A19& with me, if he is not in favor of seleotive con- trols, if price controls are imposed that price controls and wages should he extended clear across the board. Is that not right? If you have an effective price control in this coun- try, should you not go clear across the board and impose controls on prices and also freeze the wages simultaneously? Senator ANDERSON. I think there are some places where your production goes on re- gardless of whether control ia on. I think there are other areas where you have to have a free market in order to get production, and I believe it is possible to pick out a few of those places without taking them ail. Moderator Granix. Let us get back to this foreign policy for a moment, Senator WHERry. Just one more remark about this inflation, I am interested in the economy. Let me ask this question: Does the Senator feel it ts necessary to increase taxes to stop this inflation program? Senator ANDERSON. Since you have asked a specific question, I will say I do think it ia necessary to increase taxes. Again, I go back to experience, and I know that as a member of the Ways and Means Committee of the House I was in favor of greatly increasing texes in the last war on the theory that when you did make it closer to paying for the war as you went you reduced inflationary pres- sures, and I think now we are golng to have to dip and dig a great deal deeper to get addl- tional money there. I recognize that if you took all the money from thosé who had 8265,- 000 you would not get very much, and, there- fore, you are going to have to move in new directions, and you are going to have to have billions more in taxation, in my opinion, if you are golng to be able to come close to paying for the present endeavors upon a pay-as-you-go basis, and I think we must go on that basis. Senator Wuerry. You are in favor of Jevy- ing those taxes this year to accomplish that purpose? Benator ANDERSON. I am. Moderator Granix. A while ago, Senator ‘Wuerry, you referred to armed security at home, and then 4 foreign mutual aid sea and air policy. Didn't you advocate that in 1949, when the North Atlantic Treaty was pend- ine? Senator WHERRY. I certainly did. My feel- ing on that, Ted, is that the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty, when they were dis- cussed, resolved themselves around what mutually might be termed, what we could best afford to give. What is the major con- tribution we can give those countries to not only render a defense for ourselves, but also for the free countries that want protection. I said then nearly 2 years ago, as I say to- day—and many others are joining in that program—that the United States should arm to the teeth. We should become masters of the air, and that 1s the greatest offense that the United States of America can have. While we are preparing that, we are not only preparing our own defense, but when Russia strikes, if 1t does, it will be the major contribution we can give to those countries in giving ald to them at that time. We have first got to pulverize potential war-making power of Russia before you can go in—if you ever go in——and invade the land. So that it is necessary that we have mastery of the air to drop the bombs on the offense and to resist an air attack from Russia on the defense, Senator ANDERSON. I do not think that try- ing to have the greatest air force we can have necessarily means that you must desert those allies we have been painfully trying to bulld up in the intervening years. As to our efforts in Italy and France, those countries were ready, and almost overready for com- munism and we were able to save them for a while. We have certainly saved Turkey and Greece, and by doing those things I think we have minimized the need for the type of all-out air force we might otherwise have to have a long time ago. Moderator GRANIX, It is time for questions, but before we take any questions from our audience, here is an important message from the American trucking industry. The ANNOUNCER. Highways and States are the arteries that nourish America as it races the clock to rearm itself. Over them moves the world's greatest fleet of automobiles, busses, and trucks. No other nation, friend or enemy, has perfected a bombproof trans- portation system such as America’s highway transport. Today, the wheels roll over faster. But our street and highway system, once the world’s best, is beginning to bog down under the traffic load. More thun 40,000,000 cars, more than 8,000,000 trucks and busses. Highways and streets are burst- ing at the seams, Our interstate highway system is yesterday’s miracle, today’s hard- ened arteries, tomorrow’s bottleneck. All highway authorities agree it is too narrow, too winding, too old for the full flood of motor vehicles as America moves to meet the challenge of 1961. More and better highways are needed today for a better, safer tomorrow. Now, here again, is your moderator, Theo- dore Granik, Moderator Granix. Let us take the first question from the audience. Go ahead. Question: I am an agricultural engineer and my question 1s directed to Senator ANDERSON, Moderator Granix. The former Secretary of Agriculture. Question: Why were prices and wages not fixed by the Congress at the start of the Korean War so as to save the Government billions of dollars in increased costs of all materials necessary to carry on the war? Senator ANvERSON, I cannot answer that question except to point out that in 1942, or 1941, I believe it was, an effort was made to pass what was known as the Gore bill in the House, commonly Known as the Baruch plan, by which everything would have been frozen as of the date of entry into difficulty. It got about 35 or 40 votes. Those of us who voted for it were hopelessly in the minority. Many people felt this time that {f we are going to put controls on across the board, do it as of June 25 or 26. I wus one of them. You could not possibly have had a vote to do that because a majority of the legally elected Congress feels ctherwise. That ts the best answer I can give. Senator WHERRY. My feeling ig that I in- troduced the amendment to do the very thing that the questioner asked, the Bricker- Wherry amendment, which, if enacted into general law, would have put a complete price control on across the board. My feeling is that the administration didn’t want to con- trol the wages at that time. What they wanted to do was let the wages Increase and pay subsidies to roll back the prices. I think that is wrong. I think we should have done it the other way and if they are now going to put them on, while these wages have in- creased, and some prices, yet I am still of the opinion that the only way *o have an effective price-control law is to have them clear across the board and freeze the wages simultaneously. Moderator Geantx. Do you want to reply to that? Senator ANDERSON. I was just thinking of & program you had here 2 years ago in which Senator Tart, Mr. Republican himself, was on the program and you asked the question of Senator McGrath whether Congress should grant stand-by controls, and Senator McGrath said yes. You asked, “What do you think, Senator Tarr?” and he said, “Of course not. It never was necessary.” Senator Wikrey, On what? Stand-by con- trols on what? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Senator ANpERSON, Price controls and allo- cations and all those things. It never be- came necessary until just before election. Senator WHerry. I am not saying now that the time to put on those controls is at this moment. I said if they are going to put them on the only effective price control you can have ig one clear across the board, If the administration felt in total mobilization when this act was up in the last session of Congress that it was necessary to impose them, that was the time they should have put them on. Moderator GRANIK. May I take a question from the young lady? Senator WHerry. That is what I would have done. Question: I address my question to Senator Wrerery. I want to ask him if it scems right to him that we as mature people should stay at home in comparative safety while we send what might be termed a second chil- dren's crusade into the horrors of Korea? Senator WHenrry. If I had my way about it they would not have been in Korea today fighting. That is, if we adopted the policies I advocated, Now they are there. The ques- tion is: How large an army do you want? I unierstand now that the army that is being suggested is 3,500,000 people. If we are to have 3,500,000 personnel, I want to say to the little lady, that if that prevails it will take in class 1-A every available man, including those 18 years of age. Would you agree with me on that, CLiInToNn? Senator ANDERSON, Yes, sir. Senator Wrrery. So that tf it is necessary, if this demand its here, if this all-out mo- bilization is the policy, 1t will take them down to 18, regardless of how you feel about drafting 18-year-olds, and others staying at home. There will not be any other choice in the matter. That will be all that are left im class 1-A if that happens. Senator ANvERSON. Anything you do in that nature is unpleasant. If you had to draft the 18-year-olds there are arguments against that. When you start moving up the list you start moving into people in col- lege, young married couples, and then young married couples with children, And any- thing you do is unpleasant und probably the easiest is to move into the 18-year-old group, Senator Wuerry. If I may enlarge upon the observation of the Senator, that is not the only thing. If we are to have three and one-half million in personnel, that 1s, mill- tary personnel, it is absolutely necessary with the classes that we have that we take everyone down to 18 to get enough out of 1-A to do the job; is that not right? Senator ANDERSON. Yes; it is unpleasant, but inevitable. Moderator Grantx. We must admit that President Truman in the last election did a@ pretty good job of selling himself to the American people. What would you think of a meeting with Joe Stalin and trying to sell him on the necessity of peace in the world and eliminating some of this? Senator WHerry. I am in favor of discuss- ing peace any time anywhere with anybody. If we can get a peaceful solution in an Amer- ican Forum of the Air or get them at the Town Hall meetings, or any level, I am for it. The only thing is, I don’t want any com- mitments made by the President that ought to come back and be ratified through the constitutional processes. I want the Amer- ican people and Congress to be full-fledged partners in any agreements or commitments which he might make. Senator ANDERSON. Do you think they would go along with him? Senator Wuxsry. 1 think he has the power to make an agreement and negotiate, but if they involve constitutional processes—and I am sure the distinguished Senator from New Mexico will agree with me—we ought to bring them back and have them ratified.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We don’t want pany -nore Yaltas and Pots- dams. Moderator Granix. Senator Annmrson, do you care to comment on that? Senator Anprrson. As to & meeting with Stalin, on that I think after what Russia has done and ig now engaged ir doing in China and elsewhere, that I would certainly not want to see our President take his hat in hand and take Uncle Joe and say, “What do you now suggest that J do?” Senator Wuerry. He might write him a letter, CLINTON. Senator Anprason. That is a good point. I would just like to point out that that is the very crux of this whole story, if I may say so. Here is a President who feels outraged, and the only remedy he has in America is to write a etter. In Russia they do something else. In Russla he would have killed the man long sgo. And thank God, we still have the kind of a country where, when the President of the United States becomes out- raged, all he can do is write a letter. Senator Wuerry. I hope he just keeps on writing letters, I think it is wonderful. The more letters he writes, the better chance we have. Moderator Granmc. We will take another question. Question. I am a member of the Massa- chusetts State Senate. My question is ad- dressed to Senator ANDERSON. For how many years can the Nation stand all-out mobiliza- tion before the private economy ts destroyed? Senator ANpERsON. That is a question that should not be asked of a New Mexico farmer and insurance agent. You have got to ask that of somo great economist, and, confi- dentially, he cannot tell you. Moderator Granix. The Senator says that leaves him out. Senator ANDERSON. My best answer is that nobody seems to know what the capacity of the American Government is. Nobody seems to know what our great production machine can do. Certainly we ought not to try all-out mobilization as long as we still have a possibility of keeping away from the controlled economy. I am glad to see we are trying to do a lot of these things without taking full control of production of this land. Senator Wuerry. May I just point out, however, for the benefit of the questioner, that I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and although the Senator has foreclosed me because I am not a great economist, from answering this question, yet I do get a lot of information on the appropriations from just such characters as the distinguished Senator has mentioned. I would ike to say to this member of the Massachusetts State Legislature that our budget this year, end- ing in July, will total $75,000,000,000 and that the available income of taxes is $40,- 000,000,000 on the present business that we are doing, and that the contemplated budg- et, including contract authority that has been suggested to the Appropriations Com- mittee for the next fiscal year will be $100,- 000,000,000 and for the succeeding year after that it will be Likewise. Bo I agree with you: How long can we con~- tinus to support these land army divisions in Burope as a standby defense army, and whether to accomplish what Lenin once stated in 1924, “What we are going to do is to require the United States to spend itself into distraction.” That is the big question. Moderator Guantx. Now for our first sume Mary, Senator WHEREY. Senator Wuearr. Ted, I would sum up today’s discussion in two phases. On the domestic front certainly there is not much disagreement between Senator ANDERSON and the junior Senator from Nebraska. I want to preserve the free economy of the United States of America. If we are to lead other nations out of this darkness into the light of a new day, the United States has got to remain spiritually and economically sound. Certainly, we start from that premise. For that reason it is my feeling that in this great debate on Mutual that we should have it in the Senate of the United States on any com- mitment made, that we should not commit ourselves to land forces untill it is debated, and that we might determine the character of the aid the United States can afford to give to these free countries of the world in helping them, if you please, to eradicate communism from the world. Moderator Grant. Thank you, Senator WHERRY. Now, your summary, Senator ANDERSON. » Senator Anprrgson. I think, after discus- sion, It seems apparent that we are going to be greatly worried about the economy here at home, and I think we had better put our very, very best efforts into trying to have this work done on 4 pay-as-you-go basis. I think we need, therefore, immediately again increasing taxes. I think we need to constantly pare down our spending. When we talk about our work abroad let us re- member that we must save Europe. We cannot afford to lose Europe. There are things that we say we cannot afford to do at home. I recognize it is hard to afford them. We cannot afford to lose that part of the world where democracy has always grown and where it can grow again with a very small amount of assistance from us. We have watched it in other areas. Italy seems toa come into my mind constantly. We were able to save it. It did seem like quite an expenditure, but it is not too much if Europe can be saved. Therefore, I hope that everything we do shall be done with one thought, that we do not want just America, we want Europe with us. Moderator Granitx. Thank you, very much, gentlemen. Politics in Controls? EXTENSION OF REMARK’. HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, Iam in- serting in the Recorp a letter from the Readers’ Column of the Los Angeles Times, which ably states the growing dis- trust in our present administration: Porrrics IN CONTROLS? There appears to be two reasons for threat- ened price control and rationing of meat. Neither has any connection with the supply or price of same. The first reason looks like a Truman “red herring.” By hitting at the people’s dinner table our wily President sets up such an ir- ritation that the monumental blunders of the State Department and the United Na- tions fade into oblivion. The second reason is to make the 6o-~ cialista now running our Government happy, The Truman gang is treating the tragic world situation as a heaven-sent opportunity to spread their hy of more and more control under the guise of the national emer- gency. Los ANGELES, Mrs, Joszspn Six. A199 Welfare of the American Indians EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS or UTAH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, January 16 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, there has been considerable discussion among people interested in legislation on Indian welfare over a joint resolution which passed the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress, but failed to pass the Senate. The resolution is House Joint Resolution "459. It was the subject of discussion by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt in a recent issue of the Washington News. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp the article referred to and written by Mrs. Roosevelt. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recozp, as follows: Birt Now on Hriy May Starke at AMERICAN INDIANS (By Eleanor Roosevelt) Hyrpr Park, Friday.—People who are de- pendent and are not fully able to defend their own interests are always an invitation to exploitation. Even in our own democracy we cannot deny that this ‘.as been so. That is why most of us hope that the day .will come when all American Indians will be sufficient- ly w ll educated to be allowed to enter into the stream of American life as citizens and to take care of their own business. That day, however, does not seem to be very close at hand. Education has been woefully bad where our Indians are concerned, and, as yet, they are far from being able to look after their own affairs, It is well, therefore, that many people are interested in the welfare of the Indiuns. Some are interested in their purely artistic contributions, for the Indians have many expressions of their own art. But, for the most part, people are interested in seeing the Indians integrated into our national life and are working toward again making them full citizens in this land which once belonged to them entirely. I am quite sure that the new Commis- sioner of the Indian Bureau, Dillon S. Myer, whom I knew and admired when he was in charge of the relocation camps during the last war, wants to do the best that can be done for the Indians. His experience, how- ever, has not been long with this particular question and he has around him men wit whom he has previously worked on other matters. It is possible, therefore, that in- terested people, wanting to achieve personal objectives, might present Indian affairs to Commissioner Myer in a somewhat mislead- ing manner. In fact, certain bills which already have been presented lead one to inel that this may have been so. The fact that the Indians have been deprived of their right to choose thelr own counsel, a right which they long enjoyed, ts a serious tn- fringement on their liberty. In certain States it always has been diff- cult to protect rights of Indians and the Representatives from these States quite naturally think first of the rights, or rather the advantages of the other citizens of the State. Now it looks as though an effort is
A200 being made to hurry the Indian plan of self- development going on since 1920, and many fear that if the Indian bill presently before the Senate is passed the Indians and their interests will seriously suffer. Perhaps it would be well for Mr. Myer to call together some of the organizations and gome of the men in this country who have had long experience in dealing with our In- dian minority groups. He might be able to clear up some of the misunderstandings that they have about his attitude, and they might be able to help him to a clearer understand- ing of the interests of the Indians as they see them. Many individuals in this coun- try have been closely associated with Indian tribes over a long period. They have gained a knowledge and a feeling for the Indians that cannot be gained without much study and assoctation, and I think they should be heard. Too Late EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, under permission granted, there is inserted herewith from H. Bond Bliss, on the letterhead of Miami Life, Florida’s most influential weekly, a letter addressed to the editor of the Mi- ami Daily News, which reads as follows: . Too Lats To the Epitor or THE Miami DatLy News: In answer to Philip Wylie, I remember many of the events he cites in his attack on the Miami Herald and its confusion of poll- cies. It is ironical for me, of all persons, to take up the cudgels for the harassed Herald, I cannot speak for the later years put I do feel responsible for his tirade against the isolationism of 10 years ago. I plead guilty to writing isolation edl- torials in the Herald before our glorious en- try into the Second World War to save America, the world, humanity, and freedom. I emphasized the same theme in my front- page column day after day and he derided me then. Wylie has always shouted for con- flict, for other American men and boys go- ing abroad to have their heads mashed and their legs mangled and increasing the crosses row on row. Yes; I wrote and argued and fought for America first and always; for a strong and in- vincible United States, for a united Western Hemisphere that could defy the world, pro- tected by two wide oceans; an America at peace, armed to the hilt, with navies and air forces, prospering and happy. Yes; I remember those peace meetings, Communists and fellow travelers were amon, those who shouted to keep the United States out of war, until Germany turned upon Rus- aia. Then they, like Wylie, yelled for inter- vention not to save this country nor democ- racy nor liberty, but to help poor Russia. With the Communists joining the capi- talists, the power-hungry statesmen and politicians and militariats, we isolationists, we Americans, became rather lonely, crying in the wilderness for peace in vain. Yes; the internationalista and interven- tionists won. They won back in 1014 after the American people had voted for peace and were given war. We licked the Kaiser and his Huns to establish peace and freedom for- ever, And the wounded boys came back and also the veterans. The debts piled up. But did the world win peace and brotherhood? Instead it was given Hitler and nagism, Mus- solini and fasciam, Stalin and communism, Japan felt its muscles. That 1s what our intervention and internationalism accom- plished. Wylie cannot blame isolationists for that. Wylie should be very satisfied over the results. The United States saved Soviet Rus- sia and Communist China. Now there is the third world war. Now the United States really is in danger. Now there may be that fighting in American streets, about which Wylie prates. Now there may be bombs dropping in our cities, on ow homes, Now the Red spies may be blowing up our industries, our utilities, our transportation, our Government. Never was this country in such grave peril as now. Never in our time was democracy and liberty so threatened. That is the price we are paying for inter- vention, for internationalism, for striving to tell others what they should do on this earth, Yes; I was an isolationist. Millions and millions of Americans today are wishing and praying they had been, that the United States had followed the wise advice of the fore- fathers. It's too late now, Philip Wylie. It’s too late to be an tsolationist. We are up to our necks in internationalism—and the noose is hanging there. H, Bonn Buss, MiaM1, Dr. Henry Bennett and the Point 4 Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. BROOKS HAYS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recor», I include the following edi- torial from the Christian Science Moni- tor regarding a statement of the able new director of the technical assistance program, The editorial follows: Lanp Rerorm, New STyLr The farmer under the American capitalis- tic system is far from being a downtrodden man, points out Dr. Henry G. Bennett, who ha: just taken office as Administrator of Technical Aid to Foreign Countries (the point 4 program). He believes it is incentive that makes the American farmer tick, and that more of it spread to other farmers would help feed the world. This is a sound approach to what the point 4 program can do in its agricultural phase. Communism assumes that land reform can ke accomplished merely by taking land, espe- cially large holdings of it, away from its pres- ent owners. What results usually is that the peasant finds himself again a serf, this time on a collective farm, or the exactions of the tax collector become as severe as were those of the landlord. The kind of rural capitalism America wants to encourage does not take pride in vast tracts under absentee owners; it is rather a system in which the owner-operator has both the responsibility and the reward for what his acres produce. To make this system APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD function requires a considerable amount of knowledge and competence on the part of the individual farmer. In fostering that competence among American farmers, the county demonstration agents, the experiment farms, and the agri- cultural colleges (such as Dr, Bennett headed) have been very effective. To share that experience with other countries will be mutually beneficial. Views on Decentralization of Patent Office EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to insert in the Recorp, a resolution adopt- ed by the Bar Association of the District of Columbia on January 8, 1951: Whereas tentative suggestions have been made to include the United States Patent Office in the so-called decentralization plan, which would result in its permanent removal to a city remote from Washington, D. C., and from all related agencies concerned with rearmament and the national defense effort; and Whereas the records of the Patent Office accumulated in Washington over a period of more than 100 years include copies of millions of United States and foreiyn pat- ents and a vast store of applied scientific and technical literature constituting the greatest single source of scientific informa- tion and knowledge available in the world and now accessible for immediate consulta- tion and inspection by the various defense agencies; and Whereas the records of the Patent Office are consulted almost dally by the represent- atives of the Department of Defense, Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Government Patents Board, the patent sections of the Departments of Army, Navy, and Alr Force, Justice Depart- ment Patent Section, Government research bureaus, such as the Bureau of Standards, and others having development procurement ane contract problems involving inventions; an Whereas such removal of the Patent Office under the decentralization plan would greatly hamper the activities of all defense agencies by making said records inaccessible; and Whereas the relocation of the Patent Office under decentralization would destroy the ef- ficient functioning of the Patent Office, through the loss by resignation of highly trained, experienced, and irreplaceable sclen- tific personnel, who would not accompany the Patent Office to a distant location; and Whereas decisions of the Patent Office for @ great number of years have been reviewed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the United States District Court for the Dis- trict of Columbia, and the United States Cireuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the judges sitting on these courts are highly trained in patent inatters, the review of Patent Office proceedings would be seriously impatred by removal of the Pat- ent Office from the city of Washington to a distant city: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Bar Association of the District of Columbia hereby goes on record as opposing the removal of the United States
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Patent Office from the city of Washington under decentralization and sasuestly submits that it should remain where now located; but that tf the Patent Office space is deter- mined to be absolutely required by other defense agencies, the Patent Office should be included in the so-called dispersal plan (as distinguished from the decentralization pian), which would result in relocation of the Patent Office within a radius of 20 miles of the White House; and be {t further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, the chair- men of the Judiciary Committees of the United States Senate and House of Repre- sentatives, the Director of the Burear of the Budget, the Director of the General Services Administration, and the Commissioner of Patents. I hereby certify that the foregoing ts a true copy of a resolution duly udopted by the Bar Association of the District of Co- lumbia at a meeting held in Washington, D. C., on January 8, 1961. Justin L. Eocerton, Secretary. General Eisenhower Points the Way EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. EDWARD H. REES OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, under permission granted me by the House, I am including an editorial by Anna M. Carlson, editor of the Linds- borg News-Record, of Lindsborg, Kans. I think the Members of the House will be interested in the views expressed in this editorial: GENERAL EISENHOWER POINTS THE WAY At last there is a ray of hope piercing the dense fog of Washington’s Fair Deal rearma- ment muddle. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower made his stand known last week on the eve of his departure for Europe, regurding the arming of Euro- pean nations for defense. Preparing to leave for his combined European command he told a news conference that European democracies must make equal sacrifices with America if forces are to be bullt up capable of defend- ing Europe and maintaining peace. The gen- eral stressed that if every sacrifice by America is not matched by the European democracies this thing cannot win. General Eisenhower is undertaking a stu- pendous task. He will visit each capital of the North Atlantic Treaty organization nations during the trip he started Saturday to talx with the officials of the various coun- tries and reassure himself that they are not working at cross purposes. It will be a herculean task to make those nations understand that they must do their part. For years most of them have been holding out their hands to Uncle Sam for doles furnished by the American taxpayers. Most of those countries have made little effort to beat back from the ravages of war and defeatism. It has been easter to depend on the United States. Now they are depending on the United States to furnish men, arms, and means to defend ther in event of aggression by @ powerful nation. Happy landings, General Eisenhower, and may 4@ divine providence help you make order out of chaos. General Herr Says Use of Horse Cavalry as Part of Armed Forces Should Be Revived Ce eenamnaeaaanad EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD H. REES OF KANG&AS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, the question as to the need of the horse cavalry as part of the Armed Forces is being revived. This has been brought about largely because of the situation developed in the Korean area. Maj. Gen, John K. Herr, a retiring cavalry officer, has given this matter a considerable amount of study. He has first-hand in- formation because of his long service as an officer with the cavalry while a mem- ber of the Armed Forces. General Herr has handed me a state- ment dealing with the problem, which he believes to be pertinent and of suffi- cient importance to call it to the atten- tion of the Members of Congress. Under permission granted me by the House, I am including his statement, together with an article that appeared in the Detroit Free Press in support of the opin- jon expressed by General Herr. [From the February 1948 issue of the Rider and Driver] (By 8. W. Taylor) Mr. Frank M. Smith reported in the Wash- ington Times that a strong plea for revival of the United States Oavairy was also made at the last hearing by General Herr. He quoted General Herr as saying that it was not true that horses were not needed in the last war and had read statements from Genera! Patton and others that cavalry units would have been of great advantage in the North African and Sicilian campaigns, Gen- eral Herr algo said that General Wainright would testify as to fhe effectiveness of cav< alry if he was called before the committee. General Herr placed before the committee a letter by Lt. Gen. Lucian K. Truscott, Pat- ton's successor as Third Army commander, which held that if the United States had kept its horse cavalry, the bloody Cassino and Anzio battles could have been avoided and the Itallan war possibly shortened by many months. Col, Fred L. Hamilton, United States Army, retired, former Chief of Remount Bervice, told the committee: "I talked to German officers of the Air Corps and the ground forces and the mechanized outfits and cavalry out- fite and almost to a man it was their opin- fon that they lost the war on the eastern front because the Russians had better horses. The horses were better and the German mo- tor and mechanized outfits were helpless in the roadless stretches of Russia. To a man they were of the opinion that one of the major reasons for losing the war on the Russian front was the superb cavalry of the Russians, regular and irregular.” General Herr said in conclusion that he would like to submit to the committee a doc- ument which was restricted Intelligence Bul- letin of May 1046, lasued by the G-2 division (Secret Service) the Information Division of the General Staff. He read a part of it as follows: “The U. 8. 8. R. with vast distances and few roads, and with severe climatic con- ditions during much of the year, has used A201 horse caveiry to great advantage during World War II. By the results achieved, the Soviets have justified the use of cavalry, not as a substitute for armor, but as an inde- pendent arm and as # supplement to armor and mechanized might in operations over severe terrain. Russian cavalry has great power in supporting weapons. The organ- ization is so designed as to provide a small and mobile striking force with adequate support of artillery, mortars, and automatic ‘weapons. Cavalry and tanks have been com- bined into @ smooth working and effective organization.” Foliowing the submission of the foregoing document to the committee General Herr and Senator Morsr carried on a conversation in which tt was brought out that the United States horse cavalry was eliminated in spite of evidence as to its necessity. Their con- versations in part follow: “Benator Morass. In other words, when you are dealing with military operations, in that part of Europe in which the Russian, Hun- garian, Yugoslavian, and Polish Armies op- erate, you are dealing with military opera- tions in which horses play a very important “General Hear. Yes. There they play # part which is of increasing importance, and I wish to state right here that there ts no truth in the popular idea that the cavalry ts only useful in out-of-the-way places, where there are mountains and tough country, where vehicles cannot go. It is highly useful in any terrain in the world. A horse can go any- where a vehicle can go, but a vehicle cannot go a lot of places the horse can go. The horse can go almost anywhere a man can go. It can transport ita fire power over places where vehicles cannot go, and over good country where men can go, much faster than men can go on foot. It is a vital thing. No country which pretends to be well organized for war in all manner of terrain over the world, and in all kinds of weather can pre- tend to be able to fight in any theater of war where it may be called upon to do so, to the best advantage, unless it has the proper complement of horse cavalry and pack animals. The Chinese are finding that out right now. “Purthermore, I submit and I charge and allege the War Department prematurely, un~- wisely, and mistakenly suppressed our cavalry in 1942, after I was retired as chief of cav- alry, and changed the cavalry into other organizations and futile units such as the mechanized reconnaissance units, over my bitter protest when they started this thing. Not only that, I addressed a letter to the Secretary of War in June 1942, shortly after I was retired, inviting his attention to the Gastardly sabotage of the American cavalry and calling on him to put a stop to it and quoting to him what the Russian cavalry ‘was doing—that the results would be detri- mental to our country; that we had a highly organized cavalry, though small, the best in the world, based on our Civil War experi- ences; that to do away with the grand cavalry now was criminal, almost because it could not be reconstituted during the emergency; that we would have need for {¢ and use for it. I knew him well personally. I received @ very kindly letter from him. I have the original on file, In that letter he assured me that he had a very kindly feeling for the horse, too. In the old daye he had been with it and so on, But they just couldn't’ quite see where they were going to be able to use any cavalry in this war. He hoped I would not feel too bitter about it.” {Pror. the Detroit Free Preas]} Hay Burner Warrark (By Royce Howes) 80 what would be so odd about the cavalry horse coming back? As a matter of fact it wouldn't have far to come,