| ! AS4 prices, because the prices of farm products skyrocket when supplies fali short of needs. “A single year of the kind of weather we had in 1947 would wipe out our present re- serve stocks of corn. The short 1947 corn crop caught us without adequate reserves. I am sure that everyone can remember the resulting difficulties. We had a feed con- servation program. Even so the production of meat and other livestock products went down and prices went up. We had meatless days aad poultryless days. Both farmers and consumers suffered. This was only 2 years ago-—our memories are short, aren't they?” That is the end of my long quotation. ‘That talk was made before Korea. It has been interesting to me to note the changes in the words used to describe the Government-cwned stocks of most price- supported commodities. At first they were labeled “surpluses”; then, “so-called sur- pluses”; later, “reserves”; still later “stock- piles,” and now they have become “store- houses of strength.” From time to time we hear it charged that the farm program is forcing consumers to pay unreasonable prices for the necessities of life. These charges originate with the unin- formed, with thcse who would abolish all price supports, and with those who want to convince consumers that they would get a better deal if some other system were sub- stituted for price supports. Regardless of where thzy originate, the charges that the farm program is keeping food prices high In America are false. As a matter of fact, food ja relatively cheap in this country. It takes fewer hours of work to earn the money to pay for food in America than in ny other major country in the world. In 1935-89, consumers spent 73 percent of their dis- posable income for food. Currently, they are spending 26 percent; however, they are eating better. If the American people ate the same varieties nnd per capita quantities they ate in 1035-39, that food which cost consumers 23 percent of their income in those years would cost them only 19 percent of their income today. . The fact that food prices are higher in dollars and cents today than before World War II ts evidence that the value of the dollar went down during the inflation which re- sulted from the war. It is not evidence that consumers are worse off. As a matter of fact, when the increase in consumer incomes is considered, consumers are better off. Consumers should expect to pay a fatr price for food—just as they expect farmers to pay a fair price for the things they buy. Now to return to the claim that farm-bloc Congressmen. saw to it that it was impossible to establish effective control on food prices. This matter came to the foor of the Senate on December 19 last and Senator MAYBANK, chairman of the Senate Committee on Bank- ing and Currency, testified that the commit- tee, not any lobby, unanimously agreed on the price contro! provisions relating to agri- cultural commodities. That checks with my own observation. I know that I did not urge the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to take any action. I know that Senator AIKEN, the ranking Republican member of the Agriculture Committee, did not. I'm sure that Senator Thomas of Oklahoma, who was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Commit- tee, made no special ples and so far as I could learn at the time, not a single representative of what might be called the farm bloc ap- peared before the Benate Banking and Cur- rency Committee and asked that committee to do anything on prices. The only time that any legislative proposal that appeared to be inflationary came before the Senate was when Senator Younc tntro- duced an amendment fixing rigid 90-percent supports. I'm going to deal with that tn a minute, but before I da, I want to add a few particulare concerning Mr. MATaaNnK's testi- mony, @2nator Maysanx potnted out that he had requested the staff of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to look into the law and facta so that whatever he stated was absolutely correct in every detail. He then read a prepared statement which is carried in the ConargssionaL Recorp, volume 96, part 12, at page 16743, and in that state- ment pointed out that all the committee tried to do was get a fair relationship be- tween agricultural prices and other prices as they existed during the period from May 24 to June 24, 1950. The statement carries this rather important ning: “It would be manifestly unfair, for"txample, to fx a price on a farm commodity at a price existing to- day when that price had changed hardly at all over the last 6 months, while the prices of numerous other nonfarm commodities had k.sn moved up from 25 to 50 percent in some cases.” The statement pointed out that in June 1948 when wheat was selling for $2.81, a 1-pound loaf of bread was selling for 13.8 cents. By October 1950 when wheat had @ropped to $1.91 a bushel the same loaf of bread was selling for 14.7 cents. In other words, bread was selling about a penny higher and wheat was down nearly a dollar a bushel. The question naturally arose, who was reaping the profit out of inflation—the farmer, the distributor, or the processor? I deal with this because 1 hope this su- dience will realize and in time make other audiences aware of the fact that an increase in the cost of living is not always caused by an increase in the price of farm commodities. There te in the Defense Production Act a provision relating to the establishment of fair and equitable margins of profit for processors. That was a provision carried in the old OPA law and picked up in the new legislatio:. It is not there to protect farm- ers, and it was not put there by the farm bloc. It was inserted by Senator Roserr- gon, of Virginia. I happened to be presid- ing over the Senate at the time this amend- ment was adopted, and I can recall that those who were urging and pressing it and particularly interested in it were not then concerned with the welfare of the farmer but were aiming at protection for the pack~- ing houses and produce dealers and the peo- ple who handled and processed the goods which the farmer grows. 80 I say to you that the things that are in the law which might be regarded as inflationary were not put there by farmers or at the request of farmers or at the request of the farm bloc or by the instrumentality of the farm bloc in the Senate or House of the United States. I referred 8 moment ago to the amend- ment which was offered, which would have required rigid supports up to 90 percent of parity. I said I wanted to comment on that again, and Ido. It just happens that when this particular amendment came to the floor of the Senate it seemed to have a good deal of support. That discussion is in the Con- GReSsIONAL Recogp, volume 96, part 10, page 12888. I want to give these page references so that there can be no question as to what farmers’ friends and members of the s0- called farm bloc were doing at that time. One of the Members of the United States Senate asked Senator Youna a good many questions, and it looked as though the amendment might be accepted. For in- stance, I give you these words from one of the Senators because he used some different words later on. This particular Senator said: “Mr. President, I think the amendment is splendid, and I shall support it.” A few moments after he said that, I ob- tained the floor and raised a point of order against the amendment. I tried to point out that tn my opinion the object of the bill ‘was to contro! the cost of living and the ob- ject of the amendment was to raise the cost of living. I called attention to the fact that the bill started with proposals to protect consumers, wage earners, persons with rela- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tively fixed and limited incomes and 1 in- glsted that the amendment was not designed to protect thom but it was designed to do the complete reverse of that. While I was talk- ing the Senator who had sald the amendment was splendid and he was going to support it went through some papers on his desk and discovered that he had a telegram from the president of the Farm Bureau of his State. That telegram opposed the 90 percent rigid mandatory price support on basic commodi- ties, The Senator was prompted to reread the telegram. The result was that when I had finished speaking against the amend- ment, that same Senator put Into the Rrcoxp the telegram from the president of the Farm Bureau of his State and that Senator voted ‘against the amendment because he under- stood then that it was probably inflationary and had no place in the law. I mention that as specific proof that Sena- tors who are identified with farm legislation, and I am certainly one of them, were not trying to load down the law with inflation- ary items designed to increase the cost of Mving and push farm prices out of sight. I mention it also to bring out the fact that the State unita of the American Farm Bu- reau Federation were going down the line trying their very best to keep the bill from being an inflationary bill, that way back there, long before many people were fight- ing inflation the farm organizations—partic- ularly and sometimes single handedly the American Farm Bureau Federation-—tried to hold down inflation. I can just hear you saying to yourselves, “Why so much fuss about a little item in a newspaper story.” Well, I think it’s im- portant that we hit these things as early es they show their head. I think it's im- portant that the farmers of this country fight back when they are unjustly accused. I think it’s important that the farm or- ganizations Jet friend and foe alike know where they stand on these public questions and that they steadily say to every news- paper writer and radio commentator and Member of Congress that when the record is written they want to be sure that the man who writes it lives up to the divine com- mandment, “Thou shalt not bear false wit- ness.” During the week end I read carefully the address of President Kiine delivered at Dallas, Tex., on December 12. I like a great deal of what he satd. There are some things In his address that I wouldn’t agree to, just as there will be things in mine to which he would take exception. I don’t mention his address in order to endorse ‘t all but I men- tion it to make this point, that no one can read it and not be impressed with the fact that the head of the American Farm Bureau Federation is against inflation and is stand- ing vigorously for those things which he thinks will help control inflation. I call your attention to the fact that as head of your organization he speaks out vigorously in favor of large production. In that connection, I want to commend the Department of Agriculture for its action of the past few days in taking production controls off corn and wheat. It is probable that the action of the Department may re- sult in the accumulation of extra large stocks of either corn or wheat and that this coun- try may take some substantial losses because of that but there is no other safe way to play the situation. We cannot take a chance on being short of corn or wheat in days of emergency ‘ike these and the De- partment in my opinion was sbundantly right im asking for increased production of corn and wheat, not only from the tmpera- tive consideration of our national defense and our need to have sufficient food on hand to take care of our economy, but also from the standpoint of our war against inflation because the very presence of large stocks of corn and wheat will do more to hold down
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the prices of corn and wheat than 111 the laws passed by the Congress of the United States. I want to remind this audience that I had a little something to do with the agri- cultural program at the time we were mov- ing out of World War II. I know how hard it was to enforce price ceilings when we were actually in the war and when every patriotic impulse moved good people to liv. up to the law of the land, but I Know also how impos- sible price ceilings became the very day that we had accomplished our purpose and tho Japanese had followed the Germuns into sur- render, I heard stories and made personal investigations of what people had done who were violating the ceilings on cattle prices. I called particular attention one time to an individual operating in the State of Ohlo who seemec able despite crtlings to buy every cow that was offered in an auction ring anywhere in that State. He paid higher prices consistently than everybody and is Mttle slaughtering establishment was buying cattle away from every major packer in the United States. An investigator was sent out to check on this individual. The investi- gator came back to report that the little butcher was the stupidest person he had ever met, that he didn’t keep a book, he didn't keep a record, he had no idea what his cat- tle were costing him, he had no idea how much he was getting for his meat and he couldn't begin to tell him whether he had or had not violated the OPA ceilings. I thought that the man running the little packing plant wasn’t quite as stupid as tho person who had investigated him, but any- how his plant finally closed down, because we later proved he was violating the law of the land. The tragedy was that every time one plant was closed down tor violations, two or three other plants stepped into exist- ence and went even further with their viola- tions. That is why many of us have be- lieved that abundant production of agricul- ture commodities is the best price pulice- man we could have on our economic tront, I get off my subject once in a while in my enthusiasm to talk about some phase of this situation, and I suppose I ought to return to the address of President Kline to which I was directing my comments a few moments ago. Actually, however, leaders of farm organiza- tions and Members of the Congress of the United States might be far apart on the question of when controls should be put upon agricultural prices. The one thing that I want to remind you is that there are very few commodities now that would be in- fluenced by the imposition of price controls as the law now stands on the statute books. The two spots where controls would right now become effective would be (1) cotton and cottonseed and (2) livestock, principally cattle, Jambs and veal calves. I'm sure we all remember the difficulties of the last war. Every effort was made to work out an easy, fair, and equitable basis for ceilings on cattle and livestock products. We toyed with the idea of ceilings upon cate tle on the hoof and we had to discard it be- cause of the extreme difficulty of grading cattle in the stockyards of this country, to say nothing of their grading by thousands of butchers in smaller communities all over the United States. When we began putting the ceilings on dressed meat, the question always arose as to whether those ceilings were ade- quate to permit the fattening of beof in the feed lots of Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio. I sat in conference after conference in the office of the economic stabilizers as they struggled with this problem of where to set the ceiling on beef in order that it might refiect an adequate profit to the individual who was fattening that beef and preparing it for the market. One of the dangers always ahead ts what happens tf the margin ts too low. You and 1 know that the skeleton of an animal and the hide around that skeleton are not beef, If the animal ts sold thin, the American public buys little energy and food. But when that skeleton is put upon our pastures and allowed to pack a few hundred pounds of flesh around its bones and then is brought into a feed lot and crammed with nutritious corn, it makes beef and makes it rapidly. The skeleton weighs about as much one time as another. The gain made by the animal in the pasture and in the feed lot represents the production of beef. If there isn’t a price margin that permits that type of meet production to go on, then we only reduce the amount of beef avalil- able in the markets, and when we reduce it we make it subject to all the pressures of black-market operators everywhere in the land. It is only when we have a large number of cattle on the feed lots of this country being fed to substantial weights that we are able to take care of our de- mand for good red meat. I realize that the imposition of ceilings on livestock might for a time help in the control of prices in a few retail stores, but if the ceilings re- sult, in the elimination of feed lots and the marketing of beef that has not been brought to maturity, then we shortly will be worse off than we are at present. So we need to exercise great care in trying to put ceilings on meat. Now, just a word about cotton. We are at a point in this country where it is nec- essary to restrict the exportation of our present cotton stocks. We surely need a crop of 16,000,000 bales tn 1961. We could harvest 17,009,000 bales and not hurt any- thing. The probabilities are that we will be fortunate if we get 14,000,000 bules. We may have to carry over into 1952 and suc- ceeding years the necessity of filling up the cotton reservoir which has been drained in these Jast few months. What will produce a great crop of cotton is a price incentive. Already the farmers in my part of the world are pleading with me about fertilizer and insecticides and they are saying that they are not going to plant cotton if they are not assured @& better supply of insecticides and fertilizer than now seems likely, The one thing that will tempt them to plant even if the in- socticide market is still uncertain when planting time comes is the possibility of a good price and the probability that even if the crop is short the price will be good and that good price times low production will produce a total tncome which will still per. mit them to break even If the price of cotton drops to a point that barely covers the cost of production, the farmer will shift to another crop that offers a better finan- cial return. You can't expect him to gam- ble with the weather, gamble with the sup- ply of machinery, gamble with insecticides, gamble with fertilizer, gamble with man- power, and then face the prospect of a price that barely permits him a chance to break even, He'll be looking for those com- modities which present a chance to make rensonablo and fair profits. He will be stimulated to supply the things we need most if prices on those things are attractive. So I say that there are many items to be considered in connection with the imposi- tion of restrictive limitations on agricultural prices. You don't get production unless you pay for it. When the Government asks for more steel or copper or automobiles or trucks or tanks or guns or planes, it nego- tiates a contract that gives a fair return for high endeavor. Production starts quickest and rolls fastest when the price is adequate. That same thing applies to the farmers of this Nation as well. This talk is already reaching a length which I neither desired nor intended, so I will be brief in the things I have to say from here on. I had hoped today that I might discuss with you what type of legislation A9% farmers might support. I can’t do that tn any detail but I can suggest to you a fleld for thought. The Congress during World War IT passed the Stabilization Act of 1942. It provided that the basic commodities—corn, wheat, rice, tobacco, and peanuts for nuts—would be supported at 90 percent and cotton at 9244 percent for two full calendar years follow- ing the cessation of hostilities. That meant @ period terminating December 31, 1048, But to that was attached additional Steagall legislation requiring that commodities where larger production had been requested be sup- ported through loans, purchases, and other operations at not less than 90 percent of parity or a comparable price. That brought under the 90 percent requirement hogs, egge, chickens over three and a half pounds, tur- keys, milk, and butterfat, dry peas of a cer- tain variety, dry edible beans, soybeans, flax- seed, and peanuts for oil, American Egyptian cotton and potatoes, including sweet pota- toes. Certain other commodities, such as wool in naval stores, blackeyed peas and beans found their way into the list of com- modities to be supported. I voted for the Steagall legislation but I would want to look at it with a very cold and appraising eye if {t came before the Congress again We got ourselves in all sorts of com- plications because of the Steagall guarantees and I am not so sure that I would not this time prefer to give more in the marketplace during the emergency and not depend so generously upon loan and purchase programs after the emergency ts ended. When I think of the troubles we went through because of the guarantee on potatoes alone, I shudder at facing it again. Which brings me to the subject of agri- cultural subsidies. You will remember that we had certain subsidies on foods during the Second World War and the days that fol- lowed it. I had the unpleasant task of try- ing to take off some of those subsidies. A burnt child fears the fire and my fingers were burned many, many times by the events in the first few months after the termina- tion of World War II. The milk subsidies were particularly diffi- cult. We were paying out millions and hun- dreds of millions of dollars for subsidies on milk in order that the price might stay low. Simultaneously we were piling up the cost of those subsidies in the shape of Federal debt to be paid after the war in the flush pe- riods that were to follow. Well, the war has been over a good many years (or has it?) and we have not been paying back this subsidy cost, This very year we will accumulate an additional deficit, Next year the budget may be eighty-five or ninety billions of dol- lars. There ure people who estimate that government income may be 80 low as to leave a deficit of thirty or thirty-five billions of dollars, maybe 640,000,000,000 in the next fiscal year. All the time that we were paying out sub- sidies on milk to hold down the cost of living, we had economists telling us that we should have been skimming off more money in the form of higher taxes so that the war would have been to a greater degree on @ pay-as- you-go basis. They wanted us to pay our war costs out of current earnings, wages, and profits. But we were granting subsidies and piling up a debt while we only talked about skimming it off through taxation. The trouble was we never got the skim and all we did was pay. I remember that I saw some figures show- ing the cost of subsidies paid to farmers during the war years. I knew that no such expenditure had ever been made for any of the farm programs and I challenged the'state- ment. I was assured that the figures came from the Comptroller General of the United Btates. When we pursued the matter, I learned the figures represented consumer subsidies on flour, milk, and cheese. Those
A%6 were charged against the farm programs and to the farmer, when actually they were pure- ly subsidies for the consumer, That's why I hesitate to see subsidies now. I hate to see the farm programs charged with the cost of consumer subsidies as though consumer subsidies were devices by which the farmer gouged the consumer. Therefore, I hope this time that it may be possible to go very sparingly on any agri- cultural subsidies. We should pay 4 great deal of the war cost as we go and not store up for future generations part of the food coste during this present emergency like we did during the war concluded only a few years ago. I was in a gathering in Washington in the past 10 days at which high end responsible officials discussed the possibility that there would be such a gap between receipts and expenditures in our budget that we would have to resort to a Nation-wide sales tax designed to bring in ten or fifteen billions of dollars annually. I don't know whether that wili come or not, but I say it’s & possi- bility. If it does come, then I suggest to you thrt it would be foolish in the extreme to be paying out a billion dollars or @2,000,- 000,000 a year in subsidies on food in order to hoid down the cost of living for the work- ing classes of this country and then put back @ transactions tax to bring in $10,000,000,000 when, generally speaking, the burden of @ sales tax or transaction tax falls most heavily upon the working classes. It just doesn’t seem to me to make sense to subsidize the cost of food to the extent of a billion or two billion dollars a year and then go back and add a tax of five or ten billion dollars & year of a type that would fall most heavily upon working people, Therefore, I hope the farmers may have the aupport of working classes generally in opposing food subsidies and trying to make certain that the cost of food to the con- sumer is fully represented by the price ob- tained in the market place and that part of 1t does not come to the farmer from the Federal Treasury. But farmers should continue to take the lead in demanding greatly increased tax- ation as a positive means to control inflation and to put our defense effort on a pay-as- you-go basis. The President in his address to the Congress on the State of the Union yesterday put this as the final point in his, program: “A major increase in taxes to meet the cost of the defense affart.” ‘You should take pride in the fact that your Dallas con- vention 3 weeks ago led in that direction with these words: “There is no possibility of controlling in- flation without taxes high enough to get on & pay-as-you-go basis. Strict economy will reduce the total amount that must be raised by taxes, but increased taxes will still be necessary to balance the Federal budget. We stand ready to support necessary in- creases.” I congratulate you upon that stand. Yesterday President Truman asked for ex- tension and revision of the Selective Service Act. I hope that when that is done there will be adequate attention to the need for providing deferments and exemptions for key skilled workers on farms. Right here I want to call your attention to another request contained in the Presi- dent’s message of yesterday. He asked for “Improvement of our agricultural laws to help obtain the kinds of farm products we need for the defense effort.” I am uncertain as to what he has in mind. I think the present law provides many ways to obtain the farm products we need. But as a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, I promise him the fullest cooperation to that end, and I am certain that you will join in that pledge. Perhaps it might be proper to repeat a paragraph from the resolutions of your Dal- Jas convention. I quote it to you: “In the year ahead, the emphasis will be on increased production, and farm prices will be supported by the firm demand of a mobilis- ing economy. Under such conditions, the need for price supports, acreage allotments, and marketing quotas on certain commodt- ties {s greatly reduced. We believe that such programs should be suspended, as the law provides, and us conditions permit, but will insist that they be reactivated whenever the need for thie type of program reappears.” If we hold down or eliminate farm pro- gram costs, our protection will be preserved for the days that follow defense mobilization, the days when we really need help. Finally, I hope that farmers will set in« creased production goals. We need great crops of corn, wheat, osts, rye, barley, rice, and soybeans. We need 16,000,000 bales of cotton, We need to produce 105,000,000 hogs in 1951. We need to increase the number of cattle and cal cs on farms and see that beef production moves steadily upward. I doubt if we can anticipate in the near future any help out of Mexico. The recent report of another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, while not serious, indicates that the border probably will not be open for some time and that the possibility of obtaining a half mil- Hon cattle from Mexico to move onto our ranges for a summer and then to our feed lote will not exist for many years to come. We are going to have to raise our own calves and produce our own beef. It will take aid and encouragement from the Government if tre farmers of this country provide red meat in the quantities we need. Records are not achieved by Government edict. They can only be obtained by the planning and performance of the farmer. They require the leadership of the county extension agents, the State PMA commit- tees, every official in the Department of Agriculture concerned with the production of crops, and the steady, persistent, persua- sive influence of the great farm organiza- tions of this land. The President told us yesterday: “Only by increasing our output can we carry the burden of preparedness for an indefinite period in the future.” That means your farm output just as much as it qaoes the product of the Nation's most vital factory. Many times I have taken off my hat in tribute to the farmers and farm leaders of America. I hope this current emergency may give additional and everlasting proof that the farm organization, speaking for farmers, carrying to farmers the true story of the neede of this country, can make cer- tain that the farm production pattern will measure up to our grave national responsi- bilities and place back of our Armed Forces and our factory workers the reserve of food which has won previous ware and can help in this hour to win a just and lasting peace. Principles for Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FRANK CARLSON OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 11 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement made by me Tuesday evening, January 9, on the Capitol Cloakroom program of the Columbia Broadcasting System. In this statement I present some of the principles which I believe should be used APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in guiding us in making our foreign policy. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: Mr. Chairman, may I express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Columbia Broadcasting System? Three and a half minutes on this great radio network is precious time. But I am sure that a half minute of it will not be wasted if I point out that our greatest safe- guard against fatal errors is the opportunity we have tn the American system to debate the policies of our Government, foreign and domestic, Today tragic events are sweeping us on- ward to fateful decisions. The fearful ques- tions before us are how can we avoid another world war and how can we win through to @ just peace? We know now that international commu- nism seeks to conquer the world and that Soviet Russia has embarked upon an aggres- sive course. The tide of communism has al- ready made great progress in Europe and Asia. More than 800,000,000 people are yoked in Communist harness, Much of this Communist success was made possible by unwise policies followed during and after the war by the United States and our allies. Time does not permit detailed analysis of these measures, but our experi- ences in Korea and elsewhere have cast hon- est doubt on the wisdom and effectiveness of our recent policies. The question before the whole country now is what are we going to do about 1t? I am not prepared tonight to offer any final conclusions. But I can state some of the principles which ought to guide us in making policies. 1. We cannot go to the extremes either of barricading ourselves in America behind @ Chinese wall, or spreading ourselves so thinly throughout the world that we are committed everywhere and prepared nowhere. 2. With our Nmited manpower and re- sources, we cannot alone defend the free world. Other nations must cherish their liberties and their security highly enough to play a substantial part in their own defense. 8. We shall have to stop regarding world politics as 8 game of chance, and devise a practical strategy—political, economic, psy- chological and military—capable of meeting the Soviet threat in the most effective way. We do not have such a policy now. 4. We must end the dangerous neglect of our home defenses. Sea and air power are our strongest striking weapons and we should build both into mighty fleets. 5. We must make certain that we keep America financially and economically sound. This means a realistic rearrangement of our national budget so that we do not spend ourselves into ruinous inflation or tax our system into national bankruptcy. 6. Finally, our people are demanding an end to foreign policy by secret agreements and by Executive authority. Secret agree- ments and snap decisions by the President (a8 in the case of Korea) are responsible for our present difficuities, The people want no more of them. They want no more diplo- matic double talk. The people know they ere paying too high a. price in blood and treasure for rosy dreams and wishful think- ing. The great national debate now in progress seeks a plan of action which makes sense and is within our capacity to carry out. The agreements we make with other nations must be clear and open. The administration Must consult with Congress before fateful decisions are made and not afterward. These are a few of the basic principles I think we must use to guide us tin the dark days ahead. If we bulld upon them, I have full confidence in our ability to defend our- selves and lead the world to a just peace,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Declaration on Manpewer by Association of American Colleges EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD J. THYE OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 11 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rscorp a declara- tion on manpower adopted by the Asso- ciation of American Colleges at their annual meeting at Atlantic City, N. J., January 10, 1951. There being no objection, the declara- tion was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: DECLARATION ON MANPOWER BY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES ANNUAL MEETING, AttanTic City, N. J., JANUARY 10, 1951 PREAMBLE The present national emergency is with- out parallel in our entire history. It will extend over a long period. It wil! require great sacrifice. Both from within and from without, it threatens our basic heritage of freedom. The American college and university recog- nizes the gravity of the crisis and ts actively aware that the national welfare must take precedence over other considerations. It ts recognized that there is a present and pre- sumably continuing requirement that essen- tially all able-bodied young men give service of a proper length of time in the Nation's military forces. As representatives of higher education, we recognize the importance of meeting this requirement to the full. We belfeve that all young men should share equitably the responsibility of national defense. It is our conviction that the key to ulti- mate national survival is the wise use of manpower. In the immediate pressure to have now the men we need in the places where they seem needed, we must not lose sight of the long-range importance of pro- viding a constant flow of trained persons to fill critical places 2 years, 6 years, 10 years, or more hence. Leadership of all types, political, economic, military, educational, and religious, will be even more necessary in the years ahead than today. Further, in a democratic nation we deal with men as individuals not ss units in the mass. No effective manpower program will treat men in the mass without concern for their dignity as human beings and thetr individual differ- ences. If we lose sight of this truth, the battle with totalitarianism bas been }oet at the start. The American colleges and univereities are and have been a vitsel source of leadership and spiritual strength. Hence these institu- tioms are more necessary today than ever be- fore. Their strength is the strength of our democracy from the largest university to the smallest liberal arts college. They must make a continuous contribution to the national welfare in every field of learning. Thus it Is in the national interest that higher educa- tion be viewed as essential to the develop- ment of manpower resources, PROPOSALS The Association of American Colleges, rep- resenting more than 650 institutions of higher learning, therefore, strongly recom- mends to the Federal Government the fol- jowing considerations concerning the rela- between military manpower and higher education: XCVH—App.———7 In the education and training for the armed services and for the civilian war effort there should be no duplication of existing educational facilities. Before new educe- tiona! facilities are developed by the armed services or other Government a thorough survey should be made to see what- ever existing facilities could more readily be converted and adapted to meet the particu- lar need. Every effort should be made to bring the facilities of as large a number of educational institutions as possible into the @efenee efforts, both by increasing the exist- ing number of ROTC’s and by allotting other training programs to non-ROTC institutions. u We request that appropriate authorities take immediate steps to assure that students whose induction is now postponed will be permitted to apply for entrance, at the ter- mination of their postponement or defer- ment, in any branch of the armed services in which voluntary enlistment is now permit- ted, regardieas of any intervening action by the Selective Service System. mW Since the shortage of trained personnel is becoming acute, and womanpower is an ever more important source of leadership in civilfan service and in the professions, we urge adequate and immediate comprehensive planning to ensure the constructive utiliza- tion of the ability and training of all college women. Iv A. In setting the age for entering military training and service we believe that the age for induction should be 19. A lower age should be adopted only when and as long ss an emergency manpower shortage requires such lower age. B. We endorse the present policy of de- ferring ROTC students until the completion of their college courses. We recommend that the number of ROTC units be increased. We endorse the legislation now before Congress to place on the same basis stipends and edu- cational allowances for men enrolled in all ROTC programs. v Certain groups of students now enrolled in colleges and universities have progressed so far with their studies, that it is in the national interest to allow them to complete thetr course. Among the students to be de- ferred durtng the present transitianal period should he: A, Students in professtonal schools of the- ology, of medicine, dentistry, and related health fields, and in the graduate schools in mathematics, engineering, and physical and biological sciences. B. All students who will have completed 2 years of undergraduate study in any cur- riculum by July 1951 and who are ellgible to continue hecause of satisfactory standing in accredited 4-year colleges. vr An enrolled college student who reaches the age of induction while successfully pur- suing a course of study, should have his in- duction postponed to the end of his academic year. vu Wf 18 year olds are to be subject to uni- versal military service, we assume that it is unlikely that more than half could be in- aucted in the first year of the new legislation. To reduce to a minimum the uncertainty in the minds of prospective and present college students, it is highly desirable that those who are not to be inducted before the open- ing of an academic year should be notified that they will be able to complete that year before induction. vna To matntain a flow of educated personnel as an important element of national strength, AST ‘we recommend that after basic training a substantial number of properly qualified young men be furloughed to colleges of their choice for further education in all areas of learning before completing their required military service. In implementing this plan, special consideration should be given to a Federal scholarship or joan program, in order that no one who qualifies may be deprived of this educational opportunity for lack of means, We recommend that the adminis- tration of this program and the testing and other procedures of selection under it be en- trusted to competent ctvilians. Ix We recommend that the board of directors appoint a committee to take steps to present the views of the association to the appro- priate officers and committees of the execu- tive und legislative branches of the Govern- ment and to cooperate with other educational organizations having similar objectives. As an assoctation in which the majority of member institutions are small independ- ent colleges, we recognise the fact that the present emergency seriously threatens the very existence of many of these institutions which represent a vita] element in American life. While the foregoing recommendations are intended to provide full partictpatton by these colleges, we are aware that their problems will be severe for a minimum of 2 or 3 years. We therefore urge govern- mental agencies, phtlanthropic foundations, and the American public to consider seriously the need to preserve these institutions for continued service beyond the period of the immediate manpower crisis. Reduction in Nondefense Spending EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 11 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Friday, December 22, I inserted in the Concres- SIONAL Record a letter I had addre-sed to the President of the United States, making recommendations for a reduction in nondefense spending. I now ask for the inclusion in the bady of the Recorp a letter I have received from the President in reply. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tr Wirt House, Washington, January 2, 1951. Hon. Haany F. Byrn, United States Senate, Washtngton, D.C. Dean Harry: I appreciated most highty your letter of the 22d. I've always tried my best to make the reve- nue meet the expenses of the Government and had it not been for the action of the Eightleth Congress there never would have deen @ defictt in any year for which I have sent a budget to the Congress. Present con- ditions are such now, however, that it is necessary to tax until it hurts. Expendi- tures for the general Government have never been excessive or extravagant. It has been my privilege to help with the making of 10 budgets while I was in the Senate and I’ve made 5 stoce I've been President. I am now working on another and there ts never