to spend 1 year periodically at home, but not only that. Governors of the States would be invited to borrow these officers as thelr advisers on Btate matters which im- pinge on foreign policy. A year, say, in Jef- ferson City after 3 years in Paris would bring foreign policy home to Missouri and refresh the diplomatic mind with the thinking of Americans on this subject. NATIONAL SECURITY There would have been no inflation, the Presidential opinion seemed to be, if Congress in the last 6 years had followed his recom- mendations on several economic and fiscal problems. Inflation can yet be checked and the damage ultimately repatred if popular groups accept equality of sacrifice and if Congress follows his current proposale—the “quickie” tax bill, the pay-as-you-go policy, and so forth. He respects the convictions of those who oppose the Treasury's low-interest policy, but he cannot accept their theory in the present circumstances. Parts of the huge costs of defense mobiliza- tion ts the result of the repeated refusal of Congress since 1946 to provide for universal training of American youth to make it ready for military service if and when. Now that world conditions require this training to be directly military, and on a vast scale, it im- poses costs whici. could have been far less. And the toll of the wasted time cannot be estimated. But, on the brighter side are our new weap- ons—miracles of scientific research and engi- neering. We are in a position to destroy any tanks which can be sent against us, and swift and sure killers of submarines are in sight against @ time when they may be the im- mediate primary weapon, There are other military tools of security in aviation and elee- where that obviously should not be dis- cussed But an aggressor will have to take the heaviest punishment in the history of war, APPROPRIATIONS AND INCOME When the President spoke of an early goal of €300,000,000,000 of national income he was derided. Now the immedtate prospect is of €270,000,000,000, and in dollars with the pur- chasing power of 1939, not 1951. In 1945-46, the first fiscal year of his administration, Federal appropriations were $67,800,000,000, which he reduced to $86,900,000,000 in fecal year 1947, and $31,200,000,000 in fiscal 1948. The cold war brought them up to $87,300,- 000,000, and $40,300,000,000, and now perhaps as much as $86,000,000,000 will be required for fiscal 1951. But this reflects the pressure of global events, not internal policy. Maybe the budget can be somewhat reduced in the 17-percent area cutside military But Congress bas the responsibility of show- ing safe methods of doing this instead of again loading a percentage cut requirement on the President. [From the New York Times of February 23, 1951] In THe NATION—THE PrExsipenT’s Moop IN Treas Trzs: TT (By Arthur Erock) WasHinotron, February 22.—In two pre- vious accounts of the attitude the President reveals toward many subjects in current pri- vate conversations it waa noted that he leaves on the persons who have talked with him an impression of firm, but patient and calm, resolution quite at variance with the one some of his recent letters and press confer- ence statements have created. His visitors, it was reported, found not the slightest trace of an emotional upset or other imbalance. When their conversations with the Presi- dent were ended they departed with these further ideas of his attitude on certain con- troverstal matters: The RFO: The report of the Fulbright sub- committee, charging an improper response of the RFC directors to outside personal and political influence, merited his appraisal as “asinine.” BEFORE THE REPORT Mr. Truman was not referring to the Sen- ators’ proposal to put the Corporation under &@ single administrator instead of a board, The proof of this is that his own recommen-« dation this week to the same general effect was decided on and tn process of being Grafted before the subcommittee made its report. The President changed hia mind about covering the RFC into the Department of Commerce, concluding that an advisory and loan review board would serve his pur- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECOKU pose, But he had reached the major conclu- sions previously. The stthcommittee made insinuations about individuals that left the effect of dis- crediting charges and then plously declaimed that it was not making charges. Mr. True man as a Senator produced many reports on Government methods but never did he em- ploy such a method. His renomination of the five RFC Directors, among them men who were directly criticized in the report, was attacked as an act of defi- ance and disregard of congressional finding. But that was the only way to enable these Directors to draw their salaries until the RFC is reorganized, which the critics should know if they didn’t. MANDLING A STRIKE The switchmen's strike: Their leaders did run out on their agreement “like Russians,” as the President described it. It was an ac- curate deacription. First, they had asked his assistant, Dr. Steelman, to aid in settling the controversy with management. Second, they had signed the agreement he had negotiated. And then they endeavored to escape the re- spowaibility they assumed by their signatures and which was imposed by their official union authority. The appeal to the “sick” strikers made by Charles E. Wilson came from the proper source—the Director of that defense mobili- gation which the strike was seriously imped- ing. Also, it was the proper first approach (the Army has not the experienced manpower to switch trains), just as the legal sanctions represented a second correct approach. Before the President intervenes directly in & situation, by broadcast or otherwise, other Government means should be exhausted. The end of the strike demonstrated these had not yet been exhausted, LETTERB AND THE PRESS Those letters, etc.: This subject appears to have had the lightest kind of treatment in the conversations. But the President's visi- tors left with the opinion that Mr. Truman stoutly reserves the right to express himself indignantly and forcefully, when he thinks the situation warrants; and to become Prest- dent does not require a waiver on normal human responses to traduction, misrepre- sentation, and so forth, of the individual who chances to occupy the White House. This was when his visitors noted that the Presi- dent cast a smiling glance at Jonathan Dan- jJel's article on this subject. President and press; Mr. Truman's friends found him as convinced as ever that many newspapers in the country—they seem to recall that he mentioned a percentage—are out to prove a certain thing. This is that the man who had not wanted the Presidency, or the Vice Presidency which preceded it and who inherited it through circumstances over which he had no control, was not quali< fied to administer the office. From that time on, whenever the occasion made tt possible to afford even the pretense of a footing for this attitude, these newspapers had sought to prove their theory. PRESIDENTIAL POWERS Apperently in the long session in the Presi- dent‘s private library a number of other items came into the conversations, (But, in the three articles of which this is the con- cluding one, the account has been confined to the subjects which best delineate Mr, Truman's present mood and touch great problems of the day.) Among them the enduring controversy over Presidential powers was not forgotten, with historical citations to prove that Lincoln's and Jeffer- son's limited view of these powers, before they asazumed them, were sharply expanded when they were confronted with assigned responsibilities of the President for national security and the general welfare. This composite portrait of the President’s mood is only a news-shot; it was not posed.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Tt does not answer, and was not intended to answer, his critics, who will continue to find flawa in his personal deportment, his comprehension of issues, his policies and his factional and partisan practices. Onur Comic-Opera Spy Set-Up EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, February 20, 1951 Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times it has been shown that conflicts among our intelli- gence agencies result in confusion and danger to the Nation, there has yet been no effort expended on the part of the Federal Government to set up a separate, independent, and consolidated intelli- gence system. The article entitled “Our Comic-Opera Spy Set-Up” in the Febru. ary 1951 issue of the American Legion magazine, highlights the effect of our present divided awthority upon the secu- rity of America. The article foltows: ; Our Comro-(iemea Sry Srr-ur (By Dowsla Robinson) The Federal Bureau of Investigation moved fast the day it learned that a Soviet espio- nage ring in San Francisco had penetrated the atomic-bomb project. It was not its fault that the Red spies got away. What happened was this: From an undercover source the FBI re- ceived a report that two MVD men—Gregori Kheifitz and Gregor! Kasperov—had made contact with an important scientist working on the A-bomb. The report stated that the trio was to meet that very evening at a sea- food restaurant on Powell Street. Instantly the FBI went into action, dis- patching several of its best agents, with spe- cial Hstening and movie-making equipment, to cover the meeting. The FBI men raced to the restaurant. There they found the scientist and the Rus- sians huddled together in a wallside booth. And there they also found something else. The one booth from which the FBI men could operate their equipment had already been reserved. It had been taken by two operatives of the Army Counterintelligence Corps. The CIC men were working on the same case and trying to listen in on the very same conversation, As one Government official ruefully re- marked later; “There were more investigators in that restaurant than customers.” It took precious minutes before arranges ments could be made for the CIC men to re- linquish their booth to the FBI agents—~ and then it was too late. No complete rece ord of that sinister meeting could be made. Did the scientist supply the Russians with 8 list of the experts working on the A~bomb? He was heard to speak of Niels Bohr, E. O. Lawrence, and others. Did he disclose the secrets of Oak Ridge? He spoke of the big Tennessee atomic plant. Did he give the Russians secret A-bomb plans?. He was seen to hand them a batch of papers. To thie day no one Enows the answers to these questions, The scientist was quietly dropped from the atomic project but no steps could be taken against the Red sples, The evidence was incomplete and they escaped scot free, Imbroglios like this one are typical of the jungle-like chaos in America’s counter- espionage machinery, a chaos which has been hamstringing the Nation's safeguards against foreign spies. No less than 25 separate Government agen- cies have been—and still are—involved in the fight against spies, and it can be authori- tatively stated that many of them have been more active in battling one another than in combating espionage. “Internal security deserves more careful and intelligent attention than it seems thus far to have received,” the Hoover Commission bluntly declared, and it was right, This writer has just completed a search- ing, months-long investigation into the es- Pionage situation during which he talked with the leading specialists in the Intellie gence field, both inside and outside the Gov- ernment. On the basis of this probe, it can be cate- gorically sald that the United States Gov« ernment's safeguards against foreign sples have been crucially weakened, over a long period, by inter-agency rivalries, overlapping jurisdictions, and a shocking lack of cen- tralized direction. That was the reason Gerhart Eisler, the notorious Comintern official, was able to flee the country after he,had been sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment for passport fraud, When Eisler was released on $23,500 ball pending appeal, the FBI assumed that Bu- reau of Immigration men were watching him. The Immigration Bureau figured the FBI was tailing him. Neither checked with the other and Eisler—the man described as Russia's most dangerous agent—found it sim- ple to sneak aboard the out-bound Polish liner Batory. It can now be revealed that this also was why the MVD was able to get Lt. Anatole Barsoff back to the Rusaia he'd quit in fear and terror. It was how the MVD almost managed to shanghai Barsoff’s partner, Lt, Peter Pirigoff—who loves America—and drag him off to certain death. After these two Red army fliers fied Rus- sia in a stolen plane, they were brought to the United States, praised for thelr cour- age, feted, and cast adrift. The State Department didn’t keep an eye on them. Neither did the Bureau of Immi- gration, Nor the FBI. No one in Washington even knew ahout it when the Russian Embassy sent MVD men to look up Barsoff in the Brooklyn, N. ¥., shop where he was working as & §35- a-week dress presser. No one knew about it when they talked him into returning to the U. 8. 8. R. Not even when Barsoff, acting under the orders of the MVD, laid a trap for Pirigoff did Washington wake up. Barsoff asked Pirigoff to meet him for din- ner. Pirlgoff agreed. He was smart, though, and tipped off the Government. The two pilots met at a Washington, D. C., restaurant named Aux Trols Mousquetaires, “Come back with me to Russia,” Barsoff pleaded. “You're crazy,” Pirigoff replied. be dead within a year.” “Not me,” said Barsoff, “It’s you who's going to swing in Red Square.” He gave a signal and a gang of men sur. rounded the table. “You, Pirigoff,” one of them said, “come with us.” Pirigoff looked around for help but no one came to his aid. He got up and started to fight anyway. A gun butt smashed on his skull. United States Government men arrived then and put the MVD agents to flight, They saved Pirigof and took Barsoff into custody. But the tragedy of errors was not yet over. “You'll A953 The Air Force wed the State Department not to allow Barsoff to return to the Soviet Union, It pointed out that when the Rus- stan first came here he had been told a great deal—too much—about American inteélli- gence procedure and tactics. The Army also begged the State Department not to let him go. He'd been given information on the American underground in Germany. It would mean a complete reshuffing of the underground, the Army warned. In spite of the Pentagon's strong plea, the State Department permitted Barsoi® to go back to Russia. The resu’ts of this civil war in counter- espionage have been catastrophic to the na- tional defense. Because of it, Soviet spies have been able to steal some of the most secret formulas in the manufacture of the atomic bomb and vital information on the new hydrogen bomb, too. And that is only a Uttle of what they have gotten here, This writer has learned on unimpeachable authority that Soviet spies have also secured and transmitted to Russia vast stores of con- fidential data on American submarines and military planes. Recently the Kremlin dec« orated two cf its agents for stealing the blue- prints of a new United Etates Air Force bomber, In the Department of Defense files today is a sworn statemsnt by Lieut. Gen. Izydor Modelski, the former Polish Military Attaché in Washington, divulging that a spy network established here by his Government has ob- tained essential details—including maps and photographs—on «ey {industrial plants all over America. All this and more is due to the amazing lack of coordinat.on among the Federal agencies responsible for protecting the Na- tion’s secrets. There are countless examples of this. One of the most glaring is the coast-to- coast inspection tour that the State Depart- ment arranged for a group cf Russian tech- nicians. Overlooking the tensions between the United States of America and the U. 8. 8. R., the State Department authorized these Rus- sian engineers to survey bridges, power plants, and utilities in all parta of the coun- try. It even included certain defense plants, Not one official of the State Department consulted the military authorities or the FBI as to the wisdom of such a tour. In fact, the first the military people heard about it was when the owner of a big chemical plant in Wisconsin burst in on the Pentagon, frantically waving a letter in his hand. “I got this letter from the State Depart- ment and I took the next plane for Wash-~ ington,” he said. The letter was aigned by an Assistant Sec- retary of Btate and asked the Wisconsinite to allow the Russian group to inspect his chemical plant. “Are these people crazy?” the Wisconsin man shouted. “Don't they know that my plant is busy on confidential work?” “There’s nothing we can do,” be was told. “This is a State Department matter,” Although the Wisconsin manufacturer ree fused to let the Russian party in his plant, the Russians did get to see other big utilities and plants throughout the United States. “Is it any wonder,” a ranking Alr Force general fumed to this writer, “that the Rus- sian Government has been able to prepare a thick volume showing, in pictures, maps and words, every important dam, power plant, bridge, and railroad siding in America? “It's a perfect manual for enemy bombers.” Without even consulting the FBI, the State Department issued a visa allowing Mme, Irene Joliot-Curie, the French scientist, to enter the United States. At the time Mme.
A954 Joiot-Curte, the wife of an admitted Com- munist, was on the FBI list of subversive agents. When Mme. Joliot-Curle landed at New York, on March 18, 1948, the Bureau of Im- migration, which maintains its own sub- verstve files, had her detained at Hills Island. The State Department, however, made repre- sentations to the Justice Department, which ordered her admritted to the country. Nor is this the only time that the bars have been let down to dangerous elements. Not long ago it was revealed by the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency, the organtzation in charge of all American esplonage opera- tions overseas, that 61 men whom it had identified as Russian spies were in the United States under visas granted by the State Department. According to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, there are three techniques for dealing with foreign spies. These are: 1. Arrest and try them for violation of the Espionage Act. 2. Provide for public exposure of their ac- tivities through congressional hearings, newspaper publicity, etc. 3. Follow them and get to know their sources, contacts, and means of communica- tions eo that you can make use of them for your own purposes. Hoover believes that the third system is the most effective method for handling espionage. He feels, of course, that spies should eventually be arrested and prosecuted but he thinks that full use should be made of them first. However, the utmost integration of all Government agencies concerned with coun- ter-esplonage is required, Hoover declares, if proper tabs are to be kept on enemy spies. And the stark truth {s, there has been no such Integration. Under the law, the FBI is supposed to have prime responsibility for counter-cspionage in the United States, It is specifically charged with enforcement of the Espionage Act. Nevertheless, two dozen other Federal agen- cies also have extensive powers in the fleld. The three armed services have exclusive jurisdiction over tracking down spies among their personnel and in the industrial plants supplying them. The State Department con- trols the issuance of visas to suspected espio- nage agents. It also has two other units with counter-espionage functions—its Intel- ligence Section and its Special Agents group. The Bureau of Immigration is rupposed to prevent sptes from entering the country ille- gally. The Coast Guard checks on epies in the merchant marine. So does the Mari- time Commission. The security section of the Atomic Energy Commission has the job of safeguarding atomic plante from spies. The Secret Service does the same for the White House. The Intelligence Unit of the Treasury Department makes special inquiries along these lines for the President and other high Government officials. Then there ts the Central Intelligence Agency. It handles all counter-espionage work overseas. But these aren’t all. There sre at least 11 others in the internal security picture, ranging all the way from the Bureau of Cus- toms to the National Security Resources Board. The two principal organisations are the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency, and of necessity there should be 100 percent cooperation between them. This is a life- and-death matter inasmuch as the FBI works solely inside the United States and its pos- sessions, and must rely entirely on CIA to cover the overseas outlets of any foreign espionage ring known to be operating in Amerioa. Here is what an expert says on this score. He ts Alien Dulles, the star performer of the wartime Office of Services, whose agents penetrated Hitler's own cab- net. “You cannot cut off counterespionage at the water's edge. You have to be able to coordinate information which you get here with the information you get overseas. You have to follow espionage agents as they are sent here by foreign powers, while they are bere, and then as they return from here. “You have to follow thetr Itnes of com- munication which cut across the water's edge, and over the water, and you have to keep an eye on the feeder agents which they heve here and elsewhere. “For this, you need the closest Matson between the FBI and the CIA.” In ‘his connection, this writer was told that Great Britain, the world’s most expert nation in espionage matters, insists on sh- solutely perfect liatson between MI-~6, its intelligence service, and MI-6, its counter- espionage organization. MI-6 has agents assigned to MI-5 offices all over the world. Right now, in the Brittsh Embaesy tn Paris, there is an MI-6 agent working in the same office with the MI-6 operatives, screening all their findings for information on spies heading toward England. In no foreign locality, however, is an FBI fy mt assigned to a CIA office today. It may be denied, but liatson between the two or- ganizations has been at a low ebb. Buch a lack of Haigon created endless dif- ficu’ties during the war between the FBI and Gen. “Wild Bill” Domovan’s cloak-and- dagger Office of Strategic Services, the pred- ecessor of today's CIA. On one occasion FBI agents had a Nazi spy ring here “taped” and were planting “fake” secrets in its New York City “mail- drop” for transmisston to Berlin. No one notified the O8S though, a blunder that had shocking consequences. O88 men abroad, who were continually seeking to foil Axis spies, unearthed the European outlets of this same Nazi espio- naze ring and went to work on it, too. Slowly, tortuously, risking the Gestapo at every step, the OSS men traced the ring’s operations and found thet all of tts matl from America was betng posted to Berlin via Spain. A group of O88 men made a special trip to Spain and succeeded in making contact with the ring’s Madrid representatives. “You're wasting your time working for the Germans,” the O88 men said to him. “They're going to lose the war.” “Sefiors, with me tt is a question of pesos,” this Spaniard declared. That was what the OSS men were waiting for. “Why don't you do business with us in- stead of the Germans,” they said. “We'll pay well.” A deal was made and soon the OSS men were buying, at a huge price, the very fake secrets planted in New York by the FBI. Many months went by and thousands upon thousands of dollars were wasted before this situation could be straightened out. Even now there is a serious lack of llalzon between the Armed Forces and the FBI. Not long ago the Army received reports that a Soviet espionage ring had launched @ campaign to collect data on a number of American war plants. The ring, which had its headquarters in the Soviet zone of Germany, was using every means in its power to get information on munitions production in such towns as Wichita, Kans, Rockford, Tll., and San An- tonilo, Tex. The Army did not even inform the FBI of this development. Recently the Office of Naval Intelligence and A~-2, the Air Foroe intelligence division, gave clearance to the Department af Com- meroe to sell several hundred nautical, aero- nautical, and topographical mapa, showing every key point in the United States, to a concern known as the Four Continent Book Corp. of New York. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Not one of these agencies checked with the FBI. Had they done so, they would have learned that the Four Continent Book Corp. was registered as an official agent of the U. 8.8. R. The Armed Forces themselves have been racked by internal feuds. The Navy recently went so far as to snub an ultra-important conference on intelligence matters which the Army held in Paris. The Air Force sent representatives. So did CIA. The State Department, which had not been invited, actually asked that one of its intelligence specialists be allowed to at- tend. Its request was granted. However, the Navy, which had been invited, declined to attend. No explanation was given and, as one De- partment of the Army official remarked: “All we can assume is that the Navy is not interested in the coordination of intelli- gence activities.” None of these instances, though, sre as bad as the muddling that has keynoted the Government's efforts to safeguard the atomic jomb, The case of the Soviet spy Adams ts char- acteristic. The FBI espionage squad fran across Adams’ trall in connection with an inves- tigation of an stomic scientist named Dr. Clarence F. Hiskey. Hiskey, a University of Chicago chemist, was suspected of supplying the Russians with confidential data on atomic bomb research. In its probe, the FBI learned that His- key's contact was a mysterious Russian by the name.of Arthur Alexandrovitch Adams. Agents were put to investigating Adams. They searched his room at the Hotel Peter Cooper in New York. In it they found not only highly secret information on the Oak Ridge atomic-bomb plant but also vital— stolen—facts on the development of atomic energy by our allies. Day and night, then, the FBI espion- age squad followed Adams. It was on his tall the night he conferred with Hiskey's friend and coworker, Dr. John H. Chapin, in the Stevens Hotel in Chicago. It was on his tail the evening he met Pavel Mikhai- lov, the Soviet vice consul in New York, and drove with him to the Russian consulate. He was carrying a big black attaché case that evening. It was on his tall the day he tried to board a Boviet freighter in Port- land, Oreg., and flee the country. FBI men kept him from departing. But the FBI's efficiency was all in vain. When it finally decided that Adams’ useful- ness was over and that he should be failed as an example to other Red spies, it was pre- vented by State Department interference from doing as it wished. The State Department actually ordered the FBI not to serve the warrant it had ob- tained for Adams’ arrest. “Tt might annoy the Russtan Government,” the State Department said. As a result, Adams—the Russian master spy—ts back in Russia today, safe and sound. (The same thing happened when the FBI moved to arrest—after making use of him for 8 yeare--a Russian spy named Andrei Scheychenko who had penetrated the Bell Aircraft Corp. plant in Buffalo. (As FBI Special Agent “Buz” Roberts told Loren G. Haass, a Bell engineer, “Mer. Byrnes, of the State Department, says we can't touch him.”) Such interagency muddling has been more the rule than the exception. There was another vivid example of it last year when a bottle containing all-important U-235 disappeared from the Atomic Energy Commission’s Argonne National Laboratory near Under the law, the security section of the AEO should have notified the FBI of the loss Within minutes. It didn't.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Not for 4 weeks did the AEC security sec~ tion bother to tell the FBI of this baffling disappearance. The most graphic instance of all was the case of Dr, Klaus Fuchs, the atomic physicist who {is now serving 14 years in s British prison for espionage on behalf of the Rus- sians. For more than 24% years Dr. Fuchs worked inside the American atomic-homb project as a member of the British Atomic Energy Mis- sion. There was no secret at Los Alamos that was not available to him. Yet he was Known to be a former member of the Com- munist Party. Throughout the period he was at Los Alamos, Fuchs was in almost daily touch with a Russian spy courler, feeding him the innermost secrets of the A-bomb. Yet no one detected him. Why? Army intelligence took the word of the British Government that Fuchs was “all right.” It didn’t even ask the FBI to make a check on him. It is true, of course, that after Fuchs re- turned to England and was given e high post in the British atomic set-up, the FBI sup- plied the tip which led to his arrest. How- ever, regardless of all stories to the contrary, the FBI never had any suspicion of him per- sonally. The real truth about the incident is this. Through an undercover man, the FBI dis- covered that someone in the British atomic- energy system was “leaking” large quantities of information to the MVD. It couldn’t find out who the “leak” was, though. ; It was MI-6, the British counterspy outfit, which actually tracked Fuchs down. Although no word of it has hit the head- lines, many of the top leaders of our Govern- ment have been deeply concerned over the situation in the counterespionage field. The late Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal was very worrled about it and urged the National Security Council to take Grastic remedial measures, He called for the appointment of a single director of internal security with full power over all counter- espionage and other internal security mat- ters. The Council agreed that the situation re- quired correction but it wouldn't go as far— or even one-tenth as far—as Forrestal rec- ommended. The most it has consented to— to date—is a program for voluntary action. Under the terms of this program, two interdepartmental committees have been es- tablished and charged, in the words of a Council directive, with “effecting more ade~ quate and coordinated internal security” on & voluntary basis. One of these committees, the Interdepart- mental Intelligence Conference, consisting of FBI, Army, Navy, and Air Force representa tives, is supposed to coordinate the investi- gation of espionage, sabotage, and subvere sion cases. The other, the Interdepartmental Com- mittee on Internal Security, comprising of- ficials of the Justice, State, and Treasury De. partments, plus the National Military Estab- lishment, is supposed to evolve broad policies, Neither of these committees has any gen- uine authority. There is still no one in over-all command, still no one with power to ‘weep the various agencies from cutting one another’s—and the country‘'s—throat, The program is a step in the right direction, but with world conditions as they are, it is not enough. Never has the United States been so men- aced by spies and saboteurs. In Wo1.d War IL the internal Nagi threat was @ slight cue, involving only a few thou- sand bundists, Today the United States has to cope with a fifth column of over 500,000 Communists and fellow travelers, working under the direct orders of Kremlin agents. . (The American Slav Congress, for example, gets its disruptive policies directly from two Officials of an tron-curtain country’s Wash- ington Embassy. 80 does that other Com- munist front, the United Committee of South Slavic Americans. Members of the Ameri- can-Russian Institute, a third front, serve as the medium of exchange between the consulate of an iron-curtain country and the Communist Party of the United States.) The United States is infiltrated through and through with Russian agents. At last count, the Department of Justice had espionage in- vestigations pending concerning 685 allens alone. At this moment more than 120 foreign- espionage rings are reported to be function. ing, clandestinely, inside the United States, prying into our most precious secrets. Recently, United States counterespionage agents got their hands on some ultraconfi- dential orders which the Kremlin sent to its spies here. In these orders, the Krem- lin directed ‘ts agents to make every ef- fort—at once—to obtain information on new-type atomic weapons, robot missiles, and, above all, developments in bacterio- logical warfare. That is why every expert to whom this writer spoke said: “America must strengthen its defenses against spies. Otherwise, it is inviting dis- aster.”” Poll on Universal Military Training EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL T. CURTIS OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I wish to include a letter from the president of the student council of the University of Nebraska which carries a result of a poll recently taken: Srupent COunNcIL, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, Lincoln, Nevr., February 10, 1961. Representative Cart T. Curtis, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Curtis: The student council of the University of Nebraska recently con- ducted an opinion poll on universal military training. One thousand five hundred and sixty-seven students, both men and women, were selected at random during registration for the second semester and asked to com- plete our opinion questionnaire. This project was undertaken as a result of action taken at the annual convention of the Big Seven Association of Student Gov- ernment held in Norman, Okla,, last Decem- ber 8 and 9. All of the schools in the Big Seven are taking similar polls and the results for the entire conference will be released by the association chairman at the University of Colorado in the near future. The poll is being taken for the purpose of informing the public and our Congressmen as to how students in this region feel about universal military training, Nearly all of our students are in the age group involved in selective service and any universal mille tary training program that might be adopted, Many are not old enough to vote, but we belleve that their feelings should be given serious consideration. Only about 20 per- cent of our current enroliment is made up of veterans; therefore any prejudice on the part of veterans has not influenced this poll to any great extent. A955 The results of this poll show that over three-fourths of the students polled are in favor of universal military training, and that most of those in favor want a training period of 12 to 21 months after completion of high school or upon reaching the age of 18. The final tabulation of this poll is given below. It is hoped that you will con sider this carefully in voting on proposed universal military training and selectives service legislation. Men |Women| All For universal milltary train- | Percent| Percent] Percent fr ri) 7% Tl 27 5) Against ‘tniveraal “wiilitary” training...... eee en enwranee Length of training pertod favored by those for universal military training Mon |Women| All Percent etcans Percent 3 months.....0..--n-eeeenewee 3 fi WW 8 46 3 50 45 13 37 1 8 1 Time of tratning period favored by those for universal military training Men {Women| All Percent | Percent | Percent After high school or at 18.22. 74 78 Anytime between 17 and 20... 16 25 17 No preference...........---0. 1 1 5 Of the 1,567 students polled, 1,155 were men and 412 were women. Very sincerely yours, Rosert Ravn, President, Student Council, The Truth About Our Air Power EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OVERTON BROOKS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 26, 1951 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- ord, I wish to include the following article from the February 17, 1951, issue of the Saturday Evening Post, This ex- cellent appraisal by Gen. Hoyt 8S. Van- denberg is of vital interest to every American who is concerned with the military strength of his Nation: Tus Traore Asovur Our Am Powrs (By Gen. Hoyt 8. Vandenberg, Chief of Staff, U. 8. Air Force, as told to Stanley Frank) In this time of crisis, when world peace and the security of the United States are immeasurably more important than the prestige of the United States Alr Force or any other military service, certain funda- mentale need restatement, Air superiority alone cannot win « war. The loss of air supertority could lose it. Although all mili- tary authorities agree air superiority must be held where full-scale land or sea opera~ tions are launched against a major opponent, I do not believe the Air Force should be allo« cated illogical amounts of the men and money available to the Defense Establish« ment. I concede the airplane as a weapon
ASG fs @ Gwo-edged sword that can be turned, vitally and directly against every Americen., The American people must realize ft is tm- possible to amass or invent eu absolute, im- pregnable defense against bombing attacks by a strong, determined ensmy. The Soviet Union, for example, now has at least 450 planes that can strike our major population and industrial centers from beses tn the U. 8.8.8. Since we cannot afford to under- estimate a potential enemy's capabilities, we Inus} anticipate that the Soviets will bulid known improvements into their aircraft that will counterbalance in large measure the im. provements we can make in our continental defense. The grim contingencies must be faced squarely slong with the urgent néces- atty for supporting a civil-defense that can save countless lives in the event, God forbid, of an atomic bombing. Should war came, we can be expected to destroy no more than 30 percent of the planes making an attack in strength on the United States before their bombing missions are completed. And our preparations today are not yet beefed up to achieve even that figure. ven if we had many more imter- ceptor planes and anttaircraft guns and a radar screen that blanketed all approaches to our boundaries, a predictable 70 percent of the enemy's planes would penetrate our defenses deapite the extraordinary valor and akill of our pilots. My estimate of a 30-percent loss inflicted on an enemy air attack is based on the as- sumption that the raid would be made by at least 100 heavy bombers. If an enemy attempted to sneak through one plane or five, it 1s entirely possible no American city would be damaged. But the bleak and blunt evidence of the last war proved conclusively that no bombing attack mounted in sufficient strength by the Americans, British, or Ger- mans ever was turned back by the most strenuous defensive action. The offense always hea had « crushing advantage in serial warfare, and there is no prospect that the balance will change in the foreseeable future. Americans will be shocked by the admis- sion that we are so vulnerable from the air. They will want to know why the billions of dollars in taxes poured into the military can- not buy better protection. They have every right in the world to demand straightforward answers to their question—answers stripped of technical gobbledegook. But that incon- testable right carries with it the obligation to attempt to undersand the problems con- fronting military planners and the assigned function of the Alr Force in the over-all secu- rity of the Nation. Sfforts toward that understanding have been confused py the contradictory claims Of friends of air power, who believe air power is everything, and traditionalists, those who halittle air power, who fail to recognize that control of the alr is a decisive factor in win- ning wars. One school has oversold air power to the public as an easy substitute for the harsh reatities of war. The other has Much of the dlesension can be clarified, I believe, by a sober analysts of alr power and hy projecting its potentialities and Mmita- tions tmto the future. A lot of romantic, wiid-blue-yonder nonsense can be dispelled by the concise, down-to-earth truth about of all, it ahould be pointed out that role of the air in the defenu2 program not determined by the Air Furce slone, Broad policy decisicns are made by the Joint Chiefs of Stall, an executive planning board which I serve with Gen. Omar N. Brad. , the chairman, the Army's Gen. J. Lawton and the I’ avy's Adm. Forrest P. Sher- & oe ge F man, Our conctustons on Joint Cbtefs of Stall are influenced ty the needs and unique contributions each branch of the Armed Foroes can make to the most effectty. mili- manpower at our disposal. Sesed on those considerations, the Joint Chiefs of Gtef have given the Air Force tiuree jobs—stravegic bombing, the ar defense of the United States, and tactical support of surface forces. Although those three jobs seem pegged to different objectives, it is impossible to sepa~ rate them in practice because—and this ts & principle ignored too often—alr power is indivisible. We don't speak of a “strategic” or a “tactical” army or navy, yet those terms constantly are applied to the Air Foros. f£ suppose the habit is rooted too deepty in common usage to do anything about it after all these years, but the terms are mislead~ ing. The functions of so-called strategic and teotioal air overlap and supplement each The overriding purpose of every plane, whetiser it is a bomber or a fighter, is to win the air battle on which final victory on land or sea is predicated, In out that mission, all types of aircraft collaborate tn destroying enemy planes that endanger both combatants and civilians. A big, inter- continental strategic bomber ts designed to attack the enemy's industrial capacity for waging war. In the process it cripples the enemy's ability to hurt civilians at home and soldiers in fox holes by smashing the plants that sustain hia air force. His heavy bombers are wrecked on assembly lines be- fore they can challenge our defenses; every fighter plane that is mauled in the air or on the ground is one less that can be thrown ogainst grounds troops in the battle area. Conversely, our tactécal planes attack stra- tegic targets, thereby relieving the pressure on the big bombers and the units assigned to continental defense. The last war provided any number of striking examples of the mterchangeable nature of air power. The greatest conoen- tration of heavy bombers ever seen was assembled to give direct support to ground troops for the breakthrough at 8t. Lo on July 25, 1944, Pifteen hundred B-17's and B-24's teamed up with 1,500 lighter bombers and fighter planes to plaster a emall area, approximately 9,000 by 2,000 yards, and helped catapult the Allies from Normandy to the jed Line in 6 weeks. Similar sorties by the biggest plares we had in Eu- rope were laid on to assist the ground at Caen and the Anzio beachhead. Alter Gen. D ugiac Macarthur returned to the Philip- Pines in October 1944, big bombers operated trom Clark Field, near Manila, against Japa- nese troops less than 10 mijes away. Mac- Arthur, tncidentally, once described the jsland-hopping campaign in the Pacific as a series of battles for airfields. Last August 40,000 North Koreans massed along the Naktong River threatened to shatter our pre- carious linea in the Waegwan area. The ground put in a hurry call for help and B-20’s dropped 1,000 tons of bombs on the North Korean positions. "I don’t know if they killed even a single cow or horse,” Maj. Gen. Hobart R. Gay, commander of the First Cavalry Division, “All I know ts that we didn’t get hit with that attack we were sweating out.” In the atomic age, more than ever before, 8 Bi offense is the best defense. An attrition rate of 80 percent an their planes never would stop the Soviets fram attack- munist aggression—the certainty that we APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD can retatiate swiftly and bring more destrac- tion to them than they can inflict on us. General Bradley spelled out the proposi- tion on November 17: “It is a bruteing and shocking fact that when we Americans were committed in Korea, we were left without an adequate margin of militery strength with which to face an enemy eat any other specific point. Oertainly we.were left without the strength to meet a general attack. In the military sense, the free world was left with- out reserves except for the atom bomb.” Our stockpile of A-bombs is not the sole deterrent to aggression. It is our ability to Geliver the bomb anywhere in the world that has been forestalling intermational commu- nism‘s avowed design for world domination. Our strategic air power, poised to ram the atomic bomb down the throat of an aggressor in the event it is used against us, has been the cork communism from spilling over the denrocratic nations. The muacte of our strategic air arm is the B-36, which has more speed, range, arma- ment, and carries a heavier bomb load than any big plane in operation today, or any plane the Moscow regime can get into mass production in the next few years, The B-36 can fiy taster than 400 miles an hour and has a combat radius of more than 4,000 miles. This means it can fly 4,000 miles to perform a bombing mission, then return with a safe margin of fuel to land at its The Soviet Union's best bomber, the TU-4, & copy of our B-29, has a top speed of some 825 miles an hour and a combat radius of about 2,000 miles. Combat radius is the key to the advantage we hold in the air. Every industrial and communication center in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ts well within the combat radius of B-36’s flying from North American bases. Our other heavy bombers, the B~29, 5-47, and B-00, can per- form similar missions from Overseas bases or, with refueling techniques, from this continent. Many would be shot down if the air battle were joined—no responsible air- man ever claimed any plane was indestruc- tible—but the point is that every Amertcan plane that returned would fly and bomb again. The Soviets’ TU-4 can just about reach America’s nerve center on a one-way mission; it doesn’t carry enough gas to fly home. It planes carried only conventional demo- lition and fire bombs, Communist air power would pose no serious threat to us at home, but the atomic bomb has changed the pic- ture drastically. I do not discount the pos- sibility, therefore, that the Soviet high com- mand might sacrifice aircraft in the hope of knocking out America’s productive ca- pacity with a few massive blows. We cannot ignore the possibility, either, that the Unton of Soviet Socialist Republics might attempt to refuel her heavy bombers from mother ships over the polar to give them round-trip range, a factor that has been given the closest attention tn our defensive Planning. One thing we know for sure: The Soviet Union has been working intensively on a heavy bomber to match the B-86. She will unquestionably build it, but the B-86 does not represent the limit of our invention, An intercontinental jet bomber te almost ready for test flights: an atomio-powered plane ts more feasible than most people imagine. Soviet developments with big ptanes will cai) for radically different measures, but right now I am speaking in practical terms of the immediate situation and the probablities of the next 2 or 8 years. numerical superiority of the Soviet air force. The Soviet Union bes about 26,000 frat-lne Planes in all components. A good part of that strength consists of S&ghters,.a mount-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ing proportion of which are modern fete. The): MIG~15 is, for speed, in the same with our fastest standard interceptor. I don’t go along with the widespread be- lief that the Communists don't know how to fly, design, or maintain aircraft. I was air adviser to Ambassador W. Averell Harriman in the U.S, S, R. for 4 months during the war and I saw enough to convince me that the Soviets would be formidable adversaries in the event of war. They also showed me the most stunning combat pilot I've ever seen-——a magnificent woman, a 6-foot blond Amazon who had shot down a dozen German planes. Individually, Communist pilots are about as good as Americans in normal weather. American pilots are superior to those of the Soviet Union in two areas. They have more training in night as well as all-weather fly- ing. I have compared American and Russian air power at some length to high light the importance of strategic bombing. Although it is essentially an offensive weapon, it actu- ally is our first line of defense. The most effective method of Knocking out the enemy's air power, and keeping it knocked out, is to destroy the means that keep it alive. If war should come, the United States Air Force would attack simultaneously two targets— the industries feeding the enemy's war econ- omy and the enemy air force itself. Now that you know the B-36 is a 4,000-mile extension of our home defenses, my estimate of a 30-percent loss infilcted on an enemy air fleet over the United States may not be so terrifying as it first appeared—but don’t get me wrong. I still say we are not invul- nerable to atomic bombing with its frightful loss of life and attendant property damage. I repeat that people must cooperate with civil-defense authorities to increase their chances for survival. The people also can save themselves from another threat to their own and the country’s welfare. There is a dangerous delusion that radar screens and complicated electronic devices will give us an airtight defense against bomb- ing. We could tackle an engineering project that would make the Great Wall of China look like the sand trenches children dig at the seashore. We could bulld a steel fence 5 miles high around the 17,936-mile perim- eter of the United States. We could place an unbroken line of radar screens on top of the fence, ring our cities with automatic anti- aircraft guns, and perfect a foolproof warn- nagyetem for distinguishing between friend- ly “ind hostile aircraft approaching our boundaries around the clock. We could put an umbrella of interceptor planes over the entire country—and we could not keep out @ determined enemy attacking in strength. Sure, our radar network needs strengthen- ing. So does every other aspect of the Mili- tary Establishment. I do not recommend, however, sinking limitless funds into static defenses because: (1) The returns are not commensurate with the investment; (2) the remaining military effort would be reduced to impotency, I’m not thinking of money alone. The millions of highly trained men required to maintain an elaborate defensive system would impose an intolerable drain on our manpower pool. Total victory in modern war is the product of ground, sea, and air power. Nothing can be gained, everything will be lost, if one component is sacrificed to such a point that it is unable to contribute to the grand objective. Winning the air war, for example, would avail us little if the United States and the nations subscribing to the North Atlantic Pact were not rearmed for a determined stand in Europe. The proposition is as obvi- ous as it is simple: The Soviet Union, which has vast supply dumps scattered throughout its zone in Germany, could wind up with a greater war-potential than strategic bombing can knock out in the heartland of the U. 5. 8. R. if they were not prevented from seizing the industries of the Western European coun- tries. Ground forces must be strong enough to stop the enemy from capturing those sources of production. At the same time, the Navy must be strong enough the fight off the Soviet Union's large fleet of snorkel sub- marines and keep the supply life line to Eu- rope open, It ig a physical impossibility to build an adequate army, navy, or air force if dispro- portionate manpower and matériel are di- verted to continental defenses. Further, the diminishing returns quickly reached on what has been called aptly an electronic Maginot line make the staggering expenditure utterly impractical. I wish I could tell the people of the United States that they are immune to attack from the air, but I have one consola- tion. I promise Americans the best air de- fense any civilian population ever has had. The Germans, for all their other failings, had an excellent warnin™ system and defense in depth from the French coast to Poland. They had 2 years to test their preparations against the RAF before we got into the war. From 1942 on, most German aircraft prcduc- tion was devoted to fighter planes, although Germans used their bom. ers as fighter planes after D-day in Europe. The Luftwaffe mauled the Eighth Air Force savagely on many occasions, notably at Schweinfurt and Regensburg, but the average loss we suffered in daylight strategic strikes on Germany was less than 4 percent. Take the magnificent performance of the RAF, which shot down 1,178 German planes in the battle of Britain during August and September of 1940. The back of the Lutt- waffe was broken in that abortive attempt to knock England out of the war, yet as late as February 1944 it was able to mount tre- mendous raids on London. The Germans had no heavy bombers, and their concept of strategic wirpower was incredibly inept. British authorities and our own Gens, Tooey Spaatz and Jimmy Doolittle agree that the Germans would have won the battle of Brit- ain had they gone after RAF installations and key plants instead of trying to terrorize the civilian population. The British knew the Germans were coming across the short southe ern coast line, and they knew London-—ex- cept for several severe raids on Liverpool— generally was the target. Yet the RAF throughout the war destroyed slightly less than 10 percent of the German planes that attacked England. No air force ever will exceed the gal- lantry of the RAF, but with the help of their lessons, I am expecting our pilots to be three times more effective. I am committing them to that achievement despite the perti- nent facts that the area thy patrol is more than 30 times larger than the United King- dom, that enemy planes will carry far greater armament and firepower than the Germans built into thelr machines and they must be prepared to fight at night and in all weather. I expect to be picked up on one factor favoring the defense that I've omitted. It will be pointed out that intercontinental bombers will not be escorted by fighter planes and, as a consequence, should be liable to much greater losses. That is absolutely true—if reference is made to World War II, when German bombers lumbered along at 200 miles an hour at altitudes that rarely exceeded 12,000 feet. The decisive air battles of the future will be fought at night and in foul weather at speeds in excess of 400 miles an hour and altitudes of more than 30,000 feet. Up around 40,000 feet, the wild blue yonder isn’t blue, even on the sunniest day. It is a purplish, cloudless void that plays queer tricks on the human eye. Pilos report they have difficulty judging distance and depth perception because there is no background for comparing the relative positions of planes. Ground radar can vector in inter- A957 ceptor planes to the approximate positions of bombers, hut the fighter pilot is largely on his own in finding the enemy. Jets must be used for interception because they alone have the speed to overtake an attacker and, equally important, the ability to gain altitude quickly. With approaching bumbers flying 100 miles in slightly more than 15 minutes, a conventional piston plane is useless for defense work. It takes three times as long to climb from the ground to 4,000 feet as a jet—and the last half of the climb is twice as long as the first for both types of planes. Once contact is made with the enemy, a jet must score a kill quickly, since it carries only enough ammunition for four or five passes. Added firepower can be built into a jet only at the cost of sacrificing its speed and maneuverability. Even 200 pounds of added equipment will seriously affect its advantages over a bomber. Any- way, regardless of its armament, a jet always will be outgunned by the interlocking fire- power of a bomber formation. Downing a plane fiying 7 miles or more above the earth with antiaircraft fire is ex- tremely difficult. Instruments can calcu- late the speed and direction of a plane in- stantly and precisely, and fire at the exact spot where it should be when the shell ex- plodes in the air. But it takes a high- velocity shell more than 20 seconds to reach 40,000 feet and in that time a plane going only 350 miles an hour will travel 2 miles. Here’s the kicker: If the pilot changes his course bt only 2 degrees—up or down, right or left—-the shell will miss him by 375 yards, At that distance, the plane will not even be rocked, much less damaged, During the last war, bomber pilots had to hold a steady course over the target area and literally plow through a curtain of flak. New radar bombsights can draw a bead on the target throughout the most violent evasive action. A pilot can zigzag all over the sky and his bombardier still can pinpoint the objective. It all adds up to the conclusion that we still must rely principally on men going up in machines to meet the enemy in direct combat, Under no circumstances will we be caught with our planes down. The most direct route for an attack by the Soviet Union 1s from the north over land radar stations. A quick glance at as globe map will show that the U. 8. S. R. is directly opposite the United States on the other side of the earth and the shortest distance between the two coun- tries is by way of the North Pole. While you're reading this, regardless of the time of day or night, pilots in critical areas are sitting in planes ready to respond instantly to an alert. We need more interceptor planes, to be sure. More than that, perhaps, we'll need the help of divine providence to shoot down hostile planes with atomic bombs before they unload. Only a fraction of the planes make ing an attack in strength would carry atomic bombs. Even if the enemy had 100 bombs— which she hasn’t now—she could not afford to throw all into one raid. The atomic bomb is the product of such tremendous industrial effort that it cannot be used indiscrimi- nately. The planes carrying them probably would be in the middle of formations pro- tected by interlocking firepower. They would be the most difficult to destroy, but with luck—and I hate to rely on that capricious element with so much at stake—we'd get some among the planes knocked down. We can be hurt, but I do not believe the wounds can be fatal to our will and capacity to igift pack with terrible vengeance. American in~ dustry already is decentralized in more than 40 key cities. The American people, aware at last of the grave danger to their freedoms, are putting meat and musole on the Military Establishment. We still have far to go, but the blinders have been stripped from our complacency,
AS58 Tt has been put in the record that Aly Forse ‘apport of ground operations Korea was e satisfactory. United Nations troops were given more unin assist- ance by fighter planes than any ermy in his- tory. The Far Eastern Atr Force had sown on combat missions for 181 consecutive days on December 30, and the end was nowhere in sight, I claim that the Air Force's use of tactical air power, including jets previously untested in battle, was completely vindicated by the results achieved. Before getting down to particulars, the public should know several pertinent facts: 1. Genera! MacArthur, before the outbreak in Korea, asked the Far Eastern Air Force to make tts primary role the defense of the Japanese islands against posetble seaborne or airborne attack. 2. The Atr Force and the Army last spring Giecussed the conduct of exercises in ground- air cooperation in Japan, but the require- ments of occupation duties and the limita- tions of maneuver areas made the training plan impracticable. 3. The Air Porce's appropriations made it {mpossible for us to support each Army divi- sion with more than one group-——-75 planes. 4. Tactical air support was not neglected. Air-contro! parties were working with South Korean troops in the field 2 days after the fighting erupted before soldiers or marines were committed to action. Tactical air sup--t was inadequate dur- ing the early days of the fighting in Korea. It was inadequate for the identical reason that there were not enough soldiers, marines, tanks, and guns to stop the Communists. America was not prepared to fight. Two and & half years ago I testified in open congres- sional hearings that the United States needed 8 %-group Air Porce for the minimum cal- culated risk it could afford to take. On June 25, 1950, the Air Force had 48 groupe. There was absolutely no disposition on my or any other high officer's part to treat close support casually before Kores. If train- ing and experience are the yardsticks, I'm basically a tactical airman. After graduating from West Point in 1923, my first assignment was with an attack group at Kelly Field, where we flew orange crates that barely stag- gered off the ground when machine guns were put on the wings. The first 15 years of my career were devoted exclusively to flying, teaching, and studying tactical aircraft. The biggest job I had before my present one was command of the Ninth Air Force, which supported the First, Third, and Ninth United States Armies from Normandy to the Elbe. The ninth flew more combat sorties than all other American, allied, and enemy tactical forces combined. I don't profess to know ali the answers, but I’ve had as much experi- ence in ground-alr work as any man alive. People who don’t apprectate the true values of atr power think they are getting fine sup- port when they see a plane biast a mortar, tank, or machine-gun nest directly In front of them. That’s the most tneffective assist- ance the plane can give. The iden is to get the enemy's troops and weapons before they get Into position to hurt our side. The same bomb that knocks out 1 mortar om the battlefield can knock out a convoy of 10 mortars 50 miles behing the front. Pive hundred miles farther back that same bomb ean blow up a ratiroad engine or a bridge, preventing the arrival of 100 mortars in the battle area. A plane patroiiing the battlefield can hit ogly a limited number of widely scattered strong pointe that are, properly speaking, more poftable artillery targets. Artillery is much more accurete than « plane barreling along at a couple of hundred miles an hour. Field guns can rero mM on a target until it leveled, whereas a plane cannot keep up steady stream of fire. A plane's ptmch Wrapped up in its end range, assets that are best exploited by turning it Joose tek 3 hunt for targeta of opportunity far beyond artillery—troop concentrations, convoys, and motor pools, The damage from the air to the North Koreans was not immediately apparent in tite early stages of the war, of couree, To have implied, as many did, that tactical alr power failed was as ridiculous as saying the Navy's submarines were worthless in the Pacific sim- ply because their depredations on Japan's wartime shipping could not be seen at first hand. The airplane was never meant to be em- ployed as an antipersonnel weapon in the battle some. Its low efficiency when put to this use was demonstrated when the Chinese Communist hordes were thrown into Korea late in November. Hundreds of thousands of troops concentrated in even a relatively small arta Hke North Korea still were dis- persed so widely that intense seria] bom- berdment and strafing were unable to stop their advance. The events in Korea proved, once and for all, that tactical air power ts a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, ground strength. This is especially true against the Chinese soldter, whose ability to live on a handful of rice and to carry unbelievable burdens simplifies logistical problems. It ts not my province or my intention to criticiwe the decision of the United Nations which prevented air strikes at the Man- churian troop and supply depots supporting the Chinese. Isolating the battlefield from reinforcements is the prime function of tactical air, and I am simply stating the military fact that air power was practically inoperative when the UN, in en effort to avoid a diplomatic rupture with the Chinese Communists, halted offensive action at the Yalt River, the boundary between Manchuria and Korea. UN pilots scrupu- lously obeyed orders by cutting bridges across the Yalu only on the Korean aide, but those measures were nullified when the Yalu froze solidly, forming a natural bridge for the Chinese to move up with enough food and light-arms ammunition on their backs to sustain them for weeks. Accustomed to traveling on foot over long stretches of rough terrain, the Chinese hardly were itncon- venienced when they were forced to take back-country trails. Sheer mass more than compensated for the Chinese Reds’ lack of mobility and heavy equipment. When they encountered an obstacle, they merely flowed around our positions and continued to press forward tnexorably. We lost a battle in Korea, but air power kept us from losing a war. The Chinese, QGenied the use af roade during the day by UN air patrols, could not follow our forces fast enough to turn an orderly withdrawal into a rout. Everything from blood plasma to portable bridges was to isulated units, saving them from annihilation. And when an evacuation beachhead waa estab- lished st Hungnam, command of the air prevented the Chinese from bringing up the heavy artillery that could have riddled our troops at close range while they were jammed into the staging area waiting to board ships. Critics who disparaged the Air Force's per- formance earlier in Korea failed to under- stand or consider the difference between close support—attacks in their immediate battle genuine tactical alr power—at- tacks behind the lines to isolate the battie- held. I can't blame infantrymen who suffer the greatest persona) hardships in war, for feeling bitter and losing perspective of the “big picture"—an expression that has driven over? man in uniform wild. nothing but Maj. Gene. 1. B. Keiser, William B. Kean, and Hobart B. Gay, of the Second, Twenty-fifth, and First Cavalry Divisions, respectively, said APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Air had saved their units repeatedly. suppert given them. On November 15, Gen. eral MacArthur's headquarters annotmoed the Air Porce had accounted for 75 percent of the 900 to 1,000 Communist tanks de- stroyed. Three months earlier General Mac- Arthur wrote Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer: “The contrivution of the far-eastern air forces in the Korean conffict has been mag- nificent, They have performed thetr mission beyond all expectations,” A controversy affecting the lives of sol- diers cannot be settled by lining up votes as Mm 8 popularity contest. It is resolved tactical aviation is to help win the air war and to weaken the ability of the enemy’s people. that the Air Force did not do all it could to help the Army, opponents promoted the con- ventional propeller, piston plane as superior to the jet for close support, It was a sucker Play with few parallels. The piston planes used in Korea would have been slaughtered, had they been op- posed by jets. The Air Force's tactical arm is being converted to jet propulsinn es rap- idly as possible, on the sssumption that it must be prepared to fight a major power for control of the alr. That vital battle can be won only with jets—and the Soviet union has them in great numbers. Trying to evaluate the lessons of air power in Kores in the utter absence of enemy oppo- sition is a waste of time. The piston planes that hovered over ‘he battlefteld would have been forced to high-tail for home by one enemy jet. You can givo pretty fair ground support with an obeervation plane or a helicopter if the pilot can tool around with- out interference. I can see the inevitable question coming, Suppose we are committed to other Koreas, in Asia or Europe, where there is no enemy air? Isn't the slower, more reliable piston plane better for close support than the hot, erratic jet? The answer to that one is a cinch. Jeta are superior for every conceivable job manded of a fighter plane, including at treetop level to silence one machine gun. It has been proved by every test in the book. A fet pilot’s view of the target is clearer because there is no propeller obstructing his view, and the plane's power plant is behind him, rather than in front as In a piston. A ing, dive bombing, and skip bombing. The jets were not equipped to fire rockets, but actual combat tn Korea since has demon-