A90 Heil, Dewey! EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE L. HAYS OF O11t0 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks, I in- clude a column by Mr. Walter Winchell published in this morning’s Washington Post. It is, I believe, a most thoughtful and intelligent discussion of Governor Dewey’s request for emergency powers: WALTER WINCHELL IN New York . IUEIL, LEWEY! Governor Dewey has asked the State legis- lature to declare immediately a defense emer- gency, which would give him the most dic- tatorlal powers in American history. The Governor's request is marred by only two defects, both constitutional. Firstly, he hasn't the right to receive such powers; and, socondly, the legislature hasn’t the authority to give them. All of the gentlemen invo'ved swore to uphold the Constitution—and .irat old document was designed to stop any new- . fangled dictatorship, however sugar-coated. Getting right down to cases, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that after Congress has acted, in any given matter, the various States can't. Congress has passed a Civil Defense Act—and the State of New York 1s as much bound by !t as any private citizen. The subject of civil defense is a national problem, Governor Dewey can no more declare a state of national emer- gency in New York State than he can con- clude a separate treaty of peace with Russia or withdraw the New York National Guard from the Atlantic alliance. New York State still being a democracy, it is proper for citizens to ask questions. Here are a few: The Governor’s counsel states that the bill doesn’t give the Governor any new powers he doesn’t have. Then why pass it? The Governor’s counael states that the new bill simply defines the emergency. Does anyone seriously urge that an atomic attack has to be described by the State leg- isiature before the United States Army can act? The Governor, a very able lawyer, knows very well that the 15,000,000 citizens of New York State are also United States citizens. The United States Constitution protects a cit- izen from all governments, including the United States Government itself. The Gov- ernor asks the right to seize private property, including homes. The United States Con- stitution Bill of Rights and the New York State Bill of Rights prohibit it. The Gov- ernor's action not only supersedes the acts of Congress and usurps the President's pow- er, but supersedes both Bills of Righta while doing it, The Governor's bill constitutes the most amazing request ever made by an American executive. No President ever asked or even dreamed of asking for these powers. Amerie cans will have difficulty believing their eyes. The Governor wants these powers: To con- fiscate all communications systems, news- papers, radio stations, public utilities, and transportation, to evacuate persons or com- pel them to remain, to conscript men and women into work battalions, to confiscate private property including homes, to take over the banks, to demolish or prevent de- molishing of private buildings. Gov- ernor can greatly simplify his request by asking that New York State be fenced with barbed wire. The only request not made is that all newspapers—on the day before sel~ gure—print one uniform headline: “Heil, Dewey.” Even the most conservative newspapers in the State report that Governor's defense bill leaves New York State on the edge of martial law. Constitutionally, Governor Dewey can- not declare martial law in New York State except in case of actual invasion or noting or rebellion within the State. It is beyond his powers to put New York under bayonet because of what he thinks is going on in in- ternational affairs. Asa citizen he is entitled to his own opinion. But as Governor of the State he is absolutely bound by the rulings of the United States Government. This was decided not only in Philadelphia in 1789 but at Gettysburg in 1863. Again constitutionally, there 1s only one Government of the American people in inter- national affairs and that is the United States Government. To the extent that the Gov- ernor’s bill contradicts the Federal bill, New York State 1s defying the Federal Govern- ment in 1951 as completely as South Caro- lina did in 1861. There is this big difference: The people of South Carolina backed their State government. The people of New York will fight Governor Dewey's bill through every court in the land—and a lot of other places which needn't be mentioned now. The constitutional defects of the Gov- ernor’s proposals are not the most outra- geous aspect of the bill. The tragedy is that any American official would dare ask for such powers. No Trujillo has them; no Franco wields them; no President ever asked for them. Yet one governor out of 48 deems the eme.gency so great that he alone asks for them. Thus, New Jersey and Connecticut could be enjoying a free press under this law-—-while all New York dailies were ceized by Governor Dewey. New York citizens could be working in compulsory labor battalions— while the rest of the Union was pursuing its normal life. And for even questioning the order of the Civil Defense Office a New Yorker, under the law, could be sent to prison This is more than a problem for the peo- ple of New York State. It is a challenge to every United States citizen and to the Gov- ernment of the United States. The people of New York should not only protest—but the Congress of the United States should repri- mand the Governor. Dewey has no more right to preempt the rights of the Federal Government than he has the right to grab control of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Governor's bill is, of course, die-hard Republican isolationism at its tragic worst. Senator Tarr says we haven't the right to protect ourselves abroad. Herbert Hoover says we should fight only in the Western Hemisphere. Now, Governor Dewey thinks national defense Is narrowed to New York State. The grim fact is that if this country had 48 different systems of civil defense— instead of one national and coordinated plan—the job of licking us would be 96 times easier for the Communists. For in- stance, Governor Dewey claims the right to draft all New York men and women. What happens to the Federal Government’s pow- ers? Does this mean the Governor, follow- ing Senator Tart’s isolationism to its logical conclusion, claims the United States Govern- ment can't use New York citizens for the civil defense of California? Or Minnesota? Or Louisiana? Nonsense, Governor, non- sense. The shocking fact is that both New York parties are reported ready to call it a bi- partisan bill. This would be laughable if it weren't so insane. Just where the legisia- ture and the Governor think they get the power to make the rights of the people the subject of a political trade is something for which the New York voters are going to call them to account. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Governor has been a good governor— but after this bill the country will sigh its deepest sigh of relief that he wasn't elected President. Whew! As President Truman frequently grins, the Democrats can look pretty bad until some Republicans open their mouths Here We Go Again EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARE E. HOFF#AN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, indicating that we learn lit- tle, no matter what the cost to us in manpower may be, I submit herewith the toeow ine from Collier’s of November 25, 1 : New Tarroz, Same Orn Suir The chief purpose of this editorial—or, px. - haps, this postscript—is to call attention to the report from two members of Collier's Eu- ropean team, which appears on page 22, under the title of “The Nazis March Again—This Time for Stalin.” It is an illuminating and a disturbing account, and if you haven't read it already, you ought to now. Then if you are interested in our further thoughts on the matter, you can read on from here. It is quite natural that most of us, in and out of government, have been thinking and talking about Korea and the Far Enst in recent months. But that preoccupation should not make /mericans forget that Germany ts potentially another Korea, only on a bigger and more dangerous scale. The situation is much the same as it was in the cozy period of the Hitler-Stalin agreement back in 1939, only then the Russians and the Germans were strong and mutually suspi- cious neighbors. Today Stalin is the un- disputed boss of half of Germany, and he has been trying by every means short of war to control the whole country. One of those means is the increasing use of the remnants of Hitler’s party. The Russians aren't bothered by scruples. With a cynical disregard for consistency, they have perverted the Nasi philosophy to their own advantage. They flatter and pamper the former Nazis, and use them to subjugate the people of Soviet Germany. Probably this strange performance doesn’t strike the majority of Germans as being 60 very inconsistent, at that, For there isn’t much difference between Russian commu- nism and German nagism. In spite of superficial variations, they were cut from the same bolt of authoritarian cloth. The citi- zen of Soviet Germany is living in much the same sort of political world as the one that Hitler created, although physically it 1s much less comfortable. It is still a world of slogans and parades and uniforms, of phony elections, of strict discipline, spies, and secret police. The American Government's tough job is to block the Russians’ intention of setzing all of Germany, and at the same time to foster democracy and root out the still vig- orous growth of nazism in its own zone. In trying to do this joh the Government is at something of 9 disadvantage because it is honest. American authorities are trying to create a unified, democratic Germany by legitimate means. They are trying to fulfil! a promise to the Germans of eventual self-government, individual freedom, and a chance to win back
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD their country’s place in the community of peace-loving nations. They are trying to fulfill that promise in spite of Russian op- position, the indifference and hostility of many Germans, and their own uncertainties and mistakes. It is a discouraging assign- ment, but the American authorities have not compromised with principles. There doesn't seem to be any answer to America’s long-range problem in Germany except to continue the country’s education in democracy, even if it means an indefinite occupation, But it does seem that our Gov- ernment might take more positive action against the immediate dangers that confront it. We think it ought to crack down on the neo-Nazi parties that have sprung up in the West. And we think it should arm Western Germany unless the Russians agree to disarm their so-called police forces in the eastern zone. Earlier we said that Germany was potenti- ally another Korea. But the problem of Western Germany, unlike the problem of South Korea, can't be settled simply by giv- ing it tanks, guns, and planes. There is a grave risk in arming the West Germans— the risk that they might not fight well ina civil war for a free government that many of them apparently don't want, or the risk that they might go over to the Russian side. But it is a calculated risk which, we be- lfeve, should be taken. A defenseless West- ern Germany is a rich prize which the covetous Russians are training their Nazi stooges to pluck for them. We can see no virtue in tempting further Soviet aggression by the same inaction that brought on the Korean War. Social Security Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following editorial from the Chris- tian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., Monday, January 8, 1951: INSURANCE SHOULD Be SURE With the start of the new year 10,000,000 more persons than were covered before have become part of the social-security system of old-age insurance in the United States, this under legislation passed last August. This means that 10,000,000 more persons, making a total of 45,000,000, have a direct, tangible concern in the financial stability of the system set up to pay the retirement bene- fits they have been promised. The principal feature of that set-up today is a trust fund of more than $13,000,000,000 invested in United States Government bonds. That is a very large sum, accumulated during 15 years’ operation of the Social Security Act. But before the end of this century, Gov- ernment actuaries estimate, it will take more than 611,000,000,000 a year to pay the old- age benefits established by the 1950 amend- ments to the Soctal Security Act. In other ‘words, every year there will be needed almost as large a sum as has been saved up during 15 years. At one time it was thought that it would be difficult to find investment for a large enough trust fund to make old-age insur- ance actuarially sound. But there is no dif- ficulty on that score now. Even if the trust account tomorrow could be built up to the $74,000,000,000 maximum it should reach in 1990, that would fund less than one-third of the Nation's public debt. The trust fund, of course, is raised by payroll taxes on employers and employees. Those taxes started in 1987 at 1 percent on each, It was intended then that the rate at rise gradually to 8 percent each by Actually the rate increases were postponed by various Congresses until the rise to 1% percent on employer and employee was only made in 1950. The amendments passed last year extended that rate through 1953 and me off the reaching of a 3 percent rate until 1965 What happens if the latter years of this century find the United States without a large enough trust fund to pay the old-age insurance benefits which workers have been told they were building up for themselves while they and their employers contributed payroll taxes? In that case, workers and employers of that generation, besides meeting payroll taxes of 8 percent or more, will be asked to pay additional general taxes to meet the cost of retirement benefits which today's genera- tion has promised to itself but been unwill- ing in practice to provide. Is that playing fair with the next or the third generation? We do not think so. On the contrary, we think Congress and the Nation—while they are revising taxes for defense this year—ought to have the stamina and economic courage to raise the payroll tax to 2 percent for 1951, or at latest 1952, in- stead of waiting till 1964 for that set-up to take effect. Then, increases for succeeding years ought to be advanced instead of post- poned. This would be in keeping with the pur- poses of absorbing excess purchasing power to prevent inflation during the rearmament effort. It would pick up more of the burden in a period of maximum employment, and if it is not done now, when will it be done? If America is in earnest about its promises of old-pge insurance, it should take genuine financial steps to make that insurance sound. It seems to us that a quickened rate of advance in the payroll taxes to assure old- age benefits is in the interests of a sound defense economy, will provide more surely for the retirement of present-day workers, and is the course of honor to be chosen rather than sloughing these obligations onto children now in the nursery. The Situation as We See It EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN BELL WILLIAMS OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 3, 1951 Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Hon. J. B. Snider, forme. Lieu- tenant Governor of Mississippi and now editor of the Natchez (Miss.) Times, has undertaken the tremendous task of in- forming the readers of his newspaper re- garding the brutal facts now facing the American people through a column en- titled “The Situation As We See It.” In an article in the January 2 issue of the Times he warns the public that 5 years of war financing and limited civil- jan production are ahead of us. Mr, Snider is neither an alarmist nor a pessi- mist. He is realistic to the point of bluntness. If our diplomats for the past A91 40 years had been endowed with a small part of Mr. Snider's straightforwardness and old-fashioned Americanism, I have little doubt but that there would still be peace in the world. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the afore-mentioned article. It follows: THe SrrvaTion as We Sex It (By J. B. Snider) The new Congress will be organized Wed- nesday. Since June, when the present Korean War started, the retiring Congress hag voted $87,000,000,000 for national de- fense. This in addition to the $14,000,000,000 that was appropriated by the 1949 Congress for the expansion of the military and naval machine in 1960. Fitty-four billion dollars is lots of money. It is equivalent to 6334 for every man, woman, and child, white and colored, in the United States. If a mother and father have two children their thought will be, well we cer- tainly didn't pay four times 8334. But that is only what you think—you did—or rather you will. Your family’s part is $1,836 and will be paid by you. Of course the actual cash may be collected from General Motors, United States Steel, General Electric, At- lantic & Pacific Tea Co., Sears, Roebuck, and 1,000,000 other concerns but brother and sister you will pay it. You pay it when you plank down 20 cents for a dime loaf of bread; or when you pay $16 for a pair of $4 shoes, or $300 for a $200 refrigerator, or $1,800 for a $900 automobile. Just remember you pay it and will con- tinue to pay it for the remainder of your life and your children will probably be paying for it all of their lives. And this $54,000,000,000 is just a starter. It will probably be 686,v00,000,000 in 1951 for 1952 and $100,000,000,000 in 1952 for 1953 and on and on. You can't figure out how the Nation can pay it? Well, you are no different trom the bankers in Wall Street, members of the Federal Reserve Board or the 10,000 top bankers, financial authorities, and economists of this Nation. Of course there are a great many people right here in Natchez who do not believe we are going to have a war. And they ad- vance some pretty 400d arguments about it. They are certainly entitted to thelr views on the matter, and they have the advantage in an argument in that al of us devoutly hope they are right. Anything is better than a war provided the substitute leads to a last- ing peace. We are not willing to go along with the idea of peace In an armed state al- ways awaiting and expecting war. To us there would be no point tn living under con- ditions of that kind. Unless a permanent peace plan can be worked out, we think we should get the thing behind us and then pray that ‘ve shall not forget the lesson we have just learned. That we wil never again turn this Nation over to wild-eyed, long- hair visionary idiota who no doubt mean well but are responsible for this terrible mess we now find ourselves involved in. But whether there is to be war or not, the little man on the street, the man who works with his hands, whether he drives nails, builds tires, makes paper pulp, sews gar- ments, makes vwllboard, sells groceries, shoes or drugs, automobiles or candy, can get himself set for a minimum of 5 years of war conditions. It will take from 2 to 8 years to get the defenses perfected and will take at least 2 years to reconvert if we escape a general world war. So we have a minimum of 5 years of war financing and limited civilian production either way it goes. But it ts not going to be as bad—anything like as bad—as !t could be. Remember that in 1045 more than half of the people of the world were hungry and at least two-thirds of
A92 them were naked or at best in rags. The people of this Nation will always have pien- ty to eat, plenty to wear, and far more com- fortable places to sleep than 90 percent of the other people of the world. We will al- ways have more a.nusements. ‘We shall maintain our right to free speech and a free press, free religion, and the right to peaceful assembly and petition regardless of what happens anywhere else in the world. Along with these privileges we have the abil- ity to produce the things that enables a na- tion to win a war far beyond the ability of any other nation. So on January 2, 1961, as we face an unknown future we have an as- surance that we are capable of taking care of ourselves if given the right kind of leader- ship in Washington. We are said to be the world’s greatest Christian nation. When you look around you, of course, you can’t help but wonder what goes on in other nations that we rate any such title. Because if we are to be rated by our individual observance of the commandments laid down and the teaching of the Lord Christ we lack a great dedl of being a Christian nation. All of your life you have heard the statement that “in every national emergency the Lord raises up & leader.” There is no question we need a leader right now—we need one desperately. But are we as a nation of people in position to ask the Lord to deliver us? What have we done to merit His support and protection? We are not trying to preach a sermon. This writer knows, and his friends know, that he is no better than any of the rest of you. We don't want to be hypocritical. We are not approaching this from a religious angie. We are merely thinking out loud. We believe that all of us are that we need a leader and quickly. We need help and badly. The only thing that could intervene right now would be the work of a merciful Father who could take this bitter cup from our Ups. But as we look around us, just as you can look around you right at this moment, we wonder what right we have to expect Him to intervene in our behalf? Perhaps you know. This writer doesn't. Without this intervention you can prepare now for 6 or 10 years of the most intensive effort of your life, and we will be a lucky people if, when it is over, we have any vestige of freedom left. How Right You Were, Mr. Baruch EXTENSICN OF REMARKS HON. GORDON CANFIELD OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday night in Passaic, N. J., in an ad- dress before the Passaic Dante Club and yesterday on the floor of the House, after the President’s appeal for unity, I pro- posed that he immediately draft into the services of the Nation former President Herbert Hoover and Bernard M. Baruch. Today I find in my morning paper the timely appraisal of Mr. Baruch by Mer- ryle Stanley Rukeyser, International News Service economic commentator. Under the caption “How right you were, Mr. Baruch,” Mr. Rukeyser says: Bernard M. Baruch was a preeminently useful consultant to Presidents largely be- cause of his remarkable sense of timing. Unlike the academic mind—the so-called brain truster—Mr. Baruch has always had a facility for knowing the score early. Not having a professorial mind, Mr, Baruch never waits until after the event to realize what has happened. In the famous Jeak investigation in World War I, Mr. Baruch made it clear that in stock-market action he did not act on in- side information about a peace maneuver but was motivated by his sixth sense In interpreting the significance of the word “but” tn a published State paper. Outnumbered by the Communist hordes, we must survive by recognizing human quality, not quantity. The so-called academic mind {s less crea- tive, and is less nimble. Survival In the competitive world and in stock-market speculation when turning points come requires a swiftness of decision and a special alertness. It should be remembered that months ago Myr. Baruch issued a strong clarion call for all-out mobilization. Mr. Baruch’s argument was that at worst full mobilization will cost some money, whereas the alternative of possibly losing a war would be an irrecoverable loss and might end our tradition as a free nation. With his maturity of Judgment, Mr. Ba- ruch this month became a stronger potential political influence than he has been in many years. This situation springs from two factors. First, recent events have demonstrated how right he was. Second, the dominant position in the Eighty-second Oongress of the Southern Democrats, who respect Mr. Baruch, over the Fair Deal Democrats indicates that Mr. Ba- ruch’s advice will be more actively sought. Certainly he is also respected by most Re- publicans. . As principal atomic adviser, Mr. Baruch tested the intentions of the Russians. When the Soviet Union turned down the Baruch formula for sharing atomic energy on & pro- tected basis through provision for inspection behind the tron curtain, it was a signal that the United States of America had to prepare to rely on its own physical power. There was no justification for backing and filling in policy after that. In recent months, routineers have whined at the high prices paid for tin, rubber, and wool from British Empire sources. But Mr. Baruch’s approach was different. He pub- licly pdvocated buying England's wool and other raw materials when prices were low. In taking such 8 practical and well-timed position, he was acting in accordance with his long experience as a Wall Street specu- lator. This fact should be underscored. Mr. Baruch exemplifies the possibility of using intelligence to tie today to tomorrow. He is an expert on the economics of sur- vival, and he should be promptly summoned by a congressional committee to provide a blueprint for survival, including o business- like set-up for importing and exporting. Mr. Baruch is very much in favor with the men in the Eighty-second Oongreas who con- trol the Nation’s purse strings. The World Is Mine EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. RANKIN, Mr. Speaker, under permission granted me to extend my re- marks, I am inserting a short poem en- titled “The World Is Mine.” I do not APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD know the author, but I do know that it carries a powerful message, and one that all Americans should heed, It reads as follows: Today, upon a bus, I saw A pretty girl with golden hair. I envied her, she seemed 80 gay, I wiehed that I could be so fair. But then, when she arose to leave, I saw her hobble down the aisle, She had one leg and used a crutch. And yet, she passed me with a smile. Oh, God, forgive me when I whine, I have two legs, the world is mine. And then I stopped to buy some sweets, The lad who sold them had such charm; I talked with him—he seemed #0 glad— If I were late ‘'twould do no harm. And as I left he said to me, “Please come again, you've been so kind, “It's nice to talk with folks like you, “Because, you see,” he smiled, “I'm blind.” Oh, God forgive me when I whine, I have two eyes, the world ts mine. Then, walking down the street I saw A pretty child with eyes of blue. He stood and watched the others play, It seemed he knew not what to do. I stopped a moment, then I asked, “Why don’t you join the others, dear?” He looked ahead without a word, And then I knew he could not hear. Oh, God forgive me when I whine, I have two ears, the world is mine. With legs to take me where I'd go, With eyes to see the sunset glow, With ears to hear what I would know— Oh, God forgive me when I whine, I’m blessed indeed, the world is mine. Where Are the Troops of Our Fellow Nations in the So-Called United Nations Army? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GORDON CANFIELP OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. CANFIELD. “Where are the troops of our fellow nations in the so- called UN Army?” is the caption of a timely and challenging editorial in the Paterson (N. J.) Morning Call of Mon- day, January 8, 1951. This editorial re- flects the heartfelt sentiments of hun- dreds of my constituents who are parents of the boys in our armed services. The editorial follows: Wert ARE THe Troors or Our Fr.Low Nations In THE So-Catizn UN Armx? David Lawrence in his famous column on Saturday backed up the Call’s position in the now calamitous Korean campaign of the United Nations Army which except for our British ally is practically an all-American expedition of ill-fated retreat and slaughter, when he said: “The people know very little about the Korean War. They know only that tans of thousands of troops are engaged in war, and that while it is called a ON opera- tion the troops of the United States com- prise almost all of the UN forces in Korea. The American people have not been tald why the other members of the UN have failed to send troops in large numbers since lest June.” ‘The fact of thie fatiure is that there ts no good or justifiable reason. Therefore the Tru.nan administration, whose diplunuts
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD falled to get troop commitments from the forty-some nations which voted to send a United Nations Army to the assistance of South Korea, seek to cover up the blunder with silence. Now as a result of this failure to our demo- cratic allies to reinforce our United States troops—as was naturally expected and would have been done had our delegates to the UN insisted upon it—we see our heroic but sadly outnumbered American boys being put to rout in far-off Korea, tortured and wounded and giving up their lives. And in the mean- time not a single son of our wealthy South American neighbors or of our European al-ies, once again enjoying prosperity through the billions of recovery program dollars handed out by United States taxpayers, is on the way to relieve and refill the battered ranks of our so-called United Nations Army. With the bloody slaughter of our stranded troops still mounting, it is high time for our United States delegates to the UN to start shouting bloody murder and demand that every member nation which voted in favor of Korean intervention by the United Nations contribute their proportionate share of troops to pull victory out of deteat in Ko- rea. If the majority are unwilling to do that much now, after our Nation has borne the brunt of the onslaught for 7 months, and immediately, to rebwild the shattered UN Army, then they have no right to expect our country to send one more man, let alone the million necessary, to drive back the countless hordes of North Korean and Chi- nese Reds out of the smoking rubble of what was once the South Korean Republic. There is no justice, there is no sense in making our boys go it alone, and before more thousands of them are killed in the at- tempt, we call upon our President and his self-appointed UN delegates to demand that reinforcements for the United Nations Army be mustered in at once from the other mem- bers of the United Nations; that a vote for such reinforcements be promptly moved in the UN Assembly; and if the majority vote against such troop participation that we then pull our own forces out of the cauldron of slaughter and save thousands of our finest sons from further military suicide 6,000 miles away from home. Isn’t it better to pull out now under such go-it-alone conditions, as we did from the Philippines early in World War II, and con- serve our strength for the bigger crisis ahead, than to let ourselves be bled white in already ruined Korea and thus play right into Stalin’s grasping hands? The Call believes the majority of our citl- gens, if given a vote on the question, would agree with us overwhelmingly that it is. Ce eUemnnmmammns sessenmnmeenmmanad Farm Production in the Present Emergency EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT R. O’CONOR OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 11 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week members of the Maryland Agricultural Society Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., and affiliated organ- izations were privileged to hear the dis- tinguished junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AnpERson] discuss matters of interest to the farming element of our country. As a former Secretary of Agriculture, where his work was outstanding in the Nation's interests, the Senator from New Mexico is held in highest regard and respect by the farm people of our State, who greeted his remarks on this occasion with the utmost interest. I ask unanimous consent that the ad- dress by the able Senator be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be minted in the Recorp, as follows: When I accepted the invitation to come here today, I recognized that the Eighty- second Congress would be meeting in a sober mood to deal with serious problems. I had just reached a firm decision that I would not leave Wushington for a speaking engagement while the Congress was in session. But I ac- cepted your invitation for the reason that Baltimore is so close to Washington that I could cancel at the last moment if I had to and for the additional reason that when so much attention is being paid to industrial mobilization it might be worth while occa- sionally for a few friends of the farmer to examine at a meeting of farm organizations some of the problems that may lie ahead in the agricultural] field. I admit that I like to speak to convene tions of State farm bureau members. You belong to a glant farm organization. The latest available figures which I have received indicate that upon the basis of farm families there are about 1,450,000 families in the Americ-n Farm Bureau Federation, possi- bly 420,000 farm families in the grange and 220,000 farm families in the farmers union. You represent, therefore, a tremendously sig- nificant segment of American rural life and an important part of America’s mobilization for defense. The hardest task these days is to read newspapers and magazines and not become slightly confused by conflicting information. For example, just as 1950 was drawing to a close there appeared in the Washington Daily News under date of December 28 an editorial which started off this way: “The Defense Production Act of 1950—the law authorizing Government price-wage controls—actually forbids effective control of food prices. “Farm-bloc Congressmen saw to that.” I was surprised and displeased by that statement. I was not conscious that farme- bloc Congressmen had had a thing to do with those sections of the Defense Produc- tion Act to which objection was being taken. I clipped the editorial, attached it to a sheet of paper, and said, “I’m going to comment on that when I speak in Baltimore.” A few nights later I picked up the issue of Newsweek for January 8 and read that one of the hottest fights in the new Congress will be over food-price controls. The article stated that “existing law frustrates such controls by exempting farm prices from ceil- ings until they reach parity, All but 9 of the 40 chief crops are thus legally entitled to healthy rises—up to 100 percent for potatoes, grapefruit, lemons—instead of the checks that might be indicated to stem inflation.” I was tempted to take some pretty strong ex- ception to that or at least to point out that if lemons were entitled to raise 100 percent pecause of the operation of the parity con- cept it was only evidence that parity does not work perfectly in every case. It doesn’t work for grapefruit; it doe.n’t work for a number of other items, but by and large it is a useful yardstick. Then I came to the next sentence in the item, and it read this way: “Congressmen representing industrial areas will battle with the farm bloc to amend the law so as to hold down food ceilings.” When I read that I knew that I was going to have something to A93 say about it at this convention. I rarely get in the mood to fight with the Congressmen from industrial areas, because I regard my- self as representing every section of my State, industrial as well as agricultural. T hate to see a pitched battle take place be- tween Congressmen who represent purely in- dustrial areas and Congressmen who repre- sent strictly agriculture areas. I say that bee cause four-fifths of the population of the United States lives in towns and cities, and the one-fifth living on farms carry the bur- den of supplying food for all the rest of us, Any battle that pute four-fifths of the popu- lation against one-fifth is an unequal battle to start, and if it is not a necessary battle, it certainly is one that should not be under- taken or encouraged. With that introduction, let's see how much truth there Js to the steadily repeated asser- tion that farm-bloc Congressmen wrote into the Defense Production Act of 1950 a lot of language which makes it impossible to control food prices or hold them within reasonable mits. I wondered what the attitude had been of the farm organizations, particularly the American Farm Bureau Fed- eration, so I checked back into my files and found that president Allan B. Kline, speak- ing in behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on S. 3936, the com- panion bill to H. R. 9176 which is the act referred to, testified on July 26, 1950. His formal remarks were confined to section 412 of the bill which was a proposition to modi- fy the existing sales policy of the Commo- dity Credit Corporation with reference to the sale of Government-owned farm commodl- ties. President Kline spoke in opposition to that section and pointed to the basic rules of the present policy on the sale of Govern- ment-owned commodities as they were car- ried in section 407 of the Agricultural Act of 1949. I was to some degree at least, an author of the Agricultural Act of 1949 and, therefore, I appreciated the fact that your president had believed it better to hold to those provisions than to introduce new and revolutionary ideas about the sale of Com- modity Credit stocks. Right there before I go any farther, I want to insert the thought that I have had some convictions on these Government-owned stocks for quite a little while. I spoke at the Western Region Farm Bureau Confer- ence at Fort Collins, Colorado on June 17, 1950, and I started right out talking about farm surpluses. I reminded my Farm Bu- reau friends in the West that newspaper and radio accounts of Government price-support operations had tended to create the impres- sion that agriculture was confronted with huge, unmanageable stocks of deteriorating farm commodities. So I tried to give my friends a few facts. I told them (and I am quoting now): “Our so-called surpluses are not nearly as large as the public apparently thinks they are. We do have relatively large stocks of some farm commodities, but these stocks are not all surpluses. * * * We need re- serves of food, feed, and fiber to meet unex- pected requirements and to tide us over in years when we may have short crops due to unfavorable weather or other conditions. It is only when we have more than we need for current use and reasonable reserves that we can say we have a surplus. This situa- tion prevails today for a very few commodi- ties. “Our present supply of corn exceeds @ nore mal supply by only enough to last our popue lation for 67 days. Our cotton supply ex- ceeds normal by only enough to meet our domestic and export needs for 93 days. Our wheat stocks are above normal by only enough to meet our needs for 112 days. “Reasonable reserves of storable farm com- modities are the best insurance consumers can have against snortages and unreasonable